* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Do subordinate species punch above their weight? Evidence from
Survey
Document related concepts
Biological Dynamics of Forest Fragments Project wikipedia , lookup
Molecular ecology wikipedia , lookup
Introduced species wikipedia , lookup
Unified neutral theory of biodiversity wikipedia , lookup
Restoration ecology wikipedia , lookup
Island restoration wikipedia , lookup
Habitat conservation wikipedia , lookup
Occupancy–abundance relationship wikipedia , lookup
Ecological fitting wikipedia , lookup
Theoretical ecology wikipedia , lookup
Biodiversity action plan wikipedia , lookup
Latitudinal gradients in species diversity wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
Forum Letters Do subordinate species punch above their weight? Evidence from above- and below-ground Introduction Variation in the relative abundance of species is a ubiquitous feature of ecological communities. Understanding the link between the relative abundance of a species and its contribution to ecosystem function is key to predicting ecosystem stability over time or during perturbations. According to the ‘mass ratio hypothesis’ (Grime, 1998), proportional inputs to primary production act as immediate controls on ecosystem function and sustainability. While dominant species are considered more important in ecosystems because of the large amount of biomass they produce, an increasing number of recent studies have shown that subordinate species may have a larger influence on ecosystem functioning than their relative abundance suggests. In particular, subordinate species can have significant impacts on soil microbial communities (Peltzer et al., 2009; Holdaway et al., 2011; Mariotte et al., 2013d). Growing recognition of how belowground processes affect biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and services (De Vries et al., 2013; Grigulis et al., 2013; Van der Putten et al., 2013) likely explains the recent interest in less abundant species. Nevertheless, studies of subordinate species remain scarce, largely because of the influence of the ‘mass ratio hypothesis’, which likely overestimates the role of dominant species, as well as a lack of adequate understanding of the distinguishing features of subordinate species. In addition to differences in relative abundance, other characteristics may differ between dominant and subordinate species including functional groups, traits, resource acquisition strategies, and spatial growth. While these differences remain poorly understood, their implications could be far reaching if subordinate species are capable of buffering ecosystem functions against perturbations, and under climate change. This paper aims to reconcile theories about subordinate species in order to provide a framework for future studies of biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning. I synthesize the current state of knowledge about subordinate species and give a clear definition for these species, I provide evidence of their functional role in ecosystems, and I show how the importance of this group may increase with global climate change; a topic which has not been addressed in the literature. I address each of these issues by including an above- and below-ground perspective, which is often missing from studies of functional diversity. While evidence is drawn mainly from experiments in grassland communities, the basic principles can be applied more widely. 16 New Phytologist (2014) 203: 16–21 www.newphytologist.com Reconciling theories of subordinate species Many studies have classified species in plant communities to demonstrate the importance of functional groups (Wardle et al., 2003; MacLaren & Turkington, 2010), functional traits (Lavorel et al., 2011), relative abundance (Whittaker, 1965; Grime, 1998), or keystone species (Lyons & Schwartz, 2001; Boeken & Shachak, 2006). These different components of biodiversity can have different effects on ecosystem function (Hooper et al., 2005) but are not necessarily independent. In his attempt to define the functional role of species, Whittaker (1965) recognized that the simplest way to classify components of biodiversity is to order species according to their relative abundance or productivity. The categorization of dominant, subordinate and transient species (DST classification), suggested by Whittaker (1965), was incorporated into the ‘mass ratio hypothesis’ (Grime, 1998). Grime suggested that dominant species would directly affect ecosystem properties due to the large amount of biomass produced, while subordinate species would only act as a filter, influencing regeneration by dominants following major perturbations in grasslands (Grime, 1998; Walker et al., 1999; Boeken & Shachak, 2006) or increasing diversity of climbing plants in forests (Garbin et al., 2012, 2014). Grime’s classification was similar to the coresatellite species hypothesis (CSS classification; Hanksi, 1991). These classifications were compared by Gibson et al. (1999), who showed no difference between dominant and core species, between intermediates and subordinates and between satellites and transient species. Similarly, dominant species have also been referred as competitors (Grime, 1973), foundation or matrix species (Gibson et al., 2012) and subordinates as fugitive (Platt & Weis, 1985), interstitial (Keddy et al., 1994), minor (Walker et al., 1999), redundant (Rastetter & Shaver, 1996) or low abundant species. Dominant and subordinate species intrinsically exist, as demonstrated by Olff & Bakker (1998), through a statistical test on field data. Indeed, when considering a habitat as a homogeneous area in term of vegetation type, and divided into a grid with small-scale plots, subordinate species are defined as species found in most of the plots but which never attain dominance. This means that subordinates are interspersed within the community and can occur at high frequency in plant communities but yield low relative cover compared with dominant species. The selection of both speciesgroups requires using replicated plots in homogenous vegetation, in order to include the maximum species diversity of the studied community. By including frequency of occurrence and relative cover, both easily measurable in the field, a generalization can be attempted to distinguish dominant and subordinate species in various ecosystems, summarized by a frequency–abundance curve in Fig. 1. Dominant and subordinate species are both frequent in plant communities and should occur in most of the plots by contrast to transients, which generally fail to regenerate and persist Ó 2014 The Author New Phytologist Ó 2014 New Phytologist Trust New Phytologist Letters Fig. 1 Frequency–abundance curve used for the selection of competitive hierarchical groups in herbaceous vegetation. Dominant (1, gray area) and subordinate (2, dark gray area) species are always present in the community and are distinguished from transient species (3), which do not persist in the vegetation, by a frequency > 50%. The distinction between species groups is then based upon cumulative relative abundance (%) and has been set at an arbitrary value of 12 to 100% for dominant, 2 to 12% for subordinate (i.e. 10% total abundance) and under 2% for transient species. (Modified, with permission, from Mariotte et al., 2013a). in the vegetation. The distinction between dominant and subordinate species is then based upon cumulative relative abundance (i.e. mean relative species abundance in a site, ranked in ascending order and cumulated for each species). As suggested by Grime (1998), subordinate species would represent 10% of the plant community. Based on experiment carried out in grasslands (Grime, 1998; Mariotte et al., 2012, 2013a,b,c,d) and shrublands (Kichenin et al., 2013), I suggest that species with a cumulative relative abundance below 2% should be considered as transients, comprised between 2% and 12% as subordinates (i.e. 10%) and Forum 17 > 12% as dominants (Fig. 1). This species selection has been set at arbitrary values and principally tested in grasslands. Nevertheless, this gives a first attempt to generalize the DST classification and provides basis for further research in a broad range of ecosystems. While relative abundance has been the main factor differentiating species-groups, more recent studies suggest that dominant and subordinate may also diverge in several other characteristics. For example, dominant and subordinate species vary in their morphology and functional traits (Grime, 1998; Peltzer et al., 2009; Doherty et al., 2011; Mariotte et al., 2013d); dominant species are generally taller with large leaves (i.e. high canopy height, specific leaf area (SLA), leaf area, leaf N) allowing better light capture, while subordinate species are smaller in stature with small leaves (i.e. opposite traits; Table 1). Traits of dominant species reflect a strategy for rapid acquisition of resources, while those of subordinate species are associated with resource conservation (Grime et al., 1997; Diaz et al., 2004; Mariotte et al., 2013d). Above-ground, the differences between the species-groups result in a trade-off between biomass production of dominants and nutrient retention of subordinates (Lavorel et al., 2011). Below-ground, traits of dominant species such as high litter quality promote bacterial-dominated communities with fast microbial activities while those of subordinates (i.e. low litter quality) favor fungaldominated communities with slower activities (De Vries et al., 2012a; Grigulis et al., 2013). Trait differences between dominant and subordinate species arise principally from grasslands but there are also few examples for forest ecosystems. For example, dominant woody species in forest communities are associated with two aboveground plant traits, high height and high shade tolerance (Koide, 2001), while subordinate woody species had relatively higher root nutrient content (nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P)), thicker root diameter and more root hairs than dominants (Holdaway et al., 2011). Similarly, the dominance of climbing species in forest has been associated to shade-tolerance with high photosynthetic rate and low dark respiration (Gianoli et al., 2012) reflecting a strategy of maximizing exploitation of resource availability. The classification of dominant and