Plant Ecology

, Volume 201, Issue 2, pp 481–489 | Cite as

Reproductive allocation of Carex flava reacts differently to competition and resources in a designed plant mixture of five species

Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

In natural plant communities, reproductive allocation can be affected by complex interactions among abiotic resources, species competition and plant size. This topic was addressed using a variety of designed mixed stands of five species (Carex elata, Carex flava, Lycopus europaeus, Lysimachia vulgaris and Mentha aquatica) under four abiotic conditions to investigate how competition and abiotic resources influence the reproductive allocation of one of the five species, C. flava. The plant mixtures varied systematically in both the relative abundance of the five species and the absolute density, and were each established with two levels of water and nutrients. In total, 176 mixtures were maintained for two growing seasons in large pots in an experimental garden. Reproductive allocation of C. flava increased from 6.8% to 9.7% under high nutrient application; however, for both nutrient levels, reproductive allocation was independent of shoot mass (size-independent allocation). Under low competition, reproductive allocation of C. flava decreased as its shoot mass increased, indicating a relatively high investment in vegetative structures under higher light availability. However, under strong competition, the allocation pattern changed and a constant reproductive allocation for different plant sizes was observed. Different water levels did not influence the shoot mass, seed mass or reproductive allocation of C. flava, indicating that the species was not stressed under dryer conditions. When under competitive pressure, however, the species responded with reduced shoot and seed production under more favourable water conditions. This behaviour indicates a trade-off between the ability to tolerate stress and the competitive and reproductive response of C. flava. In conclusion, C. flava was adversely affected by competition with some of the species, and competition, mediated by plant size, indirectly affected reproductive allocation. C. flava was able to modify its allocation pattern depending on the available resources and retained its reproductive allocation even under unfavourable conditions for varying plant sizes, which is interpreted as an advantageous reaction to greater competition pressure.

Keywords

Fen meadow species Nutrient water supply Simplex design Stress tolerance Trade-off 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to T. Steffen for weighing the seed and biomass samples. I would also like to thank M. Fotsch, P. Borer and P. Kadelbach for assistance in practical work and K. Seipel for linguistic improvements. J. Connolly, P. Edwards, S. Guesewell, D. Ramseier and two anonymous reviewers provided helpful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. The project was funded by the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich (Grant No. 0-20891-01).

Supplementary material

11258_2008_9499_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (122 kb)
(PDF, 125 kb)

References

  1. Aeschimann D, Heitz C (2005) Synonymie-Index der Schweizer Flora. Zentrum des Datenverbundnetzes der Schweizer Flora, BernGoogle Scholar
  2. Arenas F, Viejo RM, Fernandez C (2002) Density-dependent regulation in an invasive seaweed: responses at plant and modular levels. J Ecol 90:820–829. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2745.2002.00720.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Campbell BD, Grime JP (1992) An experimental test of plant strategy theory. Ecology 73:15–29. doi: 10.2307/1938717 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cheplick GP (2001) Quantitative genetics of mass allocation and the allometry of reproduction in Amaranthus albus: relation to soil nutrients. Int J Plant Sci 162:807–816. doi: 10.1086/320778 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chiariello NR, Gulmon SL (1991) Stress effects on plant reproduction. In: Mooney HA, Winner WE, Pell EJ et al (eds) Response of plants to multiple stresses. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 161–188Google Scholar
  6. Cornell JA (2002) Experiments with mixtures. Wiley, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  7. Edelkraut KA, Guesewell S (2006) Progressive effects of shading on experimental wetland communities over three years. Plant Ecol 183:315–327. doi: 10.1007/s11258-005-9042-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ellenberg H (1996) Vegetation Mitteleuropas mit den Alpen. Ulmer, Stuttgart, DeutschlandGoogle Scholar
  9. Emery SM, Gross KL (2007) Dominant species identity, not community evenness, regulates invasion in experimental grassland plant communities. Ecology 88:954–964. doi: 10.1890/06-0568 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grime JP (2001) Plant strategies, vegetation processes, and ecosystem properties. Wiley, Chichester, UKGoogle Scholar
  11. Hara T, Kawano S, Nagai Y (1988) Optimum reproductive strategy of plants, with special reference to the modes of reproductive resource allocation. Plant Species Biol 3:43–59. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-1984.1988.tb00170.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harper JL, Ogden J (1970) The reproductive strategy of higher plants. I. The concept of strategy with special reference to Senecio vulgaris L. J Ecol 58:681–698. doi: 10.2307/2258529 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hendriks AJ, Mulder C (2008) Scaling of offspring number and mass to plant and animal size: model and meta-analysis. Oecologia 155:705–716. doi: 10.1007/s00442-007-0952-3 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Karlsson PS, Méndez M (2005) The resource economy in plant reproduction. In: Reekie EG, Bazzaz FA (eds) Reproductive allocation in plants. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 1–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Klinkhamer PGL, de Jong TJ, Nell HW (1994) Limiting factors for seed production and phenotypic gender in the gynodioecious species Echium vulgare (Boraginaceae). Oikos 71:469–478. doi: 10.2307/3545835 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lauber K, Wagner G (2007) Flora Helvetica. Paul Haupt, Bern, SchweizGoogle Scholar
  17. Liancourt P, Callaway RM, Michalet R (2005) Stress tolerance and competitive-response ability determine the outcome of biotic interactions. Ecology 86:1611–1618. doi: 10.1890/04-1398 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Méndez M, Karlsson PS (2004) Between-population variation in size-dependent reproduction and reproductive allocation in Pinguicula vulgaris (Lentibulariaceae) and its environmental correlates. Oikos 104:59–70. doi: 10.1111/j.0030-1299.2004.12335.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pauli D, Peintinger M, Schmid B (2002) Nutrient enrichment in calcareous fens: effects on plant species and community structure. Basic Appl Ecol 3:255–266. doi: 10.1078/1439-1791-00096 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ramseier D, Connolly J, Bazzaz FA (2005) Carbon dioxide regime, species identity and influence of species initial abundance as determinants of change in stand biomass composition in five-species communities: an investigation using a simplex design and RGRD analysis. J Ecol 93:502–511. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2005.00999.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. R Development Core Team (2007) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, http://www.R-project.org
  22. Reekie EG (1998) An explanation for size-dependent reproductive allocation in Plantago major. Can J Bot 76:43–50. doi: 10.1139/cjb-76-1-43 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Reekie EG, Bazzaz FA (eds) (2005) Reproductive allocation in plants. Elsevier, Amsterdam, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  24. Sadras VO, Bange MP, Milroy SP (1997) Reproductive allocation of cotton in response to plant and environmental factors. Ann Bot (Lond) 80:75–81. doi: 10.1006/anbo.1997.0402 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schmid B (1984) Life histories in clonal plants of the Carex flava group. J Ecol 72:93–114. doi: 10.2307/2260008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schmid B (1986) Colonizing plants with persistent seeds and persistent seedlings (Carex flava group). Bot Helv 96:19–26Google Scholar
  27. Sletvold N (2002) Effects of plant size on reproductive output and offspring performance in the facultative biennial Digitalis purpurea. J Ecol 90:958–966. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2745.2002.00725.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Suding KN, Goldberg DE, Hartman KM (2003) Relationships among species traits: separating levels of response and identifying linkages to abundance. Ecology 84:1–16. doi: 10.1890/0012-9658(2003)084[0001:RASTSL]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sugiyama S, Bazzaz FA (1998) Size dependence of reproductive allocation: the influence of resource availability, competition and genetic identity. Funct Ecol 12:280–288. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2435.1998.00187.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Susko DJ, Lovett DL (2000) Plant-size and fruit-position effects on reproductive allocation in Alliaria petiolata (Brassicaceae). Can J Bot 78:1398–1407. doi: 10.1139/cjb-78-11-1398 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Suter M, Ramseier D, Guesewell S et al (2007) Convergence patterns and multiple species interactions in a designed plant mixture of five species. Oecologia 151:499–511. doi: 10.1007/s00442-006-0594-x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. van der Hoek D, van Mierlo AJE, van Groenendael J (2004) Nutrient limitation and nutrient-driven shifts in plant species composition in a species-rich fen meadow. J Veg Sci 15:389–396. doi: 10.1658/1100-9233(2004)015[0389:NLANSI]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Weiner J (1988) The influence of competition on plant reproduction. In: Lovett Doust L (ed) Plant reproductive ecology. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 228–245Google Scholar
  34. Whitfield CP, Davison AW, Ashenden TW (1998) The effects of nutrient limitation on the response of Plantago major to ozone. New Phytol 140:219–230. doi: 10.1046/j.1469-8137.1998.00277.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Integrative BiologyETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations