Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Spatial complementarity in tree crowns explains overyielding in species mixtures

Nature Ecology & Evolution volume 1, Article number: 0063 (2017) Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Deciphering the mechanisms that link biodiversity with ecosystem functions is critical to understanding the consequences of changes in biodiversity. The hypothesis that complementarity and selection effects drive relationships between biodiversity and ecosystem functions is well accepted, and an approach to statistically untangle the relative importance of these effects has been widely applied. In contrast, empirical demonstrations of the biological mechanisms that underlie these relationships remain rare. Here, on the basis of a field experiment with young trees, we provide evidence that one form of complementarity in plant communities—complementarity among crowns in canopy space—is a mechanism, related to light interception and use, that links biodiversity with ecosystem productivity. Stem biomass overyielding increased sharply in mixtures with greater crown complementarity. Inherent differences among species in crown architecture led to greater crown complementarity in functionally diverse species mixtures. Intraspecific variation, specifically neighbourhood-driven plasticity in crowns, further modified spatial complementarity and strengthened the positive relationship with overyielding—crown plasticity and inherent interspecific differences contributed near equally in explaining patterns of overyielding. We posit that crown complementarity is an important mechanism that may contribute to diversity-enhanced productivity in forests.

Biomass overyielding in diverse plant communities is well documented1,2, but few studies provide experimental evidence of the biological mechanisms that underlie these diversity–productivity relationships3–7. In forest ecosystems, characteristics of the crowns of individual trees and how they fit together to form the forest canopy may be key determinants of productivity8,9. Light often limits individual tree growth in forests10, and light interception is determined by canopy structure—the density and distribution of leaves—which, in turn, is determined by the characteristics and arrangement of individual tree crowns. Morphological and physiological differences among interacting trees may enhance the filling of canopy space, leaf area index (LAI), and light capture and use— all crucial factors for explaining productivity6,9,11,12 and potential reasons for why more diverse forests tend to be more productive2,13,14.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Crown measurements and crown complementarity.
Figure 2: Functional dispersion of maximum growth rate and crown complementarity.
Figure 3: Crown complementarity and stem biomass overyielding.
Figure 4: Differences between three indices of crown complementarity and stem biomass overyielding.

