| Literature DB >> 29299299 |
Alain Danet1,2, Sonia Kéfi2, Rosa I Meneses3,4, Fabien Anthelme1,3,4.
Abstract
Facilitation among plants mediated by grazers occurs when an unpalatable plant extends its protection against grazing to another plant. This type of indirect facilitation impacts species coexistence and ecosystem functioning in a large array of ecosystems worldwide. It has nonetheless generally been understudied so far in comparison with the role played by direct facilitation among plants. We aimed at providing original data on indirect facilitation at the community scale to determine the extent to which indirect facilitation mediated by grazers can shape plant communities. Such experimental data are expected to contribute to refining the conceptual framework on plant-plant-herbivore interactions in stressful environments. We set up a 2-year grazing exclusion experiment in tropical alpine peatlands in Bolivia. Those ecosystems depend entirely on a few, structuring cushion-forming plants (hereafter referred to as "nurse" species), in which associated plant communities develop. Fences have been set over two nurse species with different strategies to cope with grazing (direct vs. indirect defenses), which are expected to lead to different intensities of indirect facilitation for the associated communities. We collected functional traits which are known to vary according to grazing pressure (LDMC, leaf thickness, and maximum height), on both the nurse and their associated plant communities in grazed (and therefore indirect facilitation as well) and ungrazed conditions. We found that the effect of indirectly facilitated on the associated plant communities depended on the functional trait considered. Indirect facilitation decreased the effects of grazing on species relative abundance, mean LDMC, and the convergence of the maximum height distribution of the associated communities, but did not affect mean height or cover. The identity of the nurse species and grazing jointly affected the structure of the associated plant community through indirect facilitation. Our results together with the existing literature suggest that the "grazer-nurse-beneficiary" interaction module can be more complex than expected when evaluated in the field.Entities:
Keywords: community ecology; herbivory; indirect interaction; plant–plant interaction; positive interaction
Year: 2017 PMID: 29299299 PMCID: PMC5743694 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.3537
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 2.912
Figure 1(a) The study site (red circle) is located near La Paz and Titicaca lake in the Cordillera real (gray area, elevation >3,000 m); (b) a picture of an alpine peatland of the study site. Note the presence of fences; (c) the two cushion species studied; (d) schema of the experimental design showing the four treatments which were replicated 10 times. From the left to the right: Oxychloe andina control, Oxychloe andina under fence, Distichia muscoides control, and Distichia muscoides under a fence.
Figure 4Mean trait of nurse cushion species for control (dark gray) and grazing exclusion (light gray). (a) Leaf Dry Matter Content (LDMC), (b) leaf thickness, and (c) maximum height. Error bars represent the 95 % confidence interval. Letters represent the different groups according to post hoc pairwise comparison (Table S6)
Figure 2Percentage of cover of the associated communities inside the nurse cushion species for control (dark gray) and grazing exclusion (light gray). Error bars represent the 95% confidence interval. The bullet points are outliers of 95% distribution. Letters represent the significantly different groups according to the post hoc contrasts (Table S4)
Figure 3PCA biplot of the community‐plot matrix containing the relative abundances of the associated species. Circles and triangles represent the plots of, respectively, D. muscoides and O. andina cushion species. Control plots are in dark gray, and grazing exclusion plots are in light gray. Species abbreviations: Apul, Aciachne pulvinata; Asp, Arenaria sp.; Balp, Baccharis alpina; Carg, Cuatrecasasiella argentina; Cmar, Carex maritima; Cmex, Cotula mexicana; Csag, Caltha sagittata; Dmus, Distichia muscoides; Drig, Deyeuxia rigescens; Dsp, Deyeuxia sp.; Dspi, Deyeuxia spicigera; Esp, Eleocharis sp.; Frig, Festuca rigescens; Gsed, Gentiana sedifolia; Hcae, Halenia caespitosa; Jsti, Juncus stipulatus; Ldip, Lachemilla diplophylla; Lvul, Luzula vulcanica; Mpal, Myrosmodes paludosa; Oand, Oxychloe andina; Olim, Oritrophium limnophilum; Omus, Ourisia muscosa; Pbol, Phylloscirpus boliviensis; Pdes, Phylloscirpus deserticola; Psp, Poa sp.; Ptub, Plantago tubulosa; Wapi, Werneria apiculata; Whet, Werneria heteroloba; Wpyg, Werneria pygmaea; Wspa, Werneria spathulata; Zmut, Zameioscirpus muticus
Figure 5Community‐weighted means (CWM) (a–c) and community‐weighted variances (CWV) (d–f) of the associated communities growing inside the nurse cushion species for control (dark gray) and grazing exclusion (light gray). From the left to the right: Leaf Dry Matter Content (LDMC), leaf thickness, and maximum height. Error bars represent the 95% confidence interval. The bullet points are outliers of 95% distribution. Letters represent the significantly different groups according to the post hoc contrasts (Tables S8 and S9)