Advertisement

Plant Ecology

, Volume 195, Issue 1, pp 33–43 | Cite as

Effect of minor water depth treatments on competitive effect and response of eight wetland plants

  • Lauchlan H. FraserEmail author
  • Tara E. Miletti
Original Paper

Abstract

Two facets of plant competition, competitive effect (CE) and competitive response (CR), can be used to explain plant community composition but our understanding of abiotic factors that may differentially affect species’ competitive ability is incomplete. We tested whether water-depth affected CE (ability to suppress neighbour) and CR (avoid suppression from neighbour), and if so whether there was consistence in the rank order of both measures of competition under different water depth treatments. CE and CR were measured and compared for eight wetland plant species (Carex lurida, Carex tribuloides, Elymus virginicus, Juncus tenuis, Lythrum salicaria, Phalaris arundinacea, Rumex orbiculatus and Verbesina alternifolia) at five different water-depth treatments (+2, 0, −2, −4 and −6 cm relative to the substrate). Overall, we found that mean CE was at its lowest value at +2 cm water depth, while mean CR was highest at +2 and −6 cm compared to the other water treatments. There was a significant variation of CE between species, with a defined hierarchical order. Pairwise CE rank order correlations between water depth treatments were significant but CR correlations were generally not. There was no significant correlation between CE and CR. CE was significantly correlated with biomass of species grown alone but CR was not. These findings indicate that CE may be used as a general measure to predict wetland species performance, and thus community assemblage, across a range of water depths. CR does not seem to demonstrate predicable patterns between species and water depth treatments. Our results suggest that competition intensity may be reduced in a non-resource-stressed flooded environment by a reduction in CE, but the corresponding increase in CR could dampen this effect on overall competitive ability.

Keywords

Competitive effect and response Freshwater wetlands Non-resource stress Phalaris arundinacea Phytometer Water depth 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Randy Mitchell and Steve Weeks for comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. An anonymous referee made useful comments. This work was supported by a Canada Research Chair awarded to L. Fraser.

References

  1. Aarssen LW, Keogh T (2002) Conundrums of competitive ability in plants: what to measure? Oikos 96:531–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Apfelbaum SI, Sams CE (1987) Ecology and control of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.). Nat Areas J 7:9–17Google Scholar
  3. Austin MP, Groves RH, Fresno L et al (1985) Relative growth of six thistles along a nutrient gradient with multispecies competition. J Ecol 73:667–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bertness MD, Shumway SW (1993) Competition and facilitation in marsh plants. Am Nat 142:718–724CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Brinson MM (1993) Changes in the functioning of wetlands along environmental gradients. Wetlands 13:65–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brooker R, Kikvidze Z, Pugnaire FI et al (2005) The importance of importance. Oikos 109:73–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brose U, Tielborger K (2005) Subtle differences in environmental stress along a flooding gradient affect the importance of inter-specific competition in an annual plant community. Vegetatio 178:51–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Budelsky R, Galatowitsch SM (2000) Effects of water regime and competition on the establishment of a native sedge, Carex lacustris, in restored wetlands. J Appl Ecol 37:971–985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cahill JF, Kembel SW, Gustafson DJ (2005) Differential genetic influences on competitive effect and response in Arabidopsis thaliana. J Ecol 93:958–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Callaway RM, Brooker RW, Choler P et al (2002) Positive interactions among alpine plants increase with stress. Nature 417:844–848PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Campbell BD, Grime JP, Mackey JML et al (1991) The quest for a mechanistic understanding of resource competition in plant communities: the role of experiments. Func Ecol 5:241–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carlyle CN, Fraser LH (2006) A test of three juvenile competitive response strategies. J Veg Sci 17:11–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Craine JM (2005) Reconciling plant strategy theories of Grime and Tilman. J Ecol 93:1041–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crow GE, Helquist CB (2000) Aquatic and wetland plants of northeastern North America. Volume 1. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WisconsinGoogle Scholar
  15. De Steven D, Toner MM (2004) Vegetation of upper coastal plain depression wetlands: environmental templates and wetland dynamics within a landscape framework. Wetlands 24:23–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Emery NC, Ewanchuk PJ, Bertness MD (2001) Competition and salt-marsh plant zonation: stress tolerators may be dominant competitors. Ecology 82:2471–2485Google Scholar
  17. Fraser LH, Karnezis JP (2005) A comparative assessment of seedling survival and biomass accumulation for fourteen wetland plant species grown under minor water-depth differences. Wetlands 25:520–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fraser LH, Keddy PA (2005) Can competitive ability predict structure in experimental plant communities. J Veg Sci 16:571–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fynn RWS, Morris CD, Kirkman KP (2005) Plant strategies and trait trade-offs influence trends in competitive ability along gradients of soil fertility and disturbance. J Ecol 93:384–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gaudet CL, Keddy PA (1988) A comparative approach to predicting competitive ability from plant traits. Nature 334:242–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gaudet CL, Keddy PA (1995) Competitive performance and species distribution in shoreline plant communities: a comparative approach. Ecology 75:280–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goldberg DE (1996) Competitive ability: definitions, contingency and correlated traits. Phil Tran R Soc Lond B 351:1377–1385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goldberg DE, Fleetwood L (1987) Competitive effect and response in four annual plants. J Ecol 75:1131–1143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goldberg DE, Landa K (1991) Competitive effect and response: hierarchies and correlated traits in the early stages of competition. J Ecol 79:1013–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goldberg DE, Rajaniemi T, Gurevitch J et al (1999) Empirical approaches to quantifying interaction intensity: competition and facilitation along productivity gradients. Ecology 80:1118–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grace JB (1991) A clarification of the debate between Grime and Tilman. Func Ecol 5:583–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Grace JB, Tilman D (1990) Perspectives on plant competition. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Grace JB, Wetzel RG (1981) Habitat partitioning and competitive displacement in cattails (Typha): experimental field studies. Am Nat 118:463–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Grime JP (1973) Competitive exclusion in herbaceous vegetation. Nature 242:344–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Grime JP (1979) Plant strategies and vegetation processes. John Wiley and Sons, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Grime JP (2001) Plant strategies, vegetation processes, and ecosystem properties, 2nd edn. John Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  32. Groves RH, Austin MP, Kaye PE (2003) Competition between Australian and introduced grasses along a nutrient gradient. Aust Ecol 28:491–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Grubb PJ (1977) The maintenance of species richness in plant communities: the importance of the regeneration niche. Biol Rev 52:107–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hendry GAF, Grime JP (1993) Methods in comparative plant ecology. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  35. Keddy PA (2001) Competition, 2nd edn. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  36. Keddy P, Fraser LH (2000) Four general principles for the management and conservation of wetlands in large lakes: the role of water levels, nutrients, competitive hierarchies and centrifugal organization. Lakes Reserv Res Managt 5:177–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Keddy P, Fraser LH, Wisheu IC (1998) A comparative approach to examine competitive response of 48 wetland plant species. J Veg Sci 9:777–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Keddy PA, Gaudet C, Fraser LH (2000) Effects of low and high nutrients on the competitive hierarchy of 26 shoreline plants. J Ecol 88:413–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Keddy P, Nielsen K, Weiher E et al (2002) Relative competitive performance of 63 species of terrestrial herbaceous plants. J Veg Sci 13:5–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Keddy PA, Shipley B (1989) Competitive hierarchies in herbaceous plant communities. Oikos 54:234–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Keddy PA, Twolan-Strutt L, Wisheu IC (1994) Competitive effect and response ranking in 20 wetland plants: are they consistent across three environments? J Ecol 82:635–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kercher SM, Zedler JB (2004) Flood tolerance in wetland angiosperms: a comparison of invasive and noninvasive species. Aqua Bot 80:89–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lenssen JPM, de Kroon H (2005) Abiotic constraints at the upper boundaries of two Rumex species on a freshwater flooding gradient. J Ecol 93:138–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lenssen JPM, Menting FBJ, van der Putten WH et al (1999) Effects of sediment type and water level on biomass production of wetland plant species. Aqua Bot 64:151–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. MacDougall A, Turkington R (2004) Relative importance of suppression-based and tolerance-based competition in an invaded oak savanna. J Ecol 92:422–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Miller RC, Zedler JB (2003) Responses of native and invasive wetland plants to hydroperiod and water depth. Plant Ecol 167:57–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mitsch WJ, Gosselink JG (2000) Wetlands, 3rd edn. John Wiley and Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. Newman EI (1973) Competition and diversity in herbaceous vegetation. Nature 244:310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pennings SC, Callaway RM (1992) Salt marsh plant zonation: the relative importance of competition and physical factors. Ecology 73:681–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pennings SC, Grant M, Bertness MD (2005) Plant zonation in low-latitude salt marshes: disentangling the roles of flooding, salinity and competition. J Ecol 93:159–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rajaniemi TK (2003) Explaining productivity–diversity relationships in plants. Oikos 101:449–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sher AA, Marshall DL (2003) Seedling competition between native Populus deltoides (Salicaceae) and exotic Tamarix ramosissima (Tamaricaceae) across water regimes and substrate types. Am J Bot 90:413–422Google Scholar
  53. Shipley B, Keddy PA (1994) Evaluating the evidence for competitive hierarchies in plant communities. Oikos 69:340–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Suding KN, Goldberg DE (2001) Do disturbances alter competitive hierarchies? Mechanisms of change following gap creation. Ecology 82:2133–2149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. SYSTAT (1998) SYSTAT® 8.0 Statistics. SPSS Inc., Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  56. Thompson K, Hillier SH, Grime JP et al (1996) A functional analysis of a limestone grassland community. J Veg Sci 7:371–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Thompson DQ, Stuckey RL, Thompson EB (1987) Spread and impact and control of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) in North American wetlands. U.S. Fish Wildlife Serv Fish Wildlife Res 2:1–55Google Scholar
  58. Tilman D (1988) Plant strategies and the dynamics and structure of plant communities. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  59. Turnbull LA, Coomes D, Hector A et al (2004) Seed mass and the competition/colonization trade-off: competitive interactions and spatial patterns in a guild of annual plants. J Ecol 92:97–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. van Eck WHJM, Van de Steeg HM, Blom CWPM et al (2004) Is tolerance to summer flooding correlated with distribution patterns in river floodplains? A comparative study of 20 terrestrial grassland species. Oikos 107:393–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Visser EJW, Bogemann GM, Van de Steeg HM et al (2000) Flooding tolerance of Carex species in relation to field distribution and aerenchyma formation. New Phytol 148:93–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Welden CW, Slauson WL (1986) The intensity of competition versus its importance: an overlooked distinction and some implications. Q Rev Biol 61:23–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Weigelt A, Jolliffe P (2003) Indices of plant competition. J Ecol 91:707–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Weiher E, Keddy P (1995) The assembly of experimental wetland plant communities. Oikos 73:323–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wetzel PR, van der Valk AG (1998) Effects of nutrient and soil moisture on competition between Carex stricta, Phalaris arundinacea, and Typha latifolia. Plant Ecol 138:179–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wilson SD (1994) Initial size and the competitive responses of two grasses at two levels of soil nitrogen: a field experiment. Can J Bot 72:1349–1354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wilson SD, Keddy PA (1986) Species competitive ability and position along a natural stress/disturbance gradient. Ecology 67:1236–1242CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyThe University of AkronAkronUSA
  2. 2.Department of Natural Resource SciencesThompson Rivers UniversityKamloopsCanada

Personalised recommendations