Are bryophyte communities different from higher-plant communities? Abundance relations

被引:22
作者
Steel, JB
Wilson, JB
Anderson, BJ
Lodge, RHE
Tangney, RS
机构
[1] Univ Otago, Dept Bot, Dunedin, New Zealand
[2] Natl Mus & Gallery, Dept Biodivers & Systemat Biol, Cardiff CF10 3NP, S Glam, Wales
关键词
D O I
10.1111/j.0030-1299.2004.12840.x
中图分类号
Q14 [生态学(生物生态学)];
学科分类号
071012 ; 0713 ;
摘要
The considerable differences in biology between bryophytes and higher plants have led to speculation that their community structure might be different. Ten bryophyte communities were sampled for species biomass composition, and for comparison ten higher-plant communities that were similar in physiognomy and in total community biomass. The rather insecure theory in the bryophyte literature was distilled into eight quantifiable predictions, which were tested. For seven, there was no sign of the predicted differences: i.e. no indication of the predicted low within-community heterogeneity, higher species richness, more variable species richness, lower rank consistency, a poor fit for the geometric model of RAD (relative abundance distribution), better fit for the broken-stick and general-lognormal RAD models with general-lognormal parameter gamma deviating further from 1.0, or of a good fit for the Zipf-Mandelbrot RAD model. However, evenness was, on average, significantly (p=0.005) less in the bryophyte communities, using any of four evenness indices. Two possible features of bryophytes are suggested that might cause this: (a) a smaller module (i.e. shoot, leaf) size, allowing species to be present with a lower threshold biomass, and (b) less efficient competitive exclusion among bryophytes because of weaker competition and a predominance of mutualism, as suggested in the literature. However, the striking conclusion from the results is that in spite of all the biological differences between the two groups of organisms, their community organisation is remarkably similar.
引用
收藏
页码:479 / 486
页数:8
相关论文
共 45 条
[31]  
Snedecor G. W., 1980, STAT METHODS
[32]   MINIMAL COMMUNITY STRUCTURE - AN EXPLANATION OF SPECIES ABUNDANCE PATTERNS [J].
SUGIHARA, G .
AMERICAN NATURALIST, 1980, 116 (06) :770-787
[33]  
Sveinbjornsson Bjartmar, 1992, P77
[34]   The effect of density on size frequency distributions in chalk grassland bryophyte populations [J].
vanderHoeven, EC ;
During, HJ .
OIKOS, 1997, 80 (03) :533-539
[35]   SMALL-SCALE PLANT-SPECIES TURNOVER IN A LIMESTONE GRASSLAND - THE CAROUSEL MODEL AND SOME COMMENTS ON THE NICHE CONCEPT [J].
VANDERMAAREL, E ;
SYKES, MT .
JOURNAL OF VEGETATION SCIENCE, 1993, 4 (02) :179-188
[36]  
VANTOOREN BF, 1990, FUNCT ECOL, V4, P101
[37]  
WARDLE P, 1973, New Zealand Journal of Botany, V11, P599
[38]   PLANT COMMUNITY STRUCTURE, AND ITS RELATION TO THE VERTICAL COMPLEXITY OF COMMUNITIES - DOMINANCE DIVERSITY AND SPATIAL RANK CONSISTENCY [J].
WATKINS, AJ ;
WILSON, JB .
OIKOS, 1994, 70 (01) :91-98
[39]   PATTERNS OF HABITAT OCCUPATION IN MOSSES - RELEVANCE TO CONSIDERATIONS OF THE NICHE [J].
WATSON, MA .
BULLETIN OF THE TORREY BOTANICAL CLUB, 1980, 107 (03) :346-372
[40]  
WHITTAKER R H, 1972, Taxon, V21, P213, DOI 10.2307/1218190