Advertisement

Community Ecology

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 109–116 | Cite as

Mechanisms of species coexistence in a lawn community: mutual corroboration between two independent assembly rules

  • N. W. H. MasonEmail author
  • J. B. Wilson
Article

Abstract

Assembly rules are measures of community structure that link observed patterns with ecological processes, and as such may help to elucidate the mechanisms by which species coexist. We apply two approaches to a lawn community – limiting similarity and guild proportionality – hoping that agreement between them might give robust conclusions. We tested for agreement between these two assembly rules using functional characters that are related to two aspects of species function – light capture and response to defoliation.

We combined point quadrat data and a null model approach to test for limiting similarity – a tendency for species differing in functional characters to co-occur more often than expected at random – in turves extracted from the lawn community. Examining the variance in the characters of the species co-occuring at each point, evidence for limiting similarity was found for mowing removal (the proportion of leaf area removed in mowing events). There was greater variation between the species co-occurring at a point than expected at random (i.e., under an appropriate null model). However, no such evidence was found for characters related uniquely to light capture, such as specific leaf area and pigment concentrations.

In a previous study in the same community, “intrinsic” guilds had been determined from co-occurrences within the lawn community and from a competition experiment, as those effective in determining species assembly and co-existence. These intrinsic guilds are shown by t-test to differ in the proportion of their biomass removed in mowing (MRI), which is of course related to the height at which their leaf area is held. However, again no differences were seen in characters related uniquely to light capture.

Thus, the two different approaches to assembly rules – guild proportionality and limiting similarity – agree that differences in response to mowing are responsible for species co-existence in the lawn community. The agreement between these two approaches, tested on independent datasets of quite different type from the same community, gives possibly the strongest evidence so far that niche differentiation may be responsible for local co-existence in plant communities. However, although MRI is related to this co-existence the lack of correlation with light-capture characters leads to speculation that the effects might be via the below-ground behaviour of the species.

Keywords

Assembly rules Coexistence Community Competition Defoliation Guild Intrinsic guilds Lawn Light competition Limiting similarity Stratification 

Abbreviation

MRI

Mowing Removal Index.

Nomenclature

as in Wilson and Roxburgh (1994) 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Armbruster, W.S., Edwards, M.E. and Debevec, E.M. 1994. Floral character displacement generates assemblage structure of Western Australia triggerplants (Stylidium). Ecology 75: 315–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown, J.H., Fox, B.J. and Kelt, D.A. 2000. Assembly rules: desert rodent communities are structured at scales from local to continental. Am. Nat. 156: 314–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bullock J.M., Franklin J., Stevenson M.J., Silvertown J., Coulson S.J., Gregory S.J. and Tofts R. 2001. A plant trait analysis of responses to grazing in a long-term experiment. J. Appl. Ecol. 38: 253–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bycroft, C.M., Nicolaou, N., Smith, B. and Wilson, J.B. 1993. Community structure (niche limitation and guild proportionality) in relation to the effect of spatial scale, in a Nothofagus forest sampled with a circular transect. N. Z. J. Ecol. 17: 95–101.Google Scholar
  5. Chappelle, E., Moon, S. and McMurtrey, J. 1992. Ratio analysis of reflectance spectra (RARS): an algorithm for the remote estimation of the concentrations of chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b and carotenoids in soybean leaves. Remote Sensing of Environment 39: 239–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cingolani A.M., Posse G., Collantes M.B. 2005. Plant functional traits, herbivore selectivity and response to sheep grazing in Patagonian steppe grasslands. J. Appl. Ecol. 42:50–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. de Kroon, H. and Olff, H. 1995. On the use of the guild concept in plant ecology. Folia Geobotanica et Phytotaxonomica 30: 519–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kinzig, A.P., Levin, S.A., Dushoff, J. and Pacala, S. 1999. Limiting similarity, species packing, and system stability for hierarchical competition-colonization models. Am. Nat. 153: 371–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lichtenhaler, H. 1987. Chlorophylls and carotenoids: pigments of photosynthesis. Methods in Enzymology 148: 350–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Louahlia, S., Laine, P., Thornton, B., Ourry, A. and Boucaud, J. 2000. The role of N-remobilisation and the uptake of NH4+ and NO3- by Lolium perenne L. in lamina growth following defoliation under field conditions. Plant and Soil 220: 185–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. MacArthur, R. and Levins, R. 1967. The limiting similarity, convergence, and divergence of coexisting species. Am. Nat. 101: 377–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Moran, R. and Porath, P. 1980. Chlorophyll determination in intact tissues using N,N-Dimethylformamide. Plant Physiol. 65: 478–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Morvan-Bertrand, A., Pavis, N., Boucaud, J. and Prud’homme, M-P. 1999. Partitioning of reserve and newly assimilated carbon in the roots and leaf tissues of Lolium perenne during growth after defoliation: assessment by C13 steady-state labelling and carbohydrate analysis. Plant, Cell Env. 22: 1097–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mucina, L. and Bartha, S. 1999. Variance in species richness and guild proportionality in two contrasting dry grassland communities. Biologia 54: 67–75.Google Scholar
  15. Nakashizuka, T. 2001. Species coexistence in temperate, mixed deciduous forests. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16: 205–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Parish, J.A.D. and Bazzaz, F.A. 1976. Underground niche underground separation in successional plants. Ecology 57: 1281–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Poorter, L. 1999. Growth responses of 15 rain forest tree species to a light gradient: the relative importance of morphological and physiological traits. Funct Ecol. 13: 396–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Porra, R.J., Thompson, W.A. and Kriedmann, P.E. 1989. Determination of accurate extinction coefficients and simultaneous equations for assaying chlorophylls a and b extracted with four different solvents: verification of the concentration of chlorophyll standards by atomic spectroscopy. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 975: 384–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Press, M.C. 1999. The functional significance of leaf structure: a search for generalisations. New Phytol. 143: 213–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Reddy, V., Goud, V., Saharma, R. and Reddy, A. 1994. Ultraviolet-B-responsive anthocyanin production in a rice cultivar is associated with a specific phase of phenylalanin ammonia lyase biosynthesis. Plant Physiol. 105: 1059–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Roxburgh, S.H. and Wilson, J.B. 2000. Stability and co-existence in a lawn community: experimental assessment of the stability of the actual community. Oikos 88: 409–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Roxburgh, S.H., Watkins, A.J. and Wilson, J.B. 1993. Lawns have vertical stratification. J. Veg. Sci. 4: 699–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stubbs, W.J. and Wilson, J.B 2004. Evidence for limiting similarity in a sand dune community. J. Ecol. 92:557–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tansley, A.G. and Adamson R.S. 1925. Studies of the vegetation of the English Chalk: III. The chalk grasslands of the Hampshire-Sussex border. J. Ecol. 12: 177–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Weiher, E., Clarke, G.D.P. and Keddy, P.A. 1998. Community assembly rules, morphological dispersion and coexistence of plant species. Oikos 81: 309–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wilson,J.B. 1987. Methods for detecting non-randomness in species co-occurrences: a contribution. Oecologia 73: 579–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wilson, J.B. 1989. A null model of guild proportionality, applied to stratification of a New Zealand temperate rain forest. Oecologia 80: 263–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wilson, J.B. 1999a. Assembly rules in plant communities. In: E. Weiher and P.A. Keddy (ed.), Ecological Assembly Rules: Perspectives, Advances, Retreats. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 130–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wilson, J.B. 1999b. Guilds, functional types and ecological groups. Oikos 86: 507–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wilson, J.B. and Roxburgh, S.H. 1994. A demonstration of guild-based assembly rules for a plant community, and determination of intrinsic guilds. Oikos 69: 267–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wilson, J.B. and Roxburgh, S.H. 2001. Intrinsic guild structure: determination from competition experiments. Oikos 92: 189–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wilson, J.B., Wells, T.C.E., Trueman, I.C., Jones, G., Atkinson, M.D., Crawley, M.J., Dodd, M.E. and Silvertown, J. 1996. Are there assembly rules for plant species abundance: an investigation in relation to soil resources and successional trends. J. Ecol. 84: 527–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2006

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Botany DepartmentUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations