Lack of relationship between below-ground competition and allocation to roots in 10 grassland species

Journal of Ecology

Volumn 91, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 532-540

  Cahill Jr , James F ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Balanced growth hypothesis; Below ground competition; Community ecology; Growth allometry; Size symmetric competition

Indexed keywords

ALLOMETRY; BELOWGROUND BIOMASS; COMPETITION (ECOLOGY); GRASSLAND; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; ROOT;

EID: 0042210003     PISSN: 00220477     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2745.2003.00792.x     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Aerts, R., Boot, R.G.A. & van der Aart, P.J.M. (1991) The relation between above- and belowground biomass allocation patterns and competitive ability. Oecologia, 87, 551-559.
2. Aphalo, P.J., Ballare, C.L. & Scopel, A.L. (1999) Plant-plant signaling, the shade-avoidance response and competition. Journal of Experimental Botany, 50, 1629-1634.
3. Bailey, P.H.J., Currey, J.D. & Fitter, A.H. (2002) The role of root system architecture and root hairs in promoting anchorage against uprooting forces in Allium cepa and root mutants of Arabidopsis thaliana. Journal of Experimental Botany, 53, 333-340.
4. Bates, T. & Lynch, J. (2001) Root hairs confer a competitive advantage under low phosphorus availability. Plant and Soil, 236, 243-250.
5. Blair, B. (2001) Effect of soil nutrient heterogeneity on the symmetry of belowground competition. Plant Ecology, 156, 199-203.
6. Brisson, J. & Reynolds, J.F. (1994) The effect of neighbors on root distribution in a creosotebush (Larrea tridentata) population. Ecology, 75, 1693-1702.
7. Cahill, J.F. (1999) Fertilization effects on interactions between above- and belowground competition in an old field. Ecology, 80, 466-480.
8. Cahill, J.F. (2002a) Interactions between root and shoot competition vary among species. Oikos, 99, 101-112.
9. Cahill, J.F. (2002b) What evidence is necessary in studies which separate root and shoot competition along productivity gradients? Journal of Ecology, 90, 201-205.
10. Cahill, J.F. & Casper, B.B. (2000) Investigating the relationship between neighbor root biomass and belowground competition: field evidence for symmetric competition belowground. Oikos, 90, 311-320.
11. Cahill, J.F., Castelli, J.P. & Casper, B.B. (2001) The herbivory uncertainty principle: visiting plants can alter herbivory. Ecology, 82, 307-312.
12. Cahill, J.F. Jr, Castelli, J.P. & Casper, B.B. (2002) Separate effects of human visitation and touch on plant growth and herbivory in an old-field community. American Journal of Botany, 89, 1401-1409.
13. Caldwell, M.M., Manwaring, J.H. & Jackson, R.B. (1991) Exploitation of phosphate from fertile soil microsites by three Great Basin perennials when in competition. Functional Ecology, 5, 757-764.
14. Casper, B.B., Cahill, J.F. & Hyatt, L.A. (1998) Above-ground competition does not alter biomass allocated to roots in Abutilon theophrasti. New Phytologist, 140, 231-238.
15. Casper, B.B. & Jackson, R.B. (1997) Plant competition underground. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 28, 545-570
16. Diaz, S., Noy-Meir, I. & Cabido, M. (2001) Can grazing response of herbaceous plants be predicted from simple vegetative traits? Journal of Applied Ecology, 38, 497-508.
17. Eissenstat, D.M. & Caldwell, M.M. (1988) Competitive ability is linked to rates of water extraction; a field study of two aridland tussock grasses. Oecologia, 75, 1-7.
18. Fitter, A.H. & Stickland, T.R. (1991) Architectural analysis of plant root systems. 2. Influence of nutrient supply on architecture in contrasting plant species. New Phytologist, 119, 383-389.
19. Frank, D.A., Kuns, M.M. & Guido, D.R. (2002) Consumer control of grassland plant production. Ecology, 83, 602-606.
20. Gaudet, C.L. & Keddy, P.A. (1988) A comparative approach to predicted competitive ability from plant traits. Nature, 334, 242-243.
21. Gedroc, J.J., McConnaughay, K.D.M. & Coleman, J.S. (1996) Plasticity in root/shoot partitioning: optimal, ontogenetic, or both? Functional Ecology, 10, 44-50.
22. Gerry, A.K. & Wilson, S.D. (1995) The influence of initial size on the competitive responses of six plant species. Ecology, 76, 272-279.
23. Gersani, M., Brown, J.S., O'Brien, E.E., Maina, G.M. & Abramsky, Z. (2001) Tragedy of the commons as a result of root competition. Journal of Ecology, 89, 660-669.
24. Goldberg, D.E. (1990) Components of resource competition in plant communities. Perspectives on Plant Competition (eds J.B. Grace & D. Tilman). Academic Press, New York.
25. Goldberg, D.E. & Landa, K. (1991) Competitive effect and response: hierarchies and correlated traits in the early stages of competition. Journal of Ecology, 79, 1013-1030.
26. Hartnett, D.C. & Wilson, G.W.T. (1999) Mycorrhizae influence plant community structure and diversity in tallgrass prairie. Ecology, 80, 1187-1195.
27. Hik, D.S., Brown, M., Dabros, A., Weir, J. & Cahill, J.F. (2003) Prevalence and predictability of handling effects in field studies: results from field experiments and a meta-analysis. American Journal of Botany, 90, 270-277.
28. Jackson, R.B. & Caldwell, M.M. (1991) Kinetic responses of Pseudoroegneria roots to localized soil enrichment. Plant and Soil, 138, 231-238.
29. Jackson, D.A. & Sonners, K.M. (1991) The spectre of 'spurious' correlations. Oecologia, 86, 147-151.
30. Littel, R.C., Milliken, G.A., Stroup, W.W. & Wolfinger, R.D. (1996) SAS System for Mixed Models. SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina.
31. Mahall, B.E. & Callaway, R.M. (1992) Root communication mechanisms and intracommunity distributions of two Mojave Desert shrubs. Ecology, 73, 2145-2151.
32. Marler, M.J., Zabinski, C.A. & Callaway, R.M. (1999) Mycorrhizae indirectly enhance competitive effects of an invasive forb on a native bunchgrass. Ecology, 80, 1180-1186.
33. McConnaughay, K.D.M. & Coleman, J.S. (1999) Biomass allocation in plants: ontogeny or optimality? A test along three resource gradients. Ecology, 80, 2581-2593.
34. Moss, E.H. & Packer, J.G. (1994) The Flora of Alberta, 2nd edn. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
35. Muller, I., Schmid, B. & Weiner, J. (2000) The effect of nutrient availability on biomass allocation in 27 species of herbaceous plants. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 3, 115-127.
36. Pregitzer, K.S., DeForest, J.L., Burton, A.J., Allen, M.F., Ruess, R.W. & Hendrick, R.L. (2002) Fine root architecture of nine North American trees. Ecological Monographs, 72, 293-309.
37. Rajaniemi, T.K. (2002) Why does fertilization reduce plant species diversity? Testing three competition-based hypotheses. Journal of Ecology, 90, 316-324.
38. Reynolds, H. & Antonio, C. (1996) The ecological significance of plasticity in root weight ratio in response to nitrogen: Opinion. Plant and Soil, 185, 75-97.
39. Reynolds, H. & Pacala, S. (1993) An analytical treatment of root-to-shoot ratio and plant competition for soil nutrient and light. American Naturalist, 141, 51-70.
40. Robinson, D., Hodge, A., Griffiths, B.S. & Fitter, A.H. (1999) Plant root proliferation in nitrogen-rich patches confers competitive advantage. Proceedings of The Royal Society of London Series B. Biology Sciences, 266, 431-435.
41. Rubio, G., Walk, T., Ge, Z., Yan, X., Liao, H. & Lynch, J.P. (2001) Root gravitropism and below-ground competition among neighbouring plants: a modelling approach. Annals of Botany, 88, 929-940.
42. SAS, Inc. (1999) SAS System for Windows. SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina.
43. Schmitt, J. & Wulff, R.D. (1993) Light spectral quality, phytochrome and plant competition. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 8, 47-50.
44. Shipley, B. & Meziane, D. (2002) The balanced-growth hypothesis and the allometry of leaf and root biomass allocation. Functional Ecology, 16, 326-331.
45. Smit, A.L., Benough, A.G., Engels, C., van Noordwijk, M., Pellerin, S. & van de Geijn, S.C. (2000) Root Methods: a Handbook. Spinger-Verlag, Berlin.
46. Tilman, D. (1988) Plant Strategies and the Dynamics and Structure of Plant Communities. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
47. Twolan-Strutt, L. & Keddy, P.A. (1996) Above- and below-ground competition intensity in two contrasting wetland plant communities. Ecology, 77, 259-270.
48. USDA, NRCS (2001) The PLANTS Database. National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, Los Angeles.
49. Wardle, D.A., Barker, G.M., Bonner, K.I. & Nicholson, K.S. (1998) Can comparative approaches based on plant ecophysiological traits predict the nature of biotic interactions and individual plant species effects in ecosystems? Journal of Ecology, 86, 405-420.
50. Wardle, D.A. & Peltzer, D.A. (2003) Interspecific interactions and biomass allocation among grassland plant species. Oikos, 100, 497-506.
51. Weiner, J., Wright, D.B. & Castro, S. (1997) Symmetry of below-ground competition between Kochia scoparia individuals. Oikos, 79, 85-91.
52. von Wettberg, E.J. & Weiner, J. (in press) Larger Triticum aesti vum plants do not preempt nutrient rich patches in a glasshouse experiment. Plant Ecology.
53. Wilson, S.D. & Tilman, D. (1991) Components of plant competition along an experimental gradient of nitrogen availability. Ecology, 72, 1050-1065.
54. Wilson, S.D. & Tilman, D. (1995) Competitive responses of eight old-field plant species in four environments. Ecology, 76, 1169-1180.
55. Zobel, M. & Zobel, K. (2002) Studying plant competition: from root biomass to general aims. Journal of Ecology, 90, 578-580.