Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 169, Issue 4, pp 1053–1062 | Cite as

Incorporating clonal growth form clarifies the role of plant height in response to nitrogen addition

  • Laura GoughEmail author
  • Katherine L. Gross
  • Elsa E. Cleland
  • Christopher M. Clark
  • Scott L. Collins
  • Joseph E. Fargione
  • Steven C. Pennings
  • Katharine N. Suding
Community ecology - Original research

Abstract

Nutrient addition to grasslands consistently causes species richness declines and productivity increases. Competition, particularly for light, is often assumed to produce this result. Using a long-term dataset from North American herbaceous plant communities, we tested whether height and clonal growth form together predict responses to fertilization because neither trait alone predicted species loss in a previous analysis. Species with a tall-runner growth form commonly increased in relative abundance in response to added nitrogen, while short species and those with a tall-clumped clonal growth form often decreased. The ability to increase in size via vegetative spread across space, while simultaneously occupying the canopy, conferred competitive advantage, although typically only the abundance of a single species within each height-clonal growth form significantly responded to fertilization in each experiment. Classifying species on the basis of two traits (height and clonal growth form) increases our ability to predict species responses to fertilization compared to either trait alone in predominantly herbaceous plant communities.

Keywords

Clonal growth Competition Grassland Nitrogen addition Productivity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the many researchers and technicians who originally collected these data, maintained the experiments, or contributed to the trait compilations, including: Gus Shaver (ARC); Chris Field, Hal Mooney, and Erika Zavaleta (JRG); Carol Baker (KBS); John Blair (KNZ); Terry Theodose (NWT); and Karen Wetherill (SEV). Significant funding for the collection of these data was provided by multiple grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF) to the LTER Network office and individual LTER sites and investigators including: DEB-9810222, DEB-1026843 and OPP-0909507 (ARC); DEB-0080382 (CDR); OCE-0620959 (CAR and GCE); DEB-0423627 and DEB-9810220 (KBS); DEB-0423662, DEB-1027341 and DEB-9810218 (NWT); DEB-0080529, DEB-8811906 and DEB-0620482 (SEV); and DEB-0217631 (SGS). Support for data collection in the Jasper Ridge Global Change Experiment was provided by NSF, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Morgan Family Foundation, and the Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve. Collaboration among the authors has been supported by cross-site synthesis grants from the LTER Network office and the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS), a Center funded by NSF (DEB-0553768), the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the State of California. K.L.G. was supported on a sabbatical fellowship from NCEAS during the final stages of preparing this manuscript; as part of that fellowship, NCEAS also provided funding for one group meeting of the co-authors.

Supplementary material

442_2012_2264_MOESM1_ESM.docx (102 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 101 kb)

References

  1. Baer SG, Blair JM, Collins SL, Knapp AK (2004) Plant community responses to resource availability and heterogeneity during restoration. Oecologia 139:617–629PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bobbink R, Hicks K, Galloway J, Spranger T, Alkemade R, Ashmore M et al (2010) Global assessment of nitrogen deposition effects on terrestrial plant diversity effects of terrestrial ecosystems: a synthesis. Ecol Appl 20:30–59PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Briske DD, Butler JL (1989) Density-dependent regulation of ramet populations within the bunchgrass Schizachyrium scoparium: interclonal versus intraclonal interference. J Ecol 77:963–974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Callaghan TV, Carlsson BÅ, Jónsdóttir IS, Svensson BM, Jonasson S (1992) Clonal plants and environmental change: introduction to the proceedings and summary. Oikos 63:341–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caraco T, Kelly CK (1991) On the adaptive value of physiological integration in clonal plants. Ecology 72:81–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cheplick GP (1997) Responses to severe competitive stress in a clonal plant: differences between genotypes. Oikos 79:581–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark CM, Cleland EE, Collins SL, Fargione JE, Gough L, Gross KL et al (2007) Environmental and plant community determinants of species loss following nitrogen enrichment. Ecol Lett 10:596–607PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cleland EE, Clark CM, Collins SL, Fargione JE, Gough L, Gross KL et al (2008) Species responses to nitrogen fertilization in herbaceous plant communities, and associated species traits (Data Publication). Ecology 89:1175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Collins SL, Suding KN, Cleland EE, Batty M, Pennings SC, Gross KL et al (2008) Rank clocks and community dynamics. Ecology 89:3534–3541PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Craine JM, Froehle J, Tilman GD, Wedin DA, Chapin FS (2001) The relationships among root and leaf traits of 76 grassland species and relative abundance along fertility and disturbance gradients. Oikos 93:274–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dalgliesh HJ, Kula AR, Hartnett DC, Sandercock BK (2008) Responses of two bunchgrasses to nitrogen addition in tallgrass prairie: the role of bud bank demography. Am J Bot 95:672–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Schrijver A, De Frenne P, Ampoorter E, Van Nevel L, Demey A, Wuyts K et al (2011) Cumulative nitrogen input drives species loss in terrestrial ecosystems. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. doi: 10.1111/j.1466-8238.2011.00652.x Google Scholar
  13. Dickson TL, Foster BL (2011) Fertilization decreases plant biodiversity even when light is not limiting. Ecol Lett 14:380–388PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eilts JA, Mittelbach GG, Reynolds HL, Gross KL (2011) Resource heterogeneity, soil fertility and species diversity: impacts of clonal species on plant communities. Am Nat 177:574–588PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Galloway JN, Townsend AR, Erisman JW, Bekunda M, Cai ZC, Freney JR et al (2008) Transformation of the nitrogen cycle: recent trends, questions and potential solutions. Science 320:889–892PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Golubski AJ, Gross KL, Mittelbach GG (2008) Competition among plant species that interact with their environment at different spatial scales. Proc R Soc Lond B 275:1897–1906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gough L, Osenberg CW, Gross KL, Collins SL (2000) Fertilization effects on species density and primary productivity in herbaceous plant communities. Oikos 89:428–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gough L, Goldberg DE, Hershock C, Pauliukonis N, Petru M (2002) Investigating the community consequences of competition among clonal plants. Evol Ecol 15:547–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grime JP (2001) Plant strategies, vegetation processes, and ecosystem properties, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Gross N, Suding KN, Lavorel S (2007) Leaf dry matter content and lateral spread predict response to land use change for six subalpine grassland species. J Veg Sci 18:289–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grubb PJ (1987) Some generalizing ideas about colonization and succession in green plants and fungi. In: Gray AJ, Crawley MJ, Edwards PJ (eds) Colonization, succession and stability. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 81–102Google Scholar
  22. Halassy M, Campetella G, Canullo R, Mucina L (2005) Patterns of functional clonal traits and clonal growth modes in contrasting grasslands of the central Apennines, Italy. J Veg Sci 16:29–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hartnett DC, Bazzaz FA (1985) The integration of neighborhood effects by clonal genets in Solidago canadensis. J Ecol 73:415–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hautier Y, Niklaus PA, Hector A (2009) Competition for light causes plant biodiversity loss after eutrophication. Science 324:636–638PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Herben T, Hara T (1997) Competition and spatial dynamics of clonal plants. In: de Kroon H, van Groenendael J (eds) The ecology and evolution of clonal plants. Backhuys, Leiden, pp 331–358Google Scholar
  26. Honsová D, Hejcman M, Klaudisová M, Pavlů V, Kocourková D, Hakl J (2007) Species composition of an alluvial meadow after 40 years of applying nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium fertilizer. Preslia 79:245–258Google Scholar
  27. Houseman GR, Mittelbach GG, Reynolds HL, Gross KL (2008) Perturbations alter community convergence, divergence, and formation of multiple community states. Ecology 89:2172–2180PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Humphrey LD, Pyke DA (1998) Demographic and growth responses of a guerilla and a phalanx perennial grass in competitive mixtures. J Ecol 86:854–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Huston MA (1997) Hidden treatments in ecological experiments: re-evaluating the ecosystem function of biodiversity. Oecologia 110:449–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Klimešová J, Klimeš L (2011) CLO-PLA3—database of clonal growth of plants from Central Europe. [WWW document] URL http://clopla.butbn.cas.cz/
  31. Knops JMH, Reinhart K (2000) Specific leaf area along a nitrogen fertilization gradient. Am Midl Nat 144:265–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. LeBauer DS, Treseder KK (2008) Nitrogen limitation of net primary productivity in terrestrial ecosystems is globally distributed. Ecology 89:371–379PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lenssen JPM, Hershock C, Speek T, During HJ, de Kroon H (2005) Experimental ramet aggregation in the clonal plant Agrostis stolonifera reduces its competitive ability. Ecology 86:1358–1365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lovett Doust L (1981) Population dynamics and local specialization in a clonal perennial (Ranunculus repens). I. The dynamics of ramets in contrasting habitats. J Ecol 69:743–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Oborny B, Kun A, Czaran T, Bokros S (2000) The effect of clonal integration on plant competition for mosaic habitat space. Ecology 81:3291–3304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pennings SC, Clark CM, Cleland EE, Collins SL, Gough L, Gross KL et al (2005) Do individual plant species show predictable responses to nitrogen addition across multiple experiments? Oikos 110:547–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Reynolds HL, Mittelbach GG, Darcy-Hall TL, Houseman GR, Gross KL (2007) No effect of varying soil resource heterogeneity on plant species richness in a low fertility grassland. J Ecol 95:723–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rusch GM, Wilmann B, Klimešová L, Evju M (2010) Do clonal and bud bank traits vary in correspondence with soil properties and resource acquisition strategies? Patterns in alpine communities in the scandian mountains. Folia Geobot. doi: 10.1007/s12224-010-9072-7 Google Scholar
  39. Sammul M, Kull K, Tamm A (2003) Clonal growth in a species-rich grassland: results of a 20-year fertilization experiment. Folia Geobot 38:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schmid B, Harper JL (1985) Clonal growth in grassland perennials. I. Density and pattern dependent competition between plants with different growth forms. J Ecol 73:793–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shaver GR, Bret-Harte SM, Jones MH, Johnstone J, Gough L, Laundre J et al (2001) Species composition interacts with fertilizer to control long-term change in tundra productivity. Ecology 82:3163–3181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stuefer JF, During HJ, de Kroon H (1994) High benefits of clonal integration in two stoloniferous species in response to heterogeneous light environments. J Ecol 82:511–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Suding KN, Collins SL, Gough L, Clark C, Cleland EE, Gross KL et al (2005) Functional- and abundance-based mechanisms explain diversity loss due to N fertilization. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:4387–4392PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Thomas RG, Hay MJM (2010) The role of nodal roots in prostrate clonal herbs: ‘phalanx’ versus ‘guerilla’. Evol Ecol 24:1489–1504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tilman D (1987) Secondary succession and the pattern of plant dominance along experiment nitrogen gradients. Ecol Monogr 57:189–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Van Staalduinen MA, During H, Werger MJA (2007) Impact of grazing regime on a Mongolian forest steppe. Appl Veg Sci 10:299–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Welker JM, Briske DD (1992) Clonal biology of the temperate, caespitose graminoid Schizachyrium scoparium: a synthesis with reference to climate change. Oikos 63:357–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wilson SD, Tilman D (1993) Plant competition and resource availability in response to disturbance and fertilization. Ecology 74:599–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wright IJ, Reich PB, Westoby M (2001) Strategy-shifts in leaf physiology, structure and nutrient content between species of high and low rainfall, and high and low nutrient habitats. Funct Ecol 15:423–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zobel M, Moora M, Herben T (2010) Clonal mobility and its implications for spatio-temporal patterns of plant communities: what do we need to know next? Oikos 119:802–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura Gough
    • 1
    Email author
  • Katherine L. Gross
    • 2
  • Elsa E. Cleland
    • 3
  • Christopher M. Clark
    • 4
  • Scott L. Collins
    • 5
  • Joseph E. Fargione
    • 6
  • Steven C. Pennings
    • 7
  • Katharine N. Suding
    • 8
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of Texas at ArlingtonArlingtonUSA
  2. 2.W. K. Kellogg Biological Station and Department of Plant BiologyMichigan State UniversityHickory CornersUSA
  3. 3.Ecology Behavior and Evolution SectionUniversity of California San DiegoLa JollaUSA
  4. 4.Office of Research and Development, US EPA (8601-P)WashingtonUSA
  5. 5.Department of Biology, MSC03-2020University of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA
  6. 6.The Nature ConservancyMinneapolisUSA
  7. 7.Department of Biology and BiochemistryUniversity of HoustonHoustonUSA
  8. 8.Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and ManagementUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations