scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal ArticleDOI

Mechanisms of plant competition for nutrients, water and light

01 Aug 2013-Functional Ecology (Wiley/Blackwell (10.1111))-Vol. 27, Iss: 4, pp 833-840
TL;DR: The roles of supply pre-emption and availability reduction in competition for the three resources when supplied evenly in space and time are discussed.
Abstract: Summary Competition for resources has long been considered a prevalent force in structuring plant communities and natural selection, yet our understanding of the mechanisms that underlie resource competition is still developing. The complexity of resource competition is derived not only from the variability of resource limitation in space and time and among species, but also from the complexity of the resources themselves. Nutrients, water and light each differ in their properties, which generates unique ways that plants compete for these resources. Here, we discuss the roles of supply pre-emption and availability reduction in competition for the three resources when supplied evenly in space and time. Plants compete for nutrients by pre-empting nutrient supplies from coming into contact with neighbours, which requires maximizing root length. Although water is also a soil resource, competition for water is generally considered to occur by availability reduction, favouring plants that can withstand the lowest water potential. Because light is supplied from above plants, individuals that situate their leaves above those of neighbours benefit directly from increased photosynthetic rates and indirectly by reducing the growth of those neighbours via shade. In communities where juveniles recruit in the shade of adults, traits of the most competitive species are biased towards those that confer greater survivorship and growth at the juvenile stage, even if those traits come at the expense of adult performance. Understanding the mechanisms of competition also reveals how competition has influenced the evolution of plant species. For example, nutrient competition has selected for plants to maintain higher root length and light competition plants that are taller, with deeper, flatter canopies than would be optimal in the absence of competition. In all, while more research is needed on competition for heterogeneous resource supplies as well as for water, understanding the mechanisms of competition increases the predictability of interspecific interactions and reveals how competition has altered the evolution of plants.
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It is argued that the challenge of predicting the ecosystem implications of microbial processes can be met by identifying microbial life history strategies based on an organism’s phenotypic characteristics, or traits, and representing these strategies in ecosystem models.
Abstract: Microorganisms are critical in terrestrial carbon cycling because their growth, activity and interactions with the environment largely control the fate of recent plant carbon inputs as well as protected soil organic carbon [1, 2]. Soil carbon stocks reflect a balance between microbial decomposition of organic carbon and stabilisation of microbial assimilated carbon. The balance can shift under altered environmental conditions [3], and new research suggests that knowledge of microbial physiology may be critical for projecting changes in soil carbon and improving the prognosis of climate change feedbacks [4–7]. Still, predicting the ecosystem implications of microbial processes remains a challenge. Here we argue that this challenge can be met by identifying microbial life history strategies based on an organism’s phenotypic characteristics, or traits, and representing these strategies in ecosystem models. What are the key microbial traits for soil carbon cycling under environmental change? Microbial growth and survival in soil are impacted by multiple traits that determine responses to varying resource availability and fluctuating abiotic conditions [8]. Cellular maintenance activities (those that do not produce growth) include production of extracellular enzymes to degrade and acquire resources, biomolecular repair mechanisms, maintenance of cellular integrity, osmotic balance, defence, antagonism, cell signalling and motility [9–11]. It is conceivable that microbial investment into maintenance activities would be generally high in soils, with their highly heterogeneous and temporally variable resource distribution and stressful abiotic conditions like extremes of moisture, temperature, pH and salinity [12, 13]. Selective pressures in suboptimal environmental conditions could lead to greater cellular-level physiological allocation to maintenance relative to growth traits (Fig. 1) thereby impacting soil carbon cycling processes. Open in a separate window Fig. 1 Schematic showing cellular C flux that includes depolymerisation, substrate uptake, assimilation, dissimilation, biomass synthesis and non-growth production. Extracellular enzyme production represents investment in resource acquisition, stress protein production is linked to stress tolerance mechanisms, and biomass production reflects higher growth yield. Forked arrows signify metabolic points where hypothesised tradeoffs in traits might occur. The expected empirical relationships among the key traits are also shown

356 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Investigation of the effect of microplastics and drought on plant productivity and community structure in a plant community consisting of seven plant species that co-occur in temperate grassland ecosystems showed that at the community level, shoot and root mass decreased with drought but increased with microfibers, an effect likely linked to reduced soil bulk density, improved aeration, and better penetration of roots in the soil.
Abstract: Microplastics in soils can affect plant performance, as shown in studies using individual plants. However, we currently have no information about potential effects on plant community productivity a...

197 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It is found that pine species receive more light, develop larger crowns and grow 138–155% faster when in mixture with oaks, however, this positive effect of species mixing on growth was severely reduced under drought conditions due to increased competition for water with neighbouring oaks.
Abstract: Summary Mixed-species forests generally sequester and store more carbon in above-ground woody biomass compared to species-poor systems. However, the mechanisms driving the positive relationship between diversity and above-ground wood production (AWP) remain unclear. We investigate the role of competition for light and water as possible sources of complementarity among Iberian pine and oak species. Using tree core data from permanent plots, we test the hypotheses that (i) contrasting abilities of pines and oaks to tolerate shade will promote AWP in mixtures, while (ii) drought stress results in less room for complementarity. We found that pine species receive more light, develop larger crowns and grow 138–155% faster when in mixture with oaks. However, this positive effect of species mixing on growth was severely reduced under drought conditions due to increased competition for water with neighbouring oaks. In contrast to pines, oak trees were less responsive to mixing, primarily as a result of their ability to tolerate shade and water shortage. Mixed pine-oak forests produce an average 48% more above-ground woody biomass compared to monocultures each year. However, the magnitude of the diversity effect on AWP fluctuates with time, decreasing noticeably in strength during drought years. Synthesis. Complementary light use strategies among neighbouring trees are critical in explaining why above-ground wood production (AWP) increases in mixed-species stands. In contrast, drought causes trees in mixture to compete more fiercely for below-ground resources, leaving less room for complementarity and causing positive diversity effects to lessen in strength. Together, these two mechanisms provide much needed context for AWP–diversity relationships in Mediterranean forests. Whether or not managing for mixed pine-oak forests proves to be beneficial for AWP is likely to depend on how climate changes in the Iberian Peninsula.

172 citations


Cites background from "Mechanisms of plant competition for..."

  • ...Recent theoretical work by Craine & Dybzinski (2013) reconciles these seemingly contrasting results by suggesting that competition for water occurs primarily through availability reduction, favouring species that are best able to deal with high soil water deficits....

    [...]

  • ...Below-ground competition for water is also an important driver of tree growth (Coomes & Grubb 2000; Craine & Dybzinski 2013; Brzostek et al. 2014)....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This review highlights new and important developments that have the potential to greatly improve understanding of how plants compete and the consequences of competition from individuals to communities in the following major areas of research.
Abstract: During the past 100 years, studies spanning thousands of taxa across almost all biomes have demonstrated that competition has powerful negative effects on the performance of individuals and can affect the composition of plant communities, the evolution of traits, and the functioning of whole ecosystems. In this review, we highlight new and important developments that have the potential to greatly improve our understanding of how plants compete and the consequences of competition from individuals to communities in the following major areas of research: (a) mechanisms of competition, (b) competitive effect and response, (c) direct and indirect effects of competition, (d) population-level effects of competition, (e) biogeographical differences in competition, and (f) conditionality of competition. Ecologists have discovered much about competition, but the mechanisms of competition and how competition affects the organization of communities in nature still require both theoretical and empirical exploration.

141 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Elevated temperatures associated with heat-waves will have profound negative impacts on crop growth in both sunflower and maize, but the deleterious effect on PN was less apparent in the drought tolerantSunflower and both maize varieties.
Abstract: Heat and drought stress frequently occur together, however, their impact on plant growth and photosynthesis (PN ) is unclear. The frequency, duration and severity of heat and drought stress events are predicted to increase in the future, having severe implications for agricultural productivity and food security. To assess the impact on plant gas exchange, physiology and morphology we grew drought tolerant and sensitive varieties of C3 sunflower (Helianthus annuus) and C4 maize (Zea mays) under conditions of elevated temperature for 4 weeks prior to the imposition of water deficit. The negative impact of temperature on PN was most apparent in sunflower. The drought tolerant sunflower retained ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (RubisCO) activity under heat stress to a greater extent than its drought sensitive counterpart. Maize exhibited no varietal difference in response to increased temperature. In contrast to previous studies, where a sudden rise in temperature induced an increase in stomatal conductance (Gs ), we observed no change or a reduction in Gs with elevated temperature, which alongside lower leaf area mitigated the impact of drought at the higher temperature. The drought tolerant sunflower and maize varieties exhibited greater investment in root-systems, allowing greater uptake of the available soil water. Elevated temperatures associated with heat-waves will have profound negative impacts on crop growth in both sunflower and maize, but the deleterious effect on PN was less apparent in the drought tolerant sunflower and both maize varieties. As C4 plants generally exhibit water use efficiency (WUE) and resistance to heat stress, selection on the basis of tolerance to heat and drought stress would be more beneficial to the yields of C3 crops cultivated in drought prone semi-arid regions.

116 citations

References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
22 Apr 2004-Nature
TL;DR: Reliable quantification of the leaf economics spectrum and its interaction with climate will prove valuable for modelling nutrient fluxes and vegetation boundaries under changing land-use and climate.
Abstract: Bringing together leaf trait data spanning 2,548 species and 175 sites we describe, for the first time at global scale, a universal spectrum of leaf economics consisting of key chemical, structural and physiological properties. The spectrum runs from quick to slow return on investments of nutrients and dry mass in leaves, and operates largely independently of growth form, plant functional type or biome. Categories along the spectrum would, in general, describe leaf economic variation at the global scale better than plant functional types, because functional types overlap substantially in their leaf traits. Overall, modulation of leaf traits and trait relationships by climate is surprisingly modest, although some striking and significant patterns can be seen. Reliable quantification of the leaf economics spectrum and its interaction with climate will prove valuable for modelling nutrient fluxes and vegetation boundaries under changing land-use and climate.

6,360 citations

Book
01 Jun 1983
TL;DR: Xylem Dysfunction: When Cohesion Breaks Down, the Cohesion-Tension Theory of Sap Ascent and other Functional Adaptations.
Abstract: 1 Conducting Units: Tracheids and Vessels.- 2 The Vessel Network in the Stem.- 3 The Cohesion-Tension Theory of Sap Ascent.- 4 Xylem Dysfunction: When Cohesion Breaks Down.- 5 Hydraulic Architecture of Woody Shoots.- 6 Hydraulic Architecture of Whole Plants and Plant Performance.- 7 Other Functional Adaptations.- 8 Failure and "Senescence" of Xylem Function.- 9 Pathology of the Xylem.- References.

2,312 citations

Book
01 Mar 1988
TL;DR: Tilman et al. as mentioned in this paper showed that relative growth rate, which is predicted by a plant's proportional allocation to leaves, is a major determinant of the transient dynamics of competition.
Abstract: Although ecologists have long considered morphology and life history to be important determinants of the distribution, abundance, and dynamics of plants in nature, this book contains the first theory to predict explicitly both the evolution of plant traits and the effects of these traits on plant community structure and dynamics. David Tilman focuses on the universal requirement of terrestrial plants for both below-ground and above-ground resources. The physical separation of these resources means that plants face an unavoidable tradeoff. To obtain a higher proportion of one resource, a plant must allocate more of its growth to the structures involved in its acquisition, and thus necessarily obtain a lower proportion of another resource. Professor Tilman presents a simple theory that includes this constraint and tradeoff, and uses the theory to explore the evolution of plant life histories and morphologies along productivity and disturbance gradients. The book shows that relative growth rate, which is predicted to be strongly influenced by a plant's proportional allocation to leaves, is a major determinant of the transient dynamics of competition. These dynamics may explain the differences between successions on poor versus rich soils and suggest that most field experiments performed to date have been of too short a duration to allow unambiguous interpretation of their results.

2,265 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
30 Mar 1973-Nature
TL;DR: In this paper, an attempt to identify criteria with which to assess or anticipate the effect of competitive exclusion both at individual sites and in different types of vegetation is described, where the authors identify criteria for assessing or anticipating competitive exclusion.
Abstract: IN maintaining or reconstructing types of herbaceous vegetation in which the density of flowering plants exceeds 20 species/m2—the so-called “species-rich” communities, success is often frustrated by competitive exclusion. Here I describe an attempt to identify criteria with which to assess or anticipate the effect of competitive exclusion both at individual sites and in different types of vegetation.

2,242 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Jens Kattge1, Sandra Díaz2, Sandra Lavorel3, Iain Colin Prentice4, Paul Leadley5, Gerhard Bönisch1, Eric Garnier3, Mark Westoby4, Peter B. Reich6, Peter B. Reich7, Ian J. Wright4, Johannes H. C. Cornelissen8, Cyrille Violle3, Sandy P. Harrison4, P.M. van Bodegom8, Markus Reichstein1, Brian J. Enquist9, Nadejda A. Soudzilovskaia8, David D. Ackerly10, Madhur Anand11, Owen K. Atkin12, Michael Bahn13, Timothy R. Baker14, Dennis D. Baldocchi10, Renée M. Bekker15, Carolina C. Blanco16, Benjamin Blonder9, William J. Bond17, Ross A. Bradstock18, Daniel E. Bunker19, Fernando Casanoves20, Jeannine Cavender-Bares7, Jeffrey Q. Chambers21, F. S. Chapin22, Jérôme Chave3, David A. Coomes23, William K. Cornwell8, Joseph M. Craine24, B. H. Dobrin9, Leandro da Silva Duarte16, Walter Durka25, James J. Elser26, Gerd Esser27, Marc Estiarte28, William F. Fagan29, Jingyun Fang, Fernando Fernández-Méndez30, Alessandra Fidelis31, Bryan Finegan20, Olivier Flores32, H. Ford33, Dorothea Frank1, Grégoire T. Freschet34, Nikolaos M. Fyllas14, Rachael V. Gallagher4, Walton A. Green35, Alvaro G. Gutiérrez25, Thomas Hickler, Steven I. Higgins36, John G. Hodgson37, Adel Jalili, Steven Jansen38, Carlos Alfredo Joly39, Andrew J. Kerkhoff40, Don Kirkup41, Kaoru Kitajima42, Michael Kleyer43, Stefan Klotz25, Johannes M. H. Knops44, Koen Kramer, Ingolf Kühn16, Hiroko Kurokawa45, Daniel C. Laughlin46, Tali D. Lee47, Michelle R. Leishman4, Frederic Lens48, Tanja Lenz4, Simon L. Lewis14, Jon Lloyd14, Jon Lloyd49, Joan Llusià28, Frédérique Louault50, Siyan Ma10, Miguel D. Mahecha1, Peter Manning51, Tara Joy Massad1, Belinda E. Medlyn4, Julie Messier9, Angela T. Moles52, Sandra Cristina Müller16, Karin Nadrowski53, Shahid Naeem54, Ülo Niinemets55, S. Nöllert1, A. Nüske1, Romà Ogaya28, Jacek Oleksyn56, Vladimir G. Onipchenko57, Yusuke Onoda58, Jenny C. Ordoñez59, Gerhard E. Overbeck16, Wim A. Ozinga59, Sandra Patiño14, Susana Paula60, Juli G. Pausas60, Josep Peñuelas28, Oliver L. Phillips14, Valério D. Pillar16, Hendrik Poorter, Lourens Poorter59, Peter Poschlod61, Andreas Prinzing62, Raphaël Proulx63, Anja Rammig64, Sabine Reinsch65, Björn Reu1, Lawren Sack66, Beatriz Salgado-Negret20, Jordi Sardans28, Satomi Shiodera67, Bill Shipley68, Andrew Siefert69, Enio E. Sosinski70, Jean-François Soussana50, Emily Swaine71, Nathan G. Swenson72, Ken Thompson37, Peter E. Thornton73, Matthew S. Waldram74, Evan Weiher47, Michael T. White75, S. White11, S. J. Wright76, Benjamin Yguel3, Sönke Zaehle1, Amy E. Zanne77, Christian Wirth58 
Max Planck Society1, National University of Cordoba2, Centre national de la recherche scientifique3, Macquarie University4, University of Paris-Sud5, University of Western Sydney6, University of Minnesota7, VU University Amsterdam8, University of Arizona9, University of California, Berkeley10, University of Guelph11, Australian National University12, University of Innsbruck13, University of Leeds14, University of Groningen15, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul16, University of Cape Town17, University of Wollongong18, New Jersey Institute of Technology19, Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza20, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory21, University of Alaska Fairbanks22, University of Cambridge23, Kansas State University24, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ25, Arizona State University26, University of Giessen27, Autonomous University of Barcelona28, University of Maryland, College Park29, Universidad del Tolima30, University of São Paulo31, University of La Réunion32, University of York33, University of Sydney34, Harvard University35, Goethe University Frankfurt36, University of Sheffield37, University of Ulm38, State University of Campinas39, Kenyon College40, Royal Botanic Gardens41, University of Florida42, University of Oldenburg43, University of Nebraska–Lincoln44, Tohoku University45, Northern Arizona University46, University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire47, Naturalis48, James Cook University49, Institut national de la recherche agronomique50, Newcastle University51, University of New South Wales52, Leipzig University53, Columbia University54, Estonian University of Life Sciences55, Polish Academy of Sciences56, Moscow State University57, Kyushu University58, Wageningen University and Research Centre59, Spanish National Research Council60, University of Regensburg61, University of Rennes62, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières63, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research64, Technical University of Denmark65, University of California, Los Angeles66, Hokkaido University67, Université de Sherbrooke68, Syracuse University69, Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária70, University of Aberdeen71, Michigan State University72, Oak Ridge National Laboratory73, University of Leicester74, Utah State University75, Smithsonian Institution76, University of Missouri77
01 Sep 2011
TL;DR: TRY as discussed by the authors is a global database of plant traits, including morphological, anatomical, physiological, biochemical and phenological characteristics of plants and their organs, which can be used for a wide range of research from evolutionary biology, community and functional ecology to biogeography.
Abstract: Plant traits – the morphological, anatomical, physiological, biochemical and phenological characteristics of plants and their organs – determine how primary producers respond to environmental factors, affect other trophic levels, influence ecosystem processes and services and provide a link from species richness to ecosystem functional diversity. Trait data thus represent the raw material for a wide range of research from evolutionary biology, community and functional ecology to biogeography. Here we present the global database initiative named TRY, which has united a wide range of the plant trait research community worldwide and gained an unprecedented buy-in of trait data: so far 93 trait databases have been contributed. The data repository currently contains almost three million trait entries for 69 000 out of the world's 300 000 plant species, with a focus on 52 groups of traits characterizing the vegetative and regeneration stages of the plant life cycle, including growth, dispersal, establishment and persistence. A first data analysis shows that most plant traits are approximately log-normally distributed, with widely differing ranges of variation across traits. Most trait variation is between species (interspecific), but significant intraspecific variation is also documented, up to 40% of the overall variation. Plant functional types (PFTs), as commonly used in vegetation models, capture a substantial fraction of the observed variation – but for several traits most variation occurs within PFTs, up to 75% of the overall variation. In the context of vegetation models these traits would better be represented by state variables rather than fixed parameter values. The improved availability of plant trait data in the unified global database is expected to support a paradigm shift from species to trait-based ecology, offer new opportunities for synthetic plant trait research and enable a more realistic and empirically grounded representation of terrestrial vegetation in Earth system models.

2,017 citations

Trending Questions (1)
How plant compete for resources?

Plants compete for resources such as nutrients, water, and light through mechanisms like pre-empting nutrient supplies, reducing water availability, and shading neighbors to increase photosynthetic rates.