Evidence for competition and cooperation among climbing plants

A plant's best strategy for acquiring resources may often depend on the identity of neighbours. Here, I ask whether plants adjust their strategy to local relatedness: individuals may cooperate (reduce competitiveness) with kin but compete relatively intensely with non-kin. In a greenhouse experiment with Ipomoea hederacea, neighbouring siblings from the same inbred line were relatively uniform in height; groups of mixed lines, however, were increasingly variable as their mean height increased. The reproductive yield of mixed and sibling groups was similar overall, but when adjusted to a common mean height and height inequality, the yield of mixed groups was significantly less. Where this difference in yield was most pronounced (among groups that varied most in height), mixed groups tended to allocate more mass to roots than comparable sibling groups, and overall, mixed groups produced significantly fewer seeds per unit mass of roots. These results suggest that, from the group perspective, non-kin may have wasted resources in below-ground competition at the expense of reproduction; kin groups, on the other hand, displayed the relative efficiency that is expected of reduced competitiveness.

[1]  D. Ehrhardt,et al.  A TEST OF THE SIB‐COMPETITION HYPOTHESIS FOR OUTCROSSING ADVANTAGE IN IMPATIENS CAPENSIS , 1987, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[2]  James F. Cahill Jr.,et al.  Plant genetic diversity yields increased plant productivity and herbivore performance , 2010 .

[3]  H. Bais,et al.  Root exudates mediate kin recognition in plants , 2010, Communicative & integrative biology.

[4]  B. Godelle,et al.  INTER- AND INTRAGENOTYPIC COMPETITION UNDER ELEVATED CARBON DIOXIDE IN ARABIDOPSIS THALIANA , 2001 .

[5]  N. Ellstrand,et al.  EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES OF THE EVOLUTIONARY SIGNIFICANCE OF SEXUAL REPRODUCTION. I. A TEST OF THE FREQUENCY‐DEPENDENT SELECTION HYPOTHESIS , 1984, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[6]  C. Ballaré,et al.  Phytochrome signalling in plant canopies: testing its population‐level implications with photoreceptor mutants of Arabidopsis , 1997 .

[7]  M. Pigliucci,et al.  Manipulative Approaches to Testing Adaptive Plasticity: Phytochrome‐Mediated Shade‐Avoidance Responses in Plants , 1999, The American Naturalist.

[8]  Guillermo P Murphy,et al.  Kin recognition: Competition and cooperation in Impatiens (Balsaminaceae). , 2009, American journal of botany.

[9]  P. Alpert,et al.  Root cooperation in a clonal plant: connected strawberries segregate roots , 2002, Oecologia.

[10]  L. Keller,et al.  Competitive ability not kinship affects growth of Arabidopsis thaliana accessions. , 2010, The New phytologist.

[11]  A. Patz Experimental studies. , 1955, American journal of ophthalmology.

[12]  W. Hamilton The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I. , 1964, Journal of theoretical biology.

[13]  S. Kalisz,et al.  Multilevel Selection in Natural Populations of Impatiens capensis , 1995, The American Naturalist.

[14]  Hanna Kokko,et al.  The tragedy of the commons in evolutionary biology. , 2007, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[15]  R. Ford Denison,et al.  Darwinian Agriculture: When Can Humans Find Solutions Beyond The Reach of Natural Selection? , 2003, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[16]  L. Aarssen,et al.  Fecundity allocation in herbaceous plants , 1992 .

[17]  Kin recognition in plants? , 2008, Biology Letters.

[18]  Joel s. Brown,et al.  Intra-plant versus Inter-plant Root Competition in Beans: avoidance, resource matching or tragedy of the commons , 2002, Plant Ecology.

[19]  O. Hardy,et al.  New insights from fine‐scale spatial genetic structure analyses in plant populations , 2004, Molecular ecology.

[20]  L. Aarssen,et al.  Size inequality and the tragedy of the commons phenomenon in plant competition , 2005, Plant Ecology.

[21]  J. P. Young Sib competition can favour sex in two ways. , 1981, Journal of theoretical biology.

[22]  Ariel Novoplansky,et al.  Picking battles wisely: plant behaviour under competition. , 2009, Plant, cell & environment.

[23]  Steven A. Frank,et al.  Mutual policing and repression of competition in the evolution of cooperative groups , 1995, Nature.

[24]  C. G. Willis,et al.  ANTAGONISTIC MULTILEVEL SELECTION ON SIZE AND ARCHITECTURE IN VARIABLE DENSITY SETTINGS , 2007, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[25]  G. P. Cheplick,et al.  Genetic Relatedness and Competition in Triplasis purpurea (Poaceae): Resource Partitioning or Kin Selection? , 2004, International Journal of Plant Sciences.

[26]  Jacob Weiner,et al.  Size variability and competition in plant monocultures , 1986 .

[27]  C. Ballaré,et al.  Signaling among neighboring plants and the development of size inequalities in plant populations. , 1994, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[28]  Susan A Dudley,et al.  Kin recognition in an annual plant , 2007, Biology Letters.

[29]  J. Jesus,et al.  STUDIES ON COMPETITION IN RICE I. COMPETITION IN MIXTURES OF VARIETIES , 1968, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[30]  Jacob Weiner,et al.  How competition for light and nutrients affects size variability in Ipomoea tricolor populations , 1986 .

[31]  K. Donohue The Influence of Neighbor Relatedness on Multilevel Selection in the Great Lakes Sea Rocket , 2003, The American Naturalist.

[32]  J. Schmitt Is photomorphogenic shade avoidance adaptive? Perspectives from population biology , 1997 .

[33]  P. Feldman Evolution of sex , 1975, Nature.

[34]  Hans de Kroon,et al.  How Do Roots Interact , 2007 .

[35]  J. Coleman,et al.  BIOMASS ALLOCATION IN PLANTS: ONTOGENY OR OPTIMALITY? A TEST ALONG THREE RESOURCE GRADIENTS , 1999 .

[36]  R. Callaway,et al.  Plant ecology: Family roots , 2007, Nature.

[37]  J. Weiner,et al.  Asymmetric competition in plant populations. , 1990, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[38]  D. Samson,et al.  Size-Dependent Effects in the Analysis of Reproductive Effort in Plants , 1986, The American Naturalist.

[39]  W. Hamilton The genetical evolution of social behaviour. II. , 1964, Journal of theoretical biology.

[40]  J. Weiner,et al.  The allometry of reproduction within plant populations , 2009 .

[41]  J. Iriondo,et al.  Growing with siblings: a common ground for cooperation or for fiercer competition among plants? , 2009, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[42]  N. Ellstrand,et al.  EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES OF THE EVOLUTIONARY SIGNIFICANCE OF SEXUAL REPRODUCTION II. A TEST OF THE DENSITY‐DEPENDENT SELECTION HYPOTHESIS , 1985, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[43]  S. Tonsor Relatedness and Intraspecific Competition in Plantago lanceolata , 1989, The American Naturalist.

[44]  Joel s. Brown,et al.  Tragedy of the commons as a result of root competition , 2001 .

[45]  Joel s. Brown,et al.  Root proliferation and seed yield in response to spatial heterogeneity of below-ground competition. , 2005, The New phytologist.