Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

On the use of response models in mixture experiments

Summary

Methods for assessing mixtures and their dynamic interaction over time are proposed, based on response functions relating biomass yield of each species to the densities of the component species. This approach allows a number of different facets of mixtures to be studied in a common framework. Two examples are given. Substitution rates between species and perceived densities for individuals in mixture are defined. These measure the impact of their environment on individuals. The relative resource total (RRT), is suggested as an index of whether species are capturing the same resource amount in mixture as in pure stand. Two indices of the comparative performance of species over time are proposed. The two examples, one with cattle and sheep and the other a plant mixture diallel with 6 genotypes illustrate the use of the methods. In the animal example the maximum yield mixture was calculated, the species perceptions of each other assessed and it is shown that mixing increased the resource capture by up to 17%. In general, the smaller species performed relatively better in mixture over the experimental period. In the plant example, individual plant size varied considerably over genotypes and this was reflected in their perceptions of each other, but not in their pure stand or mixed crop yield potential. Most genotype pairs showed antagonistic behaviour, whether measured by crop yield potential or by the index of resource capture. These conclusions are contrasted with those from an analysis of the data using substitutive methods.

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

References

  1. Blackman VH (1919) The compound interest law and plant growth. Annals of Botany. XXXIII. No CXXXI, 353–360

  2. Connolly J (1980) Some experimental and statistical methods and problems in competition studies. Proc Workshop on Mixed Grazing, Galway, p 164–180. Published by An Foras Taluntais, 19 Sandymout Ave, Dublin 4, Ireland

  3. Connolly J (1986a) On difficulties with replacement series methodology in mixture experiments. J Appl Ecol 23:125–137

  4. Connolly J (1986b) Importance and measurement of mixture effects in grazing systems. In: Gudmundsson O (ed) Proc Grazing research at northern latitudes. Plenum Press, 323–333

  5. Connolly J, Nolan T (1976) Design and analysis of mixed grazing experiments. Anim Prod 23:63–71

  6. Donald CM (1963) Competition among crop and pasture plants. Adv in Agron 15:1–118

  7. Firbank LG, Watkinson AR (1985) On the analysis of competition within two-species mixtures of plants. J Appl Ecol 22:503–517

  8. Huxley PA, Maingu Z (1978) Use of a systematic spacing design as an aid to the study of intercropping: Some general considerations. Expl Agric 14:49–56

  9. Inouye RS, Schaffer WM (1981) On the ecological meaning of ratio (de Wit) diagrams in plant ecology. Ecology 62(6):1679–1681

  10. Joliffe PA, Minjas AN, Runeckles VC (1984) A reinterpretation of yield relationships in replacement series experiments. J Appl Ecol 21:227–243

  11. Maynard Smith J (1974) Models in ecology. Cambridge University Press, pp 146

  12. Mead R, Willey RW (1980) The concept of a ‘Land Equivalent Ratio’ and advantage in yields from intercropping. Expl Agric 16:217–228

  13. Milthorpe FL (1961) The nature and analysis of competition between plants of different species. In: Milthorpe FL (ed) Mechanisms in biological competition. Soc Exp Biol 15:330–355

  14. Nelder JA, Wedderburn RWM (1972) Generalised linear models. JRSS (A) 135:370–384

  15. Norrington-Davies J, Hutto JM (1972) Diallel analysis of competition between diploid and tetraploid genotypes of Secale cereale grown at two densities. J Agric Sci Camb 78:251–256

  16. Nunney L (1980) Density compensation, isocline shape and single level competition models. J Theor Biol 86:323–349

  17. Spitters CJT (1983a) An alternative approach to the analysis of mixed cropping experiments. 1. Estimation of competition effects. Neth J Agric Sci 31:1–11

  18. Spitters CJT (1983b) An alternative approach to the analysis of mixed cropping experiments. 2. Marketable yield. Neth J Agric Sci 31:143–155

  19. Suehiro K, Ogawa H (1980) Competition between two annual herbs, Atriplex gmelini CA Mey and Chenopodium album L, in mixed cultures irrigated with seawater of various concentrations. Oecologia (Berlin) 45:167–177

  20. Trenbath BR (1978) Models and interpretation of mixture experiments. Plant Relations Past, 145–162

  21. Wit CT, de Van den Bergh JP (1965) Competition between herbage plants. Neth J Agric Sci 13:212–221

  22. Wright AJ (1981) The analysis of yield-density relationships in binary mixtures using inverse polynomials. J Agric Sci Camb 96:561–567

Download references

Author information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Connolly, J. On the use of response models in mixture experiments. Oecologia 72, 95–103 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00385051

Download citation

Key words

  • Models
  • Bromass
  • Competition
  • Density
  • Resource use