Figures
Abstract
Soil is commonly composed of particles of different sizes, and soil particle size may greatly affect the growth of plants because it affects soil physical and chemical properties. However, no study has tested the effects of soil particle heterogeneity on the growth of clonal plants. We conducted a greenhouse experiment in which individual ramets of the wetland plant Bolboschoenus planiculmis were grown in three homogeneous soil treatments with uniformly sized quartz particles (small: 0.75 mm, medium: 1.5 mm, or large: 3 mm), one homogeneous treatment with an even mixture of large and medium particles, and two heterogeneous treatments consisting of 16 or 4 patches of large and medium particles. Biomass, ramet number, rhizome length and spacer length were significantly greater in the treatment with only medium particles than in the one with only large particles. Biomass, ramet number, rhizome length and tuber number in the patchy treatments were greater in patches of medium than of large particles; this difference was more pronounced when patches were small than when they were large. Soil particle size and soil particle heterogeneity can greatly affect the growth of clonal plants. Thus, studies to test the effects of soil heterogeneity on clonal plants should distinguish the effects of nutrient heterogeneity from those of particle heterogeneity.
Citation: Huang L, Dong B-C, Xue W, Peng Y-K, Zhang M-X, Yu F-H (2013) Soil Particle Heterogeneity Affects the Growth of a Rhizomatous Wetland Plant. PLoS ONE 8(7): e69836. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069836
Editor: Ben Bond-Lamberty, DOE Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, United States of America
Received: March 20, 2013; Accepted: June 12, 2013; Published: July 30, 2013
Copyright: © 2013 Huang et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: This research was supported by the Forestry Commonwealth Project (201004078), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (TD-JC-2013-1), the Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University (NECT-10-0234) and the National Science Foundation of China (31070371). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Spatial heterogeneity is an important feature of natural habitats [1]–[5], and plays major roles in shaping plant growth, species interactions, community structure and ecosystem functioning [6]–[15]. Heterogeneity occurs in various spatial scales [2], [3], [5], and the scale of heterogeneity is important because ecological processes that function at one spatial scale may not do so at other scales [16]–[21].
Clonal plants are very abundant in nature and often experience spatial heterogeneity in such a way that connected ramets of the same clone experience contrasting environmental conditions [22]–[24]. Many studies have addressed how spatial heterogeneity in essential resources such as light, soil water and mineral nutrients affects the growth of clonal plants, and these studies generally show that clonal plants can respond to heterogeneity in ways that increase their performance and likely fitness [7], [19]–[20], [25]–[29]. Moreover, clonal plants can respond differently to heterogeneity of soil and light at different spatial scales [18]–[21], [30].
Particle size is an important feature of soil [31]–[34], and it can affect soil physical and chemical properties such as structure, oxygen concentration and water content [33], [35]–[38]. Studies testing the effects of soil nutrient heterogeneity on the performance of clonal plants sometimes compare the growth in substrate with patches of fertile and infertile soil to the growth in a homogeneous mixture of the same amounts of fertile and infertile soil [6], [20]–[21], [39]–[44]. However, fertile and infertile soils generally differ in the size composition of particles, meaning that results of these studies might be partly due to effects of particle size rather than nutrient availability. To test the effects of soil nutrient heterogeneity, therefore, it would be good to create nutrient-rich and nutrient-poor patches with the same type of soil substrate but supplied with different amounts of nutrients [11], [27], [45]–[47]. On the other hand, it would be useful to test the effects of particle size separately. However, no published study appears to have tested the effects of soil particle heterogeneity on the growth of clonal plants.
To test the effects of soil particle heterogeneity on clonal growth, we conducted a greenhouse experiment in which we grew individual ramets of the rhizomatous, wetland plant Bolboschoenus planiculmis in three homogeneous soils each containing only one size class of quartz particles (large, medium or small), one homogeneous soil containing an even mixture of large and medium particles, and two patchy soils consisting of separate patches of large and medium particles and differing in patch scale (large and small patches). We asked the following questions. First, does soil particle size affect the growth (biomass, number of ramets, rhizome length and number of tubers) of B. planiculmis, as shown by comparing the treatments with only large, medium and small particles? Second, does patchiness or scale of patchiness of particle size affect the growth of B. planiculmis at the level of the whole clone, as shown by comparing the treatments with the homogeneously mixed and the two patchy large and medium particles? Based on effects of heterogeneity of other environmental factors on clonal growth, we expected that the growth in the homogeneously mixed treatment would be lowest and that the growth would differ between the two patchy treatments. Scaling theory predicts that organisms respond to spatial heterogeneity at scales related to their own size [16]. We therefore expected that B. planiculmis would show larger responses to soil particle heterogeneity at the scales closer to its spacer length (i.e. inter-ramet distance). Third, does patchiness or scale of patchiness of particle size affect the growth of B. planiculmis at the level of the patches? We expected that, in the patchy treatments, the growth of B. planiculmis would differ between patch types and that these differences would depend upon patch size.
Materials and Methods
Species and Sampling
Bolboschoenus planiculmis (F. Schmidt) T. V. Egorova (Cyperaceae), formerly called Scirpus planiculmis Fr. Schmidt, is a rhizomatous, perennial, herbaceous, wetland plant [48]. The species is native in China (e.g. in Beijing), and also occurs in India, Japan, Kazakhstan, Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Papua New Guinea, Russia, Tajikistan, southwestern Asia and Europe [48]. It attains heights of 0.6 to 1 m and forms solitary shoots from globose tubers. Shoots die back at the end of one growing season, but tubers can form new shoots and rhizomes that produce new tubers in the next growing season. Both tubers and rhizomes that connect them can survive for several years.
On 10 May 2011, more than 200 ramets, each consisting of a green shoot, a tuber at the base of the shoot and some roots, were collected from a natural population of B. planiculmis on the bank of the Beisha River in Beijing. Although the genetic background of these ramets is unknown, they were likely to originate from more than one genet because the longest distance between the sampled ramets was over 50 m. The sampling site did not belong to any farms or national parks and also did not involve any endangered or protected species, so we did not need any relevant permission for collecting plant samples. Each ramet was transplanted into a pot with sufficient nutrition to grow for 15 days. Then 48 ramets of similar size (10–15 cm high with 3–5 leaves) were chosen and used for the experiment.
Experimental Design
The experiment had three homogeneous treatments with a single type of particle size (termed “Small”, “Medium” and “Large”, respectively), two patchy treatments with different patch sizes (“Large patch” and “Small patch”) and a mixture treatment (“Mixture”; Fig. 1). The substratum used in this experiment was pure quartz without any nutrients. In the Small, Medium and Large treatments, the particle sizes of the quartz were on average 0.75, 1.5 and 3.0 mm, respectively.
The experiment had three homogeneous soil treatments with whole boxes filled with small (0.75 mm), medium (1.5 mm) or large (3 mm) quartz (coded as Small, Medium and Large, respectively), one homogeneous treatment with boxes filled with an even mixture of the same amount of large and medium quartz (coded as Mixture), and two heterogeneous treatments consisting of 16 or 4 patches of large and medium quartz (coded as Small patch and Large patch, respectively).
In a previous, eight-week, pilot experiment using the Small, Medium and Large treatments, it was found that B. planiculmis grew best in the Medium and worst in the Large treatment [49]. The medium and large particle sizes were, therefore, used in the Mixture and patchy treatments. In the Large patch treatment, each box (26 cm long×26 cm wide×13.0 cm deep) was divided equally into four parts (each 13 cm×13 cm), and two parts were filled with medium and two with large particles, in checkerboard fashion (Fig. 1). The Small patch treatment was similar except that each box was divided equally into 16 parts (each 6.5 cm×6.5 cm). In the Mixture treatment, each box was filled with a 1∶1 (v: v) mixture of the medium and large particles (Fig. 1). There were no physical barriers between patches, and roots and rhizomes could grow freely between them. Each treatment had eight replicates (boxes) and there were a total of 48 boxes.
On 5 May 2011, the 48 ramets of B. planiculmis were randomly assigned to the six treatments and one ramet was planted in the center of each of the 48 boxes (Fig. 1). The boxes were closed at the bottom so that water and nutrients could not leak. We added 200 ml nutrient solution (1 g Peters Professional [Scotts Professional Limited, Nottingham, UK; N-P-K, 20-20-20] L−1 tap water) evenly to each box every week in the first eight weeks. The total amount of nutrients added corresponded to 14.201 g m−2 yr−1 of each of nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus. The concentration of the nutrient solution used was among the manufacturer's recommended application rate (Scotts Professional Limited, Nottingham, UK) and the nutrients are sufficient for the growth of the plants. Sufficient water was added to the boxes so that the soil in the boxes was flooded and there was always 1 to 3 cm deep water above the soil surface. These measures were to simulate typical wetland conditions experienced by B. planiculmis and also ensured that nutrients were evenly distributed in the boxes.
The experiment was conducted in a greenhouse at Forest Science Co., Ltd., of Beijing Forestry University, maintained at a mean temperature of 26.8°C and a mean relative humidity of 72% (measured by iButton DS 1923, Maxim Integrated Products, USA). The boxes were randomly positioned within an area of 18 m2 and re-positioned systematically every two to three weeks to minimize effects of position.
Harvest and Measurements
The experiment lasted 16 weeks and was ended on 14 September 2011. One plant in each of the Small, Small patch and Large patch treatments died during the experiment, and these plants were excluded from harvest and subsequent analyses. In the homogeneous treatments (Small, Medium, Large and Mixture), the mother and offspring ramets were harvested separately. In the two heterogeneous treatments, the mother ramet and the offspring ramets in each type of patches were harvested separately. We counted number of ramets, number of non-sprouted tubers and measured rhizome length. These three variables are commonly used to measure the capacity of clonal growth, and tubers represent potential ramets. Roots, tubers, rhizomes, leaf blades and leaf sheaths were then separated, oven-dried at 70°C for at least 48 h, and weighed.
Data Analysis
We used one-way ANOVA to examine the effects of soil particle size on the growth (biomass, number of ramets, rhizome length and number of tubers), root-shoot ratio and spacer length (the distance between adjacent ramets) at the whole plant level. In these analyses, we included only the three homogeneous treatments with a single type of particle size (Small, Medium and Large). If a significant effect was detected, a Duncan test was used to compare individual means. We conducted one-way ANOVAs or non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis tests to examine the effects of spatial heterogeneity of soil particles on the growth, root-shoot ratio and spacer length at the whole plant level. In these analyses, three treatments (Small patch, Large patch and Mixture) were used.
We employed two-way ANOVA to examine the effects of particle size (large vs. medium) within patches and patchiness (Large patch vs. Small patch vs. the hypothesized “Null” treatment, see explanation below) on the growth of the plants at the patch level. Data from mother ramets were excluded because they were not located at any patches. The growth pattern (distribution of biomass, ramets, rhizomes and tubers in the two types of soil particle patches) in the Null treatment represented the expected (null) growth pattern in soil without a real patch texture. For this treatment, half values of the corresponding growth variables in the treatment Large were used to represent the expected growth in the large particle patches, and half values of the corresponding growth variables in Medium were used to represent the expected growth in the medium particle patches. We used half values because in the Large patch and the Small patch treatment the plants in each type of patches occupied only half of the area of the whole box. The growth pattern in the Null treatment was used as a null model to show what the pattern was if the placement of biomass, ramets, rhizomes or tubers did not show selectivity (response). For the two heterogeneous treatments, if the growth pattern deviated significantly from the pattern of the Null treatment, as indicated by significant interaction effects of particle size and patchiness, then the plants showed significant selectivity in response to soil particle heterogeneity.
Before analysis, all data were checked for normality (by Shapiro-Wilk test) and homogeneity of variance (by Levene’s test). When we tested the effects of particle heterogeneity on biomass and ramet number at the whole plant level, data could not meet the assumption of normality and/or homogeneity of variance even after transformation. Therefore, non-parametric tests were used for these analyses. Statistical analyses were conducted with SPSS 18.0 for Windows (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA).
Results
Effects of Soil Particle Size at the Whole Plant Level
In the homogeneous treatments, biomass, number of ramets, rhizome length and spacer length of B. planiculmis were significantly greater in the Medium than in the Large treatment, but they did not differ between the Small and Medium treatments (Fig. 2A–C and F). Root-shoot ratio was higher in the Medium and Large treatments than in the Small treatments (Fig. 2E). Soil particle size did not affect number of tubers (Fig. 2D).
The treatment codes are described as in Fig. 1. Bars and vertical lines are means and SE. Bars sharing the same letters are not different at P = 0.05.
Effects of Soil Particle Heterogeneity at the Whole Plant Level
None of the growth or morphological measures of the whole plants differed significantly between the Mixture, Small patch and Large patch treatments (χ2 = 2.47–3.16, P = 0.206–0.290 for biomass and number of ramets; F2, 21 = 0.501–2.186, P = 0.140–0.614 for rhizome length, number of tubers, spacer length and root-shoot ratio). The result suggests that soil particle heterogeneity did not affect the growth or morphology at the whole plant level.
Effects of Soil Particle Heterogeneity at the Patch Level
At the patch level, particle size significantly affected biomass, number of ramets, rhizome length and number of tubers of B. planiculmis (Table 1). In general, biomass, number of ramets, rhizome length and number of tubers were greater in the medium than in the large particle patches (Fig. 3), and such effects were the largest in the Small patch and smallest in the Null treatment (Table 1: significant interaction effect of particle size and patchiness; Fig. 3).
The treatment codes are described as in Fig. 1. In the “Null” treatment, half values of the corresponding variables in Large and Medium were used because in Large patch and Small patch the plants in each type of patches occupied only half of the area of the whole box. Bars and vertical lines are means and SE.
Discussion
Soil particle size significantly affected the growth of B. planiculmis: plants accumulated more ramets and biomass in soil composed of medium (diameter 1.5 mm) or small (0.75 mm) particles than of large (3.0 mm) particles. This result suggests that differences in soil particle size should be considered when we use different soil types to test the effects of soil nutrient availability. Soil particle size may greatly affect both chemical and physical properties of soil [33], [36], [50]–[51]. In the present study, the effects on soil chemical properties may be of little importance because sufficient nutrient solutions were supplied to each plant during the experiment. Previous studies have showed that changing soil physical properties such as soil mechanical resistance, infiltration capacity and adsorption capacity can significantly influence the growth and reproduction of plants [51]–[52]. For example, increasing soil mechanical resistance may slow down root growth and root expansion [52]–[56]. In the present study, each plant was supplied with the same, sufficient amount of nutrients and also grown in simulated wetland (flooded) conditions. Therefore, changing soil infiltration capacity or adsorption capacity caused by different soil particle sizes may also be of little importance. One likely explanation is that differences in soil mechanical resistance mediated by different soil particle sizes are responsible for the difference in the biomass production and clonal reproduction of B. planiculmis. Compared to soil composed of small or medium particles, soil composed of large particles is likely to have a higher mechanical resistance, which significantly decreased the growth of B. planiculmis. Further studies are required to test the relationships between soil particle size and soil mechanical resistance.
Soil particle heterogeneity significantly affected the growth of B. planiculmis at the patch level. Compared to the homogeneous large particle treatment, B. planiculmis produced less biomass and tubers and shorter rhizomes in the comparable area in the large particle patches in the two heterogeneous treatments, and such effects were greater in the small patch than in the large patch treatment. Also, compared to the homogeneous medium particle treatment, B. planiculmis produced more biomass and ramets and longer rhizomes in the comparable area in the medium particle patches in the small patch treatment, but not in the large patch treatment. As a result, in the heterogeneous treatments, comparably more ramets, tubers, biomass and rhizomes were placed in the patches composed of medium particles, which are more favorable for the growth of B. planiculmis [49]. These responses are similar to the foraging responses of clonal plants when growing in resource-heterogeneous environments where clonal plants commonly position more ramets in favorable (resource-rich) patches and less in unfavorable (resource-poor) patches [21], [24], [41], [57]–[58]. Such responses are thought to be adaptive since they potentially can increase resource uptake of the whole clone [57], [59]–[62].
However, at the whole (clone) plant level, we found that soil particle heterogeneity did not affect the growth of B. planiculmis. In contrast, spatial heterogeneity consisting of patches of fertile and infertile soil could greatly increase the whole plant growth of some clonal plants such as Glechoma hederacea and Alternanthera philoxeroides [40]–[41], [63]. Therefore, in these studies the effects of soil heterogeneity at the whole plant levels are very likely due to soil nutrient heterogeneity. When more ramets are located in nutrient-rich patches, both the efficiency and the total amount of nutrient uptake increase markedly [41]. This will result in a significant increase in nutrient uptake of the whole clone as well as its subsequent growth. In the present study, however, because differences in soil mechanical resistance might be the main mechanism underlying the effects of soil particle heterogeneity, the patch-level effects on the selectivity of where ramets are placed and their growth in the patches could not translate into the effects at the whole clone level.
The effects of soil particle heterogeneity were greater in the small patch than in the large patch treatment, suggesting that patch scale may have played an important role during the responses of B. planiculmis to soil particle heterogeneity. Previous studies have also shown that patch scale affected the responses of Glechoma hederacea [20]–[21] and Colophospermum mopane [16] to soil heterogeneity and Duchesnea indica to light heterogeneity [19]. In the present study, the smaller the patch scale was, the more the ramets were placed in the medium particle patches than in the large particle ones. The larger effects of soil particle heterogeneity at the smaller scale were likely because the mean inter-ramet distance (spacer length, 2