Role of tolerance to resource demand - supply mismatch in a model of annual plants

  • Michel Droz Department of Theoretical Physics, University of Genèva, 1211 Genève 4, Switzerland
  • Andrzej Pękalski Institute of Theoretical Physics, University of Wrocław, pl. M. Borna 9, 50-203 Wroc ław, Poland

Abstract

We propose and discuss a simulation model of annual plants competing for a single resource. Plants are characterised by their tolerance to a surplus of this resource and the maximum number of seeds a plant can produce in a year. Interaction among plants is reduced to blocking a part of the resource by the plant’s nearest neighbours. Spatial and temporal conditions are homogeneous. There are no trade-off mechanisms nor immigrants. Plants may suffer from both a lack and too much of the resource. We consider two systems - plants of one type (target plants) and a mixture of two types, where the second type differs from the target ones only by the tolerance to surplus of the resource. We show how the life cycle of a plant depends on its tolerance, on supply of the resource and on how it is affected by the presence of the second type of annuals. We demonstrate that even in such a simple system coexistence of the two species is possible, and we determine the conditions for this. We present also a mean field type approach to the problem, showing that the results from simulations and mean field are quite similar. However the mean field approach cannot answer questions concerning spatial arrangement of plants, like possible formation of niches for different types of plant.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Chesson P. Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 2000;31:343–366.

[2] Levins R, Culver D. Regional coexistence of species and competition between rare species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 1971;6:1246– 1248.

[3] Tilman D. Competition and biodiversity in spatially structured habitats. Ecology 1994;75:2–16. DOI: 10.2307/1939377

[4] Holmes E, Wilson H. Running from trouble: long distance dispersal and the competitive coexistence of inferior species. American Naturalist 1998;151:578– 586. DOI:10.1086/286143

[5] Yu D, Wilson H. The competition-colonization trade-off is dead; long live the competition-colonization trade-off. The American Naturalist 2001;158:49–63.

[6] Coomes D, Rees M, Turnbull L, Ratcliffe S. On the mechanisms of coexistence among annual-plant species, using neighborhood techniques and simulation models. Plant Ecology 2002;163:23–39. DOI: 10.1086/286143

[7] Tilman D. The importance of the mechanisms of interspecific competition. American Naturalist 1987;128:769–774. DOI:10.1086/286143

[8] Pacala S. Neighborhood models of plant population dynamics. 2. multi-species models of annuals. Theoretical Population Biology 1986;29(2):262–292.

[9] Roxburgh S, Shea K, Wilson J. The intermediate disturbance hypothesis: patch dynamics and mechanisms of species coexistence. Ecology 2004;85(2):359–371. DOI: 1890/03-0266

[10] Miller A, Reilly D, Bauman S, Shea K. Interactions between frequency and size of disturbance affect competitive outcomes. Ecological Research 2012;27(4):783–791. DOI: 10.1007/s11284-012-054-4

[11] Seifan M, Seifan T, Jeltsch F, Tielbörger K. Combined disturbances and the role of their spatial and temporal properties in shaping community structure. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 2012;14(3):217– 229.

[12] Muller-Landau H C. The tolerance-fecundity trade-off and the maintenance of diversity in seed size. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2010;107(9):4242–4247.

[13] Goldberg D, Fleetwood L. Competitive effect and response in four annual plants. Journal of Ecology 1987;73(4):1131–1143. DOI: 10.2307/2260318

[14] Grime J. Evidence for the existence of three primary strategies in plants and its relevance to ecological and evolutionary theory. American Naturalist 1977;111:1169–1194.

[15] Keddy P, Shipley B. Competitive hierarchies in herbaceous plant communities. Oikos 1989;54:234–241. DOI: 10.1086/286143

[16] Tilman D. Mechanisms of plant competition for nutrients: the elements of a predictive theory of competition. Perspectives on Plant Competition 1990;117–141.

[17] Connolly J, Wayne P, Bazzaz F. Interspecific competition in plants: how well do current methods answer fundamental questions? American Naturalist 2001;157(2):107–125. DOI: 10.1086/318631

[18] Hickman J. Energy allocation and niche differentiation in four co-existing annual species of polygonum in western north America. Journal of Ecology 1977;65:317–326. DOI: 10.2307/2259080

[19] Reynolds D. Populational dynamics of three annual species of alpine plants in the rocky mountains. Oecologia 1984;62(2):250–255.

[20] Schenk H. Root competition: beyond resource depletion. Journal of Ecology 2006;94(4):725–739. DOI: 10.111/j.1365-2745.2006.01124.x

[21] Shirley H. The influence of light intensity and light quality upon the growth of plants. American Journal of Botany 1929;16:354–390.

[22] Chesson P, Warner R. Environmental variability promotes coexistence in lottery competitive systems. American Naturalist 1981;117(6):923–943.

[23] Evans G. The quantitative analysis of plant growth Vol 1. Univ of California Press; 1972

[24] Levin S. Community equilibria and stability, and an extension of the competitive exclusion principle. American Naturalist 1970;104:413–423. DOI: 10.1086/28.2676

[25] Tilman D. Resource competition and community structure. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey; 1982

[26] Weigelt A, Jolliffe P. Indices of plant competition. Journal of Ecology 2003;91(5):707–720. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2745.2003.00805.x

[27] Grace J. On the measurement of plant competition intensity. Ecology 1995;76:305–308. DOI: 10.2307/1940651

[28] Durrett R, Levin S. The importance of being discrete (and spatial). Theoretical Population Biology 1994;46(3):363–394.

[29] Letten A D, Ku P J, Fukami T. Linking modern coexistence theory and contemporary niche theory. Ecological Monographs 2017;87(2):161-177

[30] Stein A, Gerstner K, Kreft H. Environmental heterogeneity as a universal driver of species richness across taxa, biomes and spatial scales. Ecology Letters 2014;17(7):866–880. DOI: 10.1111/ele.12277

[31] Dıàz-Sierra R, Zavala M, Rietkerk M. Positive interactions, discontinuous transitions and species coexistence in plant communities. Theoretical Population Biology 2010;77(2):131–144. DOI: 10.1016/j.tpb.2009.12.001

[32] Kącki Z, Pękalski A. The impact of competition and litter accumulation on germination success in a model of annual plants. Physica A 2011;390:2520– 2530. DOI: 10.1016/j.physa.2011.03.014

[33] Pękalski A, Szwabiński J. Dynamics of three types of annual plants competing for water and light. Physica A 2013;392:710–721. DOI: 10.1016/physa.2012.09.029

[34] Droz M, Pękalski A. Model of annual plants dynamics with facilitation and competition. Journal of Theoretical Biology 2013;335:1–12. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2013.06.010
Published
2017-11-29
How to Cite
DROZ, Michel; PĘKALSKI, Andrzej. Role of tolerance to resource demand - supply mismatch in a model of annual plants. Plant Science Today, [S.l.], v. 4, n. 4, p. 191-201, nov. 2017. ISSN 2348-1900. Available at: <http://horizonepublishing.com/journals/index.php/PST/article/view/332>. Date accessed: 17 dec. 2017. doi: https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.2017.4.4.332.
Section
Research Articles