Effects of spatial aggregation on competition,complementarity and resource use

Abstract The spatial distributions of most species are aggregated to varying degrees. A limited number of studies have examined the effects of spatial aggregation on interspecific and intraspecific interactions, generally finding that spatial aggregation can enhance coexistence between species by reducing the capacity for interspecific competition. Less well studied are the effects of spatial aggregation on complementarity (i.e. differences in resource use strategies) and resource use. Our primary hypothesis was that spatial aggregation reduces the complementarity between species owing to: (i) less interspecific interactions as a result of spatial separation; and (ii) less differences between species as a result of phenotypic plasticity. We further postulate that these negative effects of spatial aggregation on complementarity will reduce resource use by the community. Here we test these hypotheses in a pot experiment in which we applied three levels of spatial aggregation to three sets of two‐species mixtures of herbaceous perennial plant species from native grasslands of south‐eastern Australia. Both root and shoot biomass were significantly affected by spatial aggregation, although the nature of these affects depended upon the species involved, and the relative strengths of interspecific versus intraspecific competition. Complementarity between species in the distribution of their green leaves decreased significantly as spatial aggregation increased for one of the species mixtures, providing some evidence in support of our hypothesis that aggregation reduces complementarity through phenotypic plasticity. Spatial aggregation also altered light interception and use of soil moisture resources, although these effects were dependent on the species involved. We suggest that clear effects of spatial aggregation on complementarity and resource use may be obscured by the idiosyncratic way in which neighbour identity influences plant growth and hence plant size, limiting the ability to generalize, at the community level, any underlying effects of spatial pattern on ecological process.