Folia Geobotanica

, Volume 38, Issue 4, pp 381–389 | Cite as

Species richness and soil reaction in a Northeastern Oklahoma landscape

  • Michael W. Palmer
  • José Ramón Arévalo
  • María del Carmen Cobo
  • Peter G. Earls


Although the relationship between soil reaction and species richness is of great theoretical interest, and has been relatively well studied in temperate latitudes, the southern Great Plains of North America have not received much attention. We analyzed the relationship between species richness and measures of soil reaction (pH, cation exchange capacity, Ca) in 418 10 m × 10 m samples (with nested smaller quadrats) in the Tallgrass Prairie Preserve, Osage County, Oklahoma. We found a negative correlation of richness with soil reaction that is consistent across scales and years in grasslands, with soil calcium exhibiting the strongest relationships. The relationship in woodlands is weakly positive. The proportion of (primarily Eurasian) exotic species is positively related to calcium concentrations in both woodlands and grasslands. Although our results are not inconsistent with species pool hypotheses, critical tests of such hypotheses are operationally difficult.


Calcium Exotic species Grasslands pH Southern Great Plains Species pools Woodlands 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Candy S.G. (1997): Poisson vs. normal-errors regression in Mac Nally (1996).Austral. J. Ecol. 22: 233–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Diamond D.D. &.Smeins F.E. (1985): Composition, classification and species response patterns of remnant tallgrass prairies in Texas.Amer. Midl. Naturalist 113: 294–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Diem K. (ed.) (1962):Documenta Geigy: Scientific tables, Ed. 6. Geigy Pharmaceuticals, Ardsley.Google Scholar
  4. Ewald J. (2003): The calcareous riddle: why are there so many calciphilous species in the central European flora?Folia Geobot. 38: 357–366 (this issue).Google Scholar
  5. Flora of North America Editorial Committee (1993):Flora of North America. Volume 1: Introduction. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Hallgren E., Palmer M.W. &Milberg P. (1999): Data diving with cross validation: an investigation of broad-scale gradients in Swedish weed communities.J. Ecol. 87: 1037–1051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hamilton R.G. (1996): Using fire and bison to restore a functional tallgrass prairie landscape.Trans. North Amer. Wildland Nat. Resources Conf. 61: 208–214.Google Scholar
  8. Hubbell S.P. (2001):The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  9. Huston M.A. (1994):Biological diversity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  10. Jeffries D.L. (1985): Analysis of the vegetation and soils of glades on calico rock sandstone in northern Arkansas.Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 112: 70–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Luoto M., Toivonen T. &Heikkinen R. K. (2002): Prediction of total and rare plant species richness in agricultural landscapes from satellite images and topographic data.Landscape Ecol. 17: 195–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Morgan J.W. (1998): Patterns of invasion of an urban remnant of a species-rich grassland in southeastern Australia by non-native plant species.J. Veg. Sci. 9: 181–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Oksanen J. (1996): Is the humped relationship between species richness and biomass an artefact due to plot size?J. Ecol. 84: 293–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Olden J.D. &Jackson D.A. (2000): Torturing data for the sake of generality: how valid are our regression models.Écoscience 7: 501–510.Google Scholar
  15. Palmer M.W. (1994): Variation in species richness: towards a unification of hypotheses.Folia Geobot. Phytotax. 29: 511–530.Google Scholar
  16. Palmer M.W. (2001): Extending the quasi-neutral concept.Folia Geobot. 36: 25–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Palmer M.W, Clark D.A. &.Clark D.B. (2000a): Is the number of tree species in small tropical forest plots nonrandom?Community Ecol. 1: 95–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Palmer M.W. &Hussain M. (1997): The unimodal species richness-biomass relationship in plant communities emerging from soil seed banks.Proc. Oklahoma Acad. Sci. 77: 17–26.Google Scholar
  19. Palmer M.W., Wohlgemuth T., Earls P.G., Arévalo J.R &Thompson S.D. (2000b): Opportunities for long-term ecological research at the Tallgrass Prairie Preserve, Oklahoma. In:Lajtha 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. 123–128.Google Scholar
  20. Pärtel M. (2002): Local plant diversity patterns and evolutionary history at the regional scale.Ecology 83: 2361–2366.Google Scholar
  21. Pearce J. &Ferrier S. (2000): An evaluation of alternative algorithms for fitting species distribution models using logistic regression.Ecol. Monogr. 128: 127–147.Google Scholar
  22. Peet R.K. &Christensen N.L. (1988): Changes in species diversity during secondary forest succession on the North Carolina Piedmont. In:During H.J., Werger M.J.A. &Willems J.H. (eds.),Diversity and pattern in plant communities, Academic Publishing, The Hague, pp. 233–245.Google Scholar
  23. SPSS (2001):SPSS for Windows. Release 11.0.1 Standard version. SPSS Incorporated, Chicago.Google Scholar
  24. Terborgh J. (1973): On the notion of favorableness in plant ecology.Amer. Naturalist 107: 481–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wilkinson L., Hill M., Welna J.P. &Birkenbeuel G.K. (1992):SYSTAT for Windows: Statistics, Version 5 Edition. SYSTAT, Inc., Evanston.Google Scholar
  26. Withers M. A., Palmer M. W., Wade G. L., White P. S. &Neal P.R. (1998): Changing patterns in the number of species in North American floras. In:Sisk T. D. (ed.),Perspectives on the land-use history of North America: a context for understanding our changing environment, USGS Biological Resources Division, Washington, pp. 23–32.Google Scholar
  27. 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 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael W. Palmer
    • 1
  • José Ramón Arévalo
    • 2
  • María del Carmen Cobo
    • 3
  • Peter G. Earls
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BotanyOklahoma State UniversityStillwaterUSA
  2. 2.Departamento de Ecología, Facultad de BiologíaUniversidad de La LagunaLa Laguna, TenerifeSpain
  3. 3.Departamento de Biología Animal, Biología Vegetal y Ecología, Facultad de Ciencias ExperimentalesUniversidad de JaénJaénSpain

Personalised recommendations