Belowground interactions affect shoot growth in Eucalyptus urophylla under restrictive conditions

References

• Caldwell M, Pearcy R, eds. Exploitation of environmental heterogeneity by plants: ecophysiological process above- and belowground. London (UK): Academic Press; 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Luo D, Qian Y-Q, Han L, Liu J-X, Sun Z-Y. Phenotypic responses of a stoloniferous clonal plant Buchloe dactyloides to scale-dependent nutrient heterogeneity. PLOS One. 2013;8(6):1. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0067396.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rajaniemi TK. Root foraging traits and competitive ability in heterogeneous soils. Oecologia. 2007;153(1):145–7. doi:10.1007/s00442-007-0706-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Semchenko M, Zobel K, Hutchings MJ. To compete or not to compete: an experimental study of interactions between plant species with contrasting root behavior. Evolutionary Ecology. 2010;24(6):1433–1445. doi:10.1007/s10682-010-9401-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bazzaz FA. Plants in changing environments: linking physiological, population, and community ecology. UK: Cambridge University Press; 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Mooney HA. Some contributions of physiological ecology to plant population biology. Systematic Botany. 1976;1(3):269–283. doi:10.2307/2418720.
   Google Scholar
• Novoplansky A. Picking battles wisely: plant behaviour under competition. Plant Cell Environ. 2009;32(6):726–741. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3040.2009.01979.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Connell JH. On the prevalence and relative importance of interespecific competition: evidence from field experiments. Am Nat. 1983;122(5):661–696. doi:10.1086/284165.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Callaway RM. Positive interactions and interdependence in plant communities. Berlin (Germany): Springer; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Gagliano M, Renton M. Love thy neighbour: facilitation through an alternative signalling modality in plants. BMC Ecol. 2013;13(1):1–6. doi:10.1186/1472-6785-13-19.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Holmgren M, Scheffer M, Huston M. The interplay of facilitation and competition in plant communities. Ecology. 1997;78(7):1966–1975. doi:10.1890/0012-9658(1997)078[1966:TIOFAC]2.0.CO;2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bertness MD, Callaway R. Positive interactions in communities. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1994;9(5):191–193. doi:10.1016/0169-5347(94)90088-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cavieres LA, Brooker RW, Butterfield BJ, Cook BJ, Kikvidze Z, Lortie CJ, Michalet R, Pugnaire FI, Schöb C, Xiao S, et al. Facilitative plant interactions and climate simultaneously drive alpine plant diversity. Ecol Lett. 2014;17(2):193–202. doi:10.1111/ele.12217.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biernaskie JM. Evidence for competition and cooperation among climbing plants. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 2011;278(1714):1989–1996. doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.1771.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conell JH. Apparent versus “real” competition in plants. In: Grace JB, Tilman D, editors. Perspectives on plant competition. San Diego (US): Academic Press; 1990. p. 9–26.
   Google Scholar
• Dudley SA, File AL. Kin recognition in an annual plant. Biol Lett. 2007;3(4):435–438. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2007.0232.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy GP, Dudley SA. Kin recognition: competition and cooperation in Impatiens (Balsaminaceae). Am J Bot. 2009;96(11):1990–1996. doi:10.3732/ajb.0900006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Novoplansky A. What plant root knows? Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2019;92(126):126–133. doi:10.1016/j.semcdb.2019.03.009.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cabal C, Martínez-García R, Aguilar AC, Valladares F, Pacala SW. The exploitative segregation of plant roots. Science. 2020;370(6521):1197–1199. doi:10.1126/science.aba9877.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cahill JJF, McNickle GG, Haag JJ, Lamb EG, Nyanumba SM, St Clair CC. Plants integrate information about nutrients and neighbors. Science. 2010;328(5986):1657. doi:10.1126/science.1189736.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacob CE, Tozzi E, Willenborg CJ. Neighbour presence, not identity, influences root and shoot allocation in pea. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(3):e0173758. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0173758.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson D. The responses of plants to non-uniform supplies of nutrients. New Phytologist. 1994;127(4):635–674. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.1994.tb02969.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biedrzycki ML, Bais HP. Kin recognition: another biological function for root secretions. Plant Signal Behav. 2010a;5(4):401–402. doi:10.4161/psb.5.4.10795.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chen BJW, During HJ, Anten NPR. Detect thy neighbor: identity recognition at the root level in plant. Plant Science. 2012;195:157–167. doi:10.1016/j.plantsci.2012.07.006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Depuydt S. Arguments for and against self and nonself root recognition in plants. Front Plant Sci. 2014;5(614):1–7. doi:10.3389/fpls.2014.00614.
   Google Scholar
• Schenk HJ, Callaway RM, Mahall BE. Spatial root segregation. Are Plants Territorial? Advances in Ecological Research. 1999;28:145–180. doi:10.1016/S0065-2504(08)60032-X.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Falik O, de Kroon H, Novoplansky A. Physiologically mediated self/nonself root discrimination in Trifolium repens has mixed effects on plant performance. Plant Signal Behav. 2006;1(3):116–121. doi:10.4161/psb.1.3.2639.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bertoli SC, Neris DM, Sala HR, Vieira WL, Souza GM. The level of relatedness affects self/nonself discrimination in Eucalyptus urophylla seedlings. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 2020;50(5):500–509. doi:10.1139/cjfr-2019-0376.
   Google Scholar
• de Kroon H, Mommer L, Nishiwaki A. Root competition: towards a mechanistic understanding. In: de Kroon H, Visser EJW, editors. Root ecology: ecological studies (analysis and synthesis). Vol. 168. Berlin (Heidelberg): Springer; 2003. p. 215–234. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-09784-7_9.
   Google Scholar
• Falik O, Reides P, Gersani M, Novoplansky A. Self/nonself discrimination in roots. Journal of Ecology. 2003;91(4):525–531. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2745.2003.00795.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahall BE, Callaway RM. Root communication among desert shrubs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 1991;88(3):847–876. doi:10.1073/pnas.88.3.874.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biedrzycki ML, Bais HP. Kin recognition in plants: a mysterious behavior unsolved. J Exp Bot. 2010b;61(15):4123–4128. doi:10.1093/jxb/erq250.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheplick G, Kane K. Genetic relatedness and competition in Triplasis purpurea (Poaceae): resource partitioning or kin selection? Int J Plant Sci. 2004;165(4):623–630. doi:10.1086/386556.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellstrand N, Antonovics J. Experimental studies of the evolutionary significance of sexual reproduction II. A test of the density-dependent selection hypothesis. Evolution. 1985;39(3):657–666. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1985.tb00402.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aikio S, Pakkasmaa S. Relatedness and competitive asymmetry: implications for growth and population dynamics. Oikos. 2003;100(2):283–290. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.11814.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamilton WD, Amala G. The genetical evolution of social behavior I. J Theor Biol. 1964a;7(1):1–16. doi:10.1016/0022-5193(64)90038-4
   Google Scholar
• Pickles BJ, Wilhelm R, Asay AK, Hahn AS, Simard SW, Mohn WW. Transfer of 13C between paired Douglas-fir seedlings reveals plant kinship effects and uptake of exudates by ectomycorrhizas. New Phytologist. 2017;214(1):400–411. doi:10.1111/nph.14325.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Kroon H, Visser EJW, Huber H, Mommer L, Hutchings MJ. A modular concept of plant foraging behaviour: the interplay between local responses and systemic control. Plant Cell Environ. 2009;32(6):704–712. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3040.2009.01936.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shemesh H, Arbiv A, Gersani M, Ovadia O, Novoplansky A. The effects of nutrient dynamics on root patch choice. PLOS One. 2010;5(5):e10824. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010824.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scanavaca JL 2001. Caracterização silvicultural, botânica e tecnológica do Eucalyptus urophylla S.T. Blake e de seu potencial para utilização em serraria. Mater’s thesis. Piracicaba (Brazil): Escola Superior de Agricultura Luiz de Queiroz. p.108. doi: 10.11606/D.11.2002.tde-22052002-154220
   Google Scholar
• Sein CC, Mitlöhner R. Eucalyptus urophylla S.T. Blake: ecology and silviculture. Bogor (Indonesia): CIFOR; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Hoagland DR, Arnon DI. The water-culture method for growing plants without soil. Circ Calif Agric Exp Stn. 1950;347:32
   Google Scholar
• Rosa LS, Wendling I, Grossi F, Reissmann CB. Efeito da dose de nitrogênio e de formulações de substratos na miniestaquia de Eucalyptus dunnii maiden. Revista Árvore. 2009;33(6):1025–1035. doi:10.1590/S0100-67622009000600005.
   Google Scholar
• O’Brien EE, Gersani M, Brown JS. Root proliferation and seed yield in response to spatial heterogeneity of belowground competition. New Phytologist. 2005;168(2):401–412. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2005.01520.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper MA. Maximização do potencial de enraizamento de estacas de Eucalyptus dunnii Maiden. Master’s thesis (Master’s in Forestry Science) – Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba. 1990.
   Google Scholar
• Møller AP, Swaddle JP. Asymmetry, developmental stability, and evolution. Inc. New York: Oxford University Press; 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Palmer AR, Strobeck C. Fluctuating asymmetry: measurement, analysis, patterns. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 1986;17(1):391–421. doi:10.1146/annurev.es.17.110186.002135.
   Google Scholar
• Freeman DC, Graham JH, Emlen JM. Developmental stability in plants: symmetries, stress and epigenesis. Genetica. 1993;89(1–3):97–119. doi:10.1007/BF02424508.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Souza GM, Aidar ST, de Oliveira RF. Developmental stability and network connectance in Phaseolus vulgaris L. genotypes under water deficit. Isr. J. Plant Sci. 2004;52(3): 205–212. doi:10.1560/UCEB-7X6Y-6N99-6GWV
   Google Scholar
• Costa MCG, Cunha IML, Jorge LAC, Araújo ICS. Public-domain software for root image analysis. Revista Brasileira De Ciência Do Solo. 2014;38(5):1359–1366. doi:10.1590/S0100-06832014000500001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hess L, de Kroon H. 2007. Effects of rooting volume and nutrient availability as an alternative explanation for root self/non-self discrimination. J. Ecol. 2007;95(2):241–251. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2745.2006.01204.x
   Google Scholar
• Meier IC, Angert A, Falik O, Shelef O, Rachmilevitch S. Increased root oxygen uptake in pea plants responding to non-self neighbors. Planta 2013;238:577–586. doi:10.1007/s00425-013-1910-4
   Google Scholar
• Yang L, Callaway RM, Atwater DZ. Root contact responses and the positive relationship between intraspecific diversity and ecosystem productivity. AoB Plants 2015;7:plv053. doi:10.1093/aobpla/plv053
   Google Scholar
• Holzapfel C, Alpert P. Root cooperation in a clonal plant: connected strawberries segregate roots. Oecologia. 2003;134(1):72–77. doi:10.1007/s00442-002-1062-x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahall BE, Callaway RM. Effects of regional origin and genotype on intraspecific root communication in the desert shrub Ambrosia dumosa (Asteraceae). Am J Bot. 1996;83(1):93–98. doi:10.1002/j.1537-2197.1996.tb13879.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maina GG, Brown JS, Gersani M. Intra-plant versus inter-plant root competition in beans: avoidance, resource matching or tragedy of the commons. Plant Ecol. 2002;160:pages235–247. doi:10.1023/A:1015822003011
   Google Scholar
• Callaway RM, Brooker RW, Choler P, Kikvidze Z, Lortie CJ, Michalet R, Paolini L, Pugnaire FI, Newingham B, Aschehoug ET, et al. Positive interactions among alpine plants increase with stress. Nature. 2002;417(6891):844–848. doi:10.1038/nature00812.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maestre FT, Callaway RM, Valladares F, Lortie CJ. Refining the stress‐gradient hypothesis for competition and facilitation in plant communities. Journal of Ecology. 2009;97(2):199–205. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2745.2008.01476.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malkinson D, Tielbörger K. What does the stress-gradient hypothesis predict? Resolving the discrepancies. Oikos. 2010;119(10):1546–1552. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18375.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michalet R, Le Bagouse-pinget Y, Maalouf J-P, Lortie CJ. Two alternatives to the stress-gradient hypothesis at the edge of life: the collapse of facilitation and the switch from facilitation to competition. Journal of Vegetation Science. 2014;25(2):609–613. doi:10.1111/jvs.12123.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milla R, Forero DM, Escudero A, Iriondo JM. Growing with siblings: a common ground for cooperation or for fiercer competition among plants? Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 2009;276(1667):2531–2540. doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.0369.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rewald B, Leuschner C. Does root competition asymmetry increase with water availability? Plant Ecol Divers. 2009;2(3):255–264. doi:10.1080/17550870903022865.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wichmann L. Annual variations in competition symmetry in even-aged sitka spruce. Ann Bot. 2001;88(1):145–151. doi:10.1006/anbo.2001.1445.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar