Advertisement

Springer Nature is making Coronavirus research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Conspecific versus heterospecific litter effects on seedling establishment

  • 155 Accesses

  • 10 Citations

Abstract

Plant litter is an important determinant of seed germination and seedling establishment. Positive effects of litter have received considerable attention, but few studies have explicitly tested whether seedlings are more facilitated by conspecific litter compared to heterospecific litter. In order to contrast conspecific and heterospecific facilitative effects on seedling establishment, we used Anthriscus sylvestris, Angelica sylvestris, Pimpinella saxifraga and different combinations of their seeds and litter seedbeds as a model system. Although litter had a significant species-specific effect on seedling emergence, we found no evidence of strictly conspecific facilitation. Anthriscus sylvestris displayed a positive response to all types of litter. In contrast, there was a clear negative effect of conspecific litter in Pimpinella saxifraga. Activated carbon did not modify the negative effect, indicating that chemical compounds were not the cause. Our study suggests a high level of idiosyncrasy in response to litter at the species level.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Antonsen H, Olsson PA (2005) Relative importance of burning, mowing and species translocation in the restoration of a former boreal hayfield: responses of plant diversity and the microbial community. J Appl Ecol 42:337–347. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01023.x

  2. Berglund L (2004) Disturbance, nutrient availability and plant growth in phenol-rich plant communities. PhD thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå, Sweden

  3. Bertness MD, Callaway RM (1994) Positive interactions in communities. Trends Ecol Evol 9:191–193. doi:10.1016/0169-5347(94)90088-4

  4. Bonanomi G, Sicurezza MG, Caporaso S, Esposito A, Mazzoleni S (2006) Phytotoxicity dynamics of decaying plant materials. New Phytol 169:571–578. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2005.01611.x

  5. Bosy JL, Reader RJ (1995) Mechanisms underlying the suppression of forb seedling emergence by grass (Poa pratensis) litter. Funct Ecol 9:635–639. doi:10.2307/2390155

  6. Brearley FQ, Press MC, Scholes JD (2003) Nutrients obtained from leaf litter can improve the growth of dipterocarp seedlings. New Phytol 160:101–110. doi:10.1046/j.1469-8137.2003.00851.x

  7. Brooker RW, Maestre FT, Callaway RM, Lortie CL, Cavieres LA et al (2008) Facilitation in plant communities: the past, the present, and the future. J Ecol 96:18–34. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2745.2008.01373.x

  8. Bruno JF, Stachowicz JJ, Bertness MD (2003) Inclusion of facilitation into ecological theory. Trends Ecol Evol 18:119–125. doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(02)00045-9

  9. Buckland SM, Grime JP, Hodgson JG, Thompson K (1997) A comparison of plant responses to the extreme drought of 1995 in northern England. J Ecol 85:875–882. doi:10.2307/2960608

  10. Callaway RM (1995) Positive interactions among plants. Bot Rev 61:306–349. doi:10.1007/BF02912621

  11. Callaway RM, Aschehoug ET (2000) Invasive plants versus their new and old neighbors: A mechanism for exotic invasion. Science 290:521–523. doi:10.1126/science.290.5491.521

  12. Callaway RM, Walker LR (1997) Competition and facilitation: a synthetic approach to interactions in plant communities. Ecology 78:1958–1965

  13. Chapin FSIII, Matson PA, Mooney HA (2002) Principles of terrestrial ecosystem ecology. Springer, New York

  14. Darbyshire SJ, Hoeg R, Haverkort J (1999) The biology of Canadian weeds. 111. Anthriscus sylvestris (L.) Hoffm. Can J Plant Sci 79:671–682

  15. Donath TW, Eckstein RL (2008) Grass and oak litter exert different effects on seedling emergence of herbaceous perennials from grasslands and woodlands. J Ecol 96:272–280. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2745.2007.01338.x

  16. Facelli JM, Pickett STA (1991a) Plant litter: its dynamics and effects on plant community structure. Bot Rev 57:1–32. doi:10.1007/BF02858763

  17. Facelli JM, Pickett STA (1991b) Plant litter: light interception and effects on an old-field plant community. Ecology 72:1024–1031. doi:10.2307/1940602

  18. Flores-Martinez A, Ezcurra E, Sanchezcolon S (1994) Effect of Neobuxbaumia tetetzo on growth and fecundity of its nurse plant Mimosa luisana. J Ecol 82:325–330. doi:10.2307/2261300

  19. Franks SJ (2003) Competitive and facilitative interactions within and between two species of coastal dune perennials. Can J Bot 81:330–337. doi:10.1139/b03-023

  20. Friedman J (1995) Allelopathy, autotoxicity, and germination. In: Kigel J, Galili G (eds) Seed development and germination. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 629–644

  21. Garnier E, Cortez J, Billes G, Navas ML, Roumet C et al (2004) Plant functional markers capture ecosystem properties during secondary succession. Ecology 85:2630–2637. doi:10.1890/03-0799

  22. Grime JP (2001) Plant strategies, vegetation processes, and ecosystem properties. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester

  23. Grime JP, Hodgson JG, Hunt R (1988) Comparative plant ecology: a functional approach to common British species. Unwin Hyman, London

  24. Hamrick JL, Lee JM (1987) Effect of soil surface-topography and litter cover on the germination, survival, and growth of musk thistle (Carduus nutans). Am J Bot 74:451–457. doi:10.2307/2443821

  25. Hille M, den Ouden J (2005) Charcoal and activated carbon as adsorbate of phytotoxic compounds—a comparative study. Oikos 108:202–207. doi:10.1111/j.0030-1299.2005.13482.x

  26. Holmgren M, Scheffer M, Huston MA (1997) The interplay of facilitation and competition in plant communities. Ecology 78:1966–1975

  27. Hovstad KA, Ohlson M (2008) Physical and chemical effects of litter on seedling establishment in semi-natural grasslands. Plant Ecol 196:251–260. doi:10.1007/s11258-007-9349-y

  28. Hultén E, Fries M (1986) Atlas of north European vascular plants north of the tropic of cancer. Koeltz Scientific Books, Königstein

  29. Hunter AF, Aarssen LW (1988) Plants helping plants. Bioscience 38:34–40. doi:10.2307/1310644

  30. Jakobsson A, Eriksson O (2000) A comparative study of seed number, seed size, seedling size and recruitment in grassland plants. Oikos 88:494–502. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.880304.x

  31. Lacey EP, Herr D (2005) Phenotypic plasticity, parental effects, and parental care in plants? I. An examination of spike reflectance in Plantago lanceolata (Plantaginaceae). Am J Bot 92:920–930. doi:10.3732/ajb.92.6.920

  32. Lid J, Lid DT (1994) Norsk Flora, 6th edn. Det Norske Samlaget, Oslo

  33. Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger RD, Schabenberger O (2006) SAS for mixed models, 2nd edn. SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC

  34. Lortie CJ, Callaway RM (2006) Re-analysis of meta-analysis: support for the stress-gradient hypothesis. J Ecol 94:7–16. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2745.2005.01066.x

  35. Matthies D (2003) Positive and negative interactions among individuals of a root hemiparasite. Plant Biol 5:79–84. doi:10.1055/s-2003-37978

  36. Mattson JS, Mark HB (1971) Activated carbon. Surface chemistry and adsorption from solution. Marcel Dekker, New York

  37. McAuliffe JR (1984) Sahuaro-nurse tree associations in the Sonoran Desert—competitive effects of sahuaros. Oecologia 64:319–321. doi:10.1007/BF00379128

  38. McGill BJ, Enquist BJ, Weiher E, Westoby M (2006) Rebuilding community ecology from functional traits. Trends Ecol Evol 21:178–185. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2006.02.002

  39. Nilsson MC, Zackrisson O (1992) Inhibition of Scots pine seedling establishment by Empetrum hermaphroditum. J Chem Ecol 18:1857–1870. doi:10.1007/BF02751109

  40. Ohlson M, Grønli K (2006) Recruitment and growth in Aconitum septentrionale and Actaea spicata in relation to microbial soil communities manipulated by additions of glucose and nutrients. Flora 201:215–226

  41. Ohlson M, Økland RH, Nordbakken JF, Dahlberg B (2001) Fatal interactions between Scots pine and Sphagnum mosses in bog ecosystems. Oikos 94:425–432. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2001.940305.x

  42. Packer A, Clay K (2000) Soil pathogens and spatial patterns of seedling mortality in a temperate tree. Nature 404:278–281. doi:10.1038/35005072

  43. Perry LG, Thelen GC, Ridenour WM, Weir TL, Callaway RM, Paschke MW et al (2005) Dual role for an allelochemical: (±)-catechin from Centaurea maculosa root exudates regulates conspecific seedling establishment. J Ecol 93:1126–1135. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2745.2005.01044.x

  44. Quested H, Eriksson O (2006) Litter species composition influences the performance of seedlings of grassland herbs. Funct Ecol 20:522–532. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2435.2006.01131.x

  45. Reader RJ (1993) Control of seedling emergence by ground cover and seed predation in relation to seed size for some old-field species. J Ecol 81:169–175. doi:10.2307/2261232

  46. Rew LJ, Froud-Williams RJ, Boatman ND (1996) Dispersal of Bromus sterilis and Anthriscus sylvestris seed within arable field margins. Agric Ecosyst Environ 59:107–114. doi:10.1016/0167-8809(96)01038-9

  47. Roberts HA (1979) Periodicity of seedling emergence and seed survival in some Umbelliferae. J Appl Ecol 16:195–201. doi:10.2307/2402738

  48. SAS Institute (2008) SAS/STAT 9.2 user’s guide. SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC

  49. Silvertown J, Charlesworth D (2001) Introduction to plant population biology, 4th edn. Blackwell Science, Oxford

  50. Stinchcombe JR, Schmitt J (2006) Ecosystem engineers as selective agents: the effects of leaf litter on emergence time and early growth in Impatiens capensis. Ecol Lett 9:258–270. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00872.x

  51. Underwood AJ (1997) Experiments in ecology. Their logical design and interpretation using analysis of variance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  52. Van Mierlo JEM, Van Groenendael JM (1991) A population-dynamic approach to the control of Anthriscus sylvestris (L.) Hoffm. J Appl Ecol 28:128–139. doi:10.2307/2404120

  53. Wardle DA, Zackrisson O, Nilsson M-C (1998) The charcoal effect in Boreal forests: mechanisms and ecological consequences. Oecologia 115:419–426. doi:10.1007/s004420050536

  54. Wied A, Galen C (1998) Plant parental care: conspecific nurse effects in Frasera speciosa and Cirsium scopulorum. Ecology 79:1657–1668

  55. Wolf JB, Brodie EDIII, Cheverud JM, Moore AJ, Wade MJ (1998) Evolutionary consequences of indirect genetic effects. Trends Ecol Evol 13:64–69. doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(97)01233-0

  56. Xiong S, Nilsson C (1999) The effects of plant litter on vegetation: a meta-analysis. J Ecol 87:984–994. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2745.1999.00414.x

  57. Zackrisson O, Nilsson M-C, Wardle DA (1996) Key ecological function of charcoal from wildfire in the Boreal forest. Oikos 77:10–19. doi:10.2307/3545580

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Barbro Dahlberg for careful assistance, Ellen Sandberg for advice on the statistical analysis, and the Norwegian University of Life Sciences for support.

Author information

Correspondence to Knut Anders Hovstad.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hovstad, K.A., Ohlson, M. Conspecific versus heterospecific litter effects on seedling establishment. Plant Ecol 204, 33–42 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-008-9563-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Facilitation
  • Germination
  • Nurse effects
  • Plant litter
  • Positive interactions