Dominants in plant communities: the nature of impact on biomass determines the thresholds of impact on local species richness

Capa

Citar

Texto integral

Acesso aberto Acesso aberto
Acesso é fechado Acesso está concedido
Acesso é fechado Somente assinantes

Resumo

In accordance with existing ideas, a state of dominance in plant communities by some species (including alien and expansive ones) can be achieved through the use of resources of other species (1), also and additionally through the use of previously unused resources (2), also and additionally by allelopathy or changes in environmental conditions (3). It is believed that in the first case this process does not affect the total biomass of communities, in the second it is accompanied by its increase, in the third it is mainly reduced. It can be assumed that the mechanism of increasing the degree of dominance of individual species also determines the nature of their influence on species richness. To test this hypothesis, we compared the participation of dominants, biomass, and the number of accompanying species in a series of biomass samples taken from 67 sites of terrestrial plant communities in the Western Caucasus and Ciscaucasia (high and low mountain meadows and steppes, communities of wastelands, old fallows, etc.). The results showed that 1) in these communities different variants of the relationship between the participation of dominants and biomass are observed, which means that, presumably, different mechanisms of influence of dominants on accompanying species are realized; 2) the distribution of these mechanisms differs in natural (semi-natural) and synanthropic communities, with the dominance of native and alien species; 3) the nature of the impact of dominants on biomass determines the thresholds for their impact on local species richness; 4) in synanthropic communities with the dominance of alien species, these thresholds are more pronounced than in communities of other types. At the same time, our earlier obtained results showed that native and alien species do not often reach the degree of dominance, the excess of which poses a significant threat to the species richness of plant communities.

Sobre autores

V. Akatov

Maykop State Technological University; Caucasus State Nature Biosphere Reserve

Autor responsável pela correspondência
Email: akatovmgti@mail.ru
Rússia, Pervomaiskaya str., 191, Maykop, 385000; Sovetskaya str., 187, Maykop, 385000

T. Akatova

Caucasus State Nature Biosphere Reserve

Email: akatovmgti@mail.ru
Rússia, Sovetskaya str., 187, Maykop, 385000

T. Eskina

Caucasus State Nature Biosphere Reserve

Email: akatovmgti@mail.ru
Rússia, Sovetskaya str., 187, Maykop, 385000

N. Sazonets

Maykop State Technological University

Email: akatovmgti@mail.ru
Rússia, Pervomaiskaya str., 191, Maykop, 385000

S. Chefranov

Maykop State Technological University

Email: akatovmgti@mail.ru
Rússia, Pervomaiskaya str., 191, Maykop, 385000

Bibliografia

  1. Абрамова Л.М., Голованов Я.М., Рогожникова Д.Р., 2021. Борщевик Сосновского (Heraclеum sosnоwskyi Manden., Apiaceae) в Башкортостане // Росс. журн. биол. инвазий. № 1. С. 2—12.
  2. Акатов В.В., Акатова Т.В., Афанасьев Д.Ф., Ескина Т.Г., Сазонец Н.М. и др., 2022а. Воздействие доминантов на видовое богатство растительных сообществ в контексте энергетической гипотезы // Журн. общ. биологии. Т. 83. № 5. С. 336—345 [Akatov V.V., Akatova T.V., Afanasyev D.F., Eskina T.G., Sazonets N.M., et al., 2023. Effect of dominants on the species richness of plant communities in the context of the species–energy hypothesis // Biol. Bull. Rev. V. 13. № 3. P. 238—246].
  3. Акатов В.В., Акатова Т.В., Афанасьев Д.Ф., Сушкова Е.Г., Чефранов С.Г., 2021. Результат воздействия доминантов на видовое богатство растительных сообществ: упорядоченное или случайное исчезновение видов? // Экология. № 4. C. 243—253 [Akatov V.V., Akatova T.V., Afanasyev D.F., Eskina T.G., Sushkova E.G., Chefranov S.G., 2021. Result of impact of dominants on species richness of plant communities: ordered or random species loss? // Russ. J. Ecol. V. 52. № 4. P. 257—266].
  4. Акатов В.В., Акатова Т.В., Ескина Т.Г., Сазонец Н.М., Чефранов С.Г., 2022б. Частота и степень доминирования чужеродных и аборигенных видов в синантропных растительных сообществах юга России // Росс. журн. биол. инвазий. № 3. С. 2—17 [Akatov V.V., Akatova T.V., Eskina T.G., Sazonets N.M., Chefranov S.G., 2022. Frequency of occurrence and level of dominance of alien and native species in synanthropic plant communities of southern Russia // Russ. J. Biol. Invasions. V. 13. № 4. P. 399—411].
  5. Бесекерский В.А., 2007. Теория систем автоматического управления. М.: Профессия. 752 c.
  6. Виноградова Ю.К., Майоров С.Р., Хорун Л.В., 2010. Черная книга флоры Средней России: чужеродные виды растений в экосистемах Средней России. М.: ГЕОС. 512 с.
  7. Дгебуадзе Ю.Ю., 2014. Чужеродные виды в Голарктике: некоторые результаты и перспективы исследований // Росс. журн. биол. инвазий. № 1. С. 2—8.
  8. Дудова К.В., Атабаллыев Г.Г., Ахметжанова А.А., Гулов Д.М., Дудов С.В. и др., 2019. Опыт изучения функционального разнообразия альпийских сообществ на примере анализа высоты растений // Журн. общ. биологии. Т. 80. № 6. С. 439—450.
  9. Зернов А.С., 2006. Флора Северо-Западного Кавказа. М.: Т-во науч. изд. КМК. 664 с.
  10. Миркин Б.М., Наумова Л.Г., 2012. Современное состоя- ние основных концепций науки о растительности. Уфа: АН РБ, Гилем. 488 с.
  11. Морозова О.В., 2023. Археофиты во флоре Европейской России // Росс. журн. биол. инвазий. № 1. С. 53—129.
  12. Неронов В.М., Лущекина А.А., 2001. Чужеродные виды и сохранение биологического разнообразия // Успехи соврем. биологии. Т. 121. № 1. С. 121—128.
  13. Онипченко В.Г., 2013. Функциональная фитоценология: синэкология растений. M.: Красанд. 640 с.
  14. Работнов Т.А., 1983. Фитоценология. М.: Изд-во МГУ. 296 с.
  15. Сенатор С.А., Розенберг А.Г., 2016. Эколого-экономическая оценка ущерба от инвазивных видов растений // Успехи соврем. биологии. Т. 136. № 6. С. 531—538.
  16. Bartha S., Szentes Sz., Horváth A., Házi J., Zimmermann Z., et al., 2014. Impact of mid-successional dominant species on the diversity and progress of succession in regenerating temperate grasslands // Appl. Veg. Sci. V. 17. № 2. Р. 201—213.
  17. Berger W.H., Parker F.L., 1970. Diversity of planktonic foraminifera in deep-sea sediments // Science. V. 168. P. 1345—1347.
  18. Callaway R.M., Ridenour W.M., 2004. Novel weapons: Invasive success and the evolution of increased competitive ability // Front. Ecol. Environ. V. 2. № 8. Р. 436—443.
  19. Chabrerie O., Massol F., Facon B., Thevenoux R., Hess M., et al., 2019. Biological invasion theories: Merging perspectives from population, community and ecosystem scales // Preprints. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336894588.
  20. Czarniecka-Wiera M., Kacki Z., Chytry M., Palpurina S., 2019. Diversity loss in grasslands due to the increasing dominance of alien and native competitive herbs // Biodivers. Conserv. V. 28. P. 2781—2796.
  21. Didham R.K., Tylianakis J.M., Hutchison M.A., Ewers R.M., Gemmell N.J., 2005. Are invasive species the drivers of ecological change // Trends Ecol. Evol. V. 20. P. 470—474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.07.006
  22. Eger A., Best R.J., Baum J.K., 2021. Dominance determines fish community biomass in a temperate seagrass ecosystem // Ecol. Evol. V. 11. № 15. P. 10489—10501. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7854
  23. Elumeeva T.G., Onipchenko V.G., Weger M.J.A., 2017. No other species can replace them: Evidence for the key role of dominants in an alpine Festuca varia grassland // J. Veg. Sci. V. 28. P. 674—683.
  24. Eyre T.J., Wang J., Venz M.F., Chilcott C., Whish G., 2009. Buffel grass in Queensland’s semi-arid woodlands: Response to local and landscape scale variables, and relationship with grass, forb and reptile species // Rangeland J. V. 31. P. 293—305.
  25. Gaertner M., Breeyen A.D., Hui C., Richardson D.M., 2009. Impacts of alien plant invasions on species richness in Mediterranean-type ecosystems: A meta-analysis // Prog. Phys. Geogr. V. 33. P. 319—338.
  26. Grime J.P., 1998. Benefits of plant diversity to ecosystems: immediate, filter and founder effects // J. Ecol. V. 86. P. 902—910.
  27. Hejda M., Pyšek P., Jarošík V., 2009. Impact of invasive plants on the species richness, diversity and composition of invaded communities // J. Ecol. V. 97. P. 393—403.
  28. Hejda M., Sádlo J., Kutlvašr J., Petřík P., Vítková M., et al., 2021. Do invasive alien plants impact the diversity of vegetation more compared to native expansive dominants? // Invasion of Alien Species in Holarctic. Borok-VI: sixth International Symposium. Book of abstracts / Eds Dgebuadze Yu.Yu., Krylov A.V., Petrosyan V.G., Karabanov D.P. Kazan: Buk. Р. 88—89.
  29. Hillebrand H., Bennett D.M., Cadotte M.W., 2008. Consequences of dominance: A review of evenness effects on local and regional ecosystem processes // Ecology. V. 89. № 6. P. 1510—1520.
  30. Houlahan J.E., Findlay C.S., 2004. Effect of invasive plant species on temperate wetland plant diversity // Conserv. Biol. V. 18. № 4. P. 1132—1138.
  31. Levine J.M., Vilá M., D’Antonio C.M., Dukes J.S., Grigulis K., Lavorel S., 2003. Mechanisms underlying the impacts of exotic plant invasions // Proc. Biol. Sci. V. 270. P. 775—781. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2003.2327
  32. Lisner A., Konečná M., Blažek P., Lepš J., 2023. Community biomass is driven by dominants and their characteristics — The insight from a field biodiversity experiment with realistic species loss scenario // J. Ecol. V. 111. № 1. P. 240—250. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.14029
  33. Magguran A., 1988. Ecological Diversity and its Measurement. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press. 181 р.
  34. Maureaud A., Hodapp D., Denderen P.D., van, Hillebrand H., Gislason H., et al., 2019. Biodiversity–ecosystem functioning relationships in fish communities: Biomass is related to evenness and the environment, not to species richness // Proc. Roy. Soc. B. Biol. Sci. V. 286. № 1906. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.1189
  35. Mokany K., Ash J., Roxburgh S., 2008. Functional identity is more important than diversity in influencing ecosystem processes in a temperate native grassland // J. Ecol. V. 96. P. 884—893.
  36. Piazzi L., Balata D., Bulleri F., Gennaro P., Ceccherelli G., 2016. The invasion of Caulerpa cylindracea in the Mediterranean: the known, the unknown and the knowable // Mar. Biol. V. 163. № 7. Art. 161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-016-2937-4
  37. Powell K.I., Chase J.M., Knight T.M., 2011. A synthesis of plant invasion effects on biodiversity across spatial scales // Am. J. Bot. V. 98. № 3. Р. 539—548. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.1000402
  38. Powell K.I., Chase J.M., Knight T.M., 2013. Invasive plants have scale-dependent effects on diversity by altering species-area relationships // Science. V. 339. P. 316—318. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1226817
  39. Prach K., Wade M., 1992. Population characteristics of expansive perennial herbs // Preslia. V. 64. P. 45—51.
  40. Pyšek P., Richardson D.M., Rejmánek M., Webster G., Williamson M., Kirschner J., 2004. Alien plants in checklists and floras: towards better communication between taxonomists and ecologists // Taxon. V. 53. P. 131—143.
  41. Rejmánek M., Richardson D.M., Pyšek P., 2013. Plant invasions and invasibility of plant communities // Vegetation Ecology, 2nd ed. / Eds Maarel E., van der Franklin J. Chichester: Wiley & Sons, Ltd. P. 387—424.
  42. Sheley R.L., Jacobs J.S., Carpinelli M.F., 1998. Distribution, biology, and management of diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa) and spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) // Weed Technol. V. 12. P. 353—362.
  43. Thiele J., Kollmann J., Markussen B., Otte A., 2010. Impact assessment revisited — improving the theoretical basis for management of invasive alien species // Biol. Invasions. V. 12. P. 2025—2035. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-009-9605-2
  44. Tilman D., Reich P.B., Knops J., Wedin D., Mielke T., Lehman C., 2001. Diversity and productivity in a long-term grassland experiment // Science. V. 294. P. 843—845. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1060391
  45. Vilà M., Espinar J.L., Hejda M., Hulme P.E., Jarošík V., et al., 2011. Ecological impacts of invasive alien plants: A meta-analysis of their effects on species, communities and ecosystems // Ecol. Lett. V. 14. № 7. P. 702—708.
  46. Vilá M., Weiner J., 2004. Are invasive plant species better competitors than native plant species? Evidence from pair-wise experiments // Oikos. V. 105. № 2. P. 229—238.
  47. Vinogradova Y.K., Kuklina A.G., 2020. Genesis of the scientific discipline “Invasive Biology” in Russia // IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. V. 579. Art. 012164. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/579/1/012164
  48. Vinogradova Y.K., Tokhtar V.K., Notov A.A., Mayorov S.R., Danilova E.S., 2021. Plant invasion research in Russia: Basic projects and scientific fields // Plants. V. 10. Art. 1477. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10071477
  49. Wasof S., Lenoir J., Hattab T., Jamoneau A., Gallet-Moron E., et al., 2018. Dominance of individual plant species is more important than diversity in explaining plant biomass in the forest understory // J. Veg. Sci. V. 29. № 3. P. 521—531. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvs.12624

Declaração de direitos autorais © Russian Academy of Sciences, 2024

Este site utiliza cookies

Ao continuar usando nosso site, você concorda com o procedimento de cookies que mantêm o site funcionando normalmente.

Informação sobre cookies