Contrasted Responses of Two Understorey Species to Direct and Indirect Effects of a Canopy Gap

Pagés, Jean-Philippe; Michalet, Richard

doi:10.1007/s11258-005-0976-x

Cited by 25 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 58 publications

(53 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, positive canopy effects are often observed for shade‐tolerant plants intolerant to high vapor pressure deficit or extreme temperature (e.g. Pagès & Michalet ; Muhamed et al. ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contrasting understorey species responses to the canopy and root effects of a dominant shrub drive community composition

Wang

Michalet

Chen

et al. 2017

J Vegetation Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Questions Contrasting understorey species responses to the effects of dominant species might occur within a single community even with neutral community‐level interactions. However, no studies have assessed the contribution of below‐ and above‐ground effects for all species of a community and their consequences for community composition. We tested the following hypotheses: (i) there are contrasting responses of understorey species to the canopy and root effects of a dominant shrub; (ii) the contrasting understorey responses to the canopy and root effects of the shrub are related to community composition. Location Species‐rich sub‐alpine community, eastern Tibet Plateau, China, dominated by Dasiphora fruticosa. Methods We used a removal procedure and shade cloth treatment to separate root from canopy effects and quantified the biomass responses of 41 species of the understorey community. Species‐level responses to the root and canopy effects were quantified with the relative interaction index. We conducted multivariate analyses to assess the relative contribution of root and canopy effects to community composition. Results We found contrasting species‐level responses to the canopy and root effects of D. fruticosa that could be grouped into six cluster groups. Dominant effects were positive for the roots and negative for the canopy, with a tendency for a trade‐off between the two. Community‐level effects were less strong and weakly significant, in particular for species richness. Root and canopy effects strongly explained understorey species composition but net shrub effects did not. Conclusions This study highlights that communities include species having contrasting responses to both the canopy and root effects of dominant species that importantly explain species composition.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contrasting understorey species responses to the canopy and root effects of a dominant shrub drive community composition

Wang

Michalet

Chen

et al. 2017

J Vegetation Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2004; Liancourt et al. 2005; Pages & Michalet in press), and high species richness in sites with intermediate levels of stress or disturbance ( sensu Grime 1973; Connell 1978; Huston 1979) may be due in part to the facilitative effect of dominant stress‐tolerant species on subordinate stress‐intolerant competitive species (parts A2 and B1 of the gradient, Fig. 1).…”

Section: Including Facilitation Within Grime's Humped‐back Model Of Smentioning

confidence: 99%

Do biotic interactions shape both sides of the humped‐back model of species richness in plant communities?

et al. 2006

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A humped-back relationship between species richness and community biomass has frequently been observed in plant communities, at both local and regional scales, although often improperly called a productivity-diversity relationship. Explanations for this relationship have emphasized the role of competitive exclusion, probably because at the time when the relationship was first examined, competition was considered to be the significant biotic filter structuring plant communities. However, over the last 15 years there has been a renewed interest in facilitation and this research has shown a clear link between the role of facilitation in structuring communities and both community biomass and the severity of the environment. Although facilitation may enlarge the realized niche of species and increase community richness in stressful environments, there has only been one previous attempt to revisit the humped-back model of species richness and to include facilitative processes. However, to date, no model has explored whether biotic interactions can potentially shape both sides of the humped-back model for species richness commonly detected in plant communities. Here, we propose a revision of Grime's original model that incorporates a new understanding of the role of facilitative interactions in plant communities. In this revised model, facilitation promotes diversity at medium to high environmental severity levels, by expanding the realized niche of stress-intolerant competitive species into harsh physical conditions. However, when environmental conditions become extremely severe the positive effects of the benefactors wane (as supported by recent research on facilitative interactions in extremely severe environments) and diversity is reduced. Conversely, with decreasing stress along the biomass gradient, facilitation decreases because stress-intolerant species become able to exist away from the canopy of the stress-tolerant species (as proposed by facilitation theory). At the same time competition increases for stress-tolerant species, reducing diversity in the most benign conditions (as proposed by models of competition theory). In this way our inclusion of facilitation into the classic model of plant species diversity and community biomass generates a more powerful and richer predictive framework for understanding the role of plant interactions in changing diversity. We then use our revised model to explain both the observed discrepancies between natural patterns of species richness and community biomass and the results of experimental studies of the impact of biodiversity on the productivity of herbaceous communities. It is clear that explicit consideration of concurrent changes in stress-tolerant and competitive species enhances our capacity to explain and interpret patterns in plant community diversity with respect to environmental severity.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, it is only by working at these scales that we are starting to understand, as discussed above, the intricacy of indirect interactions and their effects on coexistence (e.g., Levine 1999; Callaway and Pennings 2000; Pugnaire and Lázaro 2000; Pagès and Michalet 2006), including the genetic basis of these interactions across a diverse community of organisms from microbes to vertebrates (e.g., Bailey et al 2006;Crutsinger et al 2006;Shuster et al 2006;Whitham et al 2006;Schweitzer et al 2008). Scaling this knowledge up only adds to our understanding (Bangert et al 2008).…”

Section: The Role Of Local-scale Processes In Regulating Large-scale mentioning

confidence: 99%

Don't Diss Integration: A Comment on Ricklefs's Disintegrating Communities

Brooker¹,

Callaway²,

Cavieres³

et al. 2009

The American Naturalist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contrasted Responses of Two Understorey Species to Direct and Indirect Effects of a Canopy Gap

Cited by 25 publications

References 58 publications

Contrasting understorey species responses to the canopy and root effects of a dominant shrub drive community composition

Contrasting understorey species responses to the canopy and root effects of a dominant shrub drive community composition

Do biotic interactions shape both sides of the humped‐back model of species richness in plant communities?

Don't Diss Integration: A Comment on Ricklefs's Disintegrating Communities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About