Advertisement

Journal of Chemical Ecology

, Volume 27, Issue 7, pp 1513–1523 | Cite as

Density-Dependent Chemical Interference--An Extension of the Biological Response Model

  • A. Sinkkonen
Article

Abstract

The response of plants to many phytochemicals changes from stimulatory to inhibitory as the concentration of the phytochemical increases. In this paper, a previous biological response model is extended to yield estimates of plant responses to changes in phytochemical concentrations in the case of density-dependent phytotoxicity. This requires a knowledge of plant densities, phytochemical concentrations in soil, and the relationship between the two. According to this model extension, inhibition is a probable outcome in density-dependent chemical interference, but phytotoxic effects may become stimulatory as plant density increases. In addition, low phytochemical concentrations in soil may cause an increase in the slope of the biomass–density relationship compared to the slope of control treatments. Experimental data from the literature support this model extension, and in several cases density-dependent chemical interference can be estimated mathematically.

Chemical interference phytotoxicity competition model density biological response plant–plant interactions 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. AN, M., JOHNSON, I. R., and LOVETT, J. V. 1993. Mathematical modeling of allelopathy: Biological response to allelochemicals and its interpretation. J. Chem. Ecol. 19:2379-2388.Google Scholar
  2. ANDERSEN, R. N. 1981. Increasing herbicide tolerance of soybeans (Glycine max) by increasing seeding rates. Weed Sci. 29:336-338.Google Scholar
  3. BLUM, U., STAMAN, K. L., FLINT, L. J., and SHAFER, S. R. 2000. Induction and/or selection of phenolic acid-utilizing bulk-soil and rhizosphere bacteria and their influence on phenolic acid phytotoxicity. J. Chem. Ecol. 26:2059-2078.Google Scholar
  4. CARBALLEIRA, A., CARRAL, E., and REIGOSA, M. J. 1988. Asymmetric small-scale distribution and allelopathy: Interaction between Rumex obtusifolius L. and meadow species. J. Chem. Ecol. 14:1775-1786.Google Scholar
  5. CHOESIN, D. N., and BOERNER, R. E. J. 1991. Allyl isothiocyanate release and the allelopathic potential of Brassica napus (Brassicaceae). Am. J. Bot. 78:1083-1090.Google Scholar
  6. GERIG, T. M., and BLUM, U. 1991. Effects of mixtures of four phenolic acids on leaf area expansion of cucumber seedlings grown in Portsmouth B1 soil materials. J. Chem. Ecol. 17:29-40.Google Scholar
  7. HALL, M. H. 1989. Alfalfa autotoxic fraction characterization and initial separation. Crop Sci. 29:425-428.Google Scholar
  8. HEGDE, R. S., and MILLER, D. A. 1992. Concentration dependency and stage of crop growth in alfalfa autotoxicity. Agronomy J. 84:940-946.Google Scholar
  9. HOFFMAN, D. W., and LAVY, T. L. 1978. Plant competition for atrazine. Weed Sci. 26:94-99.Google Scholar
  10. INDERJIT, and DAKSHINI, K. M. M. 1995. On laboratory bioassays in allelopathy. Bot. Rev. 61:28-44.Google Scholar
  11. LOCKERMAN, R. H., and PUTNAM, A. R. 1981. Mechanisms for differential interference among cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) accessions. Bot. Gaz. 142:427-430.Google Scholar
  12. NIEMEYER, H. M. 1988. Hydroxamic acids (4-hydroxy-1,4-benzoxazin-3-ones), defence chemicals in the Gramineae. Phytochemistry 27:3349-3358.Google Scholar
  13. NILSSON, M.-C. 1994. Separation of allelopathy and resource competition by the boreal dwarf shrub Empetrum hermaphroditum Hagerup. Oecologia 98:1-7.Google Scholar
  14. PELLISSIER, F. 1995. Allelopathy from ecosystem to cell in spruce [Picea abies (L.) Karst.] forests, pp. 65-79, in S. S. Narwal and P. Tauro (eds.). Allelopathy: Field Observations and Methodology. Scientific Publishers, Jodhpur, India.Google Scholar
  15. PELLISSIER, F., and SOUTO, X. C. 1999. Allelopathy in northern temperate and boreal semi-natural woodland. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 18:637-652.Google Scholar
  16. REIGOSA M. J., SáNCHEZ-MOREIRAS A., and GONZáLES L. 1999. Ecophysiological approach in allelopathy. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 18:577-608.Google Scholar
  17. THIJS, H., SHANN, J. R., and WEIDENHAMER, J. D. 1994. The effect of phytotoxins on competitive outcome in a model system. Ecology 75:1959-1964.Google Scholar
  18. WEIDENHAMER, J. D. 1996. Distinguishing resource competition and chemical interference: Overcoming the methodological impasse. Agron. J. 88:866-875.Google Scholar
  19. WEIDENHAMER, J. D., HARTNETT, D. C., and ROMEO, J. T. 1989. Density-dependent phytotoxicity: Distinguishing resource competition and allelopathic interference in plants. J. Appl. Ecol. 26:613-624.Google Scholar
  20. WILLIAMSON, G. B., and WEIDENHAMER, J. D. 1990. Bacterial degradation of juglone: Evidence against allelopathy? J. Chem. Ecol. 16:1739-1742.Google Scholar
  21. WU, H., PRATLEY, J., LEMERLE, D., and HAIG, T. 2000. Laboratory screening for allelopathic potential of wheat (Triticum aestivum) accessions against annual ryegrass (Lolium rigidum). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 51:259-266.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Sinkkonen
    • 1
  1. 1.Satakunta Environmental Research Center, and Section of Ecology, Department of BiologyUniversity of TurkuPoriFinland

Personalised recommendations