4.8 Article

Tree species diversity increases with conspecific negative density dependence across an elevation gradient

期刊

ECOLOGY LETTERS
卷 25, 期 5, 页码 1237-1249

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ele.13996

关键词

biodiversity; conspecifics; density dependence; elevational gradient; environment-diversity relationship; species interactions

类别

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [DEB-1440409, DEB-2024903, DEB-2025755]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The diversity of species varies with elevation and latitude, which is related to biotic interactions. This study found that the effects of conspecific density dependence vary with elevation, which may have important implications for the relationships between species diversity, elevation, and climate.
Elevational and latitudinal gradients in species diversity may be mediated by biotic interactions that cause density-dependent effects of conspecifics on survival or growth to differ from effects of heterospecifics (i.e. conspecific density dependence), but limited evidence exists to support this. We tested the hypothesis that conspecific density dependence varies with elevation using over 40 years of data on tree survival and growth from 23 old-growth temperate forest stands across a 1,000-m elevation gradient. We found that conspecific-density-dependent effects on survival of small-to-intermediate-sized focal trees were negative in lower elevation, higher diversity forest stands typically characterised by warmer temperatures and greater relative humidity. Conspecific-density-dependent effects on survival were less negative in higher elevation stands and ridges than in lower elevation stands and valley bottoms for small-to-intermediate-sized trees, but were neutral for larger trees across elevations. Conspecific-density-dependent effects on growth were negative across all tree size classes and elevations. These findings reveal fundamental differences in biotic interactions that may contribute to relationships between species diversity, elevation and climate.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据