Ecological Research

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 242–247 | Cite as

Factors determining plant–neighbour interactions on different spatial scales in young species-rich grassland communities

  • Ann Milbau
  • Dirk Reheul
  • Benny De Cauwer
  • Ivan Nijs
Original Article

Abstract

In naturally colonised species-rich grassland communities, we examined the properties of a plant’s aboveground neighbourhood that affect its performance (aboveground biomass). To this end a range of neighbourhood parameters were measured: number, biomass and species richness of the neighbours, number and biomass of the conspecific neighbours, and light availability at the base of the target plant. We also determined at which neighbourhood size the strongest target plant–neighbour interactions occurred, and whether conspecific neighbours affected competitively stronger or weaker target species differently. Target plant performance varied with target identity, and was significantly affected by light availability and the number of neighbouring plants (neighbourhood density). Depending on the target species, there was also an effect of total neighbour biomass on plant performance. The target plants were most strongly affected by their neighbours within a 3-cm distance, which could account for 78% of the variance in target biomass. Number or biomass of the conspecific neighbours did not contribute to the explanation of target performance in any of the target species. Whereas in an 8-cm neighbourhood the amount of light penetration was the strongest predictor of target performance, the number of neighbours was more important in a 3-cm neighbourhood. These experimental results might be useful to extend existing neighbourhood competition models for one or two species to multi-species competition models.

Keywords

Competition Conspecific neighbours Grassland Neighbourhood Small-scale interactions 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Belgian Federal Science Policy Office, under the programme Global Change, Ecosystems and Biodiversity.

References

  1. Barot S (2004) Mechanisms promoting plant coexistence: can all the proposed processes be reconciled? Oikos 106:185–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Casper BB, Jackson RB (1997) Plant competition underground. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 28:545–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Casper BB, Schenk HJ, Jackson RB (2003) Defining a plant’s belowground zone of influence. Ecology 84:2313–2321Google Scholar
  4. Cheng D-L, Wang G-X, Chen B-M, Wei X-P (2006) Positive interactions: crucial organizers in a plant community. Plant Biol 48:128–136Google Scholar
  5. Dukes JS (2001) Productivity and complementarity in grassland microcosms of varying diversity. Oikos 94:468–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Foster BL, Smith VH, Dickson TL, Hildebrand T (2002) Invasibility and compositional stability in a grassland community: relationships to diversity and extrinsic factors. Oikos 99:300–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fowler NL (1984) The role of germination date, spatial arrangement, and neighbourhood effects in competitive interactions in Linum. J Ecol 72:307–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fridley JD (2003) Diversity effects on production in different light and fertility environments: an experiment with communities of annual plants. J Ecol 91:396–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gates DJ (1980) Competition between two types of plants with specific neighbor configurations. Math Biol Sci 48:195–209Google Scholar
  10. Glantz SA, Slinker BK (2001) Primer of applied regression and analysis of variance, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Goldberg DE (1987) Neighbourhood competition in an old-field plant community. Ecology 68:1211–1223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Julita HM, Grace JB (2002) Effects of disturbance on germination and seedling establishment in a coastal prairie grassland: a test of the competitive release hypothesis. J Ecol 90:291–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mack R, Harper JL (1977) Interference in dune annuals: spatial patterns and neighbourhood effects. J Ecol 65:345–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Menard S (1995) Applied logistic regression analysis. Sage university paper series on quantitative applications in the social sciences. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 7–106Google Scholar
  15. Milbau A, Nijs I (2004) The role of species traits (invasiveness) and ecosystem characteristics (invasibility) in grassland invasions: a framework. Weed Technol 18:1301–1304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Milbau A, Nijs I, De Raedemaecker F, Reheul D, De Cauwer B (2005a) Invasion in grassland gaps: the role of neighbourhood richness, light availability and species complementarity during two successive years. Funct Ecol 19:27–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Milbau A, Scheerlinck L, Reheul D, De Cauwer B, Nijs I (2005b) Ecophysiological and morphological parameters related to survival in grass species exposed to an extreme climatic event. Physiol Plant 125:500–512Google Scholar
  18. Molofsky J (1999) The effect of nutrients and spacing on neighbour relations in Cardamine pensylvanica. Oikos 84:506–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Monzeglio U, Stoll P (2005) Spatial patterns and species performances in experimental plant communities. Oecologia 145:619–628PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pedhazur EJ (1997) Multiple regression in behavioural research, 3rd edn. Harcourt Brace, OrlandoGoogle Scholar
  21. Pontailler JY (1990) A cheap quantum sensor using a gallum arsenide photodiode. Funct Ecol 4:591–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Purves DW, Law R (2002) Experimental derivation of functions relating growth of Arabidopsis thaliana to neighbour size and distance. J Ecol 90:882–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Silander JA, Pacala SW (1985) Neighborhood predictors of plant performance. Oecologia 66:256–263Google Scholar
  24. Spehn EM, Joshi J, Schmid B, Diemer M, Körner C (2000) Aboveground resource use increases with plant species richness in experimental grassland ecosystems. Funct Ecol 14:326–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stoll P, Prati D (2001) Intraspecific aggregation alters competitive interactions in experimental plant communities. Ecology 82:319–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Waller DM (1981) Neighborhood competition in several violet populations. Oecologia 51:116–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wardle DA (2001) Experimental demonstration that plant diversity reduces invasibility—evidence of a biological mechanism or a consequence of sampling effect? Oikos 95:161–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Watkinson AR, Lonsdale WM, Firbank LG (1983) A neighborhood approach of self-thinning. Oecologia 56:381–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Weigelt A, Steinlein T, Beyschlag W (2002) Does plant competition intensity rather depend on biomass or on species identity? Basic Appl Ecol 3:85–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Weiner J (1982) A neighbourhood model of annual-plant interference. Ecology 63:1237–1241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wyszomirski T, Wyszomirska I, Jarzyna I (1999) Simple mechanisms of size distribution dynamics in crowded and uncrowded virtual monocultures. Ecol Model 115:253–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Ecological Society of Japan 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ann Milbau
    • 1
  • Dirk Reheul
    • 2
  • Benny De Cauwer
    • 2
  • Ivan Nijs
    • 3
  1. 1.Botany DepartmentTrinity College DublinDublin 2Ireland
  2. 2.Department of Plant Production, Faculty of Bioscience EngineeringGhent UniversityGentBelgium
  3. 3.Research Group of Plant and Vegetation Ecology, Department of BiologyUniversity of AntwerpWilrijkBelgium

Personalised recommendations