Water and nitrogen addition differentially impact plant competition in a native rough fescue grassland
- 754 Downloads
We examined how water and nitrogen addition and water–nitrogen interactions affect root and shoot competition intensity and competition–productivity relationships in a native rough fescue grassland in central Alberta, Canada. Water and nitrogen were added in a factorial design to plots and root exclusion tubes and netting were used to isolate root and shoot competition on two focal species (Artemisia frigida and Chenopodium leptophyllum). Both water and nitrogen were limiting to plant growth, and focal plant survival rates increased with nitrogen but not water addition. Relative allocation to root biomass increased with water addition. Competition was almost entirely belowground, with focal plants larger when released from root but not shoot competition. There were no significant relationships between productivity and root, shoot, or total competition intensity, likely because in this system shoot biomass was too low to cause strong shoot competition and root biomass was above the levels at which root competition saturates. Water addition had few effects on the intensity of root competition suggesting that root competition intensity is invariant along soil moisture gradients. Contrary to general expectation, the strength of root competition increased with nitrogen addition demonstrating that the relationship between root competition intensity and nitrogen is more complex than a simple monotonic decline as nitrogen increases. Finally, there were few interactions between nitrogen and water affecting competition. Together these results indicate that the mechanisms of competition for water and nitrogen likely differ.
KeywordsAboveground competition Belowground competition Nitrogen fertilization Soil moisture
We thank D. Gabruck, S. Roehr, A. Pfeiffer, and N. Fernando for assistance in the field, the Cahill lab group, K. Ketilson, and an anonymous reviewer for helpful suggestions. Financial support came from an Alberta Ingenuity studentship to E.G.L., an NSERC PGS-M scholarship to B.H.S., an Alberta Conservation Association Biodiversity grant to E.G.L. and J.F.C., and an NSERC Discovery grant to J.F.C.
- Cahill JF (1999) Fertilization effects on interactions between above- and belowground competition in an old field. Ecology 80:466–480Google Scholar
- Corcket E, Liancourt P, Callaway RM, Michalet R (2003) The relative importance of competition for two dominant grass species as affected by environmental manipulations in the field. Écoscience 10:186–194Google Scholar
- Fitter AH, Hay RKM (2002) Environmental physiology of plants. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Grime JP (2001) Plant strategies, vegetation processes, and ecosystem properties. John Wiley and Sons, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
- Howitt RW (1988) Soil survey or the county of Beaver, Alberta. Terrain Sciences Department, Alberta Research Council, Edmonton Alberta CanadaGoogle Scholar
- Keddy PA (2001) Competition. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
- Poorter H, Nagel O (2000) The role of biomass allocation in the growth response of plants to different levels of light, CO2, nutrients, and water: a quantitative review. Aust J Plant Phys 27:595–607Google Scholar
- SAS (2004) SAS/STAT 9.1 Users guide. SAS Institute Inc., Cary NC USAGoogle Scholar
- Sims PL, Risser PG (2000) Grasslands. In: Barbour MG, Billings WD (eds) North American terrestrial vegetation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, pp 324–356Google Scholar
- Tilman D (1988) Plant strategies and the dynamics and structure of plant communities. Princeton University Press, Princeton New JerseyGoogle Scholar
- Weigelt A, Röttgermann M, Steinlein T, Beyschlag W (2000) Influence of water availability on competitive interactions between plant species on sandy soils. Folia Geobot 35:169–178Google Scholar