Advertisement

Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 33, Issue 2, pp 195–209 | Cite as

Plant–plant interactions promote alpine diversification

  • Sabrina S. GaviniEmail author
  • Cecilia Ezcurra
  • Marcelo A. Aizen
Original Paper

Abstract

Plant–plant interactions can promote diversification in harsh environments through (1) natural selection producing divergent adaptations to extreme and varying abiotic conditions in plants that grow in the open, or (2) genetic drift involving little niche differentiation in plants that grow associated with others. We assessed whether alpine plant genera characterized by competitively-excluded or facilitated species are more diverse than genera characterized by habitat-generalist species at both global and local scales. Based on literature data, we characterized plant–plant interactions for 642 alpine species in 254 genera worldwide, using the relative interaction index (RII) that indicates the extent to which a plant species is competitively-excluded or facilitated by others. We tested whether the RII can be considered as a plant trait relatively well-preserved at the generic level and, within a phylogenetic framework, assessed how the number of alpine species per genus varies along the entire gradient of plant–plant interactions at both global and local scales. Species belonging to the same genus tended to be more similar in the RII-values than species from different genera, with ca. 20% of the variation in RII accounted by differences among genera. The relation between the total number of alpine species per genus and mean RII showed two comparable peaks, with genera in the competitive-exclusion or facilitation categories having, on average, more than twice as many species as genera in the neutral category. However, we found that more congeneric species from the competitive-exclusion category coexist locally than congeneric species from the facilitation category. This pattern of plant species richness at the community level was consistent with predictions from the hypotheses that competition promotes adaptive niche divergence at local scales, whereas facilitation promotes divergence with little niche differentiation. We conclude that both negative and positive ecological interactions play an important role as evolutionary drivers of alpine plant diversity.

Keywords

Alpine plants Diversification Plant–plant interactions Nurse effect Facilitation Competitive-exclusion Niche differentiation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank E. Zattara and two anonymous reviewers for useful comments and suggestions. This study was supported by a National Research Council of Argentina (CONICET) doctoral scholarship to S.S. Gavini. This work was partially funded by the National Fund for Research (PICT 2015-2333). C.E. and M.A.A are career researchers of CONICET.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Data availability statement

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].

Supplementary material

10682_2019_9972_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (888 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 887 kb)
10682_2019_9972_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (34 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (XLSX 34 kb)
10682_2019_9972_MOESM3_ESM.xlsx (445 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (XLSX 446 kb)

References

  1. Alvarez N et al (2009) History or ecology? Substrate type as a major driver of spatial genetic structure in Alpine plants. Ecol Lett 12:632–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armas C, Ordiales R, Pugnaire FI (2004) Measuring plant interactions: a new comparative index. Ecology 85:2682–2686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Badano EI, Cavieres LA (2006) Ecosystem engineering across ecosystems: do engineer species sharing common features have generalized or idiosyncratic effects on species diversity? J Biogeogr 33(2):304–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Badano EI, Jones CG, Cavieres LA, Wright JP (2006) Assessing impacts of ecosystem engineers on community organization: a general approach illustrated by effects of a high-Andean cushion plant. Oikos 115(2):369–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bates D, Machler M, Bolker B (2011) lme4: linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package ver. 0.999375-42Google Scholar
  6. Benton MJ (2009) The Red Queen and the Court Jester: species diversity and the role of biotic and abiotic factors through time. Science 323(5915):728–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bertel C, Hülber K, Frajman B, Schönswetter P (2016) No evidence of intrinsic reproductive isolation between two reciprocally non-monophyletic, ecologically differentiated mountain plants at an early stage of speciation. Evol Ecol 30(6):1031–1042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bird CE, Fernandez-Silva I, Skillings DJ, Toonen RJ (2012) Sympatric speciation in the post “modern synthesis” era of evolutionary biology. Evol Biol 39(2):158–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blomberg SP, Garland T Jr, Ives AR (2003) Testing for phylogenetic signal in comparative data: behavioral traits are more labile. Evolution 57:717–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bolnick DI, Fitzpatrick BM (2007) Sympatric speciation: models and empirical evidence. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 38(1):459–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boucher FC, Zimmermann NE, Conti E (2016) Allopatric speciation with little niche divergence is common among alpine Primulaceae. J Biogeogr 43:591–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Buehler D, Poncet BN, Holderegger R, Manel S, Taberlet P, Gugerli F (2013) An outlier locus relevant in habitat-mediated selection in an alpine plant across independent regional replicates. Evol Ecol 27(2):285–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Butterfield BJ (2009) Effects of facilitation on community stability and dynamics: synthesis and future directions. J Ecol 97:1292–1301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Callaway RM (1995) Positive interactions among plants. Bot Rev 61:306–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Callaway RM (2007) Positive interactions and inter- dependence in plant communities. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  16. Callaway RM et al (2002) Positive interactions among alpine plants increase with stress. Nature 417:844–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Catorci A, Malatesta L, Velasquez JL, Tardella FM, Zeballos H (2016) The interplay of nurse and target plant traits influences magnitude and direction of facilitative interactions under different combinations of stress and disturbance intensities in Andean dry grassland. J Plant Ecol 9(3):296–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cavieres LA, Badano EI (2009) Do facilitative interactions increase species richness at the entire community level? J Ecol 97:1181–1191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cavieres LA, Badano EI, Sierra-Almeida A, Molina-Montenegro MA (2007) Microclimatic modifications of cushion plants and their consequences for seedling survival of native and non-native herbaceous species in the high Andes of Central Chile. Arct Antarct Alp Res 39:229–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cavieres LA et al (2014) Facilitative plant interactions and climate simultaneously drive alpine plant diversity. Ecol Lett 17(2):193–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cavieres LA, Hernández-Fuentes C, Sierra-Almeida A, Kikvidze Z (2016) Facilitation among plants as an insurance policy for diversity in Alpine communities. Funct Ecol 30:52–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Chaves MM, Maroco JP, Pereira JS (2003) Understanding plant responses to drought—from genes to the whole plant. Funct Plant Biol 30:239–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Coyne JA, Orr HA (2004) Speciation. Sinauer & Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  24. Crepet WL, Niklas KJ (2009) Darwin’s second “abominable mystery”: why are there so many angiosperm species? Am J Bot 96:366–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dieckmann U, Doebeli M, Metz JAJ, Tautz D (2004) Adaptive speciation. Cambridge Studies in Adaptive Dynamics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Eriksson O (2016) Evolution of angiosperm seed disperser mutualisms: the timing of origins and their consequences for coevolutionary interactions between angiosperms and frugivores. Biol Rev 91:168–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fritz SA, Purvis A (2010) Selectivity in mammalian extinction risk and threat types: a new measure of phylogenetic signal strength in binary traits. Conserv Biol 24(4):1042–1051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gehrke B, Linder HP (2011) Time, space and ecology: why some clades have more species than others. J Biogeogr 38:1948–1962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Giron D, Frago E, Glevarec G, Pieterse CMJ, Dicke M (2013) Cytokinins as key regulators in plant–microbe–insect interactions: connecting plant growth and defence. Funct Ecol 27(3):599–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gittenberger E (1991) What about non-adaptive radiation? Biol J Linn Soc 43:263–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Goldberg DE (1990) Components of resource competition in plant communities. In: Grace J, Tilman D (eds) Perspectives in plant competition. Academic Press, New York, pp 27–49Google Scholar
  32. Hacker SD, Bertness MD (1995) Morphological and physiological consequences of a positive plant interaction. Ecology 76:2165–2175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hastie T (2006) Gam: generalized additive models. R package version 0.98. http://CRAN.R-project.org/
  34. Hastie T, Tibshirani R (1990) Generalized additive models. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  35. Herben T (2004) Physiological integration affects growth form and competitive ability in clonal plants. Evol Ecol 18(5–6):493–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Holmgren M, Scheffer M, Huston MA (1997) The interplay of facilitation and competition in plant communities. Ecology 78:1966–1975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hu SS, Dilcher DL, Jarzen DM, Taylor DW (2008) Early steps of angiosperm pollinator coevolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:240–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hughes CE, Atchison GW (2015) The ubiquity of alpine plant radiations: from the Andes to the Hengduan Mountains. New Phytol 207:275–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jablonski D (2008) Biotic interactions and macroevolution: extensions and mismatches across scales and levels. Evolution 62(4):715–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kadereit JW, Griebeler EM, Comes HP (2004) Quaternary diversification in European alpine plants: pattern and process. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 359:265–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kikvidze Z, Callaway RM (2009) Ecological facilitation may drive major evolutionary transitions. Bioscience 59(5):399–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kikvidze Z et al (2015) The effects of foundation species on community assembly: a global study on alpine cushion plant communities. Ecology 96(8):2064–2069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Körner C (2003) Alpine plant life, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin, p 528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kudo G, Hirao AS (2006) Habitat-specific responses in the flowering phenology and seed set of alpine plants to climate variation: implications for global-change impacts. Popul Ecol 48:49–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lengyel S, Gove AD, Latimer AM, Majer JD, Dunn RR (2009) Ants sow the seeds of global diversification in flowering plants. PLoS ONE 4:e5480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Liancourt P, Choler P, Gross N, Thibert-Plante X, Tielbörger K (2012) How facilitation may interfere with ecological speciation. Int J Ecol 501:11Google Scholar
  47. Liow LH, Reitan T, Harnik PG (2015) Ecological interactions on macroevolutionary time scales: clams and brachiopods are more than ships that pass in the night. Ecol Lett 18:1030–1039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Löffler J (2007) The influence of micro-climate, snow cover, and soil moisture on ecosystem functioning in high mountains. J Geog Sci 17:3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Löffler J, Finch OD (2005) Spatio-temporal gradients between high mountain ecosystems of central Norway. Arct Antarct Alp Res 37:499–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mabberley DJ (2008) Mabberley’s plant book, a portable dictionary of plants, their classification and uses, 3rd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  51. Manel S et al, IntraBioDiv Consortium (2012) Broad-scale adaptive genetic variation in alpine plants is driven by temperature and precipitation. Mol Ecol 21:3729–3738Google Scholar
  52. McCain CM, Grytnes JA (2010) Elevational gradients in species richness. In: Encyclopedia of life sciences (ELS). John, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  53. McPeek MA (2008) The ecological dynamics of clade diversification and community assembly. Am Nat 172:E270–E284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Michalet R, Schöb C, Lortie CJ, Brooker RW, Callaway RM (2014) Partitioning net interactions among plants along altitudinal gradients to study community responses to climate change. Funct Ecol 28:75–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Namazi A (2015) Facilitation, competition, and stress tolerance in plants in stressful environments. University of New South Wales. Biological, Earth & Environmental Sciences. Ph.D. ThesisGoogle Scholar
  56. Nosil P (2008) Speciation with gene flow could be common. Mol Ecol 17:2103–2106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Nürk NM, Michling F, Linder HP (2017) Are the radiations of temperate lineages in tropical alpine ecosystems pre-adapted? Glob Ecol Biogeogr 27:1–12Google Scholar
  58. Orme D, Freckleton R, Thomas G, Petzoldt T, Fritz S, Isaac N, Pearse W (2012) Caper: comparative analysis of phylogenetics and evolution in R. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=caper
  59. Paradis E, Claude J, Strimmer K (2004) APE: analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Bioinformatics 20:289–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Revell LJ (2010) Phylogenetic signal and linear regression on species data. Methods Ecol Evol 1:319–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Revell LJ (2012) Phytools: an R package for phylogenetic comparative biology (and other things). Methods Ecol Evol 3:217–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ricklefs RE (2010) Evolutionary diversification, coevolution between populations and their antagonists, and the filling of niche space. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:1265–1272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Thompson JN (2004) The coevolutionary process. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  64. Thompson JN (2005) The geographic mosaic of coevolution. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Valiente-Banuet A, Verdú M (2007) Facilitation can increase the phylogenetic diversity of plant communities. Ecol Lett 10:1029–1036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Van der Niet T, Peakall R, Johnson SD (2014) Pollinator-driven ecological speciation in plants: new evidence and future perspectives. Ann Bot 113:199–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Vargas P (2003) Molecular evidence for multiple diversification patterns of alpine plants in Mediterranean Europe. Taxon 52:463–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Verboom GA, Bergh NG, Haiden SA, Hoffmann V, Britton MN (2015) Topography as a driver of diversification in the Cape Floristic Region of South Africa. New Phytol 207:368–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Voelckel C et al (2008) Transcriptional and biochemical signatures of divergence in natural populations of two species of New Zealand alpine Pachycladon. Mol Ecol 17:4740–4753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Voje KL, Holen ØH, Liow LH, Stenseth NC (2015) The role of biotic forces in driving macroevolution: beyond the Red Queen. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 282:20150186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Walker KJ, Preston CD (2006) Ecological predictors of extinction risk in the Flora of Lowland England, UK. Biodivers Conserv 15:1913–1942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Webb CO, Ackerly DD, Kembel SW (2008) Phylocom: software for the analysis of phylogenetic community structure and trait evolution. Bioinformatics 24:2098–2100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wiens JJ, Graham CH (2005) Niche conservatism: integrating evolution, ecology, and conservation biology. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 36:519–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wiens JJ et al (2010) Niche conservatism as an emerging principle in ecology and conservation biology. Ecol Lett 13:1310–1324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Yoder JB, Nuismer SL (2010) When does coevolution promote diversification? Am Nat 176:802–817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Zanne AE et al (2014) Three keys to the radiation of angiosperms into freezing environments. Nature 506:89–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.INIBIOMAUNComahue-CONICETBarilocheArgentina

Personalised recommendations