Advertisement

Plant Ecology

, Volume 199, Issue 2, pp 243–253 | Cite as

15N-nitrate-labelling demonstrates a size symmetric competitive effect on belowground resource uptake

  • Maik Bartelheimer
  • Thomas Steinlein
  • Wolfram Beyschlag
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Belowground competition Nitrate Sand ecosystems Size symmetry 15N-labelling 

Notes

Acknowledgements

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.

References

  1. Aerts R, Boot RGA, van der Aart PJM (1991) The relation between above- and belowground biomass allocation patterns and competitive ability. Oecologia 87:551–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akaike H (1978) A Bayesian analysis of the minimum AIC procedure. Ann Inst Stat Math 30:9–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartelheimer M, Steinlein T, Beyschlag W (2006) Aggregative root placement: a feature during interspecific competition in inland sand-dune habitats. Plant Soil 280:101–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berendse F (1990) Organic matter accumulation and nitrogen mineralization during secondary succession in heathland ecosystems. J Ecol 78:413–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berger AG, McDonald AJ, Riha SJ (2006) Scaling plant size to below-ground zone of influence in annuals under contrasting competitive environments. Funct Ecol 20:770–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berntson GM, Wayne PM (2000) Characterizing the size dependence of resource acquisition within crowded plant populations. Ecology 81:1072–1085Google Scholar
  7. Bertin C, Yang X, Weston LA (2003) The role of root exudates and allelochemicals in the rhizosphere. Plant Soil 256:67–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boorman LA (1982) Some plant growth patterns in relation to the sand dune habitat. J Ecol 70:607–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brady DJ, Gregory PJ, Fillery IRP (1993) The contribution of different regions of the seminal roots of wheat to uptake of nitrate from soil. Plant Soil 155:155–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cahill JF Jr (2003) Lack of relationship between below-ground competition and allocation to roots in 10 grassland species. J Ecol 91:532–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cahill JF Jr, Casper BB (2000) Investigating the relationship between neighbor root biomass and belowground competition: field evidence for symmetric competition belowground. OIKOS 90:311–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cahill JF Jr, Kembel SW, Gustafson DJ (2005) Differential genetic influences on competitive effect and response in Arabidopsis thaliana. J Ecol 93:958–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Caldwell MM, Eissenstat DM, Richards JH, Allen FM (1985) Competition for phosphorus: differential uptake from dual-isotope-labeled soil interspaces between shrub and grass. Science 229:384–386PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Casper BB, Jackson RB (1997) Plant competition underground. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 28:545–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Casper BB, Schenk HJ, Jackson RB (2003) Defining a plant’s belowground zone of influence. Ecology 84:2313–2321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clarkson DT, Hanson JB (1980) The mineral nutrition of higher plants. Annu Rev Plant Physiol 31:239–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Conolly J, Wayne P (1996) Asymmetric competition between plant species. Oecologia 108:311–320Google Scholar
  18. Craine JM, Fargione J, Sugita S (2005) Supply preemption, not concentration reduction, is the mechanism of competition for nutrients. New Phytol 166:933–940PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Enquist BJ, Niklas KJ (2002) Global allocation rules for patterns of biomass partitioning in seed plants. Science 295:1517–1520PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fitter AH, Williamson L, Linkohr B, Leyser O (2002) Root system achitecture determines fitness in an Arabidopsis mutant in competition for immobile phosphat ions but not for nitrate ions. Proc R Soc Lond 269:2017–2022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Forde BG (2000) Nitrate transporters in plants: structure, function and regulation. Biochim Biophys Acta 165:219–235Google Scholar
  22. Fransen B, De Kroon H, Berendse F (2001) Soil nutrient heterogeneity alters competition between two perennial grass species. Ecology 82:2534–2546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Freckleton RP, Watkinson AR (2001) Asymmetric competition between plant species. Funct Ecol 15:615–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gages DJ, Westcott M (1978) Zone of influence models for competition in plantations. Adv Appl Probab 10:499–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Goldberg DE, Fleetwood L (1987) Competitive effect and response in four annual plants. J Ecol 75:1131–1143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Goldberg DE, Werner PA (1983) Equivalence of competitors in plant communities: a null-hypothesis and a field experimental approach. Am J Bot 70:1098–1104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hegi G (1979) Illustrierte Flora von Mittel-europa. Verlag Paul Parey, Berlin, HamburgGoogle Scholar
  30. Hikosaka K, Hirose T (2001) Nitrogen uptake and use by competing individuals in a Xanthium canadense stand. Oecologia 126:174–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hodge A (2006) Plastic plants and patchy soils. J Exp Bot 57:401–411PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hodge A, Robinson D, Griffiths B, Fitter AH (1999) Why plants bother: root proliferation results in increased nitrogen capture from an organic patch when two grasses compete. Plant Cell Environ 22:811–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Keddy PA, Twolan-Strutt L, Wisheu IC (1994) Competitive effect and response rankings in 20 wetland plants: are they consistent across three environments? J Ecol 82:635–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Law R, Watkinson AR (1987) Response-surface analysis of two-species competition: an experiment on Phleum arenarium and Vulpia fasciculata. J Ecol 75:871–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Markham JH, Chanway CP (1996) Measuring plant neighbour effects. Funct Ecol 10:548–549Google Scholar
  36. Munoz AE, Weaver RW (1999) Competition between subterranean clover and ryegrass for uptake of 15N-labeled fertilizer. Plant Soil 211:173–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Newbery DM, Newman EI (1978) Competition between grassland plants of different initial sizes. Oecologia 33:361–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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
  40. Rajaniemi T (2003) Evidence for size asymmetry of belowground competition. Basic Appl Ecol 4:239–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Remans T, Nacry P, Pervent M, Girin T, Tillard P, Lepetit M, Gojon A (2006) A central role for the nitrate transporter NRT2.1 in the integrated morphological and physiological responses of the root system to nitrogen limitation in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol 140:909–921PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Robinson D, Hodge A, Griffiths B, Fitter AH (1999) Plant root proliferation in nitrogen-rich patches confers competitive advantage. Proc R Soc Lond 266:431–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schwinning S, Weiner J (1998) Mechanisms determining the degree of size asymmetry in competition among plants. Oecologia 113:447–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stevens CJ, Dise NB, Mountford JO, Gowing DJG (2004) Impact of nitrogen deposition on the species richness of grasslands. Science 303:1876–1879PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tilman D, Wedin D (1991) Plant traits and resource reduction for five grasses growing on a nitrogen gradient. Ecology 72:685–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tilman D, Wedin D, Knops J (1996) Productivity and sustainability influenced by biodiversity in grassland ecosystems. Nature 379:718–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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
  49. von Wettberg EJ, Weiner J (2003) Larger Triticum aestivum plants do not preempt nutrient-rich patches in a glasshouse experiment. Plant Ecol 169:85–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wassen MJ, Olde Venterink H, Lapshina ED, Tanneberger F (2005) Endangered plants persist under phosphorus limitation. Nature 437:547–550PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Weigelt A, Röttgermann M, Steinlein T, Beyschlag W (2000) Influence of water availability on competitive interactions between plant species on sandy soils. Folia Geobot 35:169–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Weigelt A, Steinlein T, Beyschlag W (2005) Competition in inland dunes: the impact of water availability on below-ground processes. Plant Ecol 176:57–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Weigelt A, Schumacher J, Walther T, Bartelheimer M, Steinlein T, Beyschlag W (2007) Identifying mechanisms of competition in multi-species communities. J Ecol 95:53–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Weiner J (1986) How competition for light and nutrients affects size variability in Ipomoea tricolor populations. Ecology 67:1425–1427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Weiner J, Wright DB, Castro S (1997) Symmetry of belowground competition between Kochia scoparia individuals. OIKOS 79:85–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wijesinghe DK, John AJ, Beurskens S, Hutchings MJ (2001) Root system size and precision in nutrient foraging: responses to spatial pattern of nutrient supply in six herbaceous species. J Ecol 89:972–983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wilson SD, Keddy PA (1986) Measuring diffuse competition along an environmental gradient: results from a shoreline plant community. Am Nat 127:862–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maik Bartelheimer
    • 1
    • 2
  • Thomas Steinlein
    • 1
  • Wolfram Beyschlag
    • 1
  1. 1.Chair of Experimental and Systems EcologyUniversity of BielefeldBielefeldGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Botany, Faculty of Biology and Preclinical MedicineUniversity of RegensburgRegensburgGermany

Personalised recommendations