Advertisement

Spatial Pattern Formation in Plant Communities

  • Tomáš Herben
  • Toshihiko Hara

Abstract

Horizontal spatial pattern is one of the most conspicuous features of plant communities. Most air photographs of any habitat show unequal arrangement of individuals in horizontal space, aggregation of individuals belonging to one plant species, and many different types of spatial correlation if many species are involved. This horizontal spatial heterogeneity was noticed by early botanists and has spawned a large body of literature on its identification and interpretation (for a review, see [11]). Spatial patterning is one of the major research subjects in plant ecology: understanding how this ubiquitous phenomenon comes into being is likely to be one of the essential elements in understanding how plant communities are assembled and how they work. However, spatial patterns are often much noisier than many other biologically interesting patterns, highlighting the role of stochastic events that can overwhelm the underlying regularities — or questioning the existence of such regularity at all. Spatial pattern has also been invoked as having important dynamical consequences for plant communities [32, 35]. Widespread as the patterns in plant communities may be there is still no complete consensus on the processes that generate and maintain them, and on the dynamical consequences they may have. In this paper, we will briefly review current research on this subject, and try to highlight current developments in the area.

Keywords

Spatial Pattern Plant Community Clonal Plant Species Coexistence Bedrock Depth 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bell, A. D. (1984). Dynamic morphology: a contribution to plant population ecology. In: Dirzo R. and Sarukhän J. (eds.): Perspectives in Plant Population Ecology, Sinauer, Sunderland, pp. 48–65.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bell, G., Lechowicz, M. J. and Waterway, M. J. (2000). Environmental heterogeneity and species diversity of forest sedges J. Ecol. 88; 67–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bolker, B. and Pacala, S. W. (1999). Spatial moment equations for plant competition: understanding spatial strategies and the advantages of short dispersal. Am. Nat. 153: 575–602.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Casparie, W. A. (1972). Bog development in Southeastern Drente ( The Netherlands ). Vegetatio 25, 1–271.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Condit, R. et al. (2000). Spatial patterns in the distribution of tropical tree species. Science 288: 1414–1418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cressie, N. A. C. (1991). Statistics for Spatial Data. J. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cronhjort, M. B. (2000). The interplay between reaction and diffusion. In: Dieckmann U., Law R. and Metz J.H.J. (eds.) The Geometry of Ecological Interactions: simplifying spatial complexity, Cambridge University Press, pp. 151–170.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    CzAran, T. (1998). Spatiotemporal Models of Population and Community Dynamics. - Chapman Sc Hall, London.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goldberg, D. E. and Landa, K. (1991). Competitive effect and response: hierarchies and correlated traits in the early stages of competition.–J. Ecol. 79: 1013–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goldberg, D. E. and Werner, P. A. (1983). Equivalence of competitors in plant communities: a null hypothesis and a field experimental approach. Amer. J. Bot. 70: 1098–1104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Greig-Smith, P. (1979). Pattern in vegetation.–J. Ecol. 67: 755–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grubb, P. J. (1977). The maintenance of species richness in plant communities: the importance of the regeneration niche. Biol. Rev. 52: 107–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hacker, S. D. and Gaines, S. D. (1997). Some implications of direct positive interactions for community species diversity Ecology 78: 1990–2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hara, T. and Wyszomirski, T. (1994). Competitive asymmetry reduces spatial effects on size structure dynamics in plant populations.–Ann. Bot. 73: 285–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Harada, Y. and Iwasa, Y. (1994). Lattice population dynamics for plants with dispersing seeds and vegetative propagation. Researches on Population Ecology 36: 237–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Herben, T., During, H. J. and Krahulec, F. (1995). Spatiotemporal dynamics in mountain grasslands: species autocorrelations in space and time. Folic Geobot. Phytotax. 30, 185–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Herben, T. and Hara, T. (1997). Competition and spatial dynamics of clonal plants. In: de Kroon H. and van Groenendael J. (eds.) The Ecology and Evolution of Clonal Plants, Backhuys Publ., Leiden, pp. 331–357.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Herben, T, During, H. J. and Law, R. (2000). Spatio-temporal patterns in grassland communities. In: Dieckmann U., Law R. and Metz J.H.J. (eds.) The Geometry of Ecological Interactions: Simplifying Spatial Complexity, Cambridge University Press, pp. 48–64.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Iwasa, Y. and Kubo, T. (1995). Forest gap dynamics with partially synchronized disturbances and patch age distribution. Ecol. Model. 77: 257–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Keddy, RA, Twolan-Strutt, L. and Wisheu, I. C. (1994). Competitive effect and competitive response in rankings in 20 plants: are they consistent across environments? J. Ecol. 82: 635–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kershaw, K. A. and Looney, H. H. (1985). Quantitative and Dynamic Plant Ecology. 3rd ed., Edward Arnold, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Klime§, L. et ai. (1997). Clonal plant architecture: a comparative analysis of rom and function. In: de Kroon H. and van Groenendael J. (eds.) The Ecology and Evolution of Clonal Plants, Backhuys, Leiden, pp. 1–30.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Law, R. and Dieckmann, U. (2000) Moment approximations of individual-based models. In: Dieckmann, U., Law, R., and Metz, J. A. J. (eds.) The Geometry of Ecological Interactions: Simplifying Spatial Complexity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 252–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Law, R., Purves, D. W., Murrell, D. J. and Dieckmann, U. (2001). Causes and effects of small scale spatial structure in plant populations. In: Silvertown J and Antonovics J (eds.) Integrating Ecology and Evolution in a Spatial Context, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 21–44.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lejeune, O. and Tlidi, M. (1999). A model for the explanation of vegetation stripes (tiger bush). J. Veg. Sci. 10: 201–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lepg, J., Goldberg, D. E., Herben, T. and Palmer. M. (1999). Mechanistic explanations of community structure: introduction. J. Veg. Sci. 10: 147–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Moiofsky. J„ Durrett, R., Dushoff, J., Griffeath, D. and Levin, S. (1999). Local frequency dependence and global coexistence. Theor. Papal. Biol. 55: 270–282MATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Molofsky, J., Bever, J. D., Antonovics, J. and Newman, T. J. (2002). Negative frequency dependence and the importance of spatial scale. Ecology 83: 21–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Muko, S., Iwasa, Y. (2000). Species coexistence by permanent spatial heterogeneity in a lottery model. Theor. Popul. Biol. 57: 273–284.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pacala, S. W. and Silander, J. A. (1985). Neighborhood models in plant population dynamics. I. Single species models of annuals. Am. Nat. 125: 385–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pacala, S. W., Canham, C. D., Saponara, J., Silander, J. A., Kobe, R. K. and Ribbens, E. (1996). Forest models defined by field measurements: estimation. error analysis and dynamics. Ecol. llIonogr. 66: 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pacala, S. W. and Levin, S. A. (1996). Biologically generated spatial pattern aned the coexistence of competing species. In: Tilrnan D. and Kareiva P. (eds.) Spatial Ecology, Monographs in Population Biology, Princeton University press, pp. 304–232.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rejmanek, M. (2002). Intraspecific aggregation and species coexistence. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 17: 209–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sato, K. and Iwasa, Y. (1993). Modeling of wave regeneration (shimagare) in subalpine Abies forests: Population dynamics with spatial structure. Ecology 74: 1538–1550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Silvertown, J. and Wilson, J. B. (2000). Spatial interactions among grassland plant populations. In: Dieckmann U., Law R., Metz J.A.J. (eds.) The Geometry of Ecological Interactions: Simplifying Spatial Complexity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 28–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Silvertown, J., Holder, S., Johnson, J. and Dale, P. (1992). Cellular automaton models of interspecific competition for space: the effect of pattern on process. J. Ecol. 80: 527–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Stoll, P. and Prati, D. (2001). Intraspecific aggregation alters competitive interactions in experimental plant communities. Ecology 82: 319–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Stoll, P. and Weiner, J. (2000). A neighbourhood view of interactions among individual plants. In: Dieckmann U., Law R. and Metz J.H.J. (eds.) The Geometry of Ecological Interactions: Simplifying Spatial Complexity, Cambridge University Press, pp. 11–27.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Suzuki, J. and Hutchings, M. J. (1997). Interactions between shoots in clonal plants and the effects of stored resources on the structure of shoot populations.–In: de Kroon, H. and van Groenendael, J. (eds.): The Ecology and Evolution of Clonal Plants, pp. 311–330. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Upton, G. J. G. and Fingleton, B. (1985). Spatial Data Analysis by Example. Vol. I. Point Pattern and Quantitative Data. Wiley & Sons, Chichester.MATHGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wiegand, K., Schmidt, H., Jeltsch, F., and Ward, D. (2000). Linking a spatially-explicit model of acacias to GIS and remotely-sensed data. Folia Geobot 35: 211–230Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wiegand, K., Henle, K., and Sarre S. D. (2002) Extinction and spatial structure in simulation models. Conserv. Biol. 16: 117–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wilson, J. B. (1995). Testing for community structure: A Bayesian approach. Folia Geobotanica & Phytotaxonomica 30: 461–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wissel, C. (2000). Grid-based models as tools for ecological research. In: Dieckmann U., Law R. and Metz J.H.J. (eds.) The Geometry of Ecological Interactions: Simplifying Spatial Complexity, Cambridge University Press, pp. 94–114.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Yokozawa, M., Kubota, Y. and Hara, T. (1999). Effects of competition mode on the spatial pattern dynamics of wave regeneration in subalpine tree stands. Ecol. Model. 118: 73–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tomáš Herben
    • 1
    • 2
  • Toshihiko Hara
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of BotanyAcademy of Sciences of the Czech RepublicPruhoniceCzech Republic
  2. 2.Department of Botany, Faculty of ScienceCharles UniversityPrahaCzech Republic
  3. 3.Institute of Low Temperature ScienceHokkaido UniversitySapporoJapan

Personalised recommendations