Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Competition Coefficients (competition + coefficient)
Selected AbstractsPredicting competition coefficients for plant mixtures: reciprocity, transitivity and correlations with life-history traitsECOLOGY LETTERS, Issue 4 2001R.P. Freckleton There are few empirical or theoretical predictions of how per capita or per individual competition coefficients for pairs of plant species should relate to each other. In contrast, there are a considerable number of general hypotheses that predict competitive ability as a function of a range of ecological traits, together with a suite of increasingly sophisticated models for competitive interactions between plant species. We re-analyse a data set on competition between all pairwise combinations of seven species and show that competition coefficients relate strongly to differences between the maximum sizes, root allocation, emergence time and seed size of species. Regressions suggest that the best predictor of competition coefficients is the difference in the maximum size of species and that correlations of the other traits with the competition coefficients occur through effects on the maximum size. We also explore the patterns of association between coefficients across the competition matrix. We find significant evidence for coefficient reciprocity (inverse relationships between the interspecific coefficients for species pairs) and transitivity (numerically predictable hierarchies of competition between species) across competition matrices. These results therefore suggest simple null models for plant community structure when there is competition for resources. [source] Above- versus below-ground competitive effects and responses of a guild of temperate tree speciesJOURNAL OF ECOLOGY, Issue 1 2009K. David Coates Summary 1The neutral theory debate has highlighted the scarcity of robust empirical estimates of the magnitude of competitive effects and responses within guilds of co-occurring tree species. Our analysis quantifies the relative magnitude of all possible pairwise competitive interactions within a guild of nine co-occurring tree species in temperate forests of northern, interior British Columbia, and explicitly partitions the competitive effects of neighbours into the effects of shading versus the residual effects of ,crowding', assumed to reflect below-ground competition. 2Models that treated neighbours as equivalent in their competitive effects were the most parsimonious for the five species with the smallest sample sizes. For the remaining species (samples sizes of > 150 individuals), the best models estimated separate competition coefficients for all nine species of neighbours. We take this as evidence that species do indeed differ in their competitive effects, but that there can be a minimum sample size required to discriminate between them. 3There was a strong size-dependency in potential growth. Six species showed an optimal growth at a size between 5 and 20 cm diameter. Potential growth declined moderately to strongly as diameter increased. Sensitivity to crowding varied as a function of tree size for five of the nine species; however, this response was not consistent by tree species. 4The magnitude of reduction in growth due to crowding was greater on average than the reduction in growth due to shading, except for the two least shade tolerant conifers. Sensitivity to shading among the conifer species was correlated with their shade tolerance. 5The per capita effects of crowding by different species of neighbours varied widely. A large number of the estimated pairwise per capita competition coefficients were very low. The relative magnitude of the strength of intra- versus interspecific competition also varied widely among the tree species. 6Synthesis. Model selection techniques effectively separated above- and below-ground competition in complex forests, and allowed us to assess differences among species in competitive effects and responses. While below-ground effects were strong, they were due to proximity of neighbours from a very specific (and small) subset of strong competitors within the guild. Response to crowding varied with tree size but the nature of the relationship varied widely among the species. [source] Seed mass and the competition/colonization trade-off: competitive interactions and spatial patterns in a guild of annual plantsJOURNAL OF ECOLOGY, Issue 1 2004Lindsay A. Turnbull Summary 1We used neighbourhood modelling to estimate individual-level competition coefficients for seven annuals growing in limestone grassland over 2 years. We calculated the relative strength of intra- and interspecific competition and related this to differences in seed size and plant size between targets and neighbours. 2Significant differences in the impact of neighbours on each target species were observed in half the models fitted, allowing us to reject a null hypothesis of competitive equivalence. 3In one year we found that as the seed size or plant size of neighbours increased relative to targets, so did their competitive effect. Although this is consistent with the competition/colonization trade-off model the competitive interactions were not sufficiently asymmetric to allow coexistence. In a second year we found only weak interspecific competition and no relationship with plant or seed size. 4We found no overall relationship between competition coefficients and the degree of segregation, contradicting the spatial segregation hypothesis for coexistence. However, segregation was linked to differences in plant traits: when targets were smaller than neighbours the degree of segregation increased with relative neighbour size. 5Most species were positively associated with each other due to a shared preference for otherwise unvegetated patches. The degree of association was negatively correlated with differences in plant and seed size, particularly when interspecific competition was weak. This might reflect (i) decreasing overlap in microhabitat use with increasing trait divergence or (ii) density-dependent mortality. 6Seed size is a key trait within this group of species, determining both competitive and colonizing ability. The presence of such a competition/colonization trade-off undoubtedly stabilizes community dynamics although other mechanisms may also be at work. [source] | ||||||||||