Growth and Space Use in Competitive Interactions Between Juvenile Trees

  • T. E. E. GramsEmail author
  • M. J. Daigo
  • J. B. Winkler
  • S. Gayler
  • R. Matyssek
Part of the Ecological Studies book series (ECOLSTUD, volume 220)


We review a series of growth chamber experiments on the effects of elevated carbon dioxide (CO2) and ozone (O3) on Norway spruce (Picea abies Karst.) and European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.), grown in isolation or under intra- and inter-specific competition. Focus is on the mechanistic grounds of competitive interactions between the two tree species and on the question of whether competition affects the responses of plants to the gaseous treatments. We found competitive interactions between plants to significantly alter impacts of atmospheric CO2 and O3 concentrations. It appears that the more intense the competition is, the stronger the response to other stressors may be modified. Hence, responses of plants grown in isolation are of only limited relevance for plants grown in mono- or mixed cultures. In situations with intense competitive interactions, the efficient occupation of space represents an effective mechanism to be competitive by increasing the resource accessibility relative to competing neighbors.


Mixed Culture Relative Growth Rate Competitive Interaction Competitive Success Space Occupation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors are indebted to Drs. H.-D. Payer and H. K. Seidlitz (Helmholtz Zentrum München—German Research Center for Environmental Health) as well as their teams for excellent and unstinting cooperation and support during the experiments in the phytotron facility. In particular, the Master and PhD-students of this project, i.e., A. Jungermann, Dr. A. R. Kozovits, G. Luedemann and Dr. W. Ritter, is thanked. We gratefully acknowledge the skilful assistance by T. Feuerbach, J. Heckmair, P. Kuba, J. Lebherz, H. Lohner and I. Süß. We thank Drs. C. Andersen (EPA, Corvallis, Oregon, USA), F. Fleischmann (Pathology of Woody Plants, Technische Universität München, Germany) and K.-H. Häberle (Ecophysiology of Plants, Technische Universität München, Germany) for valuable discussions. Dr. U. Lüttge (Institute of Botany, Darmstadt University, Germany) is thanked for valuable comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. The investigation was funded through SFB 607 “Growth and Parasite Defense, Project B5” by the “Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft” (DFG).


  1. Daigo MJ, Gayler S, Priesack E, Matyssek R, Grams TEE (submitted) The mode of competition for light and water among juvenile beech and spruce under ambient and elevated levels of O3 and CO2 Google Scholar
  2. Falge E, Graber W, Siegwolf R, Tenhunen JD (1996) A model of the gas exchange response of Picea abies to habitat conditions. Trees 10(5):277–287Google Scholar
  3. Falster DS, Westoby M (2003) Plant height and evolutionary games. Trends Ecol Evol 18:337–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fowler D, Amann M, Anderson R, Ashmore M, Cox P, Depledge M, Derwent D, Grennfelt P, Hewitt N, Hov O, Jenkin M, Kelly F, Liss P, Pilling M, Pyle J, Slingo J, Stefenson D (2008) Science policy report 15/08: ground-level ozone in the 21st century: future trends, impacts and policy implications. The Royal Society, London, UK, p 132Google Scholar
  5. Garrigues E, Doussan C, Pierret A (2006) Water uptake by plant roots: I – Formation and propagation of a water extraction front in mature root systems as evidenced by 2D light transmission imaging. Plant Soil 283(1–2):83–98. doi: 10.1007/s11104-004-7903-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gayler S, Grams TEE, Kozovits AR, Winkler JB, Luedemann G, Priesack E (2006) Analysis of competition effects in mono- and mixed cultures of juvenile beech and spruce by means of the plant growth simulation model PLATHO. Plant Biol 8(4):503–514PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Grams TEE, Andersen CP (2007) Competition for resources in trees: physiological versus morphological plasticity. In: Esser K, Lüttge U, Beyschlag W, Murata J (eds) Progress in botany, vol 68. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 356–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grams TEE, Lüttge U (2011) Space as a resource. In: Esser K, Lüttge U, Beyschlag W, Murata J (eds) Progress in botany, vol 72. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 349–370Google Scholar
  9. Grams TEE, Matyssek R (1999) Elevated CO2 counteracts the limitation by chronic ozone exposure on photosynthesis in Fagus sylvatica L.: comparison between chlorophyll fluorescence and leaf gas exchange. Phyton 39(4):31–39Google Scholar
  10. Grams TEE, Matyssek R (2010) Stable isotope signatures reflect competitiveness between trees under changed CO2/O3 regimes. Environ Pollut 158:1036–1042PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grams TEE, Anegg S, Häberle KH, Langebartels C, Matyssek R (1999) Interactions of chronic exposure to elevated CO2 and O3 levels in the photosynthetic light and dark reactions of European beech (Fagus sylvatica). New Phytol 144(1):95–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grams TEE, Kozovits AR, Reiter IM, Winkler JB, Sommerkorn M, Blaschke H, Häberle KH, Matyssek R (2002) Quantifying competitiveness in woody plants. Plant Biol 4(2):153–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hunt R, Causton DR, Shipley B, Askew AP (2002) A modern tool for classical plant growth analysis. Ann Bot 90(4):485–488PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jungermann A (1998) Photosynthese, Wasserbedarf und Allokation in Buche (Fagus sylvatica L.) unter kombinierten CO2/O3-Regimen. Diploma thesis, FH WeihenstephanGoogle Scholar
  15. Körner C (2003a) Carbon limitation in trees. J Ecol 91(1):4–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Körner C (2003b) Ecological impacts of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on terrestrial ecosystems. Philos Transact R Soc Lond A Math Phys Eng Sci 361(1810):2023–2041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Körner C (2006) Plant CO2 responses: an issue of definition, time and resource supply. New Phytol 172(3):393–411PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kozovits AR, Matyssek R, Blaschke H, Göttlein A, Grams TEE (2005a) Competition increasingly dominates the responsiveness of juvenile beech and spruce to elevated CO2 and/or O3 concentrations throughout two subsequent growing seasons. Glob Change Biol 11:1387–1401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kozovits AR, Matyssek R, Winkler JB, Göttlein A, Blaschke H, Grams TEE (2005b) Above-ground space sequestration determines competitive success in juvenile beech and spruce trees. New Phytol 167(1):181–196PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Küppers M (1989) Ecological significance of above-ground architectural patterns in woody plants – a question of cost-benefit relationships. Trends Ecol Evol 4(12):375–379PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Landhausser SM (2011) Aspen shoots are carbon autonomous during bud break. Trees 25(3): 531–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Langebartels C, Ernst D, Heller W, Lütz C, Payer H-D, Sandermann H Jr (1997) Ozone responses of trees: results from controlled chamber exposures at the GSF phytotron. In: Sandermann HJ, Wellburn AR, Heath RL (eds) Ecological studies, vol 127. Springer, Berlin, pp 163–200Google Scholar
  23. Luedemann G, Matyssek R, Fleischmann F, Grams TEE (2005) Acclimation to ozone affects host/pathogen interaction and competitiveness for nitrogen in juvenile Fagus sylvatica and Picea abies trees infected with Phytophthora citricola. Plant Biol 7(6):640–649PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Luedemann G, Matyssek R, Winkler JB, Grams TEE (2009) Contrasting ozone × pathogen interaction as mediated through competition between juvenile European beech (Fagus sylvatica) and Norway spruce (Picea abies). Plant Soil 323:47–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Matyssek R, Schulze ED (1987) Heterosis in hybrid larch (Larix decidua × leptolepis) II. Growth characteristics. Trees 1:225–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Matyssek R, Karnosky DF, Wieser G, Percy K, Oksanen E, Grams TEE, Kubiske M, Hanke D, Pretzsch H (2010a) Advances in understanding ozone impact on forest trees: messages from novel phytotron and free-air fumigation studies. Environ Pollut 158(6):1990–2006PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Matyssek R, Wieser G, Ceulemans R, Rennenberg H, Pretzsch H, Haberer K, Löw M, Nunn AJ, Werner H, Wipfler P, Oßwald W, Nikolova P, Hanke DE, Kraigher H, Tausz M, Bahnweg G, Kitao M, Dieler J, Sandermann H, Herbinger K, Grebenc T, Blumenröther M, Deckmyn G, Grams TEE, Heerdt C, Leuchner M, Fabian P, Häberle K-H (2010b) Enhanced ozone strongly reduces carbon sink strength of adult beech (Fagus sylvatica) – resume from the free-air fumigation study at Kranzberg Forest. Environ Pollut 158:2527–2532PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Millard P, Sommerkorn M, Grelet GA (2007) Environmental change and carbon limitation in trees: a biochemical, ecophysiological and ecosystem appraisal. New Phytol 175(1):11–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Navas ML, Garnier E, Austin MP, Gifford RM (1999) Effect of competition on the responses of grasses and legumes to elevated atmospheric CO2 along a nitrogen gradient: differences between isolated plants, monocultures and multi- species mixtures. New Phytol 143(2):323–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Payer HD, Blodow P, Köfferlein M, Lippert M, Schmolke W, Seckmeyer G, Seidlitz HK, Strube D, Thiel S (1993) Controlled environment chambers for experimental studies on plant responses to CO2 and interactions with pollutants. In: Schulze ED, Mooney HA (eds) Ecosystems Research Report No. 6: design and execution of experiments on CO2 enrichment. Commission European Communities, Brussels, pp 127–145Google Scholar
  31. Poorter H, Navas ML (2003) Plant growth and competition at elevated CO2: on winners, losers and functional groups. New Phytol 157(2):175–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Reiter IM, Häberle KH, Nunn AJ, Heerdt C, Reitmayer H, Grote R, Matyssek R (2005) Competitive strategies in adult beech and spruce: space-related foliar carbon investment versus carbon gain. Oecologia 146(3):337–349PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ritter W, Lehmeier CA, Winkler JB, Matyssek R, Grams TEE (submitted) Contrasting responses in carbon allocation of juvenile European beech (Fagus sylvatica) and Norway spruce (Picea abies) to competition and disturbance by ozoneGoogle Scholar
  34. Rodenkirchen H, Göttlein A, Kozovits AR, Matyssek R, Grams TEE (2009) Nutrient contents and efficiencies of beech and spruce saplings as influenced by competition and O3/CO2 regime. Eur J Forest Res 128:117–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schwinning S (1996) Decomposition analysis of competitive symmetry and size structure dynamics. Ann Bot 77:47–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schwinning S, Weiner J (1998) Mechanisms determining the degree of size asymmetry in competition among plants. Oecologia 113:447–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sitch S, Cox PM, Collins WJ, Huntingford C (2007) Indirect radiative forcing of climate change through ozone effects on the land-carbon sink. Nature 448(7155):791–794PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Spinnler D, Egli P, Körner C (2002) Four-year growth dynamics of beech-spruce model ecosystems under CO2 enrichment on two different forest soils. Trees 16(6):423–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sprugel DG, Hinckley TM, Schaap W (1991) The theory and practice of branch autonomy. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 22:309–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Syring KM, Claassen N (1995) Estimation of the influx and the radius of the depletion zone developing around a root during nutrient uptake. Plant Soil 175(1):115–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Thiel S, Döhring T, Köfferlein M, Kosak A, Martin P, Seidlitz HK (1996) A phytotron for plant stress research: how far can artificial lighting compare to natural sunlight? J Plant Physiol 148:456–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Volpe G, Bianco LB, Rieger M (2008) Carbon autonomy of peach shoots determined by 13C photoassimilate transport. Tree Physiol 28(12):1805–1812PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. E. E. Grams
    • 1
    Email author
  • M. J. Daigo
    • 1
  • J. B. Winkler
    • 2
  • S. Gayler
    • 3
  • R. Matyssek
    • 1
  1. 1.Chair of Ecophysiology of PlantsTechnische Universität MünchenFreisingGermany
  2. 2.Research Unit Environmental Simulation, Institute of Biochemical Plant PathologyGerman Research Center for Environmental Health, Helmholtz Zentrum MünchenNeuherbergGermany
  3. 3.Water & Earth System Science (WESS) Competence Clusterc/o Universität TübingenTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations