Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Plant Communities in Harsh and Favorable Environments: Characteristics of Their Organization, Their Dominant Structure and Its Relationship to Species Richness

  • Published:
Biology Bulletin Reviews Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It is believed that plant communities in harsh and favorable habitats are organized in different ways. The former are mainly organized by abiotic environment and random processes (S model), and the latter are mainly organized by competition (C-S-R model). It can be expected that the characteristics of the organization affect the structure of the dominance of plant communities and its relationship to species richness. The goal of our study was to test this assumption on the example of herbaceous plant communities of relatively stable habitats of several regions and high-altitude belts of the western Caucasus (alpine snowbeds, heaths and meadows, subalpine meadows and marshes, low mountain meadows, grass layer of forests, steppes). The aboveground biomass of communities at the time of its maximum development was used as a criterion of the degree of environmental severity. The relative participation of species was estimated as the ratio of their biomass to the total aboveground biomass on the site (D) or to the biomass of the community remaining after the removal of the biomass of higher-ranking species (K) from it. Under the structure of dominance, relative participation in community of the first rank species (degree of dominance) was understood, as well as the ratio of the values of D and K for two or three species with the largest participation in the aboveground-community biomass. The following results were obtained: (1) If the dominance structure is estimated based on D, then it varies widely and is almost unrelated to the production of the habitats (environmental conditions). (2) In C‑S-R-communities, the K values for species of first rank (K1) are on average higher than for less significant species (K2 and K3); in S-communities, they are on average approximately the same. Moreover, if we consider C-S-R- and S-communities separately, then the (K1 – K2) values are not related to the aboveground biomass of communities. The assumption is made that (K1 – K2) value can be considered as the index of the degree of expression in the dominants of C-strategy features. (3) The spatial variability of the parameters of the dominance structure is higher in areas of harsh habitats than in favorable ones. (4) C-S-R-communities are characterized by a closer relationship between the degree of dominance and species richness than S-communities. Our results suggest that this is due to the more intensive interspecies competition in C-S-R-communities and to the C-strategy of dominant species.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5.
Fig. 6.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. Adler, P.B., Seabloom, E.W., Borer, E.T., et al., Productivity is a poor predictor of plant species richness, Science, 2011, vol. 333, pp. 1750–1753.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Akatov, V.V. and Akatova, T.V., Domination degree in herbaceous communities with various structure organization, Tr.,Gos. Nikitsk. Bot. Sad, 2016, vol. 143, pp. 16–24.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Aksenova, A.A., Onipchenko, V.G., and Blinnikov, M.S., Experimental study of plant relationships. Dominant removals. Alpine lichen heats, in Alpine Ecosystems in the Northwest Caucasus, Onipchenko, V.G., Ed., Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2004, pp. 236–244.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Azovsky, A.I., Structural complexity of species assemblages and spatial scale of community organization: a case study of marine benthos, Ecol. Complexity, 2009, vol. 6, pp. 308–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bakanov, A.I., Kolichestvennaya otsenka dominirovaniya v ekologicheskikh soobshchestvakh (Quantitative Evaluation of Domination in Ecological Communities), Available from VINITI, 1987, Borok, no. 8593-V87.

  6. Bartha, S., Szentes, S., Horváth, A., Házi, J., Zimmermann, Z., Molnár, Cs., et al., Impact of mid-successional dominant species on the diversity and progress of succession in regenerating temperate grasslands, Appl. Veg. Sci., 2014, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 201–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Begon, M., Harper, J., and Townsend, C., Ecology: From Individuals to Ecosystems, Oxford: Blackwell, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bell, G., The distribution of abundance in neutral communities, Am. Nat., 2000, vol. 155, no. 5, pp. 606–617.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bengtsson, J., Fagerstram, T., and Rydin, H., Competition and coexistence in plant communities, Tree, 1994, vol. 9, no. 7, pp. 246–250.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Berger, W.H. and Parker, F.L., Diversity of planktonic foraminifera in deep-sea sediments, Science, 1970, vol. 168, pp. 1345–1347.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bobbink, R. and Willems, J.H., Increasing dominance of Brachypodium pinnatum (L.) Beauv. in Chalk Grasslands: a threat to a species-rich ecosystem, Biol. Conserv., 1987, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 301–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Boscaiu, M., Lull, C., Lidon, A., Bautista, I., Donat, P., Mayoral, O., and Vicente, O., Plant responses to abiotic stress in their natural habitats, Horticulture, 2008, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 53–58.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Burkovskii, I.V. and Mazei, Yu.A., Complexity of ecological systems by example of marine communities of ciliates, Russ. J. Ecosyst. Ecol., 2016, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.21685/2500-0578-2016-1-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Callaway, R.M. and Ridenour, W.M., Novel weapons: a biochemically based hypothesis for invasive success and the evolution of increased competitive ability, Front. Ecol. Environ., 2004, vol. 2, pp. 433–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Caruso, T., Pigino, G., Bernini, F., Bargagli, R., and Migliorin, M., The Berger–Parker index as an effective tool for monitoring the biodiversity of disturbed soils: a case study on Mediterranean oribatid (Acari: Oribatida) assemblages, Biodiversity Conserv., 2007, vol. 16, pp. 3277–3285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Caswell, H., Community structure: a neutral model analysis, Ecol. Monogr., 1976, vol. 46, pp. 327–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chalcraft, D.R., Wilsey, B.J., Bowles, C., and Willig, M.R., The relationship between productivity and multiple aspects of biodiversity in six grassland communities, Biodiversity Conserv., 2009, vol. 18, pp. 91–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cherednichenko, O.V., Experimental study of plant relationships. Dominant removals. Removals in the Geranium gymnocaulon–Hedysarum caucasicum meadow, in Alpine Ecosystems in the Northwest Caucasus, Onipchenko, V.G., Ed., Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2004, pp. 244–250.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Chernov, Yu.I., Species diversity and compensatory events in communities and biotic systems, Zool. Zh., 2005, vol. 84, no. 10, pp. 1221–1238.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Cornell, H.V., Unsaturated patterns in species assemblage: the role of regional processes in setting local species richness, in Species Diversity in Ecological Communities: Historical and Geographical Perspectives, Ricklefs, R.E. and Schluter, D., Eds., Chicago: Chicago Univ. Press, 1993, pp. 243–253.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Cornell, H.V. and Lawton, J.H., Species interactions, local and regional processes, and limits to the richness of ecological communities: a theoretical perspective, J. Anim. Ecol., 1992, vol. 61, pp. 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Csergő, A.M., Demeter, L., and Turkington, R., Declining diversity in abandoned grasslands of the Carpathian Mountains: Do dominant species matter? PLoS One, 2013, vol. 8, no. 8, p. e73533. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0073533

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Drobner, U., Bibby, J., Smith, B., and Wilson, J.B., The relation between community biomass and evenness: what does community theory predict, and can these predictions be tested? Oikos, 1998, vol. 82, pp. 295–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ernest, S.K.M. and Brown, J.H., Homeostasis and compensation: the role of species and resources in ecosystem stability, Ecology, 2001, vol. 82, no. 8, pp. 2118–2132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ferreira, F.C. and Petrere, M., Jr., Comments about some species abundance patterns: classic, neutral, and niche partitioning models, Braz. J. Biol., 2008, vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 1003–1012.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Fretwell, D., The regulation of plant communities by food chains exploiting them, Persp. Biol. Med., 1977, vol. 20, pp. 169–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Gilyarov, A.M., In search for universal patterns in the organization of communities: the concept of neutrality has paved the way to a new approach, Biol. Bull. Rev., 2011, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 13–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Goldberg, D. and Novoplansky, A., On the relative importance of competition in unproductive environments, J. Ecol., 1997, vol. 85, pp. 409–418.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Grace, J.B., A clarification of the debate between Grime and Tilman, Funct. Ecol., 1991, vol. 5, pp. 583–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Grime, J.P., Evidence for the existence of three primary strategies in plants and its relevance to ecological and evolutionary theory, Am. Nat., 1977, vol. 111, no. 982, pp. 1169–1194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Grime, J.P., Plant Strategies, Vegetation Processes, and Ecosystem Properties, Chichester: Wiley, 2001, 2nd ed.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hejda, M., Stajerova, K., and Pyšek, P., Dominance has a biogeographical component: do plants tend to exert stronger impacts in their invaded rather than a native range? J. Biogeogr., 2016, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 18–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Houlahan, J.E. and Findlay, C.S., Effect of invasive plant species on temperate wetland plant diversity, Conserv. Biol., 2004, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 1132–1138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hubbell, S.P., Tree dispersion, abundance, and diversity in a tropical dry forest, Science, 1979, vol. 203, pp. 1299–1309.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Hubbell, S.P., Neutral theory in community ecology and the hypothesis of functional equivalence, Funct. Ecol., 2005, vol. 19, pp. 166–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Hulme, P.E. and Bremner, E.T., Assessing the impact of Impatiens glandulifera on riparian habitats: partitioning diversity components following species removal, J. Appl. Ecol., 2006, vol. 43, pp. 43–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Huston, M., A general hypothesis of species diversity, Am. Nat., 1979, vol. 113, no. 1, pp. 81–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kuz’minov, A.N., Conceptual model of cenological control in social-economic systems, Terra Econ., 2009, vol. 7, pp. 28–32.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Kuznetsova, N.A., Communities in extreme and anthropogenic conditions (by example of taxocenosises of collembolan), in Vidy i soobshchestva v ekstremal’nykh usloviyakh. Sbornik posvyashchennyi 75-letiyu akademika Yuriya Ivanovicha Chernova (Species and Communities in Extreme Conditions: Collection of Scientific Works Dedicated to 75th Anniversary of Academician Yu.I. Chernov), Babenko, A.B., Matveeva, N.V., Makarova, O.L., and Golovach, S.I., Eds., Moscow: KMK, 2009, pp. 412–429.

  40. Lamb, E.G. and Cahill, J.F., When competition does not matter: grassland diversity and community composition, Am. Nat., 2008, vol. 171, pp. 777–787.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Lebedeva, N.V. and Krivolutskii, D.A., Biological diversity and its evaluation, in Geografiya i monitoring biorazno-obraziya (Geography and Monitoring of Biological Diversity), Moscow: Nauchn. Uch.-Metod. Tsentr, 2002, pp. 8–76.

  42. Levich, A.P., Struktura ekologicheskikh soobshchestv (The Structure of Ecological Communities), Moscow: Mosk. Gos. Univ., 1980.

  43. Longino, J.T. and Colwell, R.K., Density compensation, species composition, and richness of ants on a neotropical elevational gradient, Ecosphere, 2011, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Ma, M., Species richness vs. evenness: independent relationship and different responses to edaphic factors, Oikos, 2005, vol. 111, pp. 192–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Maarel van der, E., Noest, V., and Palmer, M.W., Variation in species richness on small grassland quadrats: niche structure or small-scale plant mobility? J. Veg. Sci., 1995.V. 6, pp. 741–752.

  46. Magguran, A.E., Ecological Diversity and Its Measurement, Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 1988.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  47. Mangla, S., Sheley, R.L., James, J.J., and Radosevich, S.R., Role of competition in restoring resource poor arid systems dominated by invasive grasses, J. Arid Environ., 2011, vol. 75, pp. 487–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. McKane, R.B., Johnson, L.C., Shaver, G.R., Nadelhoffer, K.J., Rastetter, E.B., et al., Resource-based niches provide a basis for plant species diversity and dominance in arctic tundra, Nature, 2002, vol. 415, pp. 68–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Mirkin, B.M., Which plant communities do exist? J. Veg. Sci., 1994, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 283–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Mirkin, B.M. and Naumova, L.G., Sovremennoe sostoyanie osnovnykh kontseptsii nauki o rastitel’nosti (Modern Status of Main Scientific Concepts on Vegetation), Ufa: Gilem, 2012.

  51. Mulder, C.P.H., Bazeley-White, E., Dimitrakopoulos, P.G., Hector, A., Scherer-Lorenzen, M., and Schmid, B., Species evenness and productivity in experimental plant communities, Oikos, 2004, vol. 107, pp. 50–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Munson, S.M. and Lauenroth, W.K., Plant population and community responses to removal of dominant species in the shortgrass steppe, J. Veg. Sci., 2009, vol. 20, pp. 224–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Oksanen, J., Is the humped relationship between species richness and biomass an artifact due to plot size? J. Ecol., 1996, vol. 84, pp. 293–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Oksanen, L., Fretwell, S.D., Arrud, J., and Niemala, P., Exploitation ecosystems in gradients of primary productivity, Am. Nat., 1981, vol. 118, pp. 240–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Olff, H. and Bakker, J.P., Do intrinsically dominant and subordinate species exist? A test statistic for field data, Appl. Veg. Sci., 1998, vol. 1, pp. 15–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Onipchenko, V.G., Funktsional’naya fitotsenologiya: sinekologiya rastenii (Functional Phytocenology: Synecology of the Plants), Moscow: Krasand, 2013.

  57. Onipchenko, V.G., Semenova, G.V., and van der Maarel, E., Population strategies in severe environments: alpine plants in the northwestern Caucasus, J. Veg. Sci., 1998, vol. 9, pp. 27–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Onipchenko, V.G., Blinnikov, M.S., Gerasimova, M.A., Volkova, E.V., and Cornelissen, J.H.C., Experimental comparison of competition and facilitation in alpine communities varying in productivity, J. Veg. Sci., 2009, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 718–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Palmer, M.W. and van der Maarel, E., Variance in species richness, species association and niche limitation, Oikos, 1995, vol. 73, pp. 203–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Panchal, N.S. and Pandey, A.N., Analysis of vegetation of rampara forest in Saurashtra Region of Gujarat State of India, Trop. Ecol., 2004, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 223–231.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Paquette, A. and Messier, C., The effect of biodiversity on tree productivity: from temperate to boreal forests, Global Ecol. Biogeogr., 2011, vol. 20, pp. 170–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Pavlov, V.N., Onipchenko, V.G., Aksenova, A.A., Volkova, E.V., Zueva, O.I., and Makarov, M.I., Role of competitiveness in organization of Alpine phytocenosises of the Northwestern Caucasus: experimental approach, Zh. Obshch. Biol., 1998, vol. 59, no. 5, pp. 453–476.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Peet, R.K. and Christensen, N.L., Changes in species diversity during secondary forest succession on the North Carolina piedmont, in Diversity and Pattern in Plant Communities, During, H.I., Werge, M.I.A., and Willems, J.H., Eds., Hague: SPB Academic, 1988, pp. 233–245.

  64. Piper, J.K., Composition of prairie plant communities on productive versus unproductive sites in wet and dry years, Can. J. Bot., 1995, vol. 73, pp. 1635–1644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Poggio, S.L. and Ghersa, C.M., Species richnes and evenness as a function of biomass in arable plant communities, Weed Res., 2011, vol. 51, pp. 241–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Qian, H. and Ricklefs, R.E., Taxon richness and climate in Angiosperms: is there a globally consistent relationship that precludes region effects? Am. Nat., 2004, vol. 163, no. 5, pp. 773–779.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Rabotnov, T.A., Fitotsenologiya (Phytocenology), Moscow: Mosk. Gos. Univ., 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Ramenskii, L.G., Vvedenie v kompleksnoe geobotanicheskoe izpol’zovanie zemel’ (Introduction into Complex Geobotanical Use of Lands), Moscow: Sel’khozgiz, 1938.

  69. Reinhart, K.O., Greene, E., and Callaway, R.M., Effects of Acer platanoides invasion on understory plant communities and tree regeneration in the Rocky Mountains, Ecography, 2005, vol. 28, pp. 573–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Sammul, M., Kull, K., Oksanen, L., and Veromann, P., Competition intensity and its importance: results of field experiments with Anthoxanthum odoratum,Oecologia, 2000, vol. 125, pp. 18–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Sammul, M., Oksanen, L., and Mӓgi, M., Regional effects on competition–productivity relationship: a set of field experiments in two distant regions, Oikos, 2006, vol. 112, pp. 138–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Sasaki, T. and Lauenroth, W.K., Dominant species, rather than diversity, regulates temporal stability of plant communities, Oecologia, 2011, vol. 166, no. 3, pp. 761–768.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Shitikov, V.K., Zinchenko, T.D., and Rozenberg, G.S., Makroekologiya rechnykh soobshchestv: kontseptsii, metody, modeli (Macroecology of River Communities: Concepts, Methods, and Models), Tolyatti: Kassandra, 2011.

  74. Šímová, I., Li, Y.M., and Storch, D., Relationship between species richness and productivity in plants: the role of sampling effect, heterogeneity and species pool, J. Ecol., 2013, vol. 101, pp. 161–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Somodi, I., Virágh, K., and Podani, J., The effect of the expansion of the clonal grass Calamagrostis epigejos on the species turnover of a semi-arid grassland, Appl. Veg. Sci., 2008, vol. 11, pp. 187–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Souza, L., Weltzin, J.F., and Sanders, N.J., Differential effects of two dominant plant species on community structure and invisibility in an old-field ecosystem, J. Plant Ecol., 2011, vol. 4, pp. 123–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Stirling, G. and Wilsey, B., Empirical relationships between species richness, evenness, and proportional diversity, Am. Nat., 2001, vol. 158, pp. 286–300.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Vasilevich, V.I., Ocherki teoreticheskoi fitotsenologii (Essays on Theoretical Phytocenology), Leningrad: Nauka, 1983.

  79. Vasilevich, V.I., Dominants in vegetation cover, Bot. Zh., 1991, vol. 76, no. 12, pp. 1674–1681.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Vasilevich, V.I., Species diversity of dry meadows of the northwestern part of European Russia, Bot. Zh., 2014, vol. 99, no. 2, pp. 226–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Vasilevich, V.I., Species diversity of wet meadows of European Russia, Bot. Zh., 2015, vol. 100, no. 4, pp. 372–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Vermeer, J.G. and Verhoeven, J.T.A., Species composition and biomass production of mesotrophic fens in relation to the nutrient status of the organic soil, Acta Oecol., 1987, vol. 8, pp. 321–330.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Whittaker, R.H., Communities and Ecosystems, New York: Macmillan, 1975, 2nd ed.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Wilsey, B. and Stirling, G., Species richness and evenness respond in a different manner to propagule density in developing prairie microcosm communities, Plant Ecol., 2007, vol. 190, pp. 259–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Wright, D.H., Species–energy theory—an extension of species–area theory, Oikos, 1983, vol. 41, pp. 496–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Wright, D.H., Currie, D.J., and Maurer, B.A., Energy supply and patterns of species richness on local and regional scales, in Species Diversity in Ecological Communities: Historical and Geographical Perspectives, Ricklefs, R.E. and Schluter, D., Eds., Chicago: Chicago Univ. Press, 1993, pp. 66–75.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Yodzis, P., Competition for Space and the Structure of Ecological Communities, Lecture Notes in Biomathematics, vol. 25, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1978, pp. 1–191.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  88. Zefferman, E., Stevens, J.T., Charles, G.K., Dunbar-Irwin, M., Emam, T., Fick, S., Morales, L.V., Wolf, K.M., Young, D.J.N., and Young, T.P., Plant communities in harsh sites are less invaded: a summary of observations and proposed explanations, AoB Plants, 2015, vol. 7, p. lv056.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Zhang, H., John, R., Peng, Z., Yuan, J., Chu, C., Du, G., and Zhou, S., The relationship between species richness and evenness in plant communities along a successional gradient: a study from sub-alpine meadows of the Eastern Qinghai–Tibetan Plateau, China, PLoS One, 2012, vol. 7, no. 11, p. e49024.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  90. Zhang, J., Qiao, X., Liu, Y., Lu, J., Jiang, M., Tang, Z., and Fang, J., Species-abundance distributions of tree species varies along climatic gradients in China’s forests, J. Plant Ecol., 2015, vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors are grateful to V.G. Onipchenko for valuable comments on the work.

Funding

The study was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (project no. 16-04-00228).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Maikop State Technological University, 385000, Maikop, Russia

    V. V. Akatov & S. G. Chefranov

  2. Caucasian State Nature Biosphere Reserve, 385000, Maikop, Russia

    T. V. Akatova

Authors
  1. V. V. Akatov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T. V. Akatova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. G. Chefranov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to V. V. Akatov.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests. The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Statement on the welfare of animals. This article does not contain any studies involving animals performed by any of the authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Akatov, V.V., Akatova, T.V. & Chefranov, S.G. Plant Communities in Harsh and Favorable Environments: Characteristics of Their Organization, Their Dominant Structure and Its Relationship to Species Richness. Biol Bull Rev 10, 215–229 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1134/S2079086420030020

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S2079086420030020

Search

Navigation