Plant Ecology

, Volume 148, Issue 2, pp 245–253 | Cite as

Patterns of root activity and responses of species to nutrients in vegetation of fertile alluvial soil

  • A.P. Mamolos
  • D.S. Veresoglou


Temporal pattern of growth, time and depth of root activity, and responses to N, P and K enrichment were measured for the three most abundant species in species-poor vegetation on fertile alluvial soil to examine whether differences in these characteristics could account for their co-existence. The responses of these co-existing species to nutrients were tested in a factorial experiment of N, P and K additions. In the control plots, repeated harvests and injections of Sr at different depths in the soil were used to test differences among species in temporal and spatial pattern of root activity. Root activities were assessed from the Sr concentrations in the aboveground biomass. Differences in temporal pattern of growth and root activity, but not differences in spatial root activity between species, could account for the co-existence of species, since Conium, the most abundant species, was the earliest grown and the deepest-rooted species and it died back when the other two species started to maximize their growth and root activity. In comparison with the second most abundant species Lactuca, Conium had higher N but lower P tissue concentrations. Addition of N favoured Conium and almost eliminated Lactuca, while P and/or K additions increased the abundance of Lactuca and restricted that of Conium. These results provide indications that the differential responses of species to nutrients could be explained by species co-existence also in fertile soils. The changes in vegetation composition after nutrient enrichment could merely be predicted by the species' tissue concentrations of nutrients. The addition of a particular nutrient tended to favor the species with the highest tissue concentration of this nutrient.

Biomass duration Nutrient additions Shoot competition Strontium Temporal pattern of growth 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allen, S. E. 1989. Chemical Analysis of Ecological Materials, 2nd ed. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.Google Scholar
  2. Belcher, J. W., Keddy, P. A. & Twolan-Strutt, L. 1995. Root and shoot competition intensity along a soil depth gradient. J. Ecol. 83: 673–682.Google Scholar
  3. Berendse, F. 1979. Competition between plant populations with different rooting depths I. Theoretical considerations. Oecologia 43: 19–26.Google Scholar
  4. Berendse, F. 1981. Competition between plant populations with different rooting depths. II. Pot experiments. Oecologia 48: 334–341.Google Scholar
  5. Berendse, F. 1982. Competition between plant populations with different rooting depths. III. Field experiments. Oecologia 53: 50–55.Google Scholar
  6. Cahill, J. F. 1999. Fertilization effects on interactions between above-and belowground competition in an old filed. Ecology 80: 466–480.Google Scholar
  7. Chapin, F. S. III & Shaver, G. R. 1985. Individualistic growth response of tundra plant species to environmental manipulations in the field. Ecology 66: 564–576.Google Scholar
  8. Elisseou, G. K., Veresoglou, D. S. & Mamolos, A. P. 1995. Vegetation productivity and diversity of acid grasslands in Northern Greece as influenced by winter rainfall and limiting nutrients. Acta Oecol. 16: 687–702.Google Scholar
  9. Fitter, A. H. 1986. Spatial and temporal patterns of root activity in a species-rich alluvial grassland. Oecologia 69: 594–599.Google Scholar
  10. Grime, J. P. 1973. Competition exclusion in herbaceous vegetation. Nature 242: 344–347.Google Scholar
  11. Grime, J. P. 1977. Evidence for the existence of three primary strategies in plants and its relevance to ecological and evolutionary theory. Am. Nat. 111: 1169–1194.Google Scholar
  12. Grime, J. P. 1979. Plant Strategies and Vegetation Processes. John Wiley & Sons, London.Google Scholar
  13. Gurevitch, J. 1986. Competition an local distribution of the grass Stipa neomexicana. Ecology 67: 46–57.Google Scholar
  14. Hunt, R. 1978. Plant Growth Analysis. Studies in Biology No 96. Edward Arnold, London.Google Scholar
  15. Janssens, F., Peeters, A., Tallowin, J. R. B., Bakker, J. P., Bekker, R. M., Fillat, F. & Oomes, M. J.M. 1998. Relationship between soil chemical factors and grassland diversity. Plant Soil 202: 69–78.Google Scholar
  16. Keddy, P. A. 1989. Competition. Chapman and Hall Ltd, London.Google Scholar
  17. Mamolos, A. P., Elisseou, G. K. & Veresoglou, D. S. 1995a. Depth of root activity of co-existing grassland species in relation to N and P additions, measured using non-radioactive tracers. J. Ecol. 83: 643–652.Google Scholar
  18. Mamolos, A. P., Veresoglou, D. S. & Barbayiannis, N. 1995b. Plant species abundance and tissue concentrations of limiting nutrients in low-nutrient grasslands: a test of competition theory. J. Ecol. 83: 485–495.Google Scholar
  19. Marrs, R. H. 1993. Soil fertility and nature conservation in Europe, theoretical consideration and practical management solutions. Adv. Ecol. Res. 24: 241–300.Google Scholar
  20. McKane, R. B., Grigal, D. F. & Russelle, M. P. 1990. Spatiotemporal differences in 15N uptake and the organization of an old-field plant community. Ecology 71: 1126–1132.Google Scholar
  21. Murphy, J. & Riley, J. P. 1962. A modified single solution method for the determination of phosphate in natural waters. Anal. Chimica Acta 27: 31–36.Google Scholar
  22. Newman, E. I. 1973. Competition and diversity in herbaceous vegetation. Nature 244: 310.Google Scholar
  23. Parrish, J. A. D. & Bazzaz, F. A. 1976. Underground niche separation in successional plants. Ecology 57: 1281–1288.Google Scholar
  24. Reader, R. J. & Best, B. J. 1989. Variation in competition along an environmental gradient: Hieracium floribundum in an abandoned pasture. J. Ecol. 77: 67-684.Google Scholar
  25. Rogers, R. W. & Westman, W. E. 1979. Niche differentiation and maintenance of genetic identity in cohabiting Eucalyptus species. Aust. J. Ecol. 4: 429–439.Google Scholar
  26. Tilman, D. 1982. Resource Competition and Community Structure. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  27. Tilman, D. 1985. The resource ratio hypothesis of plant succession. Am. Nat. 125: 827–852.Google Scholar
  28. Tilman, D. 1986. Evolution and differentiation in terrestrial plant communities: The importance of the soil resources: light gradient. Pp. 359–380. In: Dianond, J. M. & Case, T. J. (eds), Community Ecology. Harper & Row, New York.Google Scholar
  29. Tilman, D. 1988. Plant Strategies and the Dynamics and Structure of Plant Communities. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  30. Tilman, D. 1990. Mechanisms of plant competition for nutrients: The elements of predictive theory of competition. Pp. 117–141. In: Grace, J. & Tilman, D. (eds), Perspectives on Plant Competition. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  31. Tutin, T. G., Heywood, V. H., Burges, N. A., Valentine, D. H., Walters, S. M. & Webb, D. A. 1964- 1980. Flora Europaea. I-V. Cambridge, University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  32. Veresoglou, D. S. & Fitter, A. H. 1984. Spatial and temporal patterns of growth and nutrient uptake of five co-existing grasses. J. Ecol. 72: 259–272.Google Scholar
  33. Wilson, S. D. & Tilman, D. 1991. Components of plant competition along an experimental gradient of nitrogen availability. Ecology 72: 1050–1065.Google Scholar
  34. Wilson, S. D. & Tilman, D. 1993. Plant competition and resource availability in response to disturbance and fertilization. Ecology 74: 599–611.Google Scholar
  35. Wilson, S. D. & Tilman, D. 1995. Competitive responses of eight old-field plant species in four environments. Ecology 76: 1169–1181.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • A.P. Mamolos
    • 1
  • D.S. Veresoglou
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Agriculture, Laboratory of Ecology and Environmental ProtectionAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations