Essential Site Maintenance: Authorea-powered sites will be updated circa 15:00-17:00 Eastern on Tuesday 5 November.
There should be no interruption to normal services, but please contact us at [email protected] in case you face any issues.

loading page

Opposing community assembly patterns for dominant and non-dominant plant species in herbaceous ecosystems globally
  • +30
  • Carlos Alberto Arnillas,
  • Elizabeth Borer,
  • Eric Seabloom,
  • Juan Alberti,
  • Selene Baez,
  • Jonathon Bakker,
  • Elizabeth Boughton,
  • Yvonne Buckley,
  • Miguel Bugalho,
  • Ian Donohue,
  • John Dwyer ,
  • Jennifer Firn,
  • Riley Gridzak,
  • Nicole Hagenah,
  • Yann Hautier,
  • Aveliina Helm,
  • Anke Jentsch,
  • Johannes (Jean) M H Knops,
  • Kimberly (La Pierre) Komatsu,
  • Lauri Laanisto,
  • Ramesh Laungani,
  • Rebecca McCulley,
  • Joslin Moore,
  • John Morgan,
  • Pablo Peri,
  • Sally Power,
  • Jodi Price,
  • Mahesh Sankaran,
  • Brandon Schamp,
  • Karina Speziale,
  • Rachel Standish,
  • Risto Virtanen,
  • Marc Cadotte
Carlos Alberto Arnillas
University of Toronto at Scarborough

Corresponding Author:[email protected]

Author Profile
Elizabeth Borer
University of Minnesota
Author Profile
Eric Seabloom
University of Minnesota
Author Profile
Juan Alberti
Laboratorio de Ecología, Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras (IIMyC), Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET)
Author Profile
Selene Baez
Escuela Politécnica Nacional
Author Profile
Jonathon Bakker
University of Washington
Author Profile
Elizabeth Boughton
Archbold Biological Station
Author Profile
Yvonne Buckley
Trinity College Dublin
Author Profile
Miguel Bugalho
Centre of Applied Ecology “Prof. Baeta Neves” (CEABN- InBIO), School of Agriculture, University of Lisbon
Author Profile
Ian Donohue
Trinity College Dublin
Author Profile
John Dwyer
The University of Queensland
Author Profile
Jennifer Firn
Queensland University of Technology
Author Profile
Riley Gridzak
Queen's University
Author Profile
Nicole Hagenah
University of Pretoria Mammal Research Institute
Author Profile
Yann Hautier
Universiteit Utrecht
Author Profile
Aveliina Helm
University of Tartu
Author Profile
Anke Jentsch
University of Bayreuth
Author Profile
Johannes (Jean) M H Knops
Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University
Author Profile
Kimberly (La Pierre) Komatsu
Smithsonian Environmental Research Center
Author Profile
Lauri Laanisto
Eesti Maaulikool
Author Profile
Ramesh Laungani
Doane University
Author Profile
Rebecca McCulley
University of Kentucky
Author Profile
Joslin Moore
Monash University
Author Profile
John Morgan
La Trobe University
Author Profile
Pablo Peri
INTA
Author Profile
Sally Power
University of Western Sydney
Author Profile
Jodi Price
Charles Sturt University
Author Profile
Mahesh Sankaran
National Centre for Biological Sciences
Author Profile
Brandon Schamp
Algoma University
Author Profile
Karina Speziale
Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente
Author Profile
Rachel Standish
Murdoch University
Author Profile
Risto Virtanen
Oulun Yliopisto
Author Profile
Marc Cadotte
University of Toronto
Author Profile

Abstract

Dominant and non-dominant plants could be subject to different biotic and abiotic influences, partially because dominant plants modify the environment where non-dominant plants grow, causing an interaction asymmetry. Among other possibilities, if dominant plants compete strongly, they should deplete most resources forcing non-dominant plants into a more constrained niche space. Conversely, if dominant plants are constrained by the environment, they might not fully deplete available resources but instead ameliorate some of the environmental constraints limiting non-dominants. Hence, the nature of the interactions between the non-dominants could be modified by dominant species. However, when plant competition and environmental constraints have similar effects on dominant and non-dominant species no difference is expected. By estimating phylogenetic dispersion in 78 grasslands across five continents, we found that dominant species were clustered (underdispersed), suggesting dominant species are likely organized by environmental filtering, and that non-dominant species were either randomly assembled or overdispersed. Traits showed similar trends, but insufficient data prevented further analyses. Furthermore, several lineages scattered in the phylogeny had more non-dominant species, suggesting that traits related to non-dominants are phylogenetically conserved and have evolved multiple times. We found some environmental drivers of the dominant—non-dominant disparity. Our results indicate that assembly patterns for dominants and non-dominants are different, consistent with asymmetries in assembly mechanisms. Among the different mechanisms we evaluated, the results suggest two complementary hypotheses seldom explored: (1) Non-dominant species include lineages adapted to thrive in the environment generated by the dominant species. (2) Even when dominant species reduce resources to non-dominant ones, dominant species could have a stronger effect on—at least—some non-dominants by ameliorating the impact of the environment on them, than by depleting resources and increasing the environmental stress to those non-dominants. The results show that the dominant–non-dominant asymmetry has ecological and evolutionary consequences fundamental to understand plant communities.
18 May 2021Submitted to Ecology and Evolution
18 May 2021Submission Checks Completed
18 May 2021Assigned to Editor
21 May 2021Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
28 Jun 2021Editorial Decision: Revise Minor
14 Aug 20211st Revision Received
15 Aug 2021Submission Checks Completed
15 Aug 2021Assigned to Editor
15 Aug 2021Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
18 Sep 2021Editorial Decision: Accept