research papers intraspecific competition

Intraspecific competition reduces plant size and quality and damage severity increases defense responses in the herbaceous perennial, Asclepias syriaca

• Published: 26 March 2020
• Volume 221 , pages 421–430, ( 2020 )

Cite this article

• Abigail A. R. Kula 1 , 2 ,
• Melissa H. Hey 2 , 3 ,
• John J. Couture 4 ,
• Philip A. Townsend 5 &
• Harmony J. Dalgleish   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7531-6814 2  

2521 Accesses

10 Citations

4 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Competition among plants within populations affects plant size, nutrient status and allocation to defenses. Herbivory places additional stress on plant allocation of resources. When resources are limited due to intraspecific competition, induced defenses may reduce costs of defense responses and trade-offs between allocation to growth or defense. We hypothesized that increased intraspecific competition would result in a decrease in plant size and leaf tissue nutrient quality, and that both intraspecific competition and leaf damage severity would affect inducibility of leaf defensive traits. We tested these hypotheses in common milkweed ( Asclepias syriaca ) using greenhouse experiments that manipulated plant density and damage severity treatments. We measured a suite of leaf traits generally related with herbivore performance, including size; nitrogen, carbon, lignin, and fiber concentrations; and latex production. Increased density decreased plant size and leaf nutrient quality, but increased lignin levels. Damage severity increased leaf lignin levels and latex production. There were no density–damage severity interactions. We additionally addressed the question of whether plants respond differently to simulated or natural herbivory and hypothesized that insect herbivores and mechanical plant tissue removal would similarly affect induced defensive responses. Leaf fiber and lignin increased in response to damage, but the response was greater on plants subjected to simulated, compared with caterpillar herbivory. Other plant traits responded similarly to either damage type. Our findings suggest that intraspecific competition has the potential to generate feedbacks among plants and herbivores as plants respond to herbivory.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Nutrient stress can have opposite effects on the ability of plants to tolerate foliar herbivory and floral herbivory

Associational effects of plant ontogeny on damage by a specialist insect herbivore

Influence of genotype, environment, and gypsy moth herbivory on local and systemic chemical defenses in trembling aspen ( populus tremuloides ).

Agrawal AA (2004) Resistance and susceptibility of milkweed: competition, root herbivory, and plant genetic variation. Ecology 85:2118–2133. https://doi.org/10.1890/03-4084

Article   Google Scholar  

Agrawal AA, Ackerly DD, Adler F, Arnold AE, Cáceres C, Doak DF, Post E, Hudson PJ, Maron J, Mooney KA, Power M, Schemske D, Stachowicz J, Strauss S, Turner MG, Werner E (2007) Filling key gaps in population and community ecology. Front Ecol Environ 5:145–152. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2007)5[145:FKGIPA]2.0.CO;2

Agrawal AA, Patrick ET, Hastings AP (2014) Tests of the coupled expression of latex and cardenolide plant defense in common milkweed ( Asclepias syriaca ). Ecosphere 5(10):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1890/ES14-00161.1

Agrawal AA, Petschenka G, Bingham RA, Weber MG, Rasmann S (2012) Toxic cardenolides: chemical ecology and coevolution of specialized plant-herbivore interactions. New Phytol 194:28–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2011.04049.x

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Agrawal AA, Strauss SY, Stout MJ (1999) Costs of induced responses and tolerance to herbivory in male and female fitness components of wild radish. Evolution 53:1093–1104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1999.tb04524.x

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Agrawal AA, Van Zandt PA (2003) Ecological play in the coevolutionary theatre: genetic and environmental determinants of attack by a specialist weevil on milkweed. J Ecol 91:1049–1059. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2745.2003.00831.x

Barakat A, Bagniewska-Zadworna A, Frost CJ, Carlson JE (2010) Phylogeny and expression profiling of CAD and CAD-like genes in hybrid Populus ( P. deltoides × P. nigr ): evidence from herbivore damage for subfunctionalization and functional divergence. BMC Plant Biol. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2229-10-100

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Bingham RA, Agrawal AA (2010) Specificity and trade-offs in the induced plant defence of common milkweed Asclepias syriaca to two lepidopteran herbivores. J Ecol 98:1014–1022. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2010.01681.x

Cipollini DF, Sipe ML (2001) Jasmonic acid treatment and mammalian herbivory differentially affect chemical defenses and growth of wild mustard ( Brassica kaber ). Chemoecology 11:137–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00049-001-8319-4

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Coley PD (1983) Herbivory and defensive characteristics of tree species in a lowland tropical forest. Ecol Monogr 53:209–234. https://doi.org/10.2307/1942495

Couture JJ, Serbin SP, Townsend PA (2013) Spectroscopic sensitivity of real-time, rapidly induced phytochemical change in response to damage. New Phytol 198:311–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12159

Couture JJ, Singh A, Charkowski AO, Groves RL, Gray SM, Bethke PC, Townsend PA (2018) Integrating spectroscopy with potato disease management. Plant Dis 102(11):2233–2240. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-01-18-0054-RE

Couture JJ, Serbin SP, Townsend PA (2015) Elevated temperature and periodic water stress alter growth and quality of common milkweed ( Asclepias syriaca ) and monarch ( Danaus plexippus ) larval performance. Arthropod Plant Interact 9:149–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11829-015-9367-y

Crawley MJ (1989) Insect herbivores and plant population dynamics. Annu Rev Entomol 34:531–564

Fan S, Yu D, Liu C (2013) The invasive plant Alternanthera philoxeroides was suppressed more intensively than its native congener by a native generalist: implications for the biotic resistance hypothesis. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0083619

Herms DA, Mattson WJ (1992) The dilemma of plants: to grow or defend. Q Rev Biol 67:283–335. https://doi.org/10.1086/417659

Karban R (2011) The ecology and evolution of induced resistance against herbivores. Funct Ecol 25:339–347. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2010.01789.x

Loranger J, Meyer ST, Shipley B, Kattge J, Loranger H, Roscher C, Weisser WW (2012) Predicting invertebrate herbivory from plant traits: evidence from 51 grassland species in experimental monocultures. Ecology 93:2674–2682. https://doi.org/10.1890/12-0328.1

Malcolm SB (1991) Cardenolide-mediated interactions between plants and herbivores. Herbivores 1:251–296

Google Scholar  

Malcolm SB, Zalucki MP (1996) Milkweed latex and cardenolide induction may resolve the lethal plant defence paradox. Entomol Exp Appl 80:193–196

Martel JW, Malcolm SB (2004) Density-dependent reduction and induction of milkweed cardenolides by a sucking insect herbivore. J Chem Ecol 30(3):545–561

Mooney KA, Jones P, Agrawal AA (2008) Coexisting congeners: demography, competition, and interactions with cardenolides for two milkweed-feeding aphids. Oikos 117:450–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2007.0030-1299.16284.x

Nicholson RL, Hammerschmidt R (1992) Phenolic compounds and their role in disease resistance. Annu Rev Phytopathol 30:369–389. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.py.30.090192.002101

R Core Team (2019) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/

Rasmann S, Johnson MD, Agrawal AA (2009) Induced responses to herbivory and jasmonate in three milkweed species. J Chem Ecol 35:1326–1334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-009-9719-0

Rasmann S, Erwin AC, Halitschke R, Agrawal AA (2010) Direct and indirect root defences of milkweed ( Asclepias syriaca ): Trophic cascades, trade-offs and novel methods for studying subterranean herbivory. J Ecol 99:16–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2010.01713.x

Root RB (1973) Organization of a plant-arthropod association in simple and diverse habitats: the fauna of collards ( Brassica oleracea ). Ecol Monogr 43:95–124. https://doi.org/10.2307/1942161

Serbin SP, Singh A, McNeil BE, Kingdon CC, Townsend PA (2014) Spectroscopic determination of leaf morphological and biochemical traits for northern temperate and boreal tree species. Ecol Appl 24:1651–1669. https://doi.org/10.1890/13-2110.1

Underwood N (2000) Density dependence in induced plant resistance to herbivore damage: threshold, strength and genetic variation. Oikos 89:295–300. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.890210.x

War AR, Paulraj MG, Ahmad T, Buhroo AA, Hussain B, Ignacimuthu S, Sharma HC (2012) Mechanisms of plant defense against insect herbivores. Plant Signal Behav 7:1306–1320. https://doi.org/10.4161/psb.21663

Zalucki MP, Brower LP (1992) Survival of first instar larvae of Danaus plexippus (Lepidoptera: Danainae) in relation to cardiac glycoside and latex content of Asclepias humistrata (Asclepiadaceae). Chemoecology 3:81–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01245886

Zehnder CB, Hunter MD (2007) Interspecific variation within the genus Asclepias in response to herbivory by a phloem-feeding insect herbivore. J Chem Ecol 33:2044–2053. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-007-9364-4

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding was provided by a Washington Biologists Field Club grant to AARK and HJD; a Powe Junior Faculty Enhancement Award to HJD; and William & Mary Honors Fellowship to MMH. Additional support was provided to PAT by NASA Terrestrial Ecology grant NNX12AQ28G and USDA McIntire-Stennis project WIS01599 and JJC by USDA NIFA AFRI Fellowship Grant 2012-67012-19900 and USDA NIFA Hatch award IND011490. We thank Paul Montalvo, Mary Seward, Olivia Trani, and Rachel Cook for greenhouse assistance.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Science, Mount St. Mary’s University, Emmitsburg, MD, 21727, USA

Abigail A. R. Kula

Department of Biology, William & Mary, Williamsburg, VA, 23185, USA

Abigail A. R. Kula, Melissa H. Hey & Harmony J. Dalgleish

Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, 22903, USA

Melissa H. Hey

Departments of Entomology and Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA

John J. Couture

Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, 53706, USA

Philip A. Townsend

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abigail A. R. Kula .

Additional information

Communicated by Chuihua Kong.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Kula, A.A.R., Hey, M.H., Couture, J.J. et al. Intraspecific competition reduces plant size and quality and damage severity increases defense responses in the herbaceous perennial, Asclepias syriaca . Plant Ecol 221 , 421–430 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-020-01021-4

Download citation

Received : 22 October 2019

Accepted : 11 March 2020

Published : 26 March 2020

Issue Date : June 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-020-01021-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Plant defense
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Competition and coexistence in plant communities: intraspecific competition is stronger than interspecific competition

Affiliations.

• 1 Department of Wildland Resources and the Ecology Center, Utah State University, Logan, UT, 84322, USA.
• 2 School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA.
• PMID: 29938882
• DOI: 10.1111/ele.13098

Theory predicts that intraspecific competition should be stronger than interspecific competition for any pair of stably coexisting species, yet previous literature reviews found little support for this pattern. We screened over 5400 publications and identified 39 studies that quantified phenomenological intraspecific and interspecific interactions in terrestrial plant communities. Of the 67% of species pairs in which both intra- and interspecific effects were negative (competitive), intraspecific competition was, on average, four to five-fold stronger than interspecific competition. Of the remaining pairs, 93% featured intraspecific competition and interspecific facilitation, a situation that stabilises coexistence. The difference between intra- and interspecific effects tended to be larger in observational than experimental data sets, in field than greenhouse studies, and in studies that quantified population growth over the full life cycle rather than single fitness components. Our results imply that processes promoting stable coexistence at local scales are common and consequential across terrestrial plant communities.

Keywords: Biodiversity; Lotka-Volterra; competition coefficient; forests; grasslands; meta-analysis.

© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd/CNRS.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

Associated data

• Dryad/10.5061/dryad.q5mg97b

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources, other literature sources.

• Dryad Digital Repository
• scite Smart Citations

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Journal Proposal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Interactive effects of intraspecific competition and drought on stomatal conductance and hormone concentrations in different tomato genotypes.

1. Introduction

2. materials and methods, 2.1. plant materials, 2.2. experimental design, 2.3. plant measurements, 2.4. plant hormone analysis, 2.5. statistical analysis, 3.1. effects of intraspecific competition on plant growth and stomatal opening of wt tomato, 3.2. involvement of aba and ethylene in plant response to intraspecific competition, 3.3. effects of above- and belowground competition on plant response to competition, 4. discussion, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• Rejeb, I.B.; Pastor, V.; Mauch-Mani, B. Plant Responses to Simultaneous Biotic and Abiotic Stress: Molecular Mechanisms. Plants 2014 , 3 , 458–475. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Qin, F.; Shinozaki, K.; Yamaguchi-Shinozaki, K. Achievements and Challenges in Understanding Plant Abiotic Stress Responses and Tolerance. Plant Cell Physiol. 2011 , 52 , 1569–1582. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Arkhipova, T.N.; Vysotskaya, L.B.; Martinenko, E.V.; Ivanov, I.I.; Kudoyarova, G.R. Participation of cytokinins in plant response to competitors. Russ. J. Plant Physiol. 2015 , 62 , 524–533. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kazan, K. Diverse roles of jasmonates and ethylene in abiotic stress tolerance. Trends Plant Sci. 2015 , 20 , 219–229. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Peleg, Z.; Blumwald, E. Hormone balance and abiotic stress tolerance in crop plants. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2011 , 14 , 290–295. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Verma, V.; Ravindran, P.; Kumar, P.P. Plant hormone-mediated regulation of stress responses. BMC Plant Biol. 2016 , 16 , 86. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Vysotskaya, L.; Wilkinson, S.; Davies, W.J.; Arkhipova, T.; Kudoyarova, G. The effect of competition from neighbors on stomatal conductance in lettuce and tomato plants. Plant Cell Environ. 2011 , 34 , 729–737. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhu, J.-K. Salt and drought stress signal transduction in plants. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2002 , 53 , 247–273. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Gupta, A.; Rico-Medina, A.; Caño-Delgado, A.I. The physiology of plant responses to drought. Science 2020 , 368 , 266–269. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kuromori, T.; Seo, M.; Shinozaki, K. ABA Transport and Plant Water Stress Responses. Trends Plant Sci. 2018 , 23 , 513–522. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pantin, F.; Monnet, F.; Jannaud, D.; Costa, J.M.; Renaud, J.; Muller, B.; Simonneau, T.; Genty, B. The dual effect of abscisic acid on stomata. New Phytol. 2012 , 197 , 65–72. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Iqbal, N.; Nazar, R.; Syeed, S.; Masood, A.; Khan, N.A. Exogenously-sourced ethylene increases stomatal conductance, photosynthesis, and growth under optimal and deficient nitrogen fertilization in mustard. J. Exp. Bot. 2011 , 62 , 4955–4963. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Pierik, R.; Tholen, D.; Poorter, H.; Visser, E.J.; Voesenek, L.A. The Janus face of ethylene: Growth inhibition and stimulation. Trends Plant Sci. 2006 , 11 , 176–183. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fatma, M.; Iqbal, N.; Gautam, H.; Sehar, Z.; Sofo, A.; D’Ippolito, I.; Khan, N.A. Ethylene and sulfur coordinately modulate the antioxidante system and ABA accumulation in mustard plants under salt stress. Plants 2021 , 10 , 180. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Iqbal, N.; Khan, N.A.; Ferrante, A.; Trivellini, A.; Francini, A.; Khan, M.I.R. Ethylene Role in Plant Growth, Development and Senescence: Interaction with Other Phytohormones. Front. Plant Sci. 2017 , 8 , 475. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Thao, N.P.; Khan, M.I.R.; Thu, N.B.A.; Hoang, X.L.T.; Asgher, M.; Khan, N.A.; Tran, L.-S.P. Role of Ethylene and Its Cross Talk with Other Signaling Molecules in Plant Responses to Heavy Metal Stress. Plant Physiol. 2015 , 169 , 73–84. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Pierik, R.; Whitelam, G.C.; Voesenek, L.A.C.J.; de Kroon, H.; Visser, E.J.W. Canopy studies on ethylene-insensitive tobacco identify ethylene as a novel element in blue light and plant-plant signalling. Plant J. 2004 , 38 , 310–319. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Semchenko, M.; Hutchings, M.J.; John, E. Challenging the tragedy of the commons in root competition: Confounding effects of neighbour presence and substrate volume. J. Ecol. 2007 , 95 , 252–260. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vysotskaya, L.B.; Arkhipova, T.N.; Kudoyarova, G.R.; Veselov, S.Y. Dependence of growth inhibiting action of increased planting density on capacity of lettuce plants to synthesize ABA. J. Plant Physiol. 2018 , 220 , 69–73. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Masclaux, F.G.; Bruessow, F.; Schweizer, F.; Gouhier-Darimont, C.; Keller, L.; Reymond, P. Transcriptome analysis of intra-specific competition in Arabidopsis thaliana reveals organ-specific signatures related to nutrient acquisition and general stress response pathways. BMC Plant Biol. 2012 , 12 , 227. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Kegge, W.; Pierik, R. Biogenic volatile organic compounds and plant competition. Trends Plant Sci. 2010 , 15 , 126–132. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pierik, R.; Sasidharan, R.; Voesenek, L.A.C.J. Growth Control by Ethylene: Adjusting Phenotypes to the Environment. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2007 , 26 , 188–200. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Tholen, D.; Pons, T.L.; Voesenek, L.; Poorter, H. Ethylene Insensitivity Results in Down-Regulation of Rubisco Expression and Photosynthetic Capacity in Tobacco. Plant Physiol. 2007 , 144 , 1305–1315. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Nazareno, A.L.; Hernandez, B. A mathematical model of the interaction of abscisic acid, ethylene and methyl jasmonate on stomatal closure in plants. PLoS ONE 2017 , 12 , e0171065. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wilkinson, S.; Davies, W.J. Ozone suppresses soil drying-and abscisic acid (ABA)-induced stomatal closure via an ethylene-dependent mechanism. Plant Cell Environ. 2009 , 32 , 949–959. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vysotskaya, L.B.; Veselov, S.Y.; Kudoyarova, G.R. Effect of Competition and Treatment with Inhibitor of Ethylene Perception on Growth and Hormone Content of Lettuce Plants. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2017 , 36 , 450–459. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• di Iorio, A.; Montagnoli, A.; Terzaghi, M.; Scippa, G.S.; Chiatante, D. Effect of tree density on root distribution in Fagus sylvatica stands: A semi-automatic digitising device approach to trench wall method. Trees 2013 , 27 , 1503–1513. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Contador, M.L.; Comas, L.H.; Metcalf, S.G.; Stewart, W.L.; Gomez, I.P.; Negron, C.; Lampinen, B.D. Root growth dynamics linked to above-ground growth in walnut ( Juglans regia ). Ann. Bot. 2015 , 116 , 49–60. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Buckley, T.N. Stomatal responses to humidity: Has the ‘black box’ finally been opened? Plant Cell Environ. 2016 , 39 , 482–484. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Wolz, K.J.; Wertin, T.M.; Abordo, M.; Wang, D.; Leakey, A.D.B. Diversity in stomatal function is integral to modelling plant carbon and water fluxes. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2017 , 1 , 1292–1298. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Albert, R.; Acharya, B.R.; Jeon, B.W.; Zañudo, J.G.T.; Zhu, M.; Osman, K.; Assmann, S.M. A new discrete dynamic model of ABA-induced stomatal closure predicts key feedback loops. PLoS Biol. 2017 , 15 , e2003451. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Davies, W.J.; Kudoyarova, G.; Hartung, W. Long-distance ABA Signaling and Its Relation to Other Signaling Pathways in the Detection of Soil Drying and the Mediation of the Plant’s Response to Drought. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2005 , 24 , 285–295. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Munemasa, S.; Hauser, F.; Park, J.; Waadt, R.; Brandt, B.; Schroeder, J.I. Mechanisms of abscisic acid-mediated control of stomatal aperture. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2015 , 28 , 154–162. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Sarwat, M.; Tuteja, N. Hormonal signaling to control stomatal movement during drought stress. Plant Gene 2017 , 11 , 143–153. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Quarrie, S.; Whitford, P.N.; Appleford, N.E.J.; Wang, T.L.; Cook, S.K.; Henson, I.E.; Loveys, B.R. A monoclonal antibody to (S)-abscisic acid: Its characterisation and use in a radioimmunoassay for measuring abscisic acid in crude extracts of cereal and lupin leaves. Planta 1988 , 173 , 330–339. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kunstler, G.; Falster, D.; Coomes, D.A.; Hui, F.; Kooyman, R.; Laughlin, D.C.; Poorter, L.; Vanderwel, M.; Vieilledent, G.; Wright, S.J.; et al. Plant functional traits have globally consistent effects on competition. Nature 2016 , 529 , 204–207. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Wilkinson, S.; Davies, W.J. Drought, ozone, ABA and ethylene: New insights from cell to plant to community. Plant Cell Environ. 2010 , 33 , 510–525. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kurepin, L.V.; Emery, R.J.N.; Pharis, R.P.; Reid, D.M. Uncoupling light quality from light irradiance effects in Helianthus annuus shoots: Putative roles for plant hormones in leaf and internode growth. J. Exp. Bot. 2007 , 58 , 2145–2157. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Schachtman, D.P.; Goodger, J. Chemical root to shoot signaling under drought. Trends Plant Sci. 2008 , 13 , 281–287. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Boyle, R.K.A.; McAinsh, M.; Dodd, I.C. Stomatal closure of Pelargonium × hortorum in response to soil water deficit is as-sociated with decreased leaf water potential only under rapid soil drying. Physiol. Plant. 2016 , 156 , 84–96. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Salazar, C.; Hernández, C.; Pino, M.T. Plant water stress: Associations between ethylene and abscisic arid response. Chil. J. Agric. Res. 2015 , 75 (Suppl. 1), 71–79. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Wilkinson, S.; Kudoyarova, G.R.; Veselov, D.S.; Arkhipova, T.N.; Davies, W.J. Plant hormone interactions: Innovative targets for crop breeding and management. J. Exp. Bot. 2012 , 63 , 3499–3509. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Goodger, J.Q.D.; Sharp, R.E.; Marsh, E.L.; Schachtman, D.P. Relationships between xylem sap constituents and leaf conductance of well-watered and water-stressed maize across three xylem sap sampling techniques. J. Exp. Bot. 2005 , 56 , 2389–2400. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Ballaré, C.L. Phytochrome Responses: Think Globally, Act Locally. Trends Plant Sci. 2017 , 22 , 909–911. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• de Kroon, H. How do roots interact? Science 2007 , 318 , 1562. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Bais, H.P.; Weir, T.L.; Perry, L.G.; Gilroy, S.; Vivanco, J.M. The role of root exudates in rhizosphere interactions with plants and other organisms. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2006 , 57 , 233–266. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Tanaka, Y.; Sano, T.; Tamaoki, M.; Nakajima, N.; Kondo, N.; Hasezawa, S. Ethylene Inhibits Abscisic Acid-Induced Stomatal Closure in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 2005 , 138 , 2337–2343. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• She, X.; Song, X. Ethylene inhibits abscisic acid-induced stomatal closure in Vicia faba via reducing nitric oxide levels in guard cells. N. Z. J. Bot. 2012 , 50 , 203–216. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Gao, Y.; Liang, Y.; Fu, Y.; Si, Z.; Hamani, A.K.M. Interactive Effects of Intraspecific Competition and Drought on Stomatal Conductance and Hormone Concentrations in Different Tomato Genotypes. Horticulturae 2022 , 8 , 45. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8010045

Gao Y, Liang Y, Fu Y, Si Z, Hamani AKM. Interactive Effects of Intraspecific Competition and Drought on Stomatal Conductance and Hormone Concentrations in Different Tomato Genotypes. Horticulturae . 2022; 8(1):45. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8010045

Gao, Yang, Yueping Liang, Yuanyuan Fu, Zhuanyun Si, and Abdoul Kader Mounkaila Hamani. 2022. "Interactive Effects of Intraspecific Competition and Drought on Stomatal Conductance and Hormone Concentrations in Different Tomato Genotypes" Horticulturae 8, no. 1: 45. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8010045

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Special Issues
• Advance articles
• High Impact Research
• Article Commentaries
• Review Articles
• Why Publish with AoB?
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access Policies
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Benefits of Publishing Open Access
• Quarterly Newsletter
• About Annals of Botany
• About the Annals of Botany Company
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, theories of competition, intraspecific competition, interspecific competition, dynamic models of plant growth and competition, factors influencing the outcome of competition, practical application of crop–weed competition models, acknowledgements, the theory and application of plant competition models: an agronomic perspective.

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

SARAH E. PARK, LAURENCE R. BENJAMIN, ANDREW R. WATKINSON, The Theory and Application of Plant Competition Models: an Agronomic Perspective, Annals of Botany , Volume 92, Issue 6, December 2003, Pages 741–748, https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcg204

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Many studies of plant competition have been directed towards understanding how plants respond to density in monocultures and how the presence of weeds affects yield in crops. In this Botanical Briefing, the development and current understanding of plant competition is reviewed, with particular emphasis being placed on the theory of plant competition and the development and application of mathematical models to crop–weed competition and the dynamics of weeds in crops. By consolidating the results of past research in this manner, it is hoped to offer a context in which researchers can consider the potential directions for future research in competition studies and its application to integrated weed management.

Received: 6 March 2003; Returned for revision: 29 May 2003; Accepted: 2 September 2003    Published electronically: 23 October 2003

The decline in weed seed numbers in arable fields (approx. 95%) over the course of the 20th century is witness to the success of weed control measures ( Robinson and Sutherland, 2002 ). This success in weed control has resulted primarily from the extensive use of herbicides, changes in crop rotations and a range of cultivation methods. However, the sustained use of a range of agro‐chemicals, in recent years, has resulted in an increase in the number of herbicide‐resistant weed species ( Powles and Shaner, 2001 ), a shift in the weed flora of arable fields from one of mixed weeds to one dominated by grass weeds ( Barr et al ., 1993 ) and increasing environmental and public health concerns over the use of pesticides ( Conway and Pretty, 1991 ).

As a consequence, there is an increasing interest in methods of weed control that allow a reduction in the use of herbicides. This is reflected in the increased interest in non‐chemical methods of weed control ( Weiner et al ., 2001 ), organic farming ( Lampkin, 2003 ) and the use of intercropping ( Vandermeer, 1989 ). Recently, it has also been argued ( Dewar et al ., 2003 ) that the use of genetically modified herbicide‐tolerant crops with glyphosate and glufosinate herbicides may allow a more flexible, knowledge‐based management to weed control, permitting higher weed populations early in the season than is possible in conventional systems to promote biodiversity. If such systems are to be employed, however, it is essential that the impact of delayed control on the competitive balance between weeds and crop is fully understood, if yields are not to be reduced.

Clearly, the efficacy of using agronomic practices to manage weed populations will be improved by a comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms of competition. Mathematical models to describe the process of plant competition have developed concurrently with our increasing empirical understanding. The structure of models has reflected the prevailing approach to weed management. Earlier research was focused on the calculation of yield loss as a result of weed competition and an empirical modelling approach. A more recent interest in managing competition, through increased knowledge of the ecology and biology of competing species, has resulted in an increase in the use and development of more mechanistic‐based and dynamic population models for weeds. Used as either a tool for research or as a method for prediction, the mathematical model is an essential and integral part of the study of plant competition.

The aim of this Botanical Briefing is, first, to provide an overview of our current understanding of the mechanisms of competition at the individual plant level and, secondly, to review the development of mathematical models of plant competition, particularly in their application to the management of agricultural weeds. It is the aim to provide an overview of the broad spectrum of approaches that have been adopted within the study of plant competition as it relates to weed management. The focus here is on the quantification of intraspecific and interspecific competition in the crop–weed environment, and on the impact of competition on plant performance within the growing crop and weed population dynamics. By consolidating the results of past research in this manner, it is hoped to offer a context in which researchers can consider the potential directions for future research in competition studies and its application to weed management.

Whilst definitions of competition abound, they can typically be divided into two categories, those that focus on mechanisms and resource acquisition (e.g. Tilman, 1982 ; Grime, 2001 ) and those that focus on the reduction in fitness brought about by a shared requirement for a resource in limited supply ( Silvertown and Charlesworth, 2001 ). In crop–weed competition studies, it is the mechanistic modelling approach that highlights the importance of the acquisition and pre‐emption of resources in the competitive process. In contrast, it is the definitions of competition that focus on fitness that have influenced the development of phenomenological models of crop–weed competition and the quantification of yield loss and the dynamics of weeds in agro‐ecosystems.

Much of the present understanding of intraspecific competition in plant populations is credited to a series of papers written in the 1950s and 60s by a group of Japanese researchers ( Yoda et al ., 1963 ). In summary, the papers identified three principal effects resulting from intraspecific competition in monocultures: a competition–density effect (decrease in mean size of surviving plants with increasing density); alteration in the size structure of the population (size hierarchy development); and density‐dependent mortality (self‐thinning). The process of self‐thinning is not described here (see Yoda et al ., 1963 ) as plants in an agronomic environment rarely reach the combinations of weights and densities where self‐thinning would be expected to occur ( Enquist et al ., 1998 ).

Competition–density effect

The early pioneering studies on plant monocultures stimulated considerable interest in the mathematical description of the relationship between plant performance and density. The decline in plant performance with density as a result of competition was found to be best described by a reciprocal equation ( Shinozaki and Kira, 1956 ; Bleasdale and Nelder, 1960 ; Watkinson, 1980 ) of the form

w = w m (1 + aN ) – b (1)

where w is mean plant weight, N is plant density, w m is the mean dry weight of an isolated plant at a given time, and a and b are parameters ( Watkinson, 1980 ). Parameter a is related to the density at which intraspecific competition has an impact on yield and parameter b determines whether the yield‐density relationship is over‐turning ( b > 1), asymptotic ( b = 1) or monotonically increasing ( b < 1) with density. The parameters w m and a are typically positively correlated ( Watkinson, 1984 ; Li et al ., 1996 ) as parameter a can be considered as the area of resources required to produce a yield of w m in an isolated plant. This model or similar has been successfully used to describe yield–density relationships in a wide range of plant monocultures and lies at the heart of describing density‐dependent processes that result from competition in plant populations.

Alteration in the size structure of the population

Quantifying the size structure of a population is clearly an important pre‐requisite for determining the role of plant competition; the most often used measurements are the shape of histograms (skewness), the coefficient of variation and the Gini coefficient ( Weiner and Solbrig, 1984 ). Koyama and Kira (1956 ) made the first studies of changes in the frequency distribution of biomass in plant monocultures with time and density. They presented evidence that frequency distributions of herbaceous and tree species were symmetrical during the early stages of growth, with the distribution shifting progressively towards a positive skew with time. They pointed out that this could be explained as the inevitable consequence of exponential growth and a symmetrical distribution of relative growth rates. Hence, the development of log‐normal weight frequency distributions is not proof of competitive interactions between plants.

There is, however, evidence that competition plays a major role in generating the plant‐to‐plant variability in relative growth rates that affect frequency distributions of weight ( Weiner and Thomas, 1986 ) and that the symmetry of competition also affects the development of frequency distributions. Asymmetrical competition occurs when a small number of large individuals utilize a disproportionately large share of the available resources to the detriment of the growth of smaller neighbours. In symmetrical competition the growth of each plant is in proportion to its size. In general, asymmetrical competition leads to greater inequality of biomass within a population. There are, however, complex interactions between the spatial arrangement of plants, the nature of the resource, the spatial heterogeneity of the resource, the episodic availability of the resource and the plant’s physiological and morphology response to levels of resource supply ( Schwinning and Weiner, 1998 ). Because of these complex interactions, it is not possible to conclude that the development of inequality of size is proof of asymmetrical competition.

The development of a size hierarchy has been described by numerous population models (e.g. Westoby, 1982 ; Firbank and Watkinson, 1985 a ; Benjamin, 1988 ; Pacala and Weiner, 1991 ), and many factors, such as the number of neighbours and relative emergence time, have been considered as important in determining the position of an individual within a size hierarchy ( Benjamin and Hardwick, 1986 ; Wyszomirski et al ., 1999 ). However, despite the obvious commercial importance of variability in plant size, especially in vegetable crops that need to meet strict size limits to be marketable, models of the development of size hierarchies have not been exploited to this end. Models to predict the effect of agronomic practices on changes in size structure of populations have instead relied upon estimating changes in the parameter values of frequency distribution curves from empirically derived relationships ( Benjamin et al ., 1999 ).

Agronomic studies aimed at quantifying competition between two species most commonly consider a weed and crop species and, to a considerably lesser extent, two crops grown in an intercrop. A variety of experimental designs and statistical analyses have been used to study competition in mixtures ( Gibson et al ., 1999 ; Freckleton and Watkinson, 2000 ). Here the focus is on the replacement series, and additive and neighbourhood designs.

Replacement series

The replacement series approach involves growing two species in varying proportions, including monoculture, whilst maintaining a constant overall stand density ( de Wit, 1960 ). Considered as pioneering in the analysis of competition within mixtures, it has also attracted much criticism, particularly regarding the dependence of the model coefficients on total stand density ( Inouye and Schaffer, 1981 ; Connolly, 1986 ) and the inability of the model to dissociate the separate effects of intra‐ and interspecific competition ( Firbank and Watkinson, 1985 b ; Snaydon, 1991 ) especially under changing conditions ( Watkinson and Freckleton, 1997 ). Notwithstanding these shortcomings, the replacement series still has adherents, albeit conditional. We would, however, argue that it is an inappropriate design for the analysis of competition in agronomic environments where understanding of how the effects of competition vary with density is of key concern (see below).

Additive design

Additive designs refer to those experiments where both the density and proportion of species are varied in mixtures. In its simplest and most typically applied form in an agricultural context, the so‐called ‘partial additive design’ allows the density of one species to be held constant whilst the second species is varied over a range of densities. Consequently, this design is particularly favoured for the study of crop–weed competition, although the data generated by this design can provide only a limited picture of the interaction between species, because it provides no information on the effect of the crop on the weed. One formulation of the hyperbolic model that has been used commonly for describing the damage to crop yield caused by competition from weeds ( Cousens, 1985 ) is

Y L = iN w (1 + ia –1 N w ) –1 (2)

where Y L is the proportion of yield lost, N w is weed density, i is the percentage yield loss per weed plant at low weed densities and a is the upper limit to yield loss at high weed densities. This equation may be further modified to take account of differences in competition between the weed and crop that result from differences in emergence time ( Cousens et al ., 1987 )

Y L = bN w ( e cT + ba –1 N w ) –1 (3)

where T is the time in days between emergence of the crop and the weed and a , b and c are parameters. Kropff and Spitters (1992 ) took an alternative approach for accounting for differences in emergence times by weighting densities with the average leaf area index.

The popularity of the hyperbolic model is in part due to its ability to satisfy what Cousens (1985 ) reasons to be the four fundamental biological truths of crop–weed competition: (1) there will be no yield loss in the absence of weeds; (2) the effects of increasing weed numbers will be additive at low weed densities; (3) crop yield loss can never exceed 100%; and (4) there is a non‐linear response of crop yield to weed density at high weed densities. The model is sometimes criticized because it offers little explanation of the underlying processes determining the outcome of competition and because there are difficulties in extrapolating to a broad range of species or locations. The model is, however, readily parameterized and with data taken from a range of sites at different times, it is possible to generalize about the factors playing the greatest role in determining yield loss.

While the partial additive design typically involves growing one species at a constant density while varying that of the other, an extreme version involves growing a species with and without interspecific competition. This has led to the development of a range of indices to quantify competition by essentially comparing the performance of a plant in monoculture with that in a mixture. Despite some endorsement of the use of such simple composite indices in conjunction with this experimental design ( Cousens, 1991 ; Snaydon, 1991 ), they allow only a crude picture of the competitive process to emerge. Once again, the indices are sensitive to density and may erroneously attribute the effects of a change in environmental conditions on relative performance in mixtures to changes in interspecific competition ( Freckleton and Watkinson, 1997 ).

At the opposite end of the extreme, the additive series involves replication of the full complement of density combinations for two species over a wide range of densities. It allows the quantification of both intra‐ and interspecific competition when analysed using a two‐species regression model ( Pantone and Baker, 1991 ; Park et al ., 2002 ). More generally for this form of analysis, the single species model (eqn 1) can be extended to two or more species using the relationship

w i = w m ,i (1 + Σα ij N j ) – b (4)

where w is a measure of plant performance, w m is the performance of an isolated plant and α represents the per capita effects of intra‐ (α ii ) and interspecific (α ij ) competition ( Watkinson, 1985 ).

Neighbourhood design

The neighbourhood approach to analysing plant competition was pioneered by Mack and Harper (1977 ) and involves relating the performance of an individual target species to the density of a neighbouring species within a given proximity. This design is based on the assumption that the performance of a target plant is related to the number, biomass, cover, aggregation or distance of the neighbouring species. However, the data requirements for neighbourhood models may be particularly resource‐intensive and can yield similar results to less spatially explicit mean density models ( Pacala and Silander, 1990 ). Nevertheless they are of particular value where competition needs to be quantified under different spatial arrangements of plants, although they have been used little within this context in agricultural studies.

Experimental design and analysis

Whilst the debate regarding the most appropriate experimental design and method of quantifying competitive intensity in mixed species stands continues to attract a lively discussion ( Freckleton and Watkinson, 1999 ; Jolliffe, 2000 ; Connolly et al ., 2001 ), there is an increasing consensus that the range of inferences that may validly be drawn from a study are principally determined by the experimental design used ( Gibson et al ., 1999 ; Freckleton and Watkinson, 2000 ). There is, however, no optimum design for competition experiments since the aims, objectives and practicalities vary from study to study and species to species. However, the fact that an overwhelming number of studies have shown that the effects on performance of competition in plant mixtures may be described by simple hyperbolic models, indicates that the problem of measuring plant competition is one of regression ( Freckleton and Watkinson, 2000 ). Moreover, theory has shown that, of the available methods, the regression approach is generally the most robust for analysing competition under field conditions ( Freckleton and Watkinson, 2001 a ). This argues for comparable approaches to the study of plant competition under both controlled environment and field conditions if we are to understand better how changing conditions and resources affect the process of competition in the agricultural environment and the consequent impacts of competition on crop yield and weed performance.

Models of plant competition are predominantly categorized as being either phenomenological, providing only a description of the outcome of competition, or mechanistic in structure, offering a representation of the physiological processes underlying plant growth. Competition studies that consider only final yield are inevitably limited as to the inferences that may be drawn about the process of competition. Quantitative measures of growth taken during the course of a growing period are necessary to understand the changing dynamics of species interactions and elucidate the competitive mechanisms determining the growth of individuals over time. Further, dynamic growth analysis allows the dissociation of ontogeny, the phenotypic developmental trajectory of an individual, from environmental effects on growth ( Evans, 1972 ).

Mechanistic models and, in particular, eco‐physiological models based on the response of physiological processes in plants to their environment, generally contain many parameters. As parameter estimates may be difficult to derive and consequently contain substantial error, the use of mechanistic models as a tool for decision‐making is regularly found to be impractical. However, the development of more parsimonious mechanistic plant growth models has resulted in a general increase in their use in recent years ( Graf and Hill, 1992 ; Kropff and Spitters, 1992 ; Aikman and Scaife, 1993 ; Deen et al ., 2003 ).

The capture of resources, particularly the interception of solar radiation, is an important factor in determining the competitive ability of species and this is reflected in light interception being the most developed aspect of many eco‐physiological models. For example, Spitters and Aerts (1983 ) proposed a model that was further developed by Kropff and colleagues ( Kropff, 1988 ; Lotz et al ., 1990 ; Kropff and Spitters, 1992 ), which took account of the spatial position of leaves and roots by dividing the canopy and root zone into a number of horizontal strata. Simulated growth was then partitioned between two species according to their relative proportional contribution to total leaf area. A less detailed approach to simulating growth within a multispecies canopy was taken by Ryel et al . (1990 ), who estimated the photosynthetic potential of foliage positioned in sunlit and shaded areas of the canopy. Rimmington (1984 ) provided a simpler model in which competition for light was simulated by dividing the canopy into only a small number of strata.

The above models all differ in the amount of detail expended on quantifying the local availability and interception of light. Interestingly, Deutschman et al . (1999 ) demonstrated that the amount of detail used to describe the local availability of light using the mechanistic, spatially explicit, stochastic forest simulation model, SORTIE ( Pacala et al ., 1996 ), had surprisingly little effect on the accuracy of its predictions at the forest development level. Nonetheless, a less detailed quantification of light does alter the predicted growth and mortality rates at the level of the individual tree.

Eco‐physiological models have been developed to include resources, such as nitrogen ( Graf et al ., 1990 ; Wilkerson et al ., 1990 ), in addition to light while the Conductance Model ( Aikman and Scaife, 1993 ) offers a simple mechanistic approach to simulating the growth of similar and different height species in monoculture and mixtures as a function of multiple resources ( Park et al ., 2001 ). Cellular automata models have also been used to describe the development of an individual in response to a heterogeneous resource supply ( Colasanti and Hunt, 1997 ).

Dynamic models of plant growth and competition, however, have had little impact to date on the design of weed management programmes. Despite the obvious potential application of such models to crop–weed competition through, for example, the manipulation of the canopy of the crop to suppress weeds ( Weiner et al ., 2001 ) and the delay in herbicide spraying to allow weed growth during the early stages of crop development to promote biodiversity ( Dewar et al ., 2003 ). The problem lies in the intensive studies required for successful parameterization.

Population dynamics

To understand the population dynamics of a species through time requires understanding of the various density‐independent and density‐dependent processes that affect the numbers of births and deaths in a population. Population models are based on censuses of plants at either flowering or germination and predict population size of species i ( N i ) at time t + 1 as a function of the population sizes at time t using a hyperbolic equation of the form

N i ( t + 1) = λ i N i ( t ) (1 + Σα ij N j ) – b (5)

The parameters of eqn (5) are the finite rate of increase, λ, defined as the maximal mean rate of population increase from low densities and competition coefficients, α, that model the per capita effects of intraspecific (α ii ) and interspecific (α ij ) competitors. This formulation can readily be extended to include a seed bank ( Freckleton et al ., 2000 ; Watkinson et al ., 2000 a ) and allows the dynamics of the species to be modelled using parameters that can be estimated directly from data on counts of numbers of plants.

Population models of the sort described by eqn (5) have been applied to a range of weed species including Alopecurus myosuroides ( Doyle et al ., 1986 ), Anisantha sterilis ( Firbank et al ., 1985 ; Smith et al ., 1999 ), Avena fatua ( Pandey and Medd, 1991 ; Jones and Medd, 1997 ), Chenopodium album ( Freckleton and Watkinson, 1998 ) and Vulpia bromoides ( Freckleton et al ., 2000 ). A critical component of all of the above models is quantification of the strength of both intra‐ and interspecific competition. In all cases, this was carried out through the manipulation of densities and the use of regression analysis to estimate the competition parameters in eqn (5), using either population growth rate or some measure of plant performance (e.g. seed production) as the dependent variable. Sensitivity analysis allows the understanding of key parameters of the life cycle that determine population numbers and highlights areas of the life cycle at which controls may be effective. In the case of Chenopodium album , this allowed Freckleton and Watkinson (1998 ) to conclude that predicting the effects of changing management on long‐term abundance of the weed will benefit more from improved systems for understanding germination behaviour than through management of the competitive ability of the crop, which will be effective only if very large changes in competitive effect can be achieved.

If the intrinsic weed‐suppressing ability of a crop is to be exploited ( Weiner et al ., 2001 ), it is necessary to identify the ecological and life‐history traits that confer competitive ability. Numerous life‐history traits have been credited as determining the competitive ability of an individual plant or species. Many of these traits are morphological (e.g. biomass partitioning) and display considerable phenotypic plasticity that can be exploited by a plant in a competitive environment. Several other traits have also been identified as potential determinants of competitive ability; these include seed size ( Rees, 1995 ), seedling size ( Schwinning and Fox, 1995 ), emergence time ( Kropff and Spitters, 1991 ) and plant size ( Goldberg and Landa, 1991 ). All of these parameters, in one way or another, either influence or reflect the ability of an individual plant to capture resources.

Whilst life history traits per se offer some explanation for the competitive ability of an individual or a species, the relative difference between two competing individuals or species is increasingly being recognized as an important determinant of the outcome of competition ( Freckleton and Watkinson, 2001 b ). The most common life history traits considered in terms of the relative difference between individual species are the relative time of emergence ( Elberse and de Kruyf, 1979 ; Cousens et al ., 1987 ), relative leaf area ( Kropff, 1988 ) and relative biomass ( Goldberg and Landa, 1991 ; Freckleton and Watkinson, 2001 b ). In an analysis of the competitive relationships between seven species, Freckleton and Watkinson (2001 b ) found that competition coefficients relate strongly to differences between the maximum sizes, root allocation, emergence time and seed size of species. The best predictor, however, was the difference in the maximum size of plants grown in isolation; correlations of the other traits with the competition coefficients occur through effects on the maximum size. The analysis also revealed coefficient reciprocity (inverse relationships between the interspecific coefficients for species pairs) and transitivity (numerically predictable hierarchies of competition between species). The theoretical basis for expecting coefficients to follow these patterns relates to short‐term competition for limiting resources.

It should be noted at this point that the strength of competition measured from experiments that consider plant weight as the dependent variable is not necessarily the same as the strength of competition in a population dynamic sense ( Chesson and Huntly, 1997 ). Caution should therefore be exercised in making inferences about the outcome of competition from studies on plant performance alone. The outcome of competition in a population dynamics sense depends not only on the magnitude of the competition coefficients but also on the finite rate of population increase ( Watkinson et al ., 2000 a ).

Crop–weed competition models have been used extensively for determining the yield loss of crops that result from varying densities of weeds. In one of the simplest extensions of this approach, knowledge of crop–weed competition has been combined with herbicide–weed resource curves to simulate the effects of herbicide use on crop yield and provide a rudimentary economic evaluation of herbicide treatments ( Streibig, 1989 ). A more refined economic analysis has been achieved through the use of bioeconomic models. These consist of several sub‐models, typically describing the life cycle of the crop and weed, crop–weed competition and economic system ( Dunan et al ., 1993 ; Jones and Medd, 1997 ).

In an alternative approach, crop–weed models have been applied to the task of identifying the minimum, or ‘threshold’, density of weeds justifying weed control. The threshold is calculated as the weed density at which the cost of chemical control is equal to the net benefit on crop yield gained through a reduction in weed competition. Such a modelling approach is not without its critics, particularly on the grounds of insufficient data, uncertainty and the non‐random distribution of weeds ( Auld and Tisdell, 1987 ; Dent et al ., 1989 ). In a recent review, Wilkerson et al . (2002 ) argued that weed management decision models should be evaluated from the perspectives of biological accuracy, quality of recommendations and ease of use. They further argued that future use depends upon finding cost‐effective methods to assess weed populations, demonstrating that the use of models makes more better decisions and that there is stable long‐term funding for the maintenance and support for the models.

Whilst the primary motivation behind many threshold models has been an improvement in the cost‐effectiveness of using herbicides, integrated weed management models, which simulate a combination of different chemical, mechanical, cultural, generic and biological weed control methods, provide a more sustainable approach to weed control. By using a selection of sub‐models to describe biological processes, including crop–weed competition, decision aids such as WEEDSIM ( Swinton and King, 1994 ) and WEEDCAM ( Lybecker et al ., 1991 ) simulate the long‐term outcome of a mix of different management options on the environment, given an initial estimate of the weed seed bank or seedling population. Despite offering a potentially valuable tool for assessing the environmental, as well as the economic costs of weed management strategies, the use of mathematical models in integrated crop protection has, to date, been markedly under‐utilized.

The quantification of competition together with the finite rate of population increase is at the heart of these models. Examples of their range of application include explanation of the decline in a previously common weed ( Firbank and Watkinson, 1986 ), predicting strategies that provide economic control of weeds ( Cousens et al ., 1986 ; Doyle et al ., 1986 ; Watkinson et al ., 2000 a ), contrasting the impacts of broad‐scale changes in farm management for the dynamics of weeds ( Smith et al ., 1999 ) and predicting the potential impacts of new technology on the species that feed on weed seeds ( Watkinson et al ., 2000 b ). Weed population models are thus being used to address a range of questions that would be impossible to tackle without quantification of plant competition. It is for this reason that the experimental designs and analyses that are used to quantify competition are of such importance.

Crop–weed models incorporating competition have had considerable success in describing how the process of competition affects crop yield and how strategic weed management decisions impact on weed numbers for a limited range of economically important species. There is, however, a need to increase our understanding of the spatial and temporal variability in model parameters if they are to be used more in a predictive context and to pull together data for a wide range of weeds and crops.

In contrast, mechanistic models have to date had limited success in describing crop–weed competition and limited utility within the weed management process. The problem with such models is that they require very intensive studies to be successfully parameterized and are constrained by their inherent need for detailed information relating to key physiological processes. For this reason, the development of more parsimonious models would be an advantage, requiring a more general approach to the study of competitive and physiological processes, enabling insight beyond that of the individual species.

Exploration of integrated weed management requires that we understand how weed management decisions within the crop growing‐season affect: ( a ) the yield of the crop through competition for resources, and ( b ) the biodiversity and numbers of weeds in the current and future crops. Both mechanistic and phenomenological models have a role to play here. The former include sufficient detail of the relationships between plant traits and the environment to allow exploration of within‐season management decisions on crop yield, while the latter, although not including such intricate detail, allow exploration of strategic management decisions on the abundance of weeds through the crop rotation.

S.E.P. received a Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) CASE studentship. Rothamsted Research receives grant‐aided support from the BBSRC.

Aikman DP , Scaife A. 1993 . Modelling plant‐growth under varying environmental conditions in a uniform canopy. Annals of Botany 72 : 485 –492.

Auld BA , Trisdell CA. 1987 . Economic threshold and response to uncertainty in weed control. Agricultural Systems 25 : 219 –227.

Barr CJ , Bunce RGH, Clarke RT, Fuller RM, Furse MT, Gillespie MK, Groom GB, Hallam CJ, Horning M et al. 1993 . Countryside survey: main report . Department of Environment, Eastcote, UK.

Benjamin LR . 1988 . A single equation to quantify the hierarchy in plant size induced by competition within monocultures. Annals of Botany 62 : 199 –214.

Benjamin LR , Hardwick RC. 1986 . Sources of variation and measures of variability in even‐aged stands of plants. Annals of Botany 58 : 757 –778.

Benjamin LR , Hembry JK, Bowtell J, Phelps K, Gray D. 1999 . Predicting frequency distributions in crops of carrot ( Daucus carota L.) and red beet ( Beta vulgaris L.). Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology 74 : 259 –264.

Bleasdale JKA , Nelder JA. 1960 . Plant population and crop yield. Nature 188 : 342 .

Chesson P , Huntly N. 1997 . The roles of harsh and fluctuating conditions in the dynamics of ecological communities. American Naturalist 150 : 519 –553.

Colasanti RL , Hunt R. 1997 . Resource dynamics and plant growth: a self‐assembling model for individuals, populations and communities. Functional Ecology 11 : 133 –145.

Connolly J . 1986 . On difficulties with replacement‐series methodology in mixture experiments. Journal of Applied Ecology 23 : 125 –137.

Connolly J , Wayne P, Bazzaz FA. 2001 . Interspecific competition in plants: how well do current methods answer fundamental questions? American Naturalist 57 : 107 –125.

Conway GR , Pretty J.N. 1991 . Unwelcome harvest: agriculture and pollution . London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.

Cousens R . 1985 . A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Annals of Applied Biology 107 : 239 –252.

Cousens R . 1991 . Aspects of the design and interpretation of competition (interference) experiments. Weed Technology 5 : 664 –673.

Cousens R , Brian P, O’Donovan JT, O’Sullivan A. 1987 . The use of biologically realistic equations to describe the effects of weed density and relative time of emergence on crop yield. Weed Science 35 : 720 –725.

Cousens R , Dowle CJ, Wilson BJ, Cussans GW. 1986 . Modeling the economics of controlling Avena fatua in winter‐wheat. Pesticide Science 17 : 1 –12.

Deen W , Cousens R, Warringa J, Bastiaans L, Carberry PS, Rebel K, Murphy C, Benjamin LR, Cussans J, Forcella F et al. 2003 . An evaluation of four crop‐weed competition models using a common data set. Weed Research 43 : 116 –129.

Dent JB , Fawcett RH, Thornton PK. 1989 . Economics of crop protection in Europe with reference to weed control. Proceedings of the 1989 Brighton Crop Protection Conference on Weeds : 917 –926.

Deutschman DH , Leven SA, Pacala SW. 1999 . Error propagation in a forest succession model: the role of fine‐scale heterogeneity in light. Ecology 80 : 1927 –1943.

Dewar AM , May MJ, Woiwood IP, Haylock LA, Champion GT, Garner BH, Sands RJN, Qi A, Pidgeon JD. 2003 . A novel approach to the use of genetically modified herbicide tolerant crops. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B – Biological Sciences 270 : 335 –340.

de Wit CT . 1960 . On competition. Verslagen van Landboukundig onderzoekingen Netherlands 66 : 1 –82.

Doyle CJ , Cousens R, Moss SR. 1986 . A model of the economics of controlling Alopecurus‐myosuroides huds in winter‐wheat. Crop Protection 5 : 143 –150.

Dunan CM , Moore III FB, Westra P. 1993 . A plant process‐economic model for wild oats management decisions in irrigated barley. Agricultural Systems 45 : 355 –368.

Elberse WT , de Kruyf, HN. 1979 . Competition between Hordeum vulgare L. and Chenopodium album L. with different dates of emergence of Chenopodium album . Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 27 : 13 –26.

Enquist BJ , Brown JH, West GB. 1998 . Allometric scaling of plant energetics and population density. Nature 395 : 163 –165.

Evans GC . 1972 . The quantitative analysis of plant growth. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.

Firbank LG , Watkinson AR. 1985 a . A model of interference within plant monocultures. Journal of Theoretical Biology 116 : 291 –311.

Firbank LG , Watkinson, AR. 1985 b . On the analysis of competition within two‐species mixtures of plants. Journal of Applied Ecology 22 : 503 –517.

Firbank LG , Watkinson, AR. 1986 . Modelling the population dynamics of an arable weed and its effects upon crop yield. Journal of Applied Ecology 23 : 147 –159.

Firbank LG , Mortimer AM, Putwain PD. 1985 . Bromus sterilis in winter wheat: a test of a predictive population model. Aspects of Applied Biology , 9 , 59 –66.

Freckleton RP , Watkinson AR. 1997 . Measuring plant neighbour effects. Functional Ecology 11 : 532 –536.

Freckleton RP , Watkinson AR. 1998 . Predicting the determinants of weed abundance: a model for the population dynamics of Chenopodium album in sugar beet. Journal of Applied Ecology 35 : 904 –920.

Freckleton RP , Watkinson AR. 1999 . The mis‐measurement of plant competition. Functional Ecology 13 : 285 –287.

Freckleton RP , Watkinson AR. 2000 . Designs for greenhouse studies of interactions between plants: an analytical perspective. Journal of Ecology 88 : 386 –391.

Freckleton RP , Watkinson AR. 2001 a . Nonmanipulative determination of plant community dynamics. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16 : 301 –307.

Freckleton RP , Watkinson AR. 2001 b . Predicting competition coefficients for plant mixtures: reciprocity, transitivity and correlations with life‐history traits. Ecology Letters 4 : 348 –357.

Freckleton RP , Watkinson AR, Dowling PM, Leys AR. 2000 . Determinants of the abundance of invasive annual weeds: community structure and non‐equilibrium dynamics. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B – Biological Sciences 267 : 1153 –1161.

Gibson JD , Connoll J, Hartnett DC, Weidenhamer JD. 1999 . Designs for greenhouse studies of interactions between plants. Journal of Ecology 87 : 1 –16.

Goldberg DE , Landa K. 1991 . Competitive effect and response: hierarchies and correlated traits in the early stages of competition. Journal of Ecology 79 : 1013 –1030.

Graf B , Hill JE. 1992 . Modelling the competition for light and nitrogen between rice and Echinochloa crus‐galli . Agricultural Systems 40 : 345 –359.

Graf B , Butierrez AP, Rakotobe O, Zahner P, Delucchi V. 1990 . A simulation model for the dynamics of rice growth and development. II. The competition with weeds for nitrogen and light. Agricultural Systems 32 : 367 –392.

Grime JP . 2001 . Plant strategies, vegetation processes, and ecosystem properties . London: Wiley.

Inouye RS , Schaffer WM. 1981 . On the ecological meaning of ratio (de Wit) diagrams in plant ecology. Ecology 62 : 1679 –1681.

Jolliffe PA . 2000 . The replacement series. Journal of Ecology 88 : 371 –385.

Jones R , Medd R. 1997 . Economic analysis of integrated management of wild oats involving fallow, herbicide and crop rotational options. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 37 : 683 –691.

Koyama H , Kira T. 1956 . Intraspecific competition among higher plants. VIII. Frequency distribution of individual plant weight as affected by individual plants. Journal of the Institute of Polytechnics, Osaka City University, Series D 7 : 73 –94.

Kropff MJ . 1988 . Modelling the effects of weeds on crop production. Weed Research 28 : 465 –471.

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

Kropff MJ , Spitters CJT. 1992 . An eco‐physiological model for interspecific competition, applied to the influence of Chenopodium album L. on sugar beet. 1. Model description and parameterisation. Weed Research 32 : 437 –450.

Lampkin N . 2003 . Organic farming. In: Soffe RJ, ed. The agricultural notebook . Oxford: Blackwell Science, 288 –303.

Li B , Watkinson AR, Hara T. 1996 . Dynamics of competition in populations of carrot ( Daucus carota ). Annals of Botany 78 : 203 –214.

Lotz LAP , Kropff MJ, Groenevald RMW. 1990 . Modelling weed competition and yield losses to study the effect of omission of herbicides in winter wheat. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 38 : 711 –718.

Lybecker DW , Schweizer EE, King RP. 1991 . Weed management decisions in corn based on bioeconomic modelling. Weed Science 39 : 124 –129.

Mack R , Harper JL. 1977 . Interference in dune annuals: spatial patterns and neighbourhood effects. Journal of Ecology 65 : 345 –363.

Pacala SW , Silander JA. 1990 . Field tests of neighbourhood population dynamic models of two annual weed species. Ecological Monographs 60 : 113 –134.

Pacala SW , Weiner, J. 1991 . Effects of competitive asymmetry on a local density model of plant interference. Journal of Theoretical Biology 149 : 165 –179.

Pacala SW , Canham CD, Saponara J, Sinander JAJ, Kobe RK, Ribbens E. 1996 . Forest models defined by field measurements: estimation, error analysis and dynamics. Ecological Monographs 66 : 1 –43.

Pandey S , Medd RW. 1991 . A stochastic dynamic‐programming framework for weed‐control decision‐making – an application to Avena fatua L. Agricultural Economics 6 : 115 –128.

Pantone DJ , Baker JB. 1991 . Reciprocal yield analysis of red rice ( Oryza sativa ) competition in cultivated rice. Weed Science 39 : 42 –47.

Park SE , Benjamin LR, Aikman DP, Watkinson AR. 2001 . Predicting the growth interactions between plants in mixed species stands using a simple mechanistic model. Annals of Botany 87 : 523 –536.

Park SE , Benjamin LR, Watkinson AR. 2002 . Comparing biological productivity in cropping systems: a competition approach. Journal of Applied Ecology 39 : 416 –426.

Powles SB , Shaner DL. 2001 . Herbicide resistance and world grains . London: CRC Press.

Rees M . 1995 . Community structure in sand dune annuals: is seed weight a key quantity? Journal of Ecology 83 : 857 –864.

Rimmington GM . 1984 . A model of the effect of interspecies competition for light on dry matter production. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 11 : 277 –286.

Robinson RA , Sutherland WJ. 2002 . Post‐war changes in arable farming and biodiversity in Great Britain. Journal of Applied Ecology 39 : 157 –176.

Ryel R , Branes PW, Beyschlag W, Caldwell MM, Flint SD. 1990 . Plant competition for light analysed with a multispecies canopy model. 1. Model development and influence of enhance UV‐B conditions on photosynthesis in mixed wheat and wild oat canopies. Oecologia 82 : 304 –310.

Schwinning S , Fox GA. 1995 . Population‐dynamic consequences of competitive symmetry in annual plants. Oikos 72 : 422 –432.

Schwinning S , Weiner J. 1998 . Mechanisms determining the degree of size‐symmetry in competition among plants. Oecologia 113 : 447 –455.

Shinozaki K , Kira T. 1956 . Intraspecific competition among higher plants. VII. Logistic theory of the C‐D effect. Journal of the Institute of Polytechnics, Osaka City University, Series D 7 : 35 –72.

Silvertown J , Charlesworth D. 2001 . Introduction to plant population biology . Oxford: Blackwell Science.

Smith GL , Freckleton RP, Firbank LG, Watkinson AR. 1999 . The population dynamics of Anisantha sterilis in winter wheat: com parative demography and the role of management. Journal of Applied Ecology 36 : 455 –471.

Snaydon RW . 1991 . Replacement or additive designs for competition studies? Journal of Applied Ecology 28 : 930 –946.

Spitters CJT , Aerts R. 1983 . Simulation of competition for light and water in crop‐weed associations. Aspects of Applied Biology 4 : 467 –483.

Streibig JC . 1989 . The herbicide dose‐response curve and the economics of weed control. Proceedings of the 1989 Brighton Crop Protection Conference on Weeds , 1039 –1044.

Swinton AM , King RP. 1994 . A bioeconomic model for weed management in corn and soybean. Agricultural Systems 44 : 313 –335.

Tilman GD . 1982 . Resource competition and community structure . New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Vandermeer J . 1989 . The ecology of intercropping . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Watkinson AR . 1980 . Density dependence in single species populations of plants. Journal of Theoretical Biology 83 : 345 –357.

Watkinson AR . 1984 . Yield‐density relationships: the influence of resource availability on growth and self‐thinning in populations of Vulpia fasciculata . Annals of Botany 53 : 469 –482.

Watkinson AR . 1985 . Plant responses to crowding. In White J, ed. Studies on plant demography . London: Academic Press, 275 –289.

Watkinson AR , Freckleton RP. 1997 . Quantifying the impact of arbuscular mycorrhiza on plant competition. Journal of Ecology 85 : 541 –545.

Watkinson A , Freckleton R, Dowling P. 2000 a . Wheat, sheep and invasive annuals in Australia. In: Perrings C, Williamson M, Dalmazzone S, eds. The economics of biological invasions. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 94 –114.

Watkinson AR , Freckleton RP, Robinson RA, Sutherland WJ. 2000 b . Predictions of biodiversity response to genetically modified herbicide‐tolerant crops. Science 289 : 1554 –1557.

Weiner J , Solbrig OT. 1984 . The meaning and measurement of size hierarchies in plant populations. Oecologia 61 : 334 –336.

Weiner J , Thomas SC. 1986 . Size variability and competition in plant monocultures. Oikos 47 : 211 –222.

Weiner J , Griepentrog HW, Kristensen L. 2001 . Suppression of weeds by spring wheat Triticum aestivum increases with crop density and spatial uniformity. Journal of Applied Ecology 38 : 784 –790.

Westoby M . 1982 . Frequency distributions of plant size during competitive growth of stands: the operation of distribution‐modifying functions. Annals of Botany 50 : 733 –735.

Wilkerson GG , Jones JW, Coble HD, Gunsolus JL. 1990 . SOYWEED: a simulation model of soybean and common cocklebur growth and competition. Agronomy Journal 85 : 840 –843.

Wilkerson GG , Wiles LJ, Bennet AC. 2002 . Weed management decision models: pitfalls, perceptions, and possibilities of the economic threshold approach. Weed Science 50 : 411 –424.

Wyszomirski T , Wyszomirska I, Jarzyna I. 1999 . Simple mechanisms of size distribution dynamics in crowded and uncrowded virtual monocultures. Ecological Modelling 115 : 253 –273.

Yoda K , Kira T, Ogawa H, Hozumi K. 1963 . Self‐thinning in overcrowded pure stands under cultivated and natural conditions (intraspecific competition among higher plants XI). Journal of Biology, Osaka City University 14 : 107 –129.

Author notes

1School of Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK, 2Rothamsted Research, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, UK, 3Schools of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK and 4Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1095-8290
• Print ISSN 0305-7364
• Copyright © 2024 Annals of Botany Company
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.