2002
DOI: 10.1111/j.1654-1103.2002.tb02018.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Relative competitive performance of 63 species of terrestrial herbaceous plants

Abstract: There is growing evidence that plant and animal species are arranged in hierarchies of relative competitive performance. More work is needed to determine which plant traits best predict relative competitive performance. We therefore measured relative competitive performance of 63 terrestrial herbaceous plant species using Trichostema brachiatum as a reference species (that is, phytometer or target species). The neighbour species came from a wide array of terrestrial vegetation types (e.g. rock barrens, alvars,… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

15
144
5
2

Year Published

2004
2004
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 171 publications
(166 citation statements)
references
References 71 publications
15
144
5
2
Order By: Relevance
“…We observed correlation coefficients of the same order as those recorded by Gaudet and Keddy [46] between plant traits and competitive ability with regard to 44 wetland plant species in the field (0.74). They were also similar to those observed by Keddy et al [41] between plant size and the predicted relative competitive performance of 63 pot-grown species of herbaceous plants, compared under two stress conditions (sufficient nutrients and water versus restricted space and nutrient availability, 0.74 and 0.69 respectively). This is further evidence of the suitability of accounting for biomass in breeding programs for Miscanthus.…”
Section: The Use Of Competition Effects With a Simple Variable To Measupporting
confidence: 75%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…We observed correlation coefficients of the same order as those recorded by Gaudet and Keddy [46] between plant traits and competitive ability with regard to 44 wetland plant species in the field (0.74). They were also similar to those observed by Keddy et al [41] between plant size and the predicted relative competitive performance of 63 pot-grown species of herbaceous plants, compared under two stress conditions (sufficient nutrients and water versus restricted space and nutrient availability, 0.74 and 0.69 respectively). This is further evidence of the suitability of accounting for biomass in breeding programs for Miscanthus.…”
Section: The Use Of Competition Effects With a Simple Variable To Measupporting
confidence: 75%
“…Under asymmetric competition, plants with strong aboveground development exert a disproportionately effect on smaller plants, and may reduce the growth of smaller ones [32]. Under symmetric competition, access to resources is proportional to size [41], and depends on the nutrient uptake capacity of roots and rhizomes. In most cases, competition for light is asymmetric, and competition for nutrients is symmetric.…”
Section: The Use Of Competition Effects With a Simple Variable To Meamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Various observations and experiments proved that the changes in the proportions of plants with these traits are characteristic for different successional series, including also abandoned grasslands [2,3,7,27,28]. The species of larger size, or taller and with larger leaves, have the advantage over small species in the competition for light [29,30], whereas the species with extended vegetative spread have a greater chance of penetrating into more closed vegetation. Tab.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This asymmetrical competition relationship might be attributable to the different growth forms of these algae. Competitive dominance is generally believed to be positively correlated with plant size, since a larger plant creates a larger depletion zone for resources, especially light (Grime 1977, Schmitt et al 1986, Keddy et al 2002, but see Olson & Lubchenco 1990and Worm & Chapman 1998 for exceptions). After 1 mo of treatment, E. compressa germlings were from 4 times (unenriched monocultures at 7°C) to >15 times (nutrient-enriched monocultures at 17°C) longer than those of Fucus spp.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%