Skip to main content
Log in

Asymmetric competition between plant species

  • Population Ecology
  • Published:
Oecologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite extensive interest in the role of plant size in competition, few formal attempts have been made to quantify the magnitude of asymmetric competition, particularly for interactions between members of different species. This paper introduces the concept of asymmetric interspecific competition at the population livel (i.e. mean plant performance) in mixtures of species. It proposes an index of interspecific competitive asymmetry which allows for a progressively greater asymmetric effect as the average size differences between competing species increase, and allows for such an effect whether individuals of focal species are larger or smaller, on average, than competitors. This index of competitive asymmetry is evaluated in the study of interactions between two widely coexisting annuals of disturbed habitats, Stellaria media and Poa annua. An experiment was conducted in which the density, relative frequency and relative seedling sizes (emergence times) of Poa and Stellaria individuals were varied. The relative growth rate (RGR) for both species was measured over a 22-day period. An inverse linear model was fitted for each species, relating the RGR of the focal species to the initial biomass of each species. Each response model included an asymmetry coefficient (β) to assess whether the impact of a unit of initial biomass of the associate species changed with the relative sizes of seedlings of the two species. A zero value of β implies symmetric competition between the two populations; i.e. the competitive effect of a unit of associate species biomass does not change with its initial seedling size. If β is positive the smaller the initial relative size of seedlings of the associate species, the smaller their per unit biomass effect on the response of the focal species. The model fitted our data for Stellaria and Poa well and was validated by an alternative modelling approach. Asymmetry coefficients were estimated as 0.508 (P<0.05) for the effect of Poa in the Stellaria model, and 0.0001 (NS) for the effect of Stellaria in the Poa model; i.e. the effect of Poa on Stellaria was asymmetric while the effect of Stellaria on Poa was symmetric. Differences in interspecific species asymmetric competitive effects are discussed within the context of shoot architecture, and the relative importance of competition for light versus soil resources. Finally, we discuss the relationship of this model to earlier models of competitive asymmetry, and consider the implications of interspecific competitive asymmetry for a number of current theories of plant competition and community organisation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aikman DP, Watkinson AR (1980) A model for growth and self thinning in even-aged monocultures of plants. Ann Bot 45: 419–427

    Google Scholar 

  • Aspinall D, Milthorpe FL (1959) An analysis of competition between barley and white persicaria. Ann Appl Biol 47: 156–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Begon M, (1984) Density and individual fitness: asymmetric competition. In: Shorrocks B (ed) Evolutionary ecology. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 175–194

    Google Scholar 

  • Black JN, Wilkinson GN (1963) The role of time of emergence in determining the growth of individual plants in swards of subterranean clover (Trifolium subterraneum L.) Aust J Agric Res 14: 628–638

    Google Scholar 

  • Cannell MGR, Rothery P, Ford ED (1984) Competition within stands of Picea sitchensis and Pinus contorta. Ann Bot 68: 341–347

    Google Scholar 

  • Connolly J (1986) On difficulties with replacement-series methodology in mixture experiments. J Appl Ecol 23: 125–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Connolly J (1988) Experimental methods in plant competition research in crop-weed systems. Weed Res 28: 431–436

    Google Scholar 

  • Connolly J, Wayne P, Murray R (1990) Dynamic interactions of Stellaria media (L.)Vill. and Poa annua. Oecologia 82: 513–526

    Google Scholar 

  • Donald CM (1958) The interaction of competition for light and for nutrients. Aust J Agric Res 9: 421–435

    Google Scholar 

  • Elberse W, Kruyf HN de (1979) Competition between Hordeum vulgare L. and Chenopodium album L. with different dates of emergence of Chenopodium album. Neth J Agric Sci 27: 13–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Firbank LG, Watkinson AR (1987) On the analysis of competition at the level of the individual. Oecologia 71: 308–317

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford ED, Diggle PJ (1981) Competition for light in a plant monoculture modelled as a spatial stochastic process. Ann Bot 48: 481–500

    Google Scholar 

  • Fowler N (1984) The role of germination date, spatial arrangement, and neighborhood effects in competitive interactions in Linum. Ecology 72: 307–318

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallant AR (1987) Nonlinear statistical models. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaudet CL, Keddy PA (1988) Predicting competitive ability from plant traits: a comparative approach. Nature 334: 242–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Geber M (1989) Interplay between morphology and development on size inequality: a Polygonum greenhouse study. Ecol Monogr 59: 267–288

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg DE (1987) Neighborhood competition in an old field plant community. Ecology 68: 1211–1223

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg DE, Landa K (1991) Competitive effect and response: hierarchies and correlated traits in the early stages of competition. J Ecol 79: 1013–1030

    Google Scholar 

  • Grace JB, Guttenspergen GR, Keough J (1993) The examination of a competition matrix for transitive and intransitive loops. Oikos 68: 91–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta GP, Tripathi RS (1979) Competition between Bothriochloa pertusa (L.) A. Camus and Dichanthium annulatum (Forsk.) Stapf. as modified by their time of emergence in mixture. Trop Ecol 20: 147–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Hara T (1993) Mode of competition and size structure dynamics in plant communities. Plant Species Biol 8: 75–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Harper JL (1977) Population biology of plants. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Herben T, Krahulec F (1990) Competitive hierarchies, reversal of rank order and the deWit approach: are they compatible? Oikos 58: 254–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchinson CS, Seymour GB (1982) Biological flora of the British Isles. Poa annua L. Ecology 70: 887–901

    Google Scholar 

  • Jurik TW (1991) Population distributions of plant size and light environment of giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida L.) at three densities. Oecologia 87: 539–550

    Google Scholar 

  • Keddy PA, Shipley B (1989) Competitive hierarchies in herbaceous plant communities. Oikos 54: 234–241

    Google Scholar 

  • Kropf MJ, Spitters CJT (1991) A simple model of crop loss by weed competition from early observations on relative leaf area of the weeds. Weed Res 31: 97–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Law R, Watkinson AR (1987) Response-surface analysis of two-species competition: an experiment on Phleum arenarium and Vulpia fasciculata. J Ecol 75: 871–886

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann HH, Barnes TW (1950) The competition between barley and certain weeds under controlled conditions. IV. Competition with Stellaria media. Ann Appl Biol 37: 139–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Menchaca LB, Connolly J (1990) Species interference in white clover—ryegrass mixtures. J Ecol 78: 223–232

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller TE, Werner PA (1987) Competitive effects and responses between plant species in a first-year old-field community. Ecology 68: 1201–1210

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelder JA, Wedderburn RWM (1972) Generalized linear models. JRSS Ser A 135: 370–384

    Google Scholar 

  • Newbery D, Newman EI (1978) Competition between grassland plants of different initial sizes. Oecologia 33: 361–380

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman EI (1983) Interactions between plants. In: Lange OL, Nobel PS, Osmond CB, Ziegler H (eds) Encyclopedia of plant physiology, vol 12C. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 679–710

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne RW, Lane PW, Digby PGN, Harding S, Leech PK, Morgan GW, Todd AD, Thompson R, Tunnicliffe Wilson G, Welham SJ, White RP (1993) Genstat 5 release 3 reference manual. Clarendon, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross MA, Harper JL (1972) Occupation of biological space during seedling establishment. J Ecol 60: 77–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt J, Ehrhardt DW, Cheo M (1986) Light-dependent dominance and suppression in experimental radish populations. Ecology 67: 1502–1507

    Google Scholar 

  • Shipley B, Keddy PA (1994) Evaluating the evidence for competitive hierarchies in plant communities. Oikos 69: 340–345

    Google Scholar 

  • Sobey DG (1981) Biological flora of the British Isles: Stellaria media (L.) Vill. J Ecol 69: 311–335

    Google Scholar 

  • Suehiro K, Ogawa H, Hozumi K (1986) Competition between two naturalized dandelions, Taraxacum officionale Weber and Taraxacum laevigatum DC., in mixed cultures with different levels of soil moisture. Bot Mag 99: 1–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas S, Weiner J (1989) Including competitive asymmetry in measures of local interference in plant populations. Oecologia 80: 349–355

    Google Scholar 

  • Turkington R, Kenkel NC, Franko GD (1980) The biology of Canadian weeds. 42. Stellaria media (L.) Vill. Can J Plant Sci 60: 981–992

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner MD, Rabinowitz D (1983) Factors affecting frequency distributions of plant mass, the absence of dominance and suppression in competing monocultures of Festuca paradoxa. Ecology 64: 469–475

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Baalen J, Kuiters A, Van der Woude CSC (1984) Interference of Scrophularia nodosa and Digitalis purpurea in mixed seedling culture, as affected by the specific emergence date. Acta Oecol/Oecol Plant 5: 279–290

    Google Scholar 

  • Vengris J, Drake M, Colby WG, Bart J (1953) Chemical composition of weeds and accompanying crop plants. Agron J 45: 213–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Vigorov LI (1956) Extraction of nitrogen by weeds in sowings of spring wheat. Botan Zh (Leningrad) 40: 703–705

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiner J (1984) Neighborhood interference amongst Pinus rigida individuals. J Ecol 72: 183–195

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiner J (1986) How competition for light and nutrients affects size variability in Ipomea tricolor populations. Ecology 67: 1425–1427

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiner J (1990) Asymmetric competition in plant populations. Trees 5: 360–364

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiner J, Thomas S (1986) Size variability and competition in plant monocultures. Oikos 47: 211–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells GJ (1974) The biology of Poa annua and its significance in grassland. Herb Abstr 44: 385–391

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson JB 1988 The effect of initial advantage on the course of plant competition. Oikos 51: 19–24

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Connolly.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Connolly, J., Wayne, P. Asymmetric competition between plant species. Oecologia 108, 311–320 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00334656

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00334656

Key words

Navigation