Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T15:13:06.574Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Methods of analysing competition with special reference to herbage plants: I. Establishment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. Hill  and
Y. Shimamoto
J. Hill
Affiliation:
Welsh Plant Breeding Station, Aberystwyth
Y. Shimamoto
Affiliation:
Welsh Plant Breeding Station, Aberystwyth
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

A diallel arrangement, which incorporated the essential features of the de Wit density replacement series, was employed to study the effects of competition amongst five genotypes of perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne). Of the five genotypes concerned two were derived from S·24, two were collected from natural populations in South Wales, while the remaining genotype originated from S· 23. These five genotypes were grown as monocultures and in all ten binary combinations. Within each combination there were three mixture proportions, namely 75:25, 50:50 and 25:75. All mixtures and monocultures were represented by two boxes, one of which was cut at 3-week intervals (frequent cutting) the other being cut at 6-week intervals (infrequent cutting). At each cut all plants within the appropriate mixtures and monocultures were harvested individually and their dry weight recorded.

The results obtained over the first 18 weeks of the experiment (i. e. the first three complete growing periods) establish that competition is occurring in nine of the ten binary combinations. Within these nine combinations competition may be classified into one of three groups: first, it may be compensatory, in which the gains and losses incurred by the two components counterbalance; secondly, it may be positive complete complementation, where the advantage gained by the stronger component is such that the mixture performance matches that of the better monoculture, and thirdly, it may be positive over-complementation, where the yield of the better monoculture is surpassed by the mixture. Further tests disclose that a long-leaved S· 24 genotype is the strongest competitor, while a short-leaved, prostrate, indigenous genotype proves to be by far the weakest competitor.

Estimates of the equilibrium proportions for each genotype combination suggest that most combinations are expected to become monocultures of the strongest component, with only the combination between the long-leaved indigenous and longleaved S· 23 genotypes remaining a mixture at equilibrium. None of these equilibria coincides with the proportions required to achieve maximum productivity from a particular combination. The results are considered in relation to the known characteristics of these five perennial ryegrass genotypes, while the wider agronomic implications are also discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 81 , Issue 1 , August 1973 , pp. 77 - 89
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1973

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baeumer, K. & De Wit, C. T. (1968). Competitive interference of plant species in monocultures and mixed stands. Neth. J. agric. Sci. 16, 103–22.Google Scholar
Cooper, J. P. (1970). Potential production and energy conversion in temperate and tropical grasses. Herb. Abstr. 40, 1–15.Google Scholar
Cooper, J. P., Rhodes, I. & Sheehy, J. E. (1971). Canopy structure, light interception and potential production in forage grasses. Rep. Welsh PI. Breed. Stnfor 1970, 57–69.Google Scholar
De Wit, C. T. (1960). On competition. Versl. landbouwk. Onderz. Ned. 66, 1–82.Google Scholar
De Wit, C. T., Tow, P. G. & Ennik, G. C. (1966). Competition between legumes and grasses. Versl. landbouwk. Onderz. Ned. 687, 1–30.Google Scholar
Donald, C. M. (1963). Competition among crop and pasture plants. Adv. Agron. 15, 1–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durrant, A. (1965). Analysis of reciprocal differences in diallel crosses. Heredity, Lond. 20, 573–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, John L. (1965). The nature and consequences of interference amongst plants. Proc. Xlth Int. Congr. Genets 2, 465–82.Google Scholar
Jinks, J. L. & Hayman, B. I. (1953). The analysis of diallel crosses. Maize Genet. Cooperation News Letter 28, 48–54.Google Scholar
Mather, K. (1949). Biometrical Genetics. London: Methuen and Co.Google Scholar
McGilchrist, C. A. (1965). Analysis of competition experiments. Biometrics 21, 975–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGilchrist, C. A. & Trenbath, B. R. (1971). A revised analysis of plant competition experiments. Biometrics 27, 659–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhodes, I. (1969). The relationship between productivity and some components of canopy structure in ryegrass (Loliumspp.). I. Leaf length. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 73, 315–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sakai, K. I. (1955). Competition in plants and its relation to selection. Cold Spring. Harb. Symp. quant. Biol. 20, 137–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sakai, K. I. (1957). Studies on competition in plants. VII. Effect on competition of a varying number of competing and non-competing individuals. J. Genet. 55, 227–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sakai, K. I. (1961). Competitive ability in plants: its inheritance and some related problems. Symp. Soc. exp. Biol. 15, 245–63.Google Scholar
Thomson, A. J. (1969). Yields and tiller numbers of four perennial ryegrass varieties grown as mono cultures and certain mixtures in micro plots. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 73, 321–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, E. J. (1962). The analysis of competition experiments. Aust. J. Btol. Sci. 15, 509–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar