Search for: All records

ABSTRACT Conspecific density dependence (CDD) in plant populations is widespread, most likely caused by local‐scale biotic interactions, and has potentially important implications for biodiversity, community composition, and ecosystem processes. However, progress in this important area of ecology has been hindered by differing viewpoints on CDD across subfields in ecology, lack of synthesis across CDD‐related frameworks, and misunderstandings about how empirical measurements of local CDD fit within the context of broader ecological theories on community assembly and diversity maintenance. Here, we propose a conceptual synthesis of local‐scale CDD and its causes, including species‐specific antagonistic and mutualistic interactions. First, we compare and clarify different uses of CDD and related concepts across subfields within ecology. We suggest the use of local stabilizing/destabilizing CDD to refer to the scenario where local conspecific density effects are more negative/positive than heterospecific effects. Second, we discuss different mechanisms for local stabilizing and destabilizing CDD, how those mechanisms are interrelated, and how they cut across several fields of study within ecology. Third, we place local stabilizing/destabilizing CDD within the context of broader ecological theories and discuss implications and challenges related to scaling up the effects of local CDD on populations, communities, and metacommunities. The ultimate goal of this synthesis is to provide a conceptual roadmap for researchers studying local CDD and its implications for population and community dynamics. 

The future trajectory of global forests is closely intertwined with tree demography, and a major fundamental goal in ecology is to understand the key mechanisms governing spatio‐temporal patterns in tree population dynamics. While previous research has made substantial progress in identifying the mechanisms individually, their relative importance among forests remains unclear mainly due to practical limitations. One approach to overcome these limitations is to group mechanisms according to their shared effects on the variability of tree vital rates and quantify patterns therein. We developed a conceptual and statistical framework (variance partitioning of Bayesian multilevel models) that attributes the variability in tree growth, mortality, and recruitment to variation in species, space, and time, and their interactions – categories we refer to asorganising principles(OPs). We applied the framework to data from 21 forest plots covering more than 2.9 million trees of approximately 6500 species. We found that differences among species, thespeciesOP, proved a major source of variability in tree vital rates, explaining 28–33% of demographic variance alone, and 14–17% in interaction withspace, totalling 40–43%. Our results support the hypothesis that the range of vital rates is similar across global forests. However, the average variability among species declined with species richness, indicating that diverse forests featured smaller interspecific differences in vital rates. Moreover, decomposing the variance in vital rates into the proposed OPs showed the importance of unexplained variability, which includes individual variation, in tree demography. A focus on how demographic variance is organized in forests can facilitate the construction of more targeted models with clearer expectations of which covariates might drive a vital rate. This study therefore highlights the most promising avenues for future research, both in terms of understanding the relative contributions of groups of mechanisms to forest demography and diversity, and for improving projections of forest ecosystems. 

Abstract Numerous studies have shown reduced performance in plants that are surrounded by neighbours of the same species^1,2, a phenomenon known as conspecific negative density dependence (CNDD)³. A long-held ecological hypothesis posits that CNDD is more pronounced in tropical than in temperate forests^4,5, which increases community stabilization, species coexistence and the diversity of local tree species^6,7. Previous analyses supporting such a latitudinal gradient in CNDD^8,9have suffered from methodological limitations related to the use of static data^10–12. Here we present a comprehensive assessment of latitudinal CNDD patterns using dynamic mortality data to estimate species-site-specific CNDD across 23 sites. Averaged across species, we found that stabilizing CNDD was present at all except one site, but that average stabilizing CNDD was not stronger toward the tropics. However, in tropical tree communities, rare and intermediate abundant species experienced stronger stabilizing CNDD than did common species. This pattern was absent in temperate forests, which suggests that CNDD influences species abundances more strongly in tropical forests than it does in temperate ones¹³. We also found that interspecific variation in CNDD, which might attenuate its stabilizing effect on species diversity^14,15, was high but not significantly different across latitudes. Although the consequences of these patterns for latitudinal diversity gradients are difficult to evaluate, we speculate that a more effective regulation of population abundances could translate into greater stabilization of tropical tree communities and thus contribute to the high local diversity of tropical forests. 

Abstract Estimates of the percentage of species “committed to extinction” by climate change range from 15% to 37%. The question is whether factors other than climate need to be included in models predicting species’ range change. We created demographic range models that include climate vs. climate‐plus‐competition, evaluating their influence on the geographic distribution ofPinus edulis, a pine endemic to the semiarid southwestern U.S. Analyses of data on 23,426 trees in 1941 forest inventory plots support the inclusion of competition in range models. However, climate and competition together only partially explain this species’ distribution. Instead, the evidence suggests that climate affects other range‐limiting processes, including landscape‐scale, spatial processes such as disturbances and antagonistic biotic interactions. Complex effects of climate on species distributions—through indirect effects, interactions, and feedbacks—are likely to cause sudden changes in abundance and distribution that are not predictable from a climate‐only perspective.