Resource Limitation in Plants--An Economic Analogy

Bloom, A.

doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.16.1.363

Cited by 720 publications

(924 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

824

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Net primary production (Field et al, 1995) and GPP (Goetz and Prince, 1999) are basically integrators of resource availability with plant processes tending toward making all resources equally limiting (Bloom et al, 1985). In this study, the most limiting factor was water; in reaction to water stress, plants decreased another resource, absorbed light, by decreasing Chl and making absorbed light also limiting.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

Efficiency of chlorophyll in gross primary productivity: A proof of concept and application in crops

Gitelson

Viña

et al. 2016

Journal of Plant Physiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

Efficiency of chlorophyll in gross primary productivity: A proof of concept and application in crops

Gitelson

Viña

et al. 2016

Journal of Plant Physiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, in plant communities where coverage is sparse, there is no advantage in growing tall by allocating more to stems. Structural costs associated with increasing leaf height are not recouped with greater energy capture, resulting in an overall loss of photosynthetic advantage (Givnish 1982;Bloom et al 1985). The reduced allocation to stems by plants in farmed and logged stands was therefore consistent with the lower understorey coverage in these areas.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Previous land use alters plant allocation and growth in forest herbs

Fraterrigo¹,

Turner²,

Pearson³

2005

J Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary1 Former human practices can persistently influence forest ecosystems, particularly by altering the distribution and abundance of vegetation. Previous research has focused on the role of colonization success in governing plant community patterns in abandoned forests, but few studies have explored how changes in the performance of adult plants may contribute to changes in plant populations. 2 We examined patterns of biomass allocation and growth of 12 herbaceous plant species in southern Appalachian forest stands that have developed after agricultural abandonment or logging at least 55 years ago, to determine whether plant performance varied with land-use history. Soil nutrient availability and canopy closure were also investigated. 3 Adult plant biomass allocation varied appreciably among stands with different histories. Herbs in farmed stands generally allocated the most to leaves and the least to stems, while reference stands showed the opposite pattern. Plants in previously farmed sites had the highest rate of growth, although we observed considerable interspecific variation in plant performance. Stem allocation and relative growth rate were positively correlated in reference stands, but not in farmed or logged stands. Similarly, the growth of plants was clearly associated with soil nutrient concentration in reference stands but not in farmed or logged stands. 4 Differences in understorey density and soil nutrient availability may account for the observed patterns. Total herbaceous cover was appreciably lower in farmed and logged stands (58% and 51%) than in reference stands (78%), and soil phosphorus was higher in farmed stands than in logged and reference stands. Thus, competition for light and nutrients may be lower in farmed and logged stands than in reference stands, despite there being no difference in canopy closure with land-use history. 5 Overall, these results suggest that land-use history may influence environmental variables in ways that can enhance the performance of some herbaceous species. However, not all species may respond similarly to these changes.

show abstract

“…The different ways in which plants react to this uneven distribution of growth factors is the cause of variation in size among individuals (Bloom et al 1985), but in extreme cases self-thinning is possible as well (Firbank and Watkinson 1990). Even though there are differences in size among individuals before competition for growth factors begins, competition tends to augment or enhance these differences (Spitters 1984, Spitters andKramer 1986), which results in competitive hierachies (Keddy 1990 (Harper 1977, Vandermeer 1989.…”

Section: Definition Of Mixturesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Even though there are differences in size among individuals before competition for growth factors begins, competition tends to augment or enhance these differences (Spitters 1984, Spitters andKramer 1986), which results in competitive hierachies (Keddy 1990 (Harper 1977, Vandermeer 1989. It is rather likely that all the growth factors will limit the growth of plants, since the plant responds homeostatically to resource imbalance by allocating new biomass to acquisition of the resources that most strongly limit growth (Mooney 1972, Thornley 1972, Bloom et. al.…”

Section: Definition Of Mixturesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to Bloom et al (1985), allocation is adjusted within roots or shoots in response to environmental stress so as to maximize efficiency for capturing the most limiting resource. In addition to differences in root vs. shoot allocation, also differences in leaf structure could lead to a tradeoff between responsiveness to increased soil nutrients and increased solar radiation (Horn 1971, Mooney andGulmon 1979).…”

Section: Factors Affecting Competition Between Components and Competimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Competition and yield advantage in barley-barley and barley-oats mixtures

Jokinen¹

1991

AFSci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Competition and yield advantage in barley varietal mixtures and in barley-oats mixtures were investigated. The trials were based on replacement series, but in a few cases the overall density of the stand was varied on the basis of an addition series. Both models of competition, one based on the de Wit model and the other upon a linear regression model, agreed as to which component was the dominant and which was the subordinate in the mixture. The competition coefficients from regression analyses depicted competition between components better in a dense than in a sparse stand. The competitive ability of a genotype did not depend directly upon individual characters of the genotype, such as rate of initial development, earliness, culm height, tillering capacity or grain yield in monoculture (adaptation), A good combination of characters from the viewpoint of competition was provided by the barley cv. Arra with its rapid initial development and rapid culm growth (earliness), the variety being dominant irrespective of number of components in the mixture, stand density, level of nitrogen fertilization or growing season. This suggests that competitive relations and distribution of resources within a mixture are determined at an early stage in the growing period. In other cases the competitive ability of a genotype varied from one environment to another with the competitive relations between components being inconsistent. The dominance of an aggressor usually increased with increasing nitrogen fertilization especially when the total density of the stand was high. As a rule, competition affected all the components of yield with the kernel weight being least affected. The grain yield of varietal mixtures did not differ from the yield of the highest yielding component grown alone, i.e., mixtures did not over yield. The relative yield total of varietal mixtures was higher at low (RYT > 1) than at optimal densities (RYT =1). Also the relative yield total was higher under conditions where the nitrogen fertilization was not optimal. The results of a varietal trial repeated during three successive years indicated that the relative yield total of a given mixture varied from one growing season to another, fluctuating around unity. Thus highly adapted barley varieties appear to compete for the same resources, and the grain yield advantage of such mixtures is marginal. The results of the barley-oats mixture trials revealed that the mixture may over yield. The relative yield totals of barley-oats mixtures were usually equal to or greater than unity the latter suggesting that the mixtures of barley and oats may use resources more efficiently than monocultures, and some grain yield advantage could be achieved with such mixtures. The protein yield of the barley-oats mixtures did not differ from the yield of the highest yielding component grown alone. The ratio of actual and expected protein yield and the relative protein yield total were usually slightly greater than one. The grain yields of mixtures were not consistently more stable than monocultures as determined by the coefficient of variation.

show abstract

Resource Limitation in Plants--An Economic Analogy

Cited by 720 publications

References 0 publications

Efficiency of chlorophyll in gross primary productivity: A proof of concept and application in crops

Efficiency of chlorophyll in gross primary productivity: A proof of concept and application in crops

Previous land use alters plant allocation and growth in forest herbs

Competition and yield advantage in barley-barley and barley-oats mixtures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About