Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 27, Issue 6, pp 899–910 | Cite as

Untangling the positive and negative effects of shrubs on herbaceous vegetation in drylands

  • Moran Segoli
  • Eugene D. Ungar
  • Itamar Giladi
  • Amir Arnon
  • Moshe Shachak
Research Article

Abstract

Woody vegetation, as an ecosystem engineer, can modulate the landscape such that the levels of resources in its vicinity undergo positive and negative changes as far as the herbaceous vegetation is concerned. To better understand how these processes play out in a semi-arid ecosystem, we examined resource modulation by woody vegetation, and the response of herbaceous vegetation to that modulation, at a fine spatial scale. Experimental manipulations were employed to separate the positive and negative effects of water, light and seed dispersal in determining herbaceous species density and biomass in three patch types within and adjacent to the shrub (core, periphery and open). We synthesized our results into a multilayered landscape diversity (MLLD) model. Woody vegetation creates distinct multilayered resource patches at its core and periphery which do not correspond to the dichotomous structural pattern of shrub canopy versus intershrub background. The combined effect of these multilayered resource patches had higher herbaceous species density (8.2 vs. 4.0 species 400 cm−2) and herbaceous biomass (5.4 vs. 1.0 g 400 cm−2) in the periphery than in the core (3-yr averages). The periphery’s net positive effects are due to enhancement of soil properties (water infiltration depth of 11.1 cm at periphery vs. 8.1 cm at core), while the core’s net negative effects are due to modulation of seed (seed abundance per seed trap of 44.2 at periphery vs. 3.0 at core) and light availability (PAR transmittance of 41.9 % at periphery vs. 16.5 % at core) by the shrub canopy. Thus, when examined at this fine spatial resolution, woody vegetation has both net positive and net negative effects on herbaceous vegetation. Analysis of our results by means of the MLLD model emphasizes the importance of examining the landscape at the spatial scale of the modulated resources and of recognizing different patch types and their differing effects on herbaceous vegetation.

Keywords

Landscape modulator Multiple-layer landscape diversity Competition Facilitation Sarcopoterium spinosum Ecosystem engineer 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Sonya Rozin for laboratory assistance. Primary funding sources included: James S. McDonnell Foundation; grant 1077-03 from the Israel Science Foundation; the Eshkol Program of the Israel Ministry of Science and Technology; Grants 277-0097 and 277-0267 of the Israel Rangelands Board and Chief Scientist of the Israel Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. This is publication No. 760 of the Marco and Louise Mitrani Department of Desert Ecology.

Supplementary material

10980_2012_9736_MOESM1_ESM.doc (32 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 32 kb)

References

  1. Aguiar MR, Sala OE (1999) Patch structure, dynamics and implications for the functioning of arid ecosystems. Trends Ecol Evol 14:273–277PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnon AI, Ungar ED, Svoray T, Shachak M, Blankman J, Perevolotsky A (2007) The application of remote sensing to study shrub-herbaceous relations at a high spatial resolution. Isr J Plant Sci 55:73–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bar Massada A, Gabay O, Perevolotsky A, Carmel Y (2008) Quantifying the effect of grazing and shrub-clearing on small scale spatial pattern of vegetation. Landscape Ecol 23:327–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baram H (1996) Meteorological data. Lehavim Hills, Israel (1987–95). Volcani Institute, Bet-Dagan, IsraelGoogle Scholar
  5. Barbier N, Couteron P, Lefever R, Deblauwe V, Lejeune O (2008) Spatial decoupling of facilitation and competition at the origin of gapped vegetation patterns. Ecology 89:1521–1531PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bergkamp G, Cerda A, Imeson AC (1999) Magnitude-frequency analysis of water redistribution along a climate gradient in Spain. Catena 37:129–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bertiller MB, Marone L, Baldi R, Ares JO (2009) Biological interactions at different spatial scales in the Monte desert of Argentina. J Arid Environ 73:212–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Breshears DD, Barnes FJ (1999) Interrelationships between plant functional types and soil moisture heterogeneity for semiarid landscapes within the grassland/forest continuum: a unified conceptual model. Landscape Ecol 14:465–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brooker RW, Maestre FT, Callaway RM, Lortie CL, Cavieres LA, Kunstler G, Liancourt P, Tielborger K, Travis JMJ, Anthelme F, Armas C, Coll L, Corcket E, Delzon S, Forey E, Kikvidze Z, Olofsson J, Pugnaire F, Quiroz CL, Saccone P, Schiffers K, Seifan M, Touzard B, Michalet R (2008) Facilitation in plant communities: the past, the present, and the future. J Ecol 96:18–34Google Scholar
  10. Caballero I, Olano JM, Escudero A, Loidi J (2008) Seed bank spatial structure in semi-arid environments: beyond the patch-bare area dichotomy. Plant Ecol 195:215–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Callaway RM (1995) Positive interactions among plants. Bot Rev 61:306–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Charley JL, West NE (1975) Plant-induced soil chemical patterns in some shrub-dominated semi-desert ecosystems of Utah. J Ecol 63:945–963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Conover WJ, Iman RL (1981) Rank transformations as a bridge between parametric and nonparametric statistics. Am Stat 35:124–129Google Scholar
  14. Dickie IA, Schnitzer SA, Reich PB, Hobbie SE (2005) Spatially disjunct effects of co-occurring competition and facilitation. Ecol Lett 8:1191–1200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Drezner TD (2006) Plant facilitation in extreme environments: the non-random distribution of saguaro cacti (Carnegiea gigantea) under their nurse associates and the relationship to nurse architecture. J Arid Environ 65:46–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Feinbrun-Dothan N, Danin A, Plitmann U (1991) Analytical flora of Eretz-Israel. Cana Publishing House, JerusalemGoogle Scholar
  17. Gilad E, von Hardenberg J, Provenzale A, Shachak M, Meron E (2007) A mathematical model of plants as ecosystem engineers. J Theor Biol 244:680–691PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Giladi I, Segoli M, Ungar ED (2007) The effect of shrubs on the seed, rain of annuals in a semiarid landscape. Isr J Plant Sci 55:83–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gotelli NJ, Colwell RK (2001) Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecol Lett 4:379–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Holzapfel C, Mahall BE (1999) Bidirectional facilitation and interference between shrubs and annuals in the Mojave Desert. Ecology 80:1747–1761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. House JI, Archer S, Breshears DD, Scholes RJ (2003) Conundrums in mixed woody-herbaceous plant systems. J Biogeogr 30:1763–1777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jones CG, Lawton JH, Shachak M (1994) Organisms as ecosystem engineers. Oikos 69:373–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jones CG, Lawton JH, Shachak M (1997) Positive and negative effects of organisms as physical ecosystem engineers. Ecology 78:1946–1957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Li J, Zhao CY, Song YJ, Sheng Y, Zhu H (2010) Spatial patterns of desert annuals in relation to shrub effects on soil moisture. J Veg Sci 21:221–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Litav M, Orshan G (1971) Biological flora of Israel.1. Sarcopoterium spinosum (L.) Sp. Isr J Bot 20:48–64Google Scholar
  26. Maestre FT, Cortina J (2005) Remnant shrubs in Mediterranean semi-arid steppes: effects of shrub size, abiotic factors and species identity on understorey richness and occurrence. Acta Oecol Int J Ecol 27:161–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Maestre FT, Bautista S, Cortina J (2003) Positive, negative, and net effects in grass-shrub interactions in Mediterranean semiarid grasslands. Ecology 84:3186–3197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Maestre FT, Valladares F, Reynolds JF (2005) Is the change of plant–plant interactions with abiotic stress predictable? A meta-analysis of field results in arid environments. J Ecol 93:748–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Magurran AE (2005) Measuring biological diversity. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  30. Malkinson D, Tielbörger K (2010) What does the stress-gradient hypothesis predict? Resolving the discrepancies. Oikos 119:1546–1552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Moro MJ, Pugnaire FI, Haase P, Puigdefabregas J (1997) Mechanisms of interaction between a leguminous shrub and its understorey in a semi-arid environment. Ecography 20:175–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Odling-Smee FJ (1988) Niche-constructing phenotype. In: Plotkin HC (ed) The role of behavior in evolution. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 73–132Google Scholar
  33. Perevolotsky A, Seligman NG (1998) Role of grazing in Mediterranean rangeland ecosystems. Bioscience 48:1007–1017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Perevolotsky A, Ne’eman G, Yonatan R, Henkin Z (2001) Resilience of prickly burnet to management in east Mediterranean rangelands. J Range Manage 54:561–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Perry DA (1998) The scientific basis of forestry. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 29:435–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Reisman-Berman O (2004) Mechanisms controlling spatio-temporal dynamics of shrubland patchiness: the case study of Sarcopoterium spinosum (L.) Spach. Ph.D thesis, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. Ph.D. ThesisGoogle Scholar
  37. Reisman-Berman O (2007) Age-related change in canopy traits shifts conspecific facilitation to interference in a semi-arid shrubland. Ecography 30:459–470Google Scholar
  38. Reisman-Berman O, Henkin Z (2007) Sarcopoterium spinosum: revisiting shrub development and its relationship to space occupation with time. Isr J Plant Sci 55:53–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Reisman-Berman O, Kadmon R, Shachak M (2006) Spatio-temporal scales of dispersal limitation in the recolonization of a semi-arid Mediterranean old-field. Ecography 29:418–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ries L, Fletcher RJ, Battin J, Sisk TD (2004) Ecological responses to habitat edges: mechanisms, models, and variability explained. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:491–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Segoli M, Ungar ED, Shachak M (2008) Shrubs enhance resilience of a semiarid ecosystem by engineering and regrowth. Ecohydrology 1:330–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Segoli M, Ungar ED, Shachak M (2012) Fine-scale spatial heterogeneity of resource modulation in semi-arid ‘islands of fertility’. Arid Land Res Manage (accepted)Google Scholar
  43. Seligman NG, Henkin Z (2000) Regeneration of a dominant Mediterranean dwarf-shrub after fire. J Veg Sci 11:893–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shachak M, Boeken B, Groner E, Kadmon R, Lubin Y, Meron E, Ne’Eman G, Perevolotsky A, Shkedy Y, Ungar ED (2008) Woody species as landscape modulators and their effect on biodiversity patterns. Bioscience 58:209–221Google Scholar
  45. Shmida A, Whittaker RH (1981) Pattern and biological microsite effects in two shrub communities, Southern California. Ecology 62:234–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stavi I, Ungar ED, Lavee H, Sarah P (2008) Grazing-induced spatial variability of soil bulk density and content of moisture, organic carbon and calcium carbonate in a semi-arid rangeland. Catena 75:288–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Teste FP, Simard SW (2008) Mycorrhizal networks and distance from mature trees alter patterns of competition and facilitation in dry Douglas-fir forests. Oecologia 158:193–203PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tongway DJ, Valentin C (2001) Banded vegetation patterning in arid and semiarid environments—ecological processes and consequences for management. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Weedon JT, Facelli JM (2008) Desert shrubs have negative or neutral effects on annuals at two levels of water availability in arid lands of South Australia. J Ecol 96:1230–1237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wright JP, Jones CG (2006) The concept of organisms as ecosystem engineers ten years on: progress, limitations, and challenges. Bioscience 56:203–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wu HI, Sharpe PJH, Walker J, Penridge LK (1985) Ecological field-theory—a spatial-analysis of resource interference among plants. Ecol Model 29:215–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yang L, Ren H, Liu N, Wang J (2010) The shrub Rhodomyrtus tomentosa acts as a nurse plant for seedlings differing in shade tolerance in degraded land of South China. J Veg Sci 21:262–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Moran Segoli
    • 1
    • 3
  • Eugene D. Ungar
    • 2
  • Itamar Giladi
    • 1
  • Amir Arnon
    • 2
  • Moshe Shachak
    • 1
  1. 1.Mitrani Department of Desert Ecology, BIDRBen Gurion University of the Negev, Sde Boker CampusSde BokerIsrael
  2. 2.Department of Agronomy and Natural ResourcesInstitute of Plant Sciences, Agricultural Research Organization—The Volcani CenterBet DaganIsrael
  3. 3.Department of Plant SciencesUniversity of California One Shields Ave.DavisUSA

Personalised recommendations