Dynamics of biomass partitioning in two competing meadow plant species

Plant Ecology

Volumn 205, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 129-137

  Aikio, Sami ^a,b   Rämö, Kaisa ^a   Manninen, Sirkku ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^b LINCOLN UNIVERSITY   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Agrostis capillaris; Allocation; Allometry; Ranunculus acris; Root to shoot ratio

Indexed keywords

ALLOMETRY; BIOMASS ALLOCATION; COMPETITION (ECOLOGY); GROWTH RATE; MEADOW; PLANT COMMUNITY; RESOURCE AVAILABILITY; ROOT-SHOOT RATIO; SPECIES DIVERSITY;

AGROSTIS; AGROSTIS CAPILLARIS; RANUNCULACEAE; RANUNCULUS ACRIS;

EID: 70350148017     PISSN: 13850237     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11258-009-9603-6     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Aikio S, Markkola AM (2002) Optimality and phenotypic plasticity of shoot-to-root ratio under variable light and nutrient availability. Evol Ecol 16:67-76. doi:10.1023/A:1016096309637.
2. Anderson DR, Burnham KP, Thompson WL (2000) Null hypothesis testing: Problems, prevalence, and an alternative. J Wildl Manage 64:912-923. doi:10.2307/3803199.
3. Bloom AJ, Chapin FS, Mooney HA (1985) Resource limitation in plants-an economic analogy. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 16:363-392.
4. 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.
5. Casper BB, Jackson RB (1997) Plant competition underground. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 28:545-570. doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.28.1.545.
6. 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.
7. Coleman T, Branch MA, Grace A (1999) Optimization toolbox for the use with Matlab. The MathWorks Inc., Natick, MA, USA.
8. Gedroc JJ, McConnaughay KDM, Coleman JS (1996) Plasticity in root/shoot ratio: Optimal, ontogenetic, or both? Funct Ecol 10:44-50. doi:10.2307/2390260.
9. Gersani M, Brown JS, O'Brien EE, Maina GM, 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.
10. Goldberg DE (1987) Neighborhood competition in an oldfield plant community. Ecology 68:1211-1233.
11. Goldberg DE, Barton AM (1992) Patterns and consequences of interspecific competition in natural communities: A review of field experiments with plants. Am Nat 139:771-801. doi:10.1086/285357.
12. Grace JB, Wetzel RG (1982) Niche differentiation between two rhizomatous plant species: Typha latifolia and Typha angustifolia. Can J Bot 60:46-57.
13. Grime P (1979) Plant strategies and vegetation processes. Wiley, Chichester.
14. Gurevitch J, Morrow LL, Wallace A, Walsh JS (1992) A meta-analysis of competition in field experiments. Am Nat 140:539-572. doi:10.1086/285428.
15. Hämet-Ahti L, Suominen J, Ulvinen T, Uotila P (eds) (1998) Retkeilykasvio. University Press, Helsinki.
16. Jalas J (1980) Suuri Kasvikirja III. Kustannusosakeyhtiö Otava, Helsinki.
17. Kanerva T (2006) Below-ground processes in meadow soil under elevated ozone and carbon dioxide. Ph.D. Thesis. Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland. Yliopistopaino, Helsinki.
18. Kanerva T, Regina K, Rämö K, Karhu K, Ojanperä K, Manninen S (2005) Mesocosms mimic natural meadows as regards greenhouse gas fluxes and potential activities of nitrifying bacteria. Plant Soil 276:287-299. doi:10.1007/s11104-005-4984-3.
19. Keddy P, Twolan-Strutt L, Shipley B (1997) Experimental evidence that interspecific competitive asymmetry increases with soil productivity. Oikos 80:253-256. doi:10.2307/3546593.
20. Lepik M, Liira J, Zobel K (2004) The space-use strategy of plants with different growth forms, in a field experiment with manipulated nutrients and light. Folia Geobot 39:113-127. doi:10.1007/BF02805241.
21. McConnaughay KDM, Coleman JS (1999) Biomass allocation in plants: Ontogenity or optimality? A test along three resource gradients. Ecology 80:2581-2593.
22. 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.
23. Poorter H, Remkes C, Lambers H (1990) Carbon and nitrogen economy of twenty-four wild species differing in relative growth rate. Plant Physiol 94:621-627. doi:10.1104/pp.94.2.621.
24. Porthsmuth A, Niinemets Ü (2006) Interacting controls by light availability and nutrient supply on biomass allocation and growth of Betula pendula and B. pubescens seedlings. For Ecol Manage 227:122-134.
25. Rämö K (2006) Meadow plant growth and competition under elevated ozone and carbon dioxide. Ph.D. Thesis. Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland. Yliopistopaino, Helsinki.
26. Röhrig M, Stützel H (2001) Dry matter production and partitioning of Chenopodium album in contrasting competitive environments. Weed Res 41:129-142. doi:10.1046/j.1365-3180.2001.00222.x.
27. Schwinning S, Fox GA (1995) Population dynamics consequences of competitive symmetry in annual plants. Oikos 72:422-432. doi:10.2307/3546128.
28. Schwinning S, Weiner J (1998) Mechanisms determining the degree of size asymmetry in competition among plants. Oecologia 113:447-455. doi:10.1007/s004420050397.
29. Shipley B, Meziane D (2002) The balanced-growth hypothesis and the allometry of leaf and root biomass. Funct Ecol 16:326-331. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2435.2002.00626.x.
30. Silvertown J (2004) Plant coexistence and the niche. Trends Ecol Evol 19:605-611. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2004.09.003.
31. Tilman D (1982) Resource competition and community structure. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
32. Tilman D (1988) Resource competition and the dynamics and structure of plant communities. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
33. Wardle DA, Peltzer DA (2003) Interspecific interactions and biomass allocation among grassland plant species. Oikos 100:497-506. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.12030.x.
34. Weigelt A, Steinlein T, Beyschlag W (2005) Competition among three dune species: The impact of water availability on below-ground processes. Plant Ecol 176:57-68. doi:10.1007/s11258-004-0016-2.
35. Weiner J (1990) Asymmetric competition in plant populations. Trends Ecol Evol 5:360-364. doi:10.1016/0169-5347(90)90095-U.
36. Weiner J, Thomas SC (1986) Size variability and competition in plant monocultures. Oikos 47:211-222. doi:10.2307/3566048.
37. Weiner J, Thomas SC (1992) Competition and allometry in three species of annual plants. Ecology 73:648-656. doi:10.2307/1940771.
38. Wilson SD, Tilman D (1991) Components of plant competition along an experimental gradient of nitrogen availability. Ecology 72:1050-1065. doi:10.2307/1940605.
39. Wilson SD, Tilman D (1993) Plant competition and resource availability in response to disturbance and fertilization. Ecology 74:599-611. doi:10.2307/1939319.
40. Wilson SD, Tilman D (1995) Competitive responses of eight old-field plants in four environments. Ecology 76:1169-1180. doi:10.2307/1940924.