Plant and Soil

, Volume 391, Issue 1–2, pp 283–291 | Cite as

Should I stay or should I go? Roots segregate in response to competition intensity

  • Christoph Schmid
  • Sibylle Bauer
  • Maik Bartelheimer
Regular Article

Abstract

Background and Aims

Root segregation has been observed in a variety of species. Though it is usually attributed to a plant’s attempt to avoid below ground competition, a direct correlation of root distribution with the intensity of competition has never been shown.

Methods

The test species Hieracium pilosella L. was exposed to a gradient of competitive pressure using the closely related species Arabidopsis petraea (L.) V.I.DOROF., Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh ., Capsella rubella Reut . and Cardamine hirsuta L. as neighbouring plants. Horizontal root distribution was quantified using a soil monolith method.

Results

The neighbour species could be ranked according to their competitive effect on the test species, identifying two weak (A. thaliana and A. petraea) and two strong competitors (C. hirsuta and C. rubella). The degree of root segregation correlated negatively with the competitive effect caused by the various neighbour species.

Conclusions

We conclude that root segregation is indeed a response to competitive pressure. Further factors such as root symbiotic relationships or root exuded allelochemicals are supposedly involved in the outcome of root interactions. We propose the use of screening experiments on root responses to various neighbours in order to quantify each factor’s relative influence on rooting patterns.

Keywords

Root segregation Root distribution Below ground competition Hieracium pilosella Monolith method Information integration 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank their colleagues at the Institute of Plant Sciences, University of Regensburg for support, especially Christoph Reisch for constructive comments on an earlier version of this paper. We would also like to thank two anonymous reviewers for constructive comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. Seeds were provided by the Botanical Garden of Regensburg, the LMU München, the University of Exeter, the PU Marburg and the MLU Halle-Wittenberg.

Supplementary material

11104_2015_2419_MOESM1_ESM.png (171 kb)
Fig. S1 Mean root biomass of H. pilosella in inner (grey) as compared to outer (white) monoliths. Error bars represent 95 % confidence intervals after adjustment for inter-plant variation. Robust effect sizes for each comparison are: 0.60 (control), −0.05 (A. thaliana), −0.28 (A. petraea), −0.72 (C. hirsuta) and −0.54 (C. rubella). “n.s.” stands for non-significant differences, whereas * depicts a significant difference on a 5 % level. (PNG 170 kb)
11104_2015_2419_MOESM2_ESM.png (152 kb)
Fig. S2 Mean root biomass of neighbour plants in inner (grey) as compared to outer (white) monoliths. Error bars represent 95 % confidence intervals after adjustment for inter-plant variation. Robust effect sizes for each comparison are: −0.13 (A. thaliana), 0.11 (A. petraea), 0.20 (C. hirsuta) and −0.22 (C. rubella). “n.s.” stands for non-significant differences. (PNG 151 kb)

References

  1. Aarssen L, Keogh T (2002) Conundrums of competitive ability in plants: what to measure? Oikos 96:531–542. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0706.2002.960314.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arredondo JT, Johnson DA (1999) Root architecture and biomass allocation of three range grasses in response to nonuniform supply of nutrients and shoot defoliation. New Phytol 143:373–385. doi: 10.1046/j.1469-8137.1999.00460.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Badri DV, De-la-Peña C, Lei Z, Manter DK, Chaparro JM, Guimarães RL, Sumner LW, Vivanco JM (2012) Root secreted metabolites and proteins are involved in the early events of plant-plant-recognition prior to competition. PLoS ONE 7:e46640. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0046640 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bais HP, Weir TL, Perry LG, Gilroy S, Vivanco JM (2006) The role of root exudates in rhizosphere interactions with plants and other organisms. Annu Rev Plant Biol 57:233–266. doi: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.57.032905.105159 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bartelheimer M, Steinlein T, Beyschlag W (2006) Aggregative root placement: a feature during interspecific competition in inland sand-dune habitats. Plant Soil 280:101–114. doi: 10.1007/s11104-005-2612-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bartelheimer M, Steinlein T, Beyschlag W (2008) 15N-nitrate-labelling demonstrates a size symmetric competitive effect on belowground resource uptake. Plant Ecol 199:243–253. doi: 10.1007/s11258-008-9429-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brisson J, Reynolds JF (1994) The effect of neighbors on root distribution in a creosotebush (Larrea tridentata) population. Ecology 75:1693–1702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Broeckling CD, Broz AK, Bergelson J, Manter DK, Vivanco JM (2008) Root exudates regulate soil fungal community composition and diversity. Appl Environ Microbiol 74:738–744. doi: 10.1128/AEM. 02188-07 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Caffaro M, Vivanco J, Botto J, Rubio G (2013) Root architecture of Arabidopsis is affected by competition with neighbouring plants. Plant Growth Regul 70:141–147. doi: 10.1007/s10725-013-9786-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cahill JF, McNickle GG, Haag JJ, Lamb EG, Nyanumba SM, St. Clair CC (2010) Plants integrate information about nutrients and neighbors. Science 328:1657. doi: 10.1126/science.1189736 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Casper BB, Cahill JF (2000) Investigating the relationship between neighbor root biomass and belowground competition: field evidence for symmetric competition belowground. Oikos 90:311–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Casper BB, Jackson RB (1997) Plant competition underground. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 28:545–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. R Core Team (2014) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/
  15. de Kroon H, Mommer L, Nishiwaki A (2003) Root competition: towards a mechanistic understanding In: de Kroon H, Visser EJ (ed), Root ecology, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  16. Del Re A (2013) compute.es: compute effect sizes. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/compute.es
  17. DeMars B, Boerner R (1996) Vesicular arbuscular mycorrhizal development in the Brassicaceae in relation to plant life span. FloraGoogle Scholar
  18. Dudley SA, File AL (2007) Kin recognition in an annual plant. Biol Lett 3:435–438. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2007.0232 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Eller F, Brix H (2012) Different genotypes of Phragmites australis show distinct phenotypic plasticity in response to nutrient availability and temperature. Aquat Bot 103:89–97. doi: 10.1016/j.aquabot.2012.07.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Falik O, Reides P, Gersani M, Novoplansky A (2003) Self/non-self discrimination in roots. J Ecol 91:525–531. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2745.2003.00795.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Falik O, Reides P, Gersani M, Novoplansky A (2005) Root navigation by self inhibition. Plant Cell Environ 28:562–569. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2005.01304.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Forde BG (2009) Is it good noise? The role of developmental instability in the shaping of a root system. J Exp Bot 60:3989–4002. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erp265 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Gay G, Normand L, Marmeisse R, Sotta B, Debaud JC (1994) Auxin overproducer mutants of Hebeloma cylindrosporum Romagnesi have increased mycorrhizal activity. New Phytol 128:645–657. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.1994.tb04029.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gruntman M, Novoplansky A (2004) Physiologically mediated self/non-self discrimination in roots. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101:3863–3867. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0306604101 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Gupta P, Rustgi S (2004) Molecular markers from the transcribed/expressed region of the genome in higher plants. Funct Integr Genomics 4:139–162. doi: 10.1007/s10142-004-0107-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Hegi G (1986) Illustrierte Flora von Mitteleuropa. Verlag Paul Parey, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  27. Hermans C, Verbruggen N (2005) Physiological characterization of Mg deficiency in Arabidopsis thaliana. J Exp Bot 56:2153–2161. doi: 10.1093/jxb/eri215 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Hodge A (2009) Root decisions. Plant Cell Environ 32:628–640. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2008.01891.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Holzapfel C, Alpert P (2003) Root cooperation in a clonal plant: connected strawberries segregate roots. Oecologia 134:72–77. doi: 10.1007/s00442-002-1062-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Mahall BE, Callaway RM (1991) Root communication among desert shrubs. Proc Natl Acad Sci 88:874–876CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. McKane RB, Johnson LC, Shaver GR, Nadelhoffer KJ, Rastetter EB, Fry B, Giblin AE, Kielland K, Kwiatkowski BL, Laundre JA, Murray G (2002) Resource-based niches provide a basis for plant species diversity and dominance in arctic tundra. Nature 415:68–71CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Messier C, Coll L, Poitras-Larivière A, Bélanger N, Brisson J (2009) Resource and non-resource root competition effects of grasses on early- versus late-successional trees. J Ecol 97:548–554. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2009.01500.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Müller B, Bartelheimer M (2013) Interspecific competition in Arabidopsis thaliana: root hairs are important for competitive effect, but not for competitive response. Plant Soil 371:1–11. doi: 10.1007/s11104-013-1675-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Murphy GP, Dudley SA (2009) Kin recognition: competition and cooperation in Impatiens (Balsaminaceae). Am J Bot 96:1990–1996. doi: 10.3732/ajb.0900006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Papadopoulou K, Roussis A, Katinakis P (1996) Phaseolus ENOD40 is involved in symbiotic and non-symbiotic organogenetic processes: expression during nodule and lateral root development. Plant Mol Biol 30:403–417. doi: 10.1007/BF00049320 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Robinson D, Hodge A, Griffiths BS, Fitter AH (1999) Plant root proliferation in nitrogen–rich patches confers competitive advantage. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Ser B Biol Sci 266:431–435. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1999.0656 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schenk HJ (2006) Root competition: beyond resource depletion. J Ecol 94:725–739. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2006.01124.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schenk HJ, Seabloom EW (2010) Evolutionary Ecology of Plant Signals and Toxins: A Conceptual Framework. In: Baluškam F, Ninkovic V (eds) Plant communication from an ecological perspective. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  39. Schenk H, Callaway R, Mahall B (1999) Spatial root segregation: are plants territorial? In: Fitter A, Raffaelli D (ed), Advances in ecological research, Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  40. Schmid C, Bauer S, Müller B, Bartelheimer M (2013) Belowground neighbor perception in Arabidopsis thaliana studied by transcriptome analysis: roots of Hieracium pilosella cause biotic stress. Frontiers in Plant Science 4 doi: 10.3389/fpls.2013.00296
  41. Semchenko M, John EA, Hutchings MJ (2007) Effects of physical connection and genetic identity of neighbouring ramets on root-placement patterns in two clonal species. New Phytol 176:644–654. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02211.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Semchenko M, Zobel K, Heinemeyer A, Hutchings MJ (2008) Foraging for space and avoidance of physical obstructions by plant roots: a comparative study of grasses from contrasting habitats. New Phytol 179:1162–1170. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02543.x PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Semchenko M, Saar S, Lepik A (2014) Plant root exudates mediate neighbour recognition and trigger complex behavioural changes. New Phytol 204:631–637. doi: 10.1111/nph.12930 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Walder F, Niemann H, Natarajan M, Lehmann MF, Boller T, Wiemken A (2012) Mycorrhizal networks: common goods of plants shared under unequal terms of trade. Plant Physiol 159:789–797. doi: 10.1104/pp. 112.195727 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Weiner J (1986) How competition for light and nutrients affects size variability in Ipomoea tricolor populations. Ecology 67:1425–1427. doi: 10.2307/1938699 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wickham H (2009) ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wilcox RR (2012) Introduction to robust estimation and hypothesis testing. Academic, WalthamGoogle Scholar
  48. Zahavi A, Zahavi A (1997) The handicap principle. A missing piece of Darwin’s Puzzle. 1997. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  49. Zobel M, Zobel K (2002) Studying plant competition: from root biomass to general aims. J Ecol 90:578–580. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2745.2002.00693.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christoph Schmid
    • 1
  • Sibylle Bauer
    • 1
  • Maik Bartelheimer
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Plant Sciences, Faculty of Biology and Preclinical MedicineUniversity of RegensburgRegensburgGermany

Personalised recommendations