Evidence for size asymmetry of belowground competition

Basic and Applied Ecology

Volumn 4, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 239-247

  Rajaniemi, Tara K ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Achillea millefolium; Bromus inermis; Fertilization; Hieracium caespitosum; Plant interactions; Resource heterogeneity

Indexed keywords

ACHILLEA; ACHILLEA MILLEFOLIUM; BROMUS; BROMUS INERMIS; HIERACIUM; HIERACIUM CAESPITOSUM;

EID: 0037994117     PISSN: 14391791     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1078/1439-1791-00151     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Anten NPR, Hirose T (1998) Biomass allocation and light partitioning among dominant and subordinate individuals in Xanthium canadense stands. Annals of Botany 82: 665-673.
2. Berntson GM, Wayne PM (2000) Characterizing the size dependence of resource acquisition within crowded plant populations. Ecology 81: 1072-1085.
3. Cahill JF (1999) Fertilization effects on interactions between above- and belowground competition in an old field. Ecology 80: 466-480.
4. Cahill JF, Casper BB (1999) Growth consequences of soil nutrient heterogeneity for two old-field herbs, Ambrosia artemisiifolia and Phytolacca americana, grown individually and in combination. Annals of Botany 83: 471-478.
5. Cahill JF, Casper BB (2000) Investigating the relationship between neighbor root biomass and belowground competition: field evidence for symmetric competition belowground. Oikos 90: 311-320.
6. Caldwell MM (1994) Exploiting nutrients in fertile soil microsites. In: Caldwell MM, Pearcy RW (eds) Exploitation of environmental heterogeneity by plants: ecophysiological processes above- and belowground. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 325-347.
7. Campbell BD, Grime JP, Mackey JML (1991) A trade-off between scale and precision in resource foraging. Oecologia 87: 532-538.
8. Derner JD, Briske DD (1999) Does a tradeoff exist between morphological and physiological root plasticity? A comparison of grass growth forms. Acta Oecologia 20: 519-526.
9. Einsmann JC, Jones RH, Pu M, Mitchell RJ (1999) Nutrient foraging traits in 10 co-occurring plant species of contrasting life forms. Journal of Ecology 87: 609-619.
10. Farley RA, Fitter AH (1999) The responses of seven co-occurring woodland herbaceous perennials to localized nutrient-rich patches. Journal of Ecology 87: 849-859.
11. Fitter AH (1994) Architecture and biomass allocation as components of the plastic response of root systems to soil heterogeneity. In: Caldwell MM, Pearcy RW (eds) Exploitation of environmental heterogeneity by plants: ecophysiological processes above- and belowground. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 305-323.
12. Fransen B, de Kroon H, Berendse F (2001) Soil nutrient heterogeneity alters competition between two perennial grass species. Ecology 82: 2534-2546.
13. Gerry AK, Wilson SD (1995) The influence of initial size on the competitive responses of six plant species. Ecology 76: 272-279.
14. Goldberg DE, Werner PA (1983) Equivalence of competitors in plant communities: a null hypothesis and a field experimental approach. American Journal of Botany 70: 1098-1104.
15. Hikosaka K, Sudoh S, Hirose T (1999) Light acquisition and use by individuals competing in a dense stand of an annual herb, Xanthium canadense. Oecologia 118: 388-396.
16. Hodge A, Robinson D, Griffiths BS, Fitter AH (1999) Why plants bother: root proliferation results in increased nitrogen capture from an organic patch when two grasses compete. Plant, Cell and Environment 22: 811-820.
17. Johnson HA, Biondini ME (2001) Root morphological plasticity and nitrogen uptake of 59 plant species from the Great Plains, U.S.A. Basic and Applied Ecology 2: 127-143.
18. Newbery DM, Newman EI (1978) Competition between grassland plants of different initial sizes. Oecologia 33: 361-380.
19. Newman EI (1973) Competition and diversity in herbaceous vegetation. Nature 244: 310-311.
20. Peltzer DA, Wilson SD, Gerry AK (1998) Competition intensity along a productivity gradient in a low-diversity grassland. American Naturalist 151: 465-476.
21. Putz FE, Canham CD (1992) Mechanisms of arrested succession in shrublands: root and shoot competition between shrubs and tree seedlings. Forest Ecology and Management 49: 267-275.
22. Rajaniemi TK (2001) Explaining the productivity-diversity relationship in plants: changing effects of competition on the Community. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
23. Schwinning S (1996) Decomposition analysis of competitive symmetry and size structure dynamics. Annals of Botany 77: 47-57.
24. Schwinning S, Weiner J (1998) Mechanisms determining the degree of size asymmetry in competition among plants. Oecologia 113: 447-455.
25. Smilauerova M, Smilauer P (2002) Morphological responses of plant roots to heterogeneity of soil resources. New Phytologist 154: 703-715.
26. Weiner J (1986) How competition for light and nutrients affects size variability in Ipomoea tricolor populations. Ecology 67: 1425-1427.
27. Weiner J (1990) Asymmetric competition in plant populations. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 5: 360-364.
28. Weiner J, Thomas SC (1986) Size variability and competition in plant monocultures. Oikos 47: 211-222.
29. Weiner J, Wright DB, Castro S (1997) Symmetry of belowground competition between Kochia scoparia individuals. Oikos 79: 85-91.
30. Wilson JB (1988) The effect of initial advantage on the course of plant competition. Oikos 51: 19-24.
31. Wilson SD (1994) Initial size and competitive responses of two grasses at two levels of soil nitrogen: a field experiment. Canadian Journal of Botany 72: 1349-1354.
32. Wilson SD, Tilman D (1991) Components of plant competition along an experimental gradient of nitrogen availability. Ecology 72: 1050-1065.
33. Wilson SD, Tilman D (1993) Plant competition and resource availability in response to disturbance and fertilization. Ecology 74: 599-611.
34. Zobel M (1992) Plant species coexistence - the role of historical, evolutionary and ecological factors. Oikos 65: 314-320.