Annals of Forest Science

, Volume 71, Issue 3, pp 337–347 | Cite as

Back to the roots: how do seedlings of native tree species react to the competition by exotic species?

  • Heike KawaletzEmail author
  • Inga Mölder
  • Peter Annighöfer
  • André Terwei
  • Stefan Zerbe
  • Christian Ammer
Original Paper



Identifying the traits of exotic species may explain their invasiveness and help control the negative impacts of these species on native ecosystems. In this study, we investigated root competition as an important driver for the competitiveness of two exotic tree species in the seedling stage.


In a pot experiment, carried out in Central Europe, we studied the effect of root competition of two exotic tree species (Prunus serotina Ehrh. and Robinia pseudoacacia L.) on biomass allocation of two native ones (Quercus robur L. and Carpinus betulus L.).


Seedlings of these species were exposed to intra- and interspecific mixtures with and without the effect of root competition. For this, belowground plastic partitions were installed in the pots.


Competition intensity in the pots increased over time, irrespective of mixture type. However, this increase was much higher for the native species if mixed with the exotic species compared to monocultures or inter-native mixtures. In addition to ontogeny, competition affected biomass allocation patterns. Under root competition by the exotic species, the native species preferentially allocated their biomass to the roots. A higher allocation to the roots was mainly achieved at the expense of leaf and branch biomass.


Root competition of P. serotina and R. pseudoacacia may be a reason for the lack of Q. robur and C. betulus in the seedling stage in natural environments where all four species occur.


Biomass allocation Balanced growth hypothesis Pot experiment Prunus serotina Robinia pseudoacacia 



We are grateful to K.-H. Heine, A. Parth, M. Unger, T. Waldmann, and U. Westphal and to all other helpers who were a big support while collecting the data.


We would like to thank the Marianne and Dr. Fritz-Walter Fischer Foundation within the Stifterverband für die Deutsche Wissenschaft for funding our research and the DAAD (German Academic Exchange Service) VIGONI program for supporting project-based exchange.


  1. Aerts R, Boot R, van der Aart P (1991) The relation between above- and belowground biomass allocation patterns and competitive ability. Oecologia 87:551–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ammer C (2003) Growth and biomass partitioning of Fagus sylvatica L. and Quercus robur L. seedlings in response to shading and small changes in the R/FR-ratio of radiation. Ann For Sci 60:163–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Annighöfer P, Mölder I, Zerbe S, Kawaletz H, Terwei A, Ammer C (2012) Biomass functions for the two alien tree species Prunus serotina Ehrh. and Robinia pseudoacacia L. in floodplain forests of Northern Italy. Eur J For Res 131:1619–1635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bloor J, Leadley P, Barthes L (2008) Responses of Fraxinus excelsior seedlings to grass-induced above- and below-ground competition. Plant Ecol 194:293–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bourtsoukidis E, Kawaletz H, Radacki D, Schütz S, Hakola H, Hellén H, Noe S, Mölder I, Ammer C, Bonn B (2013) Impact of flooding and drought conditions on the emission of volatile organic compounds of Quercus robur and Prunus serotina. Trees. doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cahill JF (2003) Lack of relationship between below-ground competition and allocation to roots in 10 grassland species. J Ecol 91:532–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Casper BB, Jackson RB (1997) Plant competition underground. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 28:545–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Closset-Kopp D, Chabrerie O, Valentin B, Delachapelle H, Decocq G (2007) When Oskar meets Alice: does a lack of trade-off in r/K-strategies make Prunus serotina a successful invader of European forests? For Ecol Manag 247:120–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Closset-Kopp D, Saguez R, Decocq G (2011) Differential growth patterns and fitness may explain contrasted performances of the invasive Prunus serotina in its exotic range. Biol Invasions 13:1341–1355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coomes DA, Grubb PJ (2000) Impacts of root competition in forests and woodlands: a theoretical framework and review of experiments. Ecol Monogr 70:171–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crawley MJ (2007) The R book. Wiley, ChichesterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Curt T, Coll L, Prevosto B, Balandier P, Kunstler G (2005) Plasticity in growth, biomass allocation and root morphology in beech seedlings as induced by irradiance and herbaceous competition. Ann For Sci 62:51–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DAISIE Project (2009) Handbook of alien species in Europe. Springer, New York, 399 ppGoogle Scholar
  14. Delagrange S, Messier C, Lechowicz MJ, Dizengremel P (2004) Physiological, morphological and allocational plasticity in understory deciduous trees: importance of plant size and light availability. Tree Physiol 24:775–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Donald C (1958) The interaction of competition for light and for nutrients. Aust J Agric Res 9:421–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ellenberg H (1988) Vegetation ecology of Central Europe, 4th edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Feng Y, Wang J, Sang W (2007) Biomass allocation, morphology and photosynthesis of invasive and noninvasive exotic species grown at four irradiance levels. Acta Oecol 31:40–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goldberg DE (1990) Components of resource competition in plant communities. In: Grace JB, Tilman D (eds) Perspectives on plant competition. Academic, San Diego, pp 27–49Google Scholar
  19. Haase JU (2009) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: the effects of tree and litter diversity. Dissertation, University of ZurichGoogle Scholar
  20. Hofmann R, Ammer C (2008) Biomass partitioning of beech seedlings under the canopy of spruce. Austrian J For Sci 125:51–66Google Scholar
  21. Horn HS (1971) The adaptive geometry of trees. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  22. Ibrahim L, Proe MF, Cameron AD (1998) Interactive effects of nitrogen and water availabilities on gas exchange and whole-plant carbon allocation in poplar. Tree Physiol 18:481–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kawaletz H, Mölder I, Zerbe S, Annighöfer P, Terwei A, Ammer C (2013) Exotic tree seedlings are much more competitive than natives but show underyielding when growing together. J Plant Ecol 6:305–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kleczewski NM, Herms DA, Bonello P (2012) Nutrient and water availability alter belowground patterns of biomass allocation, carbon partitioning, and ectomycorrhizal abundance in Betula nigra. Trees-Struct Funct 26:525–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kleinbauer I, Dullinger S, Peterseil J, Essl F (2010) Climate change might drive the invasive tree Robinia pseudoacacia into nature reserves and endangered habitats. Biol Conserv 143:382–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lamarque LJ, Delzon S, Lortie CJ (2011) Tree invasions: a comparative test of the dominant hypotheses and functional traits. Biol Invasions 13:1969–1989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lorimer CG (1983) Tests of age-independent competition indices for individual trees in natural hardwood stands. For Ecol Manag 6:343–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mack R, Simberloff D, Lonsdale W, Evans H, Clout M, Bazzaz FA (2000) Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol Appl 10:689–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Martin PH, Canham CD, Kobe RK (2010) Divergence from the growth–survival trade-off and extreme high growth rates drive patterns of exotic tree invasions in closed-canopy forests. J Ecol 98:778–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McCarthy MC, Enquist BJ (2007) Consistency between an allometric approach and optimal partitioning theory in global patterns of plant biomass allocation. Funct Ecol 21:713–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McPhee CS, Aarssen LW (2001) The separation of above- and below-ground competition in plants a review and critique of methodology. Plant Ecol 152:119–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Morrison JA, Mauck K (2007) Experimental field comparison of native and non-native maple seedlings: natural enemies, ecophysiology, growth and survival. J Ecol 95:1036–1049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Motta R, Nola P, Berretti R (2009) The rise and fall of the black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia L.) in the “Siro Negri” Forest Reserve (Lombardy, Italy): lessons learned and future uncertainties. Ann For Sci 66:410–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Murphy GP, Dudley SA (2007) Above- and below-ground competition cues elicit independent responses. J Ecol 95:261–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nilsson U, Albrektson A (1993) Productivity of needles and allocation of growth in young Scots pine trees of different competitive status. For Ecol Manag 62:173–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Oliver CD, Larson BC (1990) Forest stand dynamics. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Pyšek P, Richardson DM (2008) Traits associated with invasiveness in alien plants: where do we stand? Biol Invasions 193:97–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. R Development Core Team (2012) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  39. Rice S, Westerman B, Federici R (2004) Impacts of the exotic, nitrogen-fixing black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) on nitrogen-cycling in a pine–oak ecosystem. Plant Ecol 174:97–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schall P, Lödige C, Beck M, Ammer C (2012) Biomass allocation to roots and shoots is more sensitive to shade and drought in European beech than in Norway spruce seedlings. For Ecol Manag 266:246–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shipley B, Meziane D (2002) The balanced-growth hypothesis and the allometry of leaf and root biomass allocation. Funct Ecol 16:326–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Starfinger U, Kowarik I, Rode M, Schepker H (2003) From desirable ornamental plant to pest to accepted addition to the flora?—The perception of an alien tree species through the centuries. Biol Invasions 5:323–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Terwei A, Zerbe S, Zeileis A, Mölder I, Annighöfer P, Kawaletz H, Ammer C (2013) Which are the factors controlling tree seedling establishment in North Italian floodplain forests invaded by non-native tree species? For Ecol Manag 304:192–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. van Hees AFM (1997) Growth and morphology of pedunculate oak (Quercus robur L.) and beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) seedlings in relation to shading and drought. Ann For Sci 54:9–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vanhellemont M, Wauters L, Baeten L, Bijlsma RJ, De Frenne P, Hermy M, Verheyen K (2010) Prunus serotina unleashed: invader dominance after 70 years of forest development. Biol Invasions 12:1113–1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. von Holle B, Joseph KA, Largay EF, Lohnes RG (2006) Facilitations between the introduced nitrogen-fixing tree, Robinia pseudoacacia, and nonnative plant species in the glacial outwash upland ecosystem of Cape Cod, MA. Biodivers Conserv 15:2197–2215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Weiner J (2004) Allocation, plasticity and allometry in plants. Perspect Plant Ecol 6:207–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wetterstation Göttingen (2013) Accessed 29 January 2013
  49. Wilson JB (1988) Shoot competition and root competition. J Appl Ecol 25:279–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© INRA and Springer-Verlag France 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heike Kawaletz
    • 1
    Email author
  • Inga Mölder
    • 2
  • Peter Annighöfer
    • 1
  • André Terwei
    • 3
  • Stefan Zerbe
    • 3
  • Christian Ammer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Silviculture and Forest Ecology of the Temperate ZonesUniversity of GöttingenGöttingenGermany
  2. 2.Energieagentur Region Göttingen e.V.GöttingenGermany
  3. 3.Faculty of Science and TechnologyFree University of Bozen-BolzanoBolzanoItaly

Personalised recommendations