Folia Geobotanica

, Volume 48, Issue 2, pp 189–207 | Cite as

Spatial Pattern and Temporal Dynamics of Bryophyte Assemblages in Saline Grassland

  • Péter Ódor
  • Erzsébet Szurdoki
  • Zoltán Botta-Dukát
  • Beáta Papp
Article

Abstract

Dynamics of bryophyte assemblages of saline grassland were studied in Hungary. A survey was carried out in two permanent plots by annual sampling of 0.25-m2 quadrats over a 9-year period. The study investigated: i) the extent of spatial and temporal dependence of the assemblages and individual species; ii) the turnover of individual species and its relationship to life-strategy types and iii) the effect of annual weather conditions on species performance. One of the plots showed succession; the frequency of some perennial species increased, while that of some short-lived species decreased; this process was independent of local weather conditions. The other plot showed a non-directional fluctuation, which was partly related to precipitation in winter and early spring. The spatial and temporal dependence of this assemblage was low; many short-lived species had a high turnover in the studied community. In stable periods, neutral dynamic processes characterize the bryophyte assemblages of the studied saline grassland and the occurrences of species were more or less independent in space and time. Short-lived species showed high fluctuations and were probably influenced by weather conditions or other factors. However, the frequency of perennial species, which were influenced by local conditions, could directionally change displacing the short-lived ones during succession. The relationships between turnover and life-strategy types were weak, both the group of colonist and shuttle species were dynamically heterogeneous. Longer observations are needed for a clearer exploration of the relationships between vegetation changes and weather conditions.

Keywords

Dynamics Mosses Permanent plots Spatial dependence Succession 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the managing editor (Petr Šmilauer), two anonymous reviewers and János Podani for their comments to improve an earlier version of the manuscript and Neil Lockhart for linguistic revision. The study was financed by the Hungarian Biodiversity Monitoring System (Ministry of Rural Development, Hungary). P.Ó. was supported by Hungarian Science Foundation (OTKA 68218), and the Bolyai Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. The authors are grateful to the Directorate of Kiskunság National Parks for permissions and data support.

References

  1. Aude E, Ejrnaes R (2005) Bryophyte colonisation in experimental microcosms: the role of nutrients, defoliation and vascular vegetation. Oikos 109:323–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bergamini A, Pauli D, Peintinger M, Schmid B (2001) Relationships between productivity, number of shoots and number of species in bryophytes and vascular plants. J Ecol 89:920–929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borhidi A (2003) Magyarország növénytársulásai (Hungarian plant communities). Akadémiai Kiadó, BudapestGoogle Scholar
  4. Council of European Communities (1992) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Off J Eur Communities 35:7–50Google Scholar
  5. Dövényi Z (2010) Magyarország Kistájainak katasztere (Cadastre of Hungarian regions). MTA Földrajztudományi Kutatóintézet, BudapestGoogle Scholar
  6. During HJ (1979) Life strategies of bryophytes: a preliminary review. Lindbergia 5:2–18Google Scholar
  7. During HJ (1992) Ecological classifications of bryophytes and lichens. In Bates JW (ed) Bryophytes and lichens in a changing environment. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 1–31Google Scholar
  8. During HJ, Lloret F (1996) Permanent grid studies in bryophyte communities 1. Pattern and dynamics of individual species. J Hattori Bot Lab 79:1–41Google Scholar
  9. During HJ, Lloret F (2001) The species-pool hypothesis from a bryological perspective. Folia Geobot 36:63–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. During HJ, ter Horst B (1985) Life span, mortality and establishment of bryophytes in two contrasting habitats. Abstr Bot 9:145–158Google Scholar
  11. During HJ, van Tooren BF (1987) Recent developments in bryophyte population ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 2:89–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Esposito A, Mazzoleni S, Strumia S (1999) Post–fire bryophyte dynamics in Mediterranean vegetation. J Veg Sci 10:261–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Geary RC (1954) The contiguity ratio and statistical mapping. Incorporated Statistician 5:115–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Herben T, Krahulec F, Hadincová V, Skálová H (1993a) Small-scale variability as a mechanism for large-scale stability in mountain grasslands. J Veg Sci 4:163–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Herben T, Krahulec F, Hadincová V, Kovářová M (1993b) Small-scale spatial dynamics of plant species in a grassland community over six years. J Veg Sci 4:171–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Herben T, During HJ, Krahulec F (1995) Spatiotemporal dynamics in mountain grasslands: species autocorrelations in space and time. Folia Geobot 30:185–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Herben T, Krahulec F, Hadincová V, Pecháčková S, Kovářová M (1997) Fine-scale spatio-temporal patterns in a mountain grassland: do species replace each other in a regular fashion? J Veg Sci 8:217–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hill MO, Bell N, Bruggeman-Nannaenga MA, Brugues M, Cano MJ, Enroth J, Flatberg KI, Frahm JP, Gallego MT, Gariletti R, Guerra J, Hedenäs L, Holyoak DT, Hyvönen J, Ignatov MS, Lara F, Mazimpaka V, Munoz J, Söderström L (2006) An annotated checklist of the mosses of Europe and Macaronesia. J Bryol 28:198–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P (2008) Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biometr J 50:346–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jonsson BG (1993) The bryophyte diaspore bank and its role after small-scale disturbance in a boreal forest. J Veg Sci 4:819–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jonsson BG, Esseen P-A (1990) Treefall disturbance maintains high bryophyte diversity in a boreal spruce forest. J Ecol 78:924–936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Malson K, Rydin H (2009) Competitive hierarchy, but no competitive exclusions in experiments with rich fen bryophytes. J Bryol 31:41–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Márialigeti S, Németh B, Tinya F, Ódor P (2009) The effects of stand structure on ground-floor bryophyte assemblages in temperate mixed forests. Biodivers & Conservation 18:2223–2241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Michel P, Lee WG, During HJ, Cornelissen JHC (2012) Species traits and their non-additive interactions control the water economy of bryophyte cushions. J Ecol 100:222–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Morgan J (1998) Small-scale plant dynamics in temperate Themeda triandra grasslands of southeastern Australia. J Veg Sci 9:347–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Økland RH (1994) Bryophyte and lichen persistence patterns in a Norwegian boreal coniferous forest. Lindbergia 19:50–62Google Scholar
  27. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin PR, O’Hara RB, Simpson GL, Solymos P, Henry M, Stevens H, Wagner H (2011) Vegan: community ecology package. R package version 2.0-1. Available at: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan
  28. Palmer MW, Rusch GM (2001) How fast is the carousel? direct indices of species mobility with examples from an Oklahoma grassland. J Veg Sci 12:305–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Papp B, Ódor P, Szurdoki E (2005) Methodological overview and a case study of the Hungarian Bryophyte Monitoring Program. Bol Soc Españ Briol 26–27:23–32Google Scholar
  30. Papp B, Ódor P, Szurdoki E (2006) A mohák monitorozásának eredményei (Results of bryophyte monitoring). In Török K, Fodor L (eds) A nemzeti biodiverzitás-monitorozó rendszer eredményei (The results of the national biodiversity monitoring system). KvVM, Budapest, pp 99–151Google Scholar
  31. Pénzes-Kónya E (2006) Fine-scale spatial and temporal changes in the population structure of terricolous bryophyte species in forest communities. Acta Bot Hung 48:381–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pickett STA (1989) Space-for-time substitution as an alternative to long-term studies. In Likens GE (ed) Long-term studies in ecology: Approaches and alternatives. Springer, New York, pp 110–135Google Scholar
  33. Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML, Bartha S (2001) Implication from the Buell-Small succession study for vegetation restoration. Appl Veg Sci 4:41–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Podani J (2000) Introduction to the exploration of multivariate biological data. Backhuys Publishers, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  35. Podani J (2001) SYN-TAX 2000. Computer programs for data analysis in ecology and systematics. Users manual. Scientia Publishing, BudapestGoogle Scholar
  36. Prach K, Walker LR (2011) Four opportunities for studies of ecological succession. Trends Ecol Evol 26:119–123Google Scholar
  37. R Development Core Team (2011) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. Available at: http://www.R-project.org/
  38. Roads E, Longton RE (2003) Reproductive biology and population studies in two annual shuttle mosses. J Hattori Bot Labor 93:305–318Google Scholar
  39. Rosenberg MS (2001) PASSAGE. Pattern analysis, spatial statistics, and geographic exegesis. Version 1.1. Department of Biology, Arizona State University, TempeGoogle Scholar
  40. Rydgren K, De Kroon H, Økland RH, van Groenendael J (2001) Effects of fine scale disturbances on the demography and population dynamics of the clonal moss Hylocomium splendens. J Ecol 89:395–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rydgren K, Økland RH, Hestmark G (2005) Disturbance severity and community resilience in a boreal forest. Ecology 85:1906–1915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rydin H (2009) Population and community ecology of bryophytes. In Goffinet B, Shaw AJ (eds) Bryophyte biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 393–444Google Scholar
  43. Rydin H, Barber KE (2001) Long-term and fine scale coexistence of closely related species. Folia Geobot 36:53–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tóth T (2010) Medium-term vegetation dynamics and their association with edaphic conditions in two Hungarian saline grassland communities. Grassland Sci 56:13–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tutin TG, Heywood VH, Burges NA, Moore DM, Valentine DH, Walters SM, Webb DA (1964–1993) Flora Europaea. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  46. van der Hoeven EC (1999) Reciprocal transplantations of three chalk grassland bryophytes in the field. Lindbergia 24:23–28Google Scholar
  47. van der Hoeven EC, During HJ (1997) Positive and negative interactions in bryophyte populations. In De Kroon H, van Groenendael J (eds) The ecology and evolution of clonal plants. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, pp 291–310Google Scholar
  48. 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
  49. van der Maarel E (1996) Pattern and process in the plant community: fifty years after A.S. Watt. J Veg Sci 7:19–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. van der Maarel E, Sykes MT (1993) Small-scale plant species turnover in a limestone grassland: the carousel model and some comments on the niche concept. J Veg Sci 4:179–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Watt AS (1947) Pattern and process in plant community. J Ecol 35:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical analysis. Prentice Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  53. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Smith G (2007) Analysing ecological data. Springer Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Botany, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Péter Ódor
    • 1
  • Erzsébet Szurdoki
    • 2
  • Zoltán Botta-Dukát
    • 1
  • Beáta Papp
    • 2
  1. 1.MTA Centre for Ecological ResearchInstitute of Ecology and BotanyVácrátótHungary
  2. 2.Hungarian Natural History MuseumBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations