Is a grassland community composed of coexisting species with low and high spatial mobility?

  • Tomáš Herben
  • František Krahulec
  • Věra Hadincová
  • Sylvie Pecháčková


Patterns of grasslands species mobility were compared between communities and within plant species. Data from high spatial resolution permanent plots with fine scale recording system, experiment with removal of the dominant recorded also at a fine scale were used. The permanent plots showed large variation within a community in the patterns of species mobility. The species mobility was partly dependent on the site and was higher in a more nutrient rich and climatically more favourable community. Mobility also varied within species. In some species (Nardus stricta, Anthoxanthum spp.) it differed between communities (it was higher in more nutrient rich and climatically more favourable community) and did not respond to removal of the dominant species. In another species,Festuca rubra, mobility also differed between plots; in contrast, it did not show consistent variation attributable to community type and showed strongly increased spatial persistence in plots with the dominant species removed. In this species the mobility seems to be dependent on the competitive pressure of the coexisting species.


Permanent plots Plant competition Removal experiment Spatial dynamics Species richness 


  1. Bell A.D. (1984): Dynamic morphology: a contribution to plant population ecology. — In:Dirzo R. &Sarukhán J. [eds.]: Perspectives on plant population biology, Sinauer Assoc., Sunderland, pp. 48–65.Google Scholar
  2. Bengtsson J. (1991): Interspecific competition in metapopulations. — Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 42: 219–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Caswell H. &Cohen J.E. (1991): Communities in patchy environments: a model of disturbance, competition and heterogeneity. — In:Kolasa J. &Pickett J.T.A. [eds.]: Ecological heterogeneity, Springer, New York, pp. 97–122.Google Scholar
  4. Crawley M.J. &May R.M. (1987): Population dynamics and plant community structure: competition between annuals and perennials. — J. Theor. Biol. 125: 475–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Czárán T. &Bartha S. (1992): Spatiotemporal models of plant populations and communities. — Trends Ecol. Evol. 7: 38–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dixon W.J. (1993): BMDP Statistical Software Manual. — University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  7. Grime J.P. (1977): Evidence for existence of three primary strategies in plants and its relevance to ecological and evolutionary theory. — Amer. Natur. 111: 1169–1194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Herben T., Krahulec F., Hadincová V. &Kovářová M. (1993a): Fine scale spatial dynamics of plant species in a grassland community during six years. — J. Veg. Sci. 4: 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Herben T., Krahulec F., Hadincová V. &Kovářová M. (1993b): Tiller demography ofFestuca rubra in a mountain grassland: seasonal development, life span and flowering. — Preslia 65: 341–353.Google Scholar
  10. Hogeveg P. et al. (1983): Patterns in vegetation succession, an ecomorphological study. — In:White J. [ed.]: Population structure of vegetation, Handbook of vegetation science, Dr. W. Junk Publ., The Hague, pp. 637–666.Google Scholar
  11. Hutchings M.J. &de Kroon H. (1994): Foraging in plants: the role of morphological plasticity in resource acquisition. — Adv. Ecol. Res. 25: 159–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Karlson R.H. (1985): Competitive outgrowth interactions among sessile colonial invertebrates: a comparison of stochastic and phenotypic variation. — Ecol. Modelling 27: 299–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Karlson R.H. &Jackson J.B.C. (1981): Competitive networks and community structure: a simulation study. — Ecology 62: 670–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Krahulec F. (1990):Nardo-Agrostion communities in the Krkonoše and West Carpathians Mts. — Folia Geobot. Phytotax. 25: 337–347.Google Scholar
  15. Law R., McLellan A. &Mahdi A.S. (1994): Spatiotemporal processes in a calcareous grassland. — Plant Species Biol. 8: 175–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lovett Doust L. (1981): Population dynamics and local specialization in a clonal plantRanunculus repens. I. The dynamics of ramets in contrasting habitats. — J. Ecol. 69: 743–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lovett Doust L. &Lovett Doust J. (1985): The battle strategies of plants. — New Phytol. 95: 81–85.Google Scholar
  18. Palmer M.W. (1994): Variation in species richness: towards a unification of hypotheses. — Folia Geobot. Phytotax. (this volume).Google Scholar
  19. Pielou E.C. (1977): An introduction to mathematical ecology. — J. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  20. Schmid B. &Harper J.L. (1985): Clonal growth in grassland perennials. I. Density and pattern dependent competition between plants of different growth forms. — J. Ecol. 73: 793–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Silvertown J., Holtier S., Johnson J. &Dale P. (1992): Cellular automaton models of interspecific competition for space: the effect of pattern on process. — J. Ecol. 80: 527–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sykes M., van der Maarel E., Peet R.K. & Willems J.H. (1994): High species mobility in species-rich plant communities: an intercontinental comparison. — Folia Geobot. Phytotax. (this volume).Google Scholar
  23. Turkington R., Sackville Hamilton R. &Gliddon C. (1991): Within population variation in localized and integrated responses ofTrifolium repens to biotically patchy environments. — Oecologia 86: 183–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. van der Maarel E. &Sykes M. T. (1993): Small scale plant species turnover in a limestone grassland: the carousel model and some comments on the niche concept. — J. Veg. Sci. 4: 179–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Botany 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tomáš Herben
    • 1
  • František Krahulec
    • 1
  • Věra Hadincová
    • 1
  • Sylvie Pecháčková
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of BotanyAcademy of Sciences of the Czech RepublicPråhoniceCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations