Advertisement

Plant Ecology

, Volume 216, Issue 7, pp 1029–1045 | Cite as

Selective manipulation of a non-dominant plant and its herbivores affects an old-field plant community

  • Tania N. KimEmail author
  • Brian J. Spiesman
  • Amanda L. Buchanan
  • Alyssa S. Hakes
  • Stacey L. Halpern
  • Brian D. Inouye
  • Allyssa L. Kilanowski
  • Nicholas Kortessis
  • David W. McNutt
  • Andrew C. Merwin
  • Nora Underwood
Article

Abstract

Competition and herbivory can interact to influence the recovery of plant communities from disturbance. Previous attention has focused on the roles of dominant plant species in structuring plant communities, leaving the roles of subordinate species often overlooked. In this study, we examined how manipulating the density of a subordinate plant species, Solanum carolinense, and its insect herbivores influenced an old-field plant community in northern Florida following a disturbance. Five years following the disturbance, the initial densities of S. carolinense planted at the start of the experiment negatively influenced total plant cover and species diversity, and the cover of some grasses (e.g., Paspalum urvillei) and forbs (e.g., Rubus trivalis). Selectively removing herbivores from S. carolinense increased S. carolinense abundance (both stem densities and cover), increased the total cover of plants in the surrounding plant community, and affected plant community composition. Some plant species increased (e.g., Digitaria ciliaris, Solidago altissima) and others decreased (e.g., Paspalum notatum, Cynodon dactylon) in cover in response to herbivore removal. Herbivore effects on plant community metrics did not depend on S. carolinense density (no significant herbivory by density interaction), suggesting that even at low densities, a reduction of S. carolinense herbivores can influence the rest of the plant community. The recovery of the plant community was context dependent, depending on site- and plot-level differences in underlying environmental conditions and pre-disturbance plant community composition. We demonstrate that the density of and herbivory on a single subordinate plant species can affect the structure of an entire plant community.

Keywords

Context-dependency Competition Density manipulation Plant communities Recovery Selective removal 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank J. Simonis, J. Fort, C. Venner, J. Hines, and numerous REU students for helping to establish and maintain the project over the 5 years. We thank the staff at the University of Florida North Florida Research and Education Center for their logistical support. Comments from Joshua Grinath greatly improved this manuscript. This project was funded by NSF DEB-0717221 to N. Underwood, and NSF DEB-0716922 and NRI, CSREES, USDA Grant 2006-35320-16686 to S. Halpern.

References

  1. Armesto JJ, Pickett STA (1985) Experiments on disturbance in old-field plant communities: impact on species richness and abundance. Ecology 66:230–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bach CE (1994) Effects of a specialist herbivore (Altica subplicata) on Salix cordata and sand dune succession. Ecol Monogr 64:423–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carson WP, Root RB (1999) Top-down effects of insect herbivores during early succession: influence on biomass and plant dominance. Oecologia 121:260–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carson WP, Root RB (2000) Herbivory and plant species coexistence: community regulation by an outbreaking phytophagous insect. Ecol Monogr 70:73–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chase JM, Abrams PA, Grover JP, Diehl S, Chesson P, Holt RD, Richards SA, Nisbet RM, Case TJ (2002) The interaction between predation and competition: a review and synthesis. Ecol Lett 5:302–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clements FE (1938) Nature and structure of the climax. J Ecol 24:252–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Connell JH (1983) On the prevalence and relative importance of interspecific competition—evidence from field experiments. Am Nat 122:661–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Connell JH, Slayter R (1977) Mechanisms of succession in natural communities and their role in community stability and organization. Am Nat 111:1119–1144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cramer VA, Hobbs RJ, Standish RJ (2008) What’s new about old fields? Land abandonment and ecosystem assembly. Trends Ecol Evol 23:104–112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crawley MJ (1989) Insect herbivores and plant-population dynamics. Annu Rev Entomol 34:531–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crawley MJ, Pacala SW (1991) Herbivores, plant parasites, and plant diversity. In: Toft CA, Aeschlimann A, Bolis L (eds) Parasite-host associations: coexistence or conflict?. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 157–173Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Firbank LG, Watkinson AR (1990) On the effects of competition: from monocultures to mixtures. In: Grace JB, Tilman D (eds) Perspectives on plant competition. The Blackburn Press, Caldwell, pp 165–192Google Scholar
  14. Foster DF, Swanson F, Aber J, Burke I, Brokaw N, Tilman D, Knapp A (2003) The importance of land-use legacies to ecology and conservation. Bioscience 53:77–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gedan KB, Crain CM, Bertness MD (2009) Small-mammal herbivore control of secondary succession in New England tidal marshes. Ecology 90:430–440PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gleason HA (1927) Further views on the succession concept. Ecology 8:299–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gunasekara AS, Rubin AL, Goh K, Spurlock F, Tjeerdema RS (2008) Environmental fate and toxicology of Carbaryl. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 196:95–121PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Hahn PG, Orrock JL (2015) Land-use legacies and present fire regimes interact to mediate herbivory by altering the neighboring plant community. Oikos 124:497–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hairston NG, Smith FE, Slobodkin LB (1960) Community structure, population control and competition. Am Nat 94:421–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hambäck PA, Beckerman AP (2003) Herbivory and plant resource competition: a review of two interacting interactions. Oikos 101:26–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hervé M (2015) RVAideMemoire: diverse basic statistical and graphical functions package. Version 0.9-45-2. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/RVAideMemoire/index.html
  22. Huntly N (1991) Herbivores and the dynamics of communities and ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 22:477–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Inouye BD (2001) Response surface experimental designs for investigating interspecific competition. Ecology 82:2696–2706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jin S, Yang L, Danielson P, Homer C, Fry J, Xian G (2013) A comprehensive change detection method for updating the National Land Cover Database to circa 2011. Remote Sens Environ 132:159–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Keddy PA (1990) Competitive hierarchies and centrifugal organization in plant communities. In: Grace JB, Tilman D (eds) Perspectives on Plant Competition. The Blackburn Press, Caldwell, pp 265–290Google Scholar
  26. Kim TN (2012) Community-level consequences of plant–herbivore interactions. PhD Dissertation, Florida State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  27. Kim TN, Underwood N (2015) A full picture of plant neighborhood effects on herbivory: damage is both density and frequency dependent. Ecology 96:1431–1437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kim TN, Underwood N, Inouye BD (2013) Insect herbivores change the outcome of plant competition through both inter- and intraspecific processes. Ecology 94:1753–1763PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lau JA, Strauss SY (2005) Insect herbivores drive important indirect effects of exotic plants on native communities. Ecology 86:2900–2997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Louda SM, Keeler KH, Holt RD (1990) Herbivore influences on plant performance and competitive interactions. In: Grace JB, Tilman D (eds) Perspectives on plant competition. The Blackburn Press, Caldwell, pp 413–444Google Scholar
  31. Murthy N, Raghu K (1990) Effect of carbaryl and 1-naphthol on seedling growth of barley, and on growth and nodulation of groundnut in two soils. Proc Plant Sci 100:11–15Google Scholar
  32. R Development Core Team (2014) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  33. Schmidtlein S, Zimmermann P, Schüpferling R, Weiß C (2007) Mapping the floristic continuum: ordination space position estimated from imaging spectroscopy. J Veg Sci 18:131–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Simms EL, Rausher MD (1987) Costs and benefits of plant-resistance to herbivory. Am Nat 130:570–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Underwood N, Halpern S (2012) Insect herbivores, density dependence, and the performance of the perennial herb Solanum carolinense. Ecology 93:1026–1035PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wise MJ (2007) The herbivores of Solanum carolinense (Horsenettle) in Northern Virginia: natural history and damage assessment. Southeast Nat 6:505–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wise MJ, Sacchi CF (1996) Impact of two specialist insect herbivores on reproduction of horse nettle, Solanum carolinense. Oecologia 108:328–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tania N. Kim
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Brian J. Spiesman
    • 1
    • 3
  • Amanda L. Buchanan
    • 1
    • 4
  • Alyssa S. Hakes
    • 1
    • 5
  • Stacey L. Halpern
    • 6
  • Brian D. Inouye
    • 1
  • Allyssa L. Kilanowski
    • 1
    • 7
  • Nicholas Kortessis
    • 1
    • 8
  • David W. McNutt
    • 1
  • Andrew C. Merwin
    • 1
  • Nora Underwood
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological ScienceFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA
  2. 2.Great Lakes Bioenergy Research CenterUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA
  3. 3.Department of EntomologyUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA
  4. 4.Department of EntomologyMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  5. 5.Biology DepartmentLawrence UniversityAppletonUSA
  6. 6.Department of BiologyPacific UniversityForest GroveUSA
  7. 7.School of Natural Resources and the EnvironmentThe University of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  8. 8.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyThe University of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations