A comparative approach to examine competitive response of 48 wetland plant species

Abstract. Competitive ability can be separated into competitive effect (ability to suppress neighbours) and competitive response (ability to tolerate suppressive effect from neighbours), but little is known about the competitive response of plants. A screening trial was conducted in outdoor plant pots where competitive response was measured for 48 wetland species during four months grown with seven established sward species: Acorus calamus, Carex crinita, Eleocharis smallii, Lythrum salicaria, Penthorum sedoides, Scirpus acutus and Typha angustifolia. Competitive response was calculated as 100 (x1–x2)/x1, where x1 is the weight of the target plant grown alone and x2 the weight of the target plant grown in the swards. Despite significant differences in biomass and survivorship of the target plants between the sward species, the correspondence, W, of the rank order of the competitive response of target plants grown in the seven sward species was 0.70 (P < 0.001). The competitive response values were not significantly correlated with independent measures of competitive effect, relative growth rate or functional classification. Published competitive effect values, however, were significantly positively correlated with RGR. The results suggest a different approach towards the study of competitive response, with a conceptual model including three different response types: (1) escape; (2) foraging; and (3) persistence.

[1]  P. Keddy,et al.  Centrifugal organization in forests , 1990 .

[2]  B. Shipley.  A Null Model for Competitive Hierarchies in Competition Matrices , 1993 .

[3]  P. Keddy,et al.  Intensity and Asymmetry of Competition between Plant Pairs of Different Degrees of Similarity: An Experimental Study on Two Guilds of Wetland Plants , 1991 .

[4]  P. Keddy,et al.  Evaluating the evidence for competitive hierarchies in plant communities , 1994 .

[5]  D. Goldberg.  Competitive ability: Definitions, contingency and correlated traits , 1996 .

[6]  T. Miller,et al.  Competitive Effects and Responses Between Plant Species in a First‐Year Old‐Field Community , 1987 .

[7]  D. Tilman,et al.  PLANT COMPETITION AND RESOURCE AVAILABILITY IN RESPONSE TO DISTURBANCE AND FERTILIZATION , 1993 .

[8]  P. Keddy,et al.  Competitive hierarchies in herbaceous plant communities , 1989 .

[9]  Stephen R. Carpenter,et al.  MICROCOSM EXPERIMENTS HAVE LIMITED RELEVANCE FOR COMMUNITY AND ECOSYSTEM ECOLOGY: REPLY , 1999 .

[10]  P. Keddy,et al.  Competitive Performance and Species Distribution in Shortline Plant Communities: A Comparative Approach , 1995 .

[11]  C. Osmond,et al.  Physiological Plant Ecology I , 1981, Encyclopedia of Plant Physiology.

[12]  Scott D. Wilson,et al.  Competitive responses of eight old-field plant species in four environments , 1995 .

[13]  J. P. Grime,et al.  Plant Strategies and Vegetation Processes. , 1980 .

[14]  P. Keddy.  Applications of the Hertzsprung-Russell star chart to ecology: reflections on the 21(st) birthday of Geographical Ecology. , 1994, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[15]  P. Keddy,et al.  Species Competitive Ability and Position Along a Natural Stress/Disturbance Gradient , 1986 .

[16]  Roderick Hunt,et al.  Comparative Plant Ecology: A Functional Approach to Common British Species , 1989 .

[17]  Roderick Hunt,et al.  Relative growth-rate: its range and adaptive significance in a local flora. , 1975 .

[18]  S. Wilson.  Initial size and the competitive responses of two grasses at two levels of soil nitrogen: a field experiment , 1994 .

[19]  S. Siegel,et al.  Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences , 2022, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[20]  P. Keddy,et al.  Competitive Effect and Response Rankings in 20 Wetland Plants: Are They Consistent Across Three Environments? , 1994 .

[21]  M. Austin,et al.  The theoretical basis of vegetation science. , 1986, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[22]  D. Spence,et al.  zonation of plants in freshwater lakes , 1982 .

[23]  Paul A. Keddy,et al.  A comparative approach to predicting competitive ability from plant traits , 1988, Nature.

[24]  Paul A. Keddy,et al.  13 – Competitive Hierarchies and Centrifugal Organization in Plant Communities , 1990 .

[25]  K. Landa,et al.  Competitive effect and response: hierarchies and correlated traits in the early stages of competition , 1991 .

[26]  J. P. Grime,et al.  A comparative study of plant responsiveness to the duration of episodes of mineral nutrient enrichment , 1989 .

[27]  G. K. Theron,et al.  Predicting competitive interactions between pioneer plant species by using plant traits , 1997 .

[28]  T. R. E. Southwood,et al.  Tactics, strategies and templets* , 1988 .

[29]  P. Keddy,et al.  The role of experimental microcosms in ecological research. , 1997, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[30]  T. Kozlowski.  Flooding and Plant Growth , 1985 .

[31]  L. May,et al.  A Comparative Approach , 1987 .

[32]  P. Keddy,et al.  Measuring Diffuse Competition Along an Environmental Gradient: Results from a Shoreline Plant Community , 1986, The American Naturalist.

[33]  P. Keddy,et al.  The assembly of experimental wetland plant communities , 1995 .

[34]  R. Crawford,et al.  Flooding and Plant Growth. , 1985 .

[35]  D. Goldberg,et al.  Equivalence of competitors in plant communities: a null hypothesis and a field experimental approach. , 1983 .

[36]  D. Tilman.  Resource competition and community structure. , 1983, Monographs in population biology.

[37]  D. Goldberg,et al.  Competitive effect and response in four annual plants , 1987 .

[38]  P. Grubb.  Plant Populations and Vegetation in Relation to Habitat, Disturbance and Competition: Problems of Generalization , 1985 .

[39]  P. Keddy,et al.  Above‐ and Belowground Competition Intensity in Two Contrasting Wetland Plant Communities , 1996 .

[40]  Arthur Cronquist,et al.  Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada , 2004 .

[41]  W. Larcher.  Physiological Plant Ecology , 1977 .

[42]  Céline Boutin,et al.  A functional classification of wetland plants , 1993 .

[43]  J. P. Grime,et al.  Evidence for the Existence of Three Primary Strategies in Plants and Its Relevance to Ecological and Evolutionary Theory , 1977, The American Naturalist.

[44]  H. L. Boston,et al.  Productivity, Growth and Photosynthesis of Two Small `Isoetid' Plants, Littorella Uniflora and Isoetes Macrospora , 1987 .

[45]  Anthony John Judge.  Functional Classification. I. , 1984 .

[46]  James B. Grace,et al.  Components of resource competition in plant communities. , 1990 .

[47]  J. P. Grime,et al.  An Experimental Test of Plant Strategy Theory , 1992 .

[48]  P. Keddy.  22 – The Use of Functional as Opposed to Phylogenetic Systematics: A First Step in Predictive Community Ecology , 1990 .

[49]  Scott D. Wilson,et al.  The Influence of Initial Size on the Competitive Responses of Six Plant Species , 1995 .

[50]  Joseph H. Connell,et al.  On the Prevalence and Relative Importance of Interspecific Competition: Evidence from Field Experiments , 1983, The American Naturalist.

[51]  Thomas W. Schoener,et al.  Field Experiments on Interspecific Competition , 1983, The American Naturalist.

[52]  Paul A. Keddy,et al.  FERTILITY AND DISTURBANCE GRADIENTS: A SUMMARY MODEL FOR RIVERINE MARSH VEGETATION' , 1988 .

[53]  P. Keddy.  A pragmatic approach to functional ecology , 1992 .

[54]  R. Peters,et al.  A Test of the Tilman Model of Plant Strategies: Relative Growth Rate and Biomass Partitioning , 1990, The American Naturalist.

[55]  P. Keddy,et al.  The relationship between relative growth rate and sensitivity to nutrient stress in twenty-eight species of emergent macrophytes , 1988 .

[56]  J. Grace,et al.  The Examination of a Competition Matrix for Transitivity and Intransitive Loops , 1993 .

[57]  D. Tilman.  The Resource-Ratio Hypothesis of Plant Succession , 1985, The American Naturalist.