The role of belowground competition and plastic biomass allocation in altering plant mass-density relationships

Oikos

Volumn 123, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 248-256

  Lin, Yue ^a,b   Huth, Franka ^a   Berger, Uta ^a   Grimm, Volker ^c,d  

^a DRESDEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Germany)

^b GERMAN CENTRE FOR INTEGRATIVE BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH IDIV HALLE JENA LEIPZIG   (Germany)

^c HELMHOLTZ CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH UFZ   (Germany)

^d UNIVERSITY OF POTSDAM   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOMASS ALLOCATION; CARBON SEQUESTRATION; GROWTH MODELING; METABOLISM; MODEL VALIDATION; ONTOGENY; PLANT COMMUNITY;

EID: 84892681073     PISSN: 00301299     EISSN: 16000706     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2013.00921.x     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Berger U. et al. 2008. Competition among plants: concepts, individual-based modelling approaches, and a proposal for a future research strategy. Perspect. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst. 9: 121-135.
2. Brown J. H. et al. 2004. Toward a metabolic theory of ecology. Ecology 85: 1771-1789.
3. Cahill Jr, J. F. 2002. What evidence is necessary in studies which separate root and shoot competition along productivity gradients? J. Ecol. 90: 201-205.
4. Cahill Jr, J. F. and Casper B. B. 2000. Investigating the relationship between neighbor root biomass and belowground competition: field evidence for symmetric competition belowground. Oikos 90: 311-320.
5. Casper B. B. et al. 2003. Defining a plant's belowground zone of influence. Ecology 84: 2313-2321.
6. Cheng D. L. and Niklas K. J. 2007. Above-and below-ground biomass relationships across 1534 forested communities. Ann. Bot. 99: 95-102.
7. Chu C. J. et al. 2010. Effects of positive interactions, size symmetry of competition and abiotic stress on self-thinning in simulated plant populations. Ann. Bot. 106: 647-652.
8. Coomes D. A. 2006. Challenges to the generality of WBE theory. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21: 593-596.
9. Coomes D. A. and Allen R. B. 2007. Effects of size, competition and altitude on tree growth. J. Ecol. 95: 1084-1097.
10. Coomes D. A. et al. 2011. Moving on from metabolic scaling theory: hierarchical models of tree growth and asymmetric competition for light. J. Ecol. 99: 748-756.
11. Deng J. M. et al. 2006. Plant mass-density relationship along a moisture gradient in northwest China. J. Ecol. 94: 953-958.
12. Dunn C. P. and Sharitz R. R. 1990. The relationship of light and plant geometry to self-thinning of an aquatic annual herb, Murdannia keisak (Commelinaceae). New Phytol. 115: 559-565.
13. Enquist B. J. 2002. Universal scaling in tree and vascular plant allometry: toward a general quantitative theory linking plant form and function from cells to ecosystems. Tree Physiol. 22: 1045-1064.
14. Enquist B. J. and Niklas K. J. 2001. Invariant scaling relations across tree-dominated communities. Nature 410: 655-660.
15. Enquist B. J. et al. 1998. Allometric scaling of plant energetics and population density. Nature 395: 163-165.
16. Fransen B. et al. 2001. Soil nutrient heterogeneity alters competition between two perennial grass species. Ecology 82: 2534-2546.
17. Grimm V. and Railsback S. F. 2005. Individual-based modeling and ecology. - Princeton Univ. Press.
18. Grimm V. et al. 2005. Pattern-oriented modeling of agent- based complex systems: lessons from ecology. Science 310: 987-991.
19. Grimm V. et al. 2006. A standard protocol for describing individual-based and agent-based models. Ecol. Modell. 198: 115-126.
20. Grimm V. et al. 2010. The ODD protocol: a review and first update. Ecol. Modell. 221: 2760-2768.
21. Hautier Y. et al. 2009. Competition for light causes plant biodiversity loss after eutrophication. Science 324: 636-638.
22. Hou C. et al. 2008. Energy uptake and allocation during ontogeny. Science 322: 736-739.
23. ISTA 1993. International rules for seed testing. - Int. Seed Testing Ass., Bassersdorf, Switzerland.
24. Johnson I. R. 1985. A model of the partitioning of growth between the shoots and roots of vegetative plants. Ann. Bot. 55: 421-431.
25. Kays S. and Harper J. L. 1974. The regulation of plant and tiller density in a grass sward. J. Ecol. 62: 97-105.
26. Lamb E. G. et al. 2009. Shoot, but not root, competition reduces community diversity in experimental mesocosms. J. Ecol. 97: 155-163.
27. Lin Y. et al. 2012. Differences between symmetric and asymmetric facilitation matter: exploring the interplay between modes of positive and negative plant interactions. J. Ecol. 100: 1482-1491.
28. Lin Y. et al. 2013. Plant interactions alter the predictions of metabolic scaling theory. PloS ONE 8: e57612.
29. Liu J. et al. 2006. Effect of water deficit on self-thinning line in spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) populations. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 48: 415-419.
30. Lonsdale W. M. and Watkinson A. R. 1982. Light and self-thinning. New Phytol. 90: 431-445.
31. Martin B. T. et al. 2012. Dynamic energy budget theory meets individual-based modelling: a generic and accessible implementation. Meth. Ecol. Evol. 3: 445-449.
32. May F. et al. 2009. Reversed effects of grazing on plant diversity: the role of below-ground competition and size symmetry. Oikos 118: 1830-1843.
33. McConnaughay K. D. M. and Coleman J. S. 1999. Biomass allocation in plants: ontogeny or optimality? A test along three resource gradients. Ecology 80: 2581-2593.
34. Morris E. C. 2003. How does fertility of the substrate affect intraspecific competition? Evidence and synthesis from self-thinning. Ecol. Res. 18: 287-305.
35. Niklas K. J. 2005. Modelling below-and above-ground biomass for non-woody and woody plants. Ann. Bot. 95: 315-321.
36. O'Brien E. E. et al. 2007. Roots in space: a spatially explicit model for below-ground competition in plants. Proc. R. Soc. B 274: 929-935.
37. Pretzsch H. 2006. Species-specific allometric scaling under self-thinning: evidence from long-term plots in forest stands. Oecologia 146: 572-583.
38. Rajaniemi T. K. 2003. Evidence for size asymmetry of belowground competition. Basic Appl. Ecol. 4: 239-247.
39. Rewald B. and Leuschner C. 2009. Does root competition asymmetry increase with water availability? Plant Ecol. Divers. 2: 255-264.
40. Reynolds J. H. and Ford E. D. 2005. Improving competition representation in theoretical models of self-thinning: a critical review. J. Ecol. 93: 362-372.
41. Savage V. M. et al. 2010. Hydraulic tradeoffs and space filling enable better predictions of vascular structure and function in plants. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107: 22722-22727.
42. Schenk H. J. 2006. Root competition: beyond resource depletion. J. Ecol. 94: 725-739.
43. Schiffers K. et al. 2011. Root plasticity buffers competition among plants: theory meets experimental data. Ecology 92: 610-620.
44. Schwinning S. and Weiner J. 1998. Mechanisms determining the degree of size asymmetry in competition among plants. Oecologia 113: 447-455.
45. Stoll P. et al. 2002. Size symmetry of competition alters biomass-density relationships. Proc. R. Soc. B 269: 2191-2195.
46. Tilman D. 1988. Plant strategies and the dynamics and structure of plant communities. - Princeton Univ. Press.
47. von Wettberg E. J. and Weiner J. 2003. Larger Triticum aestivum plants do not preempt nutrient-rich patches in a glasshouse experiment. Plant Ecol. 169: 85-92.
48. Warton D. I. et al. 2006. Bivariate line-fitting methods for allometry. Biol. Rev. 81: 259-291.
49. Weiner J. 1990. Asymmetric competition in plant populations. Trends Ecol. Evol. 5: 360-364.
50. Weiner J. 2004. Allocation, plasticity and allometry in plants. Perspect. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst. 6: 207-215.
51. Weiner J. and Freckleton R. P. 2010. Constant final yield. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 41: 173-192.
52. Weiner J. et al. 2001. The effects of density, spatial pattern, and competitive symmetry on size variation in simulated plant populations. Am. Nat. 158: 438-450.
53. Weller D. E. 1987. Self-thinning exponent correlated with allometric measures of plant geometry. Ecology 68: 813-821.
54. West G. B. et al. 1999. A general model for the structure, function, and allometry of plant vascular systems. Nature 400: 664-667.
55. West G. B. et al. 2001. A general model for ontogenetic growth. Nature 413: 628-631.
56. Westoby M. 1984. The self-thinning rule. Adv. Ecol. Res. 14: 167-225.
57. Wilensky U. 1999. Netlogo. . Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL.
58. Wyszomirski T. 1983. Simulation model of the growth of competing individuals of a plant population. Ekol. Pol. 31: 73-92.
59. Wyszomirski T. et al. 1999. Simple mechanisms of size distribution dynamics in crowded and uncrowded virtual monocultures. Ecol. Modell. 115: 253-273.
60. Yoda K. et al. 1963. Self-thinning in overcrowded pure stands under cultivated and natural conditions (Intraspecific competition among higher plants XI). J. Biol. Osaka City Univ. 14: 107-129.