Advertisement

Community Ecology

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 121–130 | Cite as

Scale dependency of species composition and environmental variables in the strata of a deciduous forest

  • S. Chandy
  • D. J. GibsonEmail author
Article
  • 1 Downloads

Abstract

We conducted a field study to determine whether species composition and environmental relationships were scale dependent among the strata of a temperate deciduous forest. We compiled tree basal area, woody understory density, field layer cover and three environmental variables from 378 permanent plots in ten 7 – 386 ha sites in the 294,455 ha Shawnee National Forest, southern Illinois, USA. The effect of changing sample foci (area of inference) without changing the extent (geographic space) on the relationship between species composition and environmental factors was quantified using Non-metric Multidimensional Scaling (NMDS) and Procrustes analysis separately for each stratum. Species composition-environment relationships showed a separation of sites based on their geographic location and bedrock. Species data collected from these heterogeneous and hierarchically structured habitats across scales exhibited varying degree of specialization depending on the habitat. NMDS showed that the species composition-environmental relationships were dependent on the sample foci and stratum investigated with the number of environmental variables related to the vegetation ranging from two-three at the landscape scale and zero-three at the site scale. Procrustes analysis showed that the species composition of individual sites was most frequently related to the physiographic division that the site occurred in rather than the landscape (58%, 18 of 30 comparisons). This relationship was less frequent in the tree stratum than the lower strata. The results of this study are consistent with the hierarchical continuum concept in that the recognition of species-environment relationships depends upon the scale of analysis. From a management perspective it is important to consider these scale relationships to manage the physiographic divisions and the sites within them depending on conservation issues and the priorities of local land managers.

Keywords

Forest strata NMDS Procrustes analysis Scaling relationships Species composition 

Abbreviations

DBH

Diameter at Breast Height

NMDS

Nonmetric Multidimensional Scaling

OZ

Ozark Hills

RMS

Root Mean Square

SH

Shaawnee Hills

SNF

Shawnee National Forest

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams, E. D. 1999. Vegetation analysis and examination of Beta diversity at Burke Branch and Ozark Hill Prairies Research Natural Areas in the Shawnee National Forest. M.S. thesis. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, T. F. H. and T. W. Hoekstra. 1990. The confusion between scale-defined levels and conventional levels of organization in ecology. J. Veg. Sci. 1:5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen, T. F. H. and T. B. Starr. 1982. Hierarchy: Perspectives for Ecological Complexity. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  4. Bennie, J., B. Huntley, A. Wiltshire, M. O. Hill and R. Baxter. 2008. Slope, aspect and climate: Spatially explicit and implicit models of topographic microclimate in chalk grassland. Ecol. Model. 216:47–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chandy, S. 2007. Relationship Between Spatial and Temporal Patterns of Species Composition in the Shawnee National Forest Illinois, USA. Ph.D Dissertation. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.Google Scholar
  6. Chandy, S., D. J. Gibson and P. A. Robertson. 2006. Additive partitioning of diversity across hierarchical spatial scales in a forested landscape. J. App. Ecol. 43:793–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clarke, K.R. 1993. Non-parametric multivariate analysesofchanges in community structure. Aust. J. Ecol. 118:117–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clarke, K. R. and R. H. Green. 1988. Statistical design and analysis for a ‘biological effects’ study. Marine Ecology Progress Series 46:213–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Corney, P. M., M. G. Le Duc, S. M. Smart, K. J. Kirby, R. G. H. Bunce and R. H. Marrs. 2006. Relationships between the species composition of forest field-layer vegetation and environmental driver, assessed using a national scale survey. J. Ecol. 94:383–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Daubenmire, R. 1959. A canopy-coverage method of vegetational analysis. Northw. Sci. 33:43–64.Google Scholar
  11. De’ath, G. 1999. Principle curves: A new technique for indirect and direct gradient analysis. Ecology 80:2237–2253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Devall, M. S. and P. F. Ramp. 1992. U. S. Forest Service research natural areas and protection of old growth in the South. Nat. Areas J. 12:75–85.Google Scholar
  13. Digby, P. G. N. and R. A. Kempton. 1987. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Communities. Chapman and Hall, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eyre, F. H. 1980. Forest Cover Types of the United States and Canada. Society of American Foresters, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  15. Fralish, J. S., F. B. Crooks, J. L. Chambers and F. M. Harty. 1991. Comparison of presettlement, second growth forests on six site types in the Illinois Shawnee Hills. Am. Midl. Nat. 125:295–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fralish, J. S., P. A. Franklin, P. A. Robertson, S. M. Kettler and F. B. Crooks. 1993. John T. Curtis: Fifty years of Wisconsin Plant Ecology. Wisconsin Academy of Science, Madison.Google Scholar
  17. Fralish, J. S., S. B. Franklin and D. D. Close. 1999. Open woodland communities of southern Illinois, western Kentucky, and middle Tennessee. In: R. C. Anderson, J. S. Fralish and J. M. Baskin (eds.), Savannas, Barrens, and Rock Outcrop Plant Communities of North America. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. pp. 171–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fransworth, E. J. and A. M. Ellison. 1996. Scale-dependent spatial and temporal variability in biogeography of mangrove root epibiont communities. Ecol. Monog. 66:45–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gibson, D. J. 1992. Vegetation-environment relationships in a southern mixed hardwood forest. Castanea 57:174–189.Google Scholar
  20. Gilliam, F. S. 2007. The ecological significance of the herbaceous layer in temperate forest ecosystems. BioScience 57:845–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gilliam, F. S. and M. R. Roberts. 2003. Interactions between the herbaceous layer and overstory canopy of eastern forests: A mechanism for linkage. In: F. S. Gilliam and M. R. Roberts (eds.), The Herbaceous Layer in Forests of Eastern North America. Oxford University Press, New York, New York. pp. 198–223.Google Scholar
  22. Gleason, H. A. 1917. The structure and development of the plant association. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 44:463–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grahame, A. 1996. The Vegetation of Cavehill, Stoneface, and Whoopie Cat Mountain Research Natural Areas in the Shawnee National Forest. M.S. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.Google Scholar
  24. Guo, D., P. Mou, R. H. Jones and R. J. Mitchell. 2002. Temporal changes in spatial patterns of soil moisture following disturbance: an experimental approach. J. Ecol. 90:338–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hanski, I. 1982. Dynamics of regional distribution. Oikos 38:210–221.Google Scholar
  26. Hardy, O. J. and B. Senterre. 2007. Characterizing the phylogenetic structure of communities by an additive partitioning of phylogenetic diversity. J. Ecol. 95:493–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kantvilas, G. and P. R. Minchin. 1989. An analysis of epiphytic lichen communities in Tasmanian cool temperate rain forest. Plant Ecol. 84:91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kolasa, J. 1989. Ecological systems in hierarchical perspectives: breaks in community structure and other consequences. Ecology 70:36–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Le Brocque, A. F. and R. T. Buckney. 1997. Multivariate relationships between floristic composition and stand structure in vegetation of Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park, New South Wales. Austr. J. Bot. 45:1033–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Levin, S. A. 1992. The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73:1943–1967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McCoy, R. A. 1997. Vegetation Analysis and Effects of Controlled Fire at Atwood Ridge Research Natural Area Union County, Illinois. M.S. thesis. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL.Google Scholar
  32. McCune, B. and K. Dylan. 2002. Equations for potential annual direct incident radiation and heat load. J. Veg. Sci. 13:603–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McEvoy, T. J., T. L. Sharik and D. W. Smith. 1980. Vegetative structure of an Appalachian oak forest in southwestern Virginia. Am. Midl. Nat. 103:96–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Minchin, P. R. 1991. DECODA. Database for Ecological Communities. ANUTECH Pty. Ltd., Technology marketing division, Canberra, Australia.Google Scholar
  35. Mohlenbrock, R. G. 1986. Guide to the Vascular Flora of Southern Illinois. Revised & Enlarged Edition., Southern Illinois Press, Carbondale and Edwardsville.Google Scholar
  36. Morzaria-Luna, H., J. C. Callaway, G. Sullivan and J. B. Zedler. 2004. Relationship between topographic heterogeneity and vegetation patterns in a California salt marsh. J. Veg. Sci. 14:523–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. O’Neill, R. V. 1989. Perspectives in hierarchy and scale. In: J. Roughgarden, R. M. May and S. A. Levin (eds.), Perspectives in Ecological Theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton. pp. 140–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Palmer, M. W., R. K. Peet, R. A. Reed, W. Xi and P. S. White. 2007. A multiscale study of vascular plants in a North Carolina piedmont forest. Ecology 88:2674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Parker, G. R. and C. M. Ruffner. 2004. Current and historical forest conditions and disturbance regimes in the Hoosier-Shawnee Ecological Assessment Area. In: F. R. Thompson (ed.), The Hoosier-Shawnee Ecological Assessment. Gen Tech Rep NC-244. US Department of Agriculture Forest Service. North Central Research Station, St. Paul. pp. 23–58.Google Scholar
  40. Parker, K. C. 1991. Topography, substrate, and vegetation patterns in the northern Sonoran desert. J. Biogeog. 18:151–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Peres-Neto, P. R. and D. A. Jackson. 2001. How well do multivariate data sets match? The advantages of a Procrustean superimposition approach over the Mantel test. Oecologia 129:169–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rahbek, C. 2005. The role of spatial scale and the perception of large-scale species richness patterns. Ecol. Letters 8:224–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Reed, R. A., R. K. Peet, M. W. Palmer and P. S. White. 1993. Scale dependence of vegetation-environment correlations: A case study of North Carolina piedmont woodland. J. Veg. Sci. 4:329–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Scheiner, S. M., S. B.Cox, M. Willig, G. G. Mittelbach, C. Osenberg and M. Kaspari. 2000. Species richness, species-area curves and Simpson’s paradox. Evolutionary Ecology Research 2:791–802.Google Scholar
  45. Schoenemann, P. H. and R. M. Carroll. 1970. Fitting one matrix to another under choice of a central dilation and a rigid motion. Psychometrika 35:245–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schwegman, J. E. 1973. Comprehensive plan for the Illinois Nature Preserves System. Part II - The natural divisions of Illinois. Illinois Department of Conservation, Nature Preserves Commission, Rockford, Illinois.Google Scholar
  47. Shimp, J. P. 1996. Vegetation analysis and vascular floras of three research natural areas (RNAs) Barker Bluff, Dennison Hollow, and Panther Hollow in southeastern Illinois. M.S. thesis. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.Google Scholar
  48. Spyreas, G. and J. W. Matthews. 2006. Floristic conservation value, nested understory floras, and the development of second-growth forest. Ecol. App. 16:1351–1366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stohlgren, T. J., R. R. Bachand, Y. Onami and D. Binkley. 1998. Species-environment relationships and vegetation patterns: effects of spatial scale and tree life-stage. Plant Ecol. 135:215–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Suchecki, P. F. 1999. Vegetation Analysis and Succession at LaRue-Pine Hills/Otter Pond Research Natural Area, Union County, Illinois. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. M.S. thesis. University of Southern Illinois, Carbondale.Google Scholar
  51. Suchecki, P. F. and D. J. Gibson. 2008. Loss of Cornus florida L. leads to significant changes in the seedling and sapling strata in an eastern deciduous forest. J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 135:506–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Thomas, R. L. and R. C. Anderson. 1993. Influence of topography on stand composition in a midwestern ravine forest. Am. Midl. Nat. 130:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Urban, D. L., C. Miller, P. N. Halpin and N. L. Stephenson. 2000. Forest gradient response in Sierran landscapes: the physical template. Landscape Ecol. 15:603–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Valencia, R., R. B. Foster, G. Villa, R. Condit, S. Jens-Christian, H. Consuelo, K. Romoleroux, E. Losos, E. Magard and H. Balslev. 2004. Tree species distributions and local habitat variation in the Amazon: large forest plot in eastern Ecuador. J. Ecol. 92:214–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Whittaker, R. H. 1956. Vegetation of the Great Smoky Mountains. Ecol.Monog. 26:1–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Whittaker, R. H. 1960. Vegetation of the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon and California. Ecol. Monog. 30:280–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Whittaker, R. J., K. J. Willis and R. Field. 2001. Scale and species richness: Towards a general, hierarchical theory of species diversity. J. Biogeog. 28:453–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wiens, J. A. 1989. Spatial scaling in ecology. Funct. Ecol. 3:385–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wiens, J. A. 1999. Ecological heterogeneity: an ontogeny of concepts and approaches. In: M. J. Hutchings, E. A. John and A. J. A. Stewart (eds.), The Ecological Consequences of Environmental Heterogeneity, Blackwell Science, Oxford. pp. 9–32.Google Scholar
  60. Wiser, S. K. 1998. Comparison of southern Appalachian high-elevation outcrop plant communities with their northern Appalachian counterparts. J. Biogeogr. 25:501–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wu, J., K. B. Jones, H. Li and O. L. Loucks. 2006. Scaling and Uncertainty Analysis in Ecology. Springer, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wu, J. and H. Li. 2006. Perspectives and methods of scaling. In: J. Wu, K. B. Jones, H. Li and O. L. Loucks (eds.), Scaling and Uncertainty Analysis in Ecology. Springer, New York. pp. 17–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2008

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Plant Biology, Center for EcologySouthern Illinois UniversityCarbondaleUSA

Personalised recommendations