Advertisement

Folia Geobotanica

, Volume 36, Issue 1, pp 9–23 | Cite as

Local richness-species pool ratio: A consequence of the species-area relationship

  • Sándor Bartha
  • Péter Ittzés
Article

Abstract

A constant ratio between species richness estimated at the local and regional scale is interpreted as a proof of quasi-neutral unsaturated communities. Based on Zobel’s model of plant community (Zobel,Folia Geobot. 36: 3–8, 2001) we tested the methodology of the species-pool concept by comparing the saturated and unsaturated communities generated by spatially-explicit mechanistic simulations with known assembly rules. Tests show that local-regional species plots can be applied to distinguish saturated vs. unsaturated communities, however, the outcome of tests, i.e. the relationship between local and regional richness depends on the size of the areas compared. Independently from the mechanisms controlling diversity, trivial saturation will appear if one of the scales is either too small or too broad because species-area curves are bound at these extreme scales. Similarly, trivial unsaturaton will appear if the two scales compared are close to each other. The application of species-area curves is useful because they help to find scales for non-trivial relationships.

Field tests reporting quasi-neutrality and unsaturated plant communities were performed at the intermediate scales of the corresponding species-area curves, and they were estimated from heterogeneous samples. Therefore, this field evidence might be biased by scaling artefacts. We propose to reanalyze the field evidence with solid scaling conventions and to restrict the concept of quasi-neutrality to subordinated functional groups based on the following hypotheses: (1) neutrality will appear within subordinated guilds as a consequence of the hierarchical structure of plant communities; (2) the lower a guild in the hierarchy the higher neutrality of within-layer processes detected; (3) quasi-neutrality found at the community level is not a proof of community-level neutrality but it is due to the higher number of subordinated species in the samples.

Keywords

Abundance distribution Coexistence mechanisms Dispersal limitation Individual based null models Methodology Niche limitation Spatially explicit simulations Spatial pattern Species saturation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arrhenius O. (1921): Species and area.J. Ecol. 9: 95–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartha S. (1992): Preliminary scaling for multi-species coalitions in primary succession.Abstr. Bot. 16: 31–41.Google Scholar
  3. Bartha S., Collins S.L., Glenn S.M. &Kertész M. (1995a): Fine-scale spatial organization of tallgrass prairie vegetation along a topographic gradient.Folia Geobot. Phytotax. 30: 169–184.Google Scholar
  4. Bartha S., Czárán T. &Oborny B. (1995b): Spatial constraints masking community assembly rules: a simulation study.Folia Geobot. Phytotax. 30: 471–482.Google Scholar
  5. Bartha S., Czárán T. &Podani J. (1998): Exploring plant community dynamics in abstract coenostate spaces.Abstr. Bot. 22: 49–66.Google Scholar
  6. Bartha S., Pickett S.T.A. &Cadenasso M.L. (2000): Limitations to species coexistence in secondary succession. In:White P.S., Mucina L., Lepš J. &van der Marrel E. (eds.),Vegetation science in retrospect and perspective, Proceedings 41. IAVS Symposium Uppsala, Opulus Press, Uppsala, pp. 55–58.Google Scholar
  7. Burke I.C., Lauenroth W.K., Vinton M.A., Hook P.B., Kelly R.H., Epstein H.E., Aguiar M.R., Robles M.D., Aguilera M.O., Murphy K.L. &Gill R.A. (1998): Plant-soil interactions in temperate grasslands.Biogeochemistry 42: 121–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caley M.J. &Schluter D. (1997): The relationship between local and regional diversity.Ecology 78: 70–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campetella G., Canullo R. &Bartha S. (1999): Fine-scale spatial pattern analysis of the herb layer of woodland vegetation using information theory.Pl. Biosystems, Giorn. Bot. Ital. 133: 277–288.Google Scholar
  10. Cornell H. &Lawton J. (1992): Species interactions, local and regional processes, and limits to the richness of ecological communities: a theoretical perspective.J. Anim. Ecol. 61: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cornell H.V. &Karlson R.H. (1997): Local and regional processes as controls of species richness. In:Tilman D. &Kareiva P. (eds.),Spatial ecology, The role of space in population dynamics and interspecific interactions, Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp. 250–268.Google Scholar
  12. Cresswell J.E., Vidal-Martinez V.M. &Crichton N.J. (1995): The investigation of saturation in the species richness of communities: some comments on methodology.Oikos 72: 301–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Czárán T. (1989): Coexistence of competing populations along an environmental gradient: a simulations study.Coenoses 2: 113–120.Google Scholar
  14. Czárán T. (1998).Spatiotemporal models of population and community dynamics. Chapman & Hall, New York.Google Scholar
  15. Czárán T. &Bartha S. (1989): The effect of spatial pattern on community dynamics: a comparison of simulated and field data.Vegetatio 83: 229–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Czárán T. &Bartha S. (1992): Spatiotemporal dynamics models of plant populations and communities.Trends Ecol. Evol. 7: 38–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Durett R. &Levin S.A. (1994): The importance of being discrete (and spatial).Theor. Popul. Biol. 46: 363–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eriksson O. (1993): The species-pool hypothesis and plant community diversity.Oikos 68: 371–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gosz J., Peters D., Kertész M., Kovács-Láng E., Kröel-Dulay GY &Bartha S. (2000): Organization of grasslands along ecological gradients: US-Hungarian LTER Grassland cooperation. InLajtha K. &Vanderbilt K. (eds.),Cooperation in long term ecological research in central and eastern Europe, Proceedings of the ILTER Regional Workshop, 22–25 June, 1999, Budapest, Hungary, Oregon State University, Corvallis, pp. 67–76.Google Scholar
  20. Gotelli N.J. &Graves G.R. (1996):Null models in ecology. Smithsonian Institution Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  21. Hara T. (1993): Effects of variation in individual growth on plant species coexistence.J. Veg. Sci. 4: 409–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Herbent T. (1995): Founder and dominance control: neglected concepts in the community dynamics of clonal plants.Abstr. Bot. 19: 3–10.Google Scholar
  23. Herben T. (2000): Correlation between richness per unit area and the species pool cannot be used to demonstrate the species pool effect.J. Veg. Sci. 11: 123–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Juhász-Nagy P. (1967): On some “characteristic area” of plant community stands. In:Proc. Colloq. Inf. Theory, Bolyai Math. Soc., Debrecen, pp. 269–282.Google Scholar
  25. Juhász-Nagy P. (1984): Spatial dependence of plant populations. Part 2. A family of new models.Acta Bot. Acad. Sci. Hung. 30: 363–402.Google Scholar
  26. Juhász-Nagy P. (1993): Notes on compositional diversity.Hydrobiologia 249: 173–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Juhäsz-Nagy P. &Podani J. (1983): Information theory methods for the study of spatial processes and succession.Vegetatio 51: 129–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lawton J.H. (1999): Are there general laws in ecology?Oikos 84: 177–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mucina L. &Bartha S. (1999): Variance in species richness and guild proportionality in two contrasting dry grassland communities.Biologia (Bratislava) 54: 67–75.Google Scholar
  30. Pacala S.W. (1986): Neighborhood models of plant population dynamics, 4. single-species and multispecies models of annuals with dormant seeds.Amer. Naturalist 128: 859–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Palmer M.W. &White P.S. (1994): On the existence of ecological communities.J. Veg. Sci. 5: 279–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Palmer M.W. (2001): Extending the quasi-neutral concept.Folia Geobot. 36: 25–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pärtel M., Zolbel M., Zobel K. &van der Marrel E. (1996): The species pool and its relation to species richness: evidence from Estonian plant communities.Oikos 75: 111–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pickett S.T.A., Parker V.T. &Fiedler P. (1992): The new paradigm in ecology: Implications for conservation biology above the species level. In:Fiedler P. &Jain S. (eds.),Conservation biology: the theory and practice of nature conservation, preservation, and management, Chapman & Hall, Longon, pp. 65–88.Google Scholar
  35. Ricklefs R.E. (1987): Community diversity: relative roles of local and regional processes.Science 235: 167–171.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rydin H. &Barber K.E. (2001): Long-term and fine-scale coexistence of closely related species.Folia Geobot. 36: 53–61.Google Scholar
  37. Silvertown J., Holtier S., Johnson J. &Dale P. (1992): Cellular automation models of interspecific competition for space — the effect of pattern on process.J. Ecol. 80: 527–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Srivastava D. (1999): Using local-regional richness plots to test species saturation: pitfalls and potentials.J. Anim. Ecol. 68: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Szollát Gy. &Bartha S. (1991): Pattern analyses of dolomite grassland communities using information theory models.Abstr. Bot. 15: 47–60.Google Scholar
  40. Tilman D. (1988):Plant strategies and the dynamics and structure of plant community. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  41. Wilson J.B. (1999): Assembly rules in plant communities. In:Weiher E. &Keddy P. (eds.),Ecological assembly rules, Perspectives, advances, retreats, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 130–164.Google Scholar
  42. Wilson J.B. &Gitay H. (1995): Limitation to species coexistence: evidence for competition from field observations, using a patch model.J. Veg. Sci. 6: 369–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Winkler E. &Schmid B. (1995): Clonal strategies of herbaceous plant species: a simulation study on population growth and competition.Abstr. Bot. 19: 17–28.Google Scholar
  44. Wu J. &Loucks O.L. (1995): From balance of nature to hierarchical patch dynamics: a paradigm shift in ecology.Quart. Rev. Biol. 70: 439–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yodzis P. (1978):Competition for space and the structure of ecological communities. Lecture Notes in Biomathematics 25, Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
  46. Zobel M. (1997): The relative role of species pools in determining plant species richness: an alternative explanation of species coexistence?Trends Ecol. Evol. 12: 266–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zobel K. (2001): On the species-pool hypothesis and on the quasi-neutral concept of plant community diversity.Folia Geobot. 36: 3–8.Google Scholar
  48. Zobel K. &Liira J. (1997): A scale-independent approach to the richness vs. biomass relationship in ground-layer plant communities.Oikos 80: 325–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Botany, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Ecology and Botany of the Hungarian Academy of SciencesVácrátótHungary

Personalised recommendations