Growing with siblings: A common ground for cooperation or for fiercer competition among plants?

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Volumn 276, Issue 1667, 2009, Pages 2531-2540

  Milla, Rubén ^a   Forero, Diana M ^a   Escudero, Adrián ^a   Iriondo, Jose M ^a  

^a UNIVERSIDAD REY JUAN CARLOS   (Spain)

Author keywords

Fitness; Group selection; Intraspecific competition; Kin recognition; Kin selection; Lupinus angustifolius L.

Indexed keywords

BIOMASS; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; GENOTYPE; GROUP SELECTION; INTRASPECIFIC COMPETITION; KIN RECOGNITION; KIN SELECTION; LEGUME; RECOGNITION; RELATEDNESS; ROOTING; SIBLING;

ARTICLE; BIOMASS; COOPERATION; GENOTYPE; INTRASPECIFIC COMPETITION; KIN SELECTION; LUPIN; LUPINUS ANGUSTIFOLIUS; MOLECULAR PHYLOGENY; NONHUMAN; PLANT COMMUNITY; PLANT EVOLUTION; PLANT GENETICS; PLANT ROOT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; ROOT GROWTH;

LUPINUS ANGUSTIFOLIUS;

EID: 67650486954     PISSN: 09628452     EISSN: 14712970     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2009.0369     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Allard, R. W. & Adams, J. 1969 Population studies in predominantly self-pollinating species. XIII. Intergenotypic competition and competition structure in barley and wheat. Am. Nat. 103, 621-645. (doi:10.1086/282630)
2. Andalo, C., Goldringer, I. & Godelle, B. 2001 Inter- and intragenotypic competition under elevated carbon dioxide in Arabidopsis thaliana. Ecology 82, 157-164. (doi:10.2307/2680093)
3. Bell, G. 1997 The basics of selection. New York, NY: Chapman & Hall.
4. Boyden, S., Binkley, D. & Stape, J. L. 2008 Competition among Eucalyptus trees depends on genetic variation and resource supply. Ecology 89, 2850-2859. (doi:10.1890/07-1733.1)
5. Brooker, R. W. & Kikvidze, Z. 2008 Importance: an overlooked concept in plant interaction research. J. Ecol. 96, 703-708. (doi:10.1111/j.1365-2745.2008.01373.x)
6. Callaway, R. M. & Mahall, B. E. 2007 Family roots. Nature 448, 145-146. (doi:10.1038/448145a)
7. Casper, B. B. & Jackson, R. R. 1997 Plant competition underground. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 28, 545-570. (doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys. 28.1.545)
8. Cheplick, G. P. 1992 Sibling competition in plants. J. Ecol. 80, 567-575. (doi:10.2307/2260699)
9. Cheplick, G. P. & Kane, K. H. 2004 Genetic relatedness and competition in Triplasis purpurea (Poaceae): resource partitioning or kin selection. Int. J. Plant Sci. 165, 623-630. (doi:10.1086/386556)
10. Chu, C. J., Maestre, F. T., Xiao, S., Weiner, J., Wang, Y. S., Duan, Z. H.&Wang, G. 2008 Balance between facilitation and resource competition determines biomass-density relationships in plant populations. Ecol. Lett. 11, 1189-1197. (doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01228.x)
11. Connell, J. H. 1983 On the prevalence and relative importance of interspecific competition: evidence from field experiments. Am. Nat. 122, 661-696. (doi:10.1086/284165)
12. Craine, J. M. 2006 Competition for nutrients and optimal root allocation. Plant Soil 285, 171-185. (doi:10.1007/s11104-006-9002-x)
13. Crutsinger, G. M., Souza, L. & Sanders, N. J. 2008 Intraspecific diversity and dominant genotypes resist plant invasions. Ecol. Lett. 11, 16-23.
14. de Kroon, H. 2007 How do roots interact? Science 318, 1562-1563. (doi:10.1126/science.1150726)
15. de Kroon, H., Mommer, L. & Nishiwaki, A. 2003 Root competition: towards a mechanistic understanding. In Root ecology (eds H. de Kroon & E. J. W. Visser), pp. 215-234. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
16. Donohue, K. 2003 The influence of neighbour relatedness on multilevel selection in the Great Lakes sea rocket. Am. Nat. 162, 77-92. (doi:10.1086/375299)
17. Dudley, S. A. & File, A. L. 2007 Kin recognition in an annual plant. Biol. Lett. 3, 435-438. (doi:10.1098/rsbl.2007.0232)
18. Dudley, S. A. & File, A. L. 2008 Yes: kin recognition in plants! Biol. Lett. 4, 69-70. (doi:10.1098/rsbl.2007.0585)
19. Falik, O., de Kroon, H. & Novoplansky, A. 2006 Physiologically- mediated self/nonself root discrimination in Trifolium repens has mixed effects on plant performance. Plant Signal. Behav. 1, 116-121.
20. Forbes, I., Leuck, D. B., Edwardson, J. R. & Burns, R. E. 1971 Natural cross-pollination in blue lupine (Lupinus angustifolius L.) in Georgia and Florida. Crop Sci. 11, 851-854.
21. Geber, M. 1990 The cost of meristem limitation in Polygonum arenastrum: negative genetic correlations between fecundity and growth. Evolution 44, 799-819. (doi:10.2307/2409547)
22. 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. J. Ecol. 89, 660-669. (doi:10.1046/j.0022-0477.2001.00609.x)
23. Goldberg, D. E., Rajaniemi, T., Gurevitch, J. & Stewart-Oaten, A. 1999 Empirical approaches to quantifying interaction intensity competition and facilitation along productivity gradients. Ecology 80, 1118-1131. (doi:10.2307/177059)
24. Goodnight, C. J. 1985 The influence of environmental variation on group and individual selection in a cress. Evolution 39, 545-558. (doi:10.2307/2408652)
25. Griffin, A. S. & West, S. A. 2002 Kin selection: fact and fiction. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17, 15-21. (doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(01)02355-2)
26. Hedges, L. V., Gurevitch, J. & Curtis, P. S. 1999 The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology. Ecology 80, 1150-1156.
27. Herrera, C. M., Sánchez-Lafuente, A. M., Medrano, M., Guitian, J., Cerda, X. & Rey, P. 2001 Geographical variation in autonomous self-pollination levels unrelated to pollinator service in Helleborus foetidus (Ranunculaceae). Am. J. Bot. 88, 1025-1032. (doi:10.2307/2657084)
28. Hess, L. & de Kroon, H. 2007 Effects of rooting volume and nutrient availability as an alternative explanation for root self/non-self discrimination. J. Ecol. 95, 241-251. (doi:10.1111/j.1365-2745. 2006.01204.x)
29. Hodge, A. 2004 The plastic plant: root responses to heterogeneous supplies of nutrients. New Phytol. 162, 9-24. (doi:10.1111/j.1469- 8137.2004.01015.x)
30. Hughes, A. R., Inouye, B. D., Johnson, M. T. J., Underwood, N. & Vellend, M. 2008 Ecological consequences of genetic diversity. Ecol. Lett. 11, 609-623. (doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01179.x)
31. Jensen, K. & Meyer, K. 2004 Effects of light competition and litter on the performance of Viola palustris and on species composition and diversity of an abandoned fen meadow. Plant Ecol. 155, 169-181. (doi:10.1023/A:1013270628964)
32. Kelley, S. E. 1989 Experimental studies of the evolutionary significance of sexual reproduction. VI. A greenhouse test of the sib-competition hypothesis. Evolution 43, 1066-1074. (doi:10.2307/2409586)
33. Kelly, J. K. 1996 Kin selection in the annual plant Impatiens capensis. Am. Nat. 147, 899-918. (doi:10.1086/285885)
34. Klemens, J. A. 2008 Kin recognition in plants? Biol. Lett. 4, 67-68. (doi:10.1098/rsbl.2007.0518)
35. Littell, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W. & Wolfinger, R. D. 1996 SAS system for mixed models. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
36. Mahall, B. E. & Callaway, R. M. 1991 Root communication among desert shrubs. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 88, 874-876. (doi:10.1073/pnas.88.3.874)
37. Mahall, B. E. & Callaway, R. M. 1996 Effects of regional origin and genotype on intraspecific root communication in the desert shrub Ambrosia dumosa (Asteraceae). Am. J. Bot. 83, 83-98. (doi:10.2307/2445959)
38. McCullagh, P. & Nelder, J. A. 1989 Generalized linear models, 2nd edn. London, UK: Chapman & Hall.
39. Mutic, J. J. & Wolf, J. B. 2007 Indirect genetic effects from ecological interactions in Arabidopsis thaliana. Mol. Ecol. 16, 2371-2381. (doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03259.x)
40. Patterson, H. D. & Thompson, R. 1971 Recovery of interblock information when block sizes are unequal. Biometrika 58, 545-554. (doi:10.1093/biomet/58.3.545)
41. Rajaniemi, T. K. 2007 Root foraging traits and competitive ability in heterogeneous soils. Oecologia 153, 145-152. (doi:10.1007/s00442- 007-0706-2)
42. Schabenberger, O., Gregoire, T. G. & Kong, F. 2000 Collections of simple effects and their relationship to main effects and interactions in factorials. Am. Stat. 54, 210-214. (doi:10.2307/2685592)
43. Schmitt, J. & Ehrhardt, D. W. 1987 A test of the sibcompetition hypothesis for outcrossing advantage in Impatiens capensis. Evolution 41, 579-590. (doi:10.2307/2409259)
44. Semchenko, M., John, E. A. & Hutchings, M. J. 2007 Effects of physical connection and genetic identity of neighbouring ramets on root-placement patterns in two clonal species. New Phytol. 176, 644-654. (doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02211.x)
45. Sokal, R. R. & Rohlf, F. J. 1995 Biometry. New York, NY: Freeman and Company.
46. Stevens, E. E. & Wiley, R. H. 1995 Genetic consequences of restricted dispersal and incest avoidance in a cooperatively breeding wren. J. Theor. Biol. 175, 423-436. (doi:10.1006/jtbi.1995.0152)
47. Tibbetts, E. A. & Dale, J. 2007 Individual recognition: it is good to be different. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22, 529-537. (doi:10.1016/j.tree.2007.09.001)
48. Tilman, D. 1982 Resource competition and community structure. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
49. Tonsor, S. J. 1989 Relatedness and intraspecific competition in Plantago lanceolata. Am. Nat. 134, 897-906. (doi:10.1086/285020)
50. Tsutsui, N. D., Suarez, A. V. & Grosberg, R. K. 2003 Genetic diversity, asymmetrical aggression, and recognition in a widespread invasive species. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 1078-1083. (doi:10.1073/pnas.0234412100)
51. Verbeke, G. & Molenberghs, G. 1997 Linear mixed models in practice. A SAS-oriented approach. New York, NY: Springer.
52. Weigelt, A. & Jolliffe, P. 2003 Indices of plant competition. J. Ecol. 91, 707-720. (doi:10.1046/j.1365-2745.2003.00805.x)
53. Willson, M. F., Thomas, P. A., Hoppes, W. G., Katusic-Malmborg, P. L., Goldman, D. A. & Bothwell, J. L. 1987 Sibling competition in plants: an experimental study. Am. Nat. 129, 304-311. (doi:10.1086/284636)