Root and shoot competition: a meta‐analysis

We review the effects of root and shoot competition on plant biomass by meta‐analysis of 38 published studies, each reporting on the factorial effects of root‐competition and shoot‐competition on herbaceous plants. There were significant differences in the overall effects of root, shoot and full competition. Root competition generally resulted in larger biomass reduction than shoot competition, particularly among the smaller of the two competitors. An interaction between root and shoot competition was observed in some experiments but was generally not significant. While root competition was generally stronger than shoot competition at lower nutrient levels, there was no overall difference at higher nutrient levels due to much lower levels of root competition. In contrast, the overall effect of full competition increased considerably with nutrient level. Root competition was generally more important when the neighbour was a grass as compared with a herb or a legume, and when domesticated plants competed with wild neighbours, suggesting that wild genotypes are stronger competitors for below‐ground resources than are crop plants. Effects of competition were generally stronger in experiments with additive designs than in those with substitutive designs. Also, experiments using single target individuals showed stronger effects of competition, root competition in particular, than did experiments using groups targets. Synthesis. Despite large variation among experiments, some general patterns were supported: effects of root competition are generally stronger than shoot competition, particularly (i) for smaller competitors, (ii) at low fertility levels, (iii) when the competitor is a grass rather than an herb, (iv) when the competitor is a wild rather than a domesticated species, and (v) in additive design experiments. The effects of root and shoot competition appear to be additive under many conditions. Whereas root competition may often be the primary limitation on mean plant performance, shoot competition will influence the variation around this mean and may determine which individuals or species dominate.

[1]  Weed management: a need for ecological approaches , 2015 .

[2]  Yu Dai,et al.  [Effects and influence factors of dicyandiamide (DCD) application in agricultural ecosystem]. , 1988, Ying yong sheng tai xue bao = The journal of applied ecology.

[3]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[4]  Wolfgang Viechtbauer,et al.  Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package , 2010 .

[5]  J. Silvertown,et al.  Explaining hydrological niches: the decisive role of below‐ground competition in two closely related Senecio species , 2010 .

[6]  Hanne Østergård,et al.  Grain yield increase in cereal variety mixtures: A meta-analysis of field trials , 2009 .

[7]  Leon G. Higley,et al.  Forensic Entomology: An Introduction , 2009 .

[8]  Xiao-Hua Zhou,et al.  Statistical Methods for Meta‐Analysis , 2008 .

[9]  D. Hodáňová.  Plant strategies and vegetation processes , 1981, Biologia Plantarum.

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

[11]  C. Pickering,et al.  Effects of density on above and below ground biomass of the native alpine grass Poa fawcettiae and the environmental weed Achillea millefolium , 2007 .

[12]  Wolfgang Viechtbauer,et al.  Hypothesis tests for population heterogeneity in meta-analysis. , 2007, The British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology.

[13]  A. Agrawal,et al.  Direct and interactive effects of enemies and mutualists on plant performance: a meta-analysis. , 2007, Ecology.

[14]  J. Cahill,et al.  Water and nitrogen addition differentially impact plant competition in a native rough fescue grassland , 2007, Plant Ecology.

[15]  M. D. Thorsted,et al.  Above‐ and below‐ground competition between intercropped winter wheat Triticum aestivum and white clover Trifolium repens , 2006 .

[16]  Ben Vandermeer,et al.  A systematic review identifies a lack of standardization in methods for handling missing variance data. , 2006, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[17]  H. Ouyang,et al.  Interactions between root andshoot competition among fourplant species inanalpine meadow ontheTibetan Plateau , 2006 .

[18]  D. Gibson.  Spatial and temporal heterogeneity in soil nutrient supply measured usingin situ ion-exchange resin bags , 1986, Plant and Soil.

[19]  Andrea Cipriani,et al.  Imputing missing standard deviations in meta-analyses can provide accurate results. , 2006, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[20]  L. Aarssen,et al.  The separation of above- and below-ground competition in plants A review and critique of methodology , 2001, Plant Ecology.

[21]  R. Aerts,et al.  The relation between above- and belowground biomass allocation patterns and competitive ability , 1991, Oecologia.

[22]  Deborah Charlesworth,et al.  Introduction to plant population ecology , 1983, Vegetatio.

[23]  P. Jolliffe,et al.  Indices of plant competition , 2003 .

[24]  R. Charudattan,et al.  Above- and belowground interference of purple and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus spp.) with tomato , 2003, Weed Science.

[25]  H. Chidichimo,et al.  Shoot and Root Competition in a Lolium multiflorum-Wheat Association , 2003 .

[26]  J. Cahill.  Interactions between root and shoot competition vary among species , 2002 .

[27]  R. Mitchell,et al.  Are competitive interactions influenced by spatial nutrient heterogeneity and root foraging behavior? , 2002, The New phytologist.

[28]  J. Lovett-Doust,et al.  Plant strategies, vegetation processes, and ecosystem properties , 2002 .

[29]  R. Froud-Williams,et al.  Influence of nitrogen on competition between purple nutsedge, maize and soybean , 2002 .

[30]  Brian D. Inouye,et al.  RESPONSE SURFACE EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNS FOR INVESTIGATING INTERSPECIFIC COMPETITION , 2001 .

[31]  B. Saugier.  Plant Strategies, Vegetation Processes, and Ecosystem Properties , 2001 .

[32]  C. Staver,et al.  Weed management : a need for ecological approaches , 2004 .

[33]  E. Haugland,et al.  Root and shoot competition between established grass species and newly sown seedlings during spring growth , 2001 .

[34]  F. Bazzaz,et al.  Interspecific Competition in Plants: How Well Do Current Methods Answer Fundamental Questions? , 2001, The American Naturalist.

[35]  C. L. Mohler.  Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds: Weed life history: identifying vulnerabilities , 2001 .

[36]  P. Chesson.  Mechanisms of Maintenance of Species Diversity , 2000 .

[37]  Jessica Gurevitch,et al.  THE META‐ANALYSIS OF RESPONSE RATIOS IN EXPERIMENTAL ECOLOGY , 1999 .

[38]  Jessica Gurevitch,et al.  EMPIRICAL APPROACHES TO QUANTIFYING INTERACTION INTENSITY: COMPETITION AND FACILITATION ALONG PRODUCTIVITY GRADIENTS , 1999 .

[39]  J. Cahill.  Fertilization effects on interactions between above-and belowground competition in an old field , 1999 .

[40]  J. Connolly,et al.  Designs for greenhouse studies of interactions between plants , 1999 .

[41]  S. Wilson,et al.  Competition Intensity along a Productivity Gradient in a Low‐Diversity Grassland , 1998, The American Naturalist.

[42]  Jacob Weiner,et al.  Mechanisms determining the degree of size asymmetry in competition among plants , 1998, Oecologia.

[43]  U. R. Sangakkara,et al.  Effect of root and shoot competition of two weeds on Phaseolus vulgaris beans , 1998 .

[44]  Robert B. Jackson,et al.  PLANT COMPETITION UNDERGROUND , 1997 .

[45]  P. Grubb,et al.  The control of relative abundance of perennials in chalk grassland: is root competition or shoot competition more important? , 1997 .

[46]  R. Cousens.  DESIGN AND INTERPRETATION OF INTERFERENCE STUDIES: ARE SOME METHODS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE? , 1996 .

[47]  A. Nicotra,et al.  Intraspecific Competition in Chenopodium album Varies with Resource Availability , 1995 .

[48]  P. Keddy,et al.  Root and shoot competition intensity along a soil depth gradient , 1995 .

[49]  Jessica Gurevitch,et al.  A Meta-Analysis of Competition in Field Experiments , 1992, The American Naturalist.

[50]  P. Kemp,et al.  Effect of root and shoot competition from established hill-country pasture on perennial ryegrass , 1992 .

[51]  E. Gbur,et al.  Response of soybean growth to root and canopy competition , 1992 .

[52]  E. Satorre,et al.  A comparison of root and shoot competition between spring cereals and Avena fatua L. , 1992 .

[53]  R. Snaydon.  Replacement or additive designs for competition studies , 1991 .

[54]  D. Tilman,et al.  Component of Plant Competition Along an Experimental Gradient of Nitrogen Availability , 1991 .

[55]  F. Bazzaz,et al.  IS PHYSICAL SPACE A SOIL RESOURCE , 1991 .

[56]  P. Jacquard.  The ecology of intercropping , 1990 .

[57]  L. R. Oliver,et al.  Competitive Mechanisms of Common Cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) and Soybean (Glycine max) During Seedling Growth , 1990, Weed Science.

[58]  B. Jeangros,et al.  Effects of an established sward of Lolium perenne L. on the growth and development of Rumex obtusifolius L. seedlings , 1990 .

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

[60]  J. L. Doust,et al.  Plant reproductive ecology: patterns and strategies. , 1989 .

[61]  William M. Schaffer,et al.  Plant strategies and the dynamics and structure of plant communities , 1989 .

[62]  John Vandermeer,et al.  The Ecology of Intercropping by John H. Vandermeer , 1989 .

[63]  E. Rejmánková,et al.  Weed-Crop Competition: Experimental Designs and Models for Data Analysis , 1989, Weed Science.

[64]  M. Austin.  Plant strategies and the dynamics and structure of plant communities , 1989 .

[65]  Michaela Martin,et al.  Influence of time of emergence of wild oat on competition with wheat , 1988 .

[66]  J. Weiner,et al.  The influence of competition on plant reproduction. , 1988 .

[67]  R. Field,et al.  Competition between vegetative plants of wild oat (Avena fatua L.) and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) , 1987 .

[68]  J. Wilson,et al.  Competition between upland grasses: root and shoot competition between Deschampsia flexuosa and Festuca ovina , 1987 .

[69]  K. Thompson.  The resource ratio hypothesis and the meaning of competition , 1987 .

[70]  J. Connolly.  [Effects of different cropping modes on crop root growth, yield, and rhizosphere soil microbes' number]. , 1986 .

[71]  C. Welden,et al.  The Intensity of Competition Versus its Importance: An Overlooked Distinction and Some Implications , 1986, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[72]  J. Connolly.  ON DIFFICULTIES WITH REPLACEMENT-SERIES METHODOLOGY IN MIXTURE EXPERIMENTS , 1986 .

[73]  M. Haine,et al.  Van Damme A. , 1986 .

[74]  A. D. Brede,et al.  Plant Interaction Among Poa Annua, Poa pratensis, and Lolium perenne Turfgrasses 1 , 1986 .

[75]  J. McGraw.  EXPERIMENTAL ECOLOGY OF DRYAS OCTOPETALA ECOTYPES: RELATIVE RESPONSE TO COMPETITORS , 1985 .

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

[77]  R. Field,et al.  The nature of competition between perennial ryegrass and white clover , 1984 .

[78]  E. Morris,et al.  The interaction of density and resource levels in monospecific stands of plants: a review of hypotheses and evidence , 1984 .

[79]  O. Burnside,et al.  Competitive and Allelopathic Effects of Sunflower (Helianthus annuus) , 1982, Weed Science.

[80]  Y. Kitamura,et al.  Legume Growth and Nitrogen Fixation as Affected by Plant Competition for Light and for Soil Nitrogen1 , 1981 .

[81]  W. Lowther,et al.  I. Shoot and root competition , 1980 .

[82]  R. Snaydon,et al.  A comparison of root competition and shoot competition between Dactylis glomerata and Holcus lanatus , 1980 .

[83]  O. Burnside,et al.  Effect of Early Competition on Growth of Common Milkweed , 1975, Weed Science.

[84]  M. Litav,et al.  Root Competition Between Two Strains of Spinacia Oleracea. I. Pattern and Processes , 1974 .

[85]  M. Litav,et al.  Root Competition Between Two Strains of Spinacia Oleracea. II. Effects of Nutrient Supply and of Non-Simultaneous Emergence , 1974 .

[86]  J. C. Rennie.  Some Effects of Competition and Density of Plants on Dry Weight Produced , 1974 .

[87]  C. Eagles.  Competition for Light and Nutrients Between Natural Populations of Dactylis glomerata , 1972 .

[88]  R. Snaydon.  An Analysis of Competition Between Plants of Trifolium repens L. Populations Collected from Contrasting Soils , 1971 .

[89]  J. King.  COMPETITION BETWEEN ESTABLISHED AND NEWLY SOWN GRASS SPECIES , 1971 .

[90]  M. Litav,et al.  Partial Separation of Roots as a Means of Reducing the Effect of Competition between Two Grass Species , 1971 .

[91]  D. Lambert.  COMPETITION BETWEEN PLANTS OF COCKSFOOT (DACTYLIS GLOMERATA) GROWN FOR SEED , 1968 .

[92]  M. Schreiber.  A Technique for Studying Weed Competition in Forage Legume Establishment , 1967 .

[93]  D. Aspinall.  AN ANALYSIS OF COMPETITION BETWEEN BARLEY AND WHITE PERSICARIA , 1960 .

[94]  C. Donald,et al.  The interaction of competition for light and for nutrients , 1958 .