Skip to main content
Log in

A negative heterogeneity–diversity relationship found in experimental grassland communities

  • Community ecology - Original research
  • Published:
Oecologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recent meta-analyses and simulation studies have suggested that the relationship between soil resource heterogeneity and plant diversity (heterogeneity–diversity relationship; HDR) may be negative when heterogeneity occurs at small spatial scales. To explore different mechanisms that can explain a negative HDR, we conducted a mesocosm experiment combining a gradient of soil nutrient availability (low, medium, high) and scale of heterogeneity (homogeneous, large-scale heterogeneous, small-scale heterogeneous). The two heterogeneous treatments were created using chessboard combinations of low and high fertility patches, and had the same overall fertility as the homogeneous medium treatment. Soil patches were designed to be relatively larger (156 cm2) and smaller (39 cm2) than plant root extent. We found plant diversity was significantly lower in the small-scale heterogeneous treatment compared to the homogeneous treatment of the same fertility. Additionally, low fertility patches in the small-scale heterogeneous treatment had lower diversity than patches of the same size in the low fertility treatment. Shoot and root biomass were larger in the small-scale heterogeneous treatment than in the homogeneous treatment of the same fertility. Further, we found that soil resource heterogeneity may reduce diversity indirectly by increasing shoot biomass, thereby enhancing asymmetric competition for light resources. When soil resource heterogeneity occurs at small spatial scales it can lower plant diversity by increasing asymmetric competition belowground, since plants with large root systems can forage among patches and exploit soil resources. Additionally, small-scale soil heterogeneity may lower diversity indirectly, through increasing light competition, when nutrient uptake by competitive species increases shoot biomass production.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allouche O, Kalyuzhny M, Moreno-Rueda G, Pizarro M, Kadmon R (2012) Area-heterogeneity tradeoff and the diversity of ecological communities. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:17495–17500. doi:10.1073/pnas.1208652109

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Arbuckle JL (2010) IBM SPSS Amos 19.0 user’s guide. Amos Development

  • Baer SG, Blair JM, Collins SL, Knapp AK (2004) Plant community responses to resource availability and heterogeneity during restoration. Oecologia 139:617–629. doi:10.1007/s00442-004-1541-3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Casper B, Schenk H, Jackson R (2003) Defining a plant’s belowground zone of influence. Ecology 84:2313–2321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins B, Wein G (1998) Soil resource heterogeneity effects on early succession. Oikos 82:238–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day KJ, Hutchings MJ, John EA (2003) The effects of spatial pattern of nutrient supply on yield, structure and mortality in plant populations. J Ecol 91:541–553. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2745.2003.00799.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickson TL, Foster BL (2008) The relative importance of the species pool, productivity and disturbance in regulating grassland plant species richness: a field experiment. J Ecol 96:937–946. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2745.2008.01420.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eilts JA, Mittelbach GG, Reynolds HL, Gross KL (2011) Resource heterogeneity, soil fertility, and species diversity: effects of clonal species on plant communities. Am Nat 177:574–588. doi:10.1086/659633

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ellenberg H (1988) Vegetation ecology of Central Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Farley RA, Fitter AH (1999) The responses of seven co-occurring woodland herbaceous perennials to localized nutrient-rich patches. J Ecol 87:849–859. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2745.1999.00396.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitter AH (1982) Influence of soil heterogeneity on the coexistence of grassland species. J Ecol 70:139–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fransen B, de Kroon H (2001) Long-term disadvantages of selective root placement: root proliferation and shoot biomass of two perennial grass species in a 2-year experiment. J Ecol 89:711–722. doi:10.1046/j.0022-0477.2001.00589.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grace JB (2006) Structural equation modeling and natural systems. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Grime JP (1974) Vegetation classification by reference to strategies. Nature 250:26–31. doi:10.1038/250026a0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grime JP (1994) The role of plasticity in exploiting environmental heterogeneity. In: Caldwell MM (ed) Exploitation of environmental heterogeneity by plants: ecophysiological processes above- and belowground. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 1–19

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gurevitch J, Scheiner SM, Fox GA (2002) The ecology of plants. Sinauer, Sunderland

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison S, Cornell H, Moore KA (2010) Spatial niches and coexistence: testing theory with tarweeds. Ecology 91:2141–2150

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hautier Y, Niklaus PA, Hector H (2009) Competition for light causes plant biodiversity loss after eutrophication. Science 324:636–638. doi:10.1126/science.1169640

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hodge A (2004) The plastic plant: root responses to heterogeneous supplies of nutrients. New Phytol 162:9–24. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01015.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P (2008) Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biometrical J 50:346–363. doi:10.1002/bimj.200810425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchings MJ, Wijesinghe DK, John EA (2000) The effects of heterogeneous nutrient supply on plant performance: a survey of responses with special reference to clonal herbs. In: Hutchings MJ, John EA, Stewart AJA (eds) The ecological consequences of environmental heterogeneity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 91–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchings MJ, John EA, Wijesinghe DK (2003) Toward understanding the consequences of soil heterogeneity for plant populations and communities. Ecology 84:2322–2334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson RB, Caldwell MM (1993) The scale of nutrient heterogeneity around individual plants and its quantification with geostatistics. Ecology 74:612–614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laanisto L, Tamme R, Hiiesalu I, Szava-Kovats R, Gazol A, Pärtel M (2013) Microfragmentation concept explains non-positive environmental heterogeneity-diversity relationships. Oecologia 171:217–226. doi:10.1007/s00442-012-2398-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lamb EG, Kembel SW, Cahill JF Jr (2009) Shoot, but not root, competition reduces community diversity in experimental mesocosms. J Ecol 97:155–163. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2745.2008.01454.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levins R (1979) Coexistence in a variable environment. Am Nat 114:765–783

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundholm JT (2009) Plant species diversity and environmental heterogeneity: spatial scale and competing hypotheses. J Veg Sci 20:377–391. doi:10.1111/j.1654-1103.2009.05577.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maestre FT, Reynolds JF (2007) Amount or pattern? Grassland responses to the heterogeneity and availability of two key resources. Ecology 88:501–511

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maestre FT, Quero JL, Valladares F, Reynolds JF (2007) Individual vs. population plastic responses to elevated CO2, nutrient availability, and heterogeneity: a microcosm experiment with co-occurring species. Plant Soil 296:53–64. doi:10.1007/s11104-007-9289-2

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, the R Development Core Team (2011) nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1-102

  • R Development Core Team (2012) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna

  • Rajaniemi TK (2007) Root foraging traits and competitive ability in heterogeneous soils. Oecologia 153:145–152. doi:10.1007/s00442-007-0706-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rajaniemi TK (2011) Competition for patchy soil resources reduces community evenness. Oecologia 165:169–174. doi:10.1007/s00442-010-1710-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds HL, Hungate BA, Chapin FS, Dantonio CM (1997) Soil heterogeneity and plant competition in an annual grassland. Ecology 78:2076–2090

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 95:723–733. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2745.2007.01252.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schenk HJ (2006) Root competition: beyond resource depletion. J Ecol 94:725–739. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2745.2006.01124.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silvertown J (2004) Plant coexistence and the niche. Trends Ecol Evol 19:605–611. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2004.09.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith TW, Lundholm JT (2012) Environmental geometry and heterogeneity–diversity relationships in spatially explicit simulated communities. J Veg Sci 23:737–744. doi:10.1111/j.1654-1103.2011.01380.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens MHH, Carson WP (2002) Resource quantity, not resource heterogeneity, maintains plant diversity. Ecol Lett 5:420–426. doi:10.1046/j.1461-0248.2002.00333.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tamme R, Hiiesalu I, Laanisto L, Szava-Kovats R, Pärtel M (2010) Environmental heterogeneity, species diversity and co-existence at different spatial scales. J Veg Sci 21:796–801. doi:10.1111/j.1654-1103.2010.01185.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilman D (1982) Resource competition and community structure (Monographs in population biology—17). Princeton University Press, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Veneables WN, Ripley BD (2002) Modern applied statistics with S. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • VivianSmith G (1997) Microtopographic heterogeneity and floristic diversity in experimental wetland communities. J Ecol 85:71–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wacker L, Baudois O, Eichenberger-Glinz S, Schmid B (2008) Environmental heterogeneity increases complementarity in experimental grassland communities. Basic Appl Ecol 9:467–474. doi:10.1016/j.baae.2007.08.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wijesinghe DK, John EA, Hutchings MJ (2005) Does pattern of soil resource heterogeneity determine plant community structure? An experimental investigation. J Ecol 93:99–112. doi:10.1111/j.0022-0477.2004.00934.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson SD (2000) Heterogeneity, diversity and scale in plant communities. In: Hutchings MJ, John EA, Stewart AJA (eds) The ecological consequences of environmental heterogeneity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 55–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson SD, Tilman D (1993) Plant competition and resource availability in response to disturbance and fertilization. Ecology 74:599–611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zobel M, Pärtel M (2008) What determines the relationship between plant diversity and habitat productivity? Global Ecol Biogeogr 17:679–684. doi:10.1111/j.1466-8238.2008.00400.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker N, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank all of the students and technicians for their brave help in the greenhouse. This research was supported by the European Union through the European Regional Development Fund (Center of Excellence FIBIR), ERMOS programme Grant 14 (co-funded by Marie Curie Actions), MOBILITAS post-doctoral grant (MJD47), CSIC JAE DOC fellowship and Estonian Science Foundation (grant 8323). The experiments comply with the current laws of Estonia in which the experiments were performed.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antonio Gazol.

Additional information

Communicated by Bernhard Schmid.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 1129 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gazol, A., Tamme, R., Price, J.N. et al. A negative heterogeneity–diversity relationship found in experimental grassland communities. Oecologia 173, 545–555 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-013-2623-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-013-2623-x

Keywords

Navigation