Oecologia

, Volume 33, Issue 3, pp 361–380 | Cite as

Competition between grassland plants of different initial sizes

  • D. McC. Newbery
  • E. I. Newman
Article

Summary

Four species of grassland plant, Plantago lanceolata, Holcus lanatus, Lolium perenne and Rumex acetosa, were grown as monocultures and mixtures in pots of nutrient poor soil in a glasshouse for 8 months. There were four plants per pot and these were arranged in two competition modes: either root and shoot interactions were permitted, or only roots allowed to interact by using above-ground partitions. Time of introduction of seedlings was varied to give a range of plant size ratios at the start of the experiment. The factorial design catered for all combinations of species, competition modes and planting times, replicated in four blocks. The shoots were clipped at a fixed height at each of five harvests. Rumex grew badly and was mostly omitted from analysis of the data.

By (i) following the change in the relationship of clip dry weights against planting time with successive harvests, (ii) plotting the change in the logarithm of the ratio of cumulative clip dry weights with time and (iii) the use of de Wit logarithmic ratio plots it was demonstrated that each monoculture and mixture combination's ratios of plant weights converged towards stable equilibrium values. Three hypotheses are put forward to explain why in monocultures a smaller plant was at a competitive advantage relative to a larger neighbour and was not suppressed in its growth by the latter. In mixtures this plant size effect was superimposed to different extents on the relative aggressiveness of the species considered. It was concluded that in a nutrient poor soil, when competition for light was low, root interactions can promote the co-existence of neighbouring plant species.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andrews, R.E., Newman, E.I.: Root density and competition for nutrients. Oecol. Plant 5, 319–334 (1970)Google Scholar
  2. Asher, C.J., Loneragan, J.F.: Response of plants to phosphate concentration in solution cultures. I. Growth and phosphorus content. Soil Sci. 103, 225–233 (1967)Google Scholar
  3. Atkinson, D.: Some general effects of phosphorus deficiency on growth and development. New Phytol. 72, 101–111 (1973)Google Scholar
  4. Bergh, J.B. van den: An analysis of yields of grasses in mixed and pure stands. Versl. Landbouwk. Onderz. Ned. 714, 1–71 (1968)Google Scholar
  5. Black J.N.: Competition between plants of different initial seed sizes in swards of subterranean clover (Trifolium subterraneum L.) with particular reference to leaf area and light microclimate. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 9, 299–318 (1958)Google Scholar
  6. Eagles, C.F.: Competition for light and nutrients between natural populations of Dactylis glomerata. J. Appl. Ecol. 9, 141–151 (1972)Google Scholar
  7. Ford, E.D.: Competition and stand structure in some even aged monocultures. J. Ecol. 63, 311–333 (1975)Google Scholar
  8. Campbell, R., Rovira, A.: The study of the rhizosphere by scanning electron microscopy. Soil Biol. Biochem. 5, 747–752 (1973)Google Scholar
  9. Donald, C.M.: The interaction of competition for light and for nutrients. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 9, 421–435 (1958)Google Scholar
  10. Grime, J.P.: Competitive exclusion in herbaceous vegetation. Nature (Lond.) 242, 344–347 (1973)Google Scholar
  11. Harper, J.L.: Approaches to the study of plant competition. In: Mechanisms in biological competition. Symp. Soc. Exptl. Biol. 15, 1–39 (1961)Google Scholar
  12. Harper, J.L.: The nature and consequence of interference among plants. Proc. XI. Int. Congr. of Genetics, The Hague, Vol. 2, pp. 465–482. Oxford: Pergamon Press 1965Google Scholar
  13. Harper, J.L.: A Darwinian approach to plant ecology. J. Ecol. 55, 247–270 (1967)Google Scholar
  14. Hewitt, E.J.: Sand and water culture methods used in the study of plant nutrition. Tech. Communication No. 22 of Commonwealth Bureau of Horticulture and Plantation Crops (E. Malling), Maidstone, Kent (1952)Google Scholar
  15. King, J.: Competition between established and newly sown grass species. J. Br. Grassld. Soc. 26, 221–229 (1971)Google Scholar
  16. McGilchrist, C.A., Trenbath, B.R.: A revised analysis of plant competition experiments. Biometrics 27, 659–671 (1971)Google Scholar
  17. Naylor, R.E.L.: Changes in the structure of plant populations. J. Appl. Ecol. 13, 513–521 (1976)Google Scholar
  18. Newbery, D. McC.: Allelopathic and competitive interactions among some plants common in neutral grassland. Ph.D. thesis, University of Bristol (1976)Google Scholar
  19. Newman, E.I.: Competition and diversity in herbaceous vegetation. Nature (Lond.) 244, 310 (1973)Google Scholar
  20. Newman, E.I., Rovira, A.: Allelopathy among some British grassland species. J. Ecol. 63, 727–737 (1975)Google Scholar
  21. O'Neill, J.V., Webb, R.A.: Simultaneous determination of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium in plant material by automatic methods. J. Sci. Fd. Agric. 21, 217–219 (1970)Google Scholar
  22. Ozanne, P.G., Keay, S., Biddiscombe, E.F. The comparative applied phosphate requirements of eight annual pasture species. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 20, 809–818 (1969)Google Scholar
  23. Rhodes, I.: The growth and development of some grass species under competitive stress. III. The nature of competitive stress and characters associated with competitive ability during seedling growth. J. Br. Grassld. Soc. 23, 330–335 (1968)Google Scholar
  24. Ross, M.A., Harper, J.L.: Occupation of biological space during seedling establishment. J. Ecol. 60, 77–88 (1972)Google Scholar
  25. Siegel, S.: Non-parametric statistics for behavioural sciences, 312 pp. Tokyo: McGraw Hill, Kogakusha 1956Google Scholar
  26. Wilson, J.B.: Nutritive and competitive relations between upland grasses. Ph.D. thesis. Univ. of Wales (1970)Google Scholar
  27. Wit, C.T. de: On competition. Versl. Landbouwk, Onderz, Ned. 66, 1–82 (1960)Google Scholar
  28. Wit, C.T. de, Bergh, J.P. van den: Competition between herbage plants. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 13, 212–221 (1965)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. McC. Newbery
    • 1
  • E. I. Newman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BotanyThe UniversityBristolUK

Personalised recommendations