Skip to main content
Log in

Variability in species richness and guild structure in two species-rich grasslands

  • Species Coexistence in Temperate Grasslands (Proceedings of the Symposium held in Bedřichov, Czech Republic, 27 September–2 October 1993; edited by F. Krahulec, D.E. Goldberg & J.H. Willems)
  • Published:
Folia Geobotanica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It has been suggested that variation in the proportion of species in guilds (=guild proportionality) indicates community structuring by guilds in biotic communities. This hypothesis was tested on a subthermophilous grassland and a mesotrophic meadow at a scale of 0.09 m2 based on a five-year data set. Further, variation in the total number of species, variation in the number of species belonging to a guild and non-randomness in species composition of guilds were studied. A number of criteria for guild definition were used, such as life form, Grime's C-S-R strategy, phenology, plant height, pollination and dispersal syndromes, leaf shape and anatomy and taxonomy at the family level.

The observed variation in the number of guild species corresponded to the null model in which species assemblages with fixed species richness per square were randomly generated from the species pool. The observed variation in the number of guild species was often higher than the variation calculated for randomly distributed species whereas the variation in the proportion of guild species was in some cases lower than the variation calculated for randomly distributed species with fixed frequencies. Possible reasons for the discrepancy in the results based on different models are discussed. It is concluded that there is little evidence of guilds in the organization of grasslands. *** DIRECT SUPPORT *** A02DO006 00012

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bycroft C.M., Nicolaou N., Smith B. &Wilson J.B. (1993): Community structure (niche limitation and guild proportionality) in relation to the effect of spatial scale, in aNothofagus forest sampled with a circular transect.—New Zealand J. Ecol. 17: 59–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J.E. (1977): Ratio of prey to predators in community food webs.—Nature 270: 165–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dostál J. (1948-1950): Květena ČSR (Flora of Czechoslovakia).—NČSAV, Praha.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans F.C. &Murdoch W.W. (1968): Taxonomic composition, trophic structure and seasonal occurrence in a grassland insect community.—J. Anim. Ecol. 37: 259–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fagerström T. (1988): Lotteries in communities of sessile organisms.—Trends Ecol. Evol. 3: 303–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fowler N. (1981): Competition and coexistence in a North Carolina grassland. II. The effects of the experimental removal of species.—J. Ecol. 69: 843–854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank D. & Klotz S. (1988): Biologisch-ökologische Daten zur Flora der DDR.—Wiss. Beitr. Martin-Luther-Univ. Halle-Wittenberg, 1988/60 (P35), 103 pp.

  • Gause G.F. (1934): The struggle for existence.—Baltimore.

  • Gitay H. &Agnew A.D. (1989): Plant community structure, connectance, niche limitation and species guilds within a dune slack grassland.—Vegetatio 83: 241–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg D.H. &Werner P.A. (1983): Equivalence of competitors in plant communities: a null hypothesis and a field experimental approach.—Amer. J. Bot. 70: 1098–1104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubbell S.P. &Foster R.B. (1986): Biology, chance, and history and the structure of tropical rain forest tree communities.—In:Diamond J. &Case T.J. [eds.]: Community ecology, Harper & Row, New York, pp. 314–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffries M.J. &Lawton J.H. (1985): Predator-prey ratios in communities of freshwater invertebrates: the role of enemy free space.—Freshwater. Biol. 15: 105–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jongepierová I., Jongepier J.W. &Klimeš L. (1994): Obnova druhově bohatých luk v Bílých Karpatech (Restoration of species-rich meadows in the Bílé Karpaty Mountains).—Příroda, Praha, 1: 7–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsaglia G., Narasimhan B. &Zaman A. (1990): A random number generator for PC's.—Comp. Physics Comm. 60: 345–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray K.G., Feisinger P., Busby W.H., Linhart Y.B., Beach J.H. &Kinsman S. (1987): Evaluation of character displacement among plants in two tropical pollination guilds.—Ecology 68: 1283–1293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer M.W. (1987): Variability in species richness within Minnesota oldfields: a use of the variance test. —Vegetatio 70: 61–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pielou E.C. (1972): 2k contingency tables in ecology.—J. Theor. Biol. 24: 337–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Root R.B. (1967): The niche exploitation pattern of the blue-grey gnatcatcher.—Ecol. Monogr. 37: 317–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schluter D. (1984): A variance test for detecting species associations, with some example applications.—Ecology 65: 998–1005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silvertown J. &Law R. (1987): Do plant need niches? Some recent developments in plant community ecology.—Trends Ecol. Evol. 2: 24–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff D. &Dayan T. (1991): The guild concept and the structure of ecological communities.—Annual Rev. Ecol. Syst. 22: 115–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terborgh J. &Robinson S. (1986): Guilds and their utility in ecology.—In:Kikkawa J. &Anderson D.J. [ed.]: Community ecology: pattern and process, Blackwell, Melbourne, pp. 65–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tlusták V. (1975): Syntaxonomický přehled travinných společenstev Bílých Karpat (Syntaxonomical survey of grasslands in the Bílé Karpaty Mountains).—Preslia 47: 129–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Maarel E. (1988): Floristic diversity and guild structure in the grassland of Öland's Stora Alvar. —Acta Phytogeogr. Suec. 76: 53–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watkins A.J. &Wilson J.B. (1992): Fine-scale community structure of lawns.—J. Ecol. 80: 15–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson J.B. (1989): A null model of guild proportionality, applied to stratification of a New Zealand temperate rain forest.—Oecologia (Berlin) 80: 263–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson J.B., Gitay H. &Agnew A.D.Q. (1987): Does niche limitation exist?—Funct. Ecol. 1: 391–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson J.B. &Roxburgh S.H. (1994): A demonstration of guild-based assembly rules for a plant community, and determination of intrinsic guilds.—Oikos 69: 267–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson J.B., Roxburgh S.A. &Watkins A.J. (1992): Limitation to plant species coexistence at a point: a study in a New Zealand lawn.—J. Veg. Sci. 3: 711–714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson J.B., Sykes M.T. & Peet R.K.: Time and space in the community structure of a species-rich grassland. —J. Veg. Sci. (in press).

  • Zobel M. &Zobel K. (1989): Change of field layer organization during secondary forest succession.— Stud. Pl. Ecol. 18: 282–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zobel K., Zobel M. &Peet R.K. (1993): Change pattern diversity during secondary succession in Estonian forests.—J. Veg. Sci. 4: 489–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leoš Klimeš.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Klimeš, L., Jongepier, J.W. & Jongepierová, I. Variability in species richness and guild structure in two species-rich grasslands. Folia Geobot 30, 243–253 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02812102

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02812102

Keywords

Navigation