Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 159, Issue 4, pp 817–825 | Cite as

Differential impacts of plant interactions on herbaceous species recruitment: disentangling factors controlling emergence, survival and growth of seedlings

  • Adeline FayolleEmail author
  • Cyrille Violle
  • Marie-Laure Navas
Community Ecology - Original Paper

Abstract

Recruitment is a crucial event in the plant life cycle that is very sensitive to interaction with established vegetation. Based on a large comparative experiment, we tested the hypothesis that the components of recruitment––emergence time and rate, seedling survival and biomass––differ in response to plant–plant interactions during recruitment. The consequences for the population are predicted with a simple demographic model assessing the response of seed production. In a common garden experiment, we recorded the recruitment of four target species in an individual-based survey protocol. A total of 7,680 seeds were sown within 20 neighbourhoods, consisting of 19 mono-specific herbaceous stands and a control treatment without vegetation. We measured transmitted light, temperature and moisture at soil surface to characterise the environmental conditions within neighbourhoods. The mean height of neighbours controlled temperature buffering and light interception and thus depicted the interaction gradient. Emergence rate and time increased with neighbour height in two of the four target species, while seedling survival and biomass significantly decreased with neighbour height in three and all four target species, respectively. We recorded a shift in seedling neighbour interactions under the tallest neighbours that largely favoured emergence but strongly depressed seedling survival and biomass. The components of recruitment were predicted to differ in their impact on later adult performance. Biomass strongly contributed to predicted seed production in three target species, and emergence had an equal or greater impact on a fourth species. These results confirm the fundamental role of plant–plant interactions in the recruitment of herbaceous species through a complex combination of habitat amelioration, which facilitates emergence and light competition, which in turn limits seedling survival and biomass.

Keywords

Competition Facilitation Seedling emergence Seedling growth Seedling survival 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The experiment conducted complied with French law. The authors are grateful to J. Richarte, E. Martinez, S. Villéger, C. Collin, J. Devaux, A. Blanchard and D. Degueldre for field assistance. They sincerely thank the ECOPAR group and O. Gimenez of the CEFE CNRS, M. Franco and an anonymous referee for their helpful comments and advice on earlier drafts of the manuscript. A.F. thanks A. Patry for help and encouragement throughout this project and invaluable corrections. This is a publication from the GEOTRAITS project (French National Programme ECCO-PNBC).

References

  1. Aarssen L, Keogh T (2002) Conundrums of competitive ability in plants: what to measure? Oikos 96:531–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bertness M, Callaway R (1994) Positive interactions in communities. Trends Ecol Evol 9:191–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bruno J, Stachowicz J, Bertness M (2003) Inclusion of facilitation into ecological theory. Trends Ecol Evol 18:119–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bullock J (2000) Gaps and seedling colonization. In: Fenner M (ed) Seeds: the ecology of regeneration in plant communities, 2nd edn edn. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
  5. Callaway R, Walker L (1997) Competition and facilitation: a synthetic approach to interactions in plant communities. Ecology 78:1958–1965Google Scholar
  6. Damgaard C (2004) Evolutionary ecology of plant-plant interactions. An empirical modelling approach. Aarhus University Press, Aarhus, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  7. DeSteven D (1991a) Experiments on mechanisms of tree establishment in old-field succession––seedling emergence. Ecology 72:1066–1075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DeSteven D (1991b) Experiments on mechanisms of tree establishment in old-field succession––seedling survival and growth. Ecology 72:1076–1088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eckstein R (2005) Differential effects of interspecific interactions and water availability on survival, growth and fecundity of three congeneric grassland herbs. New Phytol 166:525–536PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fenner M, Thompson K (2005) The ecology of seeds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  11. Foster B (1999) Establishment, competition and the distribution of native grasses among Michigan old-fields. J Ecol 87:476–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Freville H, Silvertown J (2005) Analysis of interspecific competition in perennial plants using life table response experiments. Plant Ecol 176:69–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Garnier E et al (2004) Plant functional markers capture ecosystem properties during secondary succession. Ecology 85:2630–2637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gaudet C, Keddy P (1988) A comparative approach to predicting competitive ability from plant traits. Nature 334:242–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goldberg D (1990) Components of resource competition in plant communities. In: Grace J, Tilman D (eds) Perspective on plant competition. Academic, San Diego, CA, pp 27–49Google Scholar
  16. Goldberg D, Turkington R, Olsvig-Whittaker L, Dyer A (2001) Density dependence in an annual plant community: variation among life history stages. Ecol Monogr 71:423–446Google Scholar
  17. Gross K, Werner P (1982) Colonizing abilities of “Biennial” plant species in relation to ground cover: implications for their distributions in a successional sere. Ecology 63:921–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grubb P (1977) Maintenance of species-richness in plant communities––importance of the regeneration niche. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 52:107–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harper J (1977) Population biology of plants. Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Hedges L, Gurevitch J, Curtis P (1999) The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology. Ecology 80:1150–1156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Holmgren M, Scheffer M, Huston M (1997) The interplay of facilitation and competition in plant communities. Ecology 78:1966–1975Google Scholar
  22. Kitajima K, Fenner M (2000) Ecology of seedling regeneration. In: Fenner M (ed) Seeds: the ecology of regeneration in plant communities, 2nd edn. CABI, Oxon, UKGoogle Scholar
  23. Leishman M (1999) How well do plant traits correlate with establishment ability? Evidence from a study of 16 calcareous grassland species. New Phytol 141:487–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Liancourt P, Callaway R, Michalet R (2005) Stress tolerance and competitive-response ability determine the outcome of biotic interactions. Ecology 86:1611–1618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McGill B, Enquist B, Weiher E, Westoby M (2006) Rebuilding community ecology from functional traits. Trends Ecol Evol 21:178–185PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Miriti M (2006) Ontogenetic shift from facilitation to competition in a desert shrub. J Ecol 94:973–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moles A, Westoby M (2004) What do seedlings die from and what are the implications for evolution of seed size? Oikos 106:193–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Navas M, Ducout B, Roumet C, Richarte J, Garnier J, Garnier E (2003) Leaf life span, dynamics and construction cost of species from Mediterranean old-fields differing in successional status. New Phytol 159:213–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rees M, Grubb P, Kelly D (1996) Quantifying the impact of competition and spatial heterogeneity on the structure and dynamics of a four-species guild of winter annuals. Am Nat 147:1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rousset O, Lepart J (2000) Positive and negative interactions at different life stages of a colonizing species. J Ecol 88:401–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Samson D, Werk K (1986) Size-dependent effects in the analysis of reproductive effort in plants. Am Nat 127:667–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schiffers K, Tielbörger K (2006) Ontogenetic shifts in interactions among annual plants. J Ecol 94:336–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schwinning S, Weiner J (1998) Mechanisms determining the degree of size asymmetry in competition among plants. Oecologia 113:447–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Suding K, Goldberg D (1999) Variation in the effects of vegetation and litter on recruitment across productivity gradients. J Ecol 87:436–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tremmel D, Bazzaz F (1993) How neighbour canopy architecture affects target plant performance. Ecology 74:2114–2124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Valiente-Banuet A, Vite F, Zavalahurtado J (1991) Interaction between the cactus Neobuxbaumia tetetzo and the nurse shrub Mimosa luisana. J Veg Sci 2:11–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Violle C, Lecoeur J, Navas M (2007) How relevant are instantaneous measurements for assessing resource depletion under plant cover? A test on light and soil water availability in 18 herbaceous communities. Funct Ecol 21:185–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Violle C, Richarte J, Navas M (2006) Effects of litter and standing biomass on growth and reproduction of two annual species in a Mediterranean old-field. J Ecol 94:196–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adeline Fayolle
    • 1
    Email author
  • Cyrille Violle
    • 1
  • Marie-Laure Navas
    • 2
  1. 1.CNRS, UMR Centre d’Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive (UMR 5175)Montpellier Cedex 5France
  2. 2.Montpellier SupAgro, UMR Centre d’Ecologie Fonctionnelle et EvolutiveMontpellier Cedex 1France

Personalised recommendations