Plant interference and trial designs to study it in a glasshouse: a review

Abstract

Silvicultural approaches at forest plantations with wider initial tree spacing have created potential for increased understory vegetation growth in response to increased light and greater nutrient resources. In consequence understory vegetation can fill a more important role in forest ecosystems, especially in interactions (competition or facilitation) between understorey vegetation and forests trees that might affect tree growth and nutrition. Considerable research has been carried out on plant interference. However, the experimental designs used in these studies vary from one study to another, and from species to species depending on the aims, objectives and practicalities of the studies. Thus there is no optimum design for competition experiments. This review discusses designs available in studying plant interferences in a glasshouse, particularly the effects of below-ground interaction of understorey vegetation and forest trees.

Keywords

Plant interference / Experimental techniques / Below-ground interaction

References

[1] Austin MP, Groves RH, Fresco LMF, Kaye PE. Relative growth of six thistle species along a nutrient gradient with multispecies competition. J Ecol, 1985, 73: 667-684.

[2] Barbour MG, Burk JH, Pitts WD. Terrestrial plant ecology, 1987 2 Menlo Park: Benjamin/Cummings Publishing, 294.

[3] Belcher JW, Keddy PA, Twolan-Strutt L. Root and shoot competition intensity along a soil depth gradient. J Ecol, 1995, 83: 673-682.

[4] Binkley D, Giardina C, Bashkin MA. Soil phosphorus pools and supply under the influence of Eucalyptus saligna and nitrogen-fixing Albizia falcataria. For Ecol Manage, 2000, 128: 241-247.

[5] Bormann BT, DeBell DS. Nitrogen content and other soil properties related to age of red alder stands. Soil Sci Soc Am J, 1981, 45: 428-432.

[6] Brockerhoff EG, Jactel H, Parrotta JA, Quine CP, Sayer J. Plantation forests and biodiversity: oxymoron or opportunity?. Biodivers Conserv, 2008, 17: 925-951.

[7] Burkes CE, Will RE, Barron-Gafford GA, Teskey RO, Shiver B. Biomass partitioning and growth efficiency of intensively managed Pinus taeda and Pinus elliotii stands of different planting densities. For Sci, 2003, 49: 224-234.

[8] Callaway RM. Positive interactions among plants. Bot Rev, 1995, 61: 306-349.

[9] Clinton PW, Frampton CM, Mead DJ. Modelling competitive pasture effects on nutrient uptake by Pinus radiata. NZ J For Sci, 1994, 24: 268-278.

[10] Condron LM, Davis MR, Newman RH, Cornforth S. Influence of conifers on the forms of phosphorus in selected New Zealand grassland soils. Biol Fertil Soils, 1996, 21: 37-42.

[11] Craine JM, Dybzinski R. Mechanisms of plant competition for nutrients, water and light. Funct Ecol, 2013, 27: 833-840.

[12] Davis MR, Lang MH. Increased nutrient availability in topsoils under conifers in the South Island high country. NZ J For Sci, 1991, 21: 165-179.

[13] DeAngelis DL, Post WM, Travis CC (1986) Positive feedback in natural systems. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, p 290

[14] Donald CM. The interaction of competition for light and for nutrients. Aust J Agric Res, 1958, 9(4): 421-435.

[15] Firbank LG, Watkinson AR. Grace JB, Tilman D. On the effects of competition: from monocultures to mixtures. Perspectives on plant competition. 1990, London: Academic Press, 165 192

[16] Folkard PJ, Fraser LH, Carlyle CN, Tucker RE. Forage production potential in a ponderosa pine stand: effects of tree spacing on rough fescue and understorey plants after 45 years. J Ecosyst Manage, 2012, 13(3): 1-14.

[17] Forrester DI, Bauhus J, Cowie AL, Vanclay JK. Mixed-species plantations of Eucalyptus with nitrogen fixing trees. For Ecol Manage, 2006, 233: 211-230.

[18] Forrester DI, Cowie AL, Bauhus J, Wood J, Forrester RI. Effects of changing the supply of nitrogen and phosphorus on growth and interactions between Eucalyptus globulus 25 and Acacia mearnsii in a pot trial. Plant Soil, 2006, 280: 267-277.

[19] Freckleton RP, Watkinson AR. The mis-measurement of plant competition. Funct Ecol, 1999, 13: 285-287.

[20] Freckleton RP, Watkinson AR. Design for greenhouse studies of interactions between plants: an analytical perspective. J Ecol, 2000, 88: 386-391.

[21] Gadgil RL, Charlton JFL, Sandberg AM, Allen PJ. Establishment of selected legumes in a mid-rotation Pinus radiata plantation. NZ J For Sci, 1988, 18: 210-220.

[22] Gillespie AR, Pope PE. Alfalfa N₂-fixation enhances the phosphorus uptake of walnut in interplantings. Plant Soil, 1989, 113: 291-293.

[23] Grace JB. The effects of plant age on the ability to predict mixture performance from monoculture growth. J Ecol, 1988, 76: 152-156.

[24] Hall RL. Analysis of the nature of interference between plants of different species. I. Concept and extension of the de Wit analysis to examine effects. Aust J Agric Res, 1974, 25: 739-747.

[25] Hart SA, Chen HYH. Fire, logging, and overstory affect understory abundance, diversity, and composition in boreal forest. Ecol Monogr, 2008, 78: 123-140.

[26] Hunter AF, Aarssen LW. Plants helping plants. New evidence indicates that beneficence is important in vegetation. Bioscience, 1988, 38: 34-40.

[27] Joffre R, Rambal S. Soil water improvement by trees in the rangelands of southern Spain. Oecologia Plantarum, 1988, 9: 405-422.

[28] Jose S, Ranasinghe S, Ramsey CL. Longleaf pine (Pinus palustris P. Mill.) restoration using herbicides: overstory and understory vegetation responses on a coastal plain flatwoods site in Florida, U.S.A. Restor Ecol, 2010, 18(2): 244-251.

[29] Kikvidze Z, Armas C, Pugnaire FI. The effect of initial biomass in manipulative experiments on plants. Funct Ecol, 2005, 20: 1-3.

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

[31] Mason EG, Milne PG. Effects of weed control, fertilization, and soil cultivation on the growth of Pinus radiata at midrotation in Canterbury, New Zealand. Can J For Res, 1999, 29: 985-992.

[32] Mead DJ. Opportunities for increasing plantation productivity. How much? How quickly? How realistic?. Biomass Bioenergy, 2005, 28: 249-266.

[33] Mead DJ. Kellimore LR. Results of 16 years of study in a temperate silvopastoral experiment with Pinus radiata in New Zealand. Handbook on agroforestry: management practices and environmental impact. 2010, New York: Nova Science Publishers, 225 249

[34] Miller TE. Direct and indirect species interactions in an early old-field plant community. Am Nat, 1994, 143: 1007-1025.

[35] Montagnini F. Accumulation in above-ground biomass and soil storage of mineral nutrients in pure and mixed plantations in a humid tropical lowland. For Ecol Manage, 2000, 134: 257-270.

[36] Nambiar EKS, Zed PG. Influence of weeds on the water potential, nutrient content and growth of young radiata pine. Aust For Res, 1980, 10: 279-288.

[37] Newman EI, Rovira AD. Allelopathy among some British grassland species. J Ecol, 1975, 63: 727-737.

[38] Nye PH, Tinker PB. Solute movement in the soil-root system. 1977, Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications p 219

[39] Pannel CA (1993) The influence of phosphorus supply on below-ground interferences between browntop and white clover. PhD Thesis. Massey University, New Zealand, p 219

[40] Payn TW, Skinner MF, Hill RB, Thorn AJ, Scott J, Downs S, Chapman H. Scaling up or scaling down: the use of foliage and soil information for optimising the phosphate nutrition of radiata pine. For Ecol Manage, 2000, 138: 79-89.

[41] Radosevich S, Holt J, Ghersa C. Association of weeds and crops. Weed ecology: implication for management, 1997 2 New York: Wiley, 589.

[42] Radosevich SR, Holt JS, Ghersa CM. Ecology of weeds and invasive plants: relationship to agriculture and natural resource management, 2007 3 New York: Wiley, 472

[43] Richards JH, Caldwell MM. Hydraulic lift: substantial nocturnal water transport between soil layers by Artemisia tridentata roots. Oecologia, 1987, 73: 486-489.

[44] Richardson B, Vanner A, Davenhill N, Balneaves J, Miller K, Ray J. Interspecific competition between Pinus radiata and some common weed species—first-year results. NZ J For Sci, 1993, 23(2): 179-193.

[45] Richardson B, Vanner A, Ray J, Davenhill N, Coker G. Mechanisms of Pinus radiata growth suppression by some common forest weed species. NZ J For Sci, 1996, 26(3): 421-437.

[46] Richardson B, Whitehead D, McCracken IJ. Root-zone water storage and growth of Pinus radiata in the presence of a broom understorey. NZ J For Sci, 2002, 32(2): 208-220.

[47] Richardson B, Watt MS, Mason EG, Kriticos DJ. Advances in modelling and decision support systems for vegetation management in young forest plantations. Forestry, 2006, 79: 29-42.

[48] Rivaie AA. Growth response of broom (Cytisus scoparius) growing with and without radiata pine (Pinus radiata) seedlings to different P levels in soil. J For Res, 2011, 22(4): 597-602.

[49] Rivaie AA. The effects of understory vegetation on P availability in Pinus radiata forest stands: a review. J For Res, 2014, 25(3): 489-500.

[50] Rivaie AA, Tillman RW. Phosphorus fertiliser induced changes in the soil plant-available P, the P nutrition and the growth of Pinus radiata seedlings grown in association with understory. J For Res, 2010, 21(2): 129-139.

[51] Rubilar R, Blevins L, Toro J, Vita A, Muñoz F. Early response of Pinus radiata plantations to weed control and fertilization on metamorphic soils of the Coastal Range, Maule Region, Chile. Bosque, 2008, 29: 74-78.

[52] Scott JT, Condron LM. Short term effects of radiata pine and selected pasture species on soil organic phosphorus mineralisation. Plant Soil, 2004, 266: 153-163.

[53] Silvertown JW, Doust JL. Introduction to plant population biology, 1993 3 Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publication, 210.

[54] Snaydon RW. Replacement or additive designs for competition studies. J Appl Ecol, 1991, 28: 930-946.

[55] Strong DR, Simberloff D, Abele LG, Thistle AB. Ecological communities: conceptual issues and the evidence. 1984, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 613.

[56] Tilman D. Grace JB, Tilman D. Mechanisms of plant competition for nutrients: The elements of predictive theory of competition. Perspective of plant competition. 1990, London: Academic Press, 117 141

[57] Twolan-Strutt L, Keddy PA. Above- and below-ground competition intensity in two contrasting wetland plant communities. Ecology, 1996, 77: 259-270.

[58] Vandermeer JH. The ecology of intercropping. 1989, Cambridge: Cambrige University Press, 237

[59] Warren JF, Lill WJ. The influence of aerial shields on plant growth environments in competition experiments. Ann Bot, 1975, 39: 1141-1142.

[60] Watt MS, Whitehead D, Mason EG, Richardson B, Kimberley MO. The influence of weed competition for light and water on growth and dry matter partitioning of young Pinus radiata, at a dryland site. For Ecol Manage, 2003, 183: 363-376.

[61] Watt MS, Whitehead D, Richardson B, Mason EG, Leckie AC. Modelling the influence of weed competition on the growth of for light and water on growth of young Pinus radiata at a dryland site. For Ecol Manage, 2003, 178: 271-286.

[62] Zhang F, Li L. Using competitive and facilitative interactions in intercropping systems enhances crop productivity and nutrient-use efficiency. Plant Soil, 2003, 248: 305-312.

[63] Zou X, Binkley D, Caldwell BA. Effects of dinitrogen-fixing trees on phosphorus biogeochemical cycling in contrasting forests. Soil Sci Am J, 1995, 59: 1452-1458.

[64] Zou CB, Breshears DD, Newman BD, Wilcox BP, Gard MO, Rich PM. Soil water dynamics under low- versus high- ponderosa pine tree density: ecohydrological functioning and restoration implications. Ecohydrology, 2008, 1: 309-315.