Abstract
Plant competition belowground generally appears to be size-symmetric, i.e. larger plants only obtain a share of belowground resources proportional to their size, and therefore do not suppress smaller individuals. The experimental evidence for size-symmetric belowground competition comes primarily from experiments with homogenous soil conditions. It has been hypothesized that the presence of high nutrient patches that can be pre-empted by larger plants can make competition belowground size-asymmetric. We tested this hypothesis by growing Triticum aestivum individuals singly and in pairs in containers with aboveground dividers so that competition occurred only belowground. Plants grew in either a homogenous soil mixture, or in the same mixture with a band of enriched soil between them. Initial size differences were generated by a seven day difference in sowing date. There was no evidence of size-asymmetric competition with or without soil heterogeneity. Large plants did not have a disproportionate effect on smaller plants, nor did they perform disproportionately better when paired with a small neighbor. Our results suggest that in heterogeneous soil conditions, roots of larger plants that reach nutrient patches first are not able to prevent roots of smaller plants that arrive later from obtaining resources from the patch.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Berntson G.M. and Wayne P.M. 2000. Characterizing the size dependence of resource acquisition within crowded plant populations. Ecology 81: 1072–1085.
Blair B. 2001. Effect of soil nutrient heterogeneity on the symmetry of belowground competition. Plant Ecology 156: 199–203.
Cahill J.F. and Casper B.B. 2000. Investigating the relationship between neighbor root biomass and belowground competition: field evidence for symmetric competition belowground. Oikos 90: 311–320.
Cahill J.F. 2002. What evidence is necessary in studies which separate root and shoot competition along productivity gradients. Journal of Ecology 90: 201–205.
Casper B.B. and Cahill J.F. 1996. Limited effects of soil nutrient heterogeneity on populations of Abutilon theophrasti (Malvaceae). American Journal of Botany 83: 333–341.
Casper B.B. and Jackson R.B. 1997. Plant competition underground. Annual Reviews of Ecology and Systematics 28: 545–570.
Casper B.B. and Cahill J.F. 1998. Population-level responses to nutrient heterogeneity and density by Abutilon theophrasti (Malvaceae): An experimental neighborhood approach. American Journal of Botany 85: 1680–1687.
Fransen B., De Kroon H. and Berendse F. 2001. Soil nutrient heterogeneity alters competition between two perennial grass species. Ecology 82: 2534–2546.
Gerry A.K. and Wilson S.D. 1995. The influence of initial size on the competitive responses of 6 plant species. Ecology 76: 272–279.
Gersani M., Brown J.S., O'Brien E.E., Maina G.M. and Abramsky Z. 2001. Tragedy of the commons as a result of root competition. Journal of Ecology 89: 660–669.
Hikosaka K., Sudoh S. and Hirose T. 1999. Light acquisition and use by individuals competing in a dense stand of an annual herb, Xanthium canadense. Oecologia 118: 388–396.
Hikosaka K. and Hirose T. 2001. Nitrogen uptake and use by competing individuals in a Xanthium canadense stand. Oecologia 126: 174–181.
Legendre and Legendre 1998. Numerical Ecology. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
McConnaughay K.M.D. and Bazzaz F.A. 1991. Is physical space a soil resource? Ecology 72: 94–103.
Miller T.E. 1996. On quantifying the intensity of competition across gradients. Ecology 77: 978–981.
McPhee C.S. and Aarssen L.W. 2001. The separation of above-and below-ground competition in plants: A review and critique of methodology. Plant Ecology 152: 119–136.
Newbery D.M. and Newman E.I. 1978. Competition between grassland plants of different sizes. Oecologia 33: 361–380.
Rasmussen K., Rasmussen J. and Petersen J. 1996. Effects of fertilizer placement on weeds in weed harrowed spring barley. Acta Agriculture Scandinavico 46: 192–196.
Schwinning S. and Fox G.A. 1995. Population dynamic consequences of competitive symmetry in annual plants. Oikos 72: 422–432.
Schwinning S. and Weiner J. 1998. Mechanisms determining the degree of size-asymmetry in competition among plants. Oecologia 113: 447–455.
Thomas S.C. and Weiner J. 1989. Including competitive asymmetry in measures of local interference in plant populations. Oecologia 80: 349–355.
Weiner J. 1986. How competition for light and nutrients affects size variability in Ipomoea tricolor populations. Ecology 67: 1425–1427.
Weiner J. and Thomas S.C. 1986. Size variability and competition in plant monocultures. Oikos 47: 211–222.
Weiner J. 1990. Asymmetric competition in plant populations. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 5: 360–364.
Weiner J., Wright D.B. and Castro S. 1997. Symmetry of belowground competition between Kochia scoparia individuals. Oikos 79: 85–91.
Wilson J.B. 1988a. The effect of initial advantage on the course of plant competition. Oikos 51: 19–24.
Wilson J.B. 1988b. Shoot competition and root competition. Journal of Applied Ecology 25: 279–296.
Zobel M. and Zobel K. 2002. Studying plant competition: from root biomass to general aims. Journal of Ecology 90: 578–580.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
von Wettberg, E.J., Weiner, J. Larger Triticum aestivum plants do not preempt nutrient-rich patches in a glasshouse experiment. Plant Ecology 169, 85–92 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026253007056
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026253007056