Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T21:05:27.214Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assembly theory applied to weed communities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Barbara D. Booth  and
Clarence J. Swanton
Barbara D. Booth
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Community assembly is a branch of ecology that looks at how communities are assembled as they follow trajectories through time. A trajectory is controlled by biotic and abiotic constraints (filters) that act at multiple scales. From a total species pool, environmental and dispersal constraints control which species enter an ecological species pool. Within this pool, internal dynamics determine which of these species becomes part of the extant community. Environmental filters act by removing species that lack specific traits. Thus, traits are filtered, and with them, species. In this paper, we present the basic ecological theory of community assembly and address how it can be used in conjunction with a trait-based approach to understand and possibly predict how weed community structure changes in response to imposed filters such as tillage or crop rotation. Weed ecologists have struggled with the need to place our practical knowledge of agriculture and weeds into a broader theory, and there have been many calls to integrate ecology with agronomy and weed science. Community assembly might be one way to do so.

Keywords

Community trajectorytrait-based approachweed ecology
Type
50th Anniversary–Invited Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , February 2002 , pp. 2 - 13
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Abrams, M. D., Sprugel, D. G., and Dickmann, D. I. 1985. Multiple successional pathways on recently disturbed jack pine sites in Michigan. For. Ecol. Manag. 10:31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, T.F.H. and Hoekstra, T. W. 1990. The confusion between scale-defined levels and conventional levels of organization in ecology. J. Veg. Sci. 1:5–12.Google Scholar
Allen, T.F.H. and Hoekstra, T. W. 1991. Role of heterogeneity in scaling of ecological systems under analysis. Pages 47–68 In Kolasa, J. and Pickett, S.T.A., eds. Ecological Heterogeneity. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Altieri, M. A. 1988. The impact, uses and ecological role of weeds in agroecosystems. Pages 1–6 In Altieri, M. A. and Liebmann, M., eds. Weed Management in Agroecosystems: Ecological Approaches. Florida: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Begon, M., Harper, J. L., and Townsend, C. R. 1999. Ecology: Individuals, Populations and Communities. 3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell. 679 p.Google Scholar
Belyea, L. R. and Lancaster, J. 1999. Assembly rules within a contingent ecology. Oikos 86:402–416.Google Scholar
Booth, B. D. and Larson, D. W. 1999. Impact of language, history and choice of system on the study of assembly rules. Pages 206–227 In Weir, E. and Keddy, P. A., eds. Ecological Assembly Rules: Perspectives, Advances, Retreats. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Box, E. O. 1981. Macroclimate and Plant Form: An Introduction to Predictive Modeling in Phytogeography. The Hague: Junk. 258 p.Google Scholar
Carpenter, S. R. 1996. Microcosm experiments have limited relevance for community and ecosystem ecology. Ecology 77:677–680.Google Scholar
Chesson, P. L. 1986. Environmental variation and the coexistence of species. Pages 240–256 In Diamond, J. M. and Case, T. J., eds. Community Ecology. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Clements, D. R., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Integrated weed management and weed species diversity. Phytoprotection 75:1–18.Google Scholar
Clements, F. E. 1916. Plant Succession. Publication Number 242. Washington: The Carnegie Institution. pp. 72–75.Google Scholar
Cole, B. J. 1983. Assembly of mangrove ant communities: patterns of geographical distribution. J. Anim. Ecol. 52:339–347.Google Scholar
Crawley, M. J. 1983. Herbivory—The Dynamics of Animal-plant Interactions. Oxford: Blackwell. 437 p.Google Scholar
Derksen, D. A., Lafond, G. P., Thomas, A. G., Loeppky, H. A., and Swanton, C. J. 1993. Impact of agronomic practices on weed communities: tillage systems. Weed Sci. 41:409–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derksen, D. A., Thomas, A. G., Lafond, G. P., Loeppky, H. A., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Impact of agronomic practices on weed communities: fallow within tillage systems. Weed Sci. 42:184–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derksen, D. A., Thomas, A. G., Lafond, G. P., Loeppky, H. A., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Impact of post-emergence herbicides on weed community diversity within conservation tillage systems. Weed Res. 35:311–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, J. M. 1975. Assembly of species communities. Pages 342–444 In Cody, M. L. and Diamond, J. M., eds. Ecology and Evolution of Communities. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press/Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Díaz, S., Acosta, A., and Cabido, M. 1992. Morphological analysis of herbaceous communities under different grazing regimes. J. Veg. Sci. 3:689–696.Google Scholar
Díaz, S. and Cabido, M. 1997. Plant functional types and ecosystem function in relation to global change. J. Veg. Sci. 8:463–474.Google Scholar
Díaz, S., Cabido, M., and Casanoves, F. 1998. Plant functional traits and environmental filters on a regional scale. J. Veg. Sci. 9:113–122.Google Scholar
Díaz, S., Cabido, M., and Casanoves, F. 1999a. Functional implications of trait-environment linkages in plant communities. Pages 339–362 In Weir, E. and Keddy, P. A., eds. Ecological Assembly Rules: Perspectives, Advances, Retreats. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Díaz, S., Cabido, M., Zak, M., Martínez Carretero, E., and Araníbar, J. 1999b. Plant functional traits, ecosystem structure and land-use history along a climatic gradient in central-western Argentina. J. Veg. Sci. 10:651–660.Google Scholar
Díaz Barradas, M. C., Zunzunegui, M., Tirada, R., Ain-Lhout, F., and García Novo, F. 1999. Plant functional types and ecosystem function in Mediterranean shrubland. J. Veg. Sci. 10:709–716.Google Scholar
Doren, R. F., Whiteaker, L. D., and LaRosa, A. M. 1991. Evaluation of fire as a management tool for controlling Schinus terebinthifolius as secondary successional growth on abandoned agricultural land. Environ. Manag. 15:121–129.Google Scholar
Doucet, C., Weaver, S. E., Hamill, A. S., and Zhang, J. 1999. Separating the effects of crop rotation from management on weed density and diversity. Weed Sci. 47:729–735.Google Scholar
Drake, J. A. 1990a. The mechanics of community assembly and succession. J. Theor. Biol. 147:213–233.Google Scholar
Drake, J. A. 1990b. Communities as assembled structures: do rules govern pattern? Trends Ecol. Evol. 5:159–164.Google Scholar
Drake, J. A. 1991. Community-assembly mechanics and the structure of an experimental species ensemble. Am. Nat. 137:1–26.Google Scholar
Drake, J. A., Flum, T. E., Witteman, G. J. et al. 1993. The construction and assembly of an ecological landscape. J. Anim. Ecol. 62:117–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dublin, H. T., Sinclair, A.R.E., and McGlade, J. 1990. Elephants and fire as causes of multiple stable states in the Serengeti-Mara Woodlands. J. Anim. Ecol. 59:1,147–1,164.Google Scholar
Elliott, E. T. and Cole, C. V. 1989. A perspective on agroecosystem science. Ecology 70:1,597–1,602.Google Scholar
Gitay, H., Nobel, I. R., and Connel, J. H. 1999. Deriving functional types for rain-forest trees. J. Veg. Sci. 10:641–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grace, J. B. and Tilman, D., eds. 1990. Perspectives on Plant Competition. San Diego: Academic Press. 484 p.Google Scholar
Grime, J. P. 1979. Plant Strategies and Vegetation Processes. Chichester: J. Wiley. pp. 45–51.Google Scholar
Grover, J. P. and Lawton, J. H. 1994. Experimental studies on community convergence and alternate stable states: comments on a paper by Drake et al. J. Anim. Ecol. 63:484–487.Google Scholar
Grubb, P. J. 1977. The maintenance of species-richness in plant communities: the importance of the regeneration niche. Biol. Rev. 52:107–145.Google Scholar
Hastings, A., Hom, C. L., Ellner, S., Turchin, P., and Godfray, H.C.J. 1993. Chaos in nature: is mother nature a strange attractor? Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 24:1–33.Google Scholar
Hobbs, R. J. and Humphries, S. E. 1995. An integrated approach to the ecology and management of plant invasions. Conserv. Biol. 9:761–770.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, T. W., Allen, T.F.H., and Flather, C. H. 1991. Implicit scaling in ecological research. Bioscience 41:148–154.Google Scholar
Hraber, P. T. and Milne, B. T. 1997. Community assembly in a model ecosystem. Ecol. Model. 104:267–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inouye, R. S. and Tilman, D. 1988. Convergence and divergence of old-field plant communities along experimental nitrogen gradients. Ecology 69:995–1,004.Google Scholar
Inouye, R. S. and Tilman, D. 1995. Convergence and divergence of old-field vegetation after 11 years of nitrogen addition. Ecology 76:1,872–1,887.Google Scholar
Jackson, W. and Piper, J. 1989. The necessary marriage between ecology and agriculture. Ecology 70:1,591–1,593.Google Scholar
Jordan, N. R., Zhang, J., and Huerd, S. 2000. Arbuscular-mycorrhizal fungi: potential roles in weed management. Weed Res. 40:397–410.Google Scholar
Keddy, P. A. 1989. Cometition. London: Chapman and Hall. p. 156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keddy, P. A. 1992a. A pragmatic approach to functional ecology. Funct. Ecol. 6:621–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keddy, P. A. 1992b. Assembly and response rules: two goals for predictive community ecology. J. Veg. Sci. 3:157–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, K. 1994. Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines. London: Fourth Estate. pp. 86–87.Google Scholar
Kelt, D. A., Taper, M. L., and Meserve, P. L. 1995. Assessing the impact of competition on community assembly: a case study using small mammals. Ecology 76:1,283–1,296.Google Scholar
Kleyer, M. 1999. Distribution of plant functional types along gradients of disturbance intensity and resource supply in an agricultural landscape. J. Veg. Sci. 10:697–708.Google Scholar
Knowlton, N. 1992. Thresholds and multiple stable states in coral reef community dynamics. Am. Zool. 32:674–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavorel, S., McIntyre, S., Lansberg, J., and Forbes, T.D.A. 1997. Plant functional classifications: from general groups to specific groups based on response to disturbance. Trends Ecol. Evol. 12:474–478.Google Scholar
Lockwood, J. L. 1997. An alternative to succession. Restor. Manag. Notes 15:45–50.Google Scholar
Lockwood, J. L., Powell, R. D., Nott, M. P., and Pimm, S. L. 1997. Assembling ecological communities in time and space. Oikos 80:549–553.Google Scholar
Luh, H.-K. and Pimm, S. L. 1993. The assembly of ecological communities: a minimalist approach. J. Anim. Ecol. 62:749–765.Google Scholar
Luken, J. O. 1990. Directing Ecological Succession. London: Chapman and Hall. pp. 9–18.Google Scholar
Luken, J. O. 1997. Management of plant invasions: implicating ecological succession. Pages 133–144 In Luken, J. O. and Thieret, J. W., eds. Assessment and Management of Plant Invasions. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Mack, R. N. 2000. Assessing the extent, status and dynamics of plant invasions: current and emerging approaches. Pages 141–169 In Mooney, H. A. and Hobbs, R. J., eds. The Impact of Global Change on Invasive Species. Covelo, CA: Island Press.Google Scholar
Mack, R. N., Simberloff, D., Lonsdale, W. M., Evans, H., Clout, M., and Bazzaz, F. A. 2000. Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences and control. Ecol. Appl. 10:689–710.Google Scholar
Marrs, R. H. and Lowday, J. E. 1992. Control of bracken and the restoration of heathland. II. Regeneration of the heathland community. J. Appl. Ecol. 29:204–211.Google Scholar
Maxwell, B. D. 1999. My view. Weed Sci. 47:129.Google Scholar
McCune, B. and Allen, T.F.H. 1985. Will similar forests develop on similar sites? Can. J. Bot. 63:367–376.Google Scholar
McIntyre, S., Díaz, S., Lavorel, S., and Cramer, W. 1999a. Plant functional types and disturbance dynamics—introduction. J. Veg. Sci. 10:604–608.Google Scholar
McIntyre, S., Lavorel, S., Landsberg, J., and Forbes, T.D.A. 1999b. Disturbance response in vegetation—towards a global perspective on functional traits. J. Veg. Sci. 10:621–630.Google Scholar
Menge, B. A. and Olsen, A. M. 1990. Role of scale and environmental factors in regulation of community structure. Trends Ecol. Evol. 5:52–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nobel, I. R. and Slatyer, R. O. 1980. The use of vital attributes to predict successional changes in plant communities subject to recurrent disturbances. Vegetatio 43:5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olff, H., Brown, V. K., and Dent, R. H., eds. 1999. Herbivores: Between Plants and Predators. Oxford: Blackwell. 639 p.Google Scholar
Paine, R. T. 1969. A note on trophic complexity and community stability. Am. Nat. 103:91–93.Google Scholar
Parsons, D. J. 1976. Vegetation structure in the Mediterranean scrub communities of California and Chile. J. Ecol. 64:435–447.Google Scholar
Paul, E. A. and Robertson, G. P. 1989. Ecology and the agricultural sciences: a false dichotomy? Ecology 70:1,594–1,597.Google Scholar
Petraitis, P. S. and Latham, R. E. 1999. The importance of scale in testing the origins of alternative community states. Ecology 80:429–442.Google Scholar
Pimm, S. L. 1991. The Balance of Nature? Ecological Issues in the Conservation of Species and Communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 249.Google Scholar
Power, M. E., Tilman, D., Estes, J. A. et al. 1996. Challenges in the quest for keystones. Bioscience 46:609–620.Google Scholar
Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The Life Form of Plants and Statistical Plant Geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. 2–19.Google Scholar
Roberts, A. and Tregonning, K. 1981. The robustness of natural systems. Nature 288–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, J. V. and Dickerson, J. E. Jr. 1987. Does invasion sequence affect community structure? Ecology 68:587–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodriguez, M. A. 1994. Succession, environmental fluctuations, and stability in experimentally manipulated microalgal communities. Oikos 70:107–120.Google Scholar
Roughgarden, J. 1989. The structure and assembly of communities. Pages 203–226 In Roughgarden, J., May, R. M., and Levin, S. A., eds. Perspectives in Ecological Theory. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sale, P. F. 1984. The structure of communities of fish on coral reefs and the merit of a hypothesis-testing manipulative approach to ecology. Pages 478–490 In Simberloff, D. R., Abele, L. G., and Thistle, A. B., eds. Ecological Communities: Conceptual Issues and the Evidence. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuels, C. L. and Drake, J. A. 1997. Divergent perspectives on community convergence. Trends Ecol. Evol. 12:427–432.Google Scholar
Smith, T. M., Shugard, H. H., and Woodward, F. I., eds. 1997. Plant Functional Types: Their Relevance to Ecosystem Properties and Global Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sommer, U. 1991. Convergent succession of phytoplankton in microcosms with different inoculum species composition. Oecologia 87:171–179.Google Scholar
Strange, E. M. and Foin, T. C. 1999. Interaction of physical and biological processes in the assembly of stream fish communities. Pages 311–337 In Weir, E. and Keddy, P. A., eds. Ecological Assembly Rules: Perspectives, Advances, Retreats. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strauss, S. Y. 1991. Indirect effects in community ecology: their definition, study and importance. Trends Ecol. Evol. 6:206–210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sutherland, J. P. 1974. Multiple stable points in natural communities. Am. Nat. 108:859–873.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Clements, D. R., and Derksen, D. A. 1993. Weed succession under conservation tillage: a hierarchical framework for research and management. Weed Technol. 7:286–297.Google Scholar
Thompson, J. N., Reichman, O. J., Morin, P. J. et al. 2001. Frontiers of ecology. Bioscience 15:15–24.Google Scholar
Tregonning, K. and Roberts, A. 1979. Complex systems which evolve towards homeostasis. Nature 281:563–564.Google Scholar
Trenbath, B. R. 1985. Weeds and agriculture: a question of balance. Pages 171–183 In White, J., ed. Studies on Plant Demography: A Festschrift for John L. Harper. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Walker, B. H. 1981. Is succession a viable concept in African savanna ecosystems? Pages 431–447 In West, D. C., Shugart, H. H., and Botkin, D. B., eds. Forest Succession: Concepts and Applications. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, R. L. and Smith, S. D. 1997. Impacts of invasive plants on community and ecosystem properties. Pages 69–88 In Luken, J. O. and Thieret, J. W., eds. Assessment and Management of Plant Invasions. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiher, E. and Keddy, P. A. 1995. The assembly of experimental wetland communities. Oikos 73:323–335.Google Scholar
Weiher, E. and Keddy, P. A. 1999a. Assembly rules as general constraints on community composition. Pages 251–271 In Weiher, E. and Keddy, P. A., eds. Ecological Assembly Rules: Perspectives, Advances, Retreats. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiher, E. and Keddy, P. A. 1999b. Ecological Assembly Rules: Perspectives, Advances, Retreats. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 418 p.Google Scholar
Weiher, E. and Keddy, P. A. 1999c. Introduction: the scope and goals of research on assembly rules. Pages 1–20 In Weiher, E. and Keddy, P. A., eds. Ecological Assembly Rules: Perspectives, Advances, Retreats. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weiher, E., van der Werf, A., Thompson, K., Roderick, M., Garnier, E., and Eriksson, O. 1999. Challenging theophrastus: a common core list of plant traits for functional ecology. J. Veg. Sci. 10:609–620.Google Scholar
Westoby, M. and Leishman, M. 1997. Categorizing plant species into functional types. Pages 104–121 In Smith, T. M., Shugard, H. H., and Woodward, F. I., eds. Plant Functional Types: Their Relevance to Ecosystem Properties and Global Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
White, P. S. 1979. Pattern, process and natural disturbance in vegetation. Bot. Rev. 45:229–299.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. B. and Watkins, A. J. 1994. Guilds and the assembly rules in lawn communities. J. Veg. Sci. 5:590–600.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. B. and Whittaker, R. J. 1995. Assembly rules demonstrated in a saltmash community. J. Ecol. 83:801–808.Google Scholar
Withgott, J. 2000. Botanical nursing. Bioscience 56:478–484.Google Scholar
Woods, K. D. 1997. Community response to plant invasion. Pages 56–68 In Luken, J. O. and Thieret, J. W., eds. Assessment and Management of Plant Invasions. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Woodward, F. I. and Diament, A. D. 1991. Functional approaches to predicting the ecological effects of global change. Funct. Ecol. 5:202–212.Google Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 1980. Weed-Crop Competition: A Review. Oregon: International Plant Protection Center. 195 p.Google Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 1999. My view. Weed Sci. 47:1.Google Scholar