Seed mass and the competition/colonization trade-off: competitive interactions and spatial patterns in a guild of annual plants

Authors

  • Lindsay A. Turnbull,

    Corresponding author
    1. Institute of Environmental Sciences, University of Zürich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, Zürich, CH-8057, Switzerland,
    2. Department of Biological Sciences and NERC Centre for Population Biology, Imperial College, Silwood Park, Ascot, Berkshire, SL5 7PY, UK, and
      Lindsay A. Turnbull (tel. +41 16356120; fax +41 16355711; e-mail lindsayt@uwinst.unizh.ch).
    Search for more papers by this author
  • David Coomes,

    1. Department of Biological Sciences and NERC Centre for Population Biology, Imperial College, Silwood Park, Ascot, Berkshire, SL5 7PY, UK, and
    2. Department of Plant Sciences, University of Cambridge,Cambridge, CB2 3EA, UK
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Andy Hector,

    1. Institute of Environmental Sciences, University of Zürich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, Zürich, CH-8057, Switzerland,
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Mark Rees

    1. Department of Biological Sciences and NERC Centre for Population Biology, Imperial College, Silwood Park, Ascot, Berkshire, SL5 7PY, UK, and
    Search for more papers by this author

Lindsay A. Turnbull (tel. +41 16356120; fax +41 16355711; e-mail lindsayt@uwinst.unizh.ch).

Summary

  • 1We used neighbourhood modelling to estimate individual-level competition coefficients for seven annuals growing in limestone grassland over 2 years. We calculated the relative strength of intra- and interspecific competition and related this to differences in seed size and plant size between targets and neighbours.
  • 2Significant differences in the impact of neighbours on each target species were observed in half the models fitted, allowing us to reject a null hypothesis of competitive equivalence.
  • 3In one year we found that as the seed size or plant size of neighbours increased relative to targets, so did their competitive effect. Although this is consistent with the competition/colonization trade-off model the competitive interactions were not sufficiently asymmetric to allow coexistence. In a second year we found only weak interspecific competition and no relationship with plant or seed size.
  • 4We found no overall relationship between competition coefficients and the degree of segregation, contradicting the spatial segregation hypothesis for coexistence. However, segregation was linked to differences in plant traits: when targets were smaller than neighbours the degree of segregation increased with relative neighbour size.
  • 5Most species were positively associated with each other due to a shared preference for otherwise unvegetated patches. The degree of association was negatively correlated with differences in plant and seed size, particularly when interspecific competition was weak. This might reflect (i) decreasing overlap in microhabitat use with increasing trait divergence or (ii) density-dependent mortality.
  • 6Seed size is a key trait within this group of species, determining both competitive and colonizing ability. The presence of such a competition/colonization trade-off undoubtedly stabilizes community dynamics although other mechanisms may also be at work.

Ancillary