, Volume 79, Issue 4, pp 533–541 | Cite as

Competition for soil water between annual plants and blue oak (Quercus douglasii) seedlings

  • D. R. Gordon
  • J. M. Menke
  • K. J. Rice
Original Papers


We examined the competitive effects of two annual species on soil water potential and blue oak (Quercus douglasii Hook & Arn.) seedling growth and water relations. Two densities of the annual grass Bromus diandrus (Roth.) (100/dm2, 3.6/dm2) and one density of the annual forb Erodium botrys (Cav.) (3.6/dm2) comprised plant neighborhoods around the oak seedlings grown in 1 m deep boxes. Rates of soil water depletion differed among neighborhoods. Soil in the Erodium neighborhoods dried significantly more slowly than did soil in the Bromus neighborhoods at either density. Differences in the rates of soil water depletion were correlated both with the 30% lower root biomass developed by Erodium, and the lower water extraction rates of Erodium relative to Bromus roots at constant root biomass. These results suggest that the annual species are not equivalent competitors for water: fibrous grass roots had greater competitive effect than did forb tap-roots. In a control container without an annual neighborhood, soil water potentials remained high for the duration of the experiment. Oak seedling emergence and growth responses were significantly affected by annual plant density. High density of annual plants suppressed oak root growth and shoot emergence. Only 20% of the acorns planted in high density Bromus neighborhoods showed aboveground shoot growth; 56% of those planted in low density Bromus or Erodium emerged. Ninety percent emerged in the control box. Relative growth rates of oak seedling roots and shoots were directly dependent on soil water potentials. Soil water was also closely correlated with oak seedling predawn water potentials and gas conductance measurements. Higher soil water potentials greater dry weights, and longer growing seasons were found for oak seedlings in the Erodium neighborhood and the container with no annuals than in Bromus neighborhoods of either density. These results suggest that competition for soil water with introduced annual species contributes to the increased rate of blue oak seedling mortality currently observed in California woodland systems.

Key words

Neighborhood competition Quercus douglasii Root morphology Soil water potential Plant water relations 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baker GA, Rundel PW, Parsons DJ (1981) Ecological relationships of Quercus douglasii (Fagaceae) in the foothill zone of Sequoia National Park, California. Madrono 28:1–12Google Scholar
  2. Bartolome JW, Klukkert SE, Barry WJ (1986) Oral phytoliths as evidence for displacement of native California grassland. Madrono 33:217–222Google Scholar
  3. Berendse F (1981) Competition between plant populations with different rooting depths: II. Pot experiments. Oecologia 48:334–341Google Scholar
  4. Biswell HH (1956) Ecology of California grasslands. J Range Manage 9:19–24Google Scholar
  5. Bliss D, Smith H (1985) Penetration of light into soil and its role in the control of seed germination. Plant Cell Environm 8:475–483Google Scholar
  6. Bolsinger CL (1986) The hardwoods of California timberlands, woodlands and savannas. USDA Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Expt Stn General Tech Rept. Review draftGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonner FT, Vozzo JA (1987) Seed biology and technology of Quercus. USDA Forest Service Southern Forest Expt Stn General Tech Tept 50-66. New Orleans, LouisianaGoogle Scholar
  8. Burcham LT (1957) California range land — An historico-ecological study of the range resource of California. Div. Forestry, Sacramento, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  9. Calabuig EL, Gago Gamallo ML, Gutierrez JM (1980) Influencia de la encina (Quercus rotodifolia Lam.) en la distribution de agua de lluvia. Anuaria Cent Edaf Biol Apl Salamanca 4:143–159Google Scholar
  10. Caldwell MM (1987) Competition between root systems in natural communities. In: Gregory PJ, Lake JV, Rose DA (eds) Root Development and Function. Society for Experimental Biology Seminar Series 30. Cambridge University Press, Great Britain, pp 167–185Google Scholar
  11. Caldwell MM, Richards JH (1986) Competing root systems: morphology and models of absorption. In: Givnish TJ (ed) On the Economy of Plant Form and Function. Cambridge University Press, Great Britain, pp 251–273Google Scholar
  12. Da Silva PG, Bartolome JW (1984) Interaction between a shrub, Baccharis pilularis subsp. consanguinea (Asteraceae) and an annual grass, Bromus mollis (Poaceae), in coastal California. Madrono 31:93–101Google Scholar
  13. Davis SD, Mooney HA (1986) Water use patterns of four cooccurring chaparral shrubs. Oecologia 70:172–177Google Scholar
  14. Elliott KJ, White AS (1987) Competitive effects of various grasses and forbs on ponderosa pine seedlings. For Sci 33:356–366Google Scholar
  15. Firbank LG, Watkinson AR (1987) On the analysis of competition at the level of the individual plant. Oecologia 71:308–317Google Scholar
  16. Flower DL, Ludlow MM (1986) Contribution of osmotic adjustment to the dehydration tolerance of water stressed pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan (L.) millspp.) leaves. Plant Cell Environm 9:33–40Google Scholar
  17. Fowler N (1986) The role of competition in plant communities in arid and semi-arid regions. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 17:89–110Google Scholar
  18. Freund RJ, Littell RC, Spector PC (1986) SAS System, for Linear Models. SAS Institute, Inc. Cary, North CarolinaGoogle Scholar
  19. Gardner WR (1960) Dynamic aspects of water availability to plants. Soil Sci 89:63–73Google Scholar
  20. Gerakis PA, Guerrero FP, Williams WA (1975) Growth, water relations, and nutrition of three grassland annuals as affected by drought. J Appl Ecol 12:125–135Google Scholar
  21. Goldberg DE (1987) Neighborhood competition in an old-field plant community. Ecology 68:1211–1223Google Scholar
  22. Goldberg DE, Fleetwood L (1987) Competitive effect and response in four annual plants. J Ecol 75:1131–1143Google Scholar
  23. Goldberg DE, Werner PA (1983) Equivalence of competitors in plant communities: a null hypothesis and a field experimental approach. Am J Bot 70:1098–1104Google Scholar
  24. Griffin JR (1971) Oak regeneration in the upper Carmel Valley, California. Ecology 52:862–868Google Scholar
  25. Griffin JR (1973) Xylem sap tension in three woodland oaks of central California. Ecology 54:152–159Google Scholar
  26. Griffin JR (1976) Regeneration in Quercus lobata savannas, Santa Lucia Mountains, California. Am Midl Nat 95:422–435Google Scholar
  27. Gulmon SL, Chiariello NR, Mooney HA, Chu CC (1983) Phenology and resource use in three co-occurring grassland annuals. Oecologia 58:33–42Google Scholar
  28. Harper JL (1977) Population Biology of Plants. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Heady HF (1958) Vegetational changes in the California annual type. Ecology 39:402–416Google Scholar
  30. Heywood JS, Levin DA (1986) Interactions between seed source, planting arragement, and soil, treatment in determining plant size and root allocation in Phlox drummondii. Oecologia 68:285–290Google Scholar
  31. Hunt ER Jr, Nobel PS (1987) A two-dimensional model for water uptake by desert succulents: implications of root distribution. Ann Bot 59:559–570Google Scholar
  32. Jackson LE, Roy J (1986) Growth patterns of mediterranean annual and perennial grasses under simulated rainfall regimes of southern France and California. Oecol Plant 7:191–212Google Scholar
  33. Jackson LE, Strauss RB, Firestone MK, Bartolome JW (1988) Plant and soil nitrogen dynamics in California annual grassland. Plant Soil 110:9–17Google Scholar
  34. Mack RN, Harper JL (1977) Interference in dune annuals: spatial pattern and neighborhood effects. J Ecol 65:345–363Google Scholar
  35. Matsuda K, McBride JR (1986) Difference in seedling growth morphology as a factor in the distribution of three oaks in central California. Madrono 33:207–216Google Scholar
  36. Matthews MA, Boyer JS (1984) Acclimation of photosynthesis to low leaf water potentials. Plant Physiol 74:161–166Google Scholar
  37. McClaren, MP (1986) Age structure of Quercus douglasii in relation to livestock grazing and fire. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  38. McCown RL, Williams WA (1968) Competition for nutrients and light between the annual grassland species Bromus mollis and Erodium botrys. Ecology 49:981–990Google Scholar
  39. Miller TE, Werner PA (1987) Competitive effects and responses between plant species in a first-year old-field community. Ecology 68:1201–1210Google Scholar
  40. Momen B (1988) Water relations of blue oak (Quercus douglasii) and interior live oak (Q. wislizenii) Masters Thesis, University of California, DavisGoogle Scholar
  41. Muick P, Bartolome JW (1986) Oak regeneration on California's hardwood rangelands. Trans West Sec Wildl Soc 22:121–125Google Scholar
  42. Novak V (1987) Estimation of soil-water extraction patterns by roots. Agr Water Manage 12:271–278Google Scholar
  43. Osonubi O, Davies WJ (1981) Root growth and water relations of oak and birch seedlings. Oecologia 51:343–350Google Scholar
  44. Pearson RW (1974) Significance of rooting pattern to crop production and some problems of root research. In: Carson EW (ed) The Plant Root and its Environment. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, pp 247–270Google Scholar
  45. Robberecht R, Mahall BE, Nobel PS (1983) Experimental removal of intraspecific competitors-effects on water relations and productivity of a desert bunchgrass, Hilaria rigida. Oecologia 60:21–24Google Scholar
  46. Roberts, SW, Knoerr KR (1977) Components of water potential estimated from xylem pressure measurements in five tree species. Oecologia 28:219–202Google Scholar
  47. Saenz L, Sawyer JO Jr (1986) Grasslands as compared to adjacent Quercus garryana woodland understories exposed to different grazing regimes. Madrono 33:40–46Google Scholar
  48. Savelle GD (1977) Comparative, structure and function in a California, annual and native bunchgrass community. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  49. Schultz AM, Biswell HH (1952) Competition between grasses reseeded on burned brushlands in California. J Range Manage 5:338–345Google Scholar
  50. Schultz AM, Launchbaugh JL, Biswell HH (1955) Relationship between grass density and brush seedling survival. Ecology 36:226–238Google Scholar
  51. U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (1978) Climate of California. Climatography of the United States No. 60. National Climatic Center, North CarolinaGoogle Scholar
  52. Weiner J (1982) A neighborhood model of, annual plant interference. Ecology 63:1237–1241Google Scholar
  53. Weldon CW, Slauson WL (1986) The intensity of competition versus its importance: an overlooked distinction and some implications. Quart Rev Biol 61:23–44Google Scholar
  54. Welker, JM, Menke JW (1987) Quercus douglasii seedling water relations in mesic and grazing-induced xeric environments. Proc International Conference on Measurement of Soil and Plant Water Status, Vol. 2. Plants. July 6–10, 1987. Utah State University Logan, pp 229–234Google Scholar
  55. White KL (1966) Structure and composition of foothill woodland in central coastal California. Ecology 47:229–237Google Scholar
  56. White KL (1967) Native bunchgrass (Stipa pulchra) on Hastings Reservation, California. Ecology 48:949–955Google Scholar
  57. Williams K, Hobbs RJ, Hamburg SP (1987) Invasion of an annual grassland in northern California by Baccharis pilularis ssp. consanguinea. Oecologia 72:461–465Google Scholar
  58. Wraith JM, Johnson DA, Hanks RJ, Sisson DV (1987) Soil and plant water relations in a crested, wheatgrass pasture: response to spring grazing by cattle. Oecologia 73:573–578Google Scholar
  59. Yeaton RI, Travis J, Gilinsky E (1977) Competition and spacing in plant communities: the Arizona upland association. J Ecol 65:587–595Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. R. Gordon
    • 1
  • J. M. Menke
    • 1
  • K. J. Rice
    • 1
  1. 1.Graduate Group in Ecology and Department of Agronomy and Range ScineceUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations