| Literature DB >> 29450649 |
Ineke S Roeling1, Wim A Ozinga2,3, Jerry van Dijk4, Maarten B Eppinga4, Martin J Wassen5.
Abstract
Previous studies of Eurasian grasslands have suggested that nutrient ratios, rather than absolute nutrient availabilities and associated productivity, may be driving plant spn>ecies richness patterns. However, the underlying assumption that spn>ecies occupn>y distinct niches along nutrient ratio gradients remains to be tested. We analysed plant community composition and nutrient status of 644 Eurasian wet grassland plots. The importance of nutrient ratios driving variation in spn>ecies composition was analysed using ordination methods (Entities:
Keywords: Niche; Nitrogen; Phosphorus; Species composition; Stoichiometry
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29450649 PMCID: PMC5859057 DOI: 10.1007/s00442-018-4086-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oecologia ISSN: 0029-8549 Impact factor: 3.225
Summary of the detrended correspondence analysis (DCA) ordination showing overall variation in species composition and the important environmental variables
| Ordination axis | Axis 1 | Axis 2 | Axis 3 | Axis 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eigenvalues | 0.71 | 0.37 | 0.25 | 0.19 |
| Explained variation (cumulative %) | 6.44 | 9.78 | 12.08 | 13.80 |
| Gradient length | 7.09 | 5.68 | 4.58 | 4.35 |
| Species–environment correlations | 0.96 | 0.86 | 0.79 | 0.71 |
| Correlations of environmental variables with axes | ||||
| Moisture Ellenberg | 0.91b | 0.09 | 0.31 | 0.25 |
| pH Ellenberg | − 0.59a | − 0.25 | 0.31 | − 0.17 |
| Mowing frequency | − 0.40a | − 0.27 | − 0.23 | − 0.34 |
| N:P ratio plants | − 0.10 | 0.73b | 0.27 | 0.44a |
| Plant P | − 0.06 | − 0.62b | − 0.39 | − 0.41a |
| Biomass production | 0.08 | − 0.48a | 0.09 | − 0.36 |
| Temperature Ellenberg | 0.29 | − 0.20 | 0.60b | 0.11 |
| Salinity Ellenberg | − 0.15 | − 0.49a | − 0.41a | − 0.37 |
| Light Ellenberg | 0.46a | 0.49a | − 0.05 | 0.63b |
| K:P ratio plants | 0.11 | 0.30 | 0.24 | 0.47 |
| Plant N | − 0.20 | 0.02 | − 0.06 | − 0.12 |
| N:K ratio plants | − 0.11 | 0.15 | − 0.11 | − 0.14 |
| Plant K | 0.06 | − 0.30 | 0.01 | 0.15 |
Environmental variables included in the ordination are: Plant N; Plant P; Plant K; N:P ratio; N:K ratio; K:P ratio; Mowing frequencies and Ellenberg indicator values for soil moisture, soil pH, light, salinity and temperature. Environmental variables (used as supplementary variables) explained 21.1% of variation in species composition (adjusted explained variation is 19.5%). Correlation coefficients ≥ 0.4 or ≤ − 0.4 are indicated by superscript a, correlation coefficients ≥ 0.6 or ≤ − 0.6 by superscript b. The gradient length is a measure for the beta diversity in community composition (i.e. the extent of species turnover) along the individual ordination axes. The species–environment correlations measure the strength of the relation between response and explanatory variables for a particular ordination axis
Fig. 1Detrended correspondence analysis (DCA) biplot, showing the relationship between environmental variables (red arrows) and species composition (green circles). Arrow length reflects the magnitude of the effect on species composition. The value of the variable increases along the arrow. Yellow circles indicate species specifically mentioned in the results section. Full species names are given in Online Resource Appendix 2 Table S1. For clarity, only the 98 most abundant species are represented
Summary of the canonical correspondence analysis (CCA), showing the marginal (simple) and conditional effects of the selected environmental variables on plant species composition
| Marginal effects | Conditional effects | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Environmental variable | Explains % | Pseudo F | Environmental variable | Explains % | Pseudo F |
| Moisture Ellenberg | 5.7 | 38.9*** | Moisture Ellenberg | 3.1 | 20.2*** |
| pH Ellenberg | 4.1 | 27.2*** | pH Ellenberg | 2.5 | 16.1*** |
| N:P ratio plants | 3.7 | 24.9*** | Temperature Ellenberg | 1.8 | 11.6*** |
| Light Ellenberg | 3.7 | 24.4*** | Salinity Ellenberg | 1.3 | 8.2*** |
| Salinity Ellenberg | 3.6 | 24.0*** | N:P ratio plants | 1.2 | 7.5*** |
| Mowing frequency | 3.0 | 19.9*** | Light Ellenberg | 1.2 | 7.7*** |
| Plant P | 2.9 | 19.1*** | Mowing frequency | 1.1 | 6.8*** |
| K:P ratio plants | 2.3 | 14.9*** | Plant K | 0.7 | 4.4*** |
| Temperature Ellenberg | 2.3 | 14.8*** | K:P ratio plants | 0.7 | 4.3*** |
| Biomass production | 1.6 | 10.7*** | Plant N | 0.7 | 4.7*** |
| Plant K | 1.1 | 7.0*** | Plant P | 0.6 | 3.5*** |
| Plant N | 1.0 | 6.7*** | Biomass production | 0.5 | 3.2*** |
| N:K ratio plants | 1.0 | 6.4*** | N:K ratio plants | 0.4 | 2.2*** |
Conditional effects are based on partial CCA with all variables except the target variable included as covariates, using partial Monte Carlo permutation tests. All selected environmental variables contribute significantly to the model (False discovery rate p < 0.001, ***)
Fig. 2Histogram depicting the species distribution according to their niche position. The niche position is calculated at the log[N:P ratio] scale. The red solid line indicates the bimodal distribution of the dataset. The green dotted line indicates the unimodal distribution of 1000 bootstrapped dataset replicates; the arrow marks the ± 1 standard deviation around the bootstrapped mean. Conditions are N-limited when log[N:P] < 1.13; conditions are P-limited when log[N:P] > 1.20
Fig. 3Relationship between niche position and niche width, both calculated using log[N:P]. Each blue dot represents one of 269 species. a The red lines depict the τth quantile regression functions (for τ = 0.50, 0.75, 0.90, 0.95). See Online Resource Appendix 3 Fig. S1 for the 95% confidence intervals of the regression coefficients. b The median quantile regression for niche position and niche width of the data (red line) in comparison to the median quantile regressions of 1000 random datasets (median indicated by the green dotted line, 95% confidence interval indicated by the grey area)
Fig. 4a Boxplots of the niche widths for non-endangered and endangered species. Error bars indicate ± 2 SE, N = 269. The residual niche width is calculated as the deviance between a species’ real niche width and the expected species niche width as predicted by the median quantile regression. Positive residuals indicate larger than expected niche widths. b The relationship between niche position extremity and residual niche width. Niche position extremity is calculated as the distance between niche position and the mean log[N:P] for all plots in the dataset; a higher value indicates more extreme N- or P-limitation. The expected niche width is depicted by the horizontal line at y = 0. The red line depicts the only significant relationship, which occurred for endangered species