Plant interactions in alpine tundra: 13 years of experimental removal of dominant species

Aksenova, A. A.; Онипченко, В. Г.; Blinnikov, Mikhail S.

doi:10.1080/11956860.1998.11682459

Cited by 34 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There may also have been a delay in the growth response of our phytometers to any changes in resource supply over the short time period (two years) of our experiment (Bret-Harte et al 2004) or differences between the short-term and long-term responses of these species to nutrients (Theodose and Bowman 1997). However, some studies in the alpine have seen growth responses in two to three years (Gerdol et al 2002, BretHarte et al 2004) and consistent short and long-term responses over 13 years of study (Aksenova et al 1998). In other words, the direction and intensity of plant interactions over short time periods might not be important over longer periods of time, especially for perennial, clonal plants and where competition is for resources that can be stored (Goldberg and Novoplansky 1997).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Plant interactions are unimportant in a subarctic–alpine plant community

Mitchell

Cahill

Hik

2009

Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. We investigated whether plant interaction intensity in a subarctic-alpine meadow is important for determining community structure and species abundance. Using two common species as phytometers, we measured interaction intensity using a neighbor removal approach. Eight biotic and abiotic variables known to influence species abundance and community structure were measured, with regression trees used to examine how plant interactions and the biotic and abiotic variables were related to species evenness, richness, and phytometer spatial cover. A range of interactions was present, with both strong competition and facilitation present over small-scale abiotic and biotic gradients. Despite the variation in interaction intensity, it was generally unrelated to either community structure or phytometer cover. In other words, plant interactions were intense in many cases but were not important to community structure. This may be due to the prevalence of clonal species in this system and the influence of previous year's interactions on plant survival and patterns of community structure. These results also suggest how conflicting theories of the role of competition in unproductive environments may be resolved. Our findings suggest that plant interactions may be intense in reducing individual growth, while simultaneously not important in the context of community structure. Plant interactions need to be viewed and tested relative to other factors and stresses to accurately evaluate their importance in plant communities, with continued differentiation between the intensity of plant interactions and their relative importance in communities.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Plant interactions are unimportant in a subarctic–alpine plant community

Mitchell

Cahill

Hik

2009

Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Minor species may be species that are reduced in abundance due to competition with dominants, or they may be species that are naturally abundant elsewhere but for which this environment is sub-optimal, or species whose growth form or life history characteristics are such that they never represent a high proportion of the total biomass. In the latter two cases, minor species may be limited in their ability to respond to reduced competition from dominants (Aksenova et al 1998;Mulder et al 2004). For example, Aksenova et al (1998) showed that dominant tundra species increased their number of shoots after removal of presumed competitors, whereas subordinate species responded negatively to the removal of dominants.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…In the latter two cases, minor species may be limited in their ability to respond to reduced competition from dominants (Aksenova et al 1998;Mulder et al 2004). For example, Aksenova et al (1998) showed that dominant tundra species increased their number of shoots after removal of presumed competitors, whereas subordinate species responded negatively to the removal of dominants. Thus, we might predict that in harsh environments the eVects of common species on minor species will be primarily facilitative, and that the removal of the dominants will have negative impacts under harsh conditions (removal of facilitation) and more neutral eVects under benign conditions (where facilitation is less important).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Species removal and experimental warming in a subarctic tundra plant community

Rixen

Mulder

2009

Oecologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neighbor interactions are likely to play an important role in subarctic plant communities. We conducted experiments in Interior Alaska in which we crossed species removal with greenhouse warming manipulations. We examined changes in community biomass, and in plant survival and growth of individual species in response to experimental warming and to: (1) removal of whole species versus an equivalent amount of biomass across many species, and (2) removal of subdominant (locally common) versus minor (locally uncommon) plants. Community biomass indicated compensation in growth after removal of minor species and after biomass removal without elimination of entire species, but under-compensation after removal of subdominants. Growth and survival of individual species showed facilitation between some species. Warming increased growth of dominant vascular plants, but at the same time reduced survival, and these impacts were greater for larger, more mesic species than for the smaller species associated with drier habitats. Growth of mosses was reduced by the warming. Removal effects did not differ between warming and ambient conditions. The results indicate that common species are able to reduce resources for others (competitive effect) and increase their growth after neighbor removal, whereas locally uncommon species are not able to respond rapidly to increased resources made available by neighbor removal. Therefore, the impact of the presence of common species on locally uncommon species was facilitative overall, but not vice versa. The balance between disturbances such as changes in temperature and species losses from the community will likely be crucial in determining shifts in subsequent community composition.

show abstract

“…They concluded that the detrimental changes in the environment caused by dominant species removal resulted in a decrease of subordinate species. These environmental factors include increased exposure to wind dessication, lower temperatures, decreased soil moisture and lack of protection from herbivores (Aksenova et al 1998). Although the overall community composition did not change, the authors suggest that this may not hold true in less stressful environments.…”

mentioning

confidence: 63%

“…However, several long-term studies address the influence of species removal on plant community structure and stability (e.g., Allen and Forman 1976;Abdul-Fatih and Bazzaz 1979;Aarsen and Epp 1990;Aksenova et al 1998). For example, Aksenova et al (1998) examined the responses of subordinate species to the removal of dominant plants in the alpine tundra. In this study, subordinate species experienced a decline in numbers over the course of thirteen years.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

An Examination of Commercial Medicinal Plant Harvests, Mount Hood National Forest, Oregon

Campbell¹

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Plant interactions in alpine tundra: 13 years of experimental removal of dominant species

Cited by 34 publications

References 23 publications

Plant interactions are unimportant in a subarctic–alpine plant community

Plant interactions are unimportant in a subarctic–alpine plant community

Species removal and experimental warming in a subarctic tundra plant community

An Examination of Commercial Medicinal Plant Harvests, Mount Hood National Forest, Oregon

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About