Opposing Effects of Floral Visitors and Soil Conditions on The
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Ecology Letters, (2018) 21: 865–874 doi: 10.1111/ele.12954 LETTER Opposing effects of floral visitors and soil conditions on the determinants of competitive outcomes maintain species diversity in heterogeneous landscapes Abstract Jose B. Lanuza,1 Ignasi Bartomeus2 Theory argues that both soil conditions and aboveground trophic interactions have equivalent and Oscar Godoy3* potential to limit or promote plant diversity. However, it remains unexplored how they jointly modify the niche differences stabilising species coexistence and the average fitness differences 1 School of Environmental and Rural driving competitive dominance. We conducted a field study in Mediterranean annual grasslands Science University of New England to parameterise population models of six competing plant species. Spatially explicit floral visi- Armidale, 2350 NSW, Australia tor assemblages and soil salinity variation were characterised for each species. Both floral visi- 2Estacion Biologica de Donana~ tors and soil salinity modified species population dynamics via direct changes in seed (EBD-CSIC) C/Americo Vespucio 26, production and indirect changes in competitive responses. Although the magnitude and sign of E-41092 Sevilla, Spain 3Instituto de Recursos Naturales y these changes were species-specific, floral visitors promoted coexistence at neighbourhood de Agrobiologıa de Sevilla scales, while soil salinity did so over larger scales by changing the superior competitors’ (IRNAS-CSIC) Avda. Reina Mercedes identity. Our results show how below and aboveground interactions maintain diversity in 10, E-41012 Sevilla, Spain heterogeneous landscapes through their opposing effects on the determinants of competitive outcomes. *Correspondence: E-mail: [email protected] Keywords Coexistence, community assembly, demography, fitness, multitrophic interactions, mutualism, niche, pollinators, salinity, spatial structure. Ecology Letters (2018) 21: 865–874 diversity. Theoretical work has advocated that both types of INTRODUCTION interactions should be viewed symmetrically as they have One central aim in ecology is understanding how plant species equivalent potential to limit or promote diversity (Chesson & diversity is maintained. Extensive empirical work has docu- Kuang 2008). Although empirical tests of this prediction have mented that variation in soil conditions and multitrophic remained so far elusive, we can progress by framing our interactions modulate key processes of plant population research within recent advances of coexistence theory (Ches- dynamics. For instance, plant offspring and the strength of son 2000), and by learning from prior work applying these competition depend on the combined species’ ability to theoretical advances to multitrophic antagonistic interactions, deplete shared limiting soil resources (Tilman 1982) and to mainly predators and pathogens (Chesson & Kuang 2008; cope with stressful soil conditions such as the amount of salt Kuang & Chesson 2010; Stump & Chesson 2017). (Bertness & Shumway 1993; Crain et al. 2004). Likewise, According to Chesson’s (2000) framework, both soil condi- mutualistic and antagonistic biotic interactions with herbi- tions and floral visitors can promote the stabilising niche dif- vores (Hulme 1996; Olff & Ritchie 1998), soil biota (Bever ferences that favour plant coexistence, which occur when 2003; Bennett et al. 2017; Teste et al. 2017), pathogens intraspecific competitive interactions exceed interspecific com- (Mordecai 2015; Parker et al. 2015) and floral visitors (Bas- petition, and the average fitness differences that favour com- tolla et al. 2009; Carvalheiro et al. 2014; Weber & Strauss petitive exclusion and determine the competitive winner in the 2016) can profoundly impact plant performance. It is obvious absence of niche differences. Ecologists have paid much more that outcrossing plants directly depend on their mutualistic attention to the relationship of these two factors with fitness floral visitors to maximise their reproductive success (Morris differences (e.g. soil conditions (Tilman 1982; Casper & Jack- et al. 2010; Ollerton et al. 2011). Subtler is the fact that floral son 1997; Rees 2013); floral visitors (Herrera 2000; Waites & visitors indirectly mediate competition among plants through Agren 2004; Arceo-Gomez & Ashman 2011)) than with niche a wide variety of density-dependent processes including varia- differences (Silvertown 2004; Levine & HilleRisLambers 2009) tion in the number and diversity of floral visitors as well as and this is particularly evident for floral visitors (Pauw 2013). heterospecific pollen deposition (Moeller 2004; Arceo-Gomez Most likely both drivers modify niche and fitness differences & Ashman 2011; Runquist & Stanton 2013). simultaneously, yet the extent of such modifications is poorly Although variation in soil conditions and multitrophic bio- understood. Therefore, a rigorous evaluation of the equivalent tic interactions occurs simultaneously in nature, evaluations of potential of soil conditions and floral visitors on maintaining their effects on modulating the strength and sign of plant plant diversity can only be done by a mechanistic understand- competition have been explored individually. It remains ing of how these two types of interactions relatively modify unknown how these drivers can jointly maintain plant the determinants of competitive outcomes. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd/CNRS 866 J. B. Lanuza, I. Bartomeus, and O. Godoy Letter When relating theory to field experiments, it is important to and showing under field conditions that they maintain diver- consider two critical aspects. One is selecting ecological systems sity in heterogeneous landscapes through their opposing that are relatively easy to observe. For example, recent work in effects on the determinants of competitive outcomes. Mediterranean annual grassland (Godoy & Levine 2014) has described how niche and fitness differences influence species’ population dynamics. Some of these grasslands are subjected to METHODS strong variation in soil salinity, which negatively correlates with Study system soil fertility (Olff & Ritchie 1998; Hu & Schmidhalter 2005). Moreover, floral visitor assemblages in these Mediterranean Our study was conducted in Caracoles Ranch (2680 ha), an environments are particularly interesting because they are com- annual grassland system located in Donana~ NP, southwest posed of an array of insects including solitary bees, hover flies, Spain (37°04001.5″ N6°19016.2″ W). The climate is Mediter- beetles and butterflies. While some of these floral visitor types ranean with mild winters and average 50-year annual rainfall act as true mutualisms (Pauw 2013), others rob plant nectar or of 550–570 mm with high interannual oscillations (Munoz-~ pollen or damage flowers (Morris et al. 2003). The second Reinoso & Garcıa Novo 2000). Soils are sodic saline (electric aspect is that these drivers of plant competition tend to show conductivity > 4 dS/m and pH < 8.5) and annual vegetation spatial structure (Tilman 1994; Weber & Strauss 2016). Coexis- dominates the grassland with no perennial species present. tence theory predicts that plant diversity can be maintained at The study site has a subtle micro topographic gradient (slope the neighbourhood scale when species niche differences over- 0.16%) enough to create vernal pools at lower parts from come fitness differences. This can occur when either plant com- winter (November–January) to spring (March–May) while petitor equalises its fitness differences, increases its niche upper parts do not get flooded except in exceptionally wet differences or a combination of both. If not, the superior com- years. A strong salinity-humidity gradient is structured along petitor excludes the inferior species (Chesson 2000). However, this topographic gradient. Additionally, salt can reach upper competitive exclusion outcomes can also maintain plant diver- parts of the soil by capillarity resulting overall in heteroge- sity at larger scales if the spatial structure of variation in soil neous soil salinity patterns at the local and at the landscape salinity and floral visitors change the identity of the superior scale (Appendix S1). This salinity gradient is strongly corre- competitor across locations. This latter process might be the lated with soil nutrient availability at our study location, and cause of reported turnover patterns of species and functional more saline conditions correlate with less fertile soils attributes across soil salinity gradients (Bertness 1991; Pavoine (Clemente et al. 2004). et al. 2011). We recorded 19 annual plants at the study site. Of this ini- Here, we considered three layers to test how the below- tial species set, three were not further considered due to their ground environmental conditions (i.e. soil conditions) and the low abundance (only recorded in 5 out of the 324 subplots aboveground trophic interactions (i.e. floral visitors) influence evaluated). The 16 species finally selected represent a broad coexistence of the middle layers (i.e. plant species). We specifi- range of taxonomic families, plant morphology and flowering cally focus on three questions: (1) How do soil salinity and phenology co-occurring at the scale of the entire study system. floral visitors modify species’ population dynamics via direct All species were considered for estimating competitive interac- changes in per capita seed production and indirect changes in tions, but we only observed enough visits of insects to the species’ responses to competitive interactions? (2)