Russian Journal of Ecology

, Volume 49, Issue 4, pp 296–305 | Cite as

The Relationship of Dominance and Evenness with Productivity and Species Richness in Plant Communities with Different Organization Models

  • V. V. AkatovEmail author
  • T. V. Akatova
  • C. G. Chefranov


The relationship between dominance and evenness in plant communities organized according to different models—competitive (alpine, subalpine, and low-mountain grasslands), stress-tolerant (alpine heaths and scrubs, subalpine fens, steppes, the forest herbaceous layer), and ruderal—has been analyzed in the Western Caucasus and Ciscaucasia. No correlation between evenness (dominance) and productivity has been revealed in communities of any type. The correlation between dominance and species richness is negative and, in most cases, linear, being stronger in competitive and ruderal than in stress-tolerant cenoses. The correlation between evenness and species richness in grassland communities (the competitive model) is strong, positive, and linear, while this correlation in ruderal and stress-tolerant communities is weak or absent.


productivity species richness dominance evenness plant communities life history strategies competition organization models 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Magguran, A., Ecological Diversity and Its Measurement, Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mulder, C.P.H., Bazeley-White, E., Dimitrakopoulos, P.G., et al., Species evenness and productivity in experimental plant communities, Oikos, 2004, vol. 107, pp. 50–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Caruso, T., Pigino, G., Bernini, F., et al., The Berger–Parker index as an effective tool for monitoring the biodiversity of disturbed soils: A case study on Mediterranean oribatid (Acari: Oribatida) assemblages, Biodivers. Conserv., 2007, vol. 16, pp. 3277–3285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hillebrand, H., Bennett, D.M., and Cadotte, M.W., Consequences of dominance: A review of evenness effects on local and regional ecosystem processes, Ecology, 2008, vol. 89, no. 6, pp. 1510–1520.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Johnston, E.L. and Roberts, D.A., Contaminants reduce the richness and evenness of marine communities: A review and meta-analysis, Environ. Pollut., 2009, vol. 157, pp. 1745–1752.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhang, J., Qiao, X., Liu, Y., et al., Species-abundance distributions of tree species varies along climatic gradients in china’s forests, J. Plant Ecol., 2015, vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 1–7.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chalcraft, D.R., Wilsey, B.J., Bowles, C., and Willig, M.R., The relationship between productivity and multiple aspects of biodiversity in six grassland communities, Biodivers. Conserv., 2009, vol. 18, pp. 91–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wilsey, B. and Stirling, G., Species richness and evenness respond in a different manner to propagule density in developing prairie microcosm communities, Plant Ecol., 2007, vol. 190, pp. 259–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Huston, M.A., General hypothesis of species diversity, Am. Nat., 1979, vol. 113, no. 1, pp. 81–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vasilevich, V.I., Dominants in plant cover, Bot. Zh., 1991, vol. 76, no. 12, pp. 1674–1681.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bengtsson, J., Fagerstram, T., and Rydin, H., Competition and coexistence in plant communities, Trends Ecol. Evol., 1994, vol. 9, no. 7, pp. 246–250.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stirling, G. and Wilsey, B., Empirical relationships between species richness, evenness, and proportional diversity, Am. Nat., 2001, vol. 158, pp. 286–300.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ma, M., Species richness vs. evenness: Independent relationship and different responses to edaphic factors, Oikos, 2005, vol. 111, pp. 192–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lamb, E.G. and Cahill, J.F., When competition does not matter: Grassland diversity and community composition, Am. Nat., 2008, vol. 171, pp. 777–787.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sasaki, T. and Lauenroth, W.K., Dominant species, rather than diversity, regulates temporal stability of plant communities, Oecologia, 2011, vol. 166, no. 3, pp. 761–768.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Csergo, A.M., Demeter, L., and Turkington, R., Declining diversity in abandoned grasslands of the Car-pathian Mountains: Do dominant species matter?, PLoS One, 2013, vol. 8, e73533. doi 10.1371CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Caswell, H., Community structure: A neutral model analysis, Ecol. Monogr., 1976, vol. 46, pp. 327–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bell, G., The distribution of abundance in neutral communities, Am. Nat., 2000, vol. 155, no. 5, pp. 606–617.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grime, J.P., Evidence for the existence of three primary strategies in plants and its relevance to ecological and evolutionary theory, Am. Nat., 1977, vol. 111, no. 982, pp. 1169–1194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rabotnov, T.A., Fitotsenologiya (Phytocenology), Moscow: Mosk. Gos. Univ., 1983.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cornell, H.V. and Lawton, J.H., Species interactions, local and regional processes, and limits to the richness of ecological communities: A theoretical perspective, Okeanologiya, 1992, vol. 61, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mirkin, B.M. and Naumova, L.G., Sovremennoe sostoyanie osnovnykh kontseptsii nauki o rastitel’nosti (The Science of Vegetation: Current State of Basic Concepts), Ufa: Gilem, 2012.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Grime, J.P., Plant strategies, Vegetation Processes, and Ecosystem Properties, 2nd ed., Chichester: Wiley, 2001.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mirkin, B.M., Which plant communities do exist?, J. Veget. Sci., 1994, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 283–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Piper, J.K., Composition of prairie plant communities on productive versus unproductive sites in wet and dry years, Can. J. Bot., 1995, vol. 73, pp. 1635–1644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Peet, R.K. and Christensen, N.L., Changes in species diversity during secondary forest succession on the North Carolina piedmont, in Diversity and Pattern in Plant Communities, During, H.I., Werge, M.I.A., and Willems, J.H., Eds., The Hague, Netherlands: SPB Acad. Publ., 1988.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schwinning, S. and Weiner, J., Mechanisms determining the degree of size asymmetry in competition among plants, Oecologia, 1998, vol. 113., no. A1, pp. 447–455.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Keddy, P.A., Competition, 2nd ed., Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hautier, Y., Niklaus, P.A., and Hector, A., Competition for light causes plant biodiversity loss after eutrophication, Science, 2009, vol. 324, pp. 636–638.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Drobner, U., Bibby, J., Smith, B., and Wilson, J.B., The relation between community biomass and evenness: What does community theory predict, and can these predictions be tested?, Oikos, 1998, vol. 82, pp. 295–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hubbell, S.P., Tree dispersion, abundance, and diversity in a tropical dry forest, Science, 1979, vol. 203, pp. 1299–1309.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Vermeer, J.G. and Verhoeven, J.T.A., Species composition and biomass production of mesotrophic fens in relation to the nutrient status of the organic soil, Acta Oecol.-Oec. Plant., 1987, vol. 8, pp. 321–330.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Vance-Chalcraft, H.D., Willig, M.R., Cox, S.B., et al., Relationship between aboveground biomass and multiple measures of biodiversity in subtropical forest of Puerto Rico, Biotropica, 2010, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 290–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Poggio, S.L. and Ghersa, C.M., Species richness and evenness as a function of biomass in arable plant communities, Weed Res., 2011, vol. 51, pp. 241–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Onipchenko, V.G., Semenova, G.V., and van der Maarel, E., Population strategies in severe environments: alpine plants in the northwestern Caucasus, J. Veg. Sci., 1998, vol. 9, pp. 27–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bobbink, R. and Willems, J.H., Increasing dominance of Brachypodium pinnatum (L.) Beauv. in chalk grasslands: A threat to a species-rich ecosystem, Biol. Conserv., 1987, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 301–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Somodi, I., Virágh, K., and Podani, J., The effect of the expansion of the clonal grass Calamagrostis epigejos on the species turnover of a semi-arid grassland, Appl. Veg. Sci., 2008, vol. 11, pp. 187–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bartha, S., Szentes, Sz., Horváth, A., et al., Impact of mid-successional dominant species on the diversity and progress of succession in regenerating temperate grasslands, Appl. Veg. Sci., 2014, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 201–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Vasilevich, V.I., Species diversity in upland meadow communities of the North-West of European Russia, Bot. Zh., 2014, vol. 99, no. 2, pp. 226–236.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mirkin, B.M., Yamalov, S.M., and Naumova, L.G., Synanthropic plant communities: Organization models and specific features of classification, Zh. Obshch. Biol., 2007, vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 435–443.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Prach, K. and Pyšek, P., How do species dominating in succession differ from others?, J. Veg. Sci., 1999, vol. 10, p. 383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lososová, Z. and Simonová, D., Changes during the 20th century in species composition of synanthropic vegetation in Moravia (Czech Republic), Preslia, 2008, vol. 80, pp. 291–305.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Silva, I.A., Cianciaruso, M.V., and Batalha, M.A., Abundance distribution of common and rare plant species of Brazilian savannas along a seasonality gradient, Acta Bot. Braz., 2010, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 407–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Adler, P.B., Seabloom, E.W., Borer, E.T., et al., Productivity is a poor predictor of plant species richness, Science, 2011, vol. 333, pp. 1750–1753.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lebedeva, V.Kh., Tikhodeeva, M.Yu., and Ipatov, V.S., On the structure of a meadow plant community, Bot. Zh., 2011, vol. 96, no. 1, pp. 3–21.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Berger, W.H. and Parker, F.L., Diversity of planktonic foraminifera in deep-sea sediments, Science, 1970, vol. 168, pp. 1345–1347.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Pielou, E.C., The measurement of diversity in different types of biological collections, J. Theor. Biol., 1966, vol. 13, pp. 131–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Smith, B. and Wilson, J.B., A consumer’s guide to evenness indices, Oikos, 1996, vol. 76, pp. 70–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Help, C.H.R., Herman, P.M.J., and Soetaert, K., Indices of diversity and evenness, Oceanis, 1998, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 61–87.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Vasilevich, V.I., Species diversity of moist meadows in European Russia, Bot. Zh., 2015, vol. 100, no. 4, pp. 372–381.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Routledge, R.D., Evenness indices: Are any admissible?, Oikos, 1983, vol. 40, pp. 149–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Tilman, D. and Pacala, S., The maintenance of species richness in plant communities, in Species Diversity in Ecological Communities: Historical and Geographical Perspectives, Ricklefs, R.E. and Schluter, D., Eds., Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1993, pp. 13–25.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Palmer, M.W. and van der Maarel, E., Variance in species richness, species association and niche limitation, Oikos, 1995, vol. 73, pp. 203–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    van der Maarel, E., Noest, V., and Palmer, M.W., Variation in species richness on small grassland quadrats: Niche structure or small-scale plant mobility?, J. Veg. Sci., 1995, vol. 6, pp. 741–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    McKane, R.B., Johnson, L.C., Shaver, G.R., et al., Resource-based niches provide a basis for plant species diversity and dominance in arctic tundra, Nature, 2002, vol. 415, pp. 68–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kunte, K., Competition and species diversity: Removal of dominant species increases diversity in Costa Rican butterfly communities, Oikos, 2008, vol. 117, pp. 69–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Grace, J.B., A clarification of the debate between Grime and Tilman, Funct. Ecol., 1991, vol. 5, pp. 583–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Olff, H. and Bakker, J.P., Do intrinsically dominant and subordinate species exist? A test statistic for field data, Appl. Veg. Sci., 1998, vol. 1, pp. 15–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Yodzis, P., Competition for space and the structure of ecological communities, Lecture Notes Biomath., 1978, vol. 25, pp. 1–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Onipchenko, V.G., Funktsional’naya fitotsenologiya: sinekologiya rastenii (Functional Phytocenology: Plant Synecology), Moscow: KRASSAND, 2013.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Kuznetsova, N.A., Communities under extreme anthropogenic conditions: The example of Collembola taxocenes, in Vidy i soobshchestva v ekstremal’nykh usloviyakh: Sbornik, posvyashchennyi 75-letiyu akademika Yuriya Ivanovicha Chernova (Collected Papers Dedicated to the 75th Anniversary of Academician Yury Ivanovich Chernov), Babenko, A.B., Matveeva, N.V., Makarov, O.L., and Golovach, S.I., Eds., Moscow–Sofia: KMK–Pensoft, 2009, pp. 412–429.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Parker, I.M., Simberloff, D., Lonsdale, W.M., et al., Impact: Toward a framework for understanding the ecological effects of invaders, Biol. Invasions, 1999, vol. 1, pp. 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Reinhart, K.O., Greene, E., and Callaway, R.M., Effects of Acer platanoides invasion on understory plant communities and tree regeneration in the Rocky Mountains, Ecography, 2005, vol. 28, pp. 573–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Chase, J.M., Towards a really unified theory for metacommunities, Funct. Ecol., 2005, vol. 19, pp. 182–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Hejda, M., Pyšek, P., and Jarošik, V., Impact of invasive plants on the species richness, diversity and composition of invaded communities, J. Ecol., 2009, vol. 97, pp. 393–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Akatov V.V., Akatova T.V., Shadzhe A.E. Species richness of tree and shrub layers in riparian forests of the Western Caucasus dominated by alien species, Russ. J. Ecol., 2012, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 294–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Rejmánek, M., Invasibility of plant communities, in Biological Invasions: A Global Perspective, New York: Wiley, 1989, pp. 369–388.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Lonsdale, W.M., Global patterns of plant invasions and the concept of invisibility, Ecology, 1999, vol. 80, pp. 1522–1536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Hierro, J.L., Maron, J.L., and Callaway, R.M., A biogeographical approach to plant invasions: The importance of studying exotics in their introduced and native range, J. Ecol., 2005, vol. 93, pp. 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Richardson, D.M. and Pyšek, P., Plant invasions: Merging the concepts of species invasiveness and community invisibility, Progr. Phys. Geogr., 2006, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 409–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Tkacheva, E.V., Vinogradova, Yu.K., and Pavlova, I.V., Variability of morphometric characteristics of Galega orientalis Lam. in some populations of natural and secondary ranges, Russ. J. Biol. Invasions, 2011, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 268–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Tokhtar, V.K., Vinogradova, Yu.K., and Groshenko, A.S., Microevolution and invasiveness of Oenothera L. species (Subsect. Oenothera, Onagraceae) in Europe, Russ. J. Biol. Invasions, 2011, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 273–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Zernov, A.S., Flora Severo-Zapadnogo Kavkaza (The Flora of the Southwestern Caucasus), Moscow: KMK, 2006.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. V. Akatov
    • 1
    Email author
  • T. V. Akatova
    • 2
  • C. G. Chefranov
    • 2
  1. 1.Maikop State Technological UniversityMaykopRussia
  2. 2.Caucasian State Nature Biosphere ReserveMaykopRussia

Personalised recommendations