subordinate is then intimately related to the plant economics spectrum research discussed earlier, except that studies on plant functional traits focus principally on dominant Table 1 Characteristics of subordinate and dominant species in grassland ecosystems Previous denomination Competitive abilities Relative biomass proportion Deterministic processes Plant traits Resource strategy Above-ground trade-off Below-ground trade-off Spatial growth Subordinate Dominant Fugitive, intermediaries, interstitial, minor, rare, redundant or low abundant species Low Low but numerous individuals Niche differentiation High functional dissimilarity Low stature, SLA, leaf area, leaf N, High root N, P Conservation Nutrient retention Low-quality litter Fungal-dominated communities Slow microbial activity Aggregated Competitor, foundation, matrix or core species High High but few in number Habitat filtering High functional similarity High canopy height, SLA, leaf N, Low root N, P Acquisition Biomass production High-quality litter Bacterial-dominated communities Rapid microbial activity Random SLA, specific leaf area. Ó 2014 The Author New Phytologist Ó 2014 New Phytologist Trust New Phytologist (2014) 203: 16–21 www.newphytologist.com 18 Forum Letters species (e.g. species making up 80% of cumulated biomass; Garnier et al., 2007; Lavorel et al., 2011) by analogy to the ‘mass ratio hypothesis’. Moreover, while measuring plant functional traits (leaves and roots) is constraining, destructive or somehow expensive, determining dominant and subordinate species based on frequency and relative cover in the field (see earlier), would be a simplified and more rapid method to estimate functional diversity and resource capture strategy of all species in the plant community. Differences in resource capture strategies between dominant and subordinate species are also associated with spatial niche differentiation and complementarity for resource use (Von Felten et al., 2009). Moreover, due to fast growth and rapid acquisition of resources, dominant species can displace subordinates from occupied patches but subordinates cannot displace dominants (Tilman, 1994; Amarasekare, 2003). Using a multidimensional trait-based approach, Maire et al. (2012) showed that within competitive plant communities, dominant species are mainly affected by habitat filtering (i.e. ecological filters selecting species with suitable traits for a given habitat), while subordinate species are stabilized by niche differentiation. These findings suggest that co-dominant species should be functionally similar and occupy the same ecological niches while subordinate species should be functionally dissimilar and occupy multiple niches dependent on specific abilities for soil nutrient preemption (Werger et al., 2002; Dassler et al., 2008) or different phenology (Catorci et al., 2012). This implies also that systems with multiple niches would promote communities composed essentially of subordinate species, while systems with low niche availability would promote dominance of few dominant species. When habitat filtering is weak relative to niche differentiation, subordinate species, favored by size-asymmetry (Hodge et al., 1996; Latenzi et al., 2012), usually grow in patches between or under the canopy of randomly growing dominants (Liancourt et al., 2009; Lamosova et al., 2010). This aggregated pattern seems to reduce exclusion of these less competitive species, at short-term (Wassmuth et al., 2009; Lamosova et al., 2010) and long-term (Porensky et al., 2012), promoting subordinate’s persistence in plant community. Intraspecific aggregation also prevents dominant species from moving into patches colonized by subordinate species, or at least slow down subordinate’s displacement by better competitors (Racz & Karsai, 2006). By connecting recent studies and theories with existing literature on the DST classification, two patterns emerge. First, differences in morphology, functional traits and resource acquisition strategies that are correlated with relative abundance are likely to produce sets of characteristics that are predictably associated with dominant and subordinate species, and these characteristics may be generalizable across a broad range of ecosystem types. However, it should be noted that, because plant traits, competitive abilities and niche differentiation are influenced by environmental factors (Koide, 2001; Wellstein et al., 2013), a species can be simultaneously subordinate in a site and dominant in another depending on specific conditions. Second, recent evidence supports a much stronger functional role for subordinate species than Grime (1998) originally envisioned, suggesting that relative abundance alone cannot be used to predict ecosystem function for all species groups. New Phytologist (2014) 203: 16–21 www.newphytologist.com New Phytologist Functional role of subordinate species: a new framework While communities are generally dominated by few dominant species, the range and number of subordinate species is highly variable and considerably influences plant diversity (i.e. species richness). The number of subordinate species strongly varies with disturbance (e.g. resources, burning, drought), and follows a humped-back model with a higher proportion of subordinates at intermediate levels of disturbance (Fig. 2; Grime, 1973; Pierce et al., 2007; Mariotte et al., 2013a). Other factors may then modify the amplitude of this curve, such as selective grazing (De Deyn et al., 2003; Van der Putten, 2005; McCain et al., 2010), trampling (Kohler et al., 2006; Mariotte et al., 2012) or mycorrhizas (see mutualism–parasitism continuum; Van der Heijden et al., 1998; Urcelay & Diaz, 2003; Mariotte et al., 2013b), depending on their relative influence on dominant and subordinate species. By conditioning the persistence of subordinate species, disturbance factors restrict the range of situations in which these species can be functionally important relative to dominants (e.g. species-rich communities with intermediate levels of resources). Based on specific plant traits, subordinate plant species may have larger impacts on ecosystem functioning than expected, especially below-ground. Indeed, fungal-dominated communities favored by subordinate species are known to reduce N leaching (De Vries et al., 2011) and to maintain productivity over the long-term. Using a 3-yr removal experiment, Mariotte et al. (2013d) demonstrated that subordinate species were associated with distinct bacterial and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal communities, and improved plant productivity through positive plant–soil feedbacks (see also Mikola et al., 2002; Van der Putten, 2005). Similarly, Peltzer et al. (2009) highlighted the disproportionate influence of nonnative subordinate species on soil biota compared with dominant species. As illustrated by Grime (1998), the ‘mass ratio hypothesis’ is restricted in application to the role of plants, and the impacts of other trophic elements (bacteria, pathogens, symbionts) on ecosystem processes are less predictably dependent on their abundance (see also Urcelay et al., 2009). Therefore, the influence of subordinates on belowground communities may be disproportionate to their relative abundance, and the effect on ecosystem function may be large even when the proportion of the total microbial biomass involved is low. The specific impacts of subordinate species on soil microbial Fig. 2 Relationships between species diversity and disturbance as highlighted by Grime (1987). The humped-back model includes the relative proportion of the three components of plant biodiversity: dominant (1), subordinate (2) and transient (3) species along the disturbance gradient (e.g. resources including water, nutrients, light, etc.), according to Grime (1973, 1987) and Mariotte et al. (2013a). Ó 2014 The Author New Phytologist Ó 2014 New Phytologist Trust New Phytologist communities have important implications for soil processes and nutrient cycling (Grigulis et al., 2013) and recent research from De Deyn et al. (2009, 2011) in grasslands showed that a single subordinate species (Trifolium pratense) improved soil C and N storage, whereas a second subordinate (Achillea millefolium) promoted nutrient sequestration in plant tissue. Together, these findings slightly modify the ‘mass ratio hypothesis’ (Grime, 1998) by showing that, not only dominant species, but also low-biomass subordinates, may greatly influence ecosystem processes and functioning. The functional importance of subordinate species has been mainly investigated through the lens of compensatory dynamics and ecosystem stability (Adler & Bradford, 2002; Suding et al., 2006). If interspecific competition maintains dominance and functional redundancy is high, as expected in species-rich plant communities, better resistant subordinate species should be able to compensate for any loss of dominant species by release from competition (Adler & Bradford, 2002). The increasing interest in climate change has given a new importance to this process through the insurance hypothesis (Yachi & Loreau, 1999). Recent findings suggest a significant role of subordinate species in the resistance of plant communities to climate change. Results of a mesocosm experiment (Kardol et al., 2010) and a field experiment in mountain grassland (Mariotte et al., 2013c) showed that subordinate species increased their biomass production during drought and enhanced community stability. Both studies suggested that dominant species responded most strongly to the direct impacts of drought, whereas subordinate species were more resistant to drought, and responded to reduced competition with the dominant species. Interestingly, the fungal-based soil food webs associated with subordinate species have also been shown to be more resistant to drought than the bacterial-based food webs found with dominant species (De Vries et al., 2012b). This finding suggests that plant–soil feedbacks and litter promote more resistant fungal communities (e.g. mycorrhiza), which then improve the resistance of subordinates against perturbations. The resistance of subordinate species to climate change is not limited to drought; similar responses have also been observed under warming in sub-arctic dwarf shrub community (Richardson et al., 2002), and under elevated carbon dioxide (CO2) (Navas et al., 1997; St€ocklin & K€orner, 1999; Maestre et al., 2005). In both cases, subordinate species improved biomass production and N uptake, suggesting that subordinates can increase their biomass relative to dominant species when resources (e.g. water, CO2) increase in initially low resource systems, or when resources decrease in initially high resource systems (Fig. 3). Therefore, while subordinate species are expected to have greater effects on ecosystem functioning at intermediate resource levels where they are most abundant, these species may become more important at low and high resource levels under climatic perturbations (Fig. 3) and may compensate for the loss of less resistant species to improve stability. However, findings on subordinate species are still scarce and while the abundance of subordinate species seems to be related to resources, less is known about the functional importance of subordinates in relation to soil microbial communities along the resource gradient. This is also not entirely clear if the higher resistance of plant communities to climate change is related to higher abundance of subordinates or Ó 2014 The Author New Phytologist Ó 2014 New Phytologist Trust Letters Forum 19 Fig. 3 Conceptual model representing the dominance–rank curve (dominant (D) vs subordinate (S)) in function of available resource (e.g. water, CO2, etc.) and changes induced by a shift (increase or decrease) in resources. The dotted box summarizes cases where subordinate species are expected to be functionally important (i.e. subordinate insurance hypothesis) either due to an increase in abundance or biomass, depending on the initial resource state and the direction of resource shifts. Gray boxes highlight cases forecasted under climate change, such as an increase in a resource that is typically scarce in a particular ecosystem (e.g. an increase in spring rainfall in Mediterranean areas) or a reduction in a resource that is typically abundant (e.g. a decrease in summer precipitation in temperate ecosystems). only to the presence of one or few subordinate species. Determining the mechanisms of resistance and resilience to climate change is an important contemporary theme of research at broad scale and the relative abundance of subordinate species in plant communities might explain, at least partially, why some communities are more resistant than others. Future experiments utilizing the new framework presented here (Fig. 3) could easily test the functional role of subordinate species under present and projected climate in a large range of ecosystems and environmental conditions to draw more general patterns for the functional role of these species. Future directions The recognition of ecosystem-level effects of subordinate species is recent, probably because their effects were missed in experiments with randomly assembled communities (Bardgett & Wardle, 2010), which generally neglect the relative abundance of species and functional traits in the community. By synthesizing existing knowledge on this species-group, this paper addresses these issues and highlights the ‘subordinate insurance hypothesis’, suggesting that subordinate species may assist dominant species or compensate for their loss on ecosystem functions. Without refuting the ‘mass ratio hypothesis’, this synthesis shows that subordinate species also matter in ecosystems and emphasizes the importance of below-ground processes, which remain poorly understood. For example, the specific root-associated microbial communities and below-ground traits of subordinates have not been well studied. Another aspect to be considered is the functional effect of a single subordinate (i.e. species identity) vs the effects of several subordinate species (i.e. species-group). By using the new framework New Phytologist (2014) 203: 16–21 www.newphytologist.com 20 Forum New Phytologist Letters presented here, future research should assess these mechanisms to understand whether and to what extent subordinate species may buffer or stabilize ecosystem functions under climate change. This shall definitely include (1) whether higher community resistance is related to higher number of subordinates at intermediate resource level or whether one single or few subordinate species at high and low resource levels may also compensate for the loss of dominant species, (2) whether the role of subordinate species is similar under different environmental conditions and (3) whether traits of subordinate species change under climate perturbations to fulfill the same functions than dominant species. The classification of dominant, subordinate and transient species is well adapted to a range of ecosystems (e.g. forests, grasslands, wetlands, etc.) and given the key role of subordinate species where they have been studied, future challenges include determining their importance at a broader scale and for multiple ecosystem functions, in order to better understand patterns of functional diversity. Acknowledgements The author is grateful to Katharine Suding, Paul Kardol, Emily Farrer, Erica Spotswood, Lauren Hallett and Alexandre Buttler for their assistance in the writing of this paper and to the Swiss National Science Foundation, which supported the research (no. 31003A 114139 and PBELP3 146538). Pierre Mariotte Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA (tel +1 5107171526; email [email protected]) References Adler PB, Bradford JB. 2002. An alternative method for analyzing diversity– productivity experiments. Oikos 96: 411–420. Amarasekare P. 2003. Competitive coexistence in spatially structured environments: a synthesis. Ecology Letters 6: 1109–1122. Bardgett RD, Wardle DA. 2010. Above-ground-belowground linkages biotic interactions ecosystems processes and global change. Oxford series in ecology and evolution. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Boeken B, Shachak M. 2006. Linking community and ecosystem processes: the role of minor species. Ecosystems 9: 119–127. Catorci A, Carotenuto L, Gatti R. 2012. Flowering patterns in sub-Mediterranean grasslands: a functional approach. Plant Ecology and Evolution 145: 165–175. Dassler A, Roscher C, Temperton VM, Schumacher J, Schulze ED. 2008. Adaptive survival mechanisms and growth limitations of small-stature herb species across a plant diversity gradient. Plant Biology 10: 573–587. De Deyn GB, Quirk H, Yi Z, Shiel RS, Oakley S, Ostle NJ, Bardgett R. 2009. Vegetation composition promotes carbon and nitrogen storage in model grassland communities of contrasting soil fertility. Journal of Ecology 97: 864–875. De Deyn GB, Raaijmakers CE, Zoomer HR, Berg MP, De Ruiter PC, Verhoef HA, Bezemer M, Van der Putten WH. 2003. Soil invertebrate fauna enhances grassland succession and diversity. Nature 422: 711–713. De Deyn GB, Shiel RS, Ostle NJ, McNamara NP, Oakley S, Young I, Freeman C, Fenner N, Quirk H, Bardgett R. 2011. Additional carbon sequestration benefits for grassland diversity restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology 48: 600–608. De Vries F, van Groenigen JW, Hoffland E, Bloem J. 2011. Nitrogen losses from two grassland soils with different fungal biomass. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 43: 997–1005. New Phytologist (2014) 203: 16–21 www.newphytologist.com De Vries FT, Manning P, Tallowin JRB, Mortimer SR, Pilgrim ES, Harrison KA, Hobbs PJ, Quirk H, Shipley B, Cornelissen JHC et al. 2012a. Abiotic drivers and plant traits explain landscape-scale patterns in soil microbial communities. Ecology Letters 15: 1230–1239. De Vries FT, Mira EL, Bjørnlund L, Bowker MA, Christensen S, Set€a l€a HM, Bardgett RD. 2012b. Land use alters the resistance and resilience of soil food webs to drought. Nature Climate Change 2: 276–280. De Vries FT, Thebault E, Liieri M, Birkhofer K, Tsiafouli MA, Bjørnlund L, Bracht Jørgensen H, Brady MV, Christensen S, de Ruiter PC et al. 2013. Soil food web properties explain ecosystem services across European land use systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 110: 14296–14301. Diaz S, Hodgson JG, Thompson K, Cabido M, Cornelissen JHC, Jalili A, Montserrat-Martı G, Grime JP, Zarrinkamar F, Asri Y et al. 2004. The plant traits that drive ecosystems: evidence from three continents. Journal of Vegetation Science 15: 295–304. Doherty JM, Callaway J, Zedler JB. 2011. Diversity–function relationships changed in a long-term restoration experiment. Ecological Applications 21: 2143– 2155. Garbin ML, Carrijo TT, Sansevero JBB, Sanchez-Tapia A, Scarano FB. 2012. Subordinate not dominant woody species promote the diversity of climbing plants. Perspectives in Plant Ecology Evolution and Systematics 14: 257–265. Garbin ML, Sanchez-Tapia A, Carrijo TT, Sansevero JBB, Scarano FB. 2014. Functional traits behind the association between climbers and subordinate woody species. Journal of Vegetation Science 25: 715–723. Garnier E, Lavorel S, Ansquer P, Castro H, Cruz P, Dolezal J, Eriksson O, Fortunel C, Freitas H, Golodets C et al. 2007. A standardized methodology to assess the effects of land use change on plant traits, communities and ecosystem functioning in grasslands. Annals of Botany 99: 967–985. Gianoli E, Salda~ na A, Jimenez-Castillo M. 2012. Ecophysiological traits may explain the abundance of climbing plant species across the light gradient in a temperate rainforest. PLoS ONE 7: e38831. Gibson DJ, Allstadt AJ, Baer SG, Geisler M. 2012. Effects of foundation species genotypic diversity on subordinate species richness in an assembling community. Oikos 121: 496–507. Gibson DJ, Ely JS, Collins SL. 1999. The core-satellite species hypothesis provides a theoretical basis for Grime’s classification of dominant subordinate and transient species. Journal of Ecology 87: 1064–1067. Grigulis K, Lavorel S, Krainer U, Legay N, Baxendale C, Dumont M, Kastl E, Arnoldi C, Bardgett RD, Poly F et al. 2013. Relative contributions of plant traits and soil microbial properties to mountain grassland ecosystem services. Journal of Ecology 101: 47–57. Grime JP. 1973. Competitive exclusion in herbaceous vegetation. Nature 242: 344– 347. Grime JP. 1987. Dominant and subordinate components of plant communities – implications for succession, stability and diversity. In: Gray A, Edwards P, Crawley M, eds. Colonisation, succession and stability. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 413–428. Grime JP. 1998. Benefits of plant diversity to ecosystems: immediate filter and founder effects. Journal of Ecology 86: 902–910. Grime JP, Thompson K, Hunt R, Hodgson JG, Cornelissen JHC, Rorison IH, Hendry GAF, Ashendenl TW, Askew AP, Band SR et al. 1997. Integrated screening validates primary axes of specialization in plants. Oikos 79: 259–281. Hanksi I. 1991. Single-species metapopulation dynamics: concepts models and observations. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 42: 17–38. Hodge S, Arthur W, Mitchell P. 1996. Effects of temporal priority on interspecific interactions and community development. Oikos 76: 350–358. Holdaway RJ, Richardson SJ, Dickie IA, Peltzer DA, Coomes DA. 2011. Speciesand community-level patterns in fine root traits along a 120 000-year soil chronosequence in temperate rain forest. Journal of Ecology 99: 954–963. Hooper DU, Chapin FS, Ewel JJ, Hector A, Inchausti P, Lavorel S, Lawton JH, Lodge DM, Loreau M, Naeem S et al. 2005. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecological Monographs 75: 3–35. Kardol P, Campany CE, Souza L, Norby RJ, Weltzin JF, Classen AT. 2010. Climate change effects on plant biomass alter dominance patterns and community evenness in an experimental old-field ecosystem. Global Change Biology 16: 2676– 2687. Ó 2014 The Author New Phytologist Ó 2014 New Phytologist Trust New Phytologist Keddy PA, Twolan-Strutt L, Wisheu IC. 1994. Competitive effect and response rankings in 20 wetland plants: are they consistent across three environments? Journal of Ecology 82: 635–643. Kichenin E, Wardle DA, Peltzer DA, Morse CW, Freschet GT. 2013. Contrasting effects of plant inter- and intraspecific variation on community-level trait measures along an environmental gradient. Functional Ecology 27: 1254–1261. Kohler F, Gillet F, Gobat JM, Buttler A. 2006. Effect of cattle activities on gap colonization in mountain pastures. Folia Geobotanica 41: 289–304. Koide F. 2001. Plant traits as predictors of woody species dominance in climax forest communities. Journal of Vegetation Science 12: 327–336. Lamosova T, Dolezal J, Lanta V, Leps J. 2010. Spatial pattern affects diversityproductivity relationships in experimental meadow communities. Acta Oecologica 36: 325–332. Latenzi FA, Berone GD, Feneis W, Schnyder H. 2012. 13C-labeling shows the effect of hierarchy on the carbon gain of individuals and functional groups in dense field stands. Ecology 93: 169–179. Lavorel S, Grigulis K, Lamarque P, Colace MP, Garden D, Girel J, Pellet G, Douzet R. 2011. Using plant functional traits to understand the landscape distribution of multiple ecosystem services. Journal of Ecology 99: 135–147. Liancourt P, Tielb€orger K, Bangerter S, Prasse R. 2009. Components of “competitive ability” in the LHS model: implication on coexistence for twelve cooccuring Mediterranean grasses. Basic and Applied Ecology 10: 707–714. Lyons KG, Schwartz MW. 2001. Rare species loss alters ecosystem function – invasion resistance. Ecology Letters 4: 358–365. MacLaren JR, Turkington R. 2010. Ecosystem properties determined by plant functional group identity. Journal of Ecology 98: 459–469. Maestre FT, Bradford MA, Reynolds JM. 2005. Soil nutrient heterogeneity interacts with elevated CO2 and nutrient availability to determine species and assemblage responses in a model grassland community. New Phytologist 168: 637– 649. Maire V, Gross N, B€orger L, Proulx R, Wirth C, da Silveira Pontes L, Soussana JF, Louault F. 2012. Habitat filtering and niche differentiation jointly explain species relative abundance within grassland communities along fertility and disturbance gradients. New Phytologist 196: 497–509. Mariotte P, Buttler A, Johnson D, Thebault A, Vandenberghe C. 2012. Exclusion of root competition increases competitive abilities of subordinate plant species through root–shoot interactions. Journal of Vegetation Science 23: 1148–1158. Mariotte P, Buttler A, Kohler F, Gilgen AK, Spiegelberger T. 2013a. How do subordinate and dominant species in semi-natural grasslands relate to productivity and land-use change? Basic and Applied Ecology 14: 217–224. Mariotte P, Meugnier C, Johnson D, Thebault A, Spiegelberger T, Buttler A. 2013b. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi reduce the differences in competitiveness between dominant and subordinate plant species. Mycorrhiza 23: 267–277. Mariotte P, Vandenberghe C, Hagedorn F, Kardol P, Buttler A. 2013c. Subordinate species enhance community insurance to drought in semi-natural grassland ecosystems. Journal of Ecology 101: 763–773. Mariotte P, Vandenberghe C, Meugnier C, Rossi P, Bardgett RD, Buttler A. 2013d. Subordinate plant species impact on soil microbial communities and ecosystem functioning in grassland: findings from a removal experiment. Perspectives in Plant Ecology Evolution and Systematics 15: 77–85. McCain KNS, Baer SG, Blair JM, Wilson GWT. 2010. Dominant grasses suppress local diversity in restored tallgrass prairie. Restoration Ecology 18: 40–49. Mikola J, Bardgett RD, Hedlund K. 2002. Biodiversity ecosystem functioning and soil decomposer food webs. In: Loreau M, Naeem S, Inchausti P, eds. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: synthesis and perspectives. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 169–180. Navas ML, Sonie L, Richarte J, Roy J. 1997. The influence of elevated CO2 on species phenology growth and reproduction in a Mediterranean old-field community. Global Change Biology 3: 523–530. Olff H, Bakker JP. 1998. Do intrinsically dominant and subordinate species exist? A test statistic for field data. Journal of Vegetation Science 1: 15–20. Peltzer DA, Bellingham PJ, Kurokawa H, Walker LR, Wardle DA, Yeates GW. 2009. Punching above their weight: low-biomass non native plant species alter properties during primary succession. Oikos 118: 1001–1014. Pierce S, Luzzaro A, Caccianiga M, Ceriani RM, Cerabolini B. 2007. Disturbance is the principal a-scale filter determining niche differentiation coexistence and biodiversity in an alpine community. Journal of Ecology 95: 698–706. Ó 2014 The Author New Phytologist Ó 2014 New Phytologist Trust Letters Forum 21 Platt WJ, Weis IM. 1985. An experimental-study of competition among fugitive prairie plants. Ecology 66: 708–720. Porensky L, Vaughn KJ, Young TP. 2012. Can initial intraspecific spatial aggregation increase multi-year coexistence by creating temporal priority? Ecological Applications 22: 927–936. Racz EVP, Karsai J. 2006. The effect of initial pattern on competitive exclusion. Community Ecology 7: 23–33. Rastetter EB, Shaver GR. 1996. Functional redundancy and process aggregation: linking ecosystems to species. In: Lawton JH, ed. Linking species and ecosystems. New York, NY, USA: Chapman & Hall, 215–223. Richardson SJ, Press MC, Parsons AN, Hartley SE. 2002. How do nutrients and warming impact on plant communities and their insect herbivores? A 9-year study from a sub-arctic heath. Journal of Ecology 90: 544–556. St€ocklin J, K€orner C. 1999. Interactive effects of elevated CO2 P availability and legume presence on calcareous grassland: results of a glasshouse experiment. Functional Ecology 13: 200–209. Suding KN, Miller AE, Bechtold H, Bowman WD. 2006. The consequence of species loss on ecosystem nitrogen cycling depends on community compensation. Oecologia 149: 141–149. Tilman D. 1994. Competition and biodiversity in spatially structured habitats. Ecology 75: 2–16. Urcelay C, Diaz S. 2003. The mycorrhizal dependence of subordinates determines the effect of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on plant diversity. Ecology Letters 6: 388– 391. Urcelay C, Diaz S, Gurvich D, Chapin FS III, Cuevas E, Dominguez LS. 2009. Mycorrhizal community resilience in response to experimental plant functional type removals in a woody ecosystem. Journal of Ecology 97: 1291–1301. Van der Heijden MGA, Klironomos JN, Ursic M, Moutoglis P, Steitwolf-Engel R, Boller T, Wiemken A, Sanders IA. 1998. Mycorrhizal fungal diversity determines plant biodiversity ecosystem variability and productivity. Nature 396: 69–72. Van der Putten WH. 2005. Plant-soil feedback and plant diversity affect the composition of plant communities. In: Bardgett RD, Usher MB, Hopkins DW, eds. Biological diversity and function in soils. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 250–272. Van der Putten WH, Bardgett RD, Bever JD, Bezemer TM, Casper BB, Fukami T, Kardol P, Klironomos JN, Kulmatiski A, Schweitzer JA et al. 2013. Plant–soil feedbacks: the past the present and future challenges. Journal of Ecology 101: 265– 276. Von Felten S, Hector A, Buchmann N, Niklaus PA, Schmid B, Scherer-Lorenzen M. 2009. Belowground nitrogen partitioning in experimental grassland plant communities of varying species richness. Ecology 90: 1389–1399. Walker B, Kinzig A, Langridge J. 1999. Plant attribute diversity resilience and ecosystem function: the nature and significance of dominant and minor species. Ecosystems 2: 95–113. Wardle DA, Yeates GW, Williamson W, Bonner KI. 2003. The response of a three trophic level soil food web to the identity and diversity of plant species and functional groups. Oikos 102: 45–56. Wassmuth BE, Stoll P, Tscharntke T, Thies C. 2009. Spatial aggregation facilitates coexistence and diversity of wild plant species in field margins. Perspectives in Plant Ecology Evolution and Systematics 11: 127–135. Wellstein C, Chelli S, Campetella G, Bartha S, Galie M, Spada F, Canullo R. 2013. Intraspecific phenotypic variability of functional traits in contrasting mountain grasslands habitats. Biodiversity and Conservation 22: 2353–2374. Werger MJA, Hirose T, During HJ, Heil GW, Hikosaka K, Ito T, Nachinshonhor UG, Nagamatsu D, Shibasaki K, Takatsuki S et al. 2002. Light partitioning among species and species replacement in early successional grasslands. Journal of Vegetation Science 13: 615–626. Whittaker RH. 1965. Dominance and diversity in land plant communities. Science 147: 250–260. Yachi S, Loreau M. 1999. Biodiversity and ecosystem productivity in a fluctuating environment: the insurance hypothesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 96: 1463–1468. Key words: climate change, competitive hierarchical groups, ecosystem functioning, fungal-based food webs, plant–soil feedbacks, subordinate and dominant species, subordinate insurance hypothesis. New Phytologist (2014) 203: 16–21 www.newphytologist.com