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

Abiotic factors are considered strong drivers of species distribution and assemblages. Yet these spatial patterns are also influenced by biotic interactions. Accounting for competitors or facilitators may improve both the fit and the predictive power of species distribution models (SDMs). We investigated the influence of a dominant species, Empetrum nigrum ssp. hermaphroditum, on the distribution of 34 subordinate species in the tundra of northern Norway. We related SDM parameters of those subordinate species to their functional traits and their co-occurrence patterns with E. hermaphroditum across three spatial scales. By combining both approaches, we sought to understand whether these species may be limited by competitive interactions and/or benefit from habitat conditions created by the dominant species. The model fit and predictive power increased for most species when the frequency of occurrence of E. hermaphroditum was included in the SDMs as a predictor. The largest increase was found for species that 1) co-occur most of the time with E. hermaphroditum, both at large (i.e. 750 m) and small spatial scale (i.e. 2 m) or co-occur with E. hermaphroditum at large scale but not at small scale and 2) have particularly low or high leaf dry matter content (LDMC). Species that do not co-occur with E. hermaphroditum at the smallest scale are generally palatable herbaceous species with low LDMC, thus showing a weak ability to tolerate resource depletion that is directly or indirectly induced by E. hermaphroditum. Species with high LDMC, showing a better aptitude to face resource depletion and grazing, are often found in the proximity of E. hermaphroditum. Our results are consistent with previous findings that both competition and facilitation structure plant distribution and assemblages in the Arctic tundra. The functional and co-occurrence approaches used were complementary and provided a deeper understanding of the observed patterns by refinement of the pool of potential direct and indirect ecological effects of E. hermaphroditum on the distribution of subordinate species. Our correlative study would benefit being complemented by experimental approaches.

[1]  Niklaus E. Zimmermann,et al.  Co‐occurrence patterns of trees along macro‐climatic gradients and their potential influence on the present and future distribution of Fagus sylvatica L. , 2011 .

[2]  M. Araújo,et al.  Biotic and abiotic variables show little redundancy in explaining tree species distributions , 2010 .

[3]  Miguel B. Araújo,et al.  Do community‐level models describe community variation effectively? , 2010 .

[4]  K. Bråthen,et al.  Ecosystem disturbance reduces the allelopathic effects of Empetrum hermaphroditum humus on tundra plants. , 2010 .

[5]  R. Aerts.  Nitrogen‐dependent recovery of subarctic tundra vegetation after simulation of extreme winter warming damage to Empetrum hermaphroditum , 2010 .

[6]  Gary R. Graves,et al.  Macroecological signals of species interactions in the Danish avifauna , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[7]  P. Choler,et al.  Direct and indirect control by snow cover over decomposition in alpine tundra along a snowmelt gradient , 2010, Plant and Soil.

[8]  P. Vittoz,et al.  Land use improves spatial predictions of mountain plant abundance but not presence-absence , 2009 .

[9]  Antoine Guisan,et al.  Climatic extremes improve predictions of spatial patterns of tree species , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[10]  G. Rusch,et al.  Plant traits link hypothesis about resource-use and response to herbivory , 2009 .

[11]  S. Lavorel,et al.  Linking individual response to biotic interactions with community structure: a trait-based framework , 2009, Functional Ecology.

[12]  Christopher J. Lortie,et al.  Refining the stress‐gradient hypothesis for competition and facilitation in plant communities , 2009 .

[13]  J. HilleRisLambers,et al.  THE INFLUENCE OF CLIMATE AND SPECIES COMPOSITION ON THE POPULATION DYNAMICS OF TEN PRAIRIE FORBS. , 2008, Ecology.

[14]  Nathan J B Kraft,et al.  Functional Traits and Niche-Based Tree Community Assembly in an Amazonian Forest , 2008, Science.

[15]  T. Alm.  Øvre Æråsvatn ‐ palynostratigraphy of a 22,000 to 10,000 BP lacustrine record on Andøya, northern Norway , 2008 .

[16]  R. Callaway,et al.  Positive interactions among plants , 1995, The Botanical Review.

[17]  S. Schneider,et al.  Climate Change 2007 Synthesis report , 2008 .

[18]  M. Luoto,et al.  Biotic interactions improve prediction of boreal bird distributions at macro‐scales , 2007 .

[19]  P. Fauchald,et al.  Induced Shift in Ecosystem Productivity? Extensive Scale Effects of Abundant Large Herbivores , 2007, Ecosystems.

[20]  J. Travis,et al.  Facilitation in plant communities: the past, the present, and the future , 2007 .

[21]  Jean-Claude Gégout,et al.  Quantitative prediction of the distribution and abundance of Vaccinium myrtillus with climatic and edaphic factors , 2007 .

[22]  J. Blackard,et al.  Journal of Applied , 2006 .

[23]  O. Canziani,et al.  Climate change 2007: synthesis report. Summary for policymakers , 2007 .

[24]  S. Stark.  Nutrient Cycling in the Tundra , 2007 .

[25]  Josep G. Canadell,et al.  Terrestrial Ecosystems in a Changing World , 2007 .

[26]  Sandra Lavorel,et al.  Plant functional types: are we getting any closer to the Holy Grail? , 2007 .

[27]  Petra Marschner,et al.  Nutrient Cycling in Terrestrial Ecosystems , 2007 .

[28]  C. Lortie,et al.  Do biotic interactions shape both sides of the humped-back model of species richness in plant communities? , 2006, Ecology letters.

[29]  Antoine Guisan,et al.  Spatial modelling of biodiversity at the community level , 2006 .

