Plant Ecology

, Volume 192, Issue 1, pp 21–33 | Cite as

Water and nitrogen addition differentially impact plant competition in a native rough fescue grassland

  • Eric G. LambEmail author
  • Bryon H. Shore
  • James F. Cahill
Original Paper


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.


Aboveground 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.


  1. Arii K, Turkington R (2001) Assessing competition intensity along productivity gradients using a simple model. Can J Bot 79:1486–1491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Belcher JW, Keddy PA, Twolan-Strutt L (1995) Root and shoot competition intensity along a soil depth gradient. J Ecol 83:673–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bertiller MB, Zaixso P, Irisarri MD, Brevedan ER (1996) Establishment of Festuca pallescens in arid grasslands in Patagonia (Argentina): the effect of soil water stress. J Arid Environ 32:161–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Booth MS, Stark JM, Rastetter E (2005) Controls on nitrogen cycling in terrestrial ecosystems: a synthetic analysis of literature data. Ecol Monogr 75:139–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brewer JS (2003) Nitrogen addition does not reduce belowground competition in a salt marsh clonal plant community in Mississippi (USA) . Plant Ecol 168:93–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Briones O, Montańa C, Ezcurra E (1998) Competition intensity as a function of resource availability in a semiarid ecosystem. Oecologia 116:365–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burger JC, Louda SM (1995) Interaction of diffuse competition and insect herbivory in limiting brittle prickly pear cactus, Opuntia fragilis (Cactaceae). Am J Bot 82:1558–1566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cahill JF (1999) Fertilization effects on interactions between above- and belowground competition in an old field. Ecology 80:466–480Google Scholar
  9. Cahill JF (2002a) Interactions between root and shoot competition vary among species. Oikos 99:101–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cahill JF (2002b) What evidence is necessary in studies which separate root and shoot competition along productivity gradients. J Ecol 90:201–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cahill JF (2003a) Lack of relationship between below-ground competition and allocation to roots in 10 grassland species. J Ecol 91:532–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cahill JF (2003b) Neighbourhood-scale diversity, composition and root crowding do not alter competition during drought in a native grassland. Ecol Lett 6:599–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cahill JF, Casper BB (2000) Investigating the relationship between neighbor root biomass and belowground competition: field evidence for symmetric competition belowground. Oikos 90:311–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Casper BB, Jackson RB (1997) Plant competition underground. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 28:545–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Craine JM (2005) Reconciling plant strategy theories of Grime and Tilman. J Ecol 93:1041–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Davis MA, Wrage KJ, Reich PB (1998) Competition between tree seedlings and herbaceous vegetation: support for a theory of resource supply and demand. J Ecol 86:652–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Davis MA, Wrage KJ, Reich PB, Tjoelker MG, Schaeffer T, Muermann C (1999) Survival, growth, and photosynthesis of tree seedlings competing with herbaceous vegetation along a water-light-nitrogen gradient. Plant Ecol 145:341–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dell CJ, Rice CW (2005) Short-term competition for ammonium and nitrate in tallgrass prairie. Soil Sci Soc Am J 69:371–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Engqvist L (2005) The mistreatment of covariate interaction terms in linear model analyses of behavioural and evolutionary ecology studies. Anim Behav 70:967–971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fitter AH, Hay RKM (2002) Environmental physiology of plants. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Fynn RWS, Morris CD, Kirkman KP (2005) Plant strategies and trade-offs influence trends in competitive ability along gradients of soil fertility and disturbance. J Ecol 93:384–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gersani M, Brown JS, O’Brien EE, Mania GM, Abramsky Z (2001) Tragedy of the commons as a result of root competition. J Ecol 89:660–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goldberg DE, Barton AM (1992) Patterns and consequences of interspecific competition in natural communities: a review of field experiments with plants. Am Nat 139:771–801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goldberg D, Novoplansky A (1997) On the relative importance of competition in unproductive environments. J Ecol 85:409–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grime JP (1973) Competitive exclusion in herbaceous vegetation. Nature 242:344–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Grime JP (2001) Plant strategies, vegetation processes, and ecosystem properties. John Wiley and Sons, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  28. Haugland E, Froud-Williams RJ (1999) Improving grasslands: the influence of soil moisture and nitrogen fertilization on the establishment of seedlings. J Appl Ecol 36:263–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hedges LV, Gurevitch J, Curtis PS (1999) The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology. Ecology 80:1150–1156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Howitt RW (1988) Soil survey or the county of Beaver, Alberta. Terrain Sciences Department, Alberta Research Council, Edmonton Alberta CanadaGoogle Scholar
  31. Jackson LE, Schimel JP, Firestone MK (1989) Short-term partitioning of ammonium and nitrate between plants and microbes in an annual grassland. Soil Biol Biochem 21:409–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. James JJ, Richards JH (2005) Plant N capture from pulses: effects of pulse size, growth rate, and other soil resources. Oecologia 145:113–122PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kadmon R (1995) Plant competition along soil moisture gradients: a field experiment with the desert annual Stipa capensis. J Ecol 83:253–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Keddy PA (2001) Competition. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  35. Lamb EG, Cahill JF, Dale MRT (2006) A nonlinear regression approach to test for size-dependence of competitive ability. Ecology 87:1452–1457PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Liancourt P, Corcket E, Michalet R (2005) Stress tolerance abilities and competitive responses in a watering and fertilization field experiment. J Veg Sci 16:713–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Newman EI (1973) Competition and diversity in herbaceous vegetation. Nature 244:310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Novoplansky A, Goldberg DE (2001) Effects of water pulsing on individual performance and competitive hierarchies in plants. J Veg Sci 12:199–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Peltzer DA, Wilson SD, Gerry AK (1998) Competition intensity along a productivity gradient in a low-diversity grassland. Am Nat 151:465–476CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 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
  41. Pregitzer KS, Hendrick RL, Fogel R (1993) The demography of fine roots in response to patches of water and nitrogen. New Phytol 125:575–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pucheta E, Bonamici I, Cabido M, Diaz S (2004) Below-ground biomass and productivity of a grazed site and a neighbouring ungrazed exclosure in a grassland in central Argentina. Austral Ecol 29:201–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Reynolds HL, D’Antonio C (1996) The ecological significance of plasticity in root weight ratio in response to nitrogen: opinion. Plant Soil 185:75–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sammul M, Oksanen L, Mägi M. (2006) Regional effects on competition-productivity relationship: a set of field experiments in two distant regions. Oikos 112:138–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Santos BM, Dusky JA, Stall WM, Bewick TA, Shilling DG (2004) Mechanisms of interference of smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus) and common purslane (Portulaca oleracea) on lettuce as influenced by phosphorus fertility. Weed Sci 52:78–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. SAS (2004) SAS/STAT 9.1 Users guide. SAS Institute Inc., Cary NC USAGoogle Scholar
  47. Schenk HJ (2006) Root competition: beyond resource depletion. J Ecol 94:725–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schwinning S, Weiner J (1998) Mechanisms determining the degree of size asymmetry in competition among plants. Oecologia 113:447–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Semere T, Froud-Williams RJ (2001) The effect of pea cultivar and water stress on root and shoot competition between vegetative plants of maize and pea. J Appl Ecol 38:137–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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
  51. Taylor DR, Aarssen LW, Loehle C (1990) On the relationship between r/K selection and environmental carrying-capacity – a new habitat templet for plant life-history strategies. Oikos 58:239–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tilman D (1988) Plant strategies and the dynamics and structure of plant communities. Princeton University Press, Princeton New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  53. Twolan-Strutt L, Keddy PA (1996) Above- and belowground competition intensity in two contrasting wetland plant communities. Ecology 77:259–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Weigelt A, Jolliffe P (2003) Indices of plant competition. J Ecol 91:707–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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
  56. Weigelt A, Steinlein T, Beyschlag W (2005) Competition among three dune species: the impact of water availability on below-ground processes. Plant Ecol 176:57–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wetzel PR, van der Valk AG (1998) Effects of nutrient and soil moisture on competition between Carex stricta, Phalaris arundinacea, and Typha latifolia. Plant Ecol 138:179–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wilson SD, Tilman D (1991) Components of plant competition along an experimental gradient of nitrogen availability. Ecology 72:1050–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wilson SD, Tilman D (1993) Plant competition and resource availability in response to disturbance and fertilization. Ecology 74:599–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wilson SD, Tilman D (1995) Competitive responses of eight old-field plant species in four environments. Ecology 76:1169–1180CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric G. Lamb
    • 1
    Email author
  • Bryon H. Shore
    • 1
  • James F. Cahill
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations