Ecological Research

, Volume 21, Issue 5, pp 707–712 | Cite as

Size-asymmetric competition and size-asymmetric growth in a spatially explicit zone-of-influence model of plant competition

Original Article


Size-asymmetric competition among plants is usually defined as resource pre-emption by larger individuals, but it is usually observed and measured as a disproportionate size advantage in the growth of larger individuals in crowded populations (“size-asymmetric growth”). We investigated the relationship between size-asymmetric competition and size-asymmetric growth in a spatially explicit, individual-based plant competition model based on overlapping zones of influence (ZOI). The ZOI of each plant is modeled as a circle, growing in two dimensions. The size asymmetry of competition is reflected in the rules for dividing up the overlapping areas. We grew simulated populations with different degrees of size-asymmetric competition and at different densities and analyzed the size dependency of individual growth by fitting coupled growth functions to individuals. The relationship between size and growth within the populations was summarized with a parameter that measures the size asymmetry of growth. Complete competitive symmetry (equal division of contested resources) at the local level results in a very slight size asymmetry in growth. This slight size asymmetry of growth did not increase with increasing density. Increased density resulted in increased growth asymmetry when resource competition at the local level was size asymmetric to any degree. Size-asymmetric growth can be strong evidence that competitive mechanisms are at least partially size asymmetric, but the degree of size-asymmetric growth is influenced by the intensity as well as the mode of competition. Intuitive concepts of size-asymmetric competition among individuals in spatial and nonspatial contexts are very different.


Growth–size relationship Local competition Local density Neighborhood competition Size-dependent growth 



We thank two anonymous reviewers and editor Yoh Iwasa for helpful comments on the manuscript. This research was supported, in part, by a grant from the Danish Agricultural and Veterinary Research Council (53-00-0246).


  1. Begon M (1984) Density and individual fitness: asymmetric competition. In: Shorrocks B (eds) Evolutionary ecology. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 175–194Google Scholar
  2. Berntson GM, Wayne PM (2000) Characterizing the size dependence of resource acquisition within crowded plant populations. Ecology 81:1072–1085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonan GB (1991) Density effects on the size structure of annual plant populations: an indication of neighbourhood competition. Ann Bot 68:341–347Google Scholar
  4. Damgaard C (1999) A test of asymmetric competition in plant monocultures using the maximum likelihood function of a simple growth model. Ecol Model 116:285–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Damgaard C, Weiner J, Nagashima H (2002) Modelling individual growth and competition in plant populations: growth curves of Chenopodium album at two densities. J Ecol 90:666–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. García-Barrios L, Mayer-Foulkes D, Franco M, Urquijo-Vásquez G, Franco-Pérez J (2001) Development and validation of a spatially explicit individual-based mixed crop growth model. Bull Math Biol 63:507–526CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Gates DJ, Westcott M (1978) Zone of influence models for competition in plantations. Adv Appl Probab 10:299–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hara T (1988) Dynamics of size structure in plant populations. Trends Ecol Evol 3:129–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hara T, Wyszomirski T (1994) Competitive asymmetry reduces spatial effects on size–structure dynamics in plant populations. Ann Bot 73:285–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hikosaka K, Hirose T (2001) Nitrogen uptake and use by competing individuals in a Xanthium canadense stand. Oecologia 126:174–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hunt R (1982) Plant growth curves. University Park Press, Baltimore, MDGoogle Scholar
  12. Huston M (1986) Size bimodality in plant populations: an alternative hypothesis. Ecology 67:265–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kikuzawa K (1999) Theoretical relationships between mean plant size, size distribution and self thinning under one-sided competition. Ann Bot 83:11–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Richards FJ (1959) A flexible growth function for empirical use. J Exp Bot 10:290–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. SAS Institute (2001) SAS/STAT user’s guide, version 8.02. SAS Institute, Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  16. Schmitt J, Ehrhardt DW, Cheo M (1986) Light-dependent dominance and suppression in experimental radish populations. Ecology 67:1502–1507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schwinning S, Fox GA (1995) Population dynamic consequences of competitive symmetry in annual plants. Oikos 72:422–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schwinning S, Weiner J (1998) Mechanisms determining the degree of size-asymmetry in competition among plants. Oecologia 113:447–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Seber GAF, Wild CJ (1989) Nonlinear regression. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Thomas SC, Weiner J (1989) Growth, death and size distribution change in an Impatiens pallida population. J Ecol 77:524–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Vandermeer J (1989) The ecology of intercropping. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Weiner J (1985) Size hierarchies in experimental populations of annual plants. Ecology 66:743–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Weiner J (1990) Asymmetric competition in plant populations. Trends Ecol Evol 5:360–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Weiner J, Thomas SC (1986) Size variability and competition in plant monocultures. Oikos 47:211–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Weiner J, Stoll P, Muller-Landau H, Jasentuliyana A (2001) The effects of density, spatial pattern and competitive symmetry on size variation in simulated plant populations. Am Nat 158:438–450CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. West GB, Brown JH, Enquist BJ (1999) A general model for the structure and allometry of plant vascular systems. Nature 400:664–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Westoby M (1982) Frequency distributions of plant size during competitive growth of stands: the operation of distribution-modifying functions. Ann Bot 50:733–735Google Scholar
  28. Wolfram S (1999) The mathematica book. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Wyszomirski T (1983) A simulation model of the growth of competing individuals of a plant population. Ekol Polska 31:73–92Google Scholar
  30. 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

  1. 1.Department of EcologyRoyal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Rolighedsvej 21FrederiksbergDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Terrestrial EcologyNational Environmental Research Institute, Vejlsøvej 25SilkeborgDenmark

Personalised recommendations