| Literature DB >> 22905127 |
Adeline Fayolle1, Bettina Engelbrecht, Vincent Freycon, Frédéric Mortier, Michael Swaine, Maxime Réjou-Méchain, Jean-Louis Doucet, Nicolas Fauvet, Guillaume Cornu, Sylvie Gourlet-Fleury.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Understanding the factors that shape the distribution of tropical tree species at large scales is a central issue in ecology, conservation and forest management. The aims of this study were to (i) assess the importance of environmental factors relative to historical factors for tree species distributions in the semi-evergreen forests of the northern Congo basin; and to (ii) identify potential mechanisms explaining distribution patterns through a trait-based approach. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPALEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22905127 PMCID: PMC3419707 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0042381
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Geographical gradients of species composition and underlying patterns of species distribution.
Plot scores on the first three compositional axes of a correspondence analysis of the plots (n = 56,445)×species (n = 31) abundance matrix were mapped (A, C, E). Variance explained by each axis is given in brackets. Solid lines represent country borders, names of main cities are indicated on the third map. Barplots give species scores across each compositional axis (B, D, F), with bar shading indicating the four species groups with contrasting distribution patterns that were identified by a cluster analysis (Fig. 2). Light and dark grey bars indicate species associated with the positive or negative end of the first compositional axis, respectively, while black and white bars indicate the two pioneer species, i.e. Lophira and Musanga, respectively, that both formed separate single-species groups.
Figure 2Cluster dendrogram grouping species with similar distribution patterns.
A hierarchical cluster analysis on the Euclidean distances between species scores and an average agglomeration method was used to identify groups of species according to their distribution patterns, i.e. position across the compositional axes. The grey boxes indicate the cut-off level used to identify the four groups.
Focal tree species, their overall abundance and frequency, and their functional traits.
| Species (Family) | n | Freq (%) | Leaf pheno | Shade tol | WD (g.cm−3) | Growth (cm.yr−1) |
|
| 7 783 | 11.49 | Ever | P | 0.725 | 0.796 |
|
| 3 869 | 5.89 | Deci | P | 0.378 | 0.955 |
|
| 4 383 | 6.65 | Deci | NPLD | 0.782 | 1.273 |
|
| 1 319 | 2.13 | Ever | NPLD | 0.876 | 0.700 |
|
| 1 29 | 2.05 | Deci | P | 0.382 | 1.114 |
|
| 2 71 | 4.39 | Deci | P | 0.418 | 1.114 |
|
| 5 262 | 7.46 | Deci | P | 0.275 | 1.910 |
|
| 14 133 | 16.28 | Ever | ST | 0.446 | 0.796 |
|
| 2 385 | 3.77 | Deci | P | 0.565 | 1.114 |
|
| 11 56 | 15.28 | Ever | ST | 0.658 | 0.637 |
|
| 8 383 | 12.68 | Deci | NPLD | 0.461 | 0.955 |
|
| 7 133 | 11.10 | Deci | NPLD | 0.572 | 0.796 |
|
| 28 271 | 33.80 | Deci | NPLD | 0.573 | 1.273 |
|
| 2 203 | 3.65 | Deci | NPLD | 0.521 | 0.955 |
|
| 14 923 | 18.95 | Deci | ST | 0.484 | 1.114 |
|
| 6 755 | 9.25 | Ever | ST | 0.527 | 0.796 |
|
| 9 859 | 12.95 | Ever | ST | 0.568 | 0.637 |
|
| 9 807 | 9.48 | Ever | P | 0.864 | 0.637 |
|
| 3 903 | 5.48 | Deci | NPLD | 0.440 | 1.353 |
|
| 5 624 | 8.16 | Ever | ST | 0.586 | 0.509 |
|
| 4 613 | 7.01 | Deci | P | 0.547 | 1.273 |
|
| 993 | 1.59 | Deci | P | 0.725 | 1.114 |
|
| 36 382 | 21.9 | Ever | P | 0.250 | 3.820 |
|
| 2 888 | 4.56 | Ever | P | 0.627 | 1.253 |
|
| 13 798 | 19.63 | Ever | NPLD | 0.715 | 0.955 |
|
| 1 68 | 2.68 | Deci | ST | 0.614 | 0.780 |
|
| 12 65 | 18.01 | Deci | NPLD | 0.587 | 2.324 |
|
| 29 384 | 32.96 | Ever | NPLD | 0.414 | 1.114 |
|
| 46 424 | 41.73 | Ever | ST | 0.744 | 0.637 |
|
| 36 743 | 30.34 | Deci | P | 0.450 | 2.228 |
|
| 18 483 | 13.12 | Deci | P | 0.327 | 1.910 |
Total stem number (n) and frequency of occurrence (Freq, % of plot presences) were calculated in the 56,445 0.5-ha plots. Leaf phenology (Leaf pheno) and shade tolerance (Shade tol) were extracted from [36]–[38] and complemented by field observations (J.L. Doucet, pers. obs.). Wood density (WD, g.cm−3) and maximum growth rates (cm.yr−1) are from [39].
Abbreviations for leaf phenology and shade tolerance correspond to:
Deci: deciduous species; Ever: evergreen species.
P: pioneer species; NPLD: non-pioneer light demanding species; ST: shade tolerant species.
Results of spatial regression models relating environmental and historical factors to compositional axes.
| Model | BIC | LR test | df | P-value | λ | P-value (λ) |
| Axis 1∼1 | 94 545 | |||||
| Axis 1∼geology | 94 529 | −92.3 | 7 | <2.2×10−16 | 0.90 | <2.2×10−16 |
| Axis 2∼1 | 123 664 | |||||
| Axis 2∼dry season | 123 575 | −99.9 | 1 | <2.2×10−16 | ||
| Axis 2∼dry season+geology | 123 555 | −97.0 | 7 | <2.2×10−16 | 0.77 | <2.2×10−16 |
| Axis 3∼1 | 92 536 | |||||
| Axis 3∼disturbance | 92 463 | −83.9 | 1 | <2.2×10−16 | ||
| Axis 3∼disturbance+dry season | 92 450 | −23.8 | 1 | 0.4×10−5 | 0.83 | <2.2×10−16 |
We used spatial error models to identify the most important factors (environment or history) for species composition taking spatial autocorrelation into account. To select explanatory variables sequentially we used a simple forward approach. At each step from the null model, we used the Likelihood Ratio test (LR test) to assess the significance of adding a new explanatory variable in the model and the Bayesian Information Criteria (BIC) to select the most important variable. Best spatial models (lowest BIC) are given for the three compositional axes. The value and significance of the spatial autoregression coefficient (λ) is also given for the best spatial models.
For convenience, the spatial term (λWu) and coefficients (β) have been omitted in the model description (see Material and Methods for details).
Figure 3Compositional and structural differences among forests growing on different geological substrates.
Plot scores on the first compositional axis were used to describe the main variation in species composition (A). Structural differences were assessed as the % deviation from mean plot basal area (B). Significant differences between substrates at P<0.001 in paired Wilcoxon tests are indicated by different letters.
Figure 4Functional differences among species associated with different geological substrates.
Species scores on the first compositional axis were used as an indicator of species association with the geological substrate. Relationships between species scores and functional traits were assessed for leaf phenology (A), shade tolerance (B), wood density (C), and maximum annual growth rate (D). Different lower case letters above the boxplots indicate significant differences (P<0.05) in paired comparisons using Wilcoxon tests. Regression lines were plotted for quantitative traits. Symbol shading indicates the four species groups with contrasting distribution patterns: light and dark grey symbols indicate species positively or negatively associated with the sandstone substrate, respectively, while black and white symbols indicate the two pioneer species Lophira and Musanga.