[30]  B. Cerabolini,et al.  The functional basis of a primary succession resolved by CSR classification , 2006 .

[31]  J. L. Parra,et al.  Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas , 2005 .

[32]  W. Thuiller,et al.  Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. , 2005, Ecology letters.

[33]  J. Cornelissen,et al.  The impact of hemiparasitic plant litter on decomposition: direct, seasonal and litter mixing effects , 2005 .

[34]  C. Lortie,et al.  Rethinking plant community theory , 2004 .

[35]  J. P. Grime,et al.  The plant traits that drive ecosystems: Evidence from three continents , 2004 .

[36]  Michael Drielsma,et al.  Extended statistical approaches to modelling spatial pattern in biodiversity in northeast New South Wales. II. Community-level modelling , 2002, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[37]  M. Nilsson.  Separation of allelopathy and resource competition by the boreal dwarf shrub Empetrum hermaphroditum Hagerup , 1994, Oecologia.

[38]  Mark T. van Wijk,et al.  Tight coupling between leaf area index and foliage N content in arctic plant communities , 2004, Oecologia.

[39]  Renée M. Bekker,et al.  Life-history traits of the Northwest European flora: The LEDA database , 2003 .

[40]  P. D. Körner.  Alpine Plant Life , 2003, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[41]  A. Hirzel,et al.  Which is the optimal sampling strategy for habitat suitability modelling , 2002 .

[42]  C. Dormann,et al.  Facilitation and competition in the high Arctic: the importance of the experimental approach , 2002 .

[43]  Nicholas J. Gotelli,et al.  SPECIES CO‐OCCURRENCE: A META‐ANALYSIS OF J. M. DIAMOND'S ASSEMBLY RULES MODEL , 2002 .

[44]  Robert P. Anderson,et al.  Using niche-based GIS modeling to test geographic predictions of competitive exclusion and competitive release in South American pocket mice , 2002 .

[45]  C. Lortie,et al.  Positive interactions among alpine plants increase with stress , 2002, Nature.

[46]  E. Rastetter,et al.  Resource-based niches provide a basis for plant species diversity and dominance in arctic tundra , 2002, Nature.

[47]  P. Choler,et al.  FACILITATION AND COMPETITION ON GRADIENTS IN ALPINE PLANT COMMUNITIES , 2001 .

[48]  Eric Garnier,et al.  Consistency of species ranking based on functional leaf traits. , 2001, The New phytologist.

[49]  J. Leathwick,et al.  COMPETITIVE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN TREE SPECIES IN NEW ZEALAND'S OLD‐GROWTH INDIGENOUS FORESTS , 2001 .

[50]  I. Alonso,et al.  Competition between heather and grasses on Scottish moorlands: Interacting effects of nutrient enrichment and grazing regime , 2001 .

[51]  Antoine Guisan,et al.  Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology , 2000 .

[52]  H. Pulliam.  On the relationship between niche and distribution , 2000 .

[53]  Stefan Sperlich,et al.  Generalized Additive Models , 2014 .

[54]  M. Roderick,et al.  Challenging Theophrastus: A common core list of plant traits for functional ecology , 1999 .

[55]  N. Zimmermann,et al.  Predictive mapping of alpine grasslands in Switzerland: Species versus community approach , 1999 .

[56]  K. Thompson,et al.  Specific leaf area and leaf dry matter content as alternative predictors of plant strategies , 1999 .

[57]  P. Keddy,et al.  Ecological Assembly Rules: Introduction : The scope and goals of research on assembly rules , 1999 .

[58]  Paul A. Keddy,et al.  Ecological assembly rules : perspectives, advances, retreats , 1999 .

[59]  P. D. Körner.  Alpine Plant Life , 1999, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[60]  Paul A. Keddy,et al.  A comparative approach to examine competitive response of 48 wetland plant species , 1998 .

[61]  David A. Wardle,et al.  Can comparative approaches based on plant ecophysiological traits predict the nature of biotic interactions and individual plant species effects in ecosystems? , 1998 .

[62]  Terry V. Callaghan,et al.  The balance between positive and negative plant interactions and its relationship to environmental gradients : a model , 1998 .

[63]  S. Lavorel,et al.  Plant functional classifications: from general groups to specific groups based on response to disturbance. , 1997, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[64]  Lalit Kumar,et al.  Modelling Topographic Variation in Solar Radiation in a GIS Environment , 1997, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[65]  John Bell,et al.  A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models , 1997, Environmental Conservation.

[66]  D. Wardle,et al.  Microbe-plant competition, allelopathy and arctic plants , 1997, Oecologia.

[67]  M. Bertness,et al.  Positive interactions in communities. , 1994, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[68]  T. Callaghan,et al.  Growth responses of four sub-Arctic dwarf shrubs to simulated environmental change , 1994 .

[69]  D. Tilman.  Competition and Biodiversity in Spatially Structured Habitats , 1994 .

[70]  John A. Nelder,et al.  Generalized linear models. 2nd ed. , 1993 .

[71]  P. Legendre,et al.  Partialling out the spatial component of ecological variation , 1992 .

[72]  B. Carlsson,et al.  Positive Plant Interactions in Tundra Vegetation and the Importance of Shelter , 1991 .

[73]  N. Nagelkerke,et al.  A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination , 1991 .

[74]  P. McCullagh,et al.  Generalized Linear Models, 2nd Edn. , 1990 .

[75]  Roderick Hunt,et al.  Comparative Plant Ecology: A Functional Approach to Common British Species , 1989 .

[76]  Anne Lohrli.  Chapman and Hall , 1985 .

[77]  D. Cox,et al.  The analysis of binary data , 1971 .