It is a common assumption that the plant biomass or plant yield displays an asymptotic response to increasing density, and it is true that empirical evidence for over-compensation (the phenomenon where plant biomass or yield reaches an optimum at an intermediary plant density) is scarce (e.g. Rees & Crawley 1991; Freckleton & Watkinson 2002). Furthermore, there are theoretical reasons why one may expect that plants have an asymptotic constant biomass or fecundity per area, i.e. the modular construction of plants, the process of self-thinning at high densities, size-asymmetric competition against the small individuals, and a relatively small size threshold for reproduction are all effects that will reduce the effect of over-compensation (Freckleton & Watkinson 2002; Rees & Crawley 1989). However, there are reported possible examples of over-compensation in plants (e.g. Silvertown 1991; Damgaard & Borksted 2004) and whether over-compensation plays a role in plant population dynamics is still open to question (Damgaard 2004a). In a recent paper by Weigelt et al. (2007), the mechanisms of competition in multi-species plant communities are investigated under the implicit assumption of an asymptotic response to increasing density. The effect of the densities of four different plant species on individual biomass was investigated in a hyperbolic competition model originally proposed by Watkinson (1980) and Vandermeer (1984) for the single species case (here shown in the simpler case of the effect of the densities of two species on the biomass of species one, and somewhat re-parameterized in order to use the notion of competition coefficients) where x1 is the density of species i, is the biomass of isolated plants of species 1, α is a measure of the effect of density, while φ is a shape parameter that measures the rate at which competition decays as a function of the distance between plants (Vandermeer 1984). If φ > 1, then over-compensation is occurring; and if φ = 1, as implicitly assumed by Weigelt et al. (2007), then plant biomass is assumed to display an asymptotic response to increasing densities of both plant species. In the paper by Weigelt et al. (2007) the above model (1) (with φ set to 1) was tested against more complicated models with extra terms that are functions of new parameters and density and size of the neighbouring plants. If the inclusion of the extra terms increased the fit of the model significantly, then this was interpreted as a deviation from ‘additivity’ (Weigelt et al. 2007). I find the replacing of the nonlinear shape parameter φ used in model (1) with the β terms used in model (2) problematic, because (i) most of the earlier studies that motivate the use of the empirical hyperbolic competition model, including some of the studies referenced by Weigelt et al. (2007), include one or more nonlinear shape parameter (for a more thorough discussion see, for example, Damgaard 2004b), (ii) the possibly important and thoroughly studied ecological concept of over-compensation, which also provides information of the underlying mechanisms of plant–plant interactions (Vandermeer 1984) and may lead to chaotic population dynamics (e.g. Damgaard 2004a), is ignored, and (iii) it makes it more difficult to retain the use of the very fruitful concept of constant competition coefficients introduced by Lotka and Volterra, which consequently makes comparisons between studies more difficult. To illustrate the effect of choosing the relevant hyperbolic competition model, the non-additivity model (2) was fitted to data that was simulated using model (1) with φ set slightly above one (= 1.1), and the estimated β-term in the fitted model (2) was negative and significantly different from zero. Consequently, if the simulated data had been analysed with model (2), the phenomenon of over-compensation would have been incorrectly interpreted as complex non-additive interactions. On the other hand, I do not consider the hyperbolic competition model, as once perceived in earlier studies, to be sacred in any way. There may be significant effects of species interactions (e.g. Law & Watkinson 1987; Damgaard 1998), the spatial arrangement of plants (e.g. Bolker & Pacala 1999; Law et al. 1997; Damgaard 2004c), and attained biomass as suggested by Weigelt et al. (2007) that need to be studied in further developments of the basic competition models, especially as the ecological relevance and realism of the competition experiments are increased by measuring plant cover, biomass, or by classifying different size classes (e.g. Rees & Paynter 1997) of perennial species in natural plant communities instead of counting the number of individuals, or trying to discover the mechanisms underlying the observed competitive interactions (e.g. Weigelt et al. 2007). While we do not expect over-compensation to occur for all plant species in all plant communities, and even less often when biomass is measured rather than fecundity, in my opinion it is not prudent a priori to accept the hypothesis of no over-compensation.
Read full abstract