Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Relationship of Dominance and Evenness with Productivity and Species Richness in Plant Communities with Different Organization Models

  • Published:
Russian Journal of Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The relationship between dominance and evenness in plant communities organized according to different models—competitive (alpine, subalpine, and low-mountain grasslands), stress-tolerant (alpine heaths and scrubs, subalpine fens, steppes, the forest herbaceous layer), and ruderal—has been analyzed in the Western Caucasus and Ciscaucasia. No correlation between evenness (dominance) and productivity has been revealed in communities of any type. The correlation between dominance and species richness is negative and, in most cases, linear, being stronger in competitive and ruderal than in stress-tolerant cenoses. The correlation between evenness and species richness in grassland communities (the competitive model) is strong, positive, and linear, while this correlation in ruderal and stress-tolerant communities is weak or absent.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Magguran, A., Ecological Diversity and Its Measurement, Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 1988.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. Mulder, C.P.H., Bazeley-White, E., Dimitrakopoulos, P.G., et al., Species evenness and productivity in experimental plant communities, Oikos, 2004, vol. 107, pp. 50–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Caruso, T., Pigino, G., Bernini, F., et al., The Berger–Parker index as an effective tool for monitoring the biodiversity of disturbed soils: A case study on Mediterranean oribatid (Acari: Oribatida) assemblages, Biodivers. Conserv., 2007, vol. 16, pp. 3277–3285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hillebrand, H., Bennett, D.M., and Cadotte, M.W., Consequences of dominance: A review of evenness effects on local and regional ecosystem processes, Ecology, 2008, vol. 89, no. 6, pp. 1510–1520.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Johnston, E.L. and Roberts, D.A., Contaminants reduce the richness and evenness of marine communities: A review and meta-analysis, Environ. Pollut., 2009, vol. 157, pp. 1745–1752.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Zhang, J., Qiao, X., Liu, Y., et al., Species-abundance distributions of tree species varies along climatic gradients in china’s forests, J. Plant Ecol., 2015, vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 1–7.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Chalcraft, D.R., Wilsey, B.J., Bowles, C., and Willig, M.R., The relationship between productivity and multiple aspects of biodiversity in six grassland communities, Biodivers. Conserv., 2009, vol. 18, pp. 91–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Wilsey, B. and Stirling, G., Species richness and evenness respond in a different manner to propagule density in developing prairie microcosm communities, Plant Ecol., 2007, vol. 190, pp. 259–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Huston, M.A., General hypothesis of species diversity, Am. Nat., 1979, vol. 113, no. 1, pp. 81–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Vasilevich, V.I., Dominants in plant cover, Bot. Zh., 1991, vol. 76, no. 12, pp. 1674–1681.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bengtsson, J., Fagerstram, T., and Rydin, H., Competition and coexistence in plant communities, Trends Ecol. Evol., 1994, vol. 9, no. 7, pp. 246–250.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Stirling, G. and Wilsey, B., Empirical relationships between species richness, evenness, and proportional diversity, Am. Nat., 2001, vol. 158, pp. 286–300.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Ma, M., Species richness vs. evenness: Independent relationship and different responses to edaphic factors, Oikos, 2005, vol. 111, pp. 192–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lamb, E.G. and Cahill, J.F., When competition does not matter: Grassland diversity and community composition, Am. Nat., 2008, vol. 171, pp. 777–787.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sasaki, T. and Lauenroth, W.K., Dominant species, rather than diversity, regulates temporal stability of plant communities, Oecologia, 2011, vol. 166, no. 3, pp. 761–768.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Csergo, A.M., Demeter, L., and Turkington, R., Declining diversity in abandoned grasslands of the Car-pathian Mountains: Do dominant species matter?, PLoS One, 2013, vol. 8, e73533. doi 10.1371

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Caswell, H., Community structure: A neutral model analysis, Ecol. Monogr., 1976, vol. 46, pp. 327–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bell, G., The distribution of abundance in neutral communities, Am. Nat., 2000, vol. 155, no. 5, pp. 606–617.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Grime, J.P., Evidence for the existence of three primary strategies in plants and its relevance to ecological and evolutionary theory, Am. Nat., 1977, vol. 111, no. 982, pp. 1169–1194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Rabotnov, T.A., Fitotsenologiya (Phytocenology), Moscow: Mosk. Gos. Univ., 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Cornell, H.V. and Lawton, J.H., Species interactions, local and regional processes, and limits to the richness of ecological communities: A theoretical perspective, Okeanologiya, 1992, vol. 61, pp. 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Mirkin, B.M. and Naumova, L.G., Sovremennoe sostoyanie osnovnykh kontseptsii nauki o rastitel’nosti (The Science of Vegetation: Current State of Basic Concepts), Ufa: Gilem, 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Grime, J.P., Plant strategies, Vegetation Processes, and Ecosystem Properties, 2nd ed., Chichester: Wiley, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Mirkin, B.M., Which plant communities do exist?, J. Veget. Sci., 1994, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 283–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Piper, J.K., Composition of prairie plant communities on productive versus unproductive sites in wet and dry years, Can. J. Bot., 1995, vol. 73, pp. 1635–1644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Peet, R.K. and Christensen, N.L., Changes in species diversity during secondary forest succession on the North Carolina piedmont, in Diversity and Pattern in Plant Communities, During, H.I., Werge, M.I.A., and Willems, J.H., Eds., The Hague, Netherlands: SPB Acad. Publ., 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Schwinning, S. and Weiner, J., Mechanisms determining the degree of size asymmetry in competition among plants, Oecologia, 1998, vol. 113., no. A1, pp. 447–455.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Keddy, P.A., Competition, 2nd ed., Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2001.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  29. Hautier, Y., Niklaus, P.A., and Hector, A., Competition for light causes plant biodiversity loss after eutrophication, Science, 2009, vol. 324, pp. 636–638.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Drobner, U., Bibby, J., Smith, B., and Wilson, J.B., The relation between community biomass and evenness: What does community theory predict, and can these predictions be tested?, Oikos, 1998, vol. 82, pp. 295–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hubbell, S.P., Tree dispersion, abundance, and diversity in a tropical dry forest, Science, 1979, vol. 203, pp. 1299–1309.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Vermeer, J.G. and Verhoeven, J.T.A., Species composition and biomass production of mesotrophic fens in relation to the nutrient status of the organic soil, Acta Oecol.-Oec. Plant., 1987, vol. 8, pp. 321–330.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Vance-Chalcraft, H.D., Willig, M.R., Cox, S.B., et al., Relationship between aboveground biomass and multiple measures of biodiversity in subtropical forest of Puerto Rico, Biotropica, 2010, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 290–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Poggio, S.L. and Ghersa, C.M., Species richness and evenness as a function of biomass in arable plant communities, Weed Res., 2011, vol. 51, pp. 241–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Onipchenko, V.G., Semenova, G.V., and van der Maarel, E., Population strategies in severe environments: alpine plants in the northwestern Caucasus, J. Veg. Sci., 1998, vol. 9, pp. 27–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Bobbink, R. and Willems, J.H., Increasing dominance of Brachypodium pinnatum (L.) Beauv. in chalk grasslands: A threat to a species-rich ecosystem, Biol. Conserv., 1987, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 301–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Somodi, I., Virágh, K., and Podani, J., The effect of the expansion of the clonal grass Calamagrostis epigejos on the species turnover of a semi-arid grassland, Appl. Veg. Sci., 2008, vol. 11, pp. 187–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Bartha, S., Szentes, Sz., Horváth, A., et al., Impact of mid-successional dominant species on the diversity and progress of succession in regenerating temperate grasslands, Appl. Veg. Sci., 2014, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 201–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Vasilevich, V.I., Species diversity in upland meadow communities of the North-West of European Russia, Bot. Zh., 2014, vol. 99, no. 2, pp. 226–236.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Mirkin, B.M., Yamalov, S.M., and Naumova, L.G., Synanthropic plant communities: Organization models and specific features of classification, Zh. Obshch. Biol., 2007, vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 435–443.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Prach, K. and Pyšek, P., How do species dominating in succession differ from others?, J. Veg. Sci., 1999, vol. 10, p. 383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Lososová, Z. and Simonová, D., Changes during the 20th century in species composition of synanthropic vegetation in Moravia (Czech Republic), Preslia, 2008, vol. 80, pp. 291–305.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Silva, I.A., Cianciaruso, M.V., and Batalha, M.A., Abundance distribution of common and rare plant species of Brazilian savannas along a seasonality gradient, Acta Bot. Braz., 2010, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 407–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Adler, P.B., Seabloom, E.W., Borer, E.T., et al., Productivity is a poor predictor of plant species richness, Science, 2011, vol. 333, pp. 1750–1753.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Lebedeva, V.Kh., Tikhodeeva, M.Yu., and Ipatov, V.S., On the structure of a meadow plant community, Bot. Zh., 2011, vol. 96, no. 1, pp. 3–21.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Berger, W.H. and Parker, F.L., Diversity of planktonic foraminifera in deep-sea sediments, Science, 1970, vol. 168, pp. 1345–1347.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Pielou, E.C., The measurement of diversity in different types of biological collections, J. Theor. Biol., 1966, vol. 13, pp. 131–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Smith, B. and Wilson, J.B., A consumer’s guide to evenness indices, Oikos, 1996, vol. 76, pp. 70–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Help, C.H.R., Herman, P.M.J., and Soetaert, K., Indices of diversity and evenness, Oceanis, 1998, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 61–87.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Vasilevich, V.I., Species diversity of moist meadows in European Russia, Bot. Zh., 2015, vol. 100, no. 4, pp. 372–381.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Routledge, R.D., Evenness indices: Are any admissible?, Oikos, 1983, vol. 40, pp. 149–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Tilman, D. and Pacala, S., The maintenance of species richness in plant communities, in Species Diversity in Ecological Communities: Historical and Geographical Perspectives, Ricklefs, R.E. and Schluter, D., Eds., Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1993, pp. 13–25.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Palmer, M.W. and van der Maarel, E., Variance in species richness, species association and niche limitation, Oikos, 1995, vol. 73, pp. 203–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. van der Maarel, E., Noest, V., and Palmer, M.W., Variation in species richness on small grassland quadrats: Niche structure or small-scale plant mobility?, J. Veg. Sci., 1995, vol. 6, pp. 741–752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. McKane, R.B., Johnson, L.C., Shaver, G.R., et al., Resource-based niches provide a basis for plant species diversity and dominance in arctic tundra, Nature, 2002, vol. 415, pp. 68–71.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Kunte, K., Competition and species diversity: Removal of dominant species increases diversity in Costa Rican butterfly communities, Oikos, 2008, vol. 117, pp. 69–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Grace, J.B., A clarification of the debate between Grime and Tilman, Funct. Ecol., 1991, vol. 5, pp. 583–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Olff, H. and Bakker, J.P., Do intrinsically dominant and subordinate species exist? A test statistic for field data, Appl. Veg. Sci., 1998, vol. 1, pp. 15–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Yodzis, P., Competition for space and the structure of ecological communities, Lecture Notes Biomath., 1978, vol. 25, pp. 1–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Onipchenko, V.G., Funktsional’naya fitotsenologiya: sinekologiya rastenii (Functional Phytocenology: Plant Synecology), Moscow: KRASSAND, 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Kuznetsova, N.A., Communities under extreme anthropogenic conditions: The example of Collembola taxocenes, in Vidy i soobshchestva v ekstremal’nykh usloviyakh: Sbornik, posvyashchennyi 75-letiyu akademika Yuriya Ivanovicha Chernova (Collected Papers Dedicated to the 75th Anniversary of Academician Yury Ivanovich Chernov), Babenko, A.B., Matveeva, N.V., Makarov, O.L., and Golovach, S.I., Eds., Moscow–Sofia: KMK–Pensoft, 2009, pp. 412–429.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Parker, I.M., Simberloff, D., Lonsdale, W.M., et al., Impact: Toward a framework for understanding the ecological effects of invaders, Biol. Invasions, 1999, vol. 1, pp. 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Reinhart, K.O., Greene, E., and Callaway, R.M., Effects of Acer platanoides invasion on understory plant communities and tree regeneration in the Rocky Mountains, Ecography, 2005, vol. 28, pp. 573–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Chase, J.M., Towards a really unified theory for metacommunities, Funct. Ecol., 2005, vol. 19, pp. 182–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Hejda, M., Pyšek, P., and Jarošik, V., Impact of invasive plants on the species richness, diversity and composition of invaded communities, J. Ecol., 2009, vol. 97, pp. 393–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Akatov V.V., Akatova T.V., Shadzhe A.E. Species richness of tree and shrub layers in riparian forests of the Western Caucasus dominated by alien species, Russ. J. Ecol., 2012, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 294–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Rejmánek, M., Invasibility of plant communities, in Biological Invasions: A Global Perspective, New York: Wiley, 1989, pp. 369–388.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Lonsdale, W.M., Global patterns of plant invasions and the concept of invisibility, Ecology, 1999, vol. 80, pp. 1522–1536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Hierro, J.L., Maron, J.L., and Callaway, R.M., A biogeographical approach to plant invasions: The importance of studying exotics in their introduced and native range, J. Ecol., 2005, vol. 93, pp. 5–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Richardson, D.M. and Pyšek, P., Plant invasions: Merging the concepts of species invasiveness and community invisibility, Progr. Phys. Geogr., 2006, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 409–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Tkacheva, E.V., Vinogradova, Yu.K., and Pavlova, I.V., Variability of morphometric characteristics of Galega orientalis Lam. in some populations of natural and secondary ranges, Russ. J. Biol. Invasions, 2011, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 268–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Tokhtar, V.K., Vinogradova, Yu.K., and Groshenko, A.S., Microevolution and invasiveness of Oenothera L. species (Subsect. Oenothera, Onagraceae) in Europe, Russ. J. Biol. Invasions, 2011, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 273–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Zernov, A.S., Flora Severo-Zapadnogo Kavkaza (The Flora of the Southwestern Caucasus), Moscow: KMK, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Maikop State Technological University, Maykop, 385000, Russia

    V. V. Akatov

  2. Caucasian State Nature Biosphere Reserve, Maykop, 385000, Russia

    T. V. Akatova & C. G. Chefranov

Authors
  1. V. V. Akatov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T. V. Akatova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. G. Chefranov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to V. V. Akatov.

Additional information

Original Russian Text © V.V. Akatov, T.V. Akatova, C.G. Chefranov, 2018, published in Ekologiya, 2018, No. 4, pp. 264–274.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Akatov, V.V., Akatova, T.V. & Chefranov, C.G. The Relationship of Dominance and Evenness with Productivity and Species Richness in Plant Communities with Different Organization Models. Russ J Ecol 49, 296–305 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1134/S1067413618040021

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S1067413618040021

Keywords

Search

Navigation