References

  1. Tilman, D., Isbell, F. & Cowles, J. M. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 45, 471–493 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Liang, J. et al. Positive biodiversity–productivity relationship predominant in global forests. Science 354, 196 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Cardinale, B. J. et al. The functional role of producer diversity in ecosystems. Am. J. Bot. 98, 572–592 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ashton, I. W., Miller, A. E., Bowman, W. D. & Suding, K. N. Niche complementarity due to plasticity in resource use: plant partitioning of chemical N forms. Ecology 91, 3252–3260 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Mueller, K. E., Tilman, D., Fornara, D. A. & Hobbie, S. E. Root depth distribution and the diversity–productivity relationship in a long-term grassland experiment. Ecology 94, 787–793 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Sapijanskas, J., Paquette, A., Potvin, C., Kunert, N. & Loreau, M. Tropical tree diversity enhances light capture through crown plasticity and spatial and temporal niche differences. Ecology 95, 2479–2492 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Vojtech, E., Loreau, M., Yachi, S., Spehn, E. M. & Hector, A. Light partitioning in experimental grass communities. Oikos 117, 1351–1361 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Horn, H. S. The Adaptive Geometry of Trees Vol. 3 (Princeton Univ. Press, 1971).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Pretzsch, H. Canopy space filling and tree crown morphology in mixed-species stands compared with monocultures. For. Ecol. Manage. 327, 251–264 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Pacala, S. W. et al. Forest models defined by field measurements: estimation, error analysis and dynamics. Ecol. Monogr. 66, 1–43 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Reich, P. B. Key canopy traits drive forest productivity. Proc. R. Soc. B 279, 2128–2134 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Yachi, S. & Loreau, M. Does complementary resource use enhance ecosystem functioning? A model of light competition in plant communities. Ecol. Lett. 10, 54–62 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Paquette, A. & Messier, C. The effect of biodiversity on tree productivity: from temperate to boreal forests. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 20, 170–180 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ewel, J. J., Celis, G. & Schreeg, L. Steeply increasing growth differential between mixture and monocultures of tropical trees. Biotropica 47, 162–171 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Tilman, D., Lehman, C. L. & Thomson, K. T. Plant diversity and ecosystem productivity: theoretical considerations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 94, 1857–1861 (1997).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Werner, E. E. Species packing and niche complementarity in three sunfishes. Am. Nat. 111, 553–578 (1977).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Naeem, S., Thompson, L. J., Lawler, S. P., Lawton, J. H. & Woodfin, R. M. Declining biodiversity can alter the performance of ecosystems. Nature 368, 734–737 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Loreau, M. & Hector, A. Partitioning selection and complementarity in biodiversity experiments. Nature 412, 72–76 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Tobner, C. M. et al. Functional identity is the main driver of diversity effects in young tree communities. Ecol. Lett. 19, 638–647 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Zuppinger-Dingley, D. et al. Selection for niche differentiation in plant communities increases biodiversity effects. Nature 515, 108–111 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Reich, P. B. et al. Impacts of biodiversity loss escalate through time as redundancy fades. Science 336, 589–592 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bolnick, D. I. et al. Why intraspecific trait variation matters in community ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26, 183–192 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Abakumova, M., Zobel, K., Lepik, A. & Semchenko, M. Plasticity in plant functional traits is shaped by variability in neighbourhood species composition. New Phytol. 211, 455–463 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Jucker, T., Bouriaud, O. & Coomes, D. A. Crown plasticity enables trees to optimize canopy packing in mixed-species forests. Funct. Ecol. 29, 1078–1086 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Zhu, J., van der Werf, W., Anten, N. P. R., Vos, J. & Evers, J. B. The contribution of phenotypic plasticity to complementary light capture in plant mixtures. New Phytol. 207, 1213–1222 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sorrensen-Cothern, K. A., Ford, E. D. & Sprugel, D. G. A model of competition incorporating plasticity through modular foliage and crown development. Ecol. Monogr. 63, 277–304 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Paine, C. E. T. et al. Globally, functional traits are weak predictors of juvenile tree growth, and we do not know why. J. Ecol. 103, 978–989 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Marks, C. & Lechowicz, M. Alternative designs and the evolution of functional diversity. Am. Nat. 167, 55–66 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kraft, N. J. B., Godoy, O. & Levine, J. M. Plant functional traits and the multidimensional nature of species coexistence. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 797–802 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Laughlin, D. C. & Messier, J. Fitness of multidimensional phenotypes in dynamic adaptive landscapes. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 487–496 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Violle, C. et al. Let the concept of trait be functional! Oikos 116, 882–892 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Reich, P. B. The world–wide ‘fast–slow’ plant economics spectrum: a traits manifesto. J. Ecol. 102, 275–301 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Reich, P. B. et al. Species and functional group diversity independently influence biomass accumulation and its response to CO2 and N. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 101, 10101–10106 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Cadotte, M. W., Carscadden, K. & Mirotchnick, N. Beyond species: functional diversity and the maintenance of ecological processes and services. J. Appl. Ecol. 48, 1079–1087 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hector, A. et al. Plant diversity and productivity experiments in European grasslands. Science 286, 1123–1127 (1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Tobner, C. M., Paquette, A., Reich, P. B., Gravel, D. & Messier, C. Advancing biodiversity–ecosystem functioning science using high-density tree-based experiments over functional diversity gradients. Oecologia 174, 609–621 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Parker, G. G. & Brown, M. J. Forest canopy stratification—Is it useful? Am. Nat. 155, 473–484 (2000).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Loreau, M. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: a mechanistic model. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 95, 5632–5636 (1998).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Seidel, D. et al. The relationship between tree species richness, canopy space exploration and productivity in a temperate broad-leaf mixed forest. For. Ecol. Manage. 310, 366–374 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Kelty, M. J. Productivity of New England hemlock/hardwood stands as affected by species composition and canopy structure. For. Ecol. Manage. 28, 237–257 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Morin, X., Fahse, L., Scherer-Lorenzen, M. & Bugmann, H. Tree species richness promotes productivity in temperate forests through strong complementarity between species. Ecol. Lett. 14, 1211–1219 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Messier, C., Puettmann, K. J. & Coates, K. D. Managing Forests as Complex Adaptive Systems: Building Resilience to the Challenge of Global Change (Routledge, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Paquette, A. & Messier, C. The role of plantations in managing the world’s forests in the Anthropocene. Front. Ecol. Environ. 8, 27–34 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Ewel, J. J. & Mazzarino, M. J. Competition from below for light and nutrients shifts productivity among tropical species. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 18836–18841 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Wright, A., Schnitzer, S. A. & Reich, P. B. Living close to your neighbors: the importance of both competition and facilitation in plant communities. Ecology 95, 2213–2223 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Eisenhauer, N. Aboveground–belowground interactions as a source of complementarity effects in biodiversity experiments. Plant Soil 351, 1–22 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Nguyen, N. H. et al. Ectomycorrhizal and saprotrophic fungal diversity are linked to different tree community attributes in a field-based tree experiment. Mol. Ecol. 25, 4032–4046 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Laliberté, E. & Legendre, P. A distance-based framework for measuring functional diversity from multiple traits. Ecology 91, 299–305 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Chave, J. et al. Towards a worldwide wood economics spectrum. Ecol. Lett. 12, 351–366 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2015).

  51. Bolker, B. M. Ecological Models and Data in R (Princeton Univ. Press, 2008).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  52. Valladares, F., Sanchez-Gomez, D. & Zavala, M. A. Quantitative estimation of phenotypic plasticity: bridging the gap between the evolutionary concept and its ecological applications. J. Ecol. 94, 1103–1116 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Niinemets, Ü. & Valladares, F. Tolerance to shade, drought, and waterlogging of temperate Northern Hemisphere trees and shrubs. Ecol. Monogr. 76, 521–547 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Sendall, K. M., Lusk, C. H. & Reich, P. B. Trade-offs in juvenile growth potential vs. shade tolerance among subtropical rain forest trees on soils of contrasting fertility. Funct. Ecol. 30, 845–855 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Walters, M. B. & Reich, P. B. Are shade tolerance, survival, and growth linked? Low light and nitrogen effects on hardwood seedlings. Ecology 77, 841–853 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Warton, D. I., Duursma, R. A., Falster, D. S. & Taskinen, S. smatr 3—an R package for estimation and inference about allometric lines. Methods Ecol. Evol. 3, 257–259 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Quinn, G. P. & Keough, M. J. Experimental Design And Data Analysis For Biologists (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2002).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  58. MacNally, R. & Walsh, C. J. Hierarchical partitioning public-domain software. Biodivers. Conserv. 13, 659–660 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

C. Tobner, S. Despoja, L. Nikinmaa, C. Archambault and numerous interns assisted with data collection. J. Cowles, D. Donoso, S. Gleason, S. Hobbie, W. Pearse, P. Wragg and A. Wright provided helpful comments. McGill University supported the project with land and facilities. The project was financially supported by the University of Minnesota (College of Biological Sciences, College of Food and Natural Resources, Institute on the Environment, and Graduate School), the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and an International Fulbright Science and Technology Award.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior, University of Minnesota, St Paul, Minnesota 55108, USA

    Laura J. Williams & Jeannine Cavender-Bares

  2. Centre for Forest Research, Université du Québec à Montréal, PO Box 8888, Centre-Ville Station, Montréal

    Alain Paquette & Christian Messier

  3. Québec, H3C 3P8, Canada

    Alain Paquette & Christian Messier

  4. Institut des sciences de la forêt tempérée (ISFORT), Université du Québec en Outaouais, 58 Rue Principale, Ripon

    Christian Messier

  5. Québec, J0V 1V0, Canada

    Christian Messier

  6. Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, St Paul, Minnesota 55108, USA

    Peter B. Reich

  7. Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment, Western Sydney University, Penrith, New South Wales 2753, Australia

    Peter B. Reich

Authors
  1. Laura J. Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alain Paquette
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jeannine Cavender-Bares
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christian Messier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Peter B. Reich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

A.P., P.B.R. and C.M. designed the broader IDENT study. L.J.W. designed the crown complementarity study and its link to overyielding, with help from all authors. L.J.W. and A.P. collected data. L.J.W. analysed the data with assistance from P.B.R. and J.C.B., and wrote the first draft of the manuscript with editorial assistance from P.B.R. All authors contributed to further manuscript development.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura J. Williams.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Notes; Supplementary Methods; Supplementary Figures; Supplementary Tables (PDF 888 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Williams, L., Paquette, A., Cavender-Bares, J. et al. Spatial complementarity in tree crowns explains overyielding in species mixtures. Nat Ecol Evol 1, 0063 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-016-0063

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-016-0063

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing