Investigating the relationship between neighbor root biomass and belowground competition: field evidence for symmetric competition belowground

By J. Cahill, B. Casper. 2000

155 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Agronomy and Crop Science, Plant Science, Soil Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b3dac5324a8b2acc3d1bfc8c64f6d2e5240a91d7

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Agronomy and Crop Science

In Plant Science

In Soil Science

Citations in the corpus

Are competitive effect and response two sides of the same coin, or fundamentally different? (2010, background): “General body-size may be less important when competition is for soil resources, as root competition is sizesymmetric (Cahill & Casper 2000).”
Lack of relationship between below‐ground competition and allocation to roots in 10 grassland species (2003, background): “There is growing evidence that belowground competition is size-symmetric, with the effects of neighbour roots on target plant growth being proportional to their abundance (Gerry & Wilson 1995; Weiner et al. 1997; Cahill & Casper 2000; Blair 2001; von Wettberg & Weiner in press).”
The distribution of below‐ground traits is explained by intrinsic species differences and intraspecific plasticity in response to root neighbours (2013, background): “…the distributions of above- and below-ground community traits (such as greater symmetry of competition below-ground compared with above-ground (Cahill & Casper 2000)) or that there is unmeasured variation in above-ground traits at a scale smaller than what has been considered in previous…”
DEFINING A PLANT'S BELOWGROUND ZONE OF INFLUENCE (2003, background): “…tracers, holds much more promise than measures of root biomass, root/shoot ratio, or even total root surface area (Gleeson and Tilman 1990, Aerts et al. 1991, Cahill and Casper 2000, Johnson and Biondini 2001) in helping us understand the strength of belowground interactions in plant communities.”
Differential genetic influences on competitive effect and response in Arabidopsis thaliana (2005, background): “Instead, soil resource capture will be a function of both the foraging area of the competing plants and uptake kinetics (Caldwell 1987; Fitter et al. 1991), and the strength of competition is related to root abundance (Cahill & Casper 2000).”
A guide for using functional diversity indices to reveal changes in assembly processes along ecological gradients (2013, background): “Competition for light is size-asymmetric (i.e. larger individuals are disproportionately advantaged) whereas below-ground competition is size-symmetric (Schwinning & Weiner 1998; Berntson & Wayne 2000; Cahill & Casper 2000).”
Belowground competition in a broad-leaved temperate mixed forest: pattern analysis and experiments in a four-species stand (2009, background): “Weiner et al. 1997; Cahill and Casper 2000 ).”
Root competition: beyond resource depletion (2006, background): “Most experimental evidence suggests that resource acquisition by root systems of competing plants tends to be roughly proportional to the differences in their sizes (Weiner 1986; Schwinning & Weiner 1998; Berntson & Wayne 2000; Cahill & Casper 2000).”
Shoot, but not root, competition reduces community diversity in experimental mesocosms (2009, background): “Without a feedback mechanism to magnify size differences, the impact of competition will be proportional for all plants in the community (Weiner 1986; Schwinning & Weiner 1998; Cahill & Casper 2000; von Wettberg & Weiner 2003).”
Effects of insects on primary production in temperate herbaceous communities: a meta‐analysis (2003, methodology): “Following the methods of Cahill and Casper (2000) , this method tested whether adding the quadratic or cubic terms increased the F ratio of the model significantly.”