1 / 72

Community Change

Community Change. Species turnover Succession Replacement of one type of community by another Nonseasonal directional pattern of colonization & extinction of species. Succession. Apparently orderly change in community composition through time venerable subject in community ecology

donoma
Download Presentation

Community Change

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Community Change • Species turnover • Succession • Replacement of one type of community by another • Nonseasonal directional pattern of colonization & extinction of species

  2. Succession • Apparently orderly change in community composition through time • venerable subject in community ecology • mechanisms that drive succession?

  3. Modern hypotheses • Summarized by Connell & Slatyer (1977) • Three mechanisms drive species replacement • Facilitation • site modification • Tolerance • interspecific competition • Inhibition • priority effects, disturbance • Null hypothesis • Random colonization & extinction

  4. Facilitation hypothesis • Early species make site more suitable for later species • Early species only are capable of colonizing barren sites • specialists on disturbed sites • Climax species facilitate their own offspring • Primary process: Site modification(soil)

  5. Tolerance hypothesis • Later species outcompete early species • Adults of any species could grow in a site • Which species starts succession • Chance • Dispersal ability • Early species have no effect on later species • Later species replace early species by competition • Climax species are the best competitors • Primary process: Interspecific competition

  6. Inhibition hypothesis • Adults of any species could live at a site • Which species starts succession • Chance • Dispersal ability • Early species inhibit (out compete) later species • Persist until disturbed • Later species replace early species after disturbance • Climax species are most resistant to disturbance • Primary process: Priority effects

  7. Random colonization hypothesis • Nothing but chance determines succession • No competition, no facilitation, no inhibition • Colonists arrive at random • Species in the community go extinct at random

  8. Resource ratios and succession • Based on Tilman & Wedin 1991a, 1991b • As secondary succession procedes: • soil N increases over time • light at soil surface decreases over time • Consider light and soil resource (N) as two essential resources • Successional sequence of species may result from changing resource ratios

  9. Resource ratio hypothesis of succession LATE N SUCCESION 2 1 3 4 2 3 EARLY Light

  10. Resource ratiohypothesis of succession • Early species (3, 4) are good competitors for N • Late species (1, 2) are good competitors for light • Resource competition drives succession • Alternative succession hypotheses e.g., colonization-competition hypothesis • early - good dispersers, poor competitors • late - good competitors, poor dispersers • most similar to tolerance hypotheses

  11. Experimental tests of the resource ratio hypothesis of succession • Test resource competition theory for this system • determine R*for N a set of species • determine whether R* values predict the competitive winners: Low R* high competitive ability • Test resource ratio hypothesis of succession • determine R* for N for a set of species • test prediction that R* is low for early species • test prediction that early species win in competition • possible to refute one or both

  12. Old field successional grasses • 5 species studied • Agrostis scabra (As)Early Native • Agropyron repens (Ar) Early Introd. • Poa pratensis (Pp) Mid Introd. • Schizachyrium scoparium (Ss) Late Native • Andropogon gerardi (Ag) Late Native

  13. % cover during succession

  14. Predictions based on RR hypothesis for succession • R* for N • As < Ar < Pp < Ss < Ag • In competition for N • As best • Ag worst

  15. Experimental gardens • Bulldoze to 60 - 80 cm … bare sand • N = 90 mg/kg • Add topsoil (0% to 100%) & mix • 4 N levels

  16. Determining R* • Raise each species in monoculture • After 3 yr. determine Soil N (R*) • Also determine: • Root mass • Shoot mass • Root:Shoot • Reproductive mass • Viable seed production

  17. Measured R* values • Soil NO3 • As > Ar, Pp > Ss, Ag • Soil NH4 • As, Ar > Pp, Ss, Ag • Does not support RR hypothesis of succession

  18. log(R*) As Pp Ar Ss Ag log(root) Root masses at all N levels • Ag, Ss > Pp > Ar, As • Root mass predicts R* • accounts for 73% of variation in R*(NO3) • N uptake + related to root mass

  19. Reproductive traits • Reproductive mass: As > Pp, Ar, Ss, Ag • seeds / m2 : As > Pp, Ss > Ag, Ar • Rhizome mass: Ar >> Pp, As, Ag, Ss • Early species invest most in reproduction • suggests colonization advantage • consistent with colonization- competition hypothesis

  20. Colonization-Competition • Premises • Trade-off of colonization vs. competition • Strict competitive hierarchy • No priority effects • Metacommunity structure

  21. Does R* = competitive ability? • If low R*  competitive ability: • resource competition theory is incorrect • succession may still be driven by resource ratios • If low R* = competitive ability: • resource competition theory is correct • resource ratio hypothesis is refuted • 3 pairwise competition experiments

  22. Competition experiments • Schizachyrium scoparium vs. Agrostis scaber • Andropogon gerardi vs. Agrostis scaber • Agropyron repens vs. Agrostis scaber • Based on R*, predict As loses • As and Ar closest, longest time to exclusion • seedling ratios 80:20, 50:50, 20:80 • 3 soil N levels (1, 2, 3)

  23. As (dashed)+ 20% , 50%,  80%,  monoculture Ss or Ag (solid)20% , 50%,  80%,  monoculture A. scaber excluded by late spp.

  24. As (dashed)+ 20% , 50%,  80%,  monoculture Ar (solid)20% , 50%,  80%,  monoculture A. scaber & A. repens - 3 yr.

  25. Measured R* values • Soil NO3 • As > Ar, Pp > Ss, Ag • Soil NH4 • As, Ar > Pp, Ss, Ag • Does not support RR hypothesis of succession

  26. As(dashed) + 20% , 50%,  80% Ar(solid) 20% , 50%,  80% A. scaber & A. repens - 5 yr.

  27. Overall conclusions • Resource competition theory supported • R* accurately predicts competitive ability • Resource ratio hypothesis of succession refuted • early species are the worst competitors for N • Colonization-competition hypothesis of succession consistent with results

  28. MetaCommunities(Leibold 2004 Ecol. Lett. 7:601-613) • set of local communities linked by dispersal of >1 potentially interacting species • two levels of community organization • local level • regional level • Patterns of regional persistence of species depend on local interactions and dispersal

  29. Spatial dynamics (regional) • Mass effect : net flow of individuals created by differences in population size (or density) in different patches • Rescue effect: prevention of local extinction by immigration • Source–sink effects: enhancement of local populations by immigration into sinks, from sources

  30. Balance between regional & local • What determines local and regional species persistence? • Strengths of local interactions • Dispersal among locations • Patterns of spatial dynamics

  31. Metacommunity paradigms • Patch dynamics • Species-sorting • Mass-effect • Neutral

  32. Metacommunity paradigms • Patch dynamics • patches are identical & capable of containing populations • patches occupied or unoccupied. • local diversity is limited by dispersal. • spatial dynamics dominated by local extinction and colonization • Similar ideas to colonization-competition hypothesis

  33. Metacommunity paradigms • Species-sorting • resource gradients or patch type heterogeneity cause differences in outcomes of local species interactions • patch type partly determines local community composition. • spatial niche separation • dispersal allows compositional changes to track changes in local environmental conditions

  34. Metacommunity paradigms • Mass-effect • immigration and emigration dominate local population dynamics. • species rescued from local competitive exclusion in communities where they are bad competitors via immigration from communities where they are good competitors

  35. Metacommunity paradigms • Neutral • all species are similar in their competitive ability, movement, and fitness • population interactions consist of random walks that alter relative frequencies of species • dynamics of diversity depend on equilibrium between species loss (extinction, emigration) and gain (immigration, speciation).

  36. MetaCommunities • Leibold et al. 04 Ecol. Lett. • Ellis et al. 06. Ecology. • tested data on mosquito assemblages in Florida tree holes for consistency with the 4 paradigms • 15 tree holes censused every 2 wk. from 1978 to 2003 • mosquito species enumerated

  37. Ellis et al.

  38. Ecological Niche • Grinnell emphasized abiotic variables • Elton emphasized biotic interactions • Slightly later (1920’s & 30’s) • Gause, Park lab experiments on competition • competitive exclusion principle • “Two species cannot occupy the same niche”

  39. fitness resource Ecological Niche • Quantitative approaches to ecology (1960’s) • G. E. Hutchinson • relate fitness or reproductive success (performance) to quantitative variables related to resources, space, etc.

  40. More axes (dimensions) C B B Fitness A A

  41. In multiple dimensions… • multidimensional space describing resource use • N-dimensional hypervolume, expressing species response to all possible biotic & abioticvariables • You can quantify • Niche breadth • Niche overlap

  42. Web height Prey size Simplified Niches of Argiope A. aurantia A. trifasciata

  43. Intertidal height Particle size Simplified Niches of barnacles Balanus Chthamalus

  44. Niche overlap • Literature on niche • overlap = competition (e.g., Culver 1970) • overlap = lack of competition (e.g., Pianka 1972)

  45. Chase-Leibold Approach • Niche axes are quantitative measures of factors in the environment • Niche defined by • Requirements (isoclines – amount needed for ZPG) • Impacts (vectors – effects on a factor) • Trade-offs required for coexistence

  46. Niche • What was the question? • Diversity • Coexistence / Lack of coexistence • Hypotheses? • Niche overlap/Niche breadth • Does not yield testable hypotheses • Chase-Leibold • Testable hypotheses about requirements and impacts

  47. Neutral theory of biodiversity • Hubbell, SP 2001. The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography. Princeton Univ. Press. • see also Chase & Leibold ch. 11 • Reading: Adler et al. Ecol. Lett. 10:95–104.

  48. Understanding species diversity • Hubbell is interested in biodiversity in the narrow sense • biodiversity = species diversity • S, E • Conservation biology and policy oriented discussions use a broader definition • Hubbell specifically considers diversity within a tropic level • e.g., trees, or other primary producers

  49. Neutrality • Does not mean that species interactions are absent or unimportant • Neutrality: all individuals and species are the same in all relevant properties • hence random processes are what govern community dynamics • differs from "neutral models" used to test statistically for presence of ecological interactions

  50. Understanding diversity • Niche assembly perspective • diversity is a result of interspecific differences – trade-offs -- that enable species to coexist despite the diversity-eroding effects of competition • assembly of communities governed by rules about which species can coexist • typically tied to equilibrium conditions

More Related