Folia Geobotanica

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 243–253

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

  • Leoš Klimeš
  • Jan Wim Jongepier
  • Ivana Jongepierová
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)


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


Meadow structure Niche limitation Variance test 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 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
  2. Cohen J.E. (1977): Ratio of prey to predators in community food webs.—Nature 270: 165–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dostál J. (1948-1950): Květena ČSR (Flora of Czechoslovakia).—NČSAV, Praha.Google Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fagerström T. (1988): Lotteries in communities of sessile organisms.—Trends Ecol. Evol. 3: 303–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Frank D. & Klotz S. (1988): Biologisch-ökologische Daten zur Flora der DDR.—Wiss. Beitr. Martin-Luther-Univ. Halle-Wittenberg, 1988/60 (P35), 103 pp.Google Scholar
  8. Gause G.F. (1934): The struggle for existence.—Baltimore.Google Scholar
  9. Gitay H. &Agnew A.D. (1989): Plant community structure, connectance, niche limitation and species guilds within a dune slack grassland.—Vegetatio 83: 241–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Marsaglia G., Narasimhan B. &Zaman A. (1990): A random number generator for PC's.—Comp. Physics Comm. 60: 345–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Palmer M.W. (1987): Variability in species richness within Minnesota oldfields: a use of the variance test. —Vegetatio 70: 61–64.Google Scholar
  17. Pielou E.C. (1972): 2k contingency tables in ecology.—J. Theor. Biol. 24: 337–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Root R.B. (1967): The niche exploitation pattern of the blue-grey gnatcatcher.—Ecol. Monogr. 37: 317–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schluter D. (1984): A variance test for detecting species associations, with some example applications.—Ecology 65: 998–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Silvertown J. &Law R. (1987): Do plant need niches? Some recent developments in plant community ecology.—Trends Ecol. Evol. 2: 24–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Simberloff D. &Dayan T. (1991): The guild concept and the structure of ecological communities.—Annual Rev. Ecol. Syst. 22: 115–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Tlusták V. (1975): Syntaxonomický přehled travinných společenstev Bílých Karpat (Syntaxonomical survey of grasslands in the Bílé Karpaty Mountains).—Preslia 47: 129–144.Google Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Watkins A.J. &Wilson J.B. (1992): Fine-scale community structure of lawns.—J. Ecol. 80: 15–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Wilson J.B., Gitay H. &Agnew A.D.Q. (1987): Does niche limitation exist?—Funct. Ecol. 1: 391–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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).Google Scholar
  31. Zobel M. &Zobel K. (1989): Change of field layer organization during secondary forest succession.— Stud. Pl. Ecol. 18: 282–284.Google Scholar
  32. Zobel K., Zobel M. &Peet R.K. (1993): Change pattern diversity during secondary succession in Estonian forests.—J. Veg. Sci. 4: 489–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Botany, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leoš Klimeš
    • 1
  • Jan Wim Jongepier
    • 2
  • Ivana Jongepierová
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of BotanyAcademy of Sciences of the Czech RepublicTreboňCzech Republic
  2. 2.Administration of the Protected Landscape Area Bílé KarpatyVeselí nad MoravouCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations