| Literature DB >> 28325890 |
Werner Ulrich1, Piotr Sewerniak2, Radosław Puchałka3, Marcin Piwczyński3.
Abstract
Habitat filtering models predict ecologically similar plant species to jointly colonize sites due to comparable environmental characteristics leading to an aggregated pattern of species spatial occurrence. Models focused on interspecific competition expect species with similar ecological requirements to be spatially segregated. While both models are corroborated by field work, few empirical studies have tried to infer under which habitat conditions these patterns of co-occurrence prevail. Here we use an exceptional data set on central European pine forest understorey plant communities to asEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28325890 PMCID: PMC5428007 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-00255-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1The interplay of environmental heterogeneity and productivity influences the spatial geometry of species occurrences and of species richness. High productivity and low heterogeneity increase the importance of interspecific competition leading to a small-scale segregated pattern of species co-occurrences. Low heterogeneity and productivity cause species to concentrate on islands of fertility leading to an aggregated (modular) pattern of occurrence. A high degree of heterogeneity favours species turnover irrespective of the degree of productivity, while intermediate degrees of both variables should be associated with a nested pattern. Therefore, nestedness is expected to occur particularly in species rich meta-communities at intermediate degrees of habitat filtering.
Figure 2Forests included in the present study (Puchałka unpubl. using DIVA GIS 7.5, http://www.diva-gis.org/).
Generalized linear modelling pointed to pH, moisture, and to a lesser degree C/N ratio as main predictors of plot ln-transformed species richness.
| Variable | df | partial η2 | Beta ± standard error |
|---|---|---|---|
| N | 1 | 0.02 | 0.20 ± 0.12 |
| C/N | 1 | 0.04 | −0.20 ± 0.09 |
| Mg | 1 | <0.01 | −0.14 ± 0.25 |
| Ca | 1 | <0.01 | 0.07 ± 0.30 |
| pH | 1 | 0.11** | 0.55 ± 0.14 |
| Nutrients | 1 | <0.01 | −0.08 ± 0.13 |
| Moisture | 1 | 0.08* | 0.24 ± 0.08 |
| Age | 1 | 0.01 | 0.05 ± 0.06 |
| Forest stand | 2 | 0.01 | |
| Error | 119 |
Moisture and pH refer to respective Ellenberg scores. Parametric Bonferroni corrected (nine single tests) significance levels: *P(F) < 0.05, **P(F) < 0.01. Whole model r2 = 0.24, P < 0.001.
Figure 3Dependences of standardized effects sizes (SES based on the equiprobable-equiprobable null model) of the C-score (a) and NODF (b) on species richness. Linear regression in (a) Linear OLS regression in a: r2 = 0.46 (P(F1,61) < 0.001, quadratic OLS regression in b: r2 = 0.21 (P(F1,61) < 0.01.
Figure 4Dependences of standardized effects sizes (SES based on the equiprobable-equiprobable null model) of the C-score (red dots) and NODF (yellow dots) on plot average tree age (a), total Ca (b), Mg (c), and N (d) content, Ellenberg value based indices for light (e), nutrient (f), and moisture demands (g), and soil C/N ratios (h). Linear OLS regressions of the C-score in (b) r2 = 0.11 (P(F) < 0.01, (c) r2 = 0.30 (P(F) < 0.001, (e) r2 = 0.11 (P(F) < 0.01, (f) r2 = 0.10 (P(F) < 0.05, (f) r2 = 0.13 (P(F) < 0.01, (h) r2 = 0.11 (P(F) < 0.01. Logarithmic OLS regressions of NODF in (a) r2 = 0.12 (P(F) < 0.01, (d) r2 = 0.06 (P(F) < 0.10, (e) r2 = 0.24 (P(F) < 0.001, (f) r2 = 0.27 (P(F) < 0.001, (g) r2 = 0.18 (P(F) < 0.01.
Generalized linear modelling (partial η2 values) points to soil nitrogen content, pH and moisture to directly influence the pattern of understorey plant segregation (SES C-score).
| Predictor | Age | Ca | Mg | N | pH | Moisture | Nutrients | C/N |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Species segregation | ||||||||
| SV | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.23** | 0.09 | 0.20** | 0.03 | 0.02 |
| SV2 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.10 | 0.08 | 0.19* | 0.05 | 0.01 |
| CV(SV) | <0.01 | 0.01 | 0.03 | <0.01 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.03 |
| Species | 0.42*** | 0.29*** | 0.26*** | 0.51*** | 0.19* | 0.37*** | 0.11* | 0.42*** |
| PCA1 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.06 | 0.04 | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.17* | <0.01 |
| r2 | 0.42*** | 0.40*** | 0.45*** | 0.50*** | 0.23** | 0.41*** | 0.46*** | 0.45*** |
| Nestedness | ||||||||
| SV | 0.07 | <0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | <0.01 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.01 |
| SV2 | 0.05 | 0.03 | <0.01 | 0.02 | <0.01 | 0.01 | 0.05 | <0.01 |
| CV(SV) | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.01 | <0.01 | 0.01 | 0.02 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
| Species | 0.11 | 0.15 | 0.24*** | 0.12* | 0.26*** | <0.01 | 0.19* | 0.11 |
| PCA1 | 0.01 | 0.01 | <0.01 | 0.07* | 0.03 | 0.03 | <0.01 | 0.01 |
| r2 | 0.30** | 0.23** | 0.31*** | 0.23** | 0.49*** | 0.18** | 0.49*** | 0.07 |
| Compositional similarity | ||||||||
| SV | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.07 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.02 | <0.01 |
| SV2 | 0.02 | 0.01 | <0.01 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.03 | <0.01 |
| CV(SV) | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.03 | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.04 | <0.01 |
| Species | 0.40*** | 0.37*** | 0.38*** | 0.50*** | 0.22** | 0.19** | 0.54*** | 0.54*** |
| PCA1 | 0.02 | 0.01 | <0.01 | 0.07* | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.04 | <0.01 |
| r2 | 0.45*** | 0.49*** | 0.65*** | 0.56*** | 0.65*** | 0.64*** | 0.80*** | 0.64*** |
Degrees of nestedness (SES NODF) and species composition (SES Soerensen index) were mainly influenced by variation in species richness. Note that SES C-score, SES NODF, and SES Soerensen index served always as dependent variables. SV, squared SV, and the coefficient of variation CV(SV) refer to the respective soil variables listed in the columns. ln-transformed species richness and the dominant spatial eigenvector (PCA1) served as additional covariates. Nutrients, pH, and moisture refer to Ellenberg scores. Parametric Bonferroni corrected (40 single tests) significance levels: *P(F) < 0.05, **P(F) < 0.01, ***P(F) < 0.001.
Figure 5Structural equation modelling including average soil parameters and respective standard deviations (mean (μ) and standard deviation (σ) of nutrient and moisture demands, pH, and C/N ratio) point to a species richness pathway triggering the degree of species spatial segregation (estimated by the effect size ES of the equiprobable null model). Parametric statistical support: **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001. Thickness of arrows is approximately proportional to statistical support of positive (green) and negative (red) influences. Whole model χ2 > 100, P (df = 44) < 0.001.