Intra-plant versus Inter-plant Root Competition in Beans: avoidance, resource matching or tragedy of the commons

Abstract

Root competition inhibits root proliferation. All else equal, a plant should invest roots in a nutrient patch devoid of roots rather than one already occupied by roots. Less clear is how a plant should respond to intra-plant versus inter-plant root competition. We consider three responses for how a plant may select habitats based on intra-versus inter-plant root competition: inter-plant avoidance, resource matching, or intra-plant avoidance. The first assumes that plants prefer to have their own space and preferentially proliferate roots away from neighboring plants. The second response, based on the ideal free distribution, assumes that plants invest so as to equalize average returns from roots, regardless of the identity of the neighboring roots. The third, based on game theory, assumes that the plant proliferates roots so as to maximize whole-plant fitness, in which case it is better to proliferate plants among a neighbor's roots than to continue proliferating amongst one's own roots. To test among these models we grew beans (Phaseolus varigaris, var. Kenya) in a greenhouse under two planting scenarios. Both scenario were tested under 0.5 and 0.1 strength of nutrient solution. Under scenario A (fence-sitters), two split-root plants each shared two patches by virtue of having roots in each. Under scenario B (owners) two plants each had their own patch. The results supported the game theory model of intra-plant avoidance (whole plant habitat selection). Fence-sitters produced 150% more root mass per individual than owners. Owners produced 90% more yield (dry mass of pods) than fence-sitters. Furthermore, owners had significantly higher shoot-root ratios than fence-sitters. These effects did not vary with high or low nutrient levels. The over-proliferation of roots under inter-plant competition (fence-sitters) was manifest by the tenth day after planting. In short, the fence-sitters engaged in a tragedy of the commons in which they competed with each other through root proliferation. At the ESS, the fitness maximizing strategy of the individual is to sacrifice collective yield in a quest to `steal' nutrients from its neighbor. The research has three implications. First, plants may be able to assess and respond to local opportunities in a manner that maximizes the good of the whole plant. Second, nutrient foraging as a game may provide a fresh perceptive for viewing root competition either intra-specifically or inter-specifically. Third, it may be possible to increase the yield of certain crop species by breeding more `docile' cultivars that do not overproduce roots in response to inter-plant competition.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Ballare, C. L., Sanchez, R. A., Scopel, A. L. & Ghera, C. M. 1987. Early detection of neighbor plants by phytochrome perception of spectral changes in reflected sunlight. Plant Cell Environ. 10: 551-557.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bazzaz, F. A. 1991. Habitat selection in plants. Am. Naturalist 137: S116-S130.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Brown J. S. 1998. Game theory and habitat selection. In: Dugatkin L. A. & Reeve, H. K. (eds), Game theory and animal behavior. Pp. 188-220. Oxford University Press.

  4. Brown, J. S. and Rosenzweig, M. L. 1986. Habitat selection in slowly regenerating environments. J. Theor. Biol. 123: 151-171.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Campbell, B. D., Grime, J. P., Mackey, J. M. L. & Jalili, A. 1991. The quest for a mechanistic understanding of resource competition in plant communities: the role of experiments. Funct. Ecol. 5: 241-253.

    Google Scholar 

  6. D'Antonio, C. M. & Mahall, B. E. 1991. Root profiles and competition between the invasive, exotic perennial, Carpobrotus edulis, and two native shrub species in California coastal scrub. Am. J. Botany 78: 885-894.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Drew, M. C. & Saker, L. R. 1975. Nutrient supply and the growth of seminal root system in barley. II. Localized compensatory increase in lateral root growth and rates of nitrate uptake when nitrate supply is restricted to only one part of the root system. J. Exp. Botany 26: 79-90.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fretwell, S. D. & Lucas, H. L. Jr. 1970. On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. I. Theoretical development. Acta Biotheor. 19: 16-36.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gersani, M., Abramsky, Z. & Falik, O. 1998. Density-dependent habitat selection in plants. Evol. Ecol. 12: 223-234.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gersani, M. & Sachs. T 1992. Development correlations between roots in heterogenous environments. Plant Cell Environ. 15: 463-469.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gersani, M., Brown, J. S., O'Brien. E., Maina, G. G., & Abramsky, Z. 2001. Tragedy of the commons as a result of root competition. J. Ecol. 89: 661-669.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hackett, C. 1972. A method of applying locality to roots under controlled conditions and the morphological effects of locally applied nitrate on the branching of wheat roots. Austral. J. Biol. Sci. 23: 1169-1180.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162: 1243-1248.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hoagland, D. R. & Arnon, D. I. 1950. The water culture method for growing plants without soil. California Agricultural Experiment Station. Circular No. 374.

  15. Mahall, B. E. & Callaway, R. M. 1991. Root communication among desert shrubs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 88: 874-876.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Mahall, B. E. & Callaway, R. M. 1992. Root communication mechanisms and intra-community distributions of two Mojave Desert shrubs. Ecology 73: 2145-2151.

    Google Scholar 

  17. McConnaughay, K. D. M. & Bazzaz, F. A. 1991. Is physical space a soil resource? Ecology 72: 94-103.

    Google Scholar 

  18. McConnaughay, K. D M. & Bazzaz, F. A. 1992. The Occupation and fragmentation of space: Consequences of neighboring roots. Funct. Ecol. 6: 704-710.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Morris, D. W. 1994. Habitat matching: Alternatives and implications to populations and communities. Evol. Ecol. 4: 387-406.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Novoplansky, A. & Cohen, D. 1997. The mutual distribution of competing root stems. Pp. 353-364 In: Altman & Waisel, (eds), Biology of Root Formation and Development. Plenum Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Novoplansky, A., Cohen, D. & Sachs T. 1989. Ecological implications of correlative inhibition between plant shoots. Physiol. Plant. 77: 136-140.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Rosenzweig, M. L. 1991. Habitat selection and population interactions. Am. Natural. 137: S5-S28.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Rosenzweig, M. L. & Abramsky Z. 1985. Detecting density-dependent selection. Am. Natural. 126: 405-417.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Sachs, T., Novoplansky, A. & Cohen, D. 1993. Plants as competing populations of redundant organs. Plant Cell Environ. 16: 765-770.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Schenk, H. J., Callaway, R. M. & Mahall, B. E. 1991. Spatial root segregation: Are plants territorial? Advances in Ecological Research (in press).

  26. Venable, D. L. & Brown, J. S. 1993. The population dynamic functions of seed dispersal. Vegetatio 107: 31-35.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Vincent, T. L., Van, M. V. & Goh, B. S. 1996. Ecological stability, evolutionary stability and the ESS maximum principle. Evol. Ecol. 10: 567-591.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Wightman, F. & Thimann, K. V. 1980. Hormonal factors controlling the initiation and development of lateral roots. I. Sources of primodal-inducing substances in the primary root of pea seedlings. Physiol. Plant. 49: 13-20.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Godfrey G. Maina.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Maina, G.G., Brown, J.S. & Gersani, M. Intra-plant versus Inter-plant Root Competition in Beans: avoidance, resource matching or tragedy of the commons. Plant Ecology 160, 235–247 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015822003011

Download citation

  • crop yield
  • evolutionary game theory
  • plant competition
  • root competition
  • nutrient foraging