Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T07:48:07.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparison of Methods for Measuring Effects of Density and Proportion in Plant Competition Experiments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Mary Lynn Roush ,
Steven R. Radosevich ,
Robert G. Wagner ,
Bruce D. Maxwell  and
Terry D. Petersen
Mary Lynn Roush
Affiliation:
Dep. Forest Sci., Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR 97331
Steven R. Radosevich
Affiliation:
Dep. Forest Sci., Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR 97331
Robert G. Wagner
Affiliation:
Dep. Forest Sci., Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR 97331
Bruce D. Maxwell
Affiliation:
Dep. Forest Sci., Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR 97331
Terry D. Petersen
Affiliation:
Dep. Forest Sci., Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR 97331
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Three approaches to data analysis were compared to describe competitive interactions between wheat and Italian ryegrass. Replacement series were performed using the two species at total densities of 100, 200, and 400 plants/ m2, and separate monoculture experiments for each species at densities from 33 to 800 plants/m2. Approaches to data analysis included: 1) conventional analysis of replacement series experiments, 2) development of synthetic no-interaction responses from monoculture experiments for comparison with results from mixtures, and 3) responses of the reciprocal yield of individual plants to variation in densities of the two species. Wheat was the superior competitor to ryegrass; however, the three approaches varied in ability to quantify this competitive relationship. The conventional replacement series analysis was least sensitive in describing the influences of either density or proportion on the plant association. The synthetic no-interaction approach provided the most detailed analysis of the influence of proportion on the species interaction. The reciprocal yield approach provided the simplest and most sensitive analysis of the joint influences of density and proportion. The latter approach also provided the most quantitative analysis of the influence of density on the species interaction. Plant density and species proportion are important variables for interpreting the process of plant competition.

Keywords

Italian ryegrass, Lolium multiflorum Lam. ♯3 LOLMUwheat, Triticum aestivum L. ‘Stephens’NDI, niche differentiationAddition seriesreciprocal yield lawreplacement serieswheatTriticum aestivumLolium multiflorumLOLMU
Type
Special Topics
Information
Weed Science , Volume 37 , Issue 2 , March 1989 , pp. 268 - 275
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Baeumer, K., and de Wit, C. T. 1968. Competitive interference of plant species in monocultures and mixed stands. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 16:103–122.Google Scholar
2. Bleasdale, J.K.A. 1967. The relationship between the weight of a plant part and total weight as affected by plant density. J. Hortic. Sci. 42:51–58.Google Scholar
3. Connolly, J. 1986. On difficulties with replacement-series methodology in mixture experiments. J. Appl. Ecol. 23:125–137.Google Scholar
4. Hall, R. L. 1974. Analysis of the nature of interference between plants of different species. II. Nutrient relations in a Nandi Setaria and greenleaf Desmodium association with particular reference to potassium. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 25:749–756.Google Scholar
5. Hall, R. L. 1976. The analysis and significance of competitive and non-competitive interference between species. In Wilson, J. R., ed. Plant Relations in Pastures. C.S.I.R.O. Melbourne. Pages 163–174.Google Scholar
6. Harper, J. L. 1977. The Population Biology of Plants. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
7. Hozumi, K., Asahira, T., and Kira, T. 1956. Intraspecific competition among higher plants VI. Effect of some growth factors on the process of competition. J. Inst. Polytech., Osaka City. Univ. Ser. D7:15–33.Google Scholar
8. Inouye, R. and Schaffer, W. M. 1981. On the ecological meaning of ratio (DeWitt) diagrams in plant ecology. Ecology 62:1679–681.Google Scholar
9. Joliffe, P. A., Minjas, A. N., and Runeckles, V. C. 1984. A reinterpretation of yield relationships in replacement series experiments. J. Appl. Ecol. 21:227–243.Google Scholar
10. McGilchrist, C. A. and Trenbath, B. R. 1974. A revised analysis of mixed cropping experiments. Biometrics 27:659–671.Google Scholar
11. Shinozaki, K. and Kira, T. 1956. Intraspecific competition among higher plants VII. Logistic theory of the C-D effect. J. Inst. Polytech., Osaka City Univ. Ser. D7:35–72.Google Scholar
12. Spitters, C.J.T. 1983. An alternative approach to analysis of mixed cropping experiments. I. Estimation of competition effects. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 31:1–11.Google Scholar
13. Thomas, V. J. 1970. A mathematical approach to fitting parameters in a competition model. J. Appl. Ecol. 7:487–496.Google Scholar
14. Watkinson, A. R. 1980. Density-dependence in single-species populations of plants. J. Theor. Biol. 83:345–357.Google Scholar
15. Willey, R. W. and Heath, S. B. 1969. The quantitative relationships between plant population and crop yield. Adv. Agron. 21:281–321.Google Scholar
16. Wit, , de, C. T. 1960. On Competition. Versl. Landbouwk. D. Onderz. 66(8):1–82.Google Scholar
17. Wit, , de, C. T. and Van Den Bergh, J. P. 1965. Competition between herbage plants. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 13:212–221.Google Scholar