Advertisement

Plant Ecology

, Volume 191, Issue 2, pp 171–184 | Cite as

Competition hierarchy, transitivity and additivity: investigating the effect of fertilisation on plant–plant interactions using three common bryophytes

  • Carsten F. DormannEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

The way competition structures plant communities has been investigated intensely over many decades. Dominance structures due to competitive hierarchies, with consequences for species richness, have not received as much experimental attention, since their manipulation is a large logistic undertaking. Here the data from a model system based on bryophytes are presented to investigate competition structure in a three-species system. Grown in monocultures, pairwise and three-species mixtures under no and high nitrogen supply, the three moss species responded strongly to treatment conditions. One of them suffered from nitrogen fertilisation and hence performed better in mixtures, where the dominant species provided physical shelter from apparently toxic nitrogen spray. Accordingly, no linear competitive hierarchy emerged and qualitative transitivity remains restricted to the unfertilised treatments. Faciliation also affected other properties of the competition structure. The reciprocity of competition effects could not be observed. Moreover, the performances in three-species mixtures were not well predictable from the knowledge of monocultures and pairwise mixtures because competitive effects were not additive. This had implications for community stability at equilibrium: all two-species systems were stable, both fertilised and unfertilised, while the three-species system was only stable when fertilised. This stability under fertilisation has probably to do with the facilitative effect of the two dominant species on the third. In this experiment, little support for commonly held ideas was found about the way competition in plant communities is structured. On the other hand, this study shows that moss communities are ideal model systems to test predictions of theoretical models concerning properties and consequences of competition in plant communities.

Keywords

Bryophytes Community matrix Competition Facilitation Lotka–Volterra Stability Transitivity 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I thank Nikolai Köbernic for his help in running and harvesting the experiment, Martin Freiberg, Matthias Schwieger and the staff of the Botanical Garden Leipzig for help with experimental setup, Carsten Vogt for logistic support and Christian Rixen for sharing his experience in moss blending. Comments by Justin Calabrese, Christian Rixen and two anonymous referees considerably improved a previous version of this manuscript.

References

  1. Aarssen LW (1988) ‘Pecking order’ of four plant species from pastures of different ages. Oikos 51:3–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Archibold OW (1994) Ecology of world vegetation. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Bauer S, Wyszomirski T, Berger U, Hildenbrandt H, Grimm V (2004) Asymmetric competition as a natural outcome of neighbour interactions among plants: results from the field-of-neighbourhood modelling approach. Plant Ecol 170:135–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bertness MD, Hacker SD (1994) Physical stress and positive associations among marsh plants. Am Natural 144:363–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brooker RW, Callaghan TV (1998) The balance between positive and negative plant interactions and its relationship to environmental gradients: a model. Oikos 81:196–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buss LW (1986) Competition and community organization on hard surfaces in the sea. In: Diamond JM, Case TJ (eds) Community ecology. Harper & Row, New York, pp 517–536Google Scholar
  7. Callaway RM, Brooker RW, Choler P, Kikvidze Z, Lortie CJ, Michalet R, Paolini L, Pugnaire FI, Newingham B, Aschehoug ET, Armas C, Kikodze D, Cook BJ (2002) Positive interactions among alpine plants increase with stress. Nature 417:844–848PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Case TJ (2000) An illustrated guide to theoretical ecology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Case TJ, Bender EA (1981) Testing for higher-order interactions. Am Natural 118:920–929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Connolly J, Wayne P, Bazzaz FA (2001) Interspecific competition in plants: how well do current methods answer fundamental questions? Am Natural 157:107–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Connolly J, Wayne P, Murray R (1990) Asymmetric competition between plant species. Oecologia 108:311–320Google Scholar
  12. Diamond JM (1986) Overview: Laboratory experiments, field experiments, and natural experiments. In: Diamond JM, Case TJ (eds) Community ecology. Harper & Row, New York, pp 3–22Google Scholar
  13. Dierßen K (2001) Distribution, ecological amplitude and phytosociological characterization of European bryophytes. J. Cramer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  14. Dormann CF, Roxburgh SH (2005) Experimental evidence rejects classical modelling approach to coexistence in plant communities. Proc R Soc London Ser B 272:1279–1285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fowler N (1981) Competiton and coexistence in a North Carolina grassland. II. The effect of the experimental removal of species. J Ecol 69:843–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frahm J-P, Frey W (1992) Moosflora, 3rd edn. Ulmer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  17. Frean M, Abraham ER (2001) Rock-scissors-paper and the survival of the weakest. Proc R Soc London Ser B 268:1323–1327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Freckleton RP, Watkinson AR (2000) Designs for greenhouse studies of interactions between plants: an analytical perspective. J Ecol 88:386–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Freckleton RP, Watkinson AR (2001a) Nonmanipulative determination of plant community dynamics. Trends Ecol Evol 16:301–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Freckleton RP, Watkinson AR (2001b) Predicting competition coefficients for plant mixtures: reciprocity, transitivity and correlations with life-history traits. Ecol Lett 4:348–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gaudet CL, Keddy PA (1988) A comparative approach to predicting competitive ability from plant traits. Nature 334:242–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gibson DJ, Connolly J, Hartnett DC, Weidenhamer JD (1999) Designs for greenhouse studies of interactions between species. J Ecol 87:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gleason HA (1926) The individualistic concept of plant association. Bull Torrey Bot Club 53:7–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goldberg DE (1994) Influence of competition at the community level: an experimental version of the null models approach. Ecology 75:1503–1506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goldberg DE, Landa K (1991) Competitive effect and response: hierarchies and correlated traits in the early stages of competition. J Ecol 79:1013–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Goldberg DE, Rajaniemi T, Gurevitch J, Stewart-Oaten A (1999) Empirical approaches to quantifying interaction intensity: competition and facilitation along productivity gradients. Ecology 80:1118–1131Google Scholar
  27. Goldberg DE, Turkington R, Olsvig Whittaker L (1995) Quantifying the community-level consequences of competition. Folia Geobot Phytotaxon 30:231–242Google Scholar
  28. Gotelli N (1995) A primer of ecology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Grace JB (1995) On the measurement of plant competition intensity. Ecology 76:305–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Grime JP (2001) Plant strategies and vegetation processes, 2nd edn. John Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  32. Hacker SD, Gaines SD (1997) Some implications of direct positive interactions for community species diversity. Ecology 78:1990–2003Google Scholar
  33. Hector A, Schmid B, Beierkuhnlein C, Caldeira MC, Diemer M, Dimitrakopoulos PG, Finn JA, Freitas H, Giller PS, Good J, Harris R, Högberg P, Huss-Danell K, Joshi J, Jumpponen A, Körner C, Leadley PW, Loreau M, Minns A, Mulder CPH, O’Donovan G, Otway SJ, Pereira JS, Prinz A, Read DJ, Scherer-Lorenzen M, Schulze E-D, Siamantziouras A-SD, Spehn EM, Terry AC, Troumbis AY, Woodward FI, Yachi S, Lawton JH (1999) Plant diversity and productivity experiments in European grasslands. Science 286:1123–1127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hubbell SP (2001) The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography. Princeton Univ. Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  35. Hutchings MH (1997) The structure of plant populations. In: Crawley MJ (ed) Plant ecology, 2nd edn. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 325–358Google Scholar
  36. Istock CA (1977) Logistic interaction of natural populations of two species of waterboatmen. Am Natural 111:279–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jones MLM, Oxley ERB, Ashenden TW (2002) The influence of nitrogen deposition, competition and desiccation on growth and regeneration of Racomitrium lanuginosum (Hedw.) Brid. Environ Pollut 120:371–378PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Keddy PA (1989) Competition. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  39. Keddy PA, Shipley B (1989) Competitive hierarchies in herbaceous plant communities. Oikos 54:234–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kokkoris GD, Jansen VAA, Loreau M, Troumbis AY (2002) Variability in interaction strength and implications for biodiversity. J Anim Ecol 71:362–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kokkoris GD, Troumbis AY, Lawton JH (1999) Patterns of species interaction strength in assembled theoretical competition communities. Ecol Lett 2:70–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kooijman AM, Bakker C (1995) Species replacement in the bryophyte layer in mires—the role of water type, nutrient supply and interspecific interactions. J Ecol 83:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lehman CL, Tilman D (2000) Biodiversity, stability, and productivity in competitive communities. Am Natural 156:534–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Levins R (1968) Evolution in changing environments. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  45. Loreau M (1998) Ecosystem development explained by competition within and between material cycles. Proc R Soc London Ser B 265:33–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Loreau M (2004) Does functional redundancy exist? Oikos 104:606–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Markham JH, Chanway CP (1996) Measuring plant neighbour effects. Funct Ecol 10:548–549Google Scholar
  48. McAlister S (1995) Species interactions and substrate-specificity among log-inhabiting bryophyte species. Ecology 76:2184–2195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mitchell RJ, Sutton MA, Truscott A-M, Leith ID, Cape JN, Pitcairn CER, Van Dijk N (2004) Growth and tissue nitrogen of epiphytic Atlantic bryophytes: effects of increased and decreased atmospheric N deposition. Funct Ecol 18:322–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mittelbach G, Steiner CF, Scheiner SM, Gross KL, Reynolds HL, Waide RB, Willig MR, Dobson SI, Gough L (2001) What is the observed relationship between species richness and productivity? Ecology 82:2381–2396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mulder CPH, Uliassi DD, Doak DF (2001) Physical stress and diversity–productivity relationships: the role of positive interactions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:6704–6708PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mulligan RC, Gignac LD (2002) Bryophyte community structure in a boreal poor fen II: interspecific competition among five mosses. Can J Bot-Revue Canadienne De Botanique 80:330–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Oksanen L (1990) Predation, herbivory, and plant strategies along gradients of primary productivity. In: Grace JB, Tilman D (eds) Perspectives in plant competition. Academic Press, London, pp 445–474Google Scholar
  54. R Development Core Team (2004) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R-project.org
  55. Rajaniemi TK (2003) Explaining productivity–diversity relationships in plants. Oikos 101:449–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rees M, Condit R, Crawley MJ, Pacala S, Tilman D (2001) Long-term studies of vegetation dynamics. Science 293:650–655PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rees M, Grubb PJ, 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 Natural 147:1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Richardson DHS (1981) The biology of mosses. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  59. Rixen C, Mulder CPH (2005) Improved water retention links high species richness with increased productivity in arctic tundra moss communities. Oecologia 146:287–299PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Roscher C, Schumacher J, Baade J, Wilcke W, Gleixner G, Weisser WW, Schmid B, Schulze ED (2004) The role of biodiversity for element cycling and trophic interactions: an experimental approach in a grassland community. Basic Appl Ecol 5:107–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Roxburgh SH, Wilson JB (2000) Stability and coexistence in a lawn community: mathematical prediction of stability using a community matrix with parameters derived from competition experiments. Oikos 88:395–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rozdilsky ID, Stone L (2001) Complexity can enhance stability in competitive systems. Ecol Lett 4:397–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Shipley B (1993) A null model for competitive hierarchies in competition matrices. Ecology 74:1693–1699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Solga A, Burkhardt J, Zechmeister HG, Frahm JP (2005) Nitrogen content, N-15 natural abundance and biomass of two pleurocarpous mosses Pleurozium schreberi (Brid.) Mitt. and Scleropodium purum (Hedw.) Limpr. in relation to atmospheric nitrogen deposition. Environ Pollut 134:465–473PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Steel JB, Wilson JB, Anderson BJ, Lodge RHE, Tangney RS (2004) Are bryophyte communities different from higher-plant communities? Abundance relations. Oikos 104:479–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tilman D (1982) Resource competition and community structure. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  67. Tilman D, Wedin D (1991) Plant traits and resource reduction for five grasses growing on a nitrogen gradient. Ecology 72:685–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tilman D, Wedin D, Knops J (1996) Productivity and sustainability influenced by biodiversity in grassland ecosystems. Nature 379:718–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tirado R, Pugnaire FI (2005) Community structure and positive interactions in constraining environments. Oikos 111:437–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. van der Hoeven EC, Korporaal M, Van Gestel E (1998) Effects of simulated shade on growth, morphology and competitive interactions in two pleurocarpous mosses. J Bryol 20:301–310Google Scholar
  71. Waide RB, Willig MR, Steiner CF, Mittelbach G, Gough L, Dodson SI, Juday GP, Parmenter R (1999) The relationship between productivity and species richness. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 30:257–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wedin DA, Tilman D (1993) Competition among grasses along a nitrogen gradient: initial conditions and mechanisms of competition. Ecol Monogr 63:199–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Weigelt A, Jolliffe P (2003) Indices of competition. J Ecol 91:707–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wilson JB, Roxburgh SH (1992) Application of community matrix theory to plant competition. Oikos 65:343–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wilson JB, Steel JB, Newman JE, Tangney RS (1995) Are bryophyte communities different? J Bryol 18:689–705Google Scholar
  76. Wilson WG, Lundberg P, Vázquez DP, Shurin JB, Smith MD, Langford W, Gross KL, Mittelbach GG (2003) Biodiversity and species interactions: extending Lotka–Volterra community theory. Ecol Lett 6:944–952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wootton JT (1994a) The nature and consequences of indirect effects in ecological communities. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 25:443–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wootton JT (1994b) Putting the pieces together—testing the independence of interactions among organisms. Ecology 75:1544–1551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Yoda K, Kira T, Ogawa H, Hozumi K (1963) Self-thinning in overcrowded pure stands under cultivated and natural conditions. J Biol, Osaka City Univ 14:107–129Google Scholar
  80. Zamfir M, Goldberg DE (2000) The effect of initial density on interactions between bryophytes at individual and community levels. J Ecol 88:243–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department Computational Landscape EcologyHelmholtz Centre for Environmental Research UFZLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations