15N-nitrate-labelling demonstrates a size symmetric competitive effect on belowground resource uptake
- 190 Downloads
Strong hints exist that belowground competition is generally size-symmetric. While this has frequently been shown by use of integrative indicators like growth or biomass, resource-focussed approaches are still lacking, especially those investigating the competitive effect. Here, we present a correlation between neighbour plants’ root sizes and their competitive effect on their target plants’ nitrate uptake. This was derived from a controlled field experiment where intra- and interspecific combinations of five different herbaceous species from nutrient poor sand ecosystems were examined in an additive design. Short-term pulses of 15N-labelled nitrate were applied between competing pairs of plant individuals. The sizes of neighbour root systems had high explanatory power for the competitive effect on target plants’ nitrate uptake. Equally important, a curve fitting approach revealed that the competitive effect based on 15N-uptake matched predictions of a size-symmetric interaction. With 66% of the variation in competitive effect on nitrate uptake explained by root system size, the degree to which root size results in a belowground overlap of zones of influence is crucial. Within this overlap, further attributes like architecture or uptake capacity may be important. Our data represent experimental support for a size symmetric competitive effect for a specific belowground resource. Since this is not consistent with an overproportional size advantage when mobile soil resources are limiting, it suggests that the survival of small individuals or species should be facilitated by the symmetric nature of belowground competitive effects.
KeywordsBelowground competition Nitrate Sand ecosystems Size symmetry 15N-labelling
We would like to thank Dr. Christiane Werner for valuable scientific advice. Further we thank Barbara Teichner for carrying out the mass-spectrometry measurements and Elke Furlkröger for skilful technical assistance. The help of Holger Abel, Marcel Austenfeld, Jürgen Birtsch, Sven Luhmann, Birgit Peperkorn, Simone Sommer and Melanie Wittland during plant harvest and sample preparation is gratefully acknowledged.
- Berntson GM, Wayne PM (2000) Characterizing the size dependence of resource acquisition within crowded plant populations. Ecology 81:1072–1085Google Scholar
- Conolly J, Wayne P (1996) Asymmetric competition between plant species. Oecologia 108:311–320Google Scholar
- Forde BG (2000) Nitrate transporters in plants: structure, function and regulation. Biochim Biophys Acta 165:219–235Google Scholar
- Goldberg DE (1990) Components of resource competition in plant communities. In: Grace JB, Tilman D (eds) Perspectives on plant competition. Academic Press, San Diego, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Hegi G (1979) Illustrierte Flora von Mittel-europa. Verlag Paul Parey, Berlin, HamburgGoogle Scholar
- Markham JH, Chanway CP (1996) Measuring plant neighbour effects. Funct Ecol 10:548–549Google Scholar
- Näsholm T, Huss-Danell K, Högberg M (2000) Uptake of organic nitrogen in the field by four agriculturally important plant species. Ecology 81:1155–1161Google Scholar
- Pless H (1995) Pflanzensoziologische Untersuchungen der Trockenrasen an den Hängen des Odertales zwischen Seelow und Frankfurt (Oder). Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege in Brandenburg 3:27–31Google Scholar
- Robe WE, Griffiths H, Sleep D, Quarmby C (1994) Nitrogen partitioning and assimitlation: methods for the extraction, separation and mass spectrometric analysis of nitrate, amino acid and soluble protein pools from individual plant following 15N labelling. Plant Cell Environ 17:1073–1079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Vojtech E, Turnball LA, Hector A (2007) Differences in light interception in grass monocultures predict short-term competitive outcomes under productive conditions. PLoS ONE 2, e499. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000499