Linking individual response to biotic interactions with community structure: a trait-based framework

By N. Gross, G. Kunstler, P. Liancourt, Francesco de Bello, K. Suding, S. Lavorel. Functional Ecology, 2009

177 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Summary 1. Due to species-specificity of the outcomes of biotic interactions, it is difficult to generalize from observed biotic interactions at the individual plant level to the effect of those interactions at the community level. To evaluate the importance of biotic interactions in shaping plant communities, it is necessary to understand how the outcomes of the complex interactions observed at the individual level can influence community structure. 2. Here, we propose a trait-based framework that identifies and organises mechanisms affecting community structure (here described with relative abundances of plant functional traits – i.e. the distribution of trait values at the community level). We applied our approach to a single leaf trait, specific leaf area (SLA), to link individual responses to plant interactions with community structure (SLA distribution observed at the community level) and to test whether biotic interactions can predict the functional composition of subalpine grasslands. We evaluated the generality of our model through a cross-validation with a set of eight subalpine grasslands independent from the four fields used to build the model. 3. We found that competition and facilitation were able to explain the functional composition of subalpine grasslands, and the relevant fitness components (survival or growth) explaining this link changed depending on the limiting resources. When soil water availability was limiting, positive plant-plant interactions acting on survival were able to explain community structure. In contrast, when no water limitation was observed competition acting on individual growth was the main driver of community structure. 4. Our framework enables evaluation of the consequences of biotic interactions observed at individual level on community structure, thereby indicating when and where different types of plant-plant interactions are important.

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Nature and Landscape Conservation, Plant Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1418b63569f7d46c6ed44c57f727cceddc271647

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

In Plant Science

Citations in the corpus

On the importance of intraspecific variability for the quantification of functional diversity (2012, background): “…al. 2010) due to local adaptation or to phenotypic plasticity of traits either along environmental gradients (e.g. bioclimatic, disturbance, Sandquist and Ehleringer 1997), or because individuals may alter their trait values in response to biotic interactions (e.g. competition, Gross et al. 2009).”
Quantifying the relevance of intraspecific trait variability for functional diversity (2011, unknown): “…important effects of intraspecific trait variability on community assembly, habitat selection and ecosystem functioning (Callaway, Pennings, &Richards 2003; Boege &Dirzo 2004; Lecerf & Chauvet 2008; Funk 2008; Berg & Ellers 2010; Cornwell & Ackerly 2009; Gross et al. 2009; Thuiller et al. 2009).”
A trait‐based analysis of the role of phosphorus vs. nitrogen enrichment in plant species loss across North‐west European grasslands (2011, background): “The latter approach, however, is expected to provide more detailed information on specific species loss (Dorrough & Scroggie 2008; Gross et al. 2009).”
Regeneration: an overlooked aspect of trait‐based plant community assembly models (2016, background): “…could promote higher than expected trait divergence in a given environment if established biota alter the microenvironment in a way that facilitates survival among species whose traits may otherwise exclude them (e.g. plants with high SLA in systems limited primarily by water, Gross et al. 2009).”
Indirect facilitation promotes macrophyte survival and growth in freshwater ecosystems threatened by eutrophication (2012, background): “Similar mechanisms may occur along productivity gradients in terrestrial systems, particularly where water is a non-limiting resource and where productivity is mainly driven by nutrient availability (e.g. Tilman 1982; Gross et al. 2009; Liancourt, Viard-Cretat & Michalet 2009).”
GEMINI: a Grassland Model Simulating the Role of Plant Traits for Community Dynamics and Ecosystem F (2012, background): “All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2012.02.002 Suding et al., 2008; Gross et al., 2009).”
The reciprocal relationship between competition and intraspecific trait variation (2016, background): “Under more stressful conditions, keeping SLA as is or moving to a more conservative strategy may yield better results (Gross et al. 2009).”
Uncovering multiscale effects of aridity and biotic interactions on the functional structure of Mediterranean shrublands (2013, methodology): “Overall, our study calls for a more mechanistic approach of community functional assembly (e.g. Savage, Webb & Norberg 2007; Gross et al. 2009), that is, to move from patterns of community trait divergence and convergence towards the examination of the underlying mechanisms acting at the individual…”
Effects of competition on tree radial‐growth vary in importance but not in intensity along climatic gradients (2011, background): “There is also the difficulty of evaluating how plant–plant interactions influence the structure of plant communities (Goldberg et al. 1999; Brooker et al. 2005; Brooker & Kikvidze 2008; Freckleton, Watkinson & Rees 2009; Gross et al. 2009).”