Abstract
The quantitative response of yield to density in plant populations has been an important focus of both theoretical research and empirical research. Most studies on yield–density effects have focused mainly on aboveground plant parts, and rarely on various plant organs and belowground parts. We tested the hypothesis that yield-density effects of belowground parts are different from those for aboveground parts. Bulbs of Allium cepa var. aggregatum were sown at five densities at the Pasture Ecology Research Station, western Jilin Province, China. We harvested populations at four different points in time and analyzed yield–density relationships of above- versus belowground parts and component organs. A hyperbolic model provided a very good fit to above- and belowground biomass, as well as the biomass of specific organs throughout the experiment. Aboveground and leaf biomass achieved constant final yield, but stand stem and root biomass increased monotonically with increasing sowing density. Belowground and specifically bulb yield was highest at intermediate densities at the later harvests. Constant final yield may be widely applicable to total biomass production by a population, but it does not apply to specific organs, such as stems, roots, or bulbs. Asymptotic leaf biomass reached its asymptote earlier than that of other aboveground parts. The effect of density on A. cepa var. aggregatum organs is a consequence of allocation of photosynthate to different organs in response to competition. Yield–density effects are different above- and belowground as a result of the different mechanisms of competition, constrained by the functional relationship between above- and belowground organs.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bagchi R, Winfield T, Gallery RE, Lewis OT, Gipenger S, Narayan L, Freckleton RP (2010) Testing the Janzen-Connell mechanism: pathogens causes overcompensating density dependence in a tropical tree. Ecol Lett 13:1262–1269. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01520.x
Bleasdale JKA (1966) The effects of plant spacing on the yield of bulb onion (Allium cepa L.) grown from seed. J Hortic Sci 41:145–153. doi:10.1080/00221589.1966.11514163
Bleasdale JKA, Nelder JA (1960) Plant population and crop yield. Nature 188:342. doi:10.1038/186022b0
Bleasdale JKA, Thompson R (1966) The effects of plant density and the pattern of plant arrangement on the yield of parsnips. J Agric Sci 41:371–378. doi:10.1080/00221589.1966.11514183
Cahill JF (1999) Fertilization effects on interactions between above- and belowground competition in an old field. Ecology 80:466–480. doi:10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080
Casper BB, Jackson RB (1997) Plant competition underground. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 28:545–570
Casper BB, Cahill JF, Hyat LA (1998) Above-ground competition does not alter biomass allocated to roots in Abutilon theophrasti. New Phytol 140:231–238. doi:10.1046/j.1469-8137.1998.00271.x
Chu CJ, Maestre FT, Xiao S, Weiner J, Wang YS, Duan ZH, Wang G (2008) Balance between facilitation and resource competition determines biomass–density relationships in plant populations. Ecol Lett 11:1189–1197. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01228.x
Deshar R, Sharma S, Mouctar K, Wu M, Hoque ATMR, Hagihara A (2012) Self-thinning exponents for partial organs in overcrowded mangrove Bruguiera gymnorrhiza stands on Okinawa Island, Japan. For Ecol Manag 278:146–154. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2012.05.007
Donald CM (1951) Competition among pasture plants. I. Intraspecific competition among annual pasture plants. Aust J Agric Res 2(4):355–376. doi:10.1071/AR9510355
Fibich P, Lepš J, Weiner J (2014) Individual variability and mortality required for constant final yield in simulated plant populations. Theor Ecol 7:263–271. doi:10.1007/s12080-014-0216-x
Gersani M, Abramsky Z, Falik O (1998) Density-dependent habitat selection in plants. Evol Ecol 12:223–234. doi:10.1023/A:1006587813950
Hodge A (2004) The plastic plant: root responses to heterogeneous supplies of nutrients. New Phytol 162:9–24. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01015.x
Holliday RJ (1960) Plant population and crop yield. Nature 186:22–24. doi:10.1038/186022b0
Hutchings MJ, Budd CS (1981) Plant self-thinning and leaf area dynamics in experimental and natural monocultures. Oikos 36:319–325. doi:10.2307/3544629
Kelley CT (1999) Iterative methods for optimization, vol 18. Siam, Philadelphia
Kristensen L, Olsen J, Weiner J (2008) Crop density, sowing pattern and nitrogen fertilization effects on weed suppression and yield in spring wheat. Weed Sci 56:97–102. doi:10.1614/WS-07-065.1
Li B, Watkinson AR, Hara T (1996) Dynamics of competition in populations of carrot (Daucus carota). Ann Bot-London 78:203–214. doi:10.1006/anbo.1996.0114
Maliakal SK, McDonnell K, Dudley SA, Schmitt J (1999) Effects of red to far-red ratio and plant density on biomass allocation and gas exchange in Impatiens capensis. Int J Plant Sci 160:723–733. doi:10.1086/314157
McMahon TA (1973) Size and shape in biology. Science 179:1201–1204. doi:10.1126/science.179.4079.1201
McPhee CS, Aarssen LW (2001) The separation of above-and below- ground competition in plants: a review and critique of methodology. Plant Ecol 152:119–136. doi:10.1023/A:1011471719799
Mligo JK, Craufurd PQ (2007) Productivity and optimum plant density of pigeonpea in different environment in Tanzania. J Agric Sci 145:343–351. doi:10.1017/S0021859607006776
Ogawa K (2008) The leaf mass/number trade-off of Kleiman and Aarssen implies constancy of leaf biomass, its density and carbon uptake in forest stands: scaling up from shoot to stand level. J Ecol 96(1):188–191. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2745.2007.01311.x
Olesen B, Sand-Jensen K (1994) Biomass-density patterns in the temperate seagrass Zostera marina. Mar Ecol-Prog Ser 109:283–283. doi:10.3354/meps109283
Pretzsch H (2003) The elasticity of growth in pure and mixed stands of Norway spruce (Picea abies L. Karst.) and common beech (Fagus sylvatica L.). J For Sci 49:491–501
Rahman M, Hossain M, Bell RW (2011) Plant density effects on growth, yield and yield components of two soybean varieties under equidistant planting arrangement. Asian J Plant Sci 10:278–286. doi:10.3923/ajps.2011.278.286
Ramírez DA, Bellot J (2009) Linking population density and habitat structure to ecophysiological responses in semiarid Spanish steppes. Plant Ecol 200:191–204. doi:10.1007/s11258-008-9444-8
Rees AR, Turquand ED (1969) Effects of planting density on bulb yield in the tulip. J Appl Ecol 6:349–358. doi:10.2307/2401549
Rice EL (1984) Allelopathy. Academic Press, Orlando
Rumpel J, Felczynski K (2000) Effect of plant density on yield and bulb size of direct sown onions. Acta Hortic 533:179–186. doi:10.17660/ActaHortic.2000.533.22
Scaife MA, Jones D (1976) The relationship between crop yield (or mean plant weight) of lettuce and plant density, length of growing period, and initial plant weight. J Agric Sci 86:83–91. doi:10.1017/S002185960006500X
Shinozaki K, Kira T (1956) Intraspecific competition among higher plants VII. Logistic theory of the C-D effect. J Inst Polytechn Osaka City Univ Ser D 7:35–72
Shipley B, Meziane D (2002) The balanced-growth hypothesis and the allometry of leaf and root biomass allocation. Funct Ecol 16:326–331. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2435.2002.00626.x
Shirtliffe SJ, Johnston AM (2002) Yield-density relationships and optimum plant populations in two cultivars of solid-seeded dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) grown in Saskatchewan. Can J Plant Sci 82:521–529. doi:10.4141/P01-156
Stachová T, Fibich P, Lepš J (2013) Plant density affects measures of biodiversity effects. J Plant Ecol 6:1–11. doi:10.1093/jpe/rts015
Stoll P, Weiner J, Muller-Landau H, Müller E, Hara T (2002) Size symmetry of competition alters biomass–density relationships. Proc R Soc B-Biol Sci 269:2191–2195. doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.2137
Trumbore SE, Gaudinski JB (2003) The secret lives of roots. Science 302:1344–1345. doi:10.1126/science.1091841
Vandermeer J (1984) Plant competition and the yield–density relationship. J Theor Biol 109:393–399. doi:10.1016/S0022-5193(84)80088-0
Warne LGG (1951) Spacing experiments on vegetables: II. The effect of the thinning distance on the yields of globe beet, long beet, carrots and parsnips grown at a standard inter-row distance in Cheshire. J Hortic Sci 26(2):84–97. doi:10.1080/00221589.1951.11513728
Watkinson AR (1980) Density-dependence in single-species populations of plants. J Theor Biol 83:345–357. doi:10.1016/0022-5193(80)90297-0
Watkinson AR (1984) Yield-density relationships: the influence of resource availability on growth and self-thinning in populations of Vulpia fasciculata. Ann Bot-London 53:469–482
Weiner J, Freckleton RP (2010) Constant final yield. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 41:173–192. doi:10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102209-144642
Weiner J, Wright DB, Castro S (1997) Symmetry of below-ground competition between Kochia scoparia individuals. Oikos 79:85–91. doi:10.2307/3546093
Willey RW, Heath SB (1969) The quantitative relationships between plant population and crop yield. Adv Agron 21:281–321
Xue L, Hagihara A (2008) Density effects on organs in self-thinning Pinus densiflora Sieb. Et Zucc. stands. Ecol Res 23:689–695. doi:10.1007/s11284-007-0427-3
Yahuza I (2011) Yield-density equations and their application for agronomic research: a review. Int J Biosci 1:1–17
Acknowledgments
We thank Wisdom Sohunago Japhet for useful comments on the manuscript. This work was financed by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Number 31400403), China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (Grant Number 2015M571484), and the Danish Research Council (DFF – 4181-00064).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by Lori Biederman.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Li, L., Weiner, J., Wang, Y. et al. Yield–density relationships of above- and belowground organs in Allium cepa var. aggregatum populations. Plant Ecol 217, 913–922 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-016-0616-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-016-0616-7