Species variability in the relative strength of intraspecific and interspecific interactions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2478/foecol-2022-0019Keywords:
ex-situ, forbs, interactions, native plants, shoot massAbstract
Understanding cases in restoration and in agriculture in which species diversity improves productivity and ecosystem functioning is crucial due the need to restore degraded habitat and improve crop productivity for a growing human population. Reaching these diversity benefits is likely influenced by the dynamic of less negative interspecific than intraspecific interactions that promote diversity. But further testing is needed to understand the relationship of intraspecific-relative to interspecific interactions. Here I used seedlings from three native and one introduced species used in restoration in the western United States in pairwise interaction combinations and found that the study species varied in shoot biomass in response to interaction treatments of the control, intraspecific, and interspecific interactions (R2 = 0.7, p < 0.001), and that intraspecific interactions were more negative than interspecific interactions for four of five of the pairings. Overall, as shoot mass size differences increased between interspecific neighbors, interactions became more positive (R2 = 0.6, p < 0.001). These findings point to variability in species responses in whether the focal species compete more intensely with conspecific or heterospecific neighbors and indicates the need for more careful selection of interacting species for meeting both agricultural and restoration goals.
References
Abbott, J.M., Stachowicz, J.J., 2016. The relative importance of trait vs. genetic differentiation for the outcome of inter actions among plant genotypes. Ecology, 97: 84–94. https://doi.org/10.1890/15-148.1
Adler, P.B., Smull, D., Beard, K.H., Choi, R.T., Furniss, T., Kulmatiski, A., Meiners, J.M., Tredennick, A.T., Veblen, K.E., 2018. Competition and coexistence in plant communities: intraspecific competition is stronger than interspecific competition. Ecology Letters, 21: 1319–1329. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13098
Callaway, R.M., Ridenour, W.M., 2004. Novel weapons: invasive success and the evolution of increased competitive ability. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2: 436. https://doi.org/10.2307/3868432
Cardinale, B.J., Wright, J.P., Cadotte, M.W., Carroll, I.T., Hector, A., Srivastava, D.S., Loreau, M., Weis, J.J. 2007. Impacts of plant diversity on biomass production increase through time because of species complementarity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. U. S. A., 104: 18123–18128. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0709069104
Casper, B.B., Jackson, R.B., 1997. Plant competition underground. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 28: 545–570. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.28.1.545
Chesson, P., 2000. Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 31: 343–366. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.31.1.343
Cruz, S.S. da, Andreotti, M., Pascoaloto, I.M., Lima, G.C. de, Soares, C. de A., 2020. Production in forage sorghum intercropped with grasses and pigeon pea at crop cutting. Revista Ciência Agronômica, 51: 1–10. https://doi.org/10.5935/1806-6690.20200031
Ebeling, A., Klein, A.M., Schumacher, J., Weisser, W.W., Tscharntke, T., 2008. How does plant richness affect pollinator richness and temporal stability of flower visits? Oikos, 117: 1808–1815. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2008.16819.x
Fargione, J., Tilman, D., 2005. Niche differences in phenology and rooting depth promote coexistence with a dominant C4 bunchgrass. Oecologia, 143: 598–606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-005-0010-y
Felker-Quinn, E., Schweitzer, J.A., Bailey, J.K., 2013. Meta-analysis reveals evolution in invasive plant species but little support for Evolution of Increased Competitive Ability (EICA). Ecology and Evolution, 3: 739–751. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.488
Fort, F., Cruz, P., Jouany, C., 2014. Hierarchy of root functional trait values and plasticity drive early-stage competition for water and phosphorus among grasses. Functional Ecology, 28: 1030–1040. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12217
Foster, B.L., 1999. Establishment, competition and the distribution of native grasses among Michigan old-fields. Journal of Ecology, 87: 476–489. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2745.1999.00366.x
Fowler, N., 1986. The role of competition in plant communities in arid and semiarid regions. Annual Revue of Ecology and Systematics, 17: 89–110. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.17.110186.000513
Foxx, A., Fort, F., 2019. Root and shoot competition lead to contrasting competitive outcomes under water stress: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One, 14: 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1101/712208
Haidet, M., Olwell, P., 2015. Seeds of Success: a national seed banking program working to achieve long-term conservation goals. Natural Areas Journal, 35: 165–173. https://doi.org/10.3375/043.035.0118
Hedges, L. V, Gurevitch, J., Curtis, P.S., 1999. The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology. Ecology, 80: 1150–1156. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[1150:TMAORR
Herben, T., Hadincová, V., Krahulec, F., Pecháčková, S., Skálová, H., 2020. Which traits predict pairwise interactions in a mountain grassland? Journal of Vegetation Science, 31: 699–710. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvs.12872
HilleRisLambers, J., Adler, P.B., Harpole, W.S., Levine, J.M., Mayfield, M.M., 2012. Rethinking community assembly through the lens of coexistence theory. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 43: 227–248. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110411-160411
Hortal, S., Lozano, Y.M., Bastida, F., Armas, C., Moreno, J.L., Garcia, C., Pugnaire, F.I., 2017. Plant-plant competition outcomes are modulated by plant effects on the soil bacterial community. Scientific Reports, 7: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-18103-5
James, J.J., Svejcar, T.J., Rinella, M.J., 2011. Demographic processes limiting seedling recruitment in arid grassland restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology, 48: 961–969. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.02009.x
Keddy, P., Nielsen, K., Weiher, E., Lawson, R., 2002. Relative competitive performance of 63 species of terrestrial herbaceous plants. Journal of Vegetation Science, 13: 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2002.tb02018.x
Kiaer, L.P., Weisbach, A.N., Weiner, J., 2013. Root and shoot competition: a meta-analysis. Journal of Ecology, 101: 1298–1312. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12129
Knops, M.H.J., Tilman, D., Haddad, N.M., Naeem, S., Mitchell, C.E., Haarstad, J., Ritchie, M.E., Howe, K.M., Reich, P.B., Siemann, E., Groth, J., 1999. Effects of plant species richness on invasion dynamics, disease outbreaks, insect abundances and diversity. Ecology Letters, 2: 286–293.33810630 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.1999.00083.x
Kraft, N.J.B., Crutsinger, G.M., Forrestel, E.J., Emery, N.C. 2014. Functional trait differences and the outcome of community assembly: an experimental test with vernal pool annual plants. Oikos, 123: 1391–1399. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.01311
Kunstler, G., Lavergne, S., Courbaud, B., Thuiller, W., Vieilledent, G., Zimmermann, N.E., Kattge, J., Coomes, D. 2012. Competitive interactions between forest trees are driven by species’ trait hierarchy, not phylogenetic or functional similarity: implications for forest community assembly. Ecology Letters, 15: 831–840. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2012.01803.x
Li, S., Evers, J.B., van der Werf, W., Wang, R., Xu, Z., Guo, Y., Li, B., Ma, Y., 2020. Plant architectural responses in simultaneous maize/soybean strip intercropping do not lead to a yield advantage. Annals of Applied Biology, 177: 195–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/aab.12610
Makumba, W., Akinnifesi, F.K., Janssen, B.H., 2009. Spatial rooting patterns of gliricidia, pigeon pea and maize intercrops and effect on profile soil N and P distribution in southern Malawi. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 4: 278–288.
Mayfield, M.M., Levine, J.M., 2010. Opposing effects of competitive exclusion on the phylogenetic structure of communities. Ecology Letters, 13: 1085–1093. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01509.x
Pustejovsky, J., 2018. Using response ratios for meta-analyzing single-case designs with behavioral outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 68: 99–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2018.02.003
R Core Team, 2021. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Ravenek, J.M., Bessler, H., Engels, C., Scherer-Lorenzen, M., Gessler, A., Gockele, A., De Luca, E., Temperton, V.M., Ebeling, A., Roscher, C., Schmid, B., Weisser, W.W., Wirth, C., de Kroon, H., Weigelt, A., Mommer, L., 2014. Long-term study of root biomass in a biodiversity experiment reveals shifts in diversity effects over time. Oikos, 123: 1528–1536. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.01502
Read, J.J., Morgan, J.A., 1996. Growth and partitioning in Pascopyrum smithii (C3) and Bouteloua gracilis (C4) as influenced by carbon dioxide and temperature. Annals of Botany, 77: 487–496. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbo.1996.0059
Schenk, H.J., Jackson, R.B., 2002. Rooting depths, lateral root spreads and below-ground/above-round allometries of plants in water-limited ecosystems. Journal of Ecology, 90: 480–494. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2745.2002.00682.x
Schlaepfer, M.A., Sax, D.F., Olden, J.D., 2011. The potential conservation value of non-native species. Conservation Biology, 25: 428–437. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01646.x
Suding, K., Goldberg, D., Hartman, K., 2003. Relationships among species traits: separating levels of response and identifying linkages to abundance. Ecology, 84: 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2003)084[0001:RASTSL
Utah’s Watershed Restoration Initiative, n.d. [cit. 2022-01-21]. https://wri.utah.gov/wri/.
Venables, W., Ripley, B., 2002. Modern applied statistics with S. Fourth edition. New York: Springer. 495 p. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-21706-2
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This journal provides immediate open access to its content under the Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Authors who publish with this journal retain all copyrights except for commercial rights (transfer of commercial rights) and agree to the terms of the above-mentioned CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license.
