Plant species height (mature height), which strongly correlates with other measures of size, is widely considered an important functional trait. Taller species contribute greatly to ecosystem function and are frequently identified as strong competitors. Additionally, important ecological processes like self-thinning scale with plant species size. In spite of the clear functional importance of species size, evidence for size-based plant community assembly rules has been scant. While herbivory can be species specific and there are reasons why herbivores may target larger plant species, it is unknown whether herbivory has size-biased impacts on species composition. In an old-field plant community, we compared plant species composition in herbivore exclusion (caged) and control plots over five years to test whether herbivore activity favors species at one end of the size spectrum. Across 5 years, smaller species were modestly, but consistently, underrepresented in caged plots compared to control plots. This underrepresentation of relatively smaller plant species in caged plots, where seedling herbivory was greatly diminished, was driven by lower small plant species richness and abundance in those plots; the abundance and richness of tall species did not differ across treatments. Our findings demonstrate that reducing herbivore activity in our study community modestly but consistently altered plant species composition, slightly favoring larger species. There was no evidence that larger species are preferentially targeted by herbivores. Some research suggests, although it will require further investigation, that seedling herbivory, regardless of the species eaten, produces vegetation gaps that small plant species are more successful in colonizing.
Plant species vary in maximum size across several orders of magnitude. Even within a single community this variation can be great (Schamp and Aarssen 2014) and research suggests it can be ecologically relevant. For example, variation in plant species size appears to contribute to competitive ability (typically competitive effect ability; Gaudet and Keddy 1988; Keddy and Shipley 1989; Goldberg and Landa 1991; Keddy et al. 1994, 2002; Rösch et al. 1997; Keddy 2001; Fraser and Keddy 2005; Violle et al. 2009; Wang et al. 2010; Carmona et al. 2019; but see Gerry and Wilson 1995) and intraspecific density-dependence (self-thinning) scales with species size (White 1980; Enquist et al. 1998; Schamp and Aarssen 2014). Additionally, monocultures of larger species appear to be more susceptible to invasion, particularly by smaller species (Schamp and Aarssen 2010). Finally, evidence suggests that plant species that contribute strongly to ecosystem function tend to be relatively tall (Brun et al. 2022). It is clear that plant species size represents an important functional trait that contributes to a species’ ecological strategy (Westoby 1998). Consequently, it is intriguing that evidence for size-specific community assembly rules is sparse.
A number of ecological studies have examined the impact of variation in plant species maximum size on community assembly. Evidence of size-based community assembly using null modeling approaches, for example, has been inconsistent (Weiher et al. 1998; Stubbs and Wilson 2004; Schamp and Aarssen 2009) or simply lacking (Schamp et al. 2008, 2011). Additionally, few field studies show evidence of any competitive advantage by larger plant species (Aarssen et al. 2014; Schamp et al. 2013; but see Balfour et al. 2022 for evidence of a modest species size advantage).
There is considerable evidence that herbivores are consequential in affecting plant community composition by altering abundance and diversity (Batzli and Pitelka 1971; Howe et al. 2002; Peters 2007; Eskelinen et al. 2022), and additional evidence suggests that herbivore activity, especially by small mammals, can have species-specific effects due to preferential seed or seedling predation (Hulme 1994; Howe and Brown 2000; Howe and Lane 2004; Howe et al. 2006; Sullivan and Howe 2009; Bricker and Maron 2012; Pellish et al. 2018; Dylewski et al. 2020; Steketee et al. 2022). There are several reasons to suspect that herbivory/granivory may be size biased. First, seedlings of smaller species are closer to mature size than seedlings of larger species. Hypothetically, smaller species may deploy anti-herbivore defenses at a smaller absolute size than larger species, leaving the seedlings of larger species relatively less mature and perhaps more susceptible. Second, larger plant species generally have larger seeds (Aarssen and Jordan 2001), which may be more readily found by herbivores and may have an increased nutrient reward per seed (Samson et al. 1992; Grubb and Burslem 1998); large-seeded plant species, particularly in grasslands, appear to be more greatly impacted by granivores (Dylewski et al. 2020). Seed size and shape may also be predictive of persistence in soil, which could reflect the activities of granivores and the ability of small-seeded species to persist (Thompson et al. 1993; Funes et al. 2003; but see Moles et al. 2000). Third, some research suggests that variation in gross morphology, including height/biomass, can be predictive of susceptibility to herbivores, at least for woody plant species (Carmona et al. 2011). A size bias in herbivory is also aligned with predictions from Price’s (1991) plant vigor hypothesis, which suggests that invertebrate herbivores prefer larger leaves, stems, and/or plants and with research suggesting that intraspecific variation in plant size can predict invertebrate herbivore responses (Barbour et al. 2015). Finally, seedling herbivory, regardless of the species eaten, will leave small gaps in the vegetation that can be captured by the dispersules of other species. Some research indicates that smaller species, which have smaller space requirements and can reproduce at a smaller size (Aarssen et al. 2006), are better at colonizing such gaps (Schamp and Aarssen 2010). Consequently, there is ample reason to investigate the possibility that the actions of herbivores influence plant species composition in a size-biased manner.
Several lines of evidence suggest that herbivory is important in our study community, an old field dominated by herbaceous perennial grasses and forbs. A separate seedling transplant experiment indicates a high rate of seedling herbivory (> 75% of 564 transplants across 15 species) in the field (Schamp unpublished). Camera trap data show activity around these transplants by small mammal herbivores, particularly meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus Ord, 1815) and meadow jumping mice (Zapus hudsonius Zimmermann, 1780) (Fig. 1); both of these species are known to regularly consume the seedlings of multiple species found in our community (Hulme 1994; Howe and Brown 2000; Howe and Lane 2004; Howe et al. 2006; Sullivan and Howe 2009; Bricker and Maron 2012; Pellish et al. 2018; Dylewski et al. 2020; Steketee et al. 2022). There is ample reason to suspect that herbivores may be important in driving compositional patterns within this community.
In this study we investigate whether herbivores/granivores change the composition of an old-field plant community in a way that favors smaller plant species. To accomplish this, we compared the abundance and diversity of large and small species in caged (herbivore exclusion) and control plots. Above, we highlighted several reasons why herbivores/granivores may preferentially eat the seedlings of larger plant species/larger-seeded plant species. Consequently, we have predicted that taller plant species (i.e., species with larger mature sizes) would be underrepresented—and smaller species overrepresented—in control plots compared to herbivore exclusion (caged) plots.
We performed this study in an old-field plant community at the Ontario Forest Research Institute’s Arboretum in Sault Ste. Marie, Canada (46°32′34.1″ N 84°27′37.4″ W). Vegetation within the field consists of herbaceous, mainly perennial, plant species (Table S1). The field site has remained unmown and untilled since 2007. In 2009, we established 150, 1-m diameter plots within 1.5 m × 1.5 m plot areas randomly located within a 25 m × 67.5 m field grid—plots are separated by 1-m laneways (Fig. S1). Using a random number table, we assigned plots to one of two treatments: control (n = 75) or caged (n = 75). We enclosed caged plots with a 1-cm gauge fence that extends roughly 45 cm above the ground and 15 cm below the ground. We left the tops of cages open to allow for vertical plant growth. The purpose of the caged treatments was to eliminate or at least greatly reduce herbivory. Based on camera trap evidence and general observations, there are a significant number of meadow voles and meadow jumping mice that frequent our study site. While we have previously seen large herbivores (ex. deer) in the arboretum facility (96 ha), we have not witnessed any walking through or feeding within our study community–camera trap data across 40 days from mid-July to mid-September in the summer of 2022 produced no evidence of deer in the study field. It remains possible that deer browse within the community.
Beginning nine years after establishing our experimental plots—which allowed for any treatment effects on plant composition to accrue, we recorded the abundance of each plant species in each plot (yearly, from 2018 to 2022). Abundance was recorded as the number of rooted units (i.e., ramets) of each species within each 1 m plot (e.g., Brazeau and Schamp 2019).
To estimate maximum height for each of our species (Westoby 1998), we collected height data continuously throughout the duration of this study, identifying and sampling tall reproductive individuals of each species visible within the bounds of our field site. The median number of values recorded per species is 41 (range = 20−80); we used the largest value per species as the maximum height for that species. Because we were interested in maximum species height as a species-level functional trait representing the potential size each species could reach in our community, and because we did not wish to disturb our experimental plots, all plants measured were in the surrounding non-treatment plots. Our interest was in species-level compositional changes related to potential size, not individual plant-level size in relation to herbivory, so measuring the size of species in individual plots was unnecessary and would not inform our hypotheses. When collecting maximum plant height, we measured the length of the plant from the ground level to the highest point on the plant without manipulation (i.e., we did not stretch the plant while measuring, and in some cases, a plant species reproductive structure was the tallest plant structure). We tested the influence of this choice on our results by testing whether our results changed when we substituted vegetative height data for three rosette species for which the reproductive height is very different from vegetative height (Plantago major, Plantago lanceolata, Pilosella aurantiaca, Details in Table S2).
To determine whether herbivores were active in eating seedlings in our study plots and establish that our caged treatment limits this herbivory, we conducted a transplant experiment. During the summer of 2022, we grew seedlings of Trifolium pratense in a growth chamber and then hardened them with outdoor growth for a period of one week. In August 2022, we transplanted one seedling into each control and caged plot (75 transplants in control plots, 61 transplants in caged plots; 14 caged plots were damaged in 2021, and these plots were removed from 2021 to 2022 census data prior to data analyses). We then monitored these seedlings weekly until October 2022 to determine whether they would be eaten by herbivores.
To determine whether larger and smaller species were overrepresented in caged and control plots, we used our functional trait estimates of maximum species height in conjunction with abundance data from plots to determine the average maximum height of the species found in each plot (abundance weighted) and compared this across treatments. We also compared plot-level species richness and plot-level abundance between caged and control plots over time; all analyses were carried out using R.4.1.3 (R Core Team 2022). We used three approaches when calculating plot-level richness and abundance. We calculated (1) the richness and abundance of all species found growing in plots (total species richness and abundance), (2) the richness and abundance of species in a plot that had maximum heights lower than or equal to the first quartile of species height for all species in the community for a given census year (small species richness and abundance, Table S3; Balfour et al. 2022), and (3) the richness and abundance of species in a plot that had maximum heights greater than or equal to the third quartile of species height for all species in the community for a given census year (large species richness and abundance, Table S3). We fit the response variable and the average height of species in each plot, using a linear mixed-effects model, with treatment as a fixed variable and year and plot as crossed random variables (“lmer” function, “lme4” package v1.1.28; Bates et al. 2015). We used two versions of this model, one with average maximum height of species in plots calculated using reproductive heights and a second version where these plot-level values are calculated using reproductive heights for most species and vegetative heights for three rosette species (P. major, P. lanceolata, and P. aurantiaca). We log transformed these plot-level measures to meet normality assumptions. We fit the response variables, total species richness, small species richness, and large species richness with generalized linear mixed-effects models, using the Poisson distribution and a log-link function, with treatment as a fixed variable and year and plot as crossed random variables (“glmer” function, “lme4” package; Bates et al. 2015). To address overdispersion, we fit the response variables, total abundance, small species abundance, and large species abundance with generalized linear mixed-effects models, using the negative binomial distribution, with treatment as a fixed variable and year and plot as crossed random variables (“glmer.nb” function, “lme4” package; Bates et al. 2015). We checked statistical assumptions by examining the normality of residuals, normality of random effects, linearity (lmer model only), overdispersion and zero-inflation plots (glmer models only), homogeneity of variance, and influential observations plots (“model_check” function, “performance” package v0.10.0; Lüdecke et al. 2021). To evaluate both the statistical and biological significance of our model estimates, we calculated back-transformed estimated marginal means (least-squares means; “emmeans” package v1.7.3; Lenth 2022) with associated 95% confidence intervals.
Using data from our seedling transplant experiment, we compared T. pratense seedling consumption in caged and control plots using a generalized linear model with a binomial distribution (“glm” function, “stats” v.4.1.3). The response variable in this model was the status of each seedling—coded as 1 if the seedling was eaten (all aboveground biomass removed) during the observation period or 0 if the seedling was alive by the end of monitoring—the predictor variable was treatment (caged vs. control). Methods for checking assumptions and reporting significance are described above.
Consistent with our predictions, species found in caged plots were significantly taller compared to in control plots [1.03 m, 95% CI (0.97, 1.10) vs. 0.94 m, 95% CI (0.88, 1.01); F1,146.36 = 4.34, p = 0.037; Fig. 2; Table 1; Fig. S2]. We observed the same significant over-representation of taller species in caged plots when we used vegetative height data for three rosette species (P. major, P. lanceolata, P. aurantiaca; F1,146.42 = 5.43, p = 0.019; Table S2). Total species richness did not significantly differ between caged and control plots (Table S4); however, small species richness was lower in caged plots compared to control plots [0.41, 95% CI (0.29, 0.59) vs. 0.65, 95% CI (0.47, 0.92); x21 = 7.29, p = 0.007; Fig. 2; Table 1; Fig. S3]. Large species richness did not significantly differ between treatments (Table S4). Total abundance was significantly lower in caged plots compared to control plots [223, 95% CI (168, 296) vs. 273, 95% CI (206, 361); x21 = 4.03, p = 0.045; Fig. 2; Table 1; Fig. S4]. Small species abundance was significantly lower in caged plots compared to control plots [0.95, 95% CI (0.46, 1.98) vs. 3.69, 95% CI (1.81, 7.52); x21 = 14.22, p < 0.001; Fig. 2; Table 1; Fig. S5]. Large species abundance did not significantly differ between treatments (Table S4).
Seedlings of Trifolium pratense were eaten significantly more frequently in control plots relative to caged plots (x21 = 56.84, p < 0.001; Table 2). Trifolium pratense seedlings in control plots had an 89% chance of being completely eaten [95% CI (0.80, 0.95); Fig. 3], while seedlings in caged plots had a 13% change of being completely eaten [95% CI (0.07, 0.24); Fig. 3].
We examined the potentially size-biased role of herbivores in shaping plant community composition in an old-field plant community. Evidence from our transplant experiment supports the prominence of herbivores within the community, as well as the efficacy of our caged treatment (89% of seedlings in control plots were eaten). Indirect evidence suggests that small mammals are responsible for this seedling herbivory (voles and meadow jumping mice); however, other herbivores, including deer and snowshoe hare, may also play a role. Voles and meadow jumping mice are known herbivores in grasslands, and voles can be particularly impactful herbivores in grassland systems (Howe and Brown 2000; Howe and Lane 2004; Howe et al. 2006); these small mammals appear to be active and consequential herbivores within our study community.
We tested whether small mammal herbivore exclusion produced size-biased impacts on plant species composition in an old-field community using five years of data following an elapsed nine years of experimental treatment. Plant species composition differed significantly across treatments, with smaller plant species modestly but consistently overrepresented within control plots relative to caged plots. Caged plots, where small mammal herbivores were excluded, consistently contained taller species (9 cm taller on average) compared to control plots. Fewer small plant species were consistently found in caged plots, again across the five years of compositional data we examined. These results indicate that small mammal herbivores in our community significantly impact the composition of coexisting plant species, with the apparent effect of modestly benefiting small plant species. Lastly, total abundance and small species abundance were lower in caged plots. This finding expands our understanding of the role that herbivores play in assembling plant communities (Borer et al. 2014) and expands the list of ecological processes that yield changes in composition related to plant species size.
We did not find clear evidence that control plots contained fewer tall plant species or fewer individuals of tall species, as would be expected if herbivores were preferentially targeting the seedlings of these species. While differences in abundance across treatments for some species suggest that some herbivore/granivore activity is species specific in our study system (Table S5), consistent with abundant literature (Howe and Brown 2000; Howe and Lane 2004; Howe et al. 2006; Sullivan and Howe 2009; Bricker and Maron 2012; Pellish et al. 2018; Steketee et al. 2022), these preferences do not appear to be size biased. It is possible that abundances, particularly of large plant species, are simply slow to change across treatments because mature plants are long-lived. However, it would seem reasonable to expect that after 14 years of treatment effects, larger species, if targeted by herbivores (or their seeds targeted by granivores), would have decreased in abundance and/or diversity in control plots. Consequently, direct herbivory or granivory affecting tall plant species does not appear to account for the observed differences in composition among our treatments.
Aside from direct, size-biased herbivory, it is possible that herbivores may favor increased abundance and diversity of small species by preferentially consuming seedlings (Harper 1977; Crawley 1988; Hulme 1996) regardless of what species or size of species is consumed. As mentioned above, there is considerable evidence that herbivores target seedlings in our study community. The seedlings of T. pratense were eaten at a high rate (89% eaten in control plots) and > 75% of 564 seedlings spanning 15 species were eaten in a single growing season in another experiment in this community (Schamp unpublished). These data, combined with the basic observation that in 14 years of study, no single season has come close to enduring a comparable loss of mature plants to herbivores, allow us to conclude with high confidence that herbivores in our study preferentially target seedlings. Frequent seedling predation will necessarily increase the number of small gaps or microsites available and thus increase opportunities for successful colonization (Hoffman et al. 1994). Some evidence suggests that smaller plant species may be more successful in colonizing gaps (Schamp and Aarssen 2010), perhaps due to their ability to survive and reproduce at smaller sizes (Tracey and Aarssen 2014). Therefore, even if seedling consumption is random and not size biased (but see Hulme 1994), seedling herbivory may still favor small species. For example, the observed herbivory on T. pratense, which is a relatively small species, will leave relatively small gaps that plant species with small maximum sizes may still colonize (Schamp and Aarssen 2010). We do not have data to confirm this mechanism, although we are confident that herbivory is benefiting smaller species and that this is not due to herbivores targeting the tall plant species. The mechanism for our results requires further study; for example, other herbivore effects such as those from trampling, burrowing, and changes in litter distribution may also contribute to the observed compositional differences between treatments.
Herbivores play an important role in our study community and do so in a way that consistently favors smaller plant species, allowing them to achieve modest, but consistent higher richness and abundance. Because this effect appears to arise from seedling herbivory across many herbaceous plant species, it is likely to be a stable effect, as seedlings appear to be eaten before anti-herbivore defenses can be deployed. The consistent benefit of this herbivory in favor of small species may reduce or mitigate any competitive advantage enjoyed by larger plant species (Eskelinen et al. 2022), ensuring that natural communities harbor a collection of plant species spanning a large gradient in size.
The datasets generated during the current study are available from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request.
Aarssen LW, Jordan C (2001) Between-species patterns of covariation in plant size, seed size and fecundity in monocarpic herbs. Ecoscience 8:471–477. https://doi.org/10.1080/11956860.2001.11682677
Aarssen LW, Schamp BS, Pither J (2006) Why are there so many small plants? Implications for species coexistence. J Ecol 94:569–580. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2006.01128.x
Aarssen LW, Schamp BS, Wight S (2014) Big plants—Do they affect neighbourhood species richness and composition in herbaceous vegetation? Acta Oecol 55:36–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actao.2013.11.006
Balfour KC, Greco DA, Gridzak R, Piggott G, Schamp BS, Aarssen LW (2022) Smaller species experience mild adversity under shading in an old-field plant community. Ecol Evol 12:e9006. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.9006
Barbour MA, Rodriguez-Cabal MA, Wu ET, Julkunen-Tiitto R, Ritland CE, Miscampbell AE et al (2015) Multiple plant traits shape the genetic basis of herbivore community assembly. Funct Ecol 29:995–1006. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12409
Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67:1–48. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1406.5823
Batzli GO, Pitelka FA (1971) Condition and diet of cycling populations of the California vole, Microtus californicus. J Mammal 52:141–163. https://doi.org/10.2307/1378438
Borer ET, Seabloom EW, Gruner DS, Harpole SW, Hillebrand H, Lind EM et al (2014) Herbivores and nutrients control grassland plant diversity via light limitation. Nature 508:517–520. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13144
Brazeau HA, Schamp BS (2019) Examining the link between competition and negative co-occurrence patterns. Oikos 128:1358–1366. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.06054
Bricker M, Maron J (2012) Postdispersal seed predation limits the abundance of a long-lived perennial forb (Lithospermum ruderale). Ecology 93:532–543. https://doi.org/10.1890/11-0948.1
Brun P, Violle C, Mouillot D, Mouquet N, Enquist BJ, Munoz F et al (2022) Plant community impact on productivity: trait diversity or key(stone) species effects? Ecol Lett 25:913–925. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13968
Carmona D, Lajeunesse MJ, Johnson MTJ (2011) Plant traits that predict resistance to herbivores. Funct Ecol 25:358–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2010.01794.x
Carmona CP, de Bello F, Azcárate FM, Mason NWH, Peco B (2019) Trait hierarchies and intraspecific variability drive competitive interactions in Mediterranean annual plants. J Ecol 107:2078–2089. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13248
Crawley MJ (1988) Herbivores and plant population dynamics. In: Davy AJ, Hutchings MJ, Watkinson AR (eds) Plant Population Ecology. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp 367–392
Dylewski L, Ortega YK, Bogdziewicz M, Pearson DE (2020) Seed size predicts global effects of small mammal seed predation on plant recruitment. Ecol Lett 23:1024–1033. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13499
Enquist BJ, Brown JH, West GB (1998) Allometric scaling of plant energetics and population density. Nature 395:163–165. https://doi.org/10.1038/25977
Eskelinen A, Harpole SW, Jessen MT, Virtanen R, Hautier Y (2022) Light competition drives herbivore and nutrient effects on plant diversity. Nature 611:301–305. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05383-9
Fraser LH, Keddy PA (2005) Can competitive ability predict structure in experimental plant communities? J Veg Sci 16:571–578. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2005.tb02398.x
Funes G, Basconcelo S, Díaz S, Cabido M (2003) Seed bank dynamics in tall-tussock grasslands along an altitudinal gradient. J Veg Sci 14:253–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2003.tb02150.x
Gaudet CL, Keddy PA (1988) A comparative approach to predicting competitive ability from plant traits. Nature 334:242–243. https://doi.org/10.1038/334242a0
Gerry AK, Wilson SD (1995) The influence of initial size on the competitive responses of six plant species. Ecology 76:272–279. https://doi.org/10.2307/1940648
Goldberg DE, Landa K (1991) Competitive effect and response: hierarchies and correlated traits in the early stages of competition. J Ecol 79:1013–1030. https://doi.org/10.2307/2261095
Grubb PJ, Burslem DFRP (1998) Mineral nutrient concentrations as a function of seed size within seed crops: Implications for competition among seedlings and defence against herbivory. J Trop Ecol 14:177–185. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467498000145
Harper JL (1977) Population Biology of Plants. Academic Press, London
Hoffman LA, Redente EF, McEwen LC (1994) Effects of selective seed predation by rodents on shortgrass establishment. Ecol Appl 5:200–208. https://doi.org/10.2307/1942063
Howe HF, Brown J (2000) Early effects of rodent granivory on experimental forb communities. Ecol Appl 10:917–924. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[0917:EEORGO]2.0.CO;2
Howe HF, Lane D (2004) Vole-driven succession in experimental wet-prairie restorations. Ecol Appl 14:1295–1305. https://doi.org/10.1890/03-5182
Howe HF, Brown J, Zorn-Arnold B (2002) A rodent plague on prairie diversity. Ecol Lett 5:30–36. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2002.00276.x
Howe HF, Zorn-Arnold B, Sullivan A, Brown JS (2006) Massive and distinctive effects of meadow voles on grassland vegetation. Ecology 87:3007–3013. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2006)87[3007:MADEOM]2.0.CO;2
Hulme PE (1994) Seedling herbivory in grassland: relative impact of vertebrate and invertebrate herbivores. J Ecol 82:873–880. https://doi.org/10.2307/2261451
Hulme PE (1996) Herbivory, plant regeneration, and species coexistence. J Ecol 84:609–615. https://doi.org/10.2307/2261482
Keddy PA (2001) Competition, 2nd edn. Kluwer, Dordrecht
Keddy PA, Shipley B (1989) Competitive hierarchies in herbaceous plant communities. Oikos 54:234–241. https://doi.org/10.2307/3565272
Keddy PA, Twolan-Strutt L, Wisheu IC (1994) Competitive effect and response rankings in 20 wetland plants: are they consistent across three environments? J Ecol 82:635–643. https://doi.org/10.2307/2261270
Keddy PA, Nielsen K, Weiher E, Lawson R (2002) Relative competitive performance of 63 species of terrestrial herbaceous plants. J Veg Sci 13:5–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2002.tb02018.x
Lenth R (2022) emmeans: estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. R package version 1.7.3. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans
Lüdecke D, Ben-Shachar MS, Patil I, Waggoner P, Makowski D (2021) performance: an R package for assessment, comparison and testing of statistical models. J Open Source Softw 6:3139. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03139
Moles AT, Hodson DW, Webb CJ (2000) Seed size and shape and persistence in the soil in the New Zealand flora. Oikos 89:541–545. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.890313.x
Pellish CA, Sherrard ME, Leytem PA, Jackson LL (2018) Small vertebrate granivores reduce seedling emergence in native tallgrass prairie restoration. Restor Ecol 26:323–330. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12557
Peters HA (2007) The significance of small herbivores in structuring annual grassland. J Veg Sci 18:175–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2007.tb02528.x
Price PW (1991) The plant vigor hypothesis and herbivore attack. Oikos 62:244–251. https://doi.org/10.2307/3545270
R Core Team (2022) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna
Rösch H, Van Rooyen MW, Theron GK (1997) Predicting competitive interactions between pioneer plant species by using plant traits. J Veg Sci 8:489–494. https://doi.org/10.2307/3237200
Samson DA, Philippi TE, Davidson DW (1992) Granivory and competition as determinants of annual plant diversity in the Chihuahuan desert. Oikos 65:61–80. https://doi.org/10.2307/3544888
Schamp BS, Aarssen LW (2009) The assembly of forest communities according to maximum species height along resource and disturbance gradients. Oikos 118:564–572. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2008.16589.x
Schamp BS, Aarssen LW (2010) The role of plant species size in invasibility: a field experiment. Oecologia 162:995–1004. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-009-1499-2
Schamp BS, Aarssen LW (2014) Plant species size and density-dependent effects on growth and survival. J Veg Sci 25:657–667. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvs.12135
Schamp BS, Chau J, Aarssen LW (2008) Dispersion of traits related to competitive ability in an old-field plant community. J Ecol 96:204–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2007.01328.x
Schamp BS, Hettenbergerová H, Hájek M (2011) Testing community assembly predictions for nominal and continuous plant traits in species-rich grasslands. Preslia 83:329–346
Schamp BS, Aarssen LW, Wight S (2013) Effects of ‘target’ plant species body size on neighbourhood species richness and composition in old-field vegetation. PLoS ONE 8:e82036. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0082036
Steketee JK, Rocha AV, Gough L, Griffin KL, Klupar I, An R et al (2022) Small herbivores with big impacts: Tundra voles (Microtus oeconomus) alter post-fire ecosystem dynamics. Ecology 103:e3689. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.3689
Stubbs WJ, Wilson JB (2004) Evidence for limiting similarity in a sand dune community. J Ecol 92:557–567. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-0477.2004.00898.x
Sullivan AT, Howe HF (2009) Prairie forb response to timing of vole herbivory. Ecology 90:1346–1355. https://doi.org/10.1890/08-0629.1
Thompson K, Band S, Hodgson J (1993) Seed size and shape predict persistence in soil. Funct Ecol 7:236–241. https://doi.org/10.2307/2389893
Tracey AJ, Aarssen LW (2014) Revising traditional theory on the link between plant body size and fitness under competition: evidence from old-field vegetation. Ecol Evol 4:959–967. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1001
Violle C, Garnier E, Lecoeur J, Roumet C, Podeur C, Blanchard A, Navas ML (2009) Competition, traits and resource depletion in plant communities. Oecologia 160:747–755. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-009-1333-x
Wang P, Stieglitz T, Zhou DW, Cahill JC (2010) Are competitive effect and response two sides of the same coin, or fundamentally different? Funct Ecol 24:196–207. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2009.01612.x
Weiher E, Clarke GDP, Keddy PA (1998) Community assembly rules, morphological dispersion, and the coexistence of plant species. Oikos 81:309–322. https://doi.org/10.2307/3547051
Westoby M (1998) A leaf-height-seed (LHS) plant ecology strategy scheme. Plant Soil 199:213–227. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004327224729
White J (1980) Demographic factors in populations of plants. In: Solbrig O (ed) Demography and evolution in plant populations. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 21–48
We thank the Ontario Forest Research Institute for allowing us to carry out this work in their research Arboretum. We would also like to thank Lonnie Aarssen for providing feedback on the manuscript and Albrecht Schulte-Hostedde (Laurentian University) and Jeff Bowman (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry) for assistance in identifying small mammals from camera trap images.
This study was funded by the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Discovery Grant to B. Schamp (RGPIN-2022-04578) and an NSERC Postgraduate Scholarship-Doctoral to R. Gridzak (reference number 461470999).
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Communicated by Stephen Bonser.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
About this article
Cite this article
Gridzak, R., Wylie, R., Bennett, W. et al. Size-biased compositional impacts of small mammal herbivores in an old-field plant community. Plant Ecol 224, 513–521 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-023-01318-0
- Community assembly
- Plant species height
- Size bias
- Small mammal