Are ecotone properties scale-dependent? A test from a Nothofagustreeline in southern New Zealand
Species richness, the location of exotic species and heterogeneity (investigated via dissimilarity and via species-area relations) were investigated in relation to spatial scale, in an ecotone between Nothofagus forest and sub-alpine shrubland. The rate of change in ordination score as well as tree diameter and the dripline were used to locate the position of the ecotone. Patterns of species richness were largely scale-independent, with species richness lowest in the forest community, intermediate in the ecotone, highest a short distance into the shrubland, and lower again in the shrubland further from the ecotone. High richness just into the shrubland is attributed to the existence of a fine-scale spatial mosaic pattern of vegetation, though the spatial mass effect may have a role. Exotic species were absent in the forest, but occurred sparsely in the ecotone and in the shrubland, possibly with decreasing frequency away from the ecotone. Community pattern, expressed by species-based dissimilarity and species-area curves, also differed. The ecotone community was the most heterogeneous (indicated by higher dissimilarity values and a steeper species-area slope with higher Arrhenius z-values), with the forest the least heterogeneous and the shrubland intermediate. We conclude that z-values are inter-woven with both habitat and spatial scale, and that this argues against a universal relationship between species and area.
KeywordsBoundary Dissimilarity Exotic species Heterogeneity Spatial grain Species-area relations Species richness
NomenclatureParsons et al. (1995) unless otherwise indicated
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Clements, F.E. 1904. Studies in the Vegetation of the State. III. The Development and Structure of Vegetation. The Seminar, University of Nebraska.Google Scholar
- Dabrowska-Prot, E., J. Luczak and Z. Wojcik. 1973. Ecological analysis of two invertebrate groups in the wet alder wood and meadow ecotone. Ekol. Polska 21: 753–809.Google Scholar
- Odum, E.P 1983. Basic Ecology. Saunders College Publishing, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
- Parsons, M.J., P. Douglass and B. H. Macmillan. 1998. Current names list for wild gymnosperms, dicotyledons and monocotyledons (except grasses) in New Zealand as used in herbarium CHR. Manaaki Whenua - Landcare Research, Lincoln, New Zealand.Google Scholar
- Petts, G.E. 1990. The role of ecotones in aquatic landscape management. In: R. J. Naiman. and H. Decamps (eds.), The Ecology and Management of Aquatic-terrestrial Ecotones, UNESCO, Paris. pp. 103–140.Google Scholar
- Pound, R. and F. E. Clements. 1900. The Phytogeography of Nebraska, 2nd ed. Botanical Seminar, Lincoln.Google Scholar
- Shmida, A. and S. Ellner. 1984. Coexistence of plant species with similar niches. Vegetatio 58:29–55Google Scholar
- Sorensen, T. 1948. A method of establishing groups of equal amplitude in plant sociology based on similarity of species content and its application to analyses of vegetation on Danish commons. Biologiske Skrifter, 5(4), 1–34.Google Scholar
- Tansley, A.G. and T F. Chipp. 1926. Aims and methods in the study of vegetation. British Empire Vegetation Committee, London.Google Scholar
- Van der Maarel, E. 1976. On the establishment of plant community boundaries. Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Ges. 89: 415–443.Google Scholar
- Wilson, J.B. and A. Chiarucci. 2001. Self-similarity and phantoms: a response to Hill. J. leg. Sci. 12:299.Google Scholar
- Zólyomi, B. 1987. Coenotone, ecotone and their role in preserving relic species. Acta Bot. Hung. 33:3–18.Google Scholar
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.