Clonal and bud bank traits: patterns across temperate plant communities

• Published in: Journal of vegetation science 2015-03, Vol.26 (2), p.243-253
• Main Authors: Klimešová, Jitka, Herben, Tomáš, Bartha, Sándor
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: asexual reproduction; CLO-PLA database; Community assembly; Czech Republic; data collection; dispersions; Habitat filtering; habitats; phytosociology; plant communities; Vegetation records; vegetation types
• ISSN: 1100-9233; 1654-1103
• DOI: 10.1111/jvs.12228

QUESTIONS: We examine patterns of clonal traits and below‐ground bud bank traits in plant communities over a large set of temperate vegetation types. We asked (i) how clonal traits are distributed in different community types and (ii) what are within‐community patterns of these traits as an indication of their role in species coexistence and community assembly. LOCATION: Czech Republic. METHODS: We use a stratified set of more than 20,000 vegetation records from the Czech National Phytosociological Database as a source of species co‐occurrence and habitat type data, and combined it with data on clonal and bud bank traits from the CLO‐PLA database. We calculated both community trait means and dispersions for all records in the database and used a series of randomization tests to assess effects of environmental filtering and within‐community assembly. RESULTS: Habitat filtering was stronger in bud bank traits than in clonal traits. The key factors driving structure of clonal traits in Central Europe seem to be differences in productivity and in wetness. These gradients are responsible for a major change in clonal growth parameters, from clonal plants with short and persistent connections in dry and unproductive habitats to plants with long‐ and short‐lived connections in wet and productive sites. Size of the bud bank is rather uncorrelated with this gradient: species with small below‐ground bud bank size prevail in highly disturbed and in water habitats. None of the traits showed significant overdispersion, either at the level of the whole data set, or at the level of individual habitat types. CONCLUSIONS: Capacity for clonal growth occurs under many different environmental regimes and can give rise to very different growth forms. Therefore, using capacity for clonal growth as a proxy for clonal reproduction, capture of horizontal space or resprouting capacity may hinder understanding of its role. Absence of overdispersion after accounting for habitat filtering means that we found no evidence that clonal traits play a role in niche‐based coexistence processes.