Filtering processes in the assembly of plant communities: Are species presence and abundance driven by the same traits?

By Ana M. Cingolani, Marcelo R. Cabido, D. Gurvich, D. Renison, Sandra Díaz. 2007

163 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Abstract Question: Is the response of plant traits to environment at the community level similar when considering species abundance and when considering species presence only? Location: Mountain grasslands, central Argentina. Methods: We used data from 57 floristic samples, ordinated through DCCA along moisture and grazing gradients combined with trait values from 85 species (plant height, leaf area, leaf thickness leaf toughness and SLA). For each sample, we calculated the weighted average (considering species abundance) and the simple average (considering only species presence). Through multiple regressions we analysed how each average (dependent variable) responded to moisture and grazing (DCCA scores along Axes 1 and 2, respectively, as independent variables). Results: Weighted averages of all traits were significantly associated to both gradients, while simple averages did not always respond. In some cases the responses followed similar but weaker trends than the responses of weighted averages, but in other cases these responses were qualitatively different. Traits more associated with size (plant height, leaf area, leaf thickness) responded more consistently (similar trends for both averages) to grazing than to moisture, while traits more associated with plant resource acquisition (SLA, leaf toughness) responded more consistently to moisture than to grazing. Conclusion: The trait values and combinations which determine the probability of species presence are not necessary the same as those which determine their probability of becoming abundant. To understand community assembly rules, both species presence and species abundance should be taken into account as the result of different, although closely linked, filtering processes.

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

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/bb67ed9b4822ab720f0d9256f7b336e29cc7dbd8

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

1. Francesco de Bello
2. C. Violle
3. S. Lavorel
4. J. Lepš
5. R. Pakeman
6. M. Navas
7. Eric Garnier
8. Wilfried Thuiller

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

1. Francesco de Bello
2. S. Lavorel
3. C. Violle
4. J. Lepš
5. Wilfried Thuiller
6. Eric Garnier
7. R. Pakeman
8. M. Navas

In Plant Science

1. S. Lavorel
2. Francesco de Bello
3. Eric Garnier
4. R. Pakeman
5. C. Violle
6. J. Lepš
7. D. Laughlin
8. M. Navas

Citations in the corpus

• Community assembly along a soil depth gradient: contrasting patterns of plant trait convergence and divergence in a Mediterranean rangeland (2012, unknown): “Concerning the latter point, stronger trait–environment relationships may be observed when taking species abundances into account rather than simple presence/absence (Garnier et al. 2004; Cingolani et al. 2007), although few studies have specifically investigated this issue (but see Mouillot, Mason ”
• Plant traits related to competition: how do they shape the functional diversity of communities? (2009, background): “Community ecology is currently being reinvigorated by the development of promising quantitative approaches which predict species abundances from plant functional traits that have been successfully filtered by the environment (Shipley et al. 2006, Cingolani et al. 2007).”
• Substitutes for grazing in semi-natural grasslands - do mowing or mulching represent valuable alternatives to maintain vegetation structure? (2009, background): “Grime (1998) and Cingolani et al. (2007) suggest that, in a given plant assemblage, dominant species should have trait values better fitted to environmental conditions than minor species; their importance should, therefore, not be down-weighted by using only presence/absence data.”
• Intraspecific variability and trait‐based community assembly (2010, background): “Trait-based approaches have recently emerged as a promising way to understand the mechanisms structuring plant communities (e.g. Stubbs & Wilson 2004; Ackerly & Cornwell 2007; Cingolani et al. 2007; Schamp, Chau & Aarssen 2008; Webb et al. 2010), so much so that McGill et al.”
• Effects of grazing abandonment on functional and taxonomic diversity of Mediterranean grasslands (2012, background): “, 2004), or on mixed gradients of productivity (fertility or rainfall) and grazing (Cingolani et al., 2007; Rusch et al., 2009).”
• Importance of species abundance for assessment of trait composition: an example based on pollinator communities (2007, background): “1) can provide helpful insights into community assembly mechanisms (Cingolani et al. 2007).”
• Assessing species and community functional responses to environmental gradients: which multivariate methods? (2012, background): “An open research question concerns the extent to which trait variation along a gradient is mostly due to intra-species trait variability (phenotypic plasticity and/or genetic variability; Crutsinger et al. 2007; Whitlock et al. 2007; question 1c).”
• A trait-based approach to comparative functional plant ecology: concepts, methods and applications for agroecology. A review (2012, background): “It has been argued that this pattern of abundance was reflecting differential adequacy between species and their environment, dominant species being better fit than less abundant species (Vile et al. 2006a; Cingolani et al. 2007).”
• Towards a trait-based quantification of species niche (2009, background): “…reflect the level of physiological adaptation of traits to the environment (e.g. Garnier et al. 2004; Quétier et al. 2007; Shipley et al. 2006), given that dominants in a given plant assemblage should have trait values better fitted to environment than minor species (see Cingolani et al. 2007).”
• Climatic constraints on trait‐based forest assembly (2011, background): “T can vary predictably along environmental gradients (e.g. Cingolani et al. 2007) because traits have been selected along environmental gradients over evolutionary history (Ackerly et al. 2000).”
• Relative climatic, edaphic and management controls of plant functional trait signatures (2009, unknown): “As mean trait values can have different relationships with environmental variables to those of weighted mean values, the analysis was repeated with unweighted mean trait values to assess this impact (Cingolani et al. 2007; Pakeman et al. 2008).”
• A plant economics spectrum in Mediterranean forests along environmental gradients: is there coordination among leaf, stem and root traits? (2016, background): “At the community level, the links among traits belonging to different plant organs were consistently stronger than at the species level, in accordance with previous studies (Ackerly et al. 2002; Cingolani et al. 2007; Domínguez et al. 2012).”
• A link between plant traits and abundance: evidence from coastal California woody plants (2010, background): “…in the dialogue on the importance of neutral versus niche-assembly processes in structuring communities (Hubbell 2001; Murray et al. 2005; McGill et al. 2006, 2007; Shipley, Vile & Garnier 2006; Cingolani et al. 2007; Mouillot, Mason & Wilson 2007; McGill 2008; Levine & HilleRisLambers 2009).”