Folia Geobotanica

, Volume 37, Issue 3, pp 333–338 | Cite as

Canopy occupancy: How much of the space in plant communities is filled?

  • Alessandro Chiarucci
  • Maia Mistral
  • Ilaria Bonini
  • Barbara J. Anderson
  • J. Bastow Wilson


A major gap in our knowledge of plant communities is how much of their volume is occupied by plant material (stem, leaf or reproductive structure). This is basic knowledge and may be crucial for the concept of competition for space. We sampled two grassland communities and two shrublands in both Italy and New Zealand. The height of the canopy was measured by a point quadrat method, and the volume of plant material, after cutting, by displacement of water. From 0.5% to 2.9% of the canopy was occupied by plant material. Occupancy was lower in the Italian communities, which we tentatively attribute to the climate. It did not differ significantly between grasslands and shrublands. Our data suggest that physical space is probably never limiting by itself in terrestrial higher-plant communities, so that competition for space, distinct from competition for resources such as light, water and nutrients, is not likely to exist.


Community volume Competition for space Plant volume Space filling 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Acosta A., Blasi C., Di Marzio P. &Mazzoleni S. (1996): Architectural patterns of “macchia” shrubs in Mediterranean Italy.Coenoses 11: 69–72.Google Scholar
  2. Clements F.E., Weaver J.E. &Hanson H.C. (1929):Plant competition: an analysis of community functions. Carnegie Institute, Washington.Google Scholar
  3. de Rereffye P. &Houllier F. (1997): Modelling plant growth and architecture: Some recent advances and applications to agronomy and forestry.Curr. Sci. 73: 984–992.Google Scholar
  4. Ezcurra E., Montaña C. &Arizaga S. (1991). Architecture, light interception, and distribution of Larrea species in the Monte desert, Argentina.Ecology 72: 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Faliński J.B. (1973): Herb layer filling by plant cormus in theQuerco-Carpinetum community in the Bialowieża National Park.Phytocoenosis 2: 123–142.Google Scholar
  6. Greig-Smith P. (1983):Quantitative plant ecology. Ed. 3. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  7. Grime J.P. (1977): Evidence for the existence of three primary strategies in plants and its relevance to ecological and evolutionary theory.Amer. Naturalist 111: 1169–1194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grist E.P.M. (1999): The significance of spatio-temporal neighbourhood on plant competition for light and space.Ecol. Modell. 121: 63–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Guillén D.F., de las Heras P., Herrera P. &Pineda F.D. (1994): Shrub architecture and occupation of space in a Mediterranean sclerophyllous shrubland.J. Veg. Sci. 5: 497–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hestmark G., Schroeter B. &Kappen L. (1997): Intrathalline and size-dependent patterns of activity inLasallia pustulata and their possible consequences for competitive interactions.Funct. Ecol. 11: 318–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Huth A. &Ditzer T. (2000): Simulation of the growth of a lowlandDipterocarp rain forest with FORMIX3.Ecol. Modell. 134: 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Klimeš L. (1995): Small-scale distribution of species richness in a grassland (Bílé Karpaty Mts., Czech Republic).Folia Geobot. Phytotax. 30: 499–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kubíková J. &Rejmánek M. (1973): Notes on some quantitative methods in the study of plant community structure.Preslia 45: 154–164.Google Scholar
  14. Lamont B.B., Hopkins A.J.M. &Hnatiuk R.J. (1984): The flora — composition, diversity and origins. In:Pate J.S. &Beard J.S. (eds.),Kwongan, plant life of the sandplain, University of Western Australia Press, Nedlands, pp. 27–50.Google Scholar
  15. Lepš J. (1995): Variance deficit is not reliable evidence for niche limitation.Folia Geobot Phytotax. 30: 455–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Newman E.I. (1983): Interactions between plants. In:Lange O.L., Nobel P.S., Osmond C.B. &Ziegler H. (eds.),Encyclopedia of plant physiology, New Series, Volume 12C: Physiological plant ecology III., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 679–710.Google Scholar
  17. Niklas K.J. (1992):Plant biomechanics: an engineering approach to plant form and function. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  18. Pickett S.T.A. &Kempf J.S. (1980): Branching patterns in forest shrubs and understorey trees in relation to habitat.New Phytol. 86: 219–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Silvertown J., Holtier S., Johnson J. &Dale P. (1992): Cellular automaton models of interspecific competition for space—the effect of pattern on process.J. Ecol. 80: 527–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Tolliver K.S., Colley D.M.. &Young D.R. (1995): Inhibitory effects ofMyrica cerifera onPinus taeda.Amer. Midl. Naturalist 133: 256–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Vasseur L., Irwin D.L. &Aarssen L.W. (1995): Size versus number of offspring as predictors of success under competition inLemna minor (Lemnaceae).Ann. Bot. Fenn. 32: 169–178.Google Scholar
  22. Vilà M. &Sardans J. (1999): Plant competition in mediterranean-type vegetation.J. Veg. Sci. 10: 281–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wilson J.B. (1995): Testing for community structure: a Bayesian approach.Folia Geobot. Phytotax. 30: 461–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wilson J.B., Steel J.B., Newman J.E. &King W.McG. (2000): Quantitative aspects of community structure, examined in a semi-arid grassland.J. Ecol. 88: 749–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Botany, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alessandro Chiarucci
    • 1
  • Maia Mistral
    • 2
  • Ilaria Bonini
    • 1
  • Barbara J. Anderson
    • 2
  • J. Bastow Wilson
    • 2
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Scienze AmbientaliSienaItaly
  2. 2.Botany DepartmentUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations