4.6 Article

Facilitation or Competition? Tree Effects on Grass Biomass across a Precipitation Gradient

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 8, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0057025

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NERC Research Grant [NE-E017436-1]
  2. University of Leeds
  3. Ramalingaswami Re-entry Fellowship, Department of Biotechnology, Government of India
  4. NERC [NE/E017436/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/E017436/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Savanna ecosystems are dominated by two distinct plant life forms, grasses and trees, but the interactions between them are poorly understood. Here, we quantified the effects of isolated savanna trees on grass biomass as a function of distance from the base of the tree and tree height, across a precipitation gradient in the Kruger National Park, South Africa. Our results suggest that mean annual precipitation (MAP) mediates the nature of tree-grass interactions in these ecosystems, with the impact of trees on grass biomass shifting qualitatively between 550 and 737 mm MAP. Tree effects on grass biomass were facilitative in drier sites (MAP <= 550 mm), with higher grass biomass observed beneath tree canopies than outside. In contrast, at the wettest site (MAP = 737 mm), grass biomass did not differ significantly beneath and outside tree canopies. Within this overall precipitation-driven pattern, tree height had positive effect on sub-canopy grass biomass at some sites, but these effects were weak and not consistent across the rainfall gradient. For a more synthetic understanding of tree-grass interactions in savannas, future studies should focus on isolating the different mechanisms by which trees influence grass biomass, both positively and negatively, and elucidate how their relative strengths change over broad environmental gradients.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available