Premium
Species traits are better determinants of mobility than management in a species‐rich meadow
Author(s) -
Rychtecká Terezie,
Lepš Jan
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
journal of vegetation science
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.1
H-Index - 115
eISSN - 1654-1103
pISSN - 1100-9233
DOI - 10.1111/jvs.12926
Subject(s) - biology , quadrat , inflorescence , plant community , persistence (discontinuity) , ecology , poa pratensis , shrub , botany , species richness , poaceae , geotechnical engineering , engineering
Question Inter‐annual species mobility within a community might support species co‐existence in species‐rich ecosystems. We asked how species mobility within a highly diverse grassland community is affected by species traits and how external conditions (management) affect mobility. Location Semi‐natural wet meadow in southern Bohemia, Czech Republic (48°57′ N, 14°36′ E, 510 m a.s.l.). Methods A manipulative experiment comprising mowing, fertilization, and removal of the dominant species Molinia caerulea was established, in factorial design, in a semi‐natural species‐rich meadow in 1994. Rooting presence of all species was recorded in individual 0.1 m × 0.1 m cells grid within 0.5 m × 0.5 m permanently fixed quadrats. We used a 14‐year continuous time series to evaluate species persistence (ability to stay in a cell over time) in each plot, using the point correlation coefficient ( V ), and related persistence to different plant traits. At the community level we also determined mobility, as floristic dissimilarity of the individual cell and the whole 0.5 m × 0.5 m quadrat across contiguous years. Results The differences in traits and mobility among species were remarkable: “sitters,” retaining their spatial position (e.g. Succisa pratensis, Carex umbrosa ) had tougher leaves, usually had shoot generation overlap, a rosette and did not have effective clonal spreading; “travelers” (e.g. Lysimachia vulgaris, Lathyrus pratensis ) changed their position frequently and had opposite traits. Of the experimental factors, only mowing affected mobility, increasing persistence, but all factors modified species mobility ranking slightly. Against expectation, species richness was negatively correlated with community mobility. Conclusions A high degree of mobility in species‐rich meadows does not necessarily enhance diversity. However, a functional differentiation between more mobile and fixed species can be expected within co‐existing species. Species mobility is highly species‐specific and less affected by management.