Download PDF
Plant Biol (Stuttg) 2006; 8(4): 503-514
DOI: 10.1055/s-2006-923979
Research Paper

Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart KG · New York

Analysis of Competition Effects in Mono- and Mixed Cultures of Juvenile Beech and Spruce by Means of the Plant Growth Simulation Model PLATHO

S. Gayler1 , T. E. E. Grams2 , A. R. Kozovits2 , 3 , J. B. Winkler1 , G. Luedemann2 , E. Priesack1
  • 1Institute of Soil Ecology, GSF - National Research Center for Environment and Health, Ingolstädter Landstraße 1, 85764 Neuherberg, Germany
  • 2Ecophysiology of Plants, Department of Ecology, Technische Universität München, Am Hochanger 13, 85354 Freising-Weihenstephan, Germany
  • 3Present address: Departamento de Ecologia, Universidade de Brasília, caixa postal 04457, Brasília-DF, 70919-970, Brazil
Further Information

Publication History

Received: October 4, 2005

Accepted: February 8, 2006

Publication Date:
11 May 2006 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Inter- and intra-specific competition between plants for external resources is a critical process for plant growth in natural and managed ecosystems. We present a new approach to simulate competition for the resources light, water, and nitrogen between individual plants within a canopy. This approach was incorporated in a process-oriented plant growth simulation model. The concept of modelling competition is based on competition coefficients calculated from the overlap of occupied crown and soil volumes of each plant individual with the occupied volumes of its four nearest neighbours. The model was parameterised with data from a two-year phytotron experiment with juvenile beech and spruce trees growing in mono- and mixed cultures. For testing the model, an independent data set from this experiment and data from a second phytotron experiment with mixed cultures were used. The model was applied to analyse the consequences of start conditions and plant density on plant-plant competition. In both experiments, spruce dominated beech in mixed cultures. Based on model simulations, we postulate a large influence of start conditions and stand density on the outcome of the competition between the species. When both species have similar heights at the time of canopy closure, the model suggests a greater morphological plasticity of beech compared with spruce to be the crucial mechanism for competitiveness in mixed canopies. Similar to the experiment, in the model greater plasticity was a disadvantage for beech leading to it being outcompeted by the more persistent spruce.

Key words

Fagus sylvatica - Picea abies - plant density - competitiveness - competition intensity - plasticity.

References

  • 1 Adiku S. G. K., Braddock R. D., Rose C. W.. Simulating root growth dynamics.  Environmental Software. (1996);  11 99-103
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Aerts R.. Interspecific competition in natural plant communities: mechanisms, trade-offs and plant-soil feedbacks.  Journal of Experimental Botany. (1999);  50 29-37
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Baldioli M., Priesack E., Schaaf T., Sperr C., Wang E.. Expert-N, ein Baukasten zur Simulation der Stickstoffdynamik in Boden und Pflanze. Version 1.0, Benutzerhandbuch. Freising; Lehreinheit für Ackerbau und Informatik im Pflanzenbau, TU München, Selbstverlag (1995): 1-202
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Biondini M.. A three-dimensional spatial model for plant competition in an heterogeneous soil environment.  Ecological Modelling. (2001);  142 189-225
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Birch C. J., Andrieu B., Fournier C., Vos J., Room P.. Modelling kinetics of plant canopy architecture-concepts and applications.  European Journal of Agronomy. (2003);  19 519-533
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Bossel H.. TREEDYN3 forest simulation model.  Ecological Modelling. (1996);  90 187-227
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 von Caemmerer S., Farquhar G. D.. Some relationships between the biochemistry of photosynthesis and the gas exchange of leaves.  Planta. (1981);  153 376-387
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Eschenbach C.. Emergent properties modelled with the functional structural tree growth model ALMIS: computer experiments on resource gain and use.  Ecological Modelling. (2005);  186 470-488
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Farquhar G. D., von Caemmerer S., Berry J. A.. A biochemical model of photosynthetic CO2 assimilation in leaves of C3 species.  Planta. (1980);  149 78-90
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Garcia-Barrios L., Mayer-Foulkes D., Franco M., Urquijo-Vasquez G., Franco-Perez J.. Development and validation of a spatial explicit individual-based mixed crop growth model.  Bulletin of Mathematical Biology. (2001);  63 507-526
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Gayler S., Leser C., Priesack E., Treutter D.. Modelling the effect of environmental factors on the “trade-off” between growth and defensive compounds in young apple trees.  Trees. (2004);  18 363-371
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Gayler S., Priesack E.. PLATHO - documentation. http://www.sfb607.de/english/projects/c2/platho.pdf (2003)
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Gayler S., Wang E., Priesack E., Schaaf T., Maidl F.-X.. Modeling biomass growth, N-uptake and phenological development of potato crop.  Geoderma. (2002);  105 367-383
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Genard M., Baret F., Simon D.. A 3D peach canopy model used to evaluate the effect of tree architecture and density on photosynthesis at a range of scales.  Ecological Modelling. (2000);  128 197-209
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Grams T. E. E., Kozovits A. R., Reiter I. M., Winkler J. B., Sommerkorn M., Blaschke H., Häberle K.-H., Matyssek R.. Quantifying competitiveness in woody plants.  Plant Biology. (2002);  4 153-158
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Grant R.. Simulation of competition between barley and wild oats under different managements and climates.  Ecological Modelling. (1994);  71 269-287
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Grote R., Pretzsch H.. A model for individual tree development based on physiological processes.  Plant Biology. (2002);  4 167-180
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Hoagland D. R., Arnon D. I.. The water-culture method for growing plants without soil.  California Agricultural Experimental Station, Circular. (1950);  347 1-39
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Hodge A.. The plastic plant: root responses to heterogeneous supplies of nutrients.  New Phytologist. (2004);  162 9-24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Hoffmann F.. FAGUS, a model for growth and development of beech.  Ecological Modelling. (1995);  83 327-348
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Hutson J. L., Wagenet R. J.. LEACHM: Leaching estimation and chemistry model: a process-based model of water and solute movement, transformations, plant uptake and chemical reactions in the unsaturated zone. Version 3.0. Research Series No. 93-3. Ithaca, NY; Cornell University (1992)
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Ittersum M. K. V., Leffelaar P. A., Keulen H. V., Kropff M. J., Bastiaans L., Goudriaan J.. On approaches and applications of the Wageningen crop models.  European Journal of Agronomy. (2003);  18 201-234
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Janssen P. H. M.. Assessing sensitivities and uncertainties in models: a critical evaluation. Grasman, J. and Straten, G. V., ed. Predictability and Nonlinear Modelling in Natural Sciences and Economics. Dordrecht; Kluwer Academic Press (1994): 344-361
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Jones C. A., Kiniry J. R.. CERES-Maize. A Simulation Model of Maize Growth and Development. Texas; A & M University Press (1986): 1-194
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Kim D. S., Brain P., Marschall E. J. P., Caseley J. C.. Modelling herbicide dose and weed density effects on crop : weed competition.  Weed Research. (2002);  42 1-13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Kiniry J. R., Williams J. R., Gassman P. W., Debaeke P.. A general, process-oriented model for two competing plant species.  Transactions of the ASAE. (1992);  35 801-810
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Kozovits A. R., Matyssek R., Blaschke H., Göttlein A., Grams T. E. E.. Competition increasingly dominates the responsiveness of juvenile beech and spruce to elevated CO2 and O3 levels throughout two subsequent growing seasons.  Global Change Biology. (2005 a);  11 1387-1401
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Kozovits A. R., Matyssek R., Winkler J. B., Göttlein A., Blaschke H., Grams T. E. E.. Above-ground space sequestration determines competitive success in juvenile beech and spruce trees.  New Phytologist. (2005 b);  167 181-196
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Kropff M. J., van Laar H. H.. Modelling Crop-Weed Interactions. Wallingford, UK; CAB International (1993): 1-274
    Google Scholar
  • 30 Kropff M. J., Lotz L. A. P.. Empirical models for crop-weed interactions. Kropff, M. J. and van Laar, H. H., eds. Modelling Crop-Weed Interactions. Wallingford, UK; CAB International (1993): 9-24
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Kurth W.. Towards universality of growth grammars: models of Bell, Pagès, and Takenaka revisited.  Annals of Forest Science. (2000);  57 543-554
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Lafolie F., Bruckler L., Ozier-Lafontaine H., Toutnebize R., Mollier A.. Modelling soil-root water transport and competition for single and mixed crops.  Plant and Soil. (1999);  210 127-143
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Liu X., Kozovits A. R., Grams T. E. E., Blaschke H., Rennenberg H., Matyssek R.. Competition modifies effects of enhanced ozone/carbon dioxide concentrations on carbohydrate and biomass accumulation in juvenile Norway spruce and European beech.  Tree Physiology. (2004);  24 1045-1055
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Loague K., Green R. E.. Statistical and graphical methods for evaluating solute transport models: overview and application.  Journal of Contamant Hydrology. (1991);  7 51-73
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Luedemann G., Matyssek R., Fleischmann F., Grams T. E. E.. Acclimation to ozone affects, host/pathogen interaction, and competitiveness for nitrogen in juvenile Fagus sylvatica and Picea abies trees infested with Phytophthora citricola. .  Plant Biology. (2005);  7 640-649
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Matyssek R., Agerer R., Ernst D., Munch J. C., Osswald W., Pretzsch H., Priesack E., Schnyder H., Treutter D.. The plant's capacity in regulating resource demand.  Plant Biology. (2005);  7 560-580
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 McDonald A. J., Riha S. J.. Model of crop : weed competition applied to maize : abutilon theophrasti interactions. I. Model description and evaluation.  Weed Research. (1999);  39 355-369
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Monteith J. L.. Evaporation and surface temperature.  Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society. (1981);  107 1-27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Muth C. C., Bazzaz F. A.. Tree canopy displacement at forest gap edges.  Canadian Journal of Forest Research. (2002);  32 247-254
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Payer H.-D., Blodow P., Köfferlein M., Lippert M., Schmolke W., Seckmeyer G., Seidlitz H., Strube D., Thiel S.. Controlled environment chambers for experimental studies on plant responses to CO2 and interactions with pollutants. Schulze, E.-D. and Mooney, H. A., eds. Design and Execution of Experiments on CO2 Enrichment. Brussels; Commission European Communities (1993): 127-145
    Google Scholar
  • 41 Penning De Vries F. W. T., Jansen D. M., Berge H. F. M. T., Bakema A.. Simulation of ecophysiological processes of growth in several annual crops. Wageningen, The Netherlands; Pudoc (1989): 1-271
    Google Scholar
  • 42 Perttunen J., Sievänen R., Nikinmaa E.. LIGNUM: a model combining the structure and the functioning of trees.  Ecological Modelling. (1998);  108 189-198
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Poorter H.. Construction costs and payback time of biomass: a whole plant perspective. Roy, J. and Garnier, E., eds. A Whole Plant Perspective on Carbon-Nutrient Interactions. The Hague, The Netherlands; Academic Publishing (1994): 111-127
    Google Scholar
  • 44 Porté A., Bartelink H. H.. Modelling mixed forest growth: a review of models for forest management.  Ecological Modelling. (2002);  150 141-188
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Renton M., Kaitaniemi P., Hanan J.. Functional-structural plant modelling using a combination of architectural analysis, L-systems and a canonical model of function.  Ecological Modelling. (2005);  184 277-298
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Ritchie J. T., Godwin D. C., Otter-Nacke S.. CERES-WHEAT. A simulation model of wheat growth and development. College Station, TX, USA; A & M University Press (1987)
    Google Scholar
  • 47 Schippers P., Kropff M. J.. Competition for light and nitrogen among grassland species: a simulation analysis.  Functional Ecology. (2001);  15 155-164
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Schmid I.. The influence of soil type and interspecific competition on the fine root system of Norway spruce and European beech.  Basic and Applied Ecology. (2002);  3 339-346
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Simunek J., Huang K., Van Genuchten M. T.. The HYDRUS code for simulating the one-dimensional movement of water, heat, and multiple solutes in variably-saturated media. Version 6.0. Techn. Report 144, U.S. Salinity Laboratory, USDA, ARS. (1998)
    Google Scholar
  • 50 Stenger R., Priesack E., Barkle G., Sperr C.. Expert-N, a tool for simulating nitrogen and carbon dynamics in the soil-plant-atmosphere system. NZ Land Treatment Collective. Proceedings Technical Session: Modelling of Land Treatment Systems. New Plymouth, 14 - 15 Oct. (1999): 19-28
    Google Scholar
  • 51 Thornley J. H. M., Johnson I. R.. Plant and Crop Modelling. New York; Oxford University Press (1990): 1-669
    Google Scholar
  • 52 Villalobos F. J., Hall A. J.. OILCROP‐SUN V5.1. Technical documentation. http://nowlin.css.msu.edu/sunflower_doc/sunflower51.pdf (1989)
    Google Scholar
  • 53 Wang E.. Development of a Generic Process-Oriented Model for Simulation of Crop Growth. München; Herbert Utz Verlag Wissenschaft (1997): 1-195
    Google Scholar
  • 54 Wang E., Engel T.. Simulation of growth, water and nitrogen uptake of a wheat crop using the SPASS model.  Environmental Modelling and Software. (2002);  17 387-402
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Weiner J., Fishman L.. Competition and allometry in Kochia scoparia. .  Annals of Botany. (1994);  73 263-271
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Weiner J., Stoll P., Muller-Landau H., Jasentuliyana A.. The effect of density, spatial pattern and competitive symmetry on size variation in simulated plant populations.  The American Naturalist. (2001);  158 438-450
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Wilson B. J., Wright K. J.. Predicting the growth and competitive effects of annual weeds in wheat.  Weed Research. (1990);  30 201-211
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Wohlfahrt G., Bahn M., Tappeiner U., Cernusca A.. A multi-component, multi-species model of vegetation-atmosphere CO2 and energy exchange for mountain grasslands.  Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. (2001);  106 261-287
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

S. Gayler

Institute of Soil Ecology
GSF - National Research Center for Environment and Health

Ingolstädter Landstraße 1

85764 Neuherberg

Email: gayler@gsf.de

Editor: H. Rennenberg

      >