Abstract
Plants are able to plastically respond to their ubiquitously heterogeneous environments; however, little is known about the conditions under which plants are expected to avoid or confront their neighbors in dense stands, where heterogeneity is self-generated by non-uniform growth and feedback between plant interactions and stand heterogeneity. We studied the role of plasticity for spatial pattern-formation and the resulting stand-level fitness of clonal plants, assuming variable types of plastic behavior. Specifically, the adaptive values of behavior ranging from pure avoidance, to neutral and pure confrontation were assessed using a simulation model of stands of clonally growing plants with varying capacity of plastic behavior. The results demonstrated significant effects of the type of competitive behavior on mean final densities of single-species stands at equilibrium. Density was the lowest and aggregation was the highest in stands of purely confrontational plants, and density was highest in stands of neutral and purely avoiding plants. When competing against a neutral photometer (i.e. non-plastic but otherwise identical plant), the best competitors were plants that avoided their neighbors in 0.33–0.50 of the cases and were neutral otherwise. Differences in adaptive values of individual behaviors depended both on the distance over which the environmental structure (i.e. local density) was perceived, and on overall density. Density-independent ramet mortality profoundly changed the effectiveness of competitive behaviors. Under high levels of mortality, avoidance was the most effective and confrontation the least effective behavior. The results indicate that individual-based behaviors might affect higher organizational levels, and that their reciprocal interactions with resource levels and patchiness, and responsiveness to density-independent mortality might generate higher-order feedbacks that intricately affect the fate of individual ramets and the patterning of whole stands and communities.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
The immediate environments of naturally growing plants are invariably heterogeneous in both space and time (Bradshaw 1965; Levins 1968; Sultan 1987; Hutchings and de Kroon 1994; Caldwell and Pearcy 1994). Environmental heterogeneity might result from biological interactions such as competition (e.g. Chesson et al. 2004, Novoplansky 2009), herbivory (Parker and Salzman 1985) and pathogens (Stuefer et al. 2004), or from abiotic factors such as resource patchiness (e.g. Wijesinghe and Hutchings 1997; Crick and Grime 1987; Farley and Fitter 1999; Hodge 2004) and physical stresses (e.g. Salzman and Parker 1985). Due to their limited motility, plants have acquired a wide array of deterministic and plastic adaptations to their ever-changing growth conditions (Bradshaw 1965; Levins 1968; Schlichting 1986; Sultan 1987; Schlichting and Pigliucci 1998; Trewavas 2003).
However, the adaptive value of phenotypic plasticity is limited by various environmental and developmental factors (Levins 1968; DeWitt et al. 1998). An important limitation is the time required for the execution of adaptive plastic changes, which may, under high levels of environmental heterogeneity, render plastic responses maladaptive by the time their products are fully functional (DeWitt et al. 1998). Therefore, natural selection is expected to promote the responsiveness to environmental cues that bear information regarding probable future growth conditions (Aphalo and Ballare 1995; Novoplansky 2009). Perhaps the best known example of plants’ ability to anticipated future growth conditions is their responsiveness to spectral red/far-red cues, which are strongly correlated with future levels of light competition (Smith 2000). In addition, plants have been demonstrated to respond to anticipatory signals related to herbivory (Kessler and Baldwin 2002), nutrient supply (Forde and Zhang 1998; Zhang and Forde 1998), physical stresses (Ackerson and Youngner 1975; Passioura 1988), and competition (Novoplansky 2009).
Under competition, plants are able to utilize different categories of competitive behaviors based on their expected adaptive values (Novoplansky 2009). Perhaps the least costly and typically most beneficial (in absolute terms) is competitive avoidance whereby plants or plant parts grow in ways that minimize competitive interactions with their neighbors. However, commonly plants may also benefit from active aggressive confrontation, or simply cannot avoid their neighbors and are thus bound to confront them. Under such conditions plants are selected to increase their dominance via maximizing resource uptake and allelopathy, which commonly result in competitive arms races and significant (absolute) costs (Cohen 1969; Novoplansky et al. 1990a; O’Brien et al. 2005). These interactions often generate size and vigor inequalities that are self-amplified by the increased ability of a few dominant individuals to preempt resources and suppress their weaker neighbors (Weiner et al. 2001). Additionally, smaller or competitively-weak plants are selected to increase their tolerance to lower resource levels (Valladares and Niinemets 2008; Chambers and Aarssen 2009; Novoplansky 2009).
Almost invariably, different parts of the same plant develop under variable availabilities of light, water, nutrients, and various stresses (Snow 1931; Drew 1975; Jones and Harper 1987; Salzman and Parker 1985; Went 1973). Due to their emphasized horizontal spreading, clonal plants are subjected to great spatial variation in competitive interactions (Purves and Law 2002). The response of clonal plants to environmental heterogeneity has been studied extensively (Caraco and Kelly 1991; Hutchings and de Kroon 1994; Oborny and Cain 1997; Oborny and Kun 2001). It has been shown that the adaptive value of plastic responses to environmental heterogeneity is dependent on frequency, spatial arrangement, contrast and grain of favorable and poor patches. It has been suggested that under field conditions, plastic responsiveness might be relatively rare, mainly due to limited predictability of resource distributions and resolution mismatches between environmental heterogeneities and plant responsiveness (Oborny 1994a, b; Novoplansky 1996, Dong et al. 2002; de Kroon et al. 2009).
All existing studies, however, have been based on the assumption that environmental heterogeneity is external and independent from the effects of the responding plant on the environment. However, any realistic depiction of plant growth must take into account a non-uniform placement of plant organs and individuals in space and time due to developmental and competitive constraints on plant growth, and their key contributions to the heterogeneity experienced by the plant (e.g. Chesson et al. 2004, Novoplansky 2009). This is exemplified by the existence of different encroachment strategies such as phalanx (short internodes and dominant intra-clone interactions) vs. guerrilla (long internodes and weak direct intra-clone interactions); (Lovett-Doust 1981). Such self-imposed heterogeneities may further complicate growth responses through interactive feedbacks (e.g. Lafarge et al. 2005, Sheffer et al. 2007; Gilad et al. 2007) and are therefore likely to affect the adaptive values of individual response types in non-trivial ways.
The recursive and autocorrelated nature of their growth and spatial arrangement may potentially allow clonal plants to make accurate developmental decisions regarding future growth and branching that are correlated with anticipated types and levels of competition. Specifically, we hypothesize that plants are able to shift between avoidance and confrontation competition based on their anticipated adaptive value.
In the current paper, we examined the adaptive value of various types of competitive behaviors in an artificial system of clonal plants. Specifically, we examined the consequences of competitive avoidance, aggressive confrontation and lack of responsiveness (neutrality) in plant stands, where all environmental heterogeneity resulted from past growth and interactions (self-generated heterogeneity). This approach enabled studying the role of developmental feedbacks in quasi-realistic heterogeneous settings, and to specifically examine the potential significance of intrinsic feedbacks between developmental decisions and their effects on the spatial structure of the stand.
Because the adaptive value of any decision is critically dependent on the quality of the information it is based on, we examined how the adaptive values of different competitive behaviors are affected by the distance over which environmental information is perceived, relative to internode length (i.e. distance between the parent and offspring ramets). Further, we examined whether the adaptive values of the mentioned competitive behaviors varied with stand density, which we introduced by varying density-independent mortality.
To address these questions we employed a spatially explicit simulation model of plant growth (Herben and Suzuki 2001; Wildová et al. 2007; Herben and Novoplansky 2008). Growth decisions were modeled so clonal ramets were allowed to use information regarding the density and potential competitive structure of their neighborhood to determine the directions of new daughter ramets. These behaviors were examined in both single “species” stands, and in mixtures of responsive and neutral “species”.
Methods
The model
The model simulates vegetative growth of clonal plants, with nodes and their immediate internode as the basic modular growth units. The model runs on a continuous plane with toroidal boundaries. The simulation plane is homogeneous; any heterogeneity is generated by the ramets themselves. The model uses traits of ramet growth, allocation, competitive ability, and spacer (rhizome) architecture to simulate long-term population dynamics. For a detailed description of the model see Herben and Suzuki (2001); Wildová et al. (2007) and Herben and Novoplansky (2008).
For the sake of simplicity modeled ramets have fixed sizes. The ramets produce “resource” that is used for rhizome growth. The resource is a virtual representation of a limiting resource that is either gathered by the ramets from the environment (e.g. water, nutrients) or synthesized by it (photosynthate), the production of which is density-dependent. The rate of resource acquisition by a ramet is a function of competition with neighboring ramets; at each time step, the amount of resource produced within each ramet is constrained by the number of ramets in its neighborhood, to account for neighborhood competition. This amount can be positive or negative, the latter if the competitive effects of neighboring ramets is strong. All ramets within the local neighborhood, i.e. a circle with the focal ramet in its center and a radius of neighborhood size are taken into account. Neighborhood size, just as all other distance measures (internode length), are expressed in arbitrary units (size of the simulation plane = 1).
The resource is supplied to the node bearing the ramet. Resource levels at each node change according to resource acquisition by the ramet attached to that node (which in turn depends on habitat productivity, see Table 1), and its allocation to growth. Unused resource is held at the node and it may be used for further growth or branching at subsequent steps; no maintenance is modeled as pilot simulations have shown that the effects of maintenance are rather additive to the effects of productivity.
Rhizomes grow by adding nodes at terminal positions; the ramet at the original node dies whenever the spacer system grows; new ramet is then formed at the newly added terminal node (i.e. only replacement growth is modeled). Therefore, ramets are by definition, attached to all growing terminal nodes. New nodes are added to terminal nodes if the quantity of the resource at the existing terminal nodes is sufficient. The resource at the node is reduced once by the cost of the newly developed internode upon its addition. Whereas the fact of growth depends on the resource available at the node, the length and angle of new internodes are drawn from a gamma distribution with CV = 0.1 (internode length) or from a normal distribution with SD = 5º (branching angle) and are independent of the amount of resource of their rhizomes and the density of ramets or rhizomes in their neighborhood. New nodes form only when the mother nodes contain sufficient resource for their formation. After a new node is added, part of the resource content of the maternal node is transferred to the daughter node. Apart from this process, no resource translocation is implemented in the model. Positive resource levels means that the ramet maintains itself to the next step but when the resource balance is negative, the node bearing the ramet loses its capacity for further growth and dies.
Further, nodes are added to a rhizome by terminal branching (i.e. by adding two instead of one terminal node to a maternal node within a single time step). Branching takes place only if the available quantity of resource at that node is sufficient. Similarly to growth, branching angles are independent of resource content of the rhizome and its neighborhood.
Modeled plants vary in their capacity to respond to their environment when they branch. Before they branch, they scan density of other ramets in both left and right directions. This is done by projecting future direction over a specified distance (parameter “Searching distance”) to a point and counting ramets in the circle with the radius of neighborhood size around that point. This information is used to make a decision which direction to take using the branching plasticity parameter which determines the probability that the new branch will be placed in the direction of lower density. Accordingly, the plasticity parameter is 0 in plants that invariably branch in the direction of higher density (confrontational), 1 in plants that invariably branch in the direction of lower density (avoiding), and 0.5 in plants that are not responsive to the information about density heterogeneity.
When a branch-bearing node dies, the branch becomes independent and the rhizome fragments into two disconnected units.
Model parameterization and simulation experiments
The model was parameterized to represent a clonally-growing plant with ramets that had no ecologically relevant variation in size. The simulation plane was assumed to represent an area sufficiently large to cover reasonably large rhizome systems of the plant. Parameter values were selected to approximate values of previously studied stands of a clonal grass (e.g. Festuca rubra, Deschampsia flexuosa or Nardus stricta) of a temperate mountain short-turf grassland in an area of 0.25 × 0.25 m (Table 1, Herben and Suzuki 2001; Wildová et al. 2007).
Simulation experiments were run to test the effect of the branching plasticity parameter and its interactions with other relevant parameters on plant performance in equilibrium stands. The effects of different combinations and levels of plasticity parameter, searching distance, internode length, resource level and density-independent mortality were examined in the single- and two-species systems (values used are detailed in Table 1). Two types of simulation experiments were conducted:
-
(i)
Single species experiments. These experiments were initiated with 20 randomly distributed ramets and were run for 100 steps; pilot experiments showed this was sufficient to attain equilibrium in ramet density and architectural parameters. Data on ramet density, architectural parameters and spatial structure were collected after the end of each experiment. To calculate spatial autocorrelations, ramet densities were converted to grids of 100 × 100 cells and Moran’s I values were calculated for lags of 1–10 cells (Upton and Fingleton 1985). Because the neighborhood size was 0.05 of the simulation plane in all runs (Table 1), a lag of one cell approximately corresponded to 0.2 of the neighborhood size and thus the range of values used covers both smaller and larger ranges than the neighborhood size. At least two hundred replicate runs were used in each experiment.
-
(ii)
Two-species experiments. In these experiments, a plant with the tested value of the plasticity parameter was tested against a neutral “phytometric” plant, i.e. a plant with exactly the same values of all parameters except for the plasticity parameter, which was set to 0.5 to render it neutral. These experiments were initiated with 20 randomly distributed ramets of each plant and were run for 200 steps. Preliminary tests demonstrated the importance of longer runs to allow sufficient time for the effects of competition to occur. Pilot simulations showed that increasing the number of steps beyond 200 did not affect the qualitative behavior of the system.
Results
The plasticity parameter affected the mean final density of single-species stands at equilibrium. Confrontational plants had many fewer ramets than neutral plants and avoiding plants had slightly more ramets than neutral plants (Fig. 1). Confrontational plants also had slightly different architecture; they branched more than neutral and avoiding plants (Fig. 1).
Spatial structure of equilibrium stands was primarily determined by internode length and did not vary strongly with the plasticity parameter. There was a dominant positive spatial autocorrelation of ramet density over values of lag corresponding to internode length (Fig. 2, solid lines). Further, in short-internode plants, there was a pronounced drop in spatial autocorrelation of ramet densities to negative values in lags larger than internode length and smaller than the interaction distance, thus demonstrating the predominance of cluster size. However, the plasticity parameter did have some, albeit minor, effects on the fine-scale spatial structure of the stand. Densities of confrontational plants showed slightly greater aggregation than those of avoiding and neutral plants at shorter autocorrelation distances (Fig. 3).
The effect of the plasticity parameter on plant performance strongly interacted with the plant’s spatial growth parameters, internode length and searching distance (Fig. 4). The differences between plant behaviors were most pronounced when the values of these parameters matched: confrontational plants then invariably had the lowest performance, and in most cases, the avoiding plants performed slightly better than the neutral plants. The differences between plant behaviors were greater when both internode length and searching distance were smaller than the neighborhood size. When searching distance was much shorter than the internode length, essentially no significant differences could be found between the performances of the different plastic behaviors. In contrast, when the searching distance was greater than the internode length, the differences between the plastic behaviors was similar in short-internode plants (i.e. where internode length was smaller than the interaction distance), but varied in long-internode plants, with neutral plants performing much better than both confrontational and avoiding plants (Fig. 4). Searching distance had no discernible effect on the spatial structure of the stands (data not shown).
Competition between plastic and neutral plants showed even more pronounced patterns than those of single species stands. Both confrontational and avoiding plants were worse competitors than neutral plants, although the difference was much higher for confrontational than for avoiding plants (Fig. 5a). A detailed analysis of the range of the plasticity parameter demonstrated an optimum value of the plasticity parameter around 0.6–0.7. Accordingly, plastic plants were the best competitors against neutral plants when they avoided their neighbors in 1/3 to 1/2 of the cases and behaved neutrally in the remaining cases.
As expected, density-independent mortality of ramets strongly decreased overall ramet density (Fig. 6) and profoundly changed the effect of the plasticity parameter. Under high mortality (i.e. more sparse stands), avoiding plants were doing significantly better, and confrontational plants much worse, relatively to neutral plants. The same effects were shown in species mixtures (Fig. 5). In contrast to competition under no density-independent mortality, where partially-avoiding plants were favored, non-zero mortality conferred a large advantage to strictly avoiding plants, and their advantage increased with increasing density-independent mortality (Fig. 5). The introduction of density-independent mortality also eliminated much of the negative spatial correlations, and short-range positive correlations in ramet density became more pronounced in short-internode plants (Fig. 2, dotted lines).
Discussion
Through the perception of neighbors, plants are able to anticipate competitive interactions and modify their competitive behaviors to suit their long-term gains (Aphalo and Ballare 1995). Specifically, plants may minimize competitive encounters by avoiding their neighbors, or maximize their competitive effects by aggressively confront their neighbors (Novoplansky 2009). Our results suggest a few adaptive differences between these behaviors, implying that individual plants might plastically switch between these behaviors in response to various spatial and temporal attributes of their neighborhood structure, neighbor-perception horizon and morphology.
Both density in single-species stands and competitive performance against neutral phytometers demonstrated similar trends and context dependencies. Under most scenarios, all out confrontation was the worst strategy and the optimal strategy was either full avoidance or a combination of avoidance and neutrality. Differences in the adaptive values of individual behaviors depended on both the distance over which the environmental structure (i.e. local density) was perceived, and the overall stand density. Specifically, avoidance was more successful than confrontation under low density, i.e. under high external mortality, and confrontation was relatively more successful under low mortality and high density.
These general patterns can be understood in terms of the spatial structure of the resulting stands. It has been shown that exploitative behavior (i.e. avoiding places with high density) can be adaptive only if the size of favorable patches is larger than parent-offspring distances (internode lengths) (reviewed in Oborny and Cain 1997). When dense stands develop under low mortality levels, the ranges of positive spatial correlations (i.e. sizes of favorable patches) do not exceed parent-offspring distances, which readily result in negative correlations over larger distances (Fig. 2). Therefore, developmental decisions that are predominantly based on the perception of the immediate neighborhood are prone to be maladaptive due to the plant’s inability to perceive, and to efficiently and rapidly enough adapt to changes in the competitive neighborhood over greater distances. Thus, the nature of self-generated heterogeneity, derived from local interactions and spatially constrained natality, might in itself constrain the extent to which environmentally-informed decisions can be adaptive. In contrast, introducing external mortality not only lowers overall density but also changes the structure of self-generated heterogeneity, and triggers the formation of larger openings within clumps and cause larger-scale negative correlations to become much less pronounced (Fig. 2). At such spatial structures, the information perceived from the immediate neighborhood is much more predictive of the longer-range growth conditions of the ramet, making avoidance the most successful behavior.
While earlier studies (reviewed in Oborny and Cain 1997) dwelled on the effects of externally-imposed heterogeneity of variable structures, the present study deals solely with self-generated heterogeneity, resulting from non-uniform growth and depletion effects of the plants on their immediate environment. Such heterogeneities are sufficient to account for the generation of strong short-range spatial structures (e.g. Smethurst and Comerford 1993, Sheffer et al. 2007) and are expected to be common in stands of clonal plants, whose densities are invariably variable (Herben et al. 2007). Our results show that under some circumstances, a feedback between spatial structure and plastic behavior might exist, whereby confrontational behavior is strengthening both short-range positive- and longer-range negative spatial correlations. This was clearly demonstrated by confrontational behavior whose direct effects included the placement of new ramets in close proximity of already existing ramets.
The results demonstrate that the relative adaptive values of the competitive behaviors were strongly determined by the “perception grain” of the plants. Specifically, the adaptive differences between the competitive behaviors become more pronounced when the perception range is commensurable or larger than the distance between parent and offspring ramets. In such cases, the perceived information is most accurate and predictive of the fate of the potential offspring ramets. However, when the perception range of the parent ramet is smaller or greater than the projected future position of the offspring ramet, the differences between the adaptive values of the different competitive behaviors diminish, as the perceived information is rendered irrelevant. This result reflects the interplay between three spatial variables: neighborhood size, internode length and perception distance, whose matching leads to a net fitness difference between the competitive behaviors. Because the length of horizontal clonal spacers is often deterministic (e.g. Huber et al. 1998, Alpert and Simms 2002), it is expected that selection will mainly maximize the mentioned spatial matching by fine tuning of the perception and responsive ranges over which plants anticipate competitive interactions. Although plants are known to vary in their sensitivity to perceived cues regarding the proximity of their neighbors (e.g. Smith 1982, Schmitt et al. 2003), further work is needed to test this prediction directly.
In the studied system, confrontation was never beneficial in absolute terms, although its performance was relatively the best at high densities and relatively worst under low density/high mortality, indicating that at high density confrontation is the least selected against rather than being selected for. Under these conditions, typical to relatively productive habitats, plants are almost invariably engaged in fierce and highly costly arms race for the domination of limited resources (Novoplansky 2009). Nevertheless, the numerous examples for both direct and indirect “effect competition” (sensu Goldberg 1990) suggest that confrontational behavior is widespread and serves as an important selective force in a variety of ecosystems (Goldberg and Barton 1992; Keddy 2001). Accordingly, we suggest that its poor performance (in absolute terms) in the modeled system is most likely resulting from the two-dimensional nature of the model, which did not allow plants to confront each other in the vertical dimension. As horizontal interactions can only be symmetric, even relatively vigorous plants that assume aggressive (confrontational) behavior cannot take advantage of the potential benefits conferred by their asymmetrical overtopping of their weaker neighbors (Novoplansky 2009), although the current results indicate its success would depend, inter alia, on parameters regulating overall density, such as external mortality and background stress levels. Nevertheless, although such a two-dimensional model might reasonably depict the dynamics and expected behavior of short-statured plants and bryophytes (During and Lloret 2001), a more elaborate model, which also captures plant structure and development in the vertical axis is needed to study taller-statured plants which are often engaged in strong competition for light. More careful examination of competitive behaviors may also benefit from the inclusion of more structured translocation patterns.
Although self-generated heterogeneity is ubiquitous, its effects are expected to depend on the disturbance frequency and thus the successional stage. In early successional stands and under high disturbance frequencies (corresponding to high mortality in our system), stands are inherently sparse and patchy at the level of the individual plant. In such cases, avoidance behavior is likely to be favored due to the high predictability of the open patches and the relatively high reliability of the environmental information regarding the expected openness of unpopulated patches (Novoplansky et al. 1990b). In contrast, in late successional stages and low disturbance frequencies and mortality rates, stands are commonly highly crowded and thus plant growth is expected to more directly reflect the default growth rules or architectural model of the plant, rendering the adaptive effects of fine-grained developmental behaviors more difficult to follow and generalize (Novoplansky 1996). However, under these conditions, plants are still expected to be highly perceptive (as predicted by the model), and plastic in their choice of competitive behavior, given the occasional emergence of novel opportunities created by various disturbances and demographic changes (Purves and Law 2002, Herben et al. 2007). Although supportive evidence for the presented expectations are scarce, earlier experimental studies and field observations provide examples of horizontal competitive avoidance as expressed in biased directional growth and branching in competitively-opportunistic plants such as Portulaca oleracea (Portulacaceae); (Novoplansky et al. 1990b, Novoplansky 1991), Heliotropium supinum (Boraginaceae) and Malvella sherardiana (Malvaceae); (Novoplansky, unpublished data), typical to highly disturbed and open habitats. In contrast, plants typical to dense and competitive environments such as Onobrychis squarrosa (Novoplansky 1996), Trifolium resupinatum (Papilionaceae) and Avena sterilis (Gramineae); (Novoplansky, unpublished data), and a few stoloniferous plants (Leeflang 1999, 2000) were found to be unresponsive to horizontal heterogeneity in light availability and spectral shade cues. Therefore, our findings call for comparative studies which explicitly take into consideration not only the immediate environmental contrasts in resource availabilities, but also their average predictabilities at timescales relevant to the life and turnover of the responding organs.
The importance of bottom-up processes for community-level processes is well established and heatedly debated (Hairston et al. 1960; Pearson and Callaway 2003; Bukovinszky et al. 2008; Turkington 2009), but recent studies also demonstrate that intimate interactions and behaviors at the individual plant and organ levels might affect higher-scale population- and community-level processes (e.g. Callaway et al. 2003; Karban 2008; Novoplansky 2009). For example, the current results show that confrontational behavior may lead to higher stand clumpiness. Interestingly, previous findings suggest that another low-level mechanism—self/nonself discrimination of ramets, may also account for clumpiness but have different community-level implications (Herben and Novoplansky 2008). While confrontational behavior increases ramet clumpiness and slightly increases the number of genets, and its effects become stronger under increased density-independent mortality, higher clumpiness due to self/nonself discrimination is expected to be much stronger and to be associated with a reduced number of genets. These theoretical observations not only imply that individual-based behaviors might affect higher organizational levels, but that their reciprocal interactions with resource levels and patchiness, and responsiveness to density-independent mortality might generate higher-order feedbacks that affect the fate of individual ramets and the patterning of whole stands and communities in highly intricate fashions.
References
Ackerson RC, Youngner VB (1975) Responses of Bermuda grass to salinity. Agron J 67:678–681
Alpert P, Simms EL (2002) The relative advantage of plasticity and fixity in different environments: when is it good for a plant to adjust? Evol Ecol 16:285–297
Aphalo PJ, Ballare CL (1995) On the importance of information-acquiring systems in plant-plant interactions. Funct Ecol 9:5–14
Bradshaw AD (1965) Evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity in plants. Adv Genet 13:115–155
Bukovinszky T, van Veen FJF, Jongema Y, Dicke M (2008) Direct and indirect effects of resource quality on food web structure. Science 319:804–807
Caldwell MM, Pearcy RW (1994) Exploitation of environmental heterogeneity by plants: ecophysiological processes above- and below-ground. Academic Press, San Diego, CA
Callaway RM, Penning SC, Richards CL (2003) Phenotypic plasticity and interactions among plants. Ecology 84:1115–1128
Caraco T, Kelly CK (1991) On the adaptive value of physiological integration in clonal plants. Ecology 72:81–93
Chambers J, Aarssen LW (2009) Offspring for the next generation: most are produced by small plants within herbaceous populations. Evol Ecol 23:737–751
Chesson P, Gebauer RLE, Schwinning S et al (2004) Resource pulses, species interactions, and diversity maintenance in arid and semi-arid environments. Oecologia 141:236–253
Cohen D (1969) Expected efficiency of light utilization in plant populations as affected by different selection and competition regimes. Israel J Bot 18:171–174
Crick JC, Grime JP (1987) Morphological plasticity and mineral nutrient capture in 2 herbaceous species of contrasted ecology. New Phytol 107:403–414
de Kroon H, Visser EJW, Huber H, Mommer L, Hutchings MJ (2009) A modular concept of plant foraging behaviour: the interplay between local responses and systemic control. Pl Cell Environ 32:704–712
DeWitt TJ, Sih A, Wilson DS (1998) Costs and limits of phenotypic plasticity. Trends Ecol Evol 13:77–81
Dong M, During HJ, Werger MJA (2002) Root and shoot plasticity of the stoloniferous herb Ajuga reptans L. planted in a heterogeneous environment. Flora 197:37–46
Drew MC (1975) Comparison of effects of a localized supply of phosphate, nitrate, ammonium and potassium on growth of seminal root system, and shoot, in barley. New Phytol 75:479–490
During HJ, Lloret F (2001) The species-pool hypothesis from a bryological perspective. Folia Geobotanica 36:63–70
Farley RA, Fitter AH (1999) The responses of seven co-occurring woodland herbaceous perennials to localized nutrient-rich patches. J Ecol 87:849–859
Forde B, Zhang HM (1998) The response: nitrate and root branching. Trends Plant Sci 3:204–205
Gilad E, Shachak M, Meron E (2007) Dynamics and spatial organization of plant communities in water-limited systems. Theor Popul Biol 72:214–230
Goldberg DE (1990) Components of resource competition in plant communities. In: Grace JB, Tilman D (eds) Perspectives on plant competition. Academic Press, New York, pp 27–49
Goldberg DE, Barton AM (1992) Patterns and consequences of interspecific competition in natural communities: a review of field experiments with plants. Amer Nat 139:771–801
Hairston NG, Smith FE, Slobodkin LB (1960) Community structure, population control, and competition. Am Nat 44:421–425
Herben T, Novoplansky A (2008) Implications of self/nonself discrimination for spatial patterning of clonal plants. Evol Ecol 22:337–350
Herben T, Suzuki J-I (2001) A simulation study of the effects of architectural constraints and resource translocation on population structure and competition in clonal plants. Evol Ecol 15:403–423
Herben T, Březina S, Skálová H et al (2007) Variation in plant performance in a grass land: species-specific and neighbouring root mass effects. J Veget Sci 18:55–62
Hodge A (2004) The plastic plant: root responses to heterogeneous supplies of nutrients. New Phytol 162:9–24
Huber H, Fijan A, During HJ (1998) A comparative study of spacer plasticity in erect and stoloniferous herbs. Oikos 81:576–586
Hutchings MJ, de Kroon H (1994) Foraging in plants—the role of morphological plasticity in resource acquisition. Adv Ecol Res 25:159–238
Jones M, Harper JL (1987) The influence of neighbors on the growth of trees. II The fate of buds on long and short shoots. Proc Royal Soc London B 2232:19–33
Karban R (2008) Plant behavior and communication. Ecol Lett 11:727–739
Keddy PA (2001) Competition, 2nd edn. Kluwer, Dordrecht
Kessler A, Baldwin IT (2002) Plant responses to insect herbivory: the emerging molecular analysis. Annu Rev Plant Biol 53:299–328
Lafarge M, Mazel C, Hill DRC (2005) A modelling of the tillering capable of reproducing the fine-scale horizontal heterogeneity of a pure grass sward and its dynamics. Ecological Modelling 183:125–141
Leeflang L (1999) Are stoloniferous plants able to avoid neighbours in response to low R: FR ratios in reflected light? Pl Ecol 141:59–65
Leeflang L (2000) Response of Trifolium repens to a mosaic of bare and vegetated patches. Pl Spec Biol 15:59–65
Levins R (1968) Evolution in changing environments. Princeton University Press, New Jersey
Lovett-Doust L (1981) Population dynamics and local specialization in a clonal perennial plant (Ranunculus repens). 1. The dynamics of ramets in contrasting habitats. J Ecol 69:743–755
Novoplansky A (1996) Developmental responses of individual Onobrychis plants to spatial heterogeneity. Vegetatio 127:31–39
Novoplansky A (2009) Picking battles wisely: plant behaviour under competition. Plant Cell Environ 32:726–741
Novoplansky A, Sachs T, Cohen D et al (1990a) Increasing plant productivity by changing the solar spectrum. Solar Energy Mater 21:17–23
Novoplansky A, Cohen D, Sachs T (1990b) How Portulaca seedlings avoid their neighbors. Oecologia 82:490–493
O’Brien EE, Gersani M, Brown JS (2005) Root proliferation and seed yield in response to spatial heterogeneity of below-ground competition. New Phytol 168:401–412
Oborny B (1994a) Growth rules in clonal plants and environmental predictability—a simulation study. J Ecol 82:341–351
Oborny B (1994b) Spacer length in clonal plants and the efficiency of resource capture in heterogeneous environments—a Monte-Carlo simulation. Folia Geobot Phytotax 29:139–158
Oborny B, Cain M (1997) Models of spatial spread and foraging in clonal plant species. In: de Kroon H, Van Groenendael J (eds) Ecology and evolution of clonal plants. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, pp 155–184
Oborny B, Kun A (2001) Fragmentation of clones: how does it influence dispersal and competitive ability? Evol Ecol 15:319–346
Parker MA, Salzman AG (1985) Herbivore exclosure and competitor removal - effects on juvenile survivorship and growth in the shrub Gutierrezia microcephala. J Ecol 73:903–913
Passioura JB (1988) Root signals control leaf expansion in wheat seedlings growing in drying soil. Aust J Plant Physiol 15:687–693
Pearson DE, Callaway RM (2003) Indirect effects of host-specific biological control agents. Trends Ecol Evol 18:456–461
Purves DW, Law R (2002) Fine-scale spatial structure in a grassland community: quantifying the plant’s-eye view. J Ecol 90:121–129
Salzman AG, Parker MA (1985) Neighbors ameliorate local salinity stress for a rhizomatous plant in a heterogeneous environment. Oecologia 65:273–277
Schlichting CD (1986) The evolution of phenotypic plasticity in plants. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 17:667–693
Schlichting CD, Pigliucci M (1998) Phenotypic evolution: a reaction norm perspective. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA
Schmitt J, Stinchcombe JR, Heschel MS, Huber H (2003) The adaptive evolution of plasticity: Phytochrome-mediated shade avoidance responses. Integ Compar Biol 43:459–469
Sheffer E, Yizhaq H, Gilad E, Shachak M, Meron E (2007) Why do plants in resource-derived environments form rings? Ecological Complexity 4:192–200
Smethurst PJ, Comerford NB (1993) Simulating nutrient-uptake by single of complementing and contrasting root systems. Soil Sci Soc America J 57:1361–1367
Smith H (1982) Light quality, photoperception, and plant strategy. Annu Rev Pl Physiol 33:481–518
Smith H (2000) Phytochromes and light signal perception by plants—an emerging synthesis. Nature 407:585–591
Snow R (1931) Experiments on growth and inhibition. II. New phenomena of inhibition. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 108:305–316
Stuefer JF, Gomez S, Van Molken T (2004) Clonal integration beyond resource sharing: implications for defence signalling and disease transmission in clonal plant networks. Evol Ecol 18:647–667
Sultan SE (1987) Evolutionary implications of phenotypic plasticity in plants. Evol Biol 21:127–178
Trewavas A (2003) Aspects of plant intelligence. Ann Bot (Lond.) 92:1–20
Turkington R (2009) Top-down and bottom-up forces in mammalian herbivore—vegetation systems: an essay review. Botany 87:723–739
Upton GJG, Fingleton B (1985) Spatial data analysis by example. Vol. I. Point pattern and quantitative data. Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK
Valladares F, Niinemets U (2008) Shade tolerance, a key plant feature of complex nature and consequences. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 39:237–257
Weiner J, Stoll P, Muller-Landau H, Jasentuliyana A (2001) The effects of density, spatial pattern, and competitive symmetry on size variation in simulated plant populations. Amer Nat 158:438–450
Went FW (1973) Competition among plants. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 70:585–590
Wijesinghe DK, Hutchings MJ (1997) The effects of spatial scale of environmental heterogeneity on the growth of a clonal plant: an experimental study with Glechoma hederacea. J Ecol 85:17–28
Wildová R, Gough L, Herben T et al (2007) Architectural and growth traits differ in effects on performance of clonal plants: an analysis using a field-parameterized simulation model. Oikos 116:836–852
Zhang HM, Forde BG (1998) An Arabidopsis MADS box gene that controls nutrient-induced changes in root architecture. Science 279:407–409
Acknowledgments
We thank Tali Brunner for comments on an early version of the manuscript. The research was partly funded by the GAČR grant 206/09/1471, AVČR grant AVOZ60050516 and MŠMT grant 0021620828 to T.H. and a research grant from the Israel Science Foundation to A.N. This is publication no. 679 of the Mitrani Department of Desert Ecology.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Herben, T., Novoplansky, A. Fight or flight: plastic behavior under self-generated heterogeneity. Evol Ecol 24, 1521–1536 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-010-9386-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-010-9386-1