Search

Where interspecific facilitation favors the establishment of high densities of a beneficiary species, strong intraspecific competition may subsequently impede beneficiary performance. Consequently, the negative influence of intraspecific competition between beneficiary individuals could potentially outweigh the positive influence of interspecific facilitation when, for example, higher densities of a beneficiary are negated by the negative effect of crowding on beneficiary reproduction. The aim of this study was, therefore, to examine the impact of an interspecific interaction on the outcome of intraspecific interactions within the context of plant–plant facilitation. We used the cushion‐forming Azorella selago and a commonly co‐occurring dominant perennial grass species, Agrostis magellanica, on sub‐Antarctic Marion Island as a model system. We assessed the impact of an interspecific interaction (between A. selago and A. magellanica) on the outcome of intraspecific interactions (between A. magellanica individuals), by testing if the impact of A. magellanica density on A. magellanica performance is mediated by its interaction with A. selago. We observed evidence for competition among A. magellanica conspecifics, with a decreasing proportion of A. magellanica individuals being reproductive under higher conspecific density. This negative intraspecific effect was greater on A. selago than on the adjacent substrate, suggesting that the facilitative effect of A. selago changes the intensity of intraspecific interactions between A. magellanica individuals. However, experimentally reducing A. magellanica density did not affect the species' performance. We also observed that the effect of A. selago on A. magellanica was positive, and despite the negative effect of intraspecific density on the proportion of reproductive A. magellanica individuals, the net reproductive effort of A. magellanica (i.e., the density of reproductive individuals) was significantly greater on A. selago than on the adjacent substrate. These results highlight that, in abiotically severe environments, the positive effects of interspecific facilitation by a benefactor species may outweigh the negative effects of intraspecific competition among beneficiaries. More broadly, these results suggest that both positive inter‐ and intraspecific biotic interactions may be key to consider when examining spatial and temporal variation in species' performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Positive biodiversity–ecosystem‐functioning (BEF) relationships are commonly found in experimental and observational studies, but how they vary in different environmental contexts and under the influence of coexisting life forms is still controversial. Investigating these variations is important for making predictions regarding the dynamics of plant communities and carbon pools under global change. We conducted this study across 433 shrubland sites in northern China. We fitted structural equation models (SEMs) to analyze the variation in the species‐richness–biomass relationships of shrubs and herbs along a wetness gradient and general liner models (GLMs) to analyze how shrub or herb biomass affected the species‐richness–biomass relationship of the other life form. We found that the positive species‐richness–biomass relationships for both shrubs and herbs became weaker or even negative with higher water availability, likely indicating stronger interspecific competition within life forms under more benign conditions. After accounting for variation in environmental contexts using residual regression, we found that the benign effect of greater facilitation by a larger shrub biomass reduced the positive species‐richness–biomass relationships of herbs, causing them to become nonsignificant. Different levels of herb biomass, however, did not change the species‐richness–biomass relationship of shrubs, possibly because greater herb biomass did not alter the stress level for shrubs. We conclude that biodiversity in the studied plant communities is particularly important for plant biomass production under arid conditions and that it might be possible to use shrubs as nurse plants to facilitate understory herb establishment in ecological restoration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Plants acting as ecosystem engineers create habitats and facilitate biodiversity maintenance within plant communities. Furthermore, biodiversity research has demonstrated that plant diversity enhances the productivity and functioning of ecosystems. However, these two fields of research developed in parallel and independent from one another, with the consequence that little is known about the role of ecosystem engineers in the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning across trophic levels. Here, we present an experimental framework to study this relationship. We combine facilitation by plants acting as ecosystem engineers with plant–insect interaction analysis and variance partitioning of biodiversity effects. We present a case‐study experiment in which facilitation by a cushion‐plant species and a dwarf‐shrub species as ecosystem engineers increases positive effects of plant functional diversity (ecosystem engineers and associated plants) on ecosystem functioning (flower visitation rate). The experiment, conducted in the field during a single alpine flowering season, included the following treatments: (1) removal of plant species associated with ecosystem engineers, (2) exclusion (covering) of ecosystem engineer flowers, and (3) control, i.e., natural patches of ecosystem engineers and associated plant species. We found both positive and negative associational effects between plants depending on ecosystem engineer identity, indicating both pollination facilitation and interference. In both cases, patches supported by ecosystem engineers increased phylogenetic and functional diversity of flower visitors. Furthermore, complementarity effects between engineers and associated plants were positive for flower visitation rates. Our study reveals that plant facilitation can enhance the strength of biodiversity–ecosystem functioning relationships, with complementarity between plants for attracting more and diverse flower visitors being the likely driver. A potential mechanism is that synergy and complementarity between engineers and associated plants increase attractiveness for shared visitors and widen pollination niches. In synthesis, facilitation among plants can scale up to a full network, supporting ecosystem functioning both directly via microhabitat amelioration and indirectly via diversity effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Plants grow in communities where they interact with other plants and with other living organisms such as pollinators. On the one hand, studies of plant–plant interactions rarely consider how plants interact with other trophic levels such as pollinators. On the other, studies of plant–animal interactions rarely deal with interactions within trophic levels such as plant–plant competition and facilitation. Thus, to what degree plant interactions affect biodiversity and ecological networks across trophic levels is poorly understood. We manipulated plant communities driven by foundation species facilitation and sampled plant–pollinator networks at fine spatial scale in a field experiment in Sierra Nevada, Spain. We found that plant–plant facilitation shaped pollinator diversity and structured pollination networks. Nonadditive effects of plant interactions on pollinator diversity and interaction diversity were synergistic in one foundation species networks while they were additive in another foundation species. Nonadditive effects of plant interactions were due to rewiring of pollination interactions. In addition, plant facilitation had negative effects on the structure of pollination networks likely due to increase in plant competition for pollination. Our results empirically demonstrate how different network types are coupled, revealing pervasive consequences of interaction chains in diverse communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]