Advertisement

Plant Ecology

, Volume 206, Issue 2, pp 287–295 | Cite as

Does disturbance drive the collapse of biotic interactions at the severe end of a diversity–biomass gradient?

  • Estelle ForeyEmail author
  • Blaise Touzard
  • Richard Michalet
Article

Abstract

It has been recently proposed that the decrease in diversity towards the severe end of the humped-back diversity–biomass model of Grime was driven by a collapse of facilitation due to extreme conditions of either stress or physical disturbance. In order to test the hypothesis that disturbance is the primary direct factor driving the collapse of interactions occurring along environmental severity gradients, we conducted a removal experiment in the highly stressed French coastal dunes along a gradient of disturbance due to sand burial. Four dune species were used as targets and transplanted with and without neighbours in four communities along the gradient. The experiment was conducted twice, a dry and an average year. Results of the experiment showed that during the dry year the effect of the environment was prominent and only one species was facilitated for survival in the least disturbed community. During the average year, interactions for growth were important only in the same community, with positive or negative responses depending on the natural position of the target species within the coastal dune gradient. In accordance with our hypothesis, most interactions for both survival and growth were observed in the least disturbed community exhibiting the highest diversity. There were no interactions in the most disturbed community with the lowest diversity.

Keywords

Coastal sand dunes Competition Facilitation Physical disturbance Stress 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the “Région Aquitaine”. We are grateful to the “Office National des Forêts” (O·N.F.) for permission to work in public coastal sand dunes. We sincerely thank Jean Laporte-Cru, Annie Laporte-Cru, Priscillia Trouillard, Laurène Claudel, David Rosebery, David Richin, and Bénédicte Roux for their help in the field during the experiment. We also thank Sylvain Delzon for statistical and methodology advices and Lohengrin Cavieres, Yoann Le Bagousse-Pinguet and Sabrina Sérac for their comments on this manuscript.

References

  1. Anthelme F, Michalet R, Saadou M (2007) Positive associations involving the tussock grass Panicum turgidum Forssk. in the Aïr-Ténéré Reserve, Niger. J Arid Environ 68:348–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armas C, Ordiales R, Pugnaire FI (2004) Measuring plant interactions: a new comparative index. Ecology 85:2682–2686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Avis AM, Lubke RA (1996) Dynamics and succession of coastal dune vegetation in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Landsc Urban Plan 34:237–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bertness MD, Callaway RM (1994) Positive interactions in communities. Trends Ecol Evol 9:191–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brooker RW, Callaghan FV (1998) The balance between positive and negative plant interactions and its relationship to environmental gradients: a model. Oikos 81:196–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brooker RW, Kikvidze Z, Pugnaire FI, Callaway RM, Choler P, Lortie CJ, Michalet R (2005) The importance of importance. Oikos 109:63–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brooker RW, Maestre FT, Callaway RM, Lortie CL, Cavieres LA, Kunstler G, Liancourt P, Tielbörger 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(1):18–34Google Scholar
  8. Bruno JF, Stachowicz JJ, Bertness MD (2003) Inclusion of facilitation into ecological theory. Trends Ecol Evol 18:119–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Callaway RM (1995) Positive interactions among plants. Bot Rev 61:306–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Callaway RM, Brooker RW, Choler P, Kikvidze Z, Lortie CJ, Michalet R, Paolini L, Pugnaire FI, Newingham B, Aschehoug ET, Armas C, Kikodze D, Cook BJ (2002) Positive interactions among alpine plants increase with stress. Nature 417:844–848CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Carlsen TM, Menke JW, Pavlik BM (2000) Reducing competitive suppression of a rare annual forb by restoring native California perennial grasslands. Restor Ecol 8:18–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Choler P, Michalet R, Callaway RM (2001) Facilitation and competition on gradients in alpine plant communities. Ecology 82:3295–3308Google Scholar
  13. Clements FE (1916) Plant succession: an analysis of the development of vegetation. Carnegie Institute Publication, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  14. Davis MA, Wrage KJ, Reich PB (1998) Competition between tree seedlings and herbaceous vegetation: support for a theory of resource supply and demand. J Ecol 86:652–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Forey E, Chapelet B, Tilquin M, Vitasse Y, Touzard B, Michalet R (2008) The relative importance of disturbance and environmental stress at local and regional scales in French coastal sand dunes. J Veg Sci 19(4):493–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Freestone AL, Harrison S (2006) Regional enrichment of local assemblages is robust to variation in local productivity, abiotic gradients, and heterogeneity. Ecol Lett 9:95–102CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Gomez-Aparicio L, Zamora R, Gomez JM, Hodar JA, Castro J, Baraza E (2004) Applying plant facilitation to forest restoration: a meta-analysis of the use of shrubs as nurse plants. Ecol Appl 14:1128–1138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grime JP (1973) Competitive exclusion in herbaceous vegetation. Nature 242:344–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grime JP (1974) Vegetation classification by reference to strategies. Nature 250:26–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grime JP (1979) Plant strategies and vegetation processes. Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UKGoogle Scholar
  21. Hacker SD, Gaines SD (1997) Some implications of direct positive interactions for community species diversity. Ecology 78:1990–2003Google Scholar
  22. Helm A, Hanski I, Partel M (2006) Slow response of plant species richness to habitat loss and fragmentation. Ecol Lett 9:72–77PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Huston M (1979) A general hypothesis of species diversity. Am Nat 113:81–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Joshi B, Singh SP, Rawat YS, Goel D (2001) Facilitative effect of Coriaria nepalensis on species diversity and growth of herbs on severely eroded hill slopes. Curr Sci 80:678–682Google Scholar
  25. Kawai T, Tokeshi M (2007) Testing the facilitation-competition paradigm under the stress-gradient hypothesis: decoupling multiple stress factors. Proc Biol Sci 274:2503–2508CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Kitzberger T, Steinaker DF, Veblen TT (2000) Effects of climatic variability on facilitation of tree establishment in northern Patagonia. Ecology 81:1914–1929Google Scholar
  27. Lemauviel S (2000) Les dunes grises des côtes Atlantiques: fonctionnement, dynamique potentielle, principes de gestion conservatoire et processus de restauration. PhD Thesis, Université de Rennes 1, FranceGoogle Scholar
  28. Liancourt P, Callaway RM, Michalet R (2005) Stress tolerance and competitive-response ability determine the outcome of biotic interactions. Ecology 86:1611–1618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lichter J (1998) Primary succession and forest development on coastal Lake Michigan sand dunes. Ecol Monogr 68:487–510Google Scholar
  30. Lortie CJ, Callaway RM (2005) Re-analysis of meta-analysis: support for the stress-gradient hypothesis. J Ecol 106:1–10Google Scholar
  31. Lortie CJ, Brooker RW, Choler P, Kikvidze Z, Michalet R, Pugnaire FI, Callaway RM (2004) Rethinking plant community theory. Oikos 107:433–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mac Arthur RH, Wilson EO (1967) The theory of island biogeography. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  33. Maestre FT, Cortina J (2004) Do positive interactions increase with abiotic stress? A test from a semi-arid steppe. Proc Biol Sci 271:S331–S333CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Maestre FT, Valladares F, Reynolds JF (2006) The stress-gradient hypothesis does not fit all relationships between plant–plant interactions and abiotic stress: further insights from arid environments. J Ecol 94:17–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Martinez ML, Psuty NP (2004) Coastal dunes: ecology and conservation. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  37. Maun MA, Perumal J (1999) Zonation of vegetation on lacustrine coastal dunes: effects of burial by sand. Ecol Lett 2:14–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Michalet R (2006) Is facilitation in arid environments the result of direct or complex interactions? New Phytol 169:3–6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Michalet R (2007) Highlighting the multiple drivers of change in interactions along stress gradients. New Phytol 173:3–6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Michalet R, Brooker RW, Cavieres LA, Kikvidze Z, Lortie CJ, Pugnaire FI, Valiente-Banuet A, Callaway RM (2006) Do biotic interactions shape both sides of the humped-back model of species richness in plant communities? Ecol Lett 9:767–773CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Mittelbach GG, Steiner CF, Scheiner SM (2001) What is the observed relationship between species richness and productivity? Ecology 82:2381–2396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rajaniemi TK, Goldberg DE, Turkington R, Dyer AR (2006) Quantitative partitioning of regional and local processes shaping regional diversity patterns. Ecol Lett 9:121–128CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Tielbörger K, Kadmon R (2000) Temporal environmental variation tips the balance between facilitation and interference in desert plants. Ecology 81:1544–1553Google Scholar
  44. Tilman D (1982) Resource competition and community structure. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  45. Zeiter M, Stampfli A, Newberya DM (2006) Recruitment limitation constrains local species richness and productivity in dry grassland. Ecology 87:942–951CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Estelle Forey
    • 1
    Email author
  • Blaise Touzard
    • 1
  • Richard Michalet
    • 1
  1. 1.Community Ecology Group, UMR. INRA 1202 BIOGECOUniversity Bordeaux 1TalenceFrance

Personalised recommendations