Small-scale distribution of species richness in a grassland (Bílé Karpaty Mts., Czech Republic)
Variation in the number of species was studied in a subthermophilous grassland at a scale of 0.05 ×0.05 m during a 5-year period. The observed variance of species richness (VSR) was compared with a null model based on random distribution of species over a set of squares. It was found that distribution of species richness had more values than, expected around the mean and less values at the “shoulders”. Both tails fell within the predicted limits. Application of the procedures removing spatial dependence (random shifts, rotation/reflection method byPalmer & van der Maarel 1995) and environmental heterogeneity (patch model byWatkins & Wilson 1992) did not change the observed pattern.
Using simulations in which the number of clumps and clumping intensity were manipulated it was found that the effect of the clumped spatial pattern, on VSR results in a wide range of variances. Both variance excess and variance deficit were found more frequently than expected under the null model.
To test the effect of the limitation to the number of individuals per square, a null model was developed which included that observed number of plant shoots per square, the observed distribution of the number of shoots belonging to individual species per square and the observed spatial distribution of the shoots. The observed VSR was still lower than that produced by the null model. Therefore, it is concluded that at a scale of 0.05×0.05 m plant species combine in a non-random way in the studied grassland. It is suggested that the shape of left and right “shoulders” of the species richness distribution may be caused by different factors, such as positive and negative covariance between species, respectively. Their simultaneous impact can generate the observed pattern in species richness.
KeywordsCommunity structure Competition Null models Spatial dependence Variance of species richness
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Bartha S., Collins S.L., Glenn S.M. &Kertész M. (1995a): Fine-scale spatial organization of tallgrass prairie vegetation along a topographic gradient.—Folia Geobot. Phytotax. 30: 169–184.Google Scholar
- Bartha S., Czárán T. &Oborny B. (1995b): Spatial constraints masking community assembly rules: a simulation study.—Folia Geobot. Phytotax. 30: 471–482.Google Scholar
- Bycroft C.M., Nicolasou N., Smith B. &Wilson 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
- Caldwell M.M. &Pearcy R.W. (1994) [eds.]: Exploitation of environmental heterogeneity by plants.— Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
- Clements F.E. (1916): Plant succession: an analysis of the development of vegetation.—Carnegie Inst., Washington, Publ. No. 242.Google Scholar
- Grace J.B. &Tilman D. (1990) [eds] Perspectives on plant competition.—Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
- Greig-Smith P. (1983): Quantitative plant ecology. Ed 3.—University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
- Goldberg D. (1995): Generating and testing predictions about community structure: which theory is relevant and can it be tested with observational data?—Folia Geobot. Phytotax. 30: 511–518.Google Scholar
- Jongman R.H., ter Braak C.J.F. &van Tongeren O.F.R. (1987): Data analysis in community and landscape ecology.—Wageningen, Pudoc, 299 pp.Google Scholar
- Jongepierová I., Jongepier J.W. &Klimeš L. (1994): Restoration of species-rich meadows in the Bílé Karpaty Moutains.—Příroda 1: 185–189.Google Scholar
- Klimeš L., Jongepier J.W. &Jongepierová I. (1995). Niche limitation, guild structure and small-scale dynamics in species-rich meadows.—Folia Geobot. Phytotax. 30: 243–253.Google Scholar
- Lepš J. (1995): Variance deficit is not reliable evidence for niche limitation.—Folia Geobot. Phytotax. 30: 455–459.Google Scholar
- McIntosh R.P. (1981). Succession and ecological theory..—In:West D.C., Shugart H.H. &Botkin D.B. [eds.]: Forest succession: Concepts and applications.—Springer-Verlag, New York pp. 10–23.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
- Rabotnov T.A. (1992): Javljaetsja li ob’’em fizičeskoj sredy resursom dlja rastenij? (Is physical space a resource for plants?).—Bjull. Moskovsk. Obšč. Isp. Prir., Otd. Biol. 97(5): 81–82.Google Scholar
- Ryser P. (1990): Influence of gaps and neighbouring plants on seedling establishment in limestone grasslands. —Veröff. Geobot. Inst. ETH, Stiftung Rübel, Zürich, 104.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
- Utkin A.I., Byastrov L.G., Dylis N.V. &Solntseva O.N. (1969): Vertikal’no-frakcionnoe raspredelenie fitomassy i principy vydelenija biogeogorizontov v lesnych biogeocenozah (Vertical-fractional distribution of biomass and principles of recognition of biogeohorizons in forest biocenoses).—Bjull. Moskovsk. Obšč. Isp. Prir., Otd. Biol. 74(1): 85–100.Google Scholar
- Wilson J.B. (1995b): Testing for community structure: a Bayesian approach.—Folia Geobot. Phytotax. 30: 461–469.Google Scholar