Environmental and Ecological Statistics

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 221–235 | Cite as

Insights on plant interaction between dominating species from patterns of plant association: expected covariance of pin-point cover measurements of two species

  • Christian DamgaardEmail author
  • Bodil K. Ehlers
  • Johannes C. G. Ransijn
  • Inger K. Schmidt
  • Jens-Christian Svenning


It has been suggested that in order to infer ecological processes from observed patterns of species abundance we need to investigate the covariance in species abundance. Consequently, an expression for the expected covariance of pin-point cover measurements of two species is developed. By comparing the observed covariance with the expected covariance we get a new type of information on the spatial arrangement of two species. Here the discrepancy between the observed and expected covariance may be thought of as a measure of the spatial configuration of the two species that may indicate underling ecological processes. The method is applied in a case study of Calluna vulgaris and Deschampsia flexuosa on dry heathland sites. The observed covariance of Calluna and Deschampsia at the level of the sites was positively and significantly correlated with the expected covariance. Negative covariance was observed on sites where both Calluna and Deschampsia had a high cover, which is in agreement with the notion that both species form distinct patches. Oppositely, at sites where both species have a low cover, we found that both the expected and observed covariance were positive. The proposed measure for the expected covariance of two species does capture information on the combined spatial configuration of the two species if the species are common. We show how this may be relevant for understanding the underlying ecological processes leading to the observed covariance.


Covariance Distribution of plant abundance Ecological processes Pin-point cover Plant associations Spatial dynamics 



Thanks to Professor Norm Kenkel for most valuable comments on a previous version of the manuscript.


  1. Adler PB, Dalgleish HJ, Ellner SP (2012) Forecasting plant community impacts of climate variability and change: when do competitive interactions matter? J Ecol 100:478–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aerts R (1999) Interspecific competition in natural communities: mechanisms, trade-offs and plant-soil feedbacks. J Exper Bot 50:29–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alonso I, Hartley SE, Thurlow M (2001) Competition between heather and grasses on Scottish moorlands: interacting effects of nutrient enrichment and grazing regime. J Veg Sci 12:249–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ballester A, Vieitez AM, Vieitez E (1982) Allelopathic potential of Erica vagans, Calluna vulgaris, and Daboecia cantabrica. J Chem Ecol 8:851–857CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Balstrøm T, Breuning-Madsen H, Krüger J et al (2013) A statistically based mapping of the influence of geology and land use on soil pH: a case study from Denmark. Geoderma 192:453–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barclay-Estrup P, Gimingham CH (1969) The description and interpretation of cyclical processes in a heath community: I. Vegetational change in relation to the calluna cycle. J Ecol 57:737–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berdowski JJM, Zeilinga R (1987) Transition from heathland to grassland: damaging effects of the heather beetle. J Ecol 75:159–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berendse F, Schmitz M, Visser WD (1994) Experimental manipulation of succession in heathland ecosystems. Oecologia 100:38–44CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Bobbink R, Hornung M, Roelofs JGM (1998) The effects of air-borne nitrogen pollutants on species diversity in natural and semi-natural European vegetation. J Ecol 86:717–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bokdam J (2001) Effects of browsing and grazing on cyclic succession in nutrient-limited ecosystems. J Veg Sci 12:875–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boulangeat I, Gravel D, Thuiller W (2012) Accounting for dispersal and biotic interactions to disentangle the drivers of species distributions and their abundances. Ecol Lett 15:584–593CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Britton AJ, Pakeman RJ, Carey PD et al (2001) Impacts of climate, management and nitrogen deposition on the dynamics of lowland heathland. J Veg Sci 12:797–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Britton A, Marrs R, Pakeman R et al (2003) The influence of soil-type, drought and nitrogen addition on interactions between Calluna vulgaris and Deschampsia flexuosa: implications for heathland regeneration. Plant Ecol 166:93–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brown C, Law R, Illian JB et al (2011) Linking ecological processes with spatial and non-spatial patterns in plant communities. J Ecol 99:1402–1414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brown C, Illian JB, Burslem DFRP (2016) Success of spatial statistics in determining underlying process in simulated plant communities. J Ecol 104:160–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Brunsting AMH, Heil GW (1985) The role of nutrients in the interactions between a herbivorous beetle and some competing plant species in heathlands. Oikos 44:23–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Damgaard C (2008) Modelling pin-point plant cover data along an environmental gradient. Ecol Modell 214:404–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Damgaard C (2009) On the distribution of plant abundance data. Ecol Inf 4:76–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Damgaard C (2012) Trend analyses of hierarchical pin-point cover data. Ecology 93:1269–1274CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Damgaard C (2013) Hierarchical and spatially aggregated plant cover data. Ecol Inf 18:35–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Damgaard C (2015) Modelling pin-point cover data of complementary vegetation classes. Ecol Inf 30:179–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Damgaard C, Ejrnæs R (2009) Quantification of the intra-plot correlation in plant abundance data: a possible test of the neutral theory. Ecol Complex 6:64–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Damgaard C, Weiner J (2017) It’s about time: a critique of macroecological inferences concerning plant competition. Trends Ecol Evolut 32:86–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Damgaard C, Riis-Nielsen T, Schmidt IK (2009) Estimating plant competition coefficients and predicting community dynamics from non-destructive pin-point data: a case study with Calluna vulgaris and Deschampsia flexuosa. Plant Ecol 201:687–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Diamond JM (1975) Assembly of species communities. In: Cody ML, Diamond JM (eds) Ecology and evolution of communities. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 342–444Google Scholar
  26. Gimingham C (1978) Calluna and its associated species: some aspects of co-existence in communities. Plant Ecol 36:179–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gotelli N, McCabe DJ (2002) Species co-occurrence: a meta-analysis of J. M. Diamonds’s assembly rules model. Ecology 83:2091–2096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Greve MH, Greve MB, Bøcher PK et al (2007) Generating a Danish raster-based topsoil property map combining choropleth maps and point information. Dan J Geogr 107:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Grime JP, Hodgson JG, Hunt R (1988) Comparative plant ecology: a functional approach to common British species. Chapman & Hall, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Heil G W (ed) (1986) Removal and fertililizer exprimens in heathland concerning the species Calluna vulgaris (L. Hull) Deschampsia flexuosa (L. Trin.) and Molinia caerulea (L. Moench), Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Herben T, During HJ, Law R (2000) Spatio-temporal patterns in grassland communities. In: Dieckmann U, Law R, Metz JAJ (eds) The geometry of ecological interactions: simplifying spatial complexity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 48–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hobbs RJ (1984) Possible chemical interactions among heathland plants. Oikos 43:23–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hofland-Zijlstra J, Berendse F (2010) Effects of litters with different concentrations of phenolics on the competition between Calluna vulgaris and Deschampsia flexuosa. Plant Soil 327:131–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Interpretation manual of European Union habitats. Natura, (2000) European Commission. European Commission, DG Environment, Nature and Biodiversity, BruxellesGoogle Scholar
  35. Jowett GH, Scurfield G (1949) A statistical investigation into the distribution of Holcus Mollis L. and Deschampsia flexuosa. J Ecol 37:68–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kent M, Coker P (1992) Vegetation description and analysis. Belhaven Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. Kristensen HL, McCarty GW (1999) Mineralization and immobilization of nitrogen in heath soil under intact Calluna, after heather beetle infestation and nitrogen fertilization. Appl Soil Ecol 13:187–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lindquist B (1931) Den skandinaviska bokskogens biologi. Svenska Skogsvårdsföeningens Tidskrift, 3Google Scholar
  39. Loidi J, Biurrun I, Campos JA et al (2010) A biogeographical analysis of the European Atlantic lowland heathlands. J Veg Sci 21:832–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lovett-Doust L (1981) Population dynamics and local specialization in a clonal perennial (Ranunculus repens): I. The dynamics of ramets in contrasting habitats. J Ecol 69:743–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Maestre FT, Callaway RM, Valladares F et al (2009) Refining the stress-gradient hypothesis for competition and facilitation in plant communities. J Ecol 97:199–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nielsen KE, Bak JL, Bruus M et al (2012) NATURDATA. DK - Danish monitoring program of vegetation and chemical plant and soil data from non-forested terrestrial habitat types. Biodiversity Ecol 4:375Google Scholar
  43. Normand S, Treier UA, Randin C et al (2009) Importance of abiotic stress as a range limit determinant for European plants: insights from species responses to climatic gradients. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 18:437–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Oom SP, Hester AJ, Legg CJ (2010) Grazing across grass:shrub boundaries: can spatial heterogeneity increase resistance? Agric Ecosyst Environ 139:159–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ovaskainen O, Hottola J, Siitonen J (2010) Modeling species co-occurrence by multivariate logistic regression generates new hypotheses on fungal interactions. Ecology 91:2514–2521CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Pacala S, Levin SA (1997) Biological generated spatial pattern and the coexistence of competing species. In: Tilman D, Kareiva P (eds) Spatial ecology. The role of space in population dynamics and interspecific interactions. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 204–232Google Scholar
  47. Qu Y, Greene T, Piedmonte MR (1993) Symmetric Bernoulli distributions and generalised binomial distributions. Biom J 35:523–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ransijn J, Damgaard C, Schmidt I (2015) Do competitive interactions in dry heathlands explain plant abundance patterns and species coexistence? Plant Ecol 216:199–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rebele F (2000) Competition and coexistence of rhizomatous perennial plants along a nutrient gradient. Plant Ecol 147:77–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ricklefs RE (2008) Disintegration of the ecological community. Am Nat 172:741–750CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Rodwell JS (ed) (1991) British plant communities-Mires and heaths. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  52. Sæbø A, Håland Å, Skre O et al (2001) Influence of nitrogen and winter climate stresses on Calluna vulgaris (L.) Hull. Ann Bot 88:823–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Saiz H, Alados CL (2012) Changes in semi-arid plant species associations along a livestock grazing gradient. PLOS ONE 7:e40551CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. Silvertown J (2004) Plant coexistence and the niche. Trends Ecol Evol 19:605–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Silvertown J, Dodd ME, Gowing DJG et al (1999) Hydrologically defined niches reveal a basis for species richness in plant communities. Nature 400:61–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Southon GE, Green ER, Jones AG et al (2012) Long-term nitrogen additions increase likelihood of climate stress and affect recovery from wildfire in a lowland heath. Glob Change Biol 18:2824–2837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stoll P, Weiner J (2000) A neighborhood view of interactions among individual plants. In: Dieckmann U, Law R, Metz JAJ (eds) The geometry of ecological interactions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 11–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Strengbom J, Näsholm T, Ericson L (2004) Light, not nitrogen, limits growth of the grass Deschampsia flexuosa in boreal forests. Can J Bot 82:430–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Svenning J-C, Fabbro T, Wright SJ (2008) Seedling interactions in a tropical forest in Panama. Oecologia 155:143–150CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Terry AC, Ashmore MR, Power SA et al (2004a) Modelling the impacts of atmospheric nitrogen deposition on Calluna-dominated ecosystems in the UK. J Appl Ecol 41:897–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Terry AC, Ashmore MR, Power SA et al (2004b) Modelling the impacts of atmospheric nitrogen deposition on Calluna-dominated ecosystems in the UK. J Appl Ecol 41:897–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ulrich W, Gotelli NJ (2013) Pattern detection in null model analysis. Oikos 122:2–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Watt AS (1947) Pattern and process in the plant community. J Ecol 35:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Weiher E, Clarke GDP, Keddy PA (1998) Community assembly rules, morphological dispersion, and the coexistence of plant species. Oikos 81:309–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wisz MS, Pottier J, Kissling WD et al (2013) The role of biotic interactions in shaping distributions and realised assemblages of species: implications for species distribution modelling. Biol Rev 88:15–30CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Wolfram S (2013) Mathematica. Wolfram Research Inc, ChampaignGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BioscienceArhus UniversitySilkeborgDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource ManagementUniversity of CopenhagenFrederiksbergDenmark
  3. 3.Dutch General Inspection Service for Agricultural Seed and Seed Potatoes (NAK)EmmeloordThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of BioscienceArhus UniversityAarhus CDenmark

Personalised recommendations