Species distribution models reveal apparent competitive and facilitative effects of a dominant species on the distribution of tundra plants

Ecography

Volumn 33, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 1004-1014

  Pellissier, Loïc ^a,b   Anne Bråthen, Kari ^c   Pottier, Julien ^a,b   Randin, Christophe F ^a,b   Vittoz, Pascal ^a,b   Dubuis, Anne ^a,b   Yoccoz, Nigel G ^c   Alm, Torbjørn ^c   Zimmermann, Niklaus E ^d   Guisan, Antoine ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LAUSANNE   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LAUSANNE   (Switzerland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TROMSØ   (Norway)

^d SWISS FEDERAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE WSL   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COEXISTENCE; DICOTYLEDON; DOMINANCE; DRY MATTER; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; FREQUENCY ANALYSIS; GRAZING; HABITAT TYPE; HERB; NUMERICAL MODEL; POPULATION DISTRIBUTION; RESOURCE DEPLETION; SPATIAL ANALYSIS; SPECIES OCCURRENCE; TOLERANCE; TUNDRA;

NORWAY;

EMPETRUM NIGRUM;

EID: 78650336780     PISSN: 09067590     EISSN: 16000587     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2010.06386.x     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Adler, P. B. and HilleRisLambers, J. 2008. The influence of climate and species composition on the population dynamics of ten prairie forbs. Ecology 89: 3049-3060.
2. Aerts, R. 2010. Nitrogen-dependent recovery of subarctic tundra vegetation after simulation of extreme winter warming damage to Empetrum hermaphroditum. Global Change Biol. 16: 1071-1081.
3. Alm, T. 1993. Øvre Æråsvatn - palynostratigraphy of a 22, 000 to 10, 000 B.P. lacustrine record on Andøya, northern Norway. Boreas 22: 171-188.
4. Alonso, I. et al. 2001. Competition between heather and grasses on Scottish moorlands: interacting effects of nutrient enrichment and grazing regime. J. Veg. Sci. 12: 249-260.
5. Anderson, R. P. et al. 2002. Using niche-based GIS modeling to test geographic predictions of competitive exclusion and competitive release in South American pocket mice. Oikos 98: 3-16.
6. Baptist, F. et al. 2010. Direct and indirect control by snow cover over decomposition in alpine tundra along a snowmelt gradient. Plant Soil. 328: 397-410.
7. Baselga, A. and Araújo, M. B. 2010. Do community-level models describe community variation effectively?. J. Biogeogr in press.
8. Bertness, M. and Callaway, R. M. 1994. Positive interactions in communities. Trends Ecol. Evol. 9: 191-193.
9. Borcard, D. et al. 1992. Partialling out the spatial component of ecological variation. Ecology 73: 1045-1055.
10. Bråthen, K. A. et al. 2007. Induced shift in ecosystem productivity? Extensive scale effects of abundant large herbivores. Ecosystems 10: 773-789.
11. Bråthen, K. A. et al. 2010. Ecosystem disturbance reduces the allelopathic effects of Empetrum hermaphroditum humus on tundra plants. J. Veg. Sci. 21: 786-795.
12. Brooker, R. W. and Callaghan, T. V. 1998. The balance between positive and negative plant interactions and its relationship to environmental gradients: a model. Oikos 81: 196-207.
13. Brooker, R. W. et al. 2008. Facilitation in plant communities: the past, the present, and the future. J. Ecol. 96: 18-34.
14. Caccianiga, M. et al. 2006. The functional basis of a primary succession resolved by CSR classification. Oikos 112: 10-20.
15. Callaway, R. M. 1995. Positive interactions among plants. Bot. Rev. 61: 306-349.
16. Callaway, R. M. et al. 2002. Positive interactions among alpine plants increase with stress. Nature 417: 844-848.
17. Carlsson, B. A. and Callaghan, T. V. 1991. Positive plant interactions in tundra vegetation and the importance of shelter. J. Ecol. 79: 973-983.
18. Choler, P. et al. 2001. Facilitation and competition on gradients in alpine plant communities. Ecology 82: 3295-3308.
19. Condun, C. and Gégout, J. C. 2007. Quantitative prediction of the distribution and abundance of Vaccinium myrtillus with climatic and edaphic factors. J. Veg. Sci. 18: 517-524.
20. Cox, D. R. and Snell, E. J. 1989. The analysis of binary data. Chapman and Hall.
21. Diaz, S. et al. 2004. The plant traits that drive ecosystems: evidence from three continents. J. Veg. Sci. 15: 295-304.
22. Dormann, C. F. and Brooker, R. W. 2002. Facilitation and competition in the high Arctic: the importance of the experimental approach. Acta Oecol. 23: 297-301.
23. Ferrier, S. and Guisan, A. 2006. Spatial modelling of biodiversity at the community level. J. Appl. Ecol. 43: 393-404.
24. Ferrier, S. et al. 2002a. Extended statistical approaches to modelling spatial pattern in biodiversity in northeast New South Wales. I. Species-level modelling. Biodivers. Conserv. 11: 2275-2307.
25. Ferrier, S. et al. 2002b. Extended statistical approaches to modelling spatial pattern in biodiversity in northeast New South Wales. II. Community-level modelling. Biodivers. Conserv. 11: 2309-2338.
26. Fielding, A. H. and Bell, J. F. 1997. A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environ. Conserv. 24: 38-49.
27. Garnier, E. et al. 2001. Consistency of species ranking based on functional leaf traits. New Phytol. 152: 69-83.
28. Gotelli, N. J. and McCabe, D. J. 2002. Species co-occurrence: a meta-analysis of J. M. Diamond's assembly rules model. Ecology 83: 2091-2096.
29. Gotelli, N. J. et al. 2010. Macroecological signals of species interactions in the Danish avifauna. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107: 5030-5035.
30. Grime, J. P. et al. 1988. Comparative plant ecology: a functional approach to common British species. Unwin Hyman.
31. Gross, N. et al. 2009. Linking individual response to biotic interactions with community structure: a trait-based framework. Funct. Ecol. 23: 1167-1178.
32. Guisan, A. and Zimmermann, N. E. 2000. Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecol. Model. 135: 147-186.
33. Guisan, A. and Thuiller, W. 2005. Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol. Lett. 8: 993-1009.
34. Guisan, A. et al. 2002. Advances in GLM/GAM modeling: from species' distribution to environmental management. Ecol. Model. 157: 3-4.
35. Haapasaari, M. 1988. The oligotrophic heath vegetation of northern Fennoscandia and its zonation. Acta Bot. Fenn. 135: 1-219.
36. Hastie, T. and Tibishirani, R. 1986. Generalized additive models. Stat. Sci. 1: 297-318.
37. Heikkinen, R. K. et al. 2007. Biotic interactions improve prediction of boreal bird distributions at macro-scales. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 16: 754-763.
38. Hijmans, R. J. et al. 2005. Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Clim. 25: 1965-1978.
39. Hirzel, A. and Guisan, A. 2002. Which is the optimal sampling strategy for habitat suitability modelling. Ecol. Model. 157: 331-341.
40. IPCC. 2007. Climate change 2007: synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, Geneva.
41. Keddy, P. et al. 1998. A comparative approach to examine competitive response of 48 wetland plant species. J. Veg. Sci. 9: 777-786.
42. Knevel, I. C. et al. 2003. Life-history traits of the northwest European flora: the LEDA database. J. Veg. Sci. 14: 611-614.
43. Körner, C. 2003. Alpine plant life, 2nd ed. Springer.
44. Kraft, N. J. B. et al. 2008. Functional traits and niche-based tree community assembly in an Amazonian forest. Science 322: 580-582.
45. Kumar, L. et al. 1997. Modelling topographic variation in solar radiation in a GIS environment. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 11: 475-497.
46. Lavorel, S. et al. 1997. Plant functional classifications: from general groups to specific groups based on response to disturbance. Trends Ecol. Evol. 12: 474-478.
47. Lavorel, S. et al. 2007. Plant functional types: are we getting any closer to the Holy Grail?. - In: Canadell, J. G. et al (eds), Terrestrial ecosystems in a changing world. Springer, pp. 149-164.
