| Literature DB >> 26307042 |
Andrea M Graffis1, Jamie M Kneitel2.
Abstract
Species interactions are well known to affect species diversity in communities, but the effects of parasites have been less studied. Previous studies on parasitic plants have found both positive and negative effects on plant community diversity. Cuscuta howelliana is an abundant endemic parasitic plant that inhabits California vernal pools. We tested the hypothesis that C. howelliana acts as a keystone species to increase plant species richness in vernal pools through a C. howelliana removal experiment at Beale Air Force Base in north-central California. Vernal pool endemic plants were parasitized more frequently, and Eryngium castrense and Navarretia leucocephala were the most frequently parasitized host plant species of C. howelliana. Cuscuta howelliana caused higher plant species richness, both natives and exotics, compared with removal plots. However, there was no single plant species that significantly increased with C. howelliana removal. Decreases in Eryngium castrense percent cover plots with C. howelliana is a plausible explanation for differences in species richness. In conclusion, C. howelliana led to changes in species composition and increases in plant species richness, consistent with what is expected from the effects of a keystone species. This research provides support for a shift in management strategies that focus on species-specific targets to strategies that target maintenance of complex species interactions and therefore maximize biodiversity and resilience of ecosystems. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Annals of Botany Company.Entities:
Keywords: Cuscuta howelliana; keystone species; parasitic plant; species composition; temporary pond
Year: 2015 PMID: 26307042 PMCID: PMC4612139 DOI: 10.1093/aobpla/plv100
Source DB: PubMed Journal: AoB Plants Impact factor: 3.276
Catalogue of all plant species observed in 2012 and associated data on parasitism by C. howelliana, native status in California, and growth habit. A, annual, P, perennial, B, biennial.
| Species | Family | Parasitized | Native | Habit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poaceae | No | Yes | A | |
| Poaceae | No | No | P | |
| Poaceae | Yes | No | A | |
| Poaceae | No | No | A | |
| Poaceae | No | No | A | |
| Poaceae | Yes | No | A | |
| Poaceae | No | No | A | |
| Poaceae | No | No | P | |
| Cyperaceae | Yes | Yes | P | |
| Juncaceae | No | Yes | P | |
| Asparagaceae | No | Yes | P | |
| Isoeteaceae | Yes | Yes | P | |
| Apiaceae | Yes | Yes | B | |
| Asteraceae | Yes | Yes | A | |
| Asteraceae | Yes | Yes | A | |
| Asteraceae | Yes | Yes | A/P | |
| Asteraceae | No | Yes | A | |
| Asteraceae | Yes | No | A | |
| Asteraceae | Yes | Yes | A | |
| Boraginaceae | Yes | Yes | A | |
| Boraginaceae | No | Yes | A | |
| Campanulaceae | Yes | Yes | A | |
| Convolvulaceae | No | Yes | A | |
| Elatinaceae | No | Yes | A | |
| Euphorbiaceae | No | Yes | A | |
| Fabaceae | No | No | A | |
| Geraniaceae | No | No | A | |
| Lythraceae | Yes | No | A/P | |
| Polemoniaceae | Yes | Yes | A | |
| Ranunculaceae | Yes | Yes | P | |
| Orobanchaceae | Yes | Yes | A | |
| Phrymaceae | No | Yes | A |
Figure 1.Scatterplot of (A) E. castrense covered by C. howelliana when E. castrense cover is standardized by total plant cover, and (B) N. leucocephala covered by C. howelliana when N. leucocephala cover is standardized by total plant cover.
Figure 2.Mean (±SE) of (A) species richness, (B) native and exotic species richness, (C) total plant percent cover, (D) E. castrense cover and (E) N. leucocephala cover in Cuscuta present and removed treatments over time. Note that (C–E) present percent cover as the dependent variable and are all on different scales.
SIMPER results from final sampling period comparing C. howelliana presence versus removal. Species are listed in descending order according to their contribution towards the difference in species composition between treatments. NA California native and Ean exotic species.
| Taxon | Contribution | Cumulative % | Mean abundance | Mean abundance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15.62 | 38.15 | 15.8 | 27.9 | |
| 10.69 | 64.26 | 13.1 | 11.7 | |
| 3.946 | 73.9 | 2.9 | 2.03 | |
| 3.319 | 82.01 | 1.93 | 1.77 | |
| 2.401 | 87.87 | 1.27 | 1.17 | |
| 2.387 | 93.7 | 1.1 | 1.5 | |
| 1.203 | 96.64 | 0.767 | 0.367 | |
| 0.5808 | 98.06 | 0.3 | 0.233 | |
| 0.3113 | 98.82 | 0.233 | 0.0333 | |
| 0.2621 | 99.46 | 0.133 | 0.0667 | |
| 0.1346 | 99.79 | 0.133 | 0 | |
| 0.04536 | 99.9 | 0.0333 | 0 | |
| 0.04079 | 100 | 0.0333 | 0 |
Figure 3.Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) plot of communities in Cuscuta present and removed plots with 95 % concentration ellipses. Scaling was based on Bray–Curtis similarity distances.
| Source | df | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Time | 4.61, 258.39 | 180.86 | |
| Time × zone | 4.61, 258.39 | 2.39 | 0.043 |
| Time × treatment | 4.61, 258.39 | 5.72 | |
| Time × zone × treatment | 4.61, 258.39 | 0.93 | 0.457 |
| Source | df | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Time | 4.28, 235.62 | 229.73 | |
| Time × zone | 4.28, 235.62 | 0.62 | 0.663 |
| Time × treatment | 4.28, 235.62 | 2.89 | |
| Time × zone × treatment | 4.28, 235.62 | 1.95 | 0.098 |
| Source | df | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Time | 3.82, 209.81 | 76.61 | |
| Time × zone | 3.82, 209.81 | 3.77 | |
| Time × treatment | 3.82, 209.81 | 2.86 | |
| Time × zone × treatment | 3.82, 209.81 | 0.47 | 0.750 |
| Source | df | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Time | 3.66, 190.38 | 49.27 | |
| Time × zone | 3.66, 190.38 | 2.95 | |
| Time × treatment | 3.66, 190.38 | 2.83 | |
| Time × zone × treatment | 3.66, 190.38 | 0.33 | 0.842 |
| Source | df | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Time | 3.36, 174.79 | 35.09 | |
| Time × zone | 3.36, 174.79 | 1.06 | 0.374 |
| Time × treatment | 3.36, 174.79 | 16.64 | |
| Time × zone × treatment | 3.36, 174.79 | 0.43 | 0.753 |
| Source | df | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Time | 3.12, 162.32 | 13.55 | |
| Time × zone | 3.12, 162.32 | 2.82 | |
| Time × treatment | 3.12, 162.32 | 0.32 | 0.816 |
| Time × zone × treatment | 3.12, 162.32 | 0.45 | 0.723 |