Different types of heterogeneity and plant competition in monospecific stands

The influence of four types of heterogeneity (heterogeneity in spatial arrangement, initial size heterogeneity, environmental heterogeneity in space and in time) on the development of a plant population was studied using a simple model of plant growth and competition. Parameters were estimated for Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris). The model showed that without heterogeneity the population became very unstable, so that even a small decrease in environmental favourability caused population collapse, because there was not any differentiation and competition was extremely severe. The presence of any type of heterogeneity created a basis for social differentiation of individuals. As a consequence, self-thinning occured and lowered the competition. The population became smaller, but more tolerant against decreases in environmental favourability. However, a glut of heterogeneity is rather deleterious, because it further diminished the population while adding nothing to its tolerance.

[1]  P. Rothery,et al.  Competition Within Stands of Picea sitchensis and Pinus contorta , 1984 .

[2]  W. D. Hoskins,et al.  Local competition in a naturally established jack pine stand , 1989 .

[3]  J. Wilson,et al.  The effect of initial advantage on the course of plant competition , 1988 .

[4]  J. F. Bell,et al.  Using Competitive Stress Index to Estimate Diameter Growth for Thinned Douglas-fir Stands , 1983 .

[5]  Peter J. Diggle,et al.  Competition for Light in a Plant Monoculture Modelled as a Spatial Stochastic Process , 1981 .

[6]  Gordon B. Bonan,et al.  The size structure of theoretical plant populations: spatial patterns and neighborhood effects , 1988 .

[7]  Michael A. Huston,et al.  Size Bimodality in Monospecific Populations: A Critical Review of Potential Mechanisms , 1987, The American Naturalist.

[8]  R. Mead,et al.  A Relationship between Individual Plant-spacing and Yield , 1966 .

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

[10]  J. Allison.  Leaf Area Homeostasis in Maize , 1964, Nature.

[11]  John L. Harper,et al.  OCCUPATION OF BIOLOGICAL SPACE DURING SEEDLING ESTABLISHMENT , 1972 .

[12]  Richard F. Daniels,et al.  A comparison of competition measures for predicting growth of loblolly pine trees , 1986 .

[13]  I. Bella,et al.  A New Competition Model for Individual Trees , 1971 .

[14]  Richard F. Daniels,et al.  Simple Competition Indices and Their Correlation with Annual Loblolly Pine Tree Growth , 1976 .

[15]  D. P. Aikman,et al.  A Model for Growth and Self-thinning in Even-aged Monocultures of Plants , 1980 .

[16]  D. Ehrhardt,et al.  Dominance and suppression, size-dependent growth and self-thinning in a natural Impatiens capensis population , 1987 .

[17]  M. Westoby,et al.  INFLUENCE OF POPULATION STRUCTURE ON SELF-THINNING OF PLANT POPULATIONS , 1986 .

[18]  J. Black.  Competition between plants of different initial seed sizes in swards of subterranean clover (Trifolium subterraneum L.) with particular reference to leaf area and the light microclimate , 1958 .

[19]  D. Ehrhardt,et al.  Light-Depedent Dominance and Suppression in Experimental Radish Populations , 1986 .

[20]  D. M. Wallre.  THE GENESIS OF SIZE HIERARCHIES IN SEEDLING POPULATIONS OF IMPATIENS CAPENSIS MEERB. , 1985 .

[21]  M. Huston.  Size Bimodality in Plant Populations an Alternative Hypothesis , 1986 .

[22]  P. West,et al.  Competitive processes in a monoculture of Pinus radiata D. Don , 1989, Oecologia.

[23]  D. Rabinowitz,et al.  Factors Affecting Frequency Distributions of Plant Mass: The Absence of Dominance and Suppression in Competing Monocultures of Festuca Paradoxa , 1983 .

[24]  T. W. Jurik.  Population distributions of plant size and light environment of giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida L.) at three densities , 1991, Oecologia.

[25]  T. Hara.  Effects of Density and Extinction Coefficient on Size Variability in Plant Populations , 1986 .

[26]  T. Miller,et al.  Local Density Variation may Mimic Effects of Asymmetric Competition on Plant Size Variability , 1989 .