Ecological assembly rules in plant communities—approaches, patterns and prospects
Article first published online: 21 JUN 2011
© 2011 The Authors. Biological Reviews © 2011 Cambridge Philosophical Society
Volume 87, Issue 1, pages 111–127, February 2012
How to Cite
Götzenberger, L., de Bello, F., Bråthen, K. A., Davison, J., Dubuis, A., Guisan, A., Lepš, J., Lindborg, R., Moora, M., Pärtel, M., Pellissier, L., Pottier, J., Vittoz, P., Zobel, K. and Zobel, M. (2012), Ecological assembly rules in plant communities—approaches, patterns and prospects. Biological Reviews, 87: 111–127. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2011.00187.x
- Issue published online: 3 JAN 2012
- Article first published online: 21 JUN 2011
- (Received 11 October 2010; revised 25 May 2011; accepted 26 May 2011; published online 21 June 2011)
- community assembly;
- guild proportionality;
- limiting similarity;
- niche limitation;
- null model;
- interspecific interaction
Understanding how communities of living organisms assemble has been a central question in ecology since the early days of the discipline. Disentangling the different processes involved in community assembly is not only interesting in itself but also crucial for an understanding of how communities will behave under future environmental scenarios. The traditional concept of assembly rules reflects the notion that species do not co-occur randomly but are restricted in their co-occurrence by interspecific competition. This concept can be redefined in a more general framework where the co-occurrence of species is a product of chance, historical patterns of speciation and migration, dispersal, abiotic environmental factors, and biotic interactions, with none of these processes being mutually exclusive.
Here we present a survey and meta-analyses of 59 papers that compare observed patterns in plant communities with null models simulating random patterns of species assembly. According to the type of data under study and the different methods that are applied to detect community assembly, we distinguish four main types of approach in the published literature: species co-occurrence, niche limitation, guild proportionality and limiting similarity.
Results from our meta-analyses suggest that non-random co-occurrence of plant species is not a widespread phenomenon. However, whether this finding reflects the individualistic nature of plant communities or is caused by methodological shortcomings associated with the studies considered cannot be discerned from the available metadata.
We advocate that more thorough surveys be conducted using a set of standardized methods to test for the existence of assembly rules in data sets spanning larger biological and geographical scales than have been considered until now. We underpin this general advice with guidelines that should be considered in future assembly rules research. This will enable us to draw more accurate and general conclusions about the non-random aspect of assembly in plant communities.