Table 1. Characteristics of Recent Studies that Quantify the Relationship between β-Diversity and Ecosystem Function(s)^a.

Study and region	Focal taxa	Focal function(s)	Approach and dataset	Note	Refs
Pasari et al. (USA)	Grassland plants	Aboveground productivity, root biomass, soil carbon, nitrogen retention, invasion resistance, insect richness, insect abundance	Simulated artificial landscapes based on experimental data were used. β-Diversity was calculated with Sørensen’s index; it is not fully independent of α-diversity [33]. The averaging and threshold approach [9,42] were used to evaluate diversity–multifunctionality relationships	α-Diversity had strong positive effects on individual functions and multifunctionality, and positive effects of β-diversity emerged only when multiple functions were simultaneously considered. The study suggests that, in addition to conserving important species, maintaining ecosystem multifunctionality will require a landscape mosaic of diverse communities	[11]
Silva Pedro et al. (Germany)	Forest trees	Primary productivity	Simulations with a process-based forest landscape and disturbance model were conducted for a temperate forest landscape. β-Diversity was calculated via the multiplicative law (γ = αβ), representing the effective number of distinct communities on the landscape [38]. Productivity was the focal ecosystem function	β-Diversity had a larger effect on productivity than α-diversity, especially at the later stages of succession following disturbance. The study suggests that instead of homogenizing areas affected by natural disturbances, forest management should incorporate diversity created by disturbances into stand development to capitalize on a positive diversity effect on productivity	[24]
Mori et al. (Japan)	Soil fungi	Belowground primary production, soil carbon sequestration, plant litter decomposition (three different substrates), amount of plant-available nitrogen, nitrogen retention	Observational data from a real landscape were used. Local- and landscape-level dissimilarities of communities and functions were quantified. Effects of α-diversity on β-diversity were removed, based on the modified Raup–Crick index [96]. The averaging method [97], multiple thresholds [42], and a method based on mixed models [14] were applied to evaluate the diversity–multifunctionality relationships	Unlike the positive effects of α-diversity on multifunctionality at the local scale, effects of β-diversity on multifunctionality were only prominent at the landscape level. The study suggests that making species assemblages depauperate may result in a loss of multifunctionality	[14]
van der Plas et al. (six European countries)	Forest trees	Timber quality, timber production, root biomass, litter decomposition, wood decomposition, microbial biomass, soil carbon stock, tree regeneration, drought resistance, insect herbivory resistance, mammal browsing resistance, pathogen resistance, earthworm biomass, bird diversity, bat diversity, understory plant diversity	Simulated artificial landscapes based on observational data were used. β-Diversity was calculated with Lennon’s index; it is not fully independent of α-diversity [34]. The threshold approach [9] was used to evaluate diversity–multifunctionality relationships	The relationships between β-diversity and landscape-scale multifunctionality were always positive. The study suggests that it is important to conserve the landscape-scale biodiversity that is being eroded by biotic homogenization if multifunctionality is to be maintained	[13]
Hautier et al. (65 study sites of the Nutrient Network Global Research Cooperative)	Grassland plants	Aboveground live biomass, resource capture aboveground (light interception), resource pools belowground (percentage total soil nitrogen and extractable soil phosphorus and potassium), soil carbon storage, litter decomposition, invasion resistance	Observational data from the Nutrient Network Global Research Cooperative (NutNet). Pretreatment data on community-level functions were used, which means that communities in the real-world ecosystems were focused. β-Diversity was calculated with Sørensen’s dissimilarity index. The averaging and threshold approaches [9,42] were used to evaluate diversity–multifunctionality relationships. The effects of mean α-diversity and of β-diversity on the multifunctionality in each of 65 sites and their interactive effects were compared across these study sites	Grassland ecosystems with both high α-diversity and β-diversity had higher levels of multifunctionality. In addition, the identity of species influencing ecosystem function differed among functions and across local communities, likely explaining why more diverse grasslands maintained greater multifunctionality when more functions and localities were considered	[15]

^aNote that there are many possibilities for evaluating relationships among β-diversity, ecosystem functions, and services; some of the possibilities are shown in Figure 1 and the Figures in Boxes 1 and 2.