Opposing community assembly patterns for dominant and nondominant plant species in herbaceous ecosystems globally.
Nutrient Network
biodiversity
community assembly
evolutionary strategies
grasslands
phylogenetic relatedness
species dominance
species nondominance
Journal
Ecology and evolution
ISSN: 2045-7758
Titre abrégé: Ecol Evol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101566408
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2021
Dec 2021
Historique:
received:
18
05
2021
revised:
14
08
2021
accepted:
18
09
2021
entrez:
10
1
2022
pubmed:
11
1
2022
medline:
11
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Biotic and abiotic factors interact with dominant plants-the locally most frequent or with the largest coverage-and nondominant plants differently, partially because dominant plants modify the environment where nondominant plants grow. For instance, if dominant plants compete strongly, they will deplete most resources, forcing nondominant plants into a narrower niche space. Conversely, if dominant plants are constrained by the environment, they might not exhaust available resources but instead may ameliorate environmental stressors that usually limit nondominants. Hence, the nature of interactions among nondominant species could be modified by dominant species. Furthermore, these differences could translate into a disparity in the phylogenetic relatedness among dominants compared to the relatedness among nondominants. By estimating phylogenetic dispersion in 78 grasslands across five continents, we found that dominant species were clustered (e.g., co-dominant grasses), suggesting dominant species are likely organized by environmental filtering, and that nondominant species were either randomly assembled or overdispersed. Traits showed similar trends for those sites (<50%) with sufficient trait data. Furthermore, several lineages scattered in the phylogeny had more nondominant species than expected at random, suggesting that traits common in nondominants are phylogenetically conserved and have evolved multiple times. We also explored environmental drivers of the dominant/nondominant disparity. We found different assembly patterns for dominants and nondominants, consistent with asymmetries in assembly mechanisms. Among the different postulated mechanisms, our results suggest two complementary hypotheses seldom explored: (1) Nondominant species include lineages adapted to thrive in the environment generated by dominant species. (2) Even when dominant species reduce resources to nondominant ones, dominant species could have a stronger positive effect on some nondominants by ameliorating environmental stressors affecting them, than by depleting resources and increasing the environmental stress to those nondominants. These results show that the dominant/nondominant asymmetry has ecological and evolutionary consequences fundamental to understand plant communities.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35003636
doi: 10.1002/ece3.8266
pii: ECE38266
pmc: PMC8717298
doi:
Banques de données
Dryad
['10.5061/dryad.pzgmsbcn7']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
17744-17761Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors. Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
None declared.
Références
Trends Ecol Evol. 2011 Jul;26(7):340-8
pubmed: 21561679
Ecol Lett. 2010 Sep;13(9):1085-93
pubmed: 20576030
Trends Ecol Evol. 2017 Jun;32(6):429-437
pubmed: 28363350
New Phytol. 2014 Jul;203(1):16-21
pubmed: 24635114
Am Nat. 2004 Jun;163(6):823-43
pubmed: 15266381
Ecol Lett. 2013 Oct;16(10):1234-44
pubmed: 23910526
Ecol Lett. 2017 Aug;20(8):989-996
pubmed: 28639274
Ecology. 2019 Sep;100(9):e02788
pubmed: 31225900
Nature. 2003 Apr 17;422(6933):714-6
pubmed: 12700760
New Phytol. 2014 Jan;201(2):403-416
pubmed: 24102266
Glob Chang Biol. 2013 Dec;19(12):3677-87
pubmed: 24038796
J Veg Sci. 2013 Sep 1;24(5):853-864
pubmed: 24791143
Ecol Lett. 2019 Aug;22(8):1233-1242
pubmed: 31134752
Science. 2013 Oct 18;342(6156):1243092
pubmed: 24136971
Ecology. 2018 Jun;99(6):1473-1479
pubmed: 29782644
Ecol Lett. 2009 Jul;12(7):693-715
pubmed: 19473217
Ecol Lett. 2017 May;20(5):619-628
pubmed: 28371151
PeerJ. 2018 Sep 21;6:e5619
pubmed: 30258717
PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e42760
pubmed: 22912736
Ecol Lett. 2014 Jul;17(7):771-84
pubmed: 24766299
Am Nat. 2000 Aug;156(2):145-155
pubmed: 10856198
Trends Ecol Evol. 1994 May;9(5):191-3
pubmed: 21236818
Am Nat. 2009 Dec;174(6):850-62
pubmed: 19832033
Ecol Evol. 2021 Nov 22;11(24):17744-17761
pubmed: 35003636
Ecol Lett. 2007 Feb;10(2):95-104
pubmed: 17257097
Ecol Lett. 2017 Nov;20(11):1448-1458
pubmed: 28941076
New Phytol. 2012 Oct;196(2):497-509
pubmed: 22931515
Glob Chang Biol. 2020 Jan;26(1):119-188
pubmed: 31891233
New Phytol. 2012 Nov;196(3):824-834
pubmed: 22978646
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Jan 20;112(3):797-802
pubmed: 25561561
Evol Ecol. 2016;30:191-202
pubmed: 27429507
iScience. 2019 Mar 29;13:254-268
pubmed: 30870783
Sci Rep. 2016 Jun 08;6:27087
pubmed: 27272407
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2011 Aug 27;366(1576):2403-13
pubmed: 21768155
Ecol Lett. 2007 Oct;10(10):995-1015
pubmed: 17845298
Ecol Lett. 2018 Jan;21(1):3-8
pubmed: 29110416
Q Rev Biol. 2010 Jun;85(2):183-206
pubmed: 20565040
Q Rev Biol. 2016 Sep;91(3):321-42
pubmed: 29558615