Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-564cf476b6-dr4jh Total loading time: 0.235 Render date: 2021-06-19T19:59:31.752Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

Species associations among dipterocarp species co-occurring in a Malaysian tropical rain forest

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2012

Ryo. O. Suzuki
Affiliation:
Sugadaira Montane Research Center, University of Tsukuba, Sugadaira-kogen 1278-294, Ueda, Nagano 386-2204, Japan
Shinya Numata
Affiliation:
Department of Tourism Science, Graduate School of Urban Environmental Sciences, Tokyo Metropolitan University, Minami-Osawa 1-1, Hachioji, Tokyo 192-0397, Japan
Toshinori Okuda
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Integrated Arts and Sciences, Hiroshima University, 1-7-1, Kagamiyama, Higashi-Hiroshima, 7329-8521, Japan
Nur Supardi MD. Noor
Affiliation:
Forest Research Institute Malaysia, Kepong, 52109 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Abdul Rahman Kassim
Affiliation:
Forest Research Institute Malaysia, Kepong, 52109 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Naoki Kachi
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, Graduate School of Science, Tokyo Metropolitan University, Minami-Osawa 1-1, Hachioji, Tokyo 192-0397, Japan
Corresponding

Abstract:

Spatial association patterns reflect underlying mechanisms of coexistence, community structure of plant species in tropical forests. We hypothesized that if spatial associations between two species shift toward segregation patterns during the course of growth, deterministic mechanisms, such as interspecific competition and habitat differentiation, would prevail, whereas if no directed change in spatial associations between two species is observed and, consequently, the initial association pattern is retained through growth, the two species would experience weak interspecific competition and show no habitat differentiation. To assess the underlying mechanisms operating between confamilial species, we analysed spatial associations among 11 dipterocarp species in terms of three growth stages distinguished on the basis of dbh in the Pasoh 50-ha plot in Peninsular Malaysia. We analysed the spatial associations of all possible combinations among identical stages (165 pairs) and among different stages (330 pairs) for each pair of 11 species, except between identical species. Our previous study revealed that the 11 species could be characterized into two classes: seven fast-growing species exhibited high growth and mortality rates, spatial aggregation on a small scale, and positive habitat associations, while four slow-growing species exhibited low growth and mortality rates, spatial aggregation on a large scale, and no habitat associations except one. Spatial segregation was observed between fast-growing species (32 pairs, 17%) and between species of different classes (35 pairs, 14%), but not between slow-growing species. Throughout the growth stages, positive associations with other species were maintained for slow-growing species versus fast-growing species. In contrast, changes in initial associations toward segregation were observed more in fast-growing species. These results indicated that interspecific competition or habitat differentiation dominated for fast-growing species, while non-directed random processes dominated for slow-growing species.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

APPANAH, S. & WEINLAND, G. 1993. A preliminary analysis of the 50-hectare Pasoh demography plot: 1. Dipterocarpaceae. Research Pamphlet No. 1112. Forest Research Institute Malaysia, Kepong, Malaysia.Google Scholar
ASHTON, P. S. 1988. Dipterocarp biology as a window to the understanding of tropical forest structure. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 19:347370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BAROT, S., GIGNOUX, J., & MENAUT, J.-C. 1999. Demography of a savanna palm tree: predictions from comprehensive spatial pattern analyses. Ecology 80:19872005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BLUNDELL, A. G. & PEART, D. R. 2004. Density-dependent population dynamics of a dominant rain forest canopy tree. Ecology 85:704715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CHAVE, J. 2004. Neutral theory and community ecology. Ecology Letters 7:241253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CHESSON, P. & NEUHAUSER, C. 2002. Intraspecific aggregation and species coexistence. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 17:210211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CLARK, D. B., CLARK, D. A. & READ., J. M. 1998. Edaphic variation and the mesoscale distribution of tree species in a neotropical rain forest. Journal of Ecology 86:101112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
COLE, R. G. & SYMS, C. 1999. Using spatial pattern analysis to distinguish causes of mortality: an example from kelp in north-eastern New Zealand. Journal of Ecology 87:963972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CONNELL, J. H. 1971. On the role of natural enemies in preventing competitive exclusion in some marine animals and in rain forest trees. Pp. 298312 in den Boer, P. J. & Gradwell, G. R. (ed.). Dynamics of populations, Center for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation, Wageningen.Google Scholar
COOMES, D. A. & GRUBB, P. J. 2003. Colonization, tolerance, competition and seed-size variation within functional groups. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18:283291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DALE, M. R. T. 1999. Spatial pattern analysis in plant ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 326 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DAVIES, S. J., PALMIOTTO, P. A., ASHTON, P. S., LEE, H. S. & LAFRANKIE, J. V. 1998. Comparative ecology of 11 sympatric species of Macaranga in Borneo: tree distribution in relation to horizontal and vertical resource heterogeneity. Journal of Ecology 86:662673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DEBSKI, I., BURSLEM, D., PALMIOTTO, P. A., LAFRANKIE, J. V., LEE, H. S., & MANOKARAN, N. 2002. Habitat preferences of Aporosa in two Malaysian forests: implications for abundance and coexistence. Ecology 83:20052018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DIGGLE, P. J. 1983. Statistical analysis of spatial point patterns. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
DOVČIAK, M., FRELICH, L. E. & REICH, P. 2001. Discordance in spatial patterns of white pine (Pinus strobus) size-classes in a patchy near-boreal forest. Journal of Ecology 89:280291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ELLWOOD, M. D. F., MANICA, A. & FOSTER, W. A. 2009. Stochastic and deterministic processes jointly structure tropical arthropod communities. Ecology Letters 12:277284.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
GASTON, K. J. & CHOWN, S. L. 2005. Neutrality and the niche. Functional Ecology 19:16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HAASE, P. 1995. Spatial Pattern Analysis in ecology based on Ripleys K-function – introduction and methods of edge correction. Journal of Vegetation Science 6:575582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HARMS, K. E., WRIGHT, S. J., CALDERON, O., HERNANDEZ, A. & HERRE, E. A. 2000. Pervasive density-dependent recruitment enhances seedling diversity in a tropical forest. Nature 404:493495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HARMS, K. E., CONDIT, R., HUBBELL, S. P. & FOSTER, R. B. 2001. Habitat associations of trees and shrubs in a 50-ha neotropical forest plot. Journal of Ecology 89:947959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HARPOLE, W. S. & TILMAN, D. 2006. Non-neutral patterns of species abundance in grassland communities. Ecology Letters 9:1523.Google Scholar
HUBBELL, S. P. 1979. Tree dispersion, abundance, and diversity in a tropical dry forest. Science 203:12991309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HUBBELL, S. P. 2005. Neutral theory in community ecology and the hypothesis of functional equivalence. Functional Ecology 19:166172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
JANZEN, D. H. 1970. Herbivores and the number of tree species in tropical forests. American Naturalist 104:501528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KING, D. A., DAVIES, S. J. & NUR SUPARDI, M. N. 2006. The role of wood density and stem support costs in the growth and mortality of tropical trees. Journal of Ecology 94:670680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MACK, R. N. & HARPER, J. L. 1977. Interference in dune annuals: spatial pattern and neighbourhood effects. Journal of Ecology 65:345363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MANOKARAN, N., LAFRANKIE, J. V., KOCHUMMEN, K. M., QUAH, E. S., KLAHN, J. E., ASHTON, P. S. & HUBBELL, S. P. 1990. Methodology for the fifty hectare research plot at Pasoh Forest Reserve. Research Pamphlet No. 104. Forest Research Institute Malaysia, Kepong, Malaysia.Google Scholar
MANOKARAN, N., KASSIM, A. R., HASSAN, A., QUAH, E. S. & CHONG, P. F. 1992. Short-term population dynamics of dipterocarp trees in a lowland rain forest in Peninsular Malaysia. Journal of Tropical Forest Science 5:97112.Google Scholar
MURRELL, D. J., PURVES, D. W. & LAW, R. 2001. Uniting pattern and process in plant ecology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16:529530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NIIYAMA, K., RAHMAN, K. A., IIDA, S., KIMURA, K., AZIZI, R. & APPANAH, S. 1999. Spatial patterns of common tree species relating to topography, canopy gaps and understorey vegetation in a hill dipterocarp forest at Semangkok Forest Reserve, Peninsular Malaysia. Journal of Tropical Forest Science 11:731745.Google Scholar
NUMATA, S., YASUDA, M., OKUDA, T., KACHI, N. & NUR SUPARDI, M. N. 2003. Temporal and spatial patterns of mass flowerings on the Malay Peninsula. American Journal of Botany 90:10251031.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
NUMATA, S., KACHI, N., OKUDA, T. & MANOKARAN, N. 2004. Delayed greening, leaf expansion, and damage to sympatric Shorea species in a lowland rain forest. Journal of Plant Research 117:1925.Google Scholar
PÉLISSIER, R. 1998. Tree spatial patterns in three contrasting plots of a southern Indian tropical moist evergreen forest. Journal of Tropical Ecology 14:116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PETERS, H. A. 2003. Neighbour-regulated mortality: the influence of positive and negative density dependence on tree populations in species-rich tropical forests. Ecology Letters 6:757765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
QUEENBOROUGH, S. A., BURSLEM, D. F. R. P., GARWOOD, N. C. & VALENCIA, R. 2007. Habitat niche partitioning by 16 species of Myristicaceae in Amazonian Ecuador. Plant Ecology 192:193207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
REES, M., CONDIT, R., CRAWLEY, M., PACALA, S. & TILMAN, D. 2001. Long-term studies of vegetation dynamics. Science 293:650655.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
REJMÁNEK, M. 2002. Intraspecific aggregation and species coexistence. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 17:209210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
RIPLEY, B. D. 1977. Modelling spatial patterns. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, London, Series B 39:172212.Google Scholar
RUSSO, S. E., DAVIES, S. J., KING, D. A. & TAN, S. 2005. Soil-related performance variation and distributions of tree species in a Bornean rain forest. Journal of Ecology 93:879889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SCHURR, F., BOSSDORF, O., MILTON, S. J. & SCHUMACHER, J. 2004. Spatial pattern formation in semi-arid shrubland: a priori predicted versus observed pattern characteristics. Plant Ecology 173: 271282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SEABLOOM, E. W., BJORNSTAD, O. N., BOLKER, B. M. & REICHMAN, O. J. 2005. Spatial signature of environmental heterogeneity, dispersal, and competition in successional grasslands. Ecological Monographs 75:199214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
STERNER, R. W., RIBIC, C. A. & SCHATZ, G. E. 1986. Testing for life historical changes in spatial patterns of four tropical tree species. Journal of Ecology 74:621633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
STOLL, P. & BERGIUS, E. 2005. Pattern and process: competition causes regular spacing of individuals within plant populations. Journal of Ecology 93: 395403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
STOLL, P. & PRATI, D. 2001. Intraspecific aggregation alters competitive interactions in experimental plant communities. Ecology 82:319327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SUZUKI, R. O., KUDOH, H. & KACHI, N. 2003. Spatial and temporal variations in mortality of the biennial plant, Lysimachia rubida: effects of intraspecific competition and environmental heterogeneity. Journal of Ecology 91:114125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SUZUKI, R. O., SUZUKI, J.-I. & KACHI, N. 2005. Change in spatial patterns of a biennial plant between growth stages and generations in a patchy habitat. Annals of Botany 96:10091017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SUZUKI, R. O., NUMATA, S., OKUDA, T., NUR SUPARDI, M. N. & KACHI, N. 2009. Growth strategies differentiate the spatial patterns of 11 dipterocarp species coexisting in a Malaysian tropical rain forest. Journal of Plant Research 122:8193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SVENNING, J. C. 1999. Microhabitat specialization in a species-rich palm community in Amazonian Ecuador. Journal of Ecology 87:5565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
TILMAN, D. 1994. Competition and biodiversity in spatially structured habitats. Ecology 75:216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
TUOMISTO, H. & RUOKOLAINEN, K. 1993. Distribution of Pteridophyta and Melastomataceae along an edaphic gradient in an Amazonian rain forest. Journal of Vegetation Science 4:2534.Google Scholar
URIARTE, M., CONDIT, R., CANHAN, C. D. & HUBBELL, S. P. 2004. A spatially explicit model of sapling growth in a tropical forest: does the identity of neighbours matter? Journal of Ecology 92:348360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VALENCIA, R., FOSTER, R. B., VILLA, G., CONDIT, R., SVENNING, J.-C., HERNANDEZ, C., ROMOLEROUX, K., LOSOS, E., MAGARD, E. & BALSLEV, H. 2004. Tree species distributions and local habitat variation in the Amazon: large forest plot in eastern Ecuador. Journal of Ecology 92:214229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WALLER, D. M. 1981. Neighborhood competition in several violet populations. Oecologia 51:116122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
WATKINSON, A. R., LONSDALE, W. M. & FIRBANK, L. G. 1983. A neighbourhood approach to self-thinning. Oecologia 56:381384.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
WEBB, C. O. & PEART, D. R. 2000. Habitat associations of trees and seedlings in a Bornean rain forest. Journal of Ecology 88:464478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WEINER, J. 1984. Neighbourhood interference amongst Pinus rigida individuals. Journal of Ecology 72:183195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
YU, D. W., TERBORGH, J. W. & POTTS, M. D. 1998. Can high tree species richness be explained by Hubbell's null model? Ecology Letters 1:193199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Species associations among dipterocarp species co-occurring in a Malaysian tropical rain forest
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Species associations among dipterocarp species co-occurring in a Malaysian tropical rain forest
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Species associations among dipterocarp species co-occurring in a Malaysian tropical rain forest
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *