Plant Ecology

, Volume 216, Issue 10, pp 1469–1479 | Cite as

What makes a plant species specialist in mixed broad-leaved deciduous forests?

  • Aleksander Marinšek
  • Andraž Čarni
  • Urban Šilc
  • Michael Manthey
Article

Abstract

Knowledge about relationships between specialization degree of species, i.e. the width of their realized niche and functional traits, may have important implications for the assessment of future population developments under environmental change. In this study, we used a recently introduced method to calculate ecological niche widths of plant species in mixed broad-leaved deciduous forests and to investigate the dependence between niche widths of plants and their functional traits and Ellenberg indicator values. The research is based on a dataset of 4556 phytosociological relevés of mixed broad-leaved deciduous forests in Slovenia. We calculated theta indices for 326 species, which ranks them along a continuous gradient of habitat specialization. For 272 species, we compiled 26 functional traits and Ellenberg indicator values. We found some significant correlations between theta indices of species and their functional traits and Ellenberg indicator values; habitat specialists thrive primarily on the highest altitudes, on colder, dry sites and achieve the age of first flowering later than generalists. They also have smaller seed diameter, lower leaf dry matter content, lower mean canopy height and bigger specific leaf area than generalists. Two species groups, chamaephytes and spring green species, are particularly characterized as specialist species. The added value of our work is in complementing the knowledge about the niche differentiating along different environmental gradients and species coexistence in mixed broad-leaved deciduous forests.

Keywords

Niche width Functional traits Ecological indicator value Habitat specialism Deciduous forest Vegetation ecology 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Martin Cregeen and Urša Marinšek who kindly reviewed our English. We would also like to thank two anonymous referees whose comments improved the manuscript. This work was funded by the ARRS (Slovenian Research Agency) Grant P1-0236.

Supplementary material

11258_2015_527_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (162 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 161 kb)
11258_2015_527_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (63 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (pdf 62 kb)

References

  1. Abadie JC, Machon N, Muratet A, Porcher E (2011) Landscape disturbance causes small-scale functional homogenization, but limited taxonomic homogenization, in plant communities. J Ecol 99:1134–1142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albert CH, Thuiller W, Yoccoz NG, Soudant A, Boucher F, Saccone P, Lavorel S (2010) Intraspecific functional variability: extent, structure and sources of variation. J Ecol 98:604–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bazzaz FA (1991) Habitat selection in plants. Am Nat 137:S116–S130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bennett KD, Tzedakis C, Willis KJ (1991) Quaternary refugia of north European trees. J Biogeogr 18:103–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Botta-Dukát Z (2012) Co-occurrence-based measure of species’ habitat specialization: robust, unbiased estimation in saturated communities. J Veg Sci 23(2):201–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boenigk J, Wodniok S, Glücksman E (2015) Biodiversity and earth history. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boulangeat I, Lavergne S, Van Es J, Garraud L, Thuiller W (2012) Niche breadth, rarity and ecological characteristics within a regional flora spanning large environmental gradients. J Biogeogr 39:204–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Braun-Blanquet J (1964) Pflanzensoziologie. Grundzüge der Vegetationskunde, 3rd edn. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chytrý M (2013) LB Carpino-Fagetea Jakucs ex Passarge 1968. In: Chytrý M (ed) Vegetation of the Czech Republic 4. Forest and shrub vegetation. Academia, Praha, pp 194–198Google Scholar
  10. Čarni A, Juvan N, Košir P, Marinšek A, Paušič A, Šilc U (2011) Plant communities in gradients. Plant Biosyst 145(Supp. 1):54–64Google Scholar
  11. Chabrerie O, Loinard J, Perrin S, Saguez R, Decocq G (2010) Impact of Prunus serotina invasion on understory functional diversity in a European temperate forest. Biol Invasions 12:1891–1907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clavel J, Julliard R, Devictor V (2011) Worldwide decline of specialist species: toward a global functional homogenization? Front Ecol Environ 9(4):222–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Colles A, Liow HL, Prinzing A (2009) Are specialists at risk under environmental change? Neoecological, paleoecological and phylogenetic approaches. Ecol Lett 12(8):849–863PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Crawley MJ (1997) The structure of plant communities. Plant ecology, 2nd edition, Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Cunningham SA, Summerhayes B, Westoby M (1999) Evolutionary divergences in leaf structure and chemistry, comparing rainfall and soil nutrient gradients. Ecol Monogr 69:569–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Devictor V, Clavel J, Julliard R, Lavergne S, Mouillot D, Thuiller W, Venail P, Villéger S, Mouquet N (2010) Defining and measuring ecological specialization. J Appl Ecol 47:15–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ellenberg H, Weber HE, Dull R, Wirth V, Werner W, Paulisen D (1992) Zeigerwerte von Pflanzen in Mitteleuropa. Scripta Geobotanica, 18, Goltze Verlag, GöttingenGoogle Scholar
  18. Elton C (1927) Animal ecology. Sidgwick and Jackson, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Fajmonová Z, Zelený D, Syrovátka V, Vončina G, Háyek M (2013) Distribution of habitat specialists in semi-natural grasslands. J Veg Sci 24:616–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Futuyma DJ, Moreno G (1988) The evolution of ecological specialization. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 19:207–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fridley JD, Vandermast DB, Kuppinger DM, Manthey M, Peet RK (2007) Co-occurrence based assessment of habitat generalists and specialists: a new approach for the measurement of niche width. J Ecol 95:707–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gaston KJ, Blackburn TM, Lawton JH (1997) Interspecific abundance range size relationships: an appraisal of mechanisms. J Anim Ecol 66:579–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Graae BJ, Sunde PB (2000) The impact of forest continuity and management on forest floor vegetation evaluated by species traits. Ecography 23:720–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grinnell J (1917) The niche relationship of the California trasher. Auk 34:427–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gitay H, Noble IR (1997) What are functional types and how should we seek them? In: Woodward F (ed) Plant functional types—their relevance to ecosystem properties and global change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 3–19Google Scholar
  26. Hill MO, Gauch HG (1980) Detrended correspondence analysis: an improved ordination technique. Vegetatio 42:47–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Horn HS (1966) The measurement of ‘overlap’ in comparative ecological studies. Am Nat 100:419–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hutchinson GE (1957) Concluding remarks. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol 22:415–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Klotz S, Kühn I, Durka W (2002) BIOLFLOR—Eine Datenbank mit biologisch-ökologischen Merkmalen zur Flora von Deutschland. Schr.reihe Veg.kd 38:1–334Google Scholar
  30. Kleyer M, Bekker RM, Knevel IC et al (2008) The LEDA traitbase: a database of life-history traits of the Northwest European flora. J Ecol 96:1266–1274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kluge J, Kessler M (2011) Influence of niche characteristics and forest type on fern species richness, abundance and plant size along an elevational gradient in Costa Rica. Plant Ecol 212:1109–1121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Komac M (2005) Statistics of the geological map of Slovenia at scale 1: 250,000. Geologia 48(1):117–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lavorel S, McIntyre S, Landsberg J, Forbes TDA (1997) Plant functional classifications: from general groups to specific groups based on response to disturbance. Trends Ecol Evol 12:474–478CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. MacArthur RH (1972) Geographical ecology. Harper & Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Magri D, Vendramin GG, Comps B, Dupanloup I, Geburek T, Gomory D, Latalowa M, Litt T, Paule L, Roure JM, Tantau I, van der Knaap WO, Petit RJ, de Beaulieu JL (2006) A new scenario for the Quaternary history of European beech populations: palaeobotanical evidence and genetic consequences. New Phytol 171(1):199–221CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Manthey M, Fridley JD (2009) Beta diversity metrics and the estimation of niche width via species co-occurrence data: reply to Zeleny. J Ecol 97:18–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Manthey M, Fridley JD, Peet RK (2011) Niche expansion after competitor extinction? A comparative assessment of habitat generalists and specialists in the tree floras of south-eastern North America and south-eastern Europe. J Biogeogr 38:840–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Marinček L, Čarni A (2002) Commentary to the vegetation map of forest communities of Slovenia in a scale of 1:400,000. ZRC SAZU, LjubljanaGoogle Scholar
  39. Médail F, Diadema K (2009) Glacial refugia influence plant diversity patterns in the Mediterranean Basin. J Biogeogr 36:1333–1345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Petit RJ, Brewer S, Bordács S et al (2002) Identification of refugia and post-glacial colonisation routes of European white oaks based on chloroplast DNA and fossil pollen evidence. For Ecol Manag 156:49–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rannap R, Lõhmus A, Briggs L (2009) Niche position, but not niche breadth, differs in two coexisting amphibians having contrasting trends in Europe. Divers Distrib 15:692–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. R Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/
  43. Rooney TP, Wiegmann SM, Rogers DA, Waller DM (2004) Biotic impoverishment and homogenization in unfragmented forest understory communities. Conserv Biol 18:787–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Slatyer RA, Hirst M, Sexton JP (2013) Niche breadth predicts geographical range size: a general ecological pattern. Ecol Lett 16:1104–1114CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Stevens GC (1992) The latitudinal gradient in altitudinal range: an extension of Rapoport’s latitudinal rule to altitude. Am Nat 140:893–911CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Šilc U (2012) Vegetation Database of Slovenia, short database report. In: Dengler J, Chytrý M, Ewald J. Finckh M, Jansen F, Lopez-Gonzalez G, Oldeland J, Peet RK, Schaminée JHJ (eds.): Vegetation databases for the 21st century. Biodivers Ecol 4:428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Šilc U, Lososová Z, Vrbničanin S (2014) Weeds shift from generalist to specialist: narrowing of ecological niches along a north-south gradient. Preslia 86:35–46Google Scholar
  48. Thompson K, Hodgson JG, Gaston KJ (1998) Abundance-range size relationship in the herbaceous flora of central England. J Ecol 86:439–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tichý L (2002) JUICE, software for vegetation classification. J Veg Sci 13:451–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Trinajstić I (1992) A contribution to the phytogeographical classification of the Illyrian floral element. Acta Bot Croat 51:135–142Google Scholar
  51. Trinajstić I (1997) Phytogeographical analysis of the illyricoid floral element. Acta Biol Slov 41(2–3):77–85Google Scholar
  52. Tutin TG, Burges NA, Chater AO, Edmondson JR, Heywood VH, Moore DM, Valentine DH, Walters SM, Webb DA (1993) Flora Europaea, vol 1. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  53. Tutin TG, Heywood VH, Burges NA, Moore DM, Valentine DH, Walters SM, Webb DA (1964–1980). Flora Europaea, vol 2–5. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  54. Violle C, Jiang L (2009) Towards a trait-based quantification of species niche. J Plant Ecol 2:87–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Weiher E, van der Werf A, Thompson K, Roderick M, Garnier E, Eriksson O (1999) Challenging Theophrastus: a common core list of plant traits for functional ecology. J Veg Sci 10:609–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Willner W, Di Pietro R, Bergmeier E (2009) Phytogeographical evidence for post-glacial dispersal limitation of European beech forest species. Ecography 32(6):1011–1018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wright IJ, Westoby M, Reich PB (2002) Convergence towards higher leaf mass per area in dry and nutrient-poor habitats has different consequences for leaf life span. J Ecol 90:534–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wuenscher JE (1969) Niche specification and competition modelling. J Theor Biol 25:436–443CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Zelený D (2009) Co-occurrence based assessment of species habitat specialization is affected by the size of species pool: reply to Fridley, (2007). J Ecol 97:10–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zelený D, Li CF, Chytrý M (2010) Pattern of local plant species richness along a gradient of landscape topographical heterogeneity: result of spatial mass effect or environmental shift? Ecography 33:578–589Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Slovenian Forestry InstituteLjubljanaSlovenia
  2. 2.Institute of Biology, Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and ArtsLjubljanaSlovenia
  3. 3.Biotechnical Centre NakloNakloSlovenia
  4. 4.Institute of Botany and Landscape EcologyErnst-Moritz-Arndt UniversityGreifswaldGermany

Personalised recommendations