Advertisement

Competition

  • Annikki Mäkelä
  • Harry T. Valentine
Chapter
  • 40 Downloads

Abstract

The term competition is used to describe individual tree or stand-level reactions to situations where the trees must share limited resources. Resource limitation at the stand level constrains total growth, productivity, and the maximum biomass that a site can support. In this chapter we focus on the reactions of individuals to resource limitation. We consider the distribution of resources among individuals in crowded stands, plastic reactions of trees to competition, and the combined effects of environment and plasticity on resource acquisition.

References

  1. Alam A, Kilpelainen A, Kellomaki S (2010) Potential energy wood production with implications to timber recovery and carbon stocks under varying thinning and climate scenarios in Finland. Bioenergy Res 3(4):362–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bohlman S, Pacala S (2012) A forest structure model that determines crown layers and partitions growth and mortality rates for landscape scale applications of tropical forests. J Ecol 100: 508–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Botkin DB, Janak JF, Wallis JR (1972) Some ecological consequences of a computer model of forest growth. Ecology 60:849–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bugmann H (2001) A review of forest gap models. Clim Change 51:259–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caldwell MM, Dawson TE, Richards JH (1998) Hydraulic lift: consequences of water efflux from the roots of plants. Oecologia 113:151–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Crawley MJ (2007) Plant population dynamics. In: May RM, McLean AR (eds) Theoretical ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 62–83Google Scholar
  7. de Kroon H, Hendriks M, van Ruijven J, Ravenek J, Padilla FM, Jongejans E, Visser EJW, Mommer L (2012) Root responses to nutrients and soil biota: drivers of species coexistence and ecosystem productivity. J Ecol 100(1):6–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dieler J, Pretzsch H (2013) Morphological plasticity of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) in pure and mixed-species stands. For Ecol Manage 295:97–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Duursma RA, Mäkelä A (2007) Summary models for light interception and light-use efficiency of non-homogeneous canopies. Tree Physiol 27:859–870Google Scholar
  10. Fischer R, Bohn F, de Paula MD, Dislich C, Groeneveld J, Gutierrez AG, Kazmierczak M, Knapp N, Lehmann S, Paulick S, Puetz S, Roedig E, Taubert F, Koehler P, Huth A (2016) Lessons learned from applying a forest gap model to understand ecosystem and carbon dynamics of complex tropical forests. Ecol Modell 326:124–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Forrester DI, Guisasola R, Tang X, Albrecht AT, Dong TA, le Maire G (2014) Using a stand-level model to predict light absorption in stands with vertically and horizontally heterogeneous canopies. For Ecosyst 1:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Forrester DI, Ammer C, Annighöfer PJ, Avdagic A, Barbeito I, Bielak K, Brazaitis G, Coll L, del Rìo M, Drössler L, Heym M, Hurt V, Löf M, Matović B, Meloni F, den Ouden J, Pach M, Pereira MG, Ponette Q, Pretzsch H, Skrzyszewski J, Stojanović D, Svoboda M, Ruiz-Peinaido R, Vacchiano G, Verheyen K, Zlatanov T, Bravo-Oviedo A (2017) Predicting the spatial and temporal dynamics of species interactions in Fagus sylvatica and Pinus sylvestris forests across Europe. For Ecol Manage 405:112–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Freschet GT, Bellingham PJ, Lyver PO, Bonner KI, Wardle DA (2013) Plasticity in above-and belowground resource acquisition traits in response to single and multiple environmental factors in three tree species. Ecol Evol 3(4):1065–1078CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. García O (2017) Cohort aggregation modelling for complex forest stands: spruce–aspen mixtures in British Columbia. Ecol Modell 343:109–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. García O (2014) Can plasticity make spatial structure irrelevant in individual-tree models? For Ecosyst 1(1):16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grace JC, Jarvis P, Norman JM (1987) Modelling the interception of solar radiant energy in intensively managed stands. N Z J For Sci 17:193–209Google Scholar
  17. Härkönen S, Pulkkinen M, Duursma RA, Mäkelä A (2010) Estimating annual GPP, NPP and stem growth in Finland using summary models. For Ecol Manage 259:524–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hodge A (2004) The plastic plant: root responses to heterogeneous supplies of nutrients. New Phytol 162:9–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Horn HS (1971) The adaptive geometry of trees. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  20. Ishii H, Kitaoka S, Fujisaki Y, Maruyama T, Koike T (2007) Plasticity of shoot and needle morphology and photosynthesis of two Picea species with different site preferences in northern Japan. Tree Physiol 27:1595–1605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Iwasa Y, Andreasen V, Levin S (1987) Aggregation in model-ecosystems. 1. Perfect aggregation. Ecol Modell 37:287–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kokkila T, Mäkelä A, Franc A (2006) Comparison of distance-dependent and distance-independent stand growth models—is perfect aggregation possible? For Sci 26:623–635Google Scholar
  23. Laasasenaho J, Koivuniemi J (1990) Dependence of some stand characteristics on stand density. Tree Physiol 7:183–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Landsberg JJ, Waring RH (1997) A generalised model of forest productivity using simplified concepts of radiation use efficiency, carbon balance and partitioning. For Ecol Manage 95: 209–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lasch P, Badeck FW, Suckow F, Lindner M, Mohr P (2005) Model-based analysis of management alternatives at stand and regional level in Brandenburg (Germany). For Ecol Manage 207:59–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lindner M, Sievänen R, Pretzsch H (1997) Improving the simulation of stand structure in a forest gap model. For Ecol Manage 95:183–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lonsdale WM (1990) The self-thinning rule: dead or alive? Ecology 71:1373–1388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mäkelä A, Hari P (1986) Stand growth model based on carbon uptake and allocation in individual trees. Ecol Modell 33:205–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mäkelä A, Vanninen P (1998) Impacts of size and competition on tree form and distribution of aboveground biomass in Scots pine. Can J For Res 28:216–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Medlyn BE (2004) A MAESTRO Retrospective. In: Mencuccini M, Grace J, Moncrieff JB, McNaughton K (eds) Forests at the land-atmosphere interface. CABI, Oxfordshire, pp 105–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mitchell KJ (1975) Dynamics and simulated yield of Douglas-fir. For Sci Monogr 17:1–37Google Scholar
  32. Norberg RA (1988) Theory of growth geometry of plants and self-thinning of plant populations: geometric similarity, elastic similarity, and different growth modes of plant parts. Am Nat 131:220–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Norman JM, Welles JM (1983) Radiative transfer in an array of canopies. Agron J 75:481–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Oker-Blom P, Pukkala T, Kuuluvainen T (1989) Relationship between radiation interception and photosynthesis in forest canopies: effect of stand structure and latitude. Ecol Modell 49:73–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Osawa A, Sugita S (1989) The self-thinning rule: another interpretation of Weller’s results. Ecology pp 279–283Google Scholar
  36. Pacala SW, Canham CD, Silander JA (1993) Forest models defined by field measurements. 1. The design of a Northeastern forest simulator. Can J For Res 23:1980–1988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pacala SW, Canham CD, Saponara J, Silander JA, Kobe RK, Ribbens E (1996) Forest models defined by field measurements: estimation, error analysis and dynamics. Ecol Monogr 66:1–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Poorter L, Oberbauer SF, Clark DB (1995) Leaf optical properties along a vertical gradient in a tropical rain forest canopy in Costa Rica. Am J Bot 82(10):1257–1263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pregitzer KS (2002) Fine roots of trees–a new perspective. New Phytol 154(2):267–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pretzsch H, Biber P, Schuetze G, Uhl EO, Roetzer T (2014) Forest stand growth dynamics in Central Europe have accelerated since 1870. Nat Commun 5.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5967
  41. Purves DW, Lichstein JW, Strigul N, Pacala SW (2008) Predicting and understanding forest dynamics using a simple tractable model. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105:17018–17022CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Rajaniemi TK (2003) Evidence for size asymmetry of belowground competition. Basic Appl Ecol 4:239–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Reineke LH (1933) Perfecting a stand-density index for even-aged forests. J Agric Res 46(7): 626–637Google Scholar
  44. Reynolds JH, Ford ED (2005) Improving competition representation in theoretical models of self-thinning: a critical review. J Ecol 93(2):362–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Snow GRS (1931) Experiments on growth and inhibition. II. New phenomena of inhibition. Proc R Soc Lond 108:305–316Google Scholar
  46. Sorrensen-Cothern KA, Ford ED, Sprugel DG (1993) A model of competition incorporating plasticity through modular foliage and crown development. Ecol Monogr 63(3):277–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sprugel DG (2002) When branch autonomy fails: Milton’s Law of resource availability and allocation. Tree Physiol 22:1119–1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Strigul N, Pristinski D, Purves D, Dushoff J, Pacala S (2008) Scaling from trees to forests: tractable macroscopic equations for forest dynamics. Ecol Monogr 78:523–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Valentine HT, Herman DA, Gove JH, Hollinger DY, Solomon DS (2000) Initializing a model stand for process-based projection. Tree Physiol 20(5–6):393–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Valentine HT, Green EJ, Mäkelä A, Amateis RL, Mäkinen H, Ducey MJ (2012) Models relating stem growth to crown length dynamics: application to loblolly pine and Norway spruce. Trees 26:469–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Valentine HT, Amateis RL, Gove JH, Mäkelä A (2013) Crown-rise and crown-length dynamics: application to loblolly pine. Forestry 86:371–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vogt KA, Vogt DJ, Asbjornsen H, Dahlgren RA (1995) Roots, nutrients and their relationship to spatial patterns. Plant Soil 168:113–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wang YP, Jarvis PG (1990) Description and validation of an array model – MAESTRO. Agric For Meteorol 51:257–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Warren JM, Brooks JR, Meinzer FC, Eberhart JL (2008) Hydraulic redistribution of water from Pinus ponderosa trees to seedlings: evidence for an ectomycorrhizal pathway. New Phytol 178:382–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Weiner J (1990) Asymmetric competition in plant populations. Tree 5:360–364PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Weiner J, Wright DB, Castro S (1997) Symmetry of below-ground competition between Kochia scoparia individuals. Oikos 79:85–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Weiskittel AR, Hann DW, Kershaw JA Jr, Vanclay JK (2011) Forest growth and yield modeling. John Wiley & Sons, West SussexCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Weller DE (1987) A reevaluation of the -3/2 power rule of plant self-thinning. Ecol Monogr 57(1):23–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Weller DE (1990) Will the real self-thinning rule please stand up? – a reply to Osawa and Sugita. Ecology 71(3)1204–1207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Weller DE (1991) The self-thinning rule: dead or unsupported? – a reply to Lonsdale. Ecology 72(2):747–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Westoby M (1981) The place of the self-thinning rule in population dynamics. Am Nat 118(4): 581–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. White J (1981) The allometric interpretation of the self-thinning rule. J Theor Biol 89(3):475–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Yoda K, Kira T, Ogawa H, Hozumi K (1963) Self-thinning in overcrowded pure stands under cultivation and natural conditions. J Biol Osaka City Univ 14:107–129Google Scholar
  64. Zeide B (1985) Tolerance and self-tolerance of trees. For Ecol Manage 13(3):149–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zeide B (1987) Analysis of the 3/2 power law of self-thinning. For Sci 33(2):517–537Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Annikki Mäkelä
    • 1
  • Harry T. Valentine
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Forest SciencesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.USDA Forest ServiceNorthern Research StationDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations