When the same is not the same: phenotypic variation reveals different plant ecological strategies within species occurring in distinct Neotropical savanna habitats

The type of substrate does not influence the intraspecific population structure of shrub‐tree species in the Brazilian savanna

“…In addition, analyses of community structure have verified that the soil properties in the Rupestrian Savanna do not limit the establishment and development of vegetation in relation to the Typical Savanna (Abreu et al, 2012; Gomes et al, 2011; Lemos et al, 2013). Although the lower maximum height of individuals in the Rupestrian Savanna is considered a species conservation strategy in relation to resource retention (Cássia‐Silva et al, 2017), we found that the substrate type did not significantly differentiate the structure of intraspecific populations in both environments.…”

“…In this case, the physical–chemical properties of soils, as a stress factor in the Rupestrian Savanna, and the fires, as a disturbance factor in the Typical Savanna, simplify the structure of populations in these two environments, reducing the differences between them. Studies that consider the functional traits associated with resistance and growth between populations in the Rupestrian and Typical Savanna may help in the elucidation of these issues, such as those conducted by Almeida et al (2018), Cássia‐Silva et al (2017), Fernandes et al (2020) and Lenza et al (2017).…”

“…In the specific case of the Brazilian savanna, besides the limitations imposed by the soil (Cole, 1986;Eiten, 1972; Furley & Ratter, 1988;Lehmann et al, 2014;Oliveira-Filho & Ratter, 2002;Reatto et al, 2008), fire also plays an important role as an environmental filter (Coutinho, 1982;Gomes et al, 2020;Henriques & Hay, 2002;Lenza et al, 2017;Miranda & Sato, 2005;Ribeiro et al, 2012). The Rupestrian Savanna has less grass cover than the Typical Savanna (Lenza et al, 2017) and the rock outcrops serve as natural barriers impeding wildfire propagation (Gomes et al, 2014(Gomes et al, , 2016; fire intensity is therefore lower and, consequently, the damage to vegetation by burning is lower in the Rupestrian Savanna (Cássia-Silva et al, 2017;Gomes et al, 2014Gomes et al, , 2016Kolbek & Alves, 2008;Lenza et al, 2017). Thus, as an alternative hypothesis to the results we found, we suggest that stress and disturbance factors (sensu Grime, 1977) modify the structure of populations in Rupestrian and Typical Savanna.…”

“…Being that the influence of the physical–chemical properties of soils is even more evident in Rupestrian Savanna, since vegetation is strongly influenced by the soil environmental filter (Abreu et al, 2012; Almeida et al, 2018; Fernandes et al, 2018; Lemos et al, 2013; Mews, Pinto, Eisenlohr, & Lenza, 2016; Negreiros et al, 2014; Oliveira et al, 2015; Schaefer et al, 2016). Since the sandy and quartzite rocks as soil source material in the Rupestrian Savanna are poor in nutrients (Reatto et al, 2008; Schaefer et al, 2016), water availability in the soil is a strong environmental conditionality (Cássia‐Silva et al, 2017). However, we verified that the Rupestrian Savanna has great environmental heterogeneity (Supporting Information Figure S1), characterized by different microhabitats (Almeida et al, 2018; Benites et al, 2007; Moura et al, 2011).…”

“…Investigating the ecological processes that regulate plant communities and the species involved contributes to our understanding of distribution patterns and population structure (Ricklefs, 2008). Although the participation of species in the structuring and ecological processes of communities can happen in several ways, the occurrence of species and the structure of their populations are strongly influenced by local environmental conditions (Cássia‐Silva et al, 2017; Götzenberger et al, 2012; Grime, 1977; Fridley & Grime, 2010; Pierce et al, 2017). Thus, to evaluate the distribution of species and the performance of their individuals, descriptive and characterization studies are indispensable tools that enable the qualitative and quantitative knowledge of vegetation (Kent & Coker, 1992; Müeller‐Dombois & Ellenberg, 1974).…”