, Volume 147, Issue 2, pp 369–378

The interplay between shifts in biomass allocation and costs of reproduction in four grassland perennials under simulated successional change

Global Change Ecology


When perennial herbs face the risk of being outcompeted in the course of succession, they are hypothesized to either increase their biomass allocation to flowers and seeds or to invest more in vegetative growth. We tested these hypotheses in a 3-year garden experiment with four perennials (Hypochaeris radicata, Cirsium dissectum, Succisa pratensis and Centaurea jacea) by growing them in the midst of a tall tussock-forming grass (Molinia caerulea) that may successionally replace them in their natural habitat. In all species except for the short-lived H. radicata, costs of sexual reproduction were significant over the 3 years, since continuous bud removal enhanced total biomass or rosette number. To mimic succession we added nutrients, which resulted in a tripled grass biomass and higher death rates in the shorter-lived species. The simulated succession resulted also in a number of coupled growth responses in the survivors: enhanced plant size as well as elevated seed production. The latter was partly due to larger plant sizes, but mostly due to higher reproductive allocation, which in turn could be partly explained by lower relative somatic costs and by lower root–shoot ratios in the high-nutrient plots. Our results suggest that perennial plants can increase both their persistence and their colonization ability by simultaneously increasing their vegetative size and reproductive allocation in response to enhanced competition and nutrient influxes. These responses can be very important for the survival of a species in a metapopulation context.


Costs of reproduction Root–shoot ratio Sexual reproductive allocation Succession 

Supplementary material

442_2005_325_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (105 kb)
Supplementary material


  1. Abrahamson WG (1980) Demography and vegetative reproduction. In: Solbrig OT (ed) Demography and evolution in plant populations. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 89–106Google Scholar
  2. Adams AW (1955) Succisa pratensis Moench. (Scabiosa succisa L.). J Ecol 43:709–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aerts R, Berendse F, de Caluwe H, Schmitz M (1990) Competition in heathland along an experimental gradient of nutrient availability. Oikos 57:310–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ågren J, Willson MF (1994) Cost of seed production in the perennial herbs Geranium maculatum and G. sylvaticum: an experimental field study. Oikos 70:35–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Avila-Sakar G, Krupnick GA, Stephenson AG (2001) Growth and resource allocation in Cucurbita pepo ssp. texana: effects of fruit removal. Int J Plant Sci 162:1089–1095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berendse F, Aerts R (1984) Competition between Erica tetralix L. and Molinia caerulea (L.) Moench as affected by the availability of nutrients. Acta Oecol Oecol Plant 5:3–14Google Scholar
  7. Berendse F, Elberse WT, Geerts RHEM (1992) Competition and nitrogen loss from plants in grassland ecosystems. Ecology 73:46–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berendse F, Oudhof F, Bol J (1987) A comparative study on nutrient cycling in wet heathland ecosystems; litter production and nutrient losses from the plant. Oecologia 74:174–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Billeter R, Hooftman DAP, Diemer M (2003) Differential and reversible responses of common fen meadow species to abandonment. Appl Veg Sci 6:3–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bobbink R, Hornung M, Roelofs JGM (1998) The effects of air-borne nitrogen pollutants on species diversity in natural and semi-natural European vegetation. J Ecol 86:717–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crawley MJ (1997) Plant ecology. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. de Kroon H, Bobbink R (1997) Clonal plant dominance under elevated nitrogen deposition, with special reference to Brachypodium pinnatum in chalk grassland. In: de Kroon H, van Groenendael J (eds) The ecology and evolution of clonal plants. Backhuys, Leiden, pp 359–379Google Scholar
  13. de Kroon H, Plaisier A, van Groenendael JM (1987) Density dependent simulation of the population dynamics of a perennial grassland species, Hypochaeris radicata. Oikos 50:3–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ehrlén J, van Groenendael J (2001) Storage and the delayed costs of reproduction in the understorey perennial Lathyrus vernus. J Ecol 89:237–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ellner SP, Fussmann G (2003) Effects of successional dynamics on metapopulation persistence. Ecology 84:882–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eriksson O (1996) Regional dynamics of plants: a review of evidence for remnant, source-sink and metapopulations. Oikos 77:248–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Falinska K (1991) Plant demography in vegetation succession. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  18. Gamborg O, Wetter L (1975) Plant tissue culture methods. National Research Council Canada, SaskatoonGoogle Scholar
  19. Gardner SN, Mangel M (1999) Modeling investments in seeds, clonal offspring, and translocation in a clonal plant. Ecology 80:1202–1220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hartemink N, Jongejans E, de Kroon H (2004) Flexible life history responses to flower and rosette bud removal in three perennial herbs. Oikos 105:159–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huber H, Wiggerman L (1997) Shade avoidance in the clonal herb Trifolium fragiferum: a field study with experimentally manipulated vegetation height. Plant Ecol 130:53–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnson MP (2000) The influence of patch demographics on metapopulations, with particular reference to successional landscapes. Oikos 88:67–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jongejans E, de Kroon H (2005) Space versus time variation in the population dynamics of three co-occurring perennial herbs. J Ecol 93:681–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jongejans E, Soons MB, de Kroon H (2006) Bottlenecks and spatiotemporal variation in the sexual reproduction pathway of perennial meadow plants. Basic Appl Ecol doi:10.1016/j.baae.2005.04.004Google Scholar
  25. Kupferschmid AD, Stampfli A, Newbery DM (2000) Dispersal and microsite limitation in an abandoned calcareous grassland of the southern prealps. Folia Geobot 35:125–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Loehle C (1987) Partitioning of reproductive effort in clonal plants: a benefit-cost model. Oikos 49:199–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lucassen ECHET, Bobbink R, Smolders AJP, van der Ven PJM, Lamers LPM, Roelofs JGM (2003) Interactive effects of low pH and high ammonium levels responsible for the decline of Cirsium dissectum (L.) Hill. Plant Ecol 165:45–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Méndez M, Obeso JR (1993) Size-dependent reproductive and vegetative allocation in Arum italicum (Araceae). Can J Bot 71:309–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Müller I, Schmid B, Weiner J (2000) The effects of nutrient availability on biomass allocation patterns in 27 species of herbaceous plants. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 3:115–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Obeso JR (2002) The costs of reproduction in plants. New Phytol 155:321–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ogden J (1974) The reproductive strategy of higher plants. II. The reproductive strategy of Tussilago farfara L. J Ecol 62:291–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Olejniczak P (2003) Optimal allocation to vegetative and sexual reproduction in plants: the effect of ramet density. Evol Ecol 17:265–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Poorter H, Nagel O (2000) The role of biomass allocation in the growth response of plants to different levels of light, CO2, nutrients and water: a quantitative review. Aust J Plant Physiol 27:595–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Primack R, Stacy E (1998) Cost of reproduction in the pink lady’s slipper orchid, (Cypripedium acaule, Orchidaceae): an eleven-year experimental study of three populations. Am J Bot 85:1672–1679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Reekie EG (1991) Cost of seed versus rhizome production in Agropyron repens. Can J Bot 69:2678–2683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Reznick D, Nunney L, Tessier A (2000) Big houses, big cars, superfleas and the costs of reproduction. Trends Ecol Evol 15:421–425CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Roem WJ, Berendse F (2000) Soil acidity and nutrient supply ratio as possible factors determining changes in plant species diversity in grassland and heathland communities. Biol Conserv 92:151–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ronce O, Brachet S, Olivieri I, Gouyon PH, Clobert J (2005) Plastic changes in seed dispersal along ecological succession: theoretical predictions from an evolutionary model. J Ecol 93:431–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Saikkonen K, Koivunen S, Vuorisalo T, Mutikainen P (1998) Interactive effects of pollination and heavy metals on resource allocation in Potentilla anserina L. Ecology 79:1620–1629Google Scholar
  40. Sakai S (1995) Optimal resource allocation to vegetative and sexual reproduction of a plant growing in a spatially varying environment. J Theor Biol 175:271–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Soons MB, Heil GW (2002) Reduced colonization capacity in fragmented populations of wind-dispersed grassland forbs. J Ecol 90:1033–1043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Soons MB, Messelink JH, Jongejans E, Heil GW (2005) Habitat fragmentation reduces grassland connectivity for short-distance and long-distance wind-dispersed forbs. J Ecol 93:1214–1225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sugiyama S, Bazzaz FA (1998) Size dependence of reproductive allocation: the influence of resource availability, competition and genetic identity. Funct Ecol 12:280–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Taylor K, Rowland AP, Jones HE (2001) Molinia caerulea (L.) Moench. J Ecol 89:126–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tilman D (1987) Secondary succession and the pattern of plant dominance along experimental nitrogen gradients. Ecol Monogr 57:189–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tuomi J, Hakala T, Haukioja E (1983) Alternative concepts of reproductive effort, costs of reproduction, and selection in life-history evolution. Am Zool 23:25–34Google Scholar
  47. van der Hoek D, van Mierlo AJEM, van Groenendael JM (2004) Nutrient limitation and nutrient-driven shifts in plant species composition in a species-rich fen meadow. J Veg Sci 15:387–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. van der Krift TAJ, Berendse F (2002) Root life spans of four grass species from habitats differing in nutrient availability. Funct Ecol 16:198–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. van der Meijden R (1996) Heukels’ flora van Nederland, 22nd edn. Wolters-Noordhoff, GroningenGoogle Scholar
  50. van Oene H, Berendse F, de Kovel CGF (1999) Model analysis of the effects of historic CO2 levels and nitrogen inputs on vegetation succession. Ecol Appl 9:920–935Google Scholar
  51. Van Zandt PA, Tobler MA, Mouton E, Hasenstein KH, Mopper S (2003) Positive and negative consequences of salinity stress for the growth and reproduction of the clonal plant, Iris hexagona. J Ecol 91:837–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Weiner J (2004) Allocation, plasticity and allometry in plants. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 6:207–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zar JH (1996) Biostatistical analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eelke Jongejans
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Hans de Kroon
    • 2
  • Frank Berendse
    • 1
  1. 1.Nature Conservation and Plant Ecology GroupWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of EcologyRadboud University NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Biology and IGDP in EcologyPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations