Simple mechanisms of size distribution dynamics in crowded and uncrowded virtual monocultures

Ecological Modelling

Volumn 115, Issue 2-3, 1999, Pages 253-273

  Wyszomirski, Tomasz ^a   Wyszomirska, Izabela ^b   Jarzyna, Ingeborga ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WARSAW   (Poland)

^b POLISH ACADEMY OF SCIENCES   (Poland)

Author keywords

Bimodality; Competitive asymmetry; Fast and slow growing individuals; Growth pattern; Intraspecific competition; Spatial effects

Indexed keywords

COMPETITION; MODELING; MONOCULTURE; PLANT; SIZE DISTRIBUTION;

EID: 0033557952     PISSN: 03043800     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0304-3800(98)00182-3     Document Type: Article

References (102)

1. Aikman D.P., Benjamin L.R. A model for plant growth, allowing for competition for light by the use of potential and restricted projected crown zone areas. Ann. Bot. 73:1994;185-194.
2. Aikman D.P., Watkinson A.R. A model for growth and self-thinning in even-aged monocultures of plants. Ann. Bot. 45:1980;419-427.
3. Aitchison, J., Brown, J.A.C., 1957. The lognormal distribution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 176 pp.
4. Amthor, J.S., 1989. Respiration and Crop Productivity. Springer, New York, 215 pp.
5. Begon, M., 1984. Density and individual fitness: asymmetric competition. In: Shorrocks, B. (Ed.), Evolutionary Ecology. The 23rd Symposium of the British Ecological Society, pp. 175-194.
6. Begon, M., Harper, J.L., Townsend, C.R., 1986. Ecology. Individuals, Populations and Communities. Blackwell, Oxford, 876 pp.
7. Benjamin L.R. A single equation to quantify the hierarchy in plant size induced by competition within monocultures. Ann. Bot. 62:1988;199-214.
8. Benjamin L.R. Experimental discrimination between contrasting models of neighborhood competition. J. Ecol. 81:1993;417-423.
9. Benjamin L.R., Hardwick R.C. Sources of variation and measures of variability in even-aged stands of plants. Ann. Bot. 58:1986;757-778.
10. Bennington C.C., Stratton D.A. Field tests of density- and frequency-dependent selection in Erigeron annuus (Compositae). Am. J. Bot. 85:1998;540-545.
11. Bonan G.B. The size structure of theoretical plant populations: spatial patterns and neighborhood effects. Ecology. 69:1988;1721-1730.
12. Bonan G.B. Density effects on size structure of annual plant populations: an indication of neighborhood competition. Ann. Bot. 68:1991;341-347.
13. Bonan G.B. Analysis of neighborhood competition among annual plants: implications of a plant growth model. Ecol. Model. 65:1993;123-136.
14. Brand D.G., Magnussen S. Asymmetric, two-sided competition in even-aged monocultures of red pine. Can. J. For. Res. 18:1988;901-910.
15. Britton N.F. A model for suppression and dominance in trees. J. Theor. Biol. 97:1982;691-698.
16. Cale W.G., Henebry G.M., Yeakley J.A. Inferring process from pattern in natural communities. BioScience. 39:1989;600-605.
17. Czaran T., Bartha S. Spatiotemporal dynamic models of plant populations and communities. Trends Ecol. Evol. 7:1992;38-42.
18. DeAngelis, D., Gross, L., 1992. Individual-based models and approaches in ecology. Chapman and Hall, New York, 525 pp.
19. DeAngelis D.L., Huston M.A. Effects of growth rates in models of size distribution formation in plants and animals. Ecol. Model. 36:1987;119-137.
20. Firbank L.G., Watkinson A.R. A model of interference within plant monocultures. J. Theor. Biol. 116:1985;291-311.
21. Ford E.D. Competition and stand structure in some even-aged plant monocultures. J. Ecol. 63:1975;311-333.
22. Ford E.D., Diggle P.J. Competition for light in a plant monoculture modeled as a spatial stochastic process. Ann. Bot. 48:1981;481-500.
23. Gates D.J. Bimodality in even-aged plant monocultures. J. Theor. Biol. 71:1978;525-540.
24. Gates D.J. Competition and skewness in plantations. J. Theor. Biol. 94:1982;909-922.
25. Gates D.J., Westcott M. Negative skewness and negative correlations in spatial competition models. J. Math. Biol. 13:1981;159-171.
26. Gates D.J., McMurtrie R., Borough C.J. Skewness reversal of distribution of stem diameter in plantations of Pinus radiata. Aust. For. Res. 13:1983;267-270.
27. Geber M.A. Interplay of morphology and development on size inequality: a Polygonum greenhouse study. Ecol. Monogr. 59:1989;267-288.
28. Grime J.P., Hunt R. Relative growth rate: its range and adaptative significance in a local flora. J. Ecol. 63:1975;393-422.
29. Grimm V. Mathematical models and understanding in ecology. Ecol. Model. 75/76:1994;641-651.
30. Grimm, V., 1999. Ten years of individual-based modelling in ecology: what have we learned and what could we learn in the future? Ecol. Model. 115, 129-148.
31. Grimm V., Uchmański J. Ecological systems are not dynamic systems: some consequences of individual variability. Grasman J., van Straten G. Predictability and Nonlinear Modeling in Natural Sciences and Economics. 1994;248-259 Kluwer, Dordrecht.
32. Grimm V., Frank K., Jeltsch F., Brandl R., Uchmański J., Wissel C. Pattern-oriented modeling in population ecology. Sci. Total Environ. 183:1996;151-166.
33. Hara T. A stochastic model and the moment dynamics of the growth and size distribution in plant populations. J. Theor. Biol. 109:1984;173-190.
34. Hara T. Dynamics of stand structure in plant monocultures. J. Theor. Biol. 110:1984;223-239.
35. Hara T. Growth of individuals in plant populations. Ann. Bot. 57:1986;55-68.
36. Hara T. Dynamics of size structure in plant populations. Trends Ecol. Evol. 3:1988;129-133.
37. Hara T. The effects of the mode of competition on the stationary size distribution in plant populations. Ann. Bot. 69:1992;509-513.
38. Hara T. Growth and competition in clonal plants-persistence of shoot populations and species diversity. Folia Geobot. Phytotax Praha. 29:1994;181-201.
39. Hara T. Dynamic process, spatial pattern and species coexistence in plants. Folia Geobot. Phytotax Praha. 30:1995;529-533.
40. Hara T., Wyszomirski T. Competitive asymmetry reduces spatial effects on size-structure dynamics in plant populations. Ann. Bot. 73:1994;285-297.
41. Hara T., Yokozawa M. Effects of physiological and environmental variations on size-structure dynamics in plant populations. Ann. Bot. 73:1994;39-51.
42. Harper, J.L., 1977. Population Biology of Plants. Academic Press, London, 892 pp.
43. Hendry R.J., McGlade J.M., Weiner J. A coupled map lattice model of the growth of plant monocultures. Ecol. Model. 84:1996;81-90.
44. Hunt R., Cornelissen J.H.C. Components of relative growth rate and their interrelations in 59 temperate plant species. New Phytol. 135:1997;395-417.
45. Huston M. Size bimodality in plant populations: an alternative hypothesis. Ecology. 67:1986;265-269.
46. Huston, M.A., 1994. Biological Diversity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 681 pp.
47. Huston M.A., DeAngelis D.L. Size bimodality in monospecific populations: a critical review of potential mechanism. Am. Nat. 129:1987;678-707.
48. Huston M., DeAngelis D., Post W. New computer models unify ecological theory. BioScience. 38:1988;682-691.
49. Hutchings M.J. The structure of plant populations. Crawley M.J. Plant Ecology. 1986;97-136 Blackwell, Oxford.
50. Jørgensen, S.E., 1988. Fundamentals of Ecological Modeling. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 391 pp.
51. Judson O.P. The rise of the individual-based model in ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 9:1994;9-14.
52. Kenkel N.C. Spatial competition models for plant populations. Coenoses. 6:1990;149-158.
53. Kimmel M. Does competition for food imply skewness? Math. Biosci. 80:1986;239-264.
54. Knox R.G., Peet R.K., Christensen N.L. Population dynamics in loblolly pine stands: changes in skewness and size inequality. Ecology. 70:1989;1153-1166.
55. Koch A.L. The logarithm in biology. II. Distributions simulating the log-normal. J. Theor. Biol. 23:1969;251-268.
56. Koyama H., Kira T. Intraspecific competition among higher plants. VIII. Frequency distribution of individual plant weight as affected by the interaction between plants. J. Inst. Polytech. Osaka Cy. Univ. D. 7:1956;73-94.
57. Krajewski, W., 1977. Correspondence Principle and Growth of Science. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 138 pp.
58. Latto J. The differentiation of animal body weights. Funct. Ecol. 6:1992;386-395.
59. Majkowski J., Uchmański J. Theoretical foundations of individual growth equations in animals. Pol. Ecol. Stud. 6:1980;7-31.
60. McMurtrie R. Suppression and dominance of trees with overlapping crowns. J. Theor. Biol. 89:1981;151-174.
61. Miller T.E., Weiner J. Local density variation may mimic effects of asymmetric competition on plant size variability. Ecology. 70:1989;1188-1191.
62. Mithen R., Harper J.L., Weiner J. Growth and mortality of individual plants as a function of 'available area'. Oecologia (Berlin). 62:1984;57-60.
63. Mohler C.L., Marks P.L., Sprugel D.G. Stand structure and allometry of trees during self-thinning of pure stands. J. Ecol. 66:1978;599-614.
64. Nagashima H., Terashima I., Katoh S. Effects of plant density on frequency distributions of plant height in Chenopodium album stands: analysis based on continuous monitoring of height-growth of individual plants. Ann. Bot. 75:1995;173-180.
65. Peters, R.H., 1991. A Critique for Ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 366 pp.
66. Poorter H. Interspecific variation in relative growth rate: on ecological causes and physiological consequences. Lambers H., Cambridge M.L., Konings H., Pons T.L. Causes and Consequences of Variation in Growth Rate and Productivity of Higher Plants. 1990;45-68 SPB Academic Publishing BV, The Hague.
67. Poorter H., Remkes C., Lambers H. Carbon and nitrogen economy of 24 wild species differing in relative growth rate. Plant Physiol. 94:1990;621-627.
68. Rabinowitz D. Bimodal distributions of seedling weight in relation to density of Festuca paradoxa Desv. Nature. 277:1979;297-298.
69. Reiss, M.J., 1989. The Allometry of Growth and Reproduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 182 pp.
70. Richards F.J. The quantitative analysis of growth. Steward F.C. Plant Physiology. 5A:1969;3-76 Academic Press, New York.
71. Schmitt J., Ehrhardt D.W., Cheo M. Light-dependent dominance and suppression in experimental radish populations. Ecology. 67:1986;1502-1507.
72. Schwinning S. Decomposition analysis of competitive symmetry and size structure dynamics. Ann. Bot. 77:1996;47-57.
73. Schwinning S., Fox G.A. Population dynamic consequences of competitive symmetry in annual plants. Oikos. 72:1995;422-432.
74. Schwinning S., Weiner J. Mechanisms determining the degree of size-asymmetry in competition among plants. Oecologia. 113:1998;447-455.
75. Shipley B., Keddy P.A. The relationship between relative growth rate and sensitivity to nutrient stress in twenty-eight species of emergent macrophytes. J. Ecol. 76:1988;1101-1110.
76. Smith T., Huston M. A theory of the spatial and temporal dynamics of plant communities. Vegetatio. 83:1989;49-69.
77. Sokal, R.R., Rohlf, F.J., 1995. Biometry. W.H. Freeman, New York, 887 pp.
78. Stoll, P., Weiner, J., 1999. A neighborhood view of interactions among plants. In: Dieckmann, U., Law, R., Metz J.A.J. (Eds.), The Geometry of Ecological Interactions: Simplifying Spatial Complexity. Cambridge University Press (in press).
79. Thomas S.C., Bazzaz F.A. The genetic component in plant size hierarchies: Norms of reaction to density in a Polygonum species. Ecol. Monog. 63:1993;231-249.
80. Thomas S.C., Weiner J. Including competitive asymmetry in measures of local interference in plant populations. Oecologia. 80:1989;349-355.
81. Turner M.D., Rabinowitz D. Factors affecting frequency distributions of plant mass: the absence of dominance and suppression in competing monocultures of Festuca paradoxa. Ecology. 64:1983;469-475.
82. Uchmański J. Differentiation and frequency distributions of body weights in plants and animals. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. 310:1985;1-75.
83. Uchmański J. Resource partitioning among unequal competitors. Ekol. Pol. 35:1987;71-87.
84. Uchmański, J., 1999. What promotes persistence of a single population: an individual-based model. Ecol. Model. 115, 227-241.
85. Uchmański J., Dgebuadze J. Factors affecting skewness of weight distributions in even-aged populations: a numerical example. Pol. Ecol. Stud. 16:1990;297-311.
86. Uchmański J., Grimm V. Individual-based modeling: a new approach to description of ecological systems. Gnauck A., Frischmuth A., Kraft A. Oecosysteme: Modellierung und Simulation. 1995;93-108 Eberhard Blottner, Taunusstein.
87. Uchmański J., Grimm V. Individual-based modeling in ecology: what makes the difference? Trends Ecol. Evol. 11:1996;437-441.
88. Van Andel J., Biere A. Ecological significance of variability in growth rate and plant productivity. Lambers H., Cambridge M.L., Konings H., Pons T.L. Causes and Consequences of Variation in Growth Rate and Productivity of Higher Plants. 1990;256-267 SPB Academic Publishing BV, The Hague.
89. Weiner J. Size hierarchies in experimental populations of annual plants. Ecology. 66:1985;743-752.
90. Weiner, J., 1988. Variation in the performance of individuals in plant populations. In: Davy, A.J., Hutchings, M.J., Watkinson, A.R. (Eds.), Plant Population Ecology, 28th Symposium of the British Ecological Society, pp. 59-81.
91. Weiner J. Asymmetric competition in plant populations. Trends Ecol. Evol. 5:1990;360-364.
92. Weiner J. On the practice of ecology. J. Ecol. 83:1995;153-158.
93. Weiner J., Solbrig O.T. The meaning and measurement of size hierarchies in plant populations. Oecologia (Berlin). 61:1984;334-336.
94. Weiner J., Thomas S.C. Size variability and competition in plant monocultures. Oikos. 47:1986;211-222.
95. Wethey D.S. Intrapopulation variation in growth of sessile organisms: natural populations of the intertidal barnacle Balanus balanoides. Oikos. 40:1983;14-23.
96. Wilson J.B. The effect of initial advantage on the course of plant competition. Oikos. 51:1988;19-24.
97. Wyszomirski T. A simulation model of the growth of competing individuals of a plant population. Ekol. Pol. 31:1983;73-92.
98. Wyszomirski T. Growth, competition and skewness in a population of one-dimensional individuals. Ekol. Pol. 34:1986;615-641.
99. Wyszomirski, T., 1990. Wzrost i lokalne oddzialywania konkurencyjne a dynamika rozkladów wielkości osobników w populacjach rówieśnych (Growth and local competitive interactions and size distributions dynamics in even-aged populations). In Polish, Ph.D. Thesis, Warsaw University.
100. Wyszomirski T. Detecting and displaying size bimodality: kurtosis, skewness and bimodalizable distributions. J. Theor. Biol. 158:1992;109-128.
101. Yastrebov A.B. Different types of heterogeneity and plant competition in monospecific stands. Oikos. 75:1996;89-97.
102. Yokozawa M., Hara T. A canopy photosynthesis model for the dynamics of size structure and self-thinning in plant populations. Ann. Bot. 70:1992;305-316.