Advertisement

Plant Ecology

, Volume 179, Issue 1, pp 127–131 | Cite as

Size inequality and the tragedy of the commons phenomenon in plant competition

  • R.A. LairdEmail author
  • L.W. Aarssen
Article

Abstract

Game theory predicts that the evolutionarily stable level of root production is greater for plants grown with neighbours compared to plants grown alone, even when the available resources per plant are constant. This follows from the fact that for plants grown alone, new roots compete only with other roots on the same plant, whereas for multiple plants grown in a group, new roots can also compete with the roots of other plants, thereby potentially acquiring otherwise unavailable resources at their neighbours’ expense. This phenomenon, which results in plants grown with neighbours over-proliferating roots at the expense of above-ground biomass, has been described as a ‘tragedy of the commons’, and requires that plants can distinguish self from non-self tissues. While this game theoretical model predicts the evolutionarily stable strategies of individual plants, it has only been tested on average allocation patterns of groups of plants. This is problematic, because average patterns can appear to reflect a tragedy of the commons, even when none has occurred. In particular, assuming (1) a decelerating relationship between individual plant biomass and the amount of resources available, and (2) greater size inequality in plants grown with neighbours compared to plants grown alone (due to asymmetric competition), then plants grown with neighbours should, at least on average, be smaller than plants grown alone. This is a manifestation of ‘Jensen’s Inequality’, which states that for decelerating functions, the average value of the function is less than the function of the average value. We suggest that Jensen’s Inequality should serve as an appropriate null hypothesis for examining biologically-based explanations of changes in biomass allocation strategies.

Keywords

Below-ground plant competition Evolutionarily stable strategy Game theoretical model Jensen’s Inequality Size inequality model 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aphalo, P.J., Ballaré, C.L. 1995On the importance of information-acquiring systems in plant–plant interactionsFunc. Ecol.9514Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ballaré, C.L., Sánchez, R.A., Scopel, A.L., Casal, J.J., Ghersa, C.M. 1987Early detection of neighbour plants by phytochrome perception of spectral change in reflected sunlightPlant Cell Environ.10551557Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blair, B. 2001Effect of soil nutrient heterogeneity on the symmetry of belowground competitionPlant Ecol.156199203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boot, R.G.A., Mensink, M. 1990Size and morphology of root systems of perennial grasses from contrasting habitats as affected by nitrogen supplyPlant Soil129291299Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cahill, J.F.,Jr. 2003Lack of relationship between below-ground competition and allocation to roots in 10 grassland speciesJ. Ecol.91532540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cahill, J.F.,Jr., Casper, B.B. 2000Investigating the relationship between neighbor root biomass and belowground competition: field evidence for symmetric competition belowgroundOikos90311320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chapin, F.S.,III. 1980The mineral nutrition of wild plantsAnn. Rev. Ecol. Syst.11233260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clements, F.E., Weaver, J.E., Hanson, H.C. 1929Plant CompetitionCarnegie Institution of WashingtonWashingtonGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Donald, C.M. 1958The interaction of competition for light and for nutrientsAust. J. Agric. Res.9421435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Falik, O., Reides, P., Gersani, M., Novoplansky, A. 2003Self/non-self discrimination in rootsJ. Ecol.91525531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gersani, M., Brown, J.S., O’Brien, E., Maina, G.M., Abramsky, Z. 2001Tragedy of the commons as a result of root competitionJ. Ecol.89660669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hardin, G. 1968The tragedy of the commonsScience16212431248Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hunt, R., Nicholls, A.O. 1986Stress and the coarse control of growth and root-shoot partitioning in herbaceous plantsOikos47149158Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jensen, J.L.W.V. 1906Sur les fonctiones convexes et les inégalités entre les valeurs moyennesActa Math.30175193Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Maina, G.G., Brown, J.S., Gersani, M. 2002Intra-plant versus inter-plant root competition in beans: avoidanceresource matching or tragedy of the commonsPlant Ecol.160235247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McPhee, C.S., Aarssen, L.W. 2001The separation of above- and below-ground competition in plants. A review and critique of methodologyPlant Ecol.152119136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mooney, H.A. 1972The carbon balance of plantsAnn. Rev. Ecol. Syst.3315346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Newman, E.I. 1973Competition and diversity in herbaceous vegetationNature244310Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ruel, J.J., Ayres, M.P. 1999Jensen’s inequality predicts effects of environmental variationTrends Ecol. Evol.14361366CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schwinning, S., Weiner, J. 1998Mechanisms determining the degree of size asymmetry in competition among plantsOecologia113447455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Smallwood, P.D. 1996An introduction to risk sensitivity: The use of Jensen’s inequality to clarify evolutionary arguments of adaptation and constraintAm. Zool.36392401Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Weiner, J. 1985Size hierarchies in experimental populations of annual plantsEcology66743752Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Weiner, J. 1990Asymmetric competition in plant populationsTrends Ecol. Evol.5360364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Weiner, J., Thomas, S.C. 1986Size variability and competition in plant monoculturesOikos47211222Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Weiner, J., Wright, D.B., Castro, S. 1997Symmetry of below-ground competition between Kochia scoparia individualsOikos798591Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wilson, J.B. 1988aThe effect of initial advantage on the course of plant competitionOikos511924Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wilson, J.B. 1988bShoot competition and root competitionJ. Appl. Ecol.25279296Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wilson, S.D., Tilman, D. 1993Plant competition and resource availability in response to disturbance and fertilizationEcology74599611Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyQueen’s UniversityKingstonCanada
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations