Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-cf6xr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-28T17:27:32.081Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Temporal variation in density dependence in an herbaceous community

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2013

By
Norma L. Fowler  and
Craig M. Pease
Edited by
Colleen K. Kelly ,
Michael G. Bowler  and
Gordon A. Fox
Norma L. Fowler
Affiliation:
The University of Texas
Craig M. Pease
Affiliation:
Vermont Law School, Environmental Law Center
Colleen K. Kelly
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Michael G. Bowler
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Gordon A. Fox
Affiliation:
University of South Florida
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Plant communities are structured in time as well as space. Their component species may differ in the timing of establishment, growth and reproduction both within and between years, creating temporal differences in relative abundances. Under appropriate conditions, temporal differences among co-occurring species can allow their coexistence (Grubb 1977, Chesson and Huntly 1997, Higgins et al. 2000, Kelly and Bowler 2002, 2005, Chesson et al. 2004, Schwinning et al. 2004, Adler et al. 2006). Whether or not temporal differences are responsible for the coexistence of any given pair or set of species, temporal niches are a fundamental part of community structure. Understanding this aspect of community structure is becoming even more important as we are called upon to interpret and to predict responses of communities to climate change (Dukes and Mooney 1999, Walther et al. 2002, Fischlin et al. 2007).

In this study we examine temporal variation in population dynamics in a set of eight co-occurring herbaceous perennials. In addition to examining temporal variation in population sizes (densities), we use simple population dynamic models to provide estimates of temporal variation in equilibrium population density. Because actual densities lagged equilibrium population densities, the latter were more useful for comparing the temporal niches of different species and for relating temporal variation in precipitation to population dynamics. The degree of lag itself can be interpreted as a measure of the intensity of density-dependent population regulation, and variation in the degree of lag as another aspect of a species’ temporal niche.

Type
Chapter
Information
Temporal Dynamics and Ecological Process , pp. 123 - 139
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adler, P. B., HilleRisLambers, J., Kyriakidis, P. C., Guan, Q. and Levine, J. M. (2006). Climate variability has a stabilizing effect on the coexistence of prairie grasses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 103, 12793–12798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adondakis, S. and Venable, D. L. (2004). Dormancy and germination in a guild of Sonoran Desert annuals. Ecology 85, 2582–2590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Case, T.J. (2000). An Illustrated Guide to Theoretical Ecology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chesson, P. (1991). Stochastic population models. In Kolasa, J. and Pickett, S.T.A. (eds), Ecological Heterogeneity (Ecological Studies: Analysis and Synthesis 86). New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 123–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chesson, P., Gebauer, R. L. E., Schwinning, S. et al. (2004). Resource pulses, species interactions, and diversity maintenance in arid and semi-arid environments. Oecologia 141, 236–253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chesson, P. and Huntly, N. (1997). The roles of harsh and fluctuating conditions in the dynamics of ecological communities. American Naturalist 150, 519–553.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dittemore, W. H. and Allison, J. E. (1979). Soil survey of Blanco and Burnet Counties, Texas. Washington DC: Soil Conservation Service, US Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Dukes, J. S. and Mooney, H. A. (1999). Does global change increase the success of biological invaders? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14, 135–139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elmendorf, S. C. and Harrison, S. P. (2009). Temporal variability and nestedness in California grassland species composition. Ecology 90, 1492–1497.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Facelli, J. M., Chesson, P. and Barnes, N. (2005). Differences in seed biology of annual plants in arid lands: a key ingredient of the storage effect. Ecology 86, 2998–3006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischlin, A., Midgley, G. F., Price, J. T. et al. (2007). Ecosystems, their properties, goods, and services. In Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden, P.J. and Hanson, C.E. (eds), Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 211–272.Google Scholar
Fowler, N. L. (1984). Patchiness in patterns of growth and survival of two grasses. Oecologia 62, 424–428.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fowler, N. L. (1988). What is a safe site? Neighbor, litter, germination date, and patch effects. Ecology 69, 947–961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, N. L. (1995). Density-dependent demography in two grasses: a five-year study. Ecology 76, 2145–2164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, N. L., Overath, R. D. and Pease, C. M. (2006). Detection of density dependence requires density manipulations and calculation of λ. Ecology 87, 655–664.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fowler, N. L. and Pease, C. M. (2010). Temporal variation in the carrying capacity of a perennial grass population. American Naturalist 175, 504–512.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fox, L. R., Steele, H. N., Holl, K. D. and Fusari, M. H. (2006). Contrasting demographies and persistence of rare annual plants in highly variable environments. Plant Ecology 183, 157–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabbard, B.L. and Fowler, N. L. (2007). Wide ecological amplitude of a diversity-reducing invasive grass. Biological Invasions 9, 149–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, D. and Novoplansky, A. (1997). On the relative importance of competition in unproductive environments. Journal of Ecology 85, 409–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grubb, P. J. (1977). The maintenance of species-richness in plant communities: the importance of the regeneration niche. Biological Reviews 52, 107–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herben, T., Krahulec, F., Hadincova, V., Pechackova, S. and Wildova, R. (2003). Year-to-year variation in plant competition in a mountain grassland. Journal of Ecology 91, 103–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, S. I., Bond, W. J. and Trollope, W. S. W. (2000). Fire, resprouting and variability: a recipe for grass-tree coexistence in savanna. Journal of Ecology 88, 213–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houlahan, J. E., Currie, D. J., Cottenie, K. et al. (2007). Compensatory dynamics are rare in natural ecological communities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 104, 3273–3277.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kelly, C. K. and Bowler, M. G. (2002). Coexistence and relative abundance in forest tree species. Nature 417, 437–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, C. K. and Bowler, M. G. (2005). A new application of storage dynamics: differential sensitivity, diffuse competition, and temporal niches. Ecology 86, 1012–1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, J. M., McEachern, A. K. and Cowan, C. (2008). Rainfall effects on rare annual plants. Journal of Ecology 96, 795–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, J. M. and Rees, M. (2004). Effects of temporal variability on rare plant persistence in annual systems. American Naturalist 164, 350–363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lima, M., Morgan Ernest, S. K., Brown, J. H., Belgrano, A. and Stenseth, N. C. (2008). Chihuahuan desert kangaroo rats: nonlinear effects of population dynamics, competition, and rainfall. Ecology 89, 2594–2603.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newbery, D. M. and Lingenfelder, M. (2009). Plurality of tree species responses to drought perturbation in Bornean tropical rain forest. Plant Ecology 201, 147–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novoplansky, A. and Goldberg, D. E. (2001). Effects of water pulsing on individual performance and competitive hierarchies in plants. Journal of Vegetation Science 12, 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pake, C. E. and Venable, D. L. (1995). Is coexistence of Sonoran Desert annuals mediated by temporal variability in reproductive success? Ecology 76, 246–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pake, C. E. and Venable, D. L. (1996). Seed banks in desert annuals: implications for persistence and coexistence in variable environments. Ecology 77, 1427–1435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwinning, S., Sala, O. E., Loik, M. E. and Ehleringer, J. R. (2004). Thresholds, memory, and seasonality: understanding pulse dynamics in arid/semi-arid ecosystems. Oecologia 141, 191–193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turelli, M. (1978). Does environmental variability limit niche overlap? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 75, 5085–5089.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turelli, M. (1981). Niche overlap and invasion of competitors in random environments. I. Models without demographic stochasticity. Theoretical Population Biology 20, 1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhulst, J., Montaña, C., Mandujano, M.C. and Franco, M. (2008). Demographic mechanisms in the coexistence of two closely related perennials in a fluctuating environment. Oecologia 156, 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walther, G.-R., Post, E., Convey, P. et al. (2002). Ecological responses to recent climate change. Nature 416, 389–395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watkinson, A. R. (1980). Density-dependence in single species populations of plants. Journal of Theoretical Biology 83, 345–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×