Skip to main content

Effects of competition on root–shoot allocation in Plantago lanceolata L.: adaptive plasticity or ontogenetic drift?

  • Chapter
Herbaceous Plant Ecology

Abstract

We investigated how shoot and root allocation in plants responds to increasing levels of competitive stress at different levels of soil fertility. In addition, we analyzed whether different responses were due to adaptive plasticity or should be attributed to ontogenetic drift. Plantago lanceolata plants were grown during 18 weeks at five plant densities and four nutrient supply levels in pots in the greenhouse. Thereafter root and shoot biomass was measured. There were clear negative effects of increasing plant densities on plant weights revealing strong intraspecific competition. At the lower N-treatments, the proportional allocation to root mass increased with increasing competitive stress, indicating the important role of belowground competition. At the higher N-supply rate, the relationship between competitive stress and shoot to root ratio was neutral. These responses could not be attributed to ontogenetic drift, but could only be explained by assuming adaptive plasticity. It was concluded that at lower N-supplies belowground competition dominates and leads to increased allocation to roots, while at the higher N-supply competition for soil resources and light had balanced impacts on shoot and root allocation. An alternative hypothesis explaining the observed pattern is that light competition has far less pronounced impacts on root–shoot allocation than nutrient deprival.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Berendse F (1983) Interspecific competition and niche differentiation between Anthoxanthum odoratum and Plantago lanceolata in a natural hayfield. J Ecol 71:379–390. doi:10.2307/2259721

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brouwer R (1962a) Distribution of dry matter in the plant. Neth J Agric Sci 10:361–376

    Google Scholar 

  • Brouwer R (1962b) Nutritive influences on the distribution of dry matter in the plant. Neth J Agric Sci 10:399–408

    Google Scholar 

  • Cahill JF (1999) Fertilization effects on interactions between above- and belowground competition in an old field. Ecology 80:466–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cahill JF (2003) Lack of relationship between below-ground competition and allocation to roots in 10 grassland species. J Ecol 91:532–540. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2745.2003.00792.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casper BB, Cahill JF, Hyatt LA (1998) Above-ground competition does not alter biomass allocated to roots in Abutilon theophrasti. New Phytol 140:231–238. doi:10.1046/j.1469-8137.1998.00271.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans GC (1972) The quantitative analysis of plant growth. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Gedroc JJ, McConnaughay KDM, Coleman JS (1996) Plasticity in root/shoot partitioning: optimal, ontogenetic or both? Funct Ecol 10:44–50. doi:10.2307/2390260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GENSTAT 5 (1993) Genstat 5 (release 3) reference manual. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg DE, Novoplansky A (1997) On the relative importance of competition in unproductive environments. J Ecol 85:409–418. doi:10.2307/2960565

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grime JP (1979) Plant strategies and vegetation processes. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Grime JP (2001) Plant strategies, vegetation processes and ecosystem properties. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasienski M, Bazzaz FA (1999) The fallacy of ratios and the testability of models in biology. Oikos 84:321–326. doi:10.2307/3546729

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keddy PA, Gaudet C, Fraser LH (2000) Effects of low and high nutrients on the competitive hierarchy of 26 shoreline plants. J Ecol 88:413–423. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2745.2000.00456.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Litton CM, Ryan MG, Tinker DB, Knight DH (2003) Belowground and aboveground biomass in young postfire lodgepole pine forests of contrasting tree density. Can J For Res 33:351–363. doi:10.1139/x02-181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller I, Schmid B, Weiner J (2000) The effect of nutrient availability on biomass allocation patterns in 27 species of herbaceous plants. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 3:115–127. doi:10.1078/1433-8319-00007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peltzer DA, Wilson SD, Gerry AK (1998) Competition intensity along a productivity gradient in a low diversity grassland. Am Nat 151:465–476. doi:10.1086/286133

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Poorter H, Nagel O (2000) The role of biomass allocation in the growth response of plants to different levels of light, CO2, nutrients and water: a quantitative review. Aust J Plant Physiol 27:595–607

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shipley B, Meziane D (2002) The balanced-growth hypothesis and the allometry of leaf and root biomass allocation. Funct Ecol 16:326–331. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2435.2002.00626.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilman D (1988) Plant strategies and the dynamics and structure of plant communities. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Twolan-Strutt L, Keddy PA (1996) Above- and belowground competition intensity in two contrasting wetland communities. Ecology 77:259–270. doi:10.2307/2265675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wardle DA (2002) Communities and ecosystems. Linking the aboveground and belowground components. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiner J (1990) The influence of competition on plant reproduction. In: Lovett Doust J, Lovett Doust L (eds) Plant reproductive ecology: patterns and strategies. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 228–245

    Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker RH (1975) Communities and ecosystems, 2nd edn. MacMillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson SD, Tilman D (1991) Components of plant competition along an experimental gradient of nitrogen availability. Ecology 72:1050–1065. doi:10.2307/1940605

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frank Berendse .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Berendse, F., Möller, F. (2008). Effects of competition on root–shoot allocation in Plantago lanceolata L.: adaptive plasticity or ontogenetic drift?. In: Van der Valk, A.G. (eds) Herbaceous Plant Ecology. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2798-6_16

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics