4.7 Article

Testing the importance of plant strategies on facilitation using congeners in a coastal community

期刊

ECOLOGY
卷 93, 期 9, 页码 2023-2029

出版社

ECOLOGICAL SOC AMER
DOI: 10.1890/12-0241.1

关键词

competitive ability; facilitation; functional traits; nurse plant; plant community; positive interactions; salinity; stress tolerance; Suaeda; Tamarix chinensis; Yellow River Delta

类别

资金

  1. China National Funds for Distinguished Young Scientists [51125035]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41071330]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2009SD-24]
  4. Shanghai Jiao Tong University Cross Project of Science and Engineering Grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Much is known about how environmental stress mediates the strength of facilitation, but less is known about how different plant traits affect facilitation. We examined interactions between the shrub Tamarix chinensis and two congeneric forbs (Suaeda salsa and S. glauca) on the Chinese coast. Although S. salsa and S. glauca are both annuals, morphologically similar, and have synchronous phenologies, they have contrasting adaptive strategies. S. glauca is salt intolerant but competitively superior, and S. salsa is salt tolerant but competitively inferior. Field surveys showed that S. glauca was associated with T. chinensis canopies while S. salsa was more abundant in open areas. A T. chinensis removal experiment showed that S. glauca cover was lower and soil salinity higher after two years in removal than in control plots. Transplant experiments showed that S. salsa performance under T. chinensis canopies was reduced by competition from S. glauca and T. chinensis, while in open areas S. glauca was not affected by S. salsa competition. Thus, contrasting competitive abilities and stress tolerances of S. glauca and S. salsa underlie their facilitative and competitive interactions with T. chinensis, suggesting that plant strategies are critical to the outcome of species interactions.

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

4.7
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