Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 164, Issue 3, pp 751–761 | Cite as

Drought negatively affects communities on a foundation tree: growth rings predict diversity

  • Adrian C. Stone
  • Catherine A. Gehring
  • Thomas G. Whitham
Community ecology - Original Paper

Abstract

Understanding how communities respond to extreme climatic events is important for predicting the impact of climate change on biodiversity. The plant vigor and stress hypotheses provide a theoretical framework for understanding how arthropods respond to stress, but are rarely tested at the community level. Following a record drought, we compared the communities of arthropods on pinyon pine (Pinus edulis) that exhibited a gradient in physical traits related to environmental stress (e.g., growth rate, branch dieback, and needle retention). Six patterns emerged that show how one of the predicted outcomes of climate change in the southwestern USA (i.e., increased drought severity) alters the communities of a foundation tree species. In accordance with the plant vigor hypothesis, increasing tree stress was correlated with an eight to tenfold decline in arthropod species richness and abundance. Trees that were more similar in their level of stress had more similar arthropod communities. Both foliage quantity and quality contributed to arthropod community structure. Individual species and feeding groups differed in their responses to plant stress, but most were negatively affected. Arthropod richness (r 2 = 0.48) and abundance (r 2 = 0.48) on individual trees were positively correlated with the tree’s radial growth during drought. This relationship suggests that tree ring analysis may be used as a predictor of arthropod diversity, which is similar to findings with ectomycorrhizal fungi. A contrast of our findings on arthropod abundance with published data on colonization by mutualistic fungi on the same trees demonstrates that at low stress these two communities respond differently, but at high stress both are negatively affected. These results suggest that the effect of extreme climatic events such as drought on foundation tree species are likely to decrease multi-trophic diversity and shift arthropod community composition, which in turn could cascade to affect other associated taxa.

Keywords

Arthropod community Drought stress Multi-trophic comparisons Pinus edulis Tree rings 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Randy Swaty, Crescent Scudder, Brandon Scott, Neil Cobb, Peter Price and members of the Whitham and Gehring lab groups. Funding was provided by NSF grants DEB-0236204, DEB-0087017, DEB-0415563, and DEB-0816675. Special thanks to the Sunset Crater National Monument and the United States Forest Service staff for their cooperation. This research complies with current laws and policies of the Coconino National Forest, USA.

References

  1. Abensperg-Traun M et al (1996) The effects of habitat fragmentation and livestock-grazing on animal communities in remnants of gimlet Eucalyptus salubris woodland in the Western Australian wheatbelt. I. Arthropods. J Appl Ecol 33:1281–1301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen CD, Breshears DD (1998) Drought-induced shift of a forest–woodland ecotone: rapid landscape response to climate variation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:14839–14842CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bangert RK et al (2006) A genetic similarity rule determines arthropod community structure. Mol Ecol 15:1379–1392CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bangert RK et al (2008) Genetic structure of a foundation species: scaling community phenotypes from the individual to the region. Heredity 100:121–131CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Barbour RC et al (2009) A geographic mosaic of genetic variation within a foundation tree species and its community-level consequences. Ecology 90:1762–1772CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Breshears DD et al (2005) Regional vegetation die-off in response to global-change-type drought. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:15144–15148CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Brumwell LJ et al (1998) Litter spiders and carabid beetles in a successional Douglas-fir forest in British Colombia. Northwest Sci 72:94–95Google Scholar
  8. Chen S et al (1997) Genotypic variation in drought tolerance of poplar in relation to abscisic acid. Tree Phys 17:797–803Google Scholar
  9. Cobb NS et al (1997) Increased moth herbivory associated with environmental stress of pinyon pine at local and regional scales. Oecologia 109:389–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Convey P et al (2003) Soil arthropods as indicators of water stress in Antarctic terrestrial habitats? Glob Chang Biol 9:1713–1718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dayton PK (1972) Toward an understanding of community resilience and the potential effects of enrichments to the benthos at McMurdo Sound, Antarctica. In: Parker BC (ed) Proceedings of the colloquium on conservation problems in Antarctica. Allen Press, Lawrence, pp 81–95Google Scholar
  12. Douglas ME, Endler JA (1982) Quantitative matrix comparisons in ecological and evolutionary investigations. J Theor Biol 99:777–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dutilleul P et al (2000) The Mantel test versus Pearson’s correlation analysis: assessment of the differences for biological and environmental studies. J Agric Biol Environ Stat 5:131–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ellison AM et al (2005) Loss of foundation species: consequences for the structure and dynamics of forested ecosystems. Front Ecol Environ 3:479–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Faulkner BC, Lochmiller RL (2000) Increased abundance of terrestrial isopod populations in terrestrial ecosystems contaminated with petrochemical wastes. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 39:86–90CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Fritts HC (1976) Tree rings and climate, 1st edn. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Fritts HC, Swetnam TW (1989) Dendroecology: a tool for evaluating variations in past and present forest environments. Adv Ecol Res 19:111–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gitlin AR et al (2006) Mortality gradients within and among dominant plant populations as barometers of ecosystem change during extreme drought. Conserv Biol 20:1477–1486CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Horton JL et al (2001) Physiological response to groundwater depth varies among species and with river flow regulation. Ecol Appl 11:1046–1059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Inbar M et al (2001) Suitability of stressed and vigorous plants to various insect herbivores. Oikos 94:228–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007) Climate change 2007 synthesis report. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnson NC et al (1997) Functioning of mycorrhizal associations along the mutualism–parasitism continuum. New Phytol 135:575–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lightfoot DC, Whitford WG (1989) Interplant variation in creosotebush foliage characteristics and canopy arthropods. Oecologia 81:166–175Google Scholar
  24. Lightfoot DC, Whitford WG (1991) Productivity of creosotebush foliage and associated canopy arthropods along a desert roadside. Am Midl Nat 125:310–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maleque MA et al (2006) The use of arthropods as indicators of ecosystem integrity in forest management. J For 104:113–117Google Scholar
  26. McCune B, Mefford MJ (1999) Multivariate analysis of ecological data. PCORD version 4.14. MjM software. Gleneden Beach, OregonGoogle Scholar
  27. McMillin JD, Wagner MR (1995) Season and intensity of water stress: host-plant effects on larval survival and fecundity of Neodiprion gillettei (Hymenoptera: diprionidae). Environ Entomol 24:1251–1257Google Scholar
  28. Miller G et al (1995) Terrestrial ecosystem survey of the Coconino National Forest. US Department of Agriculture, AlbuquerqueGoogle Scholar
  29. Morrow PA, LaMarche VP (1978) Tree ring evidence for chronic insect suppression of productivity in subalpine Eucalyptus. Science 201:1244–1246CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Mueller RC et al (2005) Differential tree mortality in response to severe drought: evidence for long-term vegetation shifts. J Ecol 93:1085–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). NCDC home page. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov Accessed 4 April 2004
  32. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (US Department of Commerce). NOAA home page. http://www.noaa.gov. Accessed 4 April 2004
  33. Ogle K et al (2000) Tree-ring variation in pinyon predicts likelihood of death following severe drought. Ecology 81:3237–3243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Parmesan C (2006) Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 37:637–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Price PW (1991) The plant vigor hypothesis and herbivore attack. Oikos 62:244–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Price PW (2003) Macroevolutionary theory in macroevolutionary patterns. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  37. Recher HF et al (1996) Eucalypts, arthropods and birds: on the relation between foliar nutrients and species richness. For Ecol Manage 85:177–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rehfeldt GE et al (2006) Empirical analyses of plant–climate relationships for the western United States. Int J Plant Sci 167:1123–1150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rhoades DF (1985) Offensive–defensive interactions between herbivores and plants: their relevance in herbivore population dynamics and ecological theory. Am Nat 125:205–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Risser PG (1995) Biodiversity and ecosystem function. Conserv Biol 9:742–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. SAS (2000) JMP 4.0. SAS Institute, CaryGoogle Scholar
  42. Schowalter TD et al (1999) Diversity of arthropod responses to host-plant water stress in a desert ecosystem in Southern New Mexico. Am Midl Nat 142:281–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Scudder CM (2005) Negative impacts of drought on arthropods: community-level consequences of climate change. Master’s thesis, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, ArizonaGoogle Scholar
  44. Seager R et al (2007) Model projections of an imminent transition to a more arid climate in southwestern North America. Science 316:1181–1184CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Sthultz CM et al (2009) Deadly combination of genes and drought: increased mortality of herbivore-resistant trees in a foundation species. Glob Chang Biol 15:1949–1961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Swaty RL et al (1998) Temporal variation in temperature and rainfall differentially affects ectomycorrhizal colonization at two contrasting sites. New Phytol 139:733–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Swaty RL et al (2004) Ectomycorrhizal abundance and community composition shifts with drought: predictions from tree rings. Ecology 85:1072–1084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Swetnam TW, Lynch AM (1993) Multicentury, regional-scale patterns of western spruce budworm outbreaks. Ecol Monogr 63:399–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Swetnam TW et al (1988) Using dendrochronology to measure radial growth of defoliated trees. Agricultural handbook number 639. USDA Forest ServiceGoogle Scholar
  50. Tovar-Sanchez E et al (2004) Canopy arthropod communities on Mexican oaks at sites with different disturbance regimes. Biol Conserv 115:79–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Trotter RT et al (2002) Herbivory, plant resistance, and climate in the tree ring record: interactions distort climatic reconstructions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:10197–10202CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Trotter RT et al (2008) Arthropod community diversity and trophic structure: a comparison between extremes of plant stress. Ecol Entomol 33:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Turtola S et al (2003) Drought stress alters the concentration of wood terpenoids in Scots pine and Norway spruce seedlings. J Chem Ecol 29:1981–1996CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. van Mantgem PJ, Stephenson NL, Byrne JC, Daniels LD, Franklin JF, Fulé PZ, Harmon ME, Larson AJ, Smith JM, Taylor AH et al (2009) Widespread increase of tree mortality rates in the western United States. Science 323:521–524CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Walcroft AS et al (2002) The effects of long-term, partial shading on growth and photosynthesis in Pinus radiata D. Don trees. For Ecol Manage 163:151–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Waring GL, Cobb NS (1992) The impact of plant stress on herbivore population dynamics. In: Bernays EA (ed) Insect–plant interactions. CRC, Boca Raton, pp 167–226Google Scholar
  57. Weaver JC (1995) Indicator species and scale of observation. Conserv Biol 9:939–942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. West NE (1984) Successional patterns and productivity potentials of pinyon–juniper ecosystems. Developing strategies for range management: a report. Westview Press, Boulder, pp 1301–1332Google Scholar
  59. White TCR (1969) An index to measure weather-induced stress of trees associated with outbreaks of psyllids in Australia. Ecology 50:905–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. White TCR (1976) Weather, food and plagues of locusts. Oecologia 22:119–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. White TCR (1984) The abundance of invertebrate herbivores in relation to the availability of nitrogen in stressed food plants. Oecologia 63:90–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. White TCR (2009) Plant vigour versus plant stress: a false dichotomy. Oikos 118:807–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Whitham TG et al (2003) Community and ecosystem genetics: a consequence of the extended phenotype. Ecology 84:559–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wimp GM, Whitham TG (2001) Biodiversity consequences of predation and host plant hybridization on an aphid–ant mutualism. Ecology 82:440–452Google Scholar
  65. Wimp GM, Wooley S, Bangert RK, Young WP, Martinsen GD, Keim P, Rehill B, Lindroth RL, Whitham TG (2007) Plant genetics predicts intra-annual variation in phytochemistry and arthropod community structure. Mol Ecol 16:5057–5069CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adrian C. Stone
    • 1
    • 2
  • Catherine A. Gehring
    • 1
    • 2
  • Thomas G. Whitham
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesNorthern Arizona UniversityFlagstaffUSA
  2. 2.Merriam-Powell Center for Environmental ResearchFlagstaffUSA

Personalised recommendations