48. Leathwick, J. R. and Austin, M. P. 2001. Competitive interactions between tree species in New Zealand's old-growth indigenous forests. Ecology 82: 2560-2573.
49. Lortie, C. J. et al. 2004. Rethinking plant community theory. Oikos 107: 433-438.
50. Maestre, F. T. et al. 2009. Refining the stress-gradient hypothesis for competition and facilitation in plant communities. J. Ecol. 97: 199-205.
51. McCullagh, P. and Nelder, J. A. 1989. Generalized linear models, 2nd ed. Chapman and Hall.
52. McKane, R. B. et al. 2002. Resource-based niches provide a basis for plant species diversity and dominance in arctic tundra. Nature 415: 68-71.
53. Meier, E. S. et al. 2010. Biotic and abiotic variables show little redundancy in explaining tree species distribution. Ecography 33: 1038-1048.
54. Meier, E. S. et al. in press. Competition patterns of trees along macro-climatic gradients and their potential influence on the present and future distribution of Fagus sylvatica. J. Biogeogr
55. Michalet, R. et al. 2006. Do biotic interactions shape both sides of the humped-back model of species richness in plant communities?. Ecol. Lett. 9: 767-773.
56. Nagelkerke, N. J. D. 1991. A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination. Biometrika 78: 691.
57. Nilsson, M. C. 1994. Separation of allelopathy and resource competition by the boreal dwarf shrub Empetrum hermaphroditum Hagerup. Oecologia 98: 1-7.
58. Parsons, A. N. 1994. Growth responses of four sub-Arctic dwarf shrubs to simulated environmental change. J. Ecol. 82: 307-318.
59. Pulliam, H. R. 2000. On the relationship between niche and distribution. Ecol. Lett. 3: 349-361.
60. Quested, H. M. et al. 2005. The impact of hemiparasitic plant litter on decomposition: direct, seasonal and litter mixing effects. J. Ecol. 93: 87-98.
61. R Development Core Team. 2010. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
62. Randin, C. F. et al. 2009. Land use improves spatial predictions of mountain plant abundance but not presence-absence. J. Veg. Sci. 20: 996-1008.
63. Rusch, G. M. et al. 2009. Plant traits link hypothesis about resource-use and response to herbivory. Basic Appl. Ecol. 10: 466-474.
64. Stark, S. 2007. Nutrient cycling in the tundra. - In: Marschner, P. and Rengel, Z. (eds), Nutrient cycling in terrestrial ecosystems. Soil Biol. 10. 10:, pp. 309-331.
65. Tilman, D. 1994. Competition and biodiversity in spatially structured habitats. Ecology 75: 2-16.
66. Wardle, D. A. and Nilsson, M. C. 1997. Microbe-plant competition, allelopathy and arctic plants. Oecologia 109: 291-293.
67. Wardle, D. A. et al. 1998. Can comparative approaches based on plant ecophysiological traits predict the nature of biotic interactions and individual plant species effects in ecosystems?. J. Ecol. 86: 405-420.
68. Weiher, E. and Keddy, P. 1999. The scope and goals of research on assembly rules. - In: Weiher, E. and Keddy, P. (eds), Ecological assembly rules: perspectives, advances, retreats. Cambridge Univ. Press, pp. 1-20.
69. Weiher, E. et al. 1999. Challenging Theophrastus: a common core list of plant traits for functional ecology. J. Veg. Sci. 10: 609-620.
70. Wijk, M. T. V. et al. 2005. Tight coupling between leaf area index and foliage N content in Arctic plant communities. Oecologia 142: 421-427.
71. Wilson, P. J. et al. 1999. Specific leaf area and leaf dry matter content as alternative predictors of plant strategies. New Phytol. 143: 155-162.
72. Zimmermann, N. E. and Kienast, F. 1999. Predictive mapping of alpine grasslands in Switzerland: species versus community approach. J. Veg. Sci. 10: 469-482.
73. Zimmermann, N. E. et al. 2007. Remote sensing-based predictors improve distribution models of rare, early successional and broadleaf tree species in Utah. J. Appl. Ecol. 44: 1057-1067.
74. Zimmermann, N. E. et al. 2009. Climatic extremes improve predictions of spatial patterns of tree species. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106: 19723-19728.