Folia Geobotanica

, Volume 40, Issue 1, pp 53–67 | Cite as

Assessing the relative importance of dispersal in plant communities using an ecoinformatics approach

  • Wim A. Ozinga
  • Stephan M. Hennekens
  • Joop H.J. Schaminée
  • Renée M. Bekker
  • Andreas Prinzing
  • Susanne Bonn
  • Peter Poschlod
  • Oliver Tackenberg
  • Ken Thompson
  • Jan P. Bakker
  • Jan M. van Groenendael
Article

Abstract

Increased insight into the factors that determine the importance of dispersal limitation on species richness and species composition is of paramount importance for conservation and restoration ecology. One way to explore the importance of dispersal limitation is to use seed-sowing experiments, but these do not enable the screening of large sets of species and habitats. In the present paper we present a complementary approach based on comparing small plots with larger regions with regard to species composition and distribution of functional traits. We developed a GIS tool based on ecological and geographical criteria to quantify species pools at various spatial scales. In this GIS tool, containing floristic, large databases, phytosociological and functional information are exploited. Our premise is that differences in the nature of the species in local and regional species pools with regard to functional traits can give important clues to the processes at work in the assembly of communities.

We illustrate the approach with a case study for mesotrophic hay meadows (Calthion palustris). We tested the effects of differences in frequency in the local Habitat Species Pool and differences in dispersal and persistence traits of species on local species composition. Our results show that both species pool effects and functional traits affect the probability of occurrence in small plots. Species with a high propagule weight have, given the frequency in the Local Habitat Species Pool, a lower probability of occurrence in small plots. The probability of local occurrence, however, is increased by the ability to form a persistent soil seed bank and by adult longevity. This provides support for the view that the degree of dispersal limitation is dependent on the degree of spatial isolation of the focal site relative to source populations and moreover that species inherently differ in the degree to which dispersal limitation is a limiting factor for local occurrence.

Keywords

Community assembly Dispersal limitation Ecoinformatics Functional traits Spatial isolation Species pool 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Austin M.P., Nicholls A.O. &Margules C.R. (1990): Measurements of the realized qualitative niche: environmental niches of five Eucalyptus species.Ecol. Monogr. 60: 161–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakker J.P. &Berendse F. (1999): Constraints in the restoration of ecological diversity in grassland and heathland communities.Trends Ecol. Evol. 14: 63–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakker J.P. &Olff H. (1995): Nutrient dynamics during restoration of fen meadows by haymaking without fertiliser application. In:Wheeler B.D., Shaw S.C., Foit W.J. &Robertson R.A. (eds.),Restoration of temperate wetlands, Wiley & Sons, London, pp. 143–166.Google Scholar
  4. Bekker R.M., Schaminée J.H.J., Bakker J.P. &Thompson K. (1998): Seed bank characteristics of Dutch plant communities.Acta Bot. Neerl. 47: 15–26.Google Scholar
  5. Chesson P.L. &Warner R.R. (1981): Environmental variability promotes coexistence in lottery competitive systems.Amer. Naturalist 117: 923–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chytrý M. (2001): Phytosociological databases give biased estimates of species richness.J. Veg. Sci. 12: 439–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cornell H.V. (1993): Unsaturated patterns in species assemblages: the role of regional processes in setting local species richness. In:Ricklefs R.E. &Schluter D. (eds.),Species diversity in ecological communities, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 243–252.Google Scholar
  8. Cornell H.V. (1999): Unsaturation and regional influences on species richness in ecological communities: A review of evidence.Ecoscience 6: 303–315.Google Scholar
  9. Cornell H.V. &Karlson R.H. (1997): Local and regional processes as controls of species richness. In:Tilman D. &Kareiva P. (eds.),Spatial ecology, The role of space in population dynamics and interspecific interactions, Princeton Univ. Press, New Jersey, pp. 250–268.Google Scholar
  10. Cousins S.A.O., Lavorel S. &Davies I. (2003): Modelling the effects of landscape pattern and grazing regimes on the persistence of plant species with high conservation value in grasslands in south-eastern Sweden.Landscape Ecol. 18: 315–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dupré C. (2000): How to determine a regional species pool: a study in two Swedish regions.Oikos 89: 128–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ehrlén J. &Eriksson O. (2000): Dispersal limitation and patch occupancy in forest herbs.Ecology 81: 1667–1674.Google Scholar
  13. Ehrlén J. &van Groenendael J.M. (1998): The trade-off between dispersability and longevity — an important aspect of plant species diversity.Appl. Veg. Sci. 1: 29–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eriksson O. (1993): The species-pool hypothesis and plant community diversity.Oikos 68: 371–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eriksson O. (2000): Seed dispersal and colonization ability of plants — assessment and implications for conservation.Folia Geobot. 35: 115–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Everts F.H. &de Vries N.P.J. (1991):The vegetation development in stream valley systems; a landscape ecological study of brenthian stream valleys. PhD. Thesis, University of Groeningen, Groeningen.Google Scholar
  17. Ewald J. (2002): A probabilistic approach to estimating species pools from large compositional matrices.J. Veg. Sci. 13: 191–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ewald J. (2003): A critique for phytosociology.J. Veg. Sci. 14: 291–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Foster B.L., Dickson T.L., Murphy C.A., Karel I.S. &Smith V.H. (2004): Propagule pools mediate community assembly and diversity-ecosystem regulation along a grassland productivity gradient.J. Ecol. 92: 435–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Foster B.L. &Tilman D. (2003): Seed limitation and the regulation of community structure in oak savanna grassland.J. Ecol. 91: 999–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Freckleton R.P. &Watkinson A.R. (2002): Large-scale spatial dynamics of plants: metapopulations, regional ensembles and patchy populations.J. Ecol. 90: 419–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grace J.B. (1999): The factors controlling species density in herbaceous plant communities: an assessment.Perspect. Pl. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2: 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grime J.P. (2001):Plant strategies, vegetation processes, and ecosystem properties. Ed. 2. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester.Google Scholar
  24. Grime J.P. &Jeffrey D.W. (1965): Seedling establishment in a vertical gradient of sunlight.J. Ecol. 53: 621–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grootjans A.P., Fresco L.F.M., de Leeuw C.C. &Schipper P.C. (1996): Degeneration of species-richCalthion palustris hay meadows; some considerations on the community concept.J. Veg. Sci. 7: 185–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grubb P.J., Kelly D. &Mitchley J. (1982): The control of relative abundance in communities of herbaceous plants. In:Newman E.I. (ed.),The plant community as a working mechanism, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 79–97.Google Scholar
  27. Hanski I. (1982): Dynamics of regional distribution: the core and satellite species hypothesis.Oikos 38: 210–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hanski I. (1998): Metapopulation dynamics.Nature 396: 41–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hanski I. &Gaggiotti O.E. (2004):Ecology, genetics, and evolution of metapopulations. Elsevier Ac. Press, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  30. Hennekens S.M. &Schaminée J.H.J. (2001): TURBOVEG, a comprehensive data base management system for vegetation data.J. Veg. Sci. 12: 589–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Herben T. (2000): Correlation between richness per unit area and the species pool cannot be used to demonstrate the species pool effect.J. Veg. Sci. 11: 123–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Herben T. &Hara T. (2003): Spatial pattern formation in plant communities. In:Sekimura T., Noji S., Ueno N. &Maini P.K. (eds.),Morphogenesis and pattern formation in biological systems — experiments and models, Springer Verlag, Tokyo, pp. 223–235.Google Scholar
  33. Hubbell S.P. (2001):The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography. Monographs in population biology 32: 1–375. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, Oxford.Google Scholar
  34. Huisman J., Olff H. &Fresco L.F.M. (1993): A hierarchical set of models for species response analysis.J. Veg. Sci. 4: 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Huston M.A. (1999): Local processes and regional patterns: appropriate scale for understanding variation in the diversity of plants and animals.Oikos 86: 393–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hutchings M.J. &Booth K.D. (1996): Studies on the feasibility of re-creating chalk grassland vegetation on ex-arable land. I. The potential role of the seed bank and the seed rain.J. Appl. Ecol. 33: 1171–1181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jakobsson A. &Eriksson O. (2000): A comparative study of seed number, seed size, seedling size and recruitment in grassland plants.Oikos 88: 494–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Keddy P.A. (1992): Assembly and response rules: two goals for predictive community ecology.J. Veg. Sci. 3: 157–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kelt D.A., Tarper M.L. &Meserve P.L. (1995): Assesing the impact of competition on community assembly: a case study using small mammals.Ecology 76: 1283–1296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kolb A. &Diekmann M. (2004): Effects of environment, hab itat configuration and forest continuity on the distribution of forest plant species.J. Veg. Sci. 15: 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kupferschmid A.D., Stampfi A. &Newberry D.M. (2000): Dispersal and microsite limitation in an abandoned calcareous grassland of the Southern Prealps.Folia Geobot. 35: 125–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Legendre P., Dale M.R.T., Fortin M.-J., Gurevitch J., Hohn M. &Mayers D. (2002): The consequences of spatial structure for the design and analysis of ecological field surveys.Ecography 25: 601–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Leishman M.R. (1999): How well do plant traits correlate with establishment ability? Evidence from a study of 16 calcareous grassland species.New Phytol. 141: 487–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lindborg R. &Eriksson O. (2004): Historical landscape connectivity affects present plant species diversity.Ecology 85: 1840–1845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lepš J. (2001): Species-pool hypothesis: limits to its testing.Folia Geobot. 36: 45–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lockwood J.L. &Pimm S.L. (1999): When does restoration succeed? In:Weiher E. &Keddy P.A. (eds.),Ecological assembly rules, Perspectives, advances, retreats, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, pp. 363–378.Google Scholar
  47. Loreau M. (2000): Are communities saturated? On the relationship between alfa, beta and gamma diversity.Ecol. Letters. 3: 73–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McCullagh P. &Nelder J.A. (1989):Generalized linear models. Ed. 2. Chapman & Hall, London.Google Scholar
  49. McCune B. (1994): Improving community analysis with Beals smoothing function.Ecoscience 1: 82–86.Google Scholar
  50. Moles A.T., Falster D.S., Leishman M.R. &Westoby M. (2004): Small-seeded species produce more seeds per square metre of canopy per year, but not per individual per lifetime.J. Ecol. 92: 384–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mouquet N., Leady P., Meriguet J. &Loreau M. (2004): Immigration and local competition in herbaceous plant communities: a three-year seed-sowing experiment.Oikos 104: 77–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mucina L., Schaminée J.H.J. &Rodwell J.S. (2000): Common data standards for recording relevés in field survey for vegetation classification.J. Veg. Sci. 11: 769–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Münzbergová Z. &Herben T. (2004): Identification of suitable unoccupied habitats in metapopulation studies using co-occurrence of species.Oikos 105: 408–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ozinga W.A., Bekker R.M., Bakker J.P., Schaminée J.H.J. &van Groenendael J.M. (2004): Dispersal potential in plant communities depends on environmental conditions.J. Ecol. 92: 767–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ozinga W.A., Schaminée J.H.J., Bekker R.M., Bonn S., Poschlod P., Tackenberg O., Bakker J.P. & van Groenendael J.M. (2005): Predictability of plant species composition from environmental conditions is constrained by dispersal limitation.Oikos, in press.Google Scholar
  56. Pärtel M., Zobel M., Zobel K., &van der Maarel E. (1996): The species pool and its relation to species richness: evidence from Estonian plant communities.Oikos 75: 111–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Poschlod P. &Bonn S. (1998): Changing dispersal processes in the central European landscape since the last ice age: an explanation for the actual decrease of plant species richness in different habitatas?Acta Bot. Neerl. 47: 27–44.Google Scholar
  58. Ricklefs R. (1987): Community diversity: relative roles of local and regional processes.Science 235: 167–171.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ricklefs R.E. &Schluter D. (1993): Species diversity, regional and historical influences. In:Ricklefs R.E. &Schluter D. (eds.),Species diversity in ecological communities, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 350–363.Google Scholar
  60. Rosenzweig M.L. &Ziv Y. (1999): The echo pattern of species diversity: pattern and processes.Ecography 22: 614–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schaminée J.H.J., Hommel P.W.F.M., Stortelder A.H.F., Weeda E.J. &Westhoff V. (1995–1999):De vegetatie van Nederland (Vegetation of the Netherlands). Opulus Press, Uppsala/Leiden.Google Scholar
  62. Tamis W.L.M. &van ’T Zelfde M. (2003): The KFK-scale, a new rarity scale for the Dutch flora.Gorteria 29: 57–83.Google Scholar
  63. Thompson K., Bakker J.P. &Bekker R.M. (1997):Soil seed banks of North West Europe; Methods, density and longevity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  64. Tilman D. (1994): Competition and biodiversity in spatially structured habitats.Ecology 75: 2–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tilman D. (1997): Community invasibility, recruitment limitation and grassland biodiversity.Ecology 78: 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Trexler J.C. &Travis J. (1993): Nontraditional regression analyses.Ecology 74: 1629–1637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Turnbull L.A., Crawley M.J. &Rees M. (2000): Are plant populations seed-limited? A review of seed sowing experiments.Oikos 88: 225–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. van der Meijden R., Odé B., Groen C.L.G., Witte J.-P.M. &Bal D. (2000): Endangered and vulnerable vascular plants in the Netherlands. Basic report with proposal for the Red List.Gorteria 26: 85–208.Google Scholar
  69. van Tongeren O. (2004): The identification programme ASSOCIA. In:Hennekens S.M.,1998–2004, Turboveg for Windows, Alterra, Wageningen.Google Scholar
  70. Venable D.L. &Brown J.S. (1988): The selective interaction of dispersal, dormancy and seed size as adaptations for reducing risks in variable environments.Amer. Naturalist 131: 360–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Westoby M., Leishman M. &Lord J. (1996): Comparative ecology of seed size and seed dispersal.Philos. Trans. Ser. B 351: 1309–1318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wilson J.B. &Anderson B.J. (2001): Species-pool relations: like a wooden light bulb.Folia Geobot. 36: 35–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Witte J.P.M. (1998):National water management and the value of nature. Thesis, Wageningen Agricultural University, Wageningen.Google Scholar
  74. Xiong S., Johansson M.E., Hughes F.M.R., Hayes A., Richards K.S. &Nilsson C. (2003): Interactive effects of soil moisture, vegetation canopy, plant litter and seed addition on plant diversity in a wetland community.J. Ecol. 91: 976–986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Zobel K. (2001): On the species-pool hypothesis and the quasi-neutral concept of plant community diversity.Folia Geobot. 36: 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Zobel M. (1997): The relative role of species pools in determining plant species richness: an alternative explanation of species coexistence.Trends Ecol. Evol. 12: 266–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Zobel M. &Kalamees R. (2005): Diversity and dispersal — can the link be approached experimentally?Folia Geobot. 40: 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Zobel M., Otsus M., Liira J., Moora M. &Mols T. (2000): Is small-scale species richness limited by seed availability or microsite availability.Ecology 81: 3274–3282.Google Scholar
  79. Zobel M., van der Maarel E. &Dupré C. (1998). Species pool: The concept, its determination and significance for community restoration.Appl. Veg. Sci. 1: 55–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Botany 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wim A. Ozinga
    • 1
    • 2
  • Stephan M. Hennekens
    • 2
  • Joop H.J. Schaminée
    • 2
  • Renée M. Bekker
    • 3
  • Andreas Prinzing
    • 1
    • 2
  • Susanne Bonn
    • 4
  • Peter Poschlod
    • 4
  • Oliver Tackenberg
    • 4
  • Ken Thompson
    • 5
  • Jan P. Bakker
    • 3
  • Jan M. van Groenendael
    • 1
  1. 1.Research Group Aquatic Ecology and Environmental Biology, Department of EcologyRadboud University NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Centre for Ecosystem Studies, AlterraWageningen University and ResearchWageningenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Community and Conservation Ecology GroupUniversity of GroningenHarenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Institute of Botany, Faculty of BiologyUniversity of RegensburgRegensburgGermany
  5. 5.Department of Animal and Plant SciencesUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldEngland

Personalised recommendations