4.7 Article

Requirements for the spatial storage effect are weakly evident for common species in natural annual plant assemblages

Journal

ECOLOGY
Volume 101, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ecy.3185

Keywords

annual plants; environmental heterogeneity; modern coexistence theory; neighbor removal experiment; southwest Western Australia; spatial storage effect; York gum-Jam woodlands

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Coexistence in spatially varying environments is theorized to be promoted by a variety of mechanisms including the spatial storage effect. The spatial storage effect promotes coexistence when (1) species have unique vital rate responses to their spatial environment and, when abundant, (2) experience stronger competition in the environmental patches where they perform better. In a naturally occurring southwest Western Australian annual plant system, we conducted a neighbor removal experiment involving eleven focal species growing in high-abundance populations. Specifically, we measured species' fecundity across a variety of environmental gradients in both the presence and absence of neighbors. For the environmental variables that we measured, there was only limited evidence for species-specific responses to the environment, with a composite variable describing overstory cover and leaf litter cover being the best predictor of fecundity for a subset of focal species. In addition, although we found strong evidence for intraspecific competition, positive environment-competition covariance was only detected for one species. Thus, positive environment-competition covariance may not be as common as expected in populations of species growing at high abundance, at least when tested in natural assemblages. Our findings highlight the inherent limitations of using natural assemblages to study spatial coexistence mechanisms, and we urge empirical ecologists to take these limitations into account when designing future experiments.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available