Advertisement

Community Ecology

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 131–137 | Cite as

Plant traits related to competition: how do they shape the functional diversity of communities?

  • M. L. NavasEmail author
  • C. Violle
Points of view

Abstract

The identification of functional traits critical to plant responses to the environment promotes our understanding of assembly of communities which relies on environmental filtering. However, the recent trait-community approaches mostly ignore the influence of plant-plant interactions by mainly focusing on traits related to abiotic filtering processes. The conceptual framework we propose aims to clarify how the functional diversity of communities depends on the filtering effect of competition on relevant traits. We define two types of competition-related traits: competitive effect traits reflect the changes in local resource levels due to plant activity while competitive response traits are related to plant response to these resource depletions. We then suggest that the contribution of both types of competition-related traits to functional diversity depends on the importance of competition, previously defined as the effect of competition on plant fitness relative to that of other environmental factors. Therefore, the divergence of functional diversity is predicted to be maximized at intermediate levels of competition in relation to the coexistence of species with different strategies characterized by highly contrasted values of competition-related traits.

Keywords

Community structure Competition importance Plant height Functional diversity Resource depletion 

Abbreviation

FD

Functional diversity

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aan, A., L. Hallik and O. Kull. 2006. Photon flux partitioning among species along a productivity gradient of an herbaceous plant community. J. Ecol. 94:1143–1155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ackerly, D.D. and W.K. Cornwell. 2007. A trait-based approach to community assembly: Partitioning of species trait values into within- and among-community components. Ecol. Lett. 10:135–145.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Adams, T.P., D.W. Purves and S.W. Pacala. 2007. Understanding height-structured competition in forests: Is there an r* for light? Proc. Roy. Soc. B - Biol. Sci. 274:3039–3047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Adema, E.B., J. Van de Koppel, H.A.J. Meijer and A.P. Grootjans. 2005. Enhanced nitrogen loss may explain alternative stable states in dune slack succession. Oikos 109:374–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Amarasekare, P. 2003. Competitive coexistence in spatially structured environments: A synthesis. Ecol. Lett. 6:1109–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Belyea, L.R. and J. Lancaster. 1999. Assembly rules within a contingent ecology. Oikos 86: 402–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berendse, F. and W.T. Elberse. 1990. Competition and nutrient availability in heathland and grassland ecosystems. In: J.B. Grace and D. Tilman (eds), Perspectives on Plant Competition. Academic Press, San Diego. pp. 93–116.Google Scholar
  8. Brooker, R.W. and Z. Kikividze. 2008. Importance: An overlooked concept in plant interaction research. J. Ecol. 96:703–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brooker, R.W., Z. Kikvidze, F.I. Pugnaire, R.M. Callaway, P. Choler, C.J. Lortie and R. Michalet. 2005. The importance of importance. Oikos 109:63–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cingolani, A.M., M. Cabido, D.E. Gurvich, D. Renison and S. Diaz. 2007. Filtering processes in the assembly of plant communities: Are species presence and abundance driven by the same traits? J. Veg. Sci. 18:911–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Craine, J.M. 2005. Reconciling plant strategy theories of Grime and Tilman. J. Ecol. 93:1041–1052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diaz, S., S. Lavorel, F.S. Chapin, P.A. Tecco, D.E. Gurvich and K. Grigulis. 2007. Functional diversity – at the crossroads between ecosystem functioning and environmental filters. In: J.G. Canadell, D. Pataki and L. Pitelka (eds), Terrestrial Ecosystems in a Changing World. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg. pp. 81–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eckstein, R.L. 2005. Differential effects of interspecific interactions and water availability on survival, growth and fecundity of three congeneric grassland herbs. New Phytol. 166:525–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ejrnaes, R., H.H. Bruun and B.J. Graae. 2006. Community assembly in experimental grasslands: Suitable environment or timely arrival? Ecology 87:1225–1233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Forseth, I.N., D.A. Wait and B.B. Casper. 2001. Shading by shrubs in a desert system reduces the physiological and demographic performance of an associated herbaceous perennial. J. Ecol. 89:670–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fukami, T., T.M. Bezemer, S.R. Mortimer and W.H. van der Putten. 2005. Species divergence and trait convergence in experimental plant community assembly. Ecol. Lett. 8:1283–1290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Neill and J.-P. Toussaint. 2004. Plant functional markers capture ecosystem properties during secondary succession. Ecology 85:2630–2637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gaucherand, S., P. Liancourt and S. Lavorel. 2006. Importance and intensity of competition along a fertility gradient and across species. J. Veg. Sci. 17:455–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gaudet, C.L. and P.A. Keddy. 1988. A comparative approach to predicting competitive ability from plant traits. Nature 334:242–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goldberg, D.E. 1990. Components of resource competition in plant communities. In: J.B. Grace and D. Tilman (eds), Perspectives on Plant Competition. Academic Press, San Diego. pp. 27–49.Google Scholar
  21. Goldberg, D.E. 1996. Competitive ability: Definitions, contingency and correlated traits. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. London: Biol. Sci. 351:1377–1385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grime, J.P. 1973. Competitive exclusion in herbaceous vegetation. Nature 242:344–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grime, J.P. 1974. Vegetation classificationby reference to strategies. Nature 250:26–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grime, J.P. 2001. Plant Strategies, Vegetation Processes and Ecosystem Properties. Wiley, London.Google Scholar
  25. Grime, J.P. 2006. Trait convergence and trait divergence in herbaceous plant communities: Mechanisms and consequences. J. Veg. Sci. 17:255–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Keddy, P. A. 1982. Assembly and response rules: two goals for predictive community ecology. J. Veg. Sci. 3: 157–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Keddy, P.A. 2001. Competition. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Keddy, P.A., L.H. Fraser and I.C. Wisheu. 1998. A comparative approach to examine competitive response of 48 wetland plant species. J. Veg. Sci. 9:777–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Keddy, P.A. and B. Shipley. 1989. Competitive hierarchies in herbaceous plant communities. Oikos 54:234–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kikuzawa, K. 1988. Leaf survivals of tree species in deciduous broad-leaved forests. Plant Species Biol. 3:67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kraft, N.J.B., R. Valencia and D. Ackerly. 2008. Functional traits and niche-based tree community assembly in an Amazonian forest. Science 322:580–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lavorel, S. and E. Garnier. 2002. Predicting changes in community composition and ecosystem functioning from plant traits: Revisiting the holy grail. Funct. Ecol. 16:545–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lavorel, S., K. Grigulis, S. McIntyre, N.S.G. Williams, D. Garden, J. Dorrough, S. Berman, F. Quetier, A. Thebault and A. Bonis. 2008. Assessing functional diversity in the field – methodology matters! Funct. Ecol. 22:134–147.Google Scholar
  34. Leibold, M.A. 1995. The niche concept revisited - mechanistic models and community context. Ecology 76:1371–1382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Leps, J., F. de Bello, S. Lavorel and S. Berman. 2006. Quantifying and interpreting functional diversity of natural communities: Practical considerations matter. Preslia 78:481–501.Google Scholar
  36. Liancourt, P., R.M. Callaway and R. Michalet. 2005. Stress tolerance and competitive-response ability determine the outcome of biotic interactions. Ecology 86:1611–1618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mason, N.W.H., D. Mouillot, W.G. Lee and J.B. Wilson. 2005. Functional richness, functional evenness and functional divergence: The primary components of functional diversity. Oikos 111:112–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McGill, B.J. 2006. A renaissance in the study of abundance. Science 314:770–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McGill, B.J., B.J. Enquist, E. Weiher and M. Westoby. 2006. Rebuilding community ecology from functional traits. Trends in Ecol. & Evol. 21:178–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McKane, R.B., L.C. Johnson, G.R. Shaver, K.J. Nadelhoffer, E.B. Rastetter, B. Fry, A.E. Giblin, K. Kielland, B.L. Kwiatkowski, J.A. Laundre and G. Murray. 2002. Resource-based niches provide a basis for plant species diversity and dominance in arctic tundra. Nature 415:68–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Navas, M.-L., A. Bellmann, C. Roumet, G. Laurent and E. Garnier. In press. Suites of plant traits in mediterranean species differing in successional status Plant Biol. DOI: 10.1111/j.1438-8677.2009.00208.xGoogle Scholar
  42. Navas, M.-L., B. Ducout, C. Roumet, J. Richarte, J. Garnier and E. Garnier. 2003. Leaf life span, dynamics and construction cost of species from mediterranean old-fields differing in successional status. New Phytol. 159:213–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pennings, S.C. and R.M. Callaway. 1992. Salt-marsh plant zonation – the relative importance of competition and physical factors. Ecology 73:681–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Petchey, O.L. and K.J. Gaston. 2006. Functional diversity: Back to basics and looking forward. Ecol. Lett. 9:741–758.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Ramseier, D. and J. Weiner. 2006. Competitive effect is a linear function of neighbour biomass in experimental populations of Kochia scoparia. J. Ecol. 94:305–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Reich, P.B., M.B. Walters and D.S. Ellsworth. 1992. Leaf life-span in relation to leaf, plant, and stand characteristics among diverse ecosystems. Ecol. Monog. 62:365–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schamp, B.S., J. Chau and L.W. Aarssen. 2008. Dispersion of traits related to competitive ability in an old-field plant community. J. Ecol. 96:204–212.Google Scholar
  48. Schwinning, S. and J. Weiner. 1998. Mechanisms determining the degree of size asymmetry in competition among plants. Oecologia 113:447–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Shipley, B., D. Vile and E. Garnier. 2006. From plant traits to plant communities: A statistical mechanistic approachto biodiversity. Science 314:812–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Silvertown, J. and P. Dale. 1991. Competitive hierarchies and the structure of herbaceous plant communities. Oikos 1:441–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Silvertown, J., P. Poulton, E. Johnston, G. Edwards, M. Heard and P.M. Biss. 2006. The Park Grass experiment 1856–2006: Its contribution to ecology. J. Ecol. 94: 801–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stubbs, W.J. and J.B. Wilson. 2004. Evidence for limiting similarity in a sand dune community. J. Ecol. 92:557–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tilman, D. 1988. Plant Strategies and the Dynamics and Structure of Plant Communities. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.Google Scholar
  54. Tilman, D. 1990. Constraints and tradeoffs: Toward a predictive theory of competition and succession. Oikos 58:3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tilman, D. 2001. Functional diversity. In: S.A. Levin (ed.) Encyclopedia of Biodiversity. Academic Press, San Diego. pp 109–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tilman, D. and D. Wedin. 1991. Plant traits and resource reduction for 5 grasses growing on a nitrogen gradient. Ecology 72:685–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Violle, C., E. Garnier, J. Lecoeur, C. Roumet, C. Podeur, A. Blanchard and M.-L. Navas. In press. Competition, resource depletion and plant traits in herbaceous communities. Oecologia DOI 10.1007/s00442-009-1333-xGoogle Scholar
  58. Violle, C., M.L. Navas, D. Vile, E. Kazakou, C. Fortunel, I. Hummel and E. Garnier. 2007. Let the concept of trait be functional!. Oikos 116:882–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Walters, M.B. and P.B. Reich. 1999. Low-light carbon balance and shade tolerance in the seedlings of woody plants: Do winter deciduous and broad-leaved evergreen species differ? New Phytol. 143:143–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Weiher, E. and P.A. Keddy. 1995. Assembly rules, null models, and trait dispersion: New questions front old patterns. Oikos 74:159–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Weiner, J. 1990. Asymmetric competition in plant populations. Trends in Ecol. & Evol. 5:360–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Welden, C.W. and W.L. Slauson. 1986. The intensity of competition versus its importance: An overlooked distinction and some implications. Quart. Rev. Biol. 61:23–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Werger, M.J.A., T. Hirose, H.J. During, G.W. Heil, K. Hikosaka, T. Ito, U.G. Nachinshonhor, D. Nagamatsu, K. Shibasaki, S. Takatsuki, J.W. van Rheenen and N.P.R. Anten. 2002. Light partitioning among species and species replacement in early successional grasslands. J. Veg. Sci. 13:615–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Westoby, M. 1998. A leaf-height-seed (lhs) plant ecology strategy scheme. Plant and Soil 199:213–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wilson, J.B. 2007. Trait-divergence assembly rules have been demonstrated: Limiting similarity lives! A reply to Grime. J. Veg. Sci. 18:451–452.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.Département “Ecologie et Santé des Plantes”Montpellier SupAgroMontpellier Cedex 1France
  2. 2.Centre d’Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive (UMR 5175)CNRSMontpellierFrance

Personalised recommendations