| Literature DB >> 24587362 |
Marianne Bachand1, Stéphanie Pellerin2, Marco Moretti3, Isabelle Aubin4, Jean-Pierre Tremblay5, Steeve D Côté5, Monique Poulin1.
Abstract
The functional trait-based approach is increasingly used to predict responses of ecological communities to disturbances, but most studies target a single taxonomic group. Here, we assessed the resilience of a forest ecosystem to an overabundant herbivore population by assessing changes in 19 functional traits for plant, 13 traits for ground beetle and 16 traits for songbird communities after six years of controlled browsing on Anticosti Island (Quebec, Canada). Our results indicated that plants were more responsive to 6 years of reduced browsing pressure than ground beetles and songbirds. However, co-inertia analysis revealed that ground beetle communities responded in a similar way than plant communities with stronger relationships between plant and ground beetle traits at reduced deer density, a pattern not detected between plant and songbird. High deer density favored plants species that reproduce vegetatively and with abiotic pollination and seed dispersal, traits implying little interaction with animal. On the other hand, traits found at reduced deer density mostly involved trophic interaction. For example, plants in this treatment had fleshy fruits and large seeds dispersed by birds or other animals whereas ground beetle species were carnivorous. Overall, our results suggest that plant communities recovered some functional components to overabundant herbivore populations, since most traits associated with undisturbed forests were reestablished after six years of deer reduction. The re-establishment of functional plant communities with traits involving trophic interaction induces changes in the ground-beetle trait community, but forest structure remains likely insufficiently heterogeneous to shift the songbird trait community within six years.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24587362 PMCID: PMC3938752 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0090437
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Description and codes of the plant functional traits used in this study.
| Trait | Code | Type | Trait unit |
|
| |||
| Foliage persistence | PFO | Binary | 0. deciduous, 1. evergreen |
| Foliage structure | SFO | Ordinal | 0. no leaf, 1. rosette, 2. graminoid, 3. erect leaves, 4. decumbent, 5. erect leafy stem, 6. one stem, 7. multi-stem |
| Raunkiaer life form | RAU | Ordinal | 1. therophyte, 2. geophyte, 3. hemicryptophyte, 4. chamaephyte, 5. micro/nano phanerophyte, 6. mega/meso phanerophyte |
| Rhizome | RHI | Binary | 0. absence, 1. presence |
| Storage organ | STO | Binary | 0. absence, 1. presence |
| Physical defense | DEF | Binary | 0. absence, 1. presence |
| Life cycle | LCY | Ordinal | 1. annual, 2. biannual, 3. perennial |
|
| |||
| Principal means of reproduction | VEG | Ordinal | 1. seeds only, 2. vegetative propagation possible but mostly by seeds, 3. mostly by vegetative propagation |
| Inflorescence type | TFL | Ordinal | 1. no flower, 2. solitary, 3. spike or cluster, 4. composed |
| Inflorescence color | CFL | Ordinal | 1. no flower, 2. green, brown and black, 3. white, 4. other colors |
| Flowering phenology: | |||
| Spring | SPR | Binary | 0. absence, 1. presence |
| Summer | SUM | Binary | 0. absence, 1. presence |
| Fall | FAL | Binary | 0. absence, 1. presence |
| Cleistogamy | CLE | Binary | 0. absence, 1. presence |
| Pollinator vector: | |||
| Abiotic | POA | Binary | 0. absence, 1. presence |
| Biotic | POB | Binary | 0. absence, 1. presence |
| Self-pollination | PON | Binary | 0. absence, 1. presence |
| Seed size | SES | Quantitative | Millimeter |
| Seed production | SEP | Quantitative | Seed (number of) |
| Seed dispersal vector: | |||
| Wind | WIN | Binary | 0. absence, 1. presence |
| Endozoochore | END | Binary | 0. absence, 1. presence |
| Epizoochore | EPI | Binary | 0. absence, 1. presence |
| Ant | MYR | Binary | 0. absence, 1. presence |
| Bird | BIR | Binary | 0. absence, 1. presence |
| Expulsion | BAL | Binary | 0. absence, 1. presence |
| Gravity | GRA | Binary | 0. absence, 1. presence |
| Dispersal type | DIT | Ordinal | 1. spore, 2. dried fruit, 3. fleshy fruit |
|
| |||
| Light requirement | HEL | Ordinal | 1. shade tolerant, 2. mid tolerant, 3. intolerant |
|
| |||
| Status | STA | Binary | 1. indigenous, 2. exotic |
Description and codes of ground beetle functional traits used in this study.
| Trait | Code | Type | Trait units |
|
| |||
| Body size | BOD | Quantitative | Millimeter |
| Defense mechanism: | |||
| Chemical | DCH | Binary | 0. absence, 1. presence |
| Physical | DPH | Binary | 0. absence, 1. presence |
| Sound | DSO | Binary | 0. absence, 1. presence |
| Number of months active by year | NMA | Quantitative | Month (number of) |
|
| |||
| Wing condition | WIG | Ordinal | 1. brachypterous, 2. dimorphic, 3. macropterous |
| Flying habit | FLY | Ordinal | 1. incapable, 2. occasional, 3. frequent |
| Hibernation form | HIB | Ordinal | 1. larva, 2. adult and larva, 3. adult |
|
| |||
| Light requirement | HEL | Ordinal | 1. shade tolerant, 2. mid tolerant, 3. intolerant |
| Moisture Level | XER | Ordinal | 1. moist, 2. mesic, 3. dry |
| Feeding guild: | |||
| Carnivorous | CAR | Binary | 0. no, 1. yes |
| Granivorous | GRN | Binary | 0. no, 1. yes |
| Insectivorous | INS | Binary | 0. no, 1. yes |
| Omnivorous | OMN | Binary | 0. no, 1. yes |
| Vertical stratification | VST | Ordinal | 1. terricolous, 2. arboreal and terricolous |
| Habitat structure | CLO | Ordinal | 1. open, 2. generalist, 3. closed |
| Type of vegetation | TVE | Ordinal | 1. devoid of vegetation, 2. sparse herbaceous, 3. moderate herbaceous, 4. dense herbaceous |
| Substrate: | |||
| Clay | CLA | Binary | 0. no, 1. yes |
| Gravel | GRV | Binary | 0. no, 1. yes |
| Humus | HUM | Binary | 0. no, 1. yes |
| Leaf litter | LEA | Binary | 0. no, 1. yes |
| Moss | MOS | Binary | 0. no, 1. yes |
| Sand | SAN | Binary | 0. no, 1. yes |
Description and codes of songbird functional traits used in this study.
| Trait | Code | Type | Trait value in statistical analyses |
|
| |||
| Wing length | WIL | Quantitative | Millimeter |
| Tarsus length | TAR | Quantitative | Millimeter |
| Weight | WEI | Quantitative | Gramm |
|
| |||
| Nest substrate: | |||
| Cliff | NCL | Binary | 0. no, 1. yes |
| Ground | NGR | Binary | 0. no, 1. yes |
| Shrub | NSH | Binary | 0. no, 1. yes |
| Deciduous | NDE | Binary | 0. no, 1. yes |
| Coniferous | NCO | Binary | 0. no, 1. yes |
| Mixed tree | NTR | Binary | 0. no, 1. yes |
| Snag | NSN | Binary | 0. no, 1. yes |
| Nest height | NHG | Quantitative | Meter |
| Nest form: | |||
| Cup | CUP | Binary | 0. no, 1. yes |
| Cavity | CAV | Binary | 0. no, 1. yes |
| Burrow | BUR | Binary | 0. no, 1. yes |
| Pendant | PEN | Binary | 0. no, 1. yes |
| Spherical | SPH | Binary | 0. no, 1. yes |
| Clutch size | CLU | Quantitative | Egg (number of) |
| Number of broods | BRO | Quantitative | Brood (number of) |
| Nest parasited by cowbird | COW | Quantitative | Nest (number of) |
|
| |||
| Primary habitat: | |||
| Deciduous | DEC | Binary | 0. no, 1. Yes |
| Coniferous | CON | Binary | 0. no, 1. Yes |
| Mixed forest | MIX | Binary | 0. no, 1. Yes |
| Agricultural | AGR | Binary | 0. no, 1. Yes |
| Wetland | WEA | Binary | 0. no, 1. Yes |
| Bog | BOG | Binary | 0. no, 1. Yes |
| Feeding guild: | |||
| Frugivorous | FRU | Binary | 0. no, 1. Yes |
| Granivorous | GRN | Binary | 0. no, 1. Yes |
| Herbivorous | HER | Binary | 0. no, 1. Yes |
| Insectivorous | INS | Binary | 0. no, 1. Yes |
| Omnivorous | OMN | Binary | 0. no, 1. Yes |
| Vermivorous | VER | Binary | 0. no, 1. Yes |
| Foraging substrate: | |||
| Air | FAI | Binary | 0. no, 1. Yes |
| Bark | FBA | Binary | 0. no, 1. Yes |
| Ground | FGR | Binary | 0. no, 1. Yes |
| Low canopy | FLC | Binary | 0. no, 1. Yes |
| Upper canopy | FUC | Binary | 0. no, 1. Yes |
| Feeding technique: | |||
| Forager | FOR | Binary | 0. no, 1. Yes |
| Gleaner | GLE | Binary | 0. no, 1. Yes |
| Sallier | SAL | Binary | 0. no, 1. Yes |
| Screener | SCR | Binary | 0. no, 1. Yes |
| Territory size | TER | Quantitative | |
| Forest edge distance | FED | Ordinal | 1. edge species, 2. edge and forest species, 3. forest species |
| Arrival from migration | AFM | Quantitative | Day (number of) |
Figure 1Diagram of the statistical approach.
Sequence of the statistical analyses used to assess the functional syndromes of plant and animal traits associated with deer density. Distinct matrices were used for plants, ground beetles and songbirds (A). The matrix Treatment was the same for each group with the variables vegetation cover type (uncut forests and cut-over areas), deer density and block (A). The matrices CWM (community weighted mean) of traits by sites combine the Abundance (pi) and Trait (xi) matrices using weighted averaging (B). The partial redundancy analysis (pRDA; C), indicator traits analysis (ITA; D) and co-inertia analysis (E) were conducted with the CWM matrices. The impact of deer density on the degree of association of functional traits between two taxonomic groups (length of arrows in co-inertia graph) was tested with ANOVA (F). Finally, a correlation matrix between plant and animal traits was calculated (G)
Figure 2Plant trait response to deer density and vegetation cover type.
Partial redundancy analysis showing the response of plant traits to deer density (arrow) and vegetation cover types (black circle = uncut forests; white circle = cut-over areas). Blocks were used as a co-variable. See Table 1 for trait names
Figure 3Traits indicators of deer density.
Plant, ground beetle and songbird traits found to be indicators of at least one deer density experimental condition (0, 7.5 or 15 deer · km−2; IS = in situ deer density, i.e., >27 deer · km−2). Black squares indicate significant positive correlations between the occurrence of a trait and a specific or several deer densities (P≤0.05). Point-biserial correlation coefficient (rpb) is indicated for each trait. Traits that only indicate a vegetation cover type (C = cut-over areas; F = uncut forests) are not presented
Figure 4Relationship between plants and fauna traits after deer density reduction and logging.
Co-inertia analyses comparing the distribution of plant and ground beetle (A) and plant and songbird (B) community trait compositions in the 24 experimental units (three blocks; four densities: 0, 7.5, 15 deer · km−2 and in situ (IS) density >27 deer · km−2; two vegetation cover types: uncut forests and cut-over areas). Arrows link plant and animal trait communities. The arrow tail represents the plant traits and the head the animal traits, while arrow length indicates the strength of the relationship between both matrices. Short arrows indicate a strong relationship, long arrows a weak relationship.
Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the mean arrow length in the co-inertia analysis for the factors deer density (0, 7.5, 15 deer · km−2 and in situ: IS) and vegetation cover type (uncut forests and cut-over areas), and their interactions.
| Plant – Ground beetle traits | ||||||
| ANOVA | LSD test | |||||
| Variable | Df |
|
| Deer density | Mean row length | Groups |
| Deer density | 1 | 4.670 | 0.043 | 0 | 0.6991 | a |
| Vegetation cover type | 1 | 0.067 | 0.798 | 7.5 | 0.9746 | ab |
| Deer density*Cover type | 1 | 1.812 | 0.193 | 15 | 0.9569 | ab |
| Residuals | 20 | IS | 1.232 | b | ||
| Least Significant Difference 0.479 | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| Deer density | 1 | 0.923 | 0.348 | 0 | 0.865 | a |
| Vegetation cover type | 1 | 1.402 | 0.250 | 7.5 | 1.074 | a |
| Deer density*Cover type | 1 | 0.619 | 0.440 | 15 | 1.027 | a |
| Residuals | 20 | IS | 0.865 | a | ||
| Least Significant Difference 0.444 | ||||||
Deer densities with the same letter in the column groups have no significant difference in the arrow length.