Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Can community composition be predicted from pairwise species interactions?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Plant Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Plant communities are often structured by interactions among species, such as competition or facilitation. If competition is an important factor that controls the presence and absence of species within intact communities, then a competitive hierarchy, a ranked order from competitive dominant to competitive subordinate, should predict the composition of intact communities. We tested whether a competitive hierarchy derived from pairwise comparisons accurately predicts species abundances within a constructed polyculture community consisting of seven species common to old-field plant communities. We first conducted a pot experiment in field conditions wherein we grew the species in all possible combinations, then created a competitive hierarchy derived from both competitive effect and competitive response for each species. Concurrently, at the same site in native field soil, we constructed polycultures consisting of the same seven species and calculated an abundance hierarchy based on foliar cover, biomass, and an index of species performance. The competitive hierarchy was not concordant with the abundance hierarchy, indicating that simple pairwise comparisons may not account for other factors that influence the abundance of species within relatively complex communities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aarssen LW (1988) ‘Pecking order’ of four plant species from pastures of different ages. Oikos 51:3–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bigelow SW, Canham CD (2002) Community organization of tree species along soil nutrient gradients in a northeastern USA forest. J Ecol 90:188–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callaway RM, Walker LR (1997) Competition and facilitation: a synthetic approach to interactions in plant communities. Ecology 78:1958–1965

    Google Scholar 

  • Carino DA, Daehler CC (2002) Can inconspicuous legumes facilitate alien grass invasion? Partridge peas and fountain grass in Hawai’i. Ecography 25:33–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connell JH (1980) Diversity and the coevolution of competitors, or the ghost of competition past. Oikos 35:131–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connell JH (1983) On the prevalence and relative importance of interspecific competition: evidence from field experiments. Am Nat 122:661–696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards NT, Norby RJ (1998) Belowground respiratory responses of sugar maple and red maple saplings to atmospheric CO2 enrichment and elevated air temperature. Plant Soil 206:85–97

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fowler N (1982) Competition and coexistence in a North Carolina grassland. III. Mixtures of component species. J Ecol 70:77–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg DE, Barton AM (1992) Patterns and consequences of interspecific competition in natural communities: a review of field experiments with plants. Am Nat 139:771–801

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg DE, Landa K (1991) Competitive effect and response: hierarchies and correlated traits in the early stages of competition. J Ecol 79:1013–1030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg DE, Rajaniemi T, Gurevitch J, et al (1999) Empirical approaches to quantifying interaction intensity: competition and facilitation along productivity gradients. Ecology 80:1118–1131

    Google Scholar 

  • Grime JP (1977) Evidence for the existence of three primary strategies in plants and its relevance to ecological theory. Am Nat 111:1169–1194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gurevitch J, Wilson P, Stone JL, et al (1990) Competition among old-field perennials at different levels of soil fertility and available space. J Ecol 78:727–744

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hacker SD, Bertness MD (1999) Experimental evidence for factors maintaining plant species diversity in a New England salt marsh. Ecology 80:2064–2073

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard TG (2001) The relationship of total and per-gram rankings in competitive effect to the natural abundance of herbaceous perennials. J Ecol 89:110–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard TG, Goldberg DE (2001) Competitive response hierarchies for germination, growth, and survival, and their influence on abundance. Ecology 82:979–990

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter AE, Aarssen AW (1988) Plants helping plants. BioScience 38:34–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huston MA, Smith TM (1987) Plant succession: life history and competition. Am Nat 130:168–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karez R (2003) Competitive ranks of three Fucus spp. (Phaeophyta) in laboratory experiments–testing of Keddy’s competitive hierarchy model. Helgol Mar Res 57:83–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly JM (1975) Dynamics of root biomass in two eastern Tennessee old-field communities. Am Midl Nat 94:54–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keddy PA (1990) Competitive hierarchies and centrifugal organization in plant communities. In: Grace JB, Tilman D (eds) Perspectives in plant competition. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Keddy PA (2001) Competition. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Keddy PA, Nielsen K, Weiher K, et al (2002) Relative competitive performance of 63 species of terrestrial herbaceous plants. J Veg Sci 13:5–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keddy P, Shipley B (1989) Competitive hierarchies in herbaceous plant communities. Oikos 54:234–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keddy P, Wisheu I (1989) Ecology, biogeography, and conservation of coastal plain plants: some general principles from the study of Nova Scotian wetlands. Rhodora 91:72–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendall MG, Gibbons JD (1990) Rank correlation methods, 5th edn. Charles Griffin, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Levene H (1960) Robust tests for equality of variance. In: Olkin I (eds) Contributions to probability and statistics. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto

    Google Scholar 

  • Lortie CJ, Brooker RW, Choler P, et al (2004) Rethinking plant community theory. Oikos 107:433–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur R, Levins R (1967) The limiting similarity, convergence, and divergence of coexisting species. Am Nat 101:377–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller TE, Werner PA (1987) Competitive effects and responses between plant species in a first-year old-field community. Ecology 68:1201–1210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchley J, Grubb PJ (1986) Control of relative abundance of perennials in chalk grassland in southern England. I. Constancy of rank order and results of pot- and field-experiments on the role of interference. J Ecol 74:1139–1166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore RM, Williams JD (1983) Competition among weedy species: diallel experiments. Aust J Ag Res 34:119–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller-Dombois D, Ellenberg H (1974) Aims and methods of vegetation ecology. John Wiley and Sons, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • Norby RJ, Wullschleger SD, Gunderson CA, et al (1999) Tree responses to rising CO2: implications for the future forest. Plant Cell Environ 22:683–714

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Norrington-Davies J (1967) Diallel analysis of competition between grass species. J Ag Sci 71:223–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novoplansky A, Goldberg DE (2001) Effects of water pulsing on individual performance and competitive hierarchies in plants. J Veg Sci 12: 199–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NRCS (2007) Plants Database. Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. http://plants.usda.gov. Cited 06 March 2007

  • Pacala SW, Tilman D (1994) Limiting similarity in mechanistic and spatial models of plant competition in heterogeneous environments. Am Nat 143:222–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panetta FD, Randall RP (1993) Variation between Emex australis populations in seed dormancy/non-dormancy cycles. Aust J Ecol 18:275–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkins TA, Holmes WR, Weltzin JF Competitive hierarchies in multi-species communities: new methods and an empirical test. J Veg Sci. In press

  • Richardson DM, Allsopp N, D’Antonio CM (2000) Plant invasions––the role of mutualisms. Biol Rev 75:65–93

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • SAS Institute (1999) SAS/STAT user’s guide. Version 9.1. SAS Institute, Cary, N.C

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoener TW (1983) Field experiments on interspecific competition. Am Nat 122:240–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro SS, Wilk MB (1965) An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 52:591–611

    Google Scholar 

  • Shipley B, Keddy PA (1994) Evaluating the evidence for competitive hierarchies in plant communities. Oikos 69:340–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silvertown J, Dale P (1991) Competitive hierarchies and the structure of herbaceous plant communities. Oikos 61: 441–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soil Conservation Service (1967) Soil survey and laboratory data and descriptions for some soils of Tennessee. Soil survey investigations report no. 15, U.S. Dept. Agric., Soil Conservation Service and Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station

  • Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research, 3rd edn. W. H. Freeman, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Suding KN, Goldberg DE (2001) Do disturbances alter competitive hierarchies? Separating mechanisms of species compositional change. Ecology 82:2133–2149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Putten WH, Mortimer SR, Hedlund K, et al (2000) Plant species diversity as a drive of early succession in abandoned fields: a multi-site approach. Oecologia 124:91–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson SD, Keddy PA (1986) Species competitive ability and position along a natural stress/disturbance gradient. Ecology 67:1236–1242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zamfir M, Goldberg DE (2000) The effect of initial density on interactions between bryophytes at individual and community levels. J Ecol 88:243–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Research was funded by a summer research grant from the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Tennessee and by the Office of Science (BER), U. S. Department of Energy Grant No. DE-FG02-02ER63366. The authors thank P. Allen, C. DeVan, M. Fitzpatrick, C. Iversen, K. Kennard, and L. Souza for their many hours washing roots and other field help and logistical support.

Author information

Author notes

  1. E. Cayenne Engel

    Present address: Public Lands Institute, 4505 Maryland Parkway, Box 452040, Las Vegas, NV, 89154-2040, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, 37996-1610, USA

    E. Cayenne Engel & Jake F. Weltzin

Authors
  1. E. Cayenne Engel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jake F. Weltzin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. Cayenne Engel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Engel, E.C., Weltzin, J.F. Can community composition be predicted from pairwise species interactions?. Plant Ecol 195, 77–85 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-007-9300-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-007-9300-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation