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.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
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.
Bazzaz, F. A. 1991. Habitat selection in plants. Am. Naturalist 137: S116-S130.
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.
Brown, J. S. and Rosenzweig, M. L. 1986. Habitat selection in slowly regenerating environments. J. Theor. Biol. 123: 151-171.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gersani, M., Abramsky, Z. & Falik, O. 1998. Density-dependent habitat selection in plants. Evol. Ecol. 12: 223-234.
Gersani, M. & Sachs. T 1992. Development correlations between roots in heterogenous environments. Plant Cell Environ. 15: 463-469.
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.
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.
Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162: 1243-1248.
Hoagland, D. R. & Arnon, D. I. 1950. The water culture method for growing plants without soil. California Agricultural Experiment Station. Circular No. 374.
Mahall, B. E. & Callaway, R. M. 1991. Root communication among desert shrubs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 88: 874-876.
Mahall, B. E. & Callaway, R. M. 1992. Root communication mechanisms and intra-community distributions of two Mojave Desert shrubs. Ecology 73: 2145-2151.
McConnaughay, K. D. M. & Bazzaz, F. A. 1991. Is physical space a soil resource? Ecology 72: 94-103.
McConnaughay, K. D M. & Bazzaz, F. A. 1992. The Occupation and fragmentation of space: Consequences of neighboring roots. Funct. Ecol. 6: 704-710.
Morris, D. W. 1994. Habitat matching: Alternatives and implications to populations and communities. Evol. Ecol. 4: 387-406.
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.
Novoplansky, A., Cohen, D. & Sachs T. 1989. Ecological implications of correlative inhibition between plant shoots. Physiol. Plant. 77: 136-140.
Rosenzweig, M. L. 1991. Habitat selection and population interactions. Am. Natural. 137: S5-S28.
Rosenzweig, M. L. & Abramsky Z. 1985. Detecting density-dependent selection. Am. Natural. 126: 405-417.
Sachs, T., Novoplansky, A. & Cohen, D. 1993. Plants as competing populations of redundant organs. Plant Cell Environ. 16: 765-770.
Schenk, H. J., Callaway, R. M. & Mahall, B. E. 1991. Spatial root segregation: Are plants territorial? Advances in Ecological Research (in press).
Venable, D. L. & Brown, J. S. 1993. The population dynamic functions of seed dispersal. Vegetatio 107: 31-35.
Vincent, T. L., Van, M. V. & Goh, B. S. 1996. Ecological stability, evolutionary stability and the ESS maximum principle. Evol. Ecol. 10: 567-591.
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.
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
- crop yield
- evolutionary game theory
- plant competition
- root competition
- nutrient foraging