Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing determinants of community biomass composition in two-species plant competition studies

  • Community Ecology
  • Published:
Oecologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A method is proposed for assessing the relative importance of species identity, neighbour species influence and environment as determinants of change in community biomass composition in two-species short-term competition experiments. The method is based on modelling the differences in relative growth rates (RGR) of species (hence called the RGRD method). Using a multiple regression approach it quantifies the effects of initial species’ abundance, species identity and environment on RGRD and hence on change in community biomass composition. The RGRD approach is relatively simple to use and deals readily with statistical difficulties associated with correlated responses between species from the same stand. It can be easily adapted to analyse sequential harvest data. An example based on data from two-species mixtures of the annual species Stellaria media and Poa annua is used to illustrate the method. The main determinant of change in community biomass composition was species identity, reflected in the difference in growth rates between the species. Change in community composition was not, in general, significantly affected by the influence of neighbours or fertiliser level. The unimportance of the influence of neighbours in affecting the composition of these communities contrasts with the strong role of intra- and interspecific competition in determining the size of individuals of both species (Connolly et al. in Oecologia 82:513–526, 1990).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aitchison J (1986) The statistical analysis of compositional data. Chapman and Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Allison GW (1999) The implications of experimental design for biodiversity manipulations. Am Nat 153:26–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazzaz FA (1996) Plants in changing environments: linking physiological, population, and community ecology. Cambridge University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Connell JH (1983) On the prevalence and relative importance of interspecific competition: evidence from field experiments. Am Nat 122:661–696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connolly J (1987) On the use of response models in mixture experiments. Oecologia 72:95–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Connolly J, Wachendorf M (2001) Developing multisite dynamic models of mixed species plant communities. Ann Bot 88:703–712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connolly J, Wayne PM (1996) Asymmetric competition between plant species. Oecologia 108:311–320

    Google Scholar 

  • Connolly J, Wayne PM, Murray R (1990) Time course of plant-plant interactions in experimental mixtures of annuals: density, frequency, and nutrient effects. Oecologia 82:513–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connolly J, Wayne PM, Bazzaz FA (2001) Interspecific competition in plants: how well do current methods answer fundamental questions? Am Nat 157:107–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Draper NR, Smith H (1981) Applied regression analysis, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Firbank LG, Watkinson AR (1985) On the analysis of competition within two-species mixtures of plants. J Appl Ecol 22:503–517

    Google Scholar 

  • Firbank L, Watkinson AR (1990) On the effects of competition, from monocultures to mixtures. In: Grace JB, Tilman D (eds) Perspectives on plant competition. Academic, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • Freckleton RP, Watkinson AR (2000) On detecting and measuring competition in spatially structured plant communities. Ecol Lett 3:423–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson DJ, Connolly J, Hartnett DC, Weidenhamer JD (1999) Essay review: designs for greenhouse studies of interactions between plants. J Ecol 87:1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg DE (1990) Components of resource competition in plant communities. In: Grace JB, Tilman D (eds) Perspectives on plant competition. Academic, New York, pp 27–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg DE, Barton AM (1992) Patterns and consequences of interspecific competition in natural communities: a review of field experiments with plants. Am Nat 139:771–801

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg DE, Scheiner SM (2001) ANOVA and ANCOVA field competition experiments. In: Scheiner SM, Gurevitch J (eds) Design and analysis of ecological experiments. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 77–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg DE, Turkington R, Olsvigwhittaker L (1995) Quantifying the community-level consequences of competition. Folia Geobot Phytotax 30:231–242

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg DE, Rajaniemi T, Gurevitch J, Stewart-Oaten A (1999) Empirical approaches to quantifying interaction intensity: competition and facilitation along productivity gradients. Ecology 80:1118–1131

    Google Scholar 

  • Grace JB, Tilman D (1990) Perspectives on plant competition. Academic, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Grace JB, Guntenspergen GR, Keough J (1993) The evaluation of a competition matrix for transitivity and intransitive loops. Oikos 68:91–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Grime JP (2001) Plant strategies, vegetation processes, and ecosystem properties. Wiley, Chichester, p 417

    Google Scholar 

  • Hector A, Schmid B, Beierkuhnlein C, Caldeira MC, Diemer M, Dimitrakopoulos PG, Finn JA, Freitas H, Giller PS, Good J, Harris R, Hogberg P, Huss-Danell K, Joshi J, Jumpponen A, Korner C, Leadley PW, Loreau M, Minns A, Mulder CPH, O’Donovan G, Otway SJ, Pereira JS, Prinz A, Read DJ, Scherer-Lorenzen M, Schulze ED, Siamantziouras ASD, Spehn EM, Terry AC, Troumbis AY, Woodward FI, Yachi S, Lawton JH (1999) Plant diversity and productivity experiments in European grasslands. Science 286:1123–1127

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Inouye BD (2001) Response surface experimental designs for investigating interspecific competition. Ecology 82:2696–2706

    Google Scholar 

  • Keddy PA (1989) Competition. Chapman and Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Keddy PA, Shipley B (1989) Competitive hierarchies in herbaceous plant communities. Oikos 54:234–241

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendall MG, Stuart A (1977) The advanced theory of statistics, vol I. Griffin, London

  • Kropf MJ, Spitters CJT (1991) A simple model of crop loss by weed competition from early observations on relative leaf area of the weeds. Weed Res 31:97–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Law R, Watkinson AR (1987) Response-surface analysis of two-species competition: an experiment on Phleum arenarium and Vulpia fasciculata. J Ecol 75:871–886

    Google Scholar 

  • Milthorpe FL (1961) The nature and analysis of competition between plants of different species. In: Milthorpe FL (ed) Mechanisms of biological competition. Symp Soc Exp Biol 15:330–355

    Google Scholar 

  • Muldowney D (1999) Compositional data analysis in the study of carcass composition of beef cattle. MSc Thesis, University College Dublin, Dublin

  • Muldowney D, Connolly J, Keane MG (2001) Compositional data analysis in the study of carcass composition of beef cattle. Livestock Prod Sci 67:241–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nolan T, Connolly J, Wachendorf M (2001) Mixed grazing and climatic determinants of white clover (Trifolium repens L.) content in a permanent pasture. Ann Bot 88:713–724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rajanaemi TK, Goldberg DE (2000) Quantifying individual- and community-level effects of competition using experimentally-determined null species pools. J Vegetat Sci 11:433–444

    Google Scholar 

  • Rejmánek M, Robinson GR, Rejmánková E (1989) Weed-crop competition: experimental designs and models for data analysis. Weed Sci 37:276–284

    Google Scholar 

  • Roush ML, Radosevich SR, Wagner RG, Maxwell BD, Peterson TD (1989) A comparison of methods for measuring effects of density and proportion in plant competition experiments. Weed Sci 37:268–275

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoener TW (1983) Field experiments on interspecific competition. Am Nat 122:240–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shipley B (1993) A null model of competitive hierarchies in competition matrices. Ecology 74:1693–1699

    Google Scholar 

  • Snaydon R (1991) Replacement or additive designs for competition studies. J Appl Ecol 28:930–946

    Google Scholar 

  • Symstad AJ, Tilman D, Willson J, Knops JMH (1998) Species loss and ecosystem functioning: effects of species identity and community composition. Oikos 81:389–397

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilman D (1988) Dynamics and structure of plant communities. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turkington R, Jolliffe PA (1996) Interference in Trifolium repens-Lolium perenne mixtures: short- and long-term relationships. J Ecol 84:563–571

    Google Scholar 

  • Wachendorf M, Collins RP, Elgersma A, Fothergill M, Frankow-lindberg BE, Ghesquiere A, Guckert A, Guinchard MP, Helgadottir A, Lüscher A, Nolan T, Nykänen-kurki P, Nösberger J, Parente G, Puzio S, Rhodes I, Robin C, Ryan A, Stäheli B, Stoffel S, Taube F, Connolly J (2001) Overwintering and growing season dynamics of Trifolium repens L. in mixture with Lolium perenne L.: a model approach to plant-environment interactions. Ann Bot 88:683–702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watkinson AR, Freckleton RP, Forrester L (2000) Population dynamics of Vulpia ciliata: regional, patch and local dynamics. J Ecol 88:1012–1029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weigelt A, Jolliffe P (2003) Indices of plant competition. J Ecol 91:707–720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weldon CW, Slauson WL (1986) The intensity of competition versus its importance: an overlooked distinction and some implications. Q Rev Biol 61:23–44

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to Fakhri Bazzaz for hosting J.C. during repeated visits to his laboratory and for his encouragement and constructive comments. We also thank David Gibson and Teresa Sebastia for helpful comments. We wish to thank two anonymous referees for very useful comments on earlier drafts. This work was partly supported by EPA (Ireland) programme AG-BIOTA, grant 2001-CD/B1-M1, by an Enterprise Ireland International Collaboration Programme grant in 2001 and by the EU Concerted Action COST 852.

Author information

Author notes

  1. John Connolly

    Present address: Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

  2. Peter Wayne

    Present address: Department of Research, New England School of Acupuncture, 40 Belmont Street, Watertown, MA, 02472, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Biological Laboratories, Harvard University, 16 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, MA, 02138, USA

    John Connolly & Peter Wayne

Authors
  1. John Connolly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter Wayne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Connolly.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Connolly, J., Wayne, P. Assessing determinants of community biomass composition in two-species plant competition studies. Oecologia 142, 450–457 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-004-1720-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-004-1720-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation