Case verification of community structure determining community productivity in subalpine meadow

doi:10.17521/cjpe.2022.0331

Abstract

Abstract:

Aims In studies on the relationship between plant species richness and productivity, species richness is regarded primarily as an independent variable and productivity as a response variable, whereas other factors that may affect community productivity at the same species richness levels, such as species combination and composition, are largely ignored. The objectives of this research have been determined: (1) the effect of community structure on community productivity, including species combination, composition, and functional groups to which the species belongs, and (2) the relationship between species richness and community productivity in subalpine meadow communities.
Methods In the pot experiment, seeds of four plant species (Festuca sinensis, Elymus nutans, Medicago sativa and Dactylis glomerata) were sown to pots in terms of given species combination and composition at varying levels of species richness (1, 2, 3, 4). In both monocultures and mixtures, the overall planting density of the community was 100. Seeds were sown in equal numbers to pots in communities of diverse species combinations at various levels of species richness. The species composition of four-species mixed-seeding communities was designed as 10%, 20%, 30%, and 40% density proportions, respectively. Each treatment had five replicates, and weeds were manually removed on a regular basis. The above-ground biomass in each pot had been harvested, dried, and measured by species at the end of September.
Important findings Community productivity increased with increasing species richness at lower species richness, but not substantially at higher species richness, The combination and composition of community species had a significant effect on community productivity, with the mixed-seeding community containing Elymus nutans and communities with a high proportion of Elymus nutans having higher productivity. Among the functional groups to which the species belonged, legumes either promoted or inhibited the production of other species. Elymus nutans enhanced community productivity, whereas Festuca sinensis and Dactylis glomerata had no discernible effect. As a result, it could be inferred that there is an apparent relationship between species richness and productivity, and plant community productivity is more dependent on species combination and composition than on species richness.

Key words: plant functional group, species richness, community productivity, community ecology, subalpine meadow

LI Wei, ZHANG Rong. Case verification of community structure determining community productivity in subalpine meadow[J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2023, 47(5): 713-723.

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://www.plant-ecology.com/EN/10.17521/cjpe.2022.0331

https://www.plant-ecology.com/EN/Y2023/V47/I5/713

Figures/Tables 8

Table 1 Species combination and species composition of plant communities at different species richness levels

物种丰富度 Species richness	物种组合与物种组成 Species combination and species composition
1	FS₁₀₀	EN₁₀₀	MS₁₀₀	DG₁₀₀
2	FS₅₀EN₅₀	FS₅₀MS₅₀	FS₅₀DG₅₀	EN₅₀MS₅₀	EN₅₀DG₅₀	MS₅₀DG₅₀
3	FS₃₃EN₃₃MS₃₃	FS₃₃EN₃₃DG₃₃	FS₃₃MS₃₃DG₃₃	EN₃₃MS₃₃DG₃₃
4	FS₂₅EN₂₅MS₂₅DG₂₅-SC23
	FS₁₀EN₂₀MS₃₀DG₄₀- SC14	FS₁₀EN₂₀MS₄₀DG₃₀- SC13	FS₁₀EN₃₀MS₂₀DG₄₀- SC21	FS₁₀EN₃₀MS₄₀DG₂₀- SC25	FS₁₀EN₄₀MS₂₀DG₃₀- SC24	FS₁₀EN₄₀MS₃₀DG₂₀- SC19
	FS₂₀EN₁₀MS₃₀DG₄₀- SC1	FS₂₀EN₁₀MS₄₀DG₃₀- SC4	FS₂₀EN₃₀MS₁₀DG₄₀- SC18	FS₂₀EN₃₀MS₄₀DG₁₀- SC16	FS₂₀EN₄₀MS₁₀DG₃₀- SC10	FS₂₀EN₄₀MS₃₀DG₁₀- SC11
	FS₃₀EN₁₀MS₂₀DG₄₀- SC7	FS₃₀EN₁₀MS₄₀DG₂₀- SC17	FS₃₀EN₂₀MS₁₀DG₄₀- SC3	FS₃₀EN₂₀MS₄₀DG₁₀- SC6	FS₃₀EN₄₀MS₁₀DG₂₀- SC8	FS₃₀EN₄₀MS₂₀DG₁₀- SC15
	FS₃₀EN₄₀MS₂₀DG₁₀- SC2	FS₄₀EN₁₀MS₃₀DG₂₀- SC9	FS₄₀EN₂₀MS₁₀DG₃₀- SC20	FS₄₀EN₂₀MS₃₀DG₁₀- SC5	FS₄₀EN₃₀MS₁₀DG₂₀- SC12	FS₄₀EN₃₀MS₂₀DG₁₀- SC22

Table 2 Variance analysis of the effects of species richness, species combination and species composition on aboveground biomass

变异来源 Source of variation	df	平方和 Sum of square	方差 Mean square	F	p
物种丰富度 Species richness	3	5.61	1.870	4.924	0.00 256
误差 Error	191	72.53	0.380
物种组合 Species combination	14	26.05	1.861	6.428	2.07e-10
误差 Error	180	52.10	0.289
物种组成 Species composition	24	21.22	0.884	4.778	1.33e-08
误差 Error	100	18.50	0.185

Fig. 1 Relationship between species richness and aboveground biomass of community (mean ± SE). Different lowercase letters indicate significant difference (p < 0.05).

Fig. 2 Magnitude of total relative yield (A), net effect of diversity (B), complementary effect (C), and sampling effect (D) of communities with different species richness (mean ± SE).

Fig. 3 Comparison between aboveground biomass of communities with different species combinations (mean ± SE). A, Monoculture community. B, Mixed sowing community of two species. C, Mixed sowing community of three species. D, Mixed sowing community of four species. DG, Dactylis glomerata; EN, Elymus nutans; FS, Festuca sinensis; MS, Medicago sativa. Different lowercase letters indicate significant difference (p < 0.05).

Fig. 4 Comparison between aboveground biomass of communities with different species composition (mean ± SE). Different lowercase letters indicate significant difference (p < 0.05). Species composition corresponding to abscissa label see Table 1.

Fig. 5 Variation on aboveground biomass of the mixed community and each species constituting the community. Ab, aboveground biomass of mixed community; Ab-DG, aboveground biomass of Dactylis glomerata in mixed community; Ab-EN, aboveground biomass of Elymus nutans in mixed community; Ab-FS, aboveground biomass of Festuca sinensis in mixed community; Ab-MS, aboveground biomass of Medicago sativa in mixed community. Species composition corresponding to abscissa label see Table 1.

Fig. 6 Actual contribution proportion of species constituting the community to aboveground biomass in the mixed community. The broken line represents the change of the proportion of each species’ contribution to aboveground biomass in the mixed community. The straight line represents the expected contribution proportion of each species in a mixed community based on the aboveground biomass of the mixed community. A, B, C, D, E and F represent mixed communities with species combinations classified as FS-EN, FS-MS, FS-DG, EN-MS, EN-DG, and MS-DG, respectively. DG, Dactylis glomerata; EN, Elymus nutans; FS, Festuca sinensis; MS, Medicago sativa.

References 41

[1]	Armas C, Pugnaire FI (2005). Plant interactions govern population dynamics in a semi-arid plant community. Journal of Ecology, 93, 978-989. DOI URL
[2]	Baer SG, Blair JM, Collins SL, Knapp AK (2004). Plant community responses to resource availability and heterogeneity during restoration. Oecologia, 139, 617-629. PMID
[3]	Barry KE, Mommer L, van Ruijven J, Wirth C, Wright AJ, Bai YF, Connolly J, de Deyn GB, de Kroon H, Isbell F, Milcu A, Roscher C, Scherer-Lorenzen M, Schmid B, Weigelt A (2019). The future of complementarity: disentangling causes from consequences. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 34, 167-180.
[4]	Belote RT, Prisley S, Jones RH, Fitzpatrick M, de Beurs K (2011). Forest productivity and tree diversity relationships depend on ecological context within mid-Atlantic and Appalachian forests (USA). Forest Ecology and Management, 261, 1315-1324. DOI URL
[5]	Bilá K, Moretti M, Bello F, Dias AT, Pezzatti GB, Van Oosten AR, Berg MP (2014). Disentangling community functional components in a litter-macrodetritivore model system reveals the predominance of the mass ratio hypothesis. Ecology and Evolution, 4, 408-416.
[6]	Bowker MA, Rengifo-Faiffer MC, Antoninka AJ, Grover HS, Coe KK, Fisher K, Mishler BD, Oliver M, Stark LR (2021). Community composition influences ecosystem resistance and production more than species richness or intraspecific diversity. Oikos, 130, 1399-1410. DOI URL
[7]	Brun P, Violle C, Mouillot D, Mouquet N, Enquist BJ, Munoz F, Münkemüller T, Ostling A, Zimmermann NE, Thuiller W (2022). Plant community impact on productivity: trait diversity or key (stone) species effects? Ecology Letters, 25, 913-925. DOI URL
[8]	Callaway RM, Walker LR (1997). Competition and facilitation: a synthetic approach to interactions in plant communities. Ecology, 78, 1958-1965. DOI URL
[9]	Cardinale BJ, Hillebrand H, Harpole WS, Gross K, Ptacnik R (2009). Separating the influence of resource “availability” from resource “imbalance” on productivity-diversity relationships. Ecology Letters, 12, 475-487. DOI PMID
[10]	Chu CJ, Maestre FT, Xiao S, Weiner J, Wang YS, Duan ZH, Wang G (2008). Balance between facilitation and resource competition determines biomass-density relationships in plant populations. Ecology Letters, 11, 1189-1197. DOI URL
[11]	Chun JH, Lim JH, Lee CB (2020). Different contribution of species and functional trait diversity to aboveground biomass dynamics in a forest long-term ecological research site, south Korea. The Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences, 30, 730-741.
[12]	Du Q, Zhou L, Chen P, Liu XM, Song C, Yang F, Wang XC, Liu WG, Sun X, Du JB, Liu J, Shu K, Yang WY, Yong TW (2020). Relay-intercropping soybean with maize maintains soil fertility and increases nitrogen recovery efficiency by reducing nitrogen input. The Crop Journal, 8, 140-152. DOI URL
[13]	Du GZ, Qin GL, Li ZZ, Liu ZH, Dong GS (2003). Relationship between species richness and productivity in an alpine meadow plant community. Acta Phytoecologica Sinica, 27, 125-132.
	[杜国祯, 覃光莲, 李自珍, 刘正恒, 董高生 (2003). 高寒草甸植物群落中物种丰富度与生产力的关系研究. 植物生态学报, 27, 125-132.] DOI
[14]	Fraser LH, Pither J, Jentsch A, Sternberg M, Zobel M, Askarizadeh D, Bartha S, Beierkuhnlein C, Bennett JA, Bittel A, Boldgiv B, Boldrini II, Bork E, Brown L, Cabido M, et al. (2021). Worldwide evidence of a unimodal relationship between productivity and plant species richness. Science, 349, 302-305. DOI URL
[15]	Gillman LN, Wright SD (2006). The influence of productivity on the species richness of plants: a critical assessment. Ecology, 87, 1234-1243. PMID
[16]	Goldberg DE, Werner PA (1983). Equivalence of competitors in plant communities: a null hypothesis and a field experimental approach. American Journal of Botany, 70, 1098-1104. DOI URL
[17]	Grace JB, Anderson TM, Seabloom EW, Borer ET, Adler PB, Harpole WS, Hautier Y, Hillebrand H, Lind EM, Pärtel M, Bakker JD, Buckley YM, Crawley MJ, Damschen EI, Davies KF, et al. (2016). Integrative modelling reveals mechanisms linking productivity and plant species richness. Nature, 529, 390-393. DOI
[18]	Grace JB, Michael Anderson T, Smith MD, Seabloom E, Andelman SJ, Meche G, Weiher E, Allain LK, Jutila H, Sankaran M, Knops J, Ritchie M, Willig MR (2007). Does species diversity limit productivity in natural grassland communities? Ecology Letters, 10, 680-689. PMID
[19]	Jiang L, Wan SQ, Li LH (2009). Species diversity and productivity: Why do results of diversity-manipulation experiments differ from natural patterns? Journal of Ecology, 97, 603-608. DOI URL
[20]	Kirkman LK, Mitchell RJ, Helton RC, Drew MB (2001). Productivity and species richness across an environmental gradient in a fire dependent ecosystem. American Journal of Botany, 88, 2119-2128. PMID
[21]	Li Q, Song YT, Li GD, Yu PJ, Wang P, Zhou DW (2015). Grass-legume mixtures impact soil N, species recruitment, and productivity in temperate steppe grassland. Plant and Soil, 394, 271-285. DOI URL
[22]	Li QD, Liu MX, Xia SJ, Nan XN, Jiang XX (2019). Changes in species-abundance relationships of plant communities with slopes in alpine meadows of Gannan, China. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 43, 418-426. DOI URL
	[李全弟, 刘旻霞, 夏素娟, 南笑宁, 蒋晓轩 (2019). 甘南高寒草甸群落的物种-多度关系沿坡向的变化. 植物生态学报, 43, 418-426.] DOI
[23]	Li YZ, Mayfield MM, Wang B, Xiao JL, Kral K, Janik D, Holik J, Chu CJ (2021). Beyond direct neighbourhood effects: higher-order interactions improve modelling and predicting tree survival and growth. National Science Review, 8, nwaa244. DOI: 10.1093/nsr/nwaa244. DOI
[24]	Li YZ, Xiao JL, Liu HL, Wang YS, Chu CJ (2020). Advances in higher-order interactions between organisms. Biodiversity Science, 28, 1333-1344. DOI URL
	[李远智, 肖俊丽, 刘翰伦, 王酉石, 储诚进 (2020). 生物间高阶相互作用研究进展. 生物多样性, 28, 1333-1344.]
[25]	Lian TX, Mu YH, Jin J, Ma QB, Cheng YB, Cai ZD, Nian H (2019). Impact of intercropping on the coupling between soil microbial community structure, activity, and nutrient-use efficiencies. PeerJ, 7, e6412. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.6412. DOI
[26]	Liu MX, Zhang YY, Li QD, Li BW, Sun RD, Song JY (2021). Species abundance distribution characteristics of alpine meadow plant community in Gannan. China Environmental Science, 41, 1405-1414.
	[刘旻霞, 张娅娅, 李全弟, 李博文, 孙瑞弟, 宋佳颖 (2021). 甘南高寒草甸植物群落物种多度分布特征. 中国环境科学, 41, 1405-1414.]
[27]	Loreau M, Hector A (2001). Partitioning selection and complementarity in biodiversity experiments. Nature, 412, 72-76. DOI URL
[28]	Loreau M, Naeem S, Inchausti P, Bengtsson J, Grime JP, Hector A, Hooper DU, Huston MA, Raffaelli D, Schmid B, Grime JP, Tilman D, Wardle DA (2001). Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: current knowledge and future challenges. Science, 294, 804-808. DOI PMID
[29]	Lv JX, Dong Y, Dong K, Zhao Q, Yang ZX, Chen L (2020). Intercropping with wheat suppressed Fusarium wilt in faba bean and modulated the composition of root exudates. Plant and Soil, 448, 153-164. DOI
[30]	Marquard E, Weigelt A, Roscher C, Gubsch M, Lipowsky A, Schmid B (2009). Positive biodiversity-productivity relationship due to increased plant density. Journal of Ecology, 97, 696-704. DOI URL
[31]	Matsinos YG, Troumbis AY (2002). Modeling competition, dispersal and effects of disturbance in the dynamics of a grassland community using a cellular automaton model. Ecological Modelling, 149, 71-83. DOI URL
[32]	Nuttle T, Royo AA, Adams MB, Carson WP (2013). Historic disturbance regimes promote tree diversity only under low browsing regimes in eastern deciduous forest. Ecological Monographs, 83, 3-17. DOI URL
[33]	Pärtel M, Laanisto L, Zobel M (2007). Contrasting plant productivity-diversity relationships across latitude: the role of evolutionary. Ecology, 88, 1091-1097. DOI URL
[34]	Peng ZY, Liu HY, Jiang LB, Liu X, Dai JY, Xu CY, Chen ZT, Wu L, Liu F, Liang BY (2021). Effect paths of environmental factors and community attributes on aboveground net primary productivity of a temperate grassland. Land Degradation & Development, 32, 3823-3832. DOI URL
[35]	Sonkoly J, Kelemen A, Valkó O, Deák B, Kiss R, Tóth K, Miglécz T, Tóthmérész B, Török P (2019). Both mass ratio effects and community diversity drive biomass production in a grassland experiment. Scientific Reports, 9, 1848. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-37190-6. DOI
[36]	Wang ZH, Chiarucci A, Arratia JF (2019). Integrative models explain the relationships between species richness and productivity in plant communities. Scientific Reports, 9, 13730. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-50016-3. DOI
[37]	Wang XY, Gao YZ (2019). Advances in the mechanism of cereal/legume inter-cropping promotion of symbiotic nitrogen fixation. Chinese Science Bulletin, 65, 142-149.
	[王新宇, 高英志 (2019). 禾本科/豆科间作促进豆科共生固氮机理研究进展. 科学通报, 65,142-149.]
[38]	Xiao JX, Yin XH, Ren JB, Zhang MY, Tang L, Zheng Y (2018). Complementation drives higher growth rate and yield of wheat and saves nitrogen fertilizer in wheat and faba bean intercropping. Field Crops Research, 221, 119-129. DOI URL
[39]	Yuan ZQ, Wei PP, Gao BQ, Zhang R (2012). Effect of sampling scale on the relationship between species diversity and productivity in subalpine meadows. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 36, 1248-1255. DOI URL
	[袁自强, 魏盼盼, 高本强, 张荣 (2012). 取样尺度对亚高寒草甸物种多样性与生产力关系的影响. 植物生态学报, 36, 1248-1255.] DOI
[40]	Zhang Q, Niu JM, Buyantuyev A, Zhang J, Ding Y, Dong JJ (2011). Productivity-species richness relationship changes from unimodal to positive linear with increasing spatial scale in the Inner Mongolia steppe. Ecological Research, 26, 649-658. DOI URL
[41]	Zhu Y, Wang DL, Zhong ZW (2017). Characteristics, causes, and consequences of trait-mediated indirect interactions in ecosystems. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 37, 7781-7790.
	[朱玉, 王德利, 钟志伟 (2017). 生态系统基于性状调节的物种间接作用: 特征、成因及后果. 生态学报, 37, 7781-7790.]