Role of co-occurring competition and facilitation in plant spacing hydrodynamics in water-limited environments

Significance Plant communities exist in a continual state of transition as the spacing between individuals in each successive generation changes in response to environmental conditions. We developed a conceptual model based on quantitative experimental data and established ecological theories to provide insight into plant performance and community spatial pattern development from a hydrodynamic perspective. We demonstrate that the roles of co-occurring competition for soil water and facilitation of abiotic stresses (i.e., microclimatic) vary with spacing distance between individual plants, impacting soil moisture patterns and local water availability. Our conceptual model can provide insight into the design of future field and modeling efforts focused on pertinent climatological and ecohydrological problems related to land–atmosphere fluxes, agricultural best practices, and ecosystem productivity and recovery. Plant performance (i.e., fecundity, growth, survival) depends on an individual’s access to space and resources. At the community level, plant performance is reflected in observable vegetation patterning (i.e., spacing distance, density) often controlled by limiting resources. Resource availability is, in turn, strongly dependent on plant patterning mediated by competitive and facilitative plant–plant interactions. Co-occurring competition and facilitation has never been specifically investigated from a hydrodynamic perspective. To address this knowledge gap, and to overcome limitations of field studies, three intermediate-scale laboratory experiments were conducted using a climate-controlled wind tunnel–porous media test facility to simulate the soil–plant–atmosphere continuum. The spacing between two synthetic plants, a design consideration introduced by the authors in a recent publication, was varied between experiments; edaphic and mean atmospheric conditions were held constant. The strength of the above- and belowground plant–plant interactions changed with spacing distance, allowing the creation of a hydrodynamic conceptual model based on established ecological theories. Greatest soil water loss was observed for the experiment with the smallest spacing where competition dominated. Facilitation dominated at the intermediate spacing; little to no interactions were observed for the largest plant spacing. Results suggest that there exists an optimal spacing distance range that lowers plant environmental stress, thus improving plant performance through reduced atmospheric demand and conservation of available soil water. These findings may provide a foundation for improving our understanding of many climatological, ecohydrological, and hydrological problems pertaining to the hydrodynamics of water-limited environments where plant–plant interactions and community self-organization are important.

[1]  William G. Nickling,et al.  The protective role of sparse vegetation in wind erosion , 1993 .

[2]  R. Callaway,et al.  Positive interactions among plants , 1995, The Botanical Review.

[3]  L. Kumar,et al.  Self‐Organization of Vegetation in Arid Ecosystems , 2002, The American Naturalist.

[4]  F. Maestre,et al.  Microhabitat amelioration and reduced competition among understorey plants as drivers of facilitation across environmental gradients: towards a unifying framework. , 2011, Perspectives in plant ecology, evolution and systematics.

[5]  Jong-Seop Lee THE ROLE OF DESERT SHRUB SIZE AND SPACING ON WIND PROFILE PARAMETERS , 1991 .

[6]  R. B. Jackson,et al.  Rooting depths, lateral root spreads and below‐ground/above‐ground allometries of plants in water‐limited ecosystems , 2002 .

[7]  Rainer Helmig,et al.  Development of an experimental approach to study coupled soil‐plant‐atmosphere processes using plant analogs , 2017 .

[8]  Henry M. Morris,et al.  Flow in Rough Conduits , 1955 .

[9]  I. Noy-Meir,et al.  Desert Ecosystems: Environment and Producers , 1973 .

[10]  Jacob Weiner,et al.  A neighborhood view of interactions among individual plants , 2000 .

[11]  A. Roshko,et al.  Perspectives on bluff body aerodynamics , 1993 .

[12]  P. L. Churcher,et al.  Rock Properties of Berea Sandstone, Baker Dolomite, and Indiana Limestone , 1991 .

[13]  D. Phillips,et al.  Competition and spacing patterns in desert shrubs , 1981 .

[14]  K. Mcnaughton Micrometeorology of shelter belts and forest edges , 1989 .

[15]  B. Lee,et al.  An Investigation of the Forces on Three Dimensional Bluff Bodies in Rough Wall Turbulent Boundary Layers , 1977 .

[16]  Zone of influence models for competition in plantations , 1978, Advances in Applied Probability.

[17]  Tissa H. Illangasekare,et al.  Comparison of height‐averaged and point‐measured capillary pressure–saturation relations for sands using a modified Tempe cell , 2007 .

[18]  J. Travis,et al.  Facilitation in plant communities: the past, the present, and the future , 2007 .

[19]  I. Rodríguez‐Iturbe,et al.  Ecohydrology of Water-Controlled Ecosystems: Soil Moisture and Plant Dynamics , 2005 .

[20]  Norma L. Fowler,et al.  The Role of Competition in Plant Communities in Arid and Semiarid Regions , 1986 .

[21]  Gerard Middleton,et al.  Mechanics of sediment movement , 1978 .

[22]  P. D’Odorico,et al.  Hydraulic lift as a determinant of tree-grass coexistence on savannas. , 2014, The New phytologist.

[23]  F. Pugnaire,et al.  Facilitation in communities: underlying mechanisms, community and ecosystem implications , 2016 .

[24]  J. Brakel Mass Transfer in Convective Drying , 1980 .

[25]  Nicolas Barbier,et al.  Spatial decoupling of facilitation and competition at the origin of gapped vegetation patterns. , 2008, Ecology.

[26]  University of Montana-Missoula Competition and Facilitation : a Synthetic Approach to Interactions in Plant Communities , 2016 .

[27]  Jacob Weiner,et al.  Size-asymmetric competition and size-asymmetric growth in a spatially explicit zone-of-influence model of plant competition , 2006, Ecological Research.

[28]  Christopher E. Heil,et al.  Effects of Woody Plants on Microclimate in a Semiarid Woodland: Soil Temperature and Evaporation in Canopy and Intercanopy Patches , 1998, International Journal of Plant Sciences.

[29]  F. Pugnaire,et al.  Plant interactions govern population dynamics in a semi‐arid plant community , 2005 .

[30]  J. Harper The Individual in the Population , 1964 .

[31]  P. Stoll,et al.  Pattern and process: competition causes regular spacing of individuals within plant populations , 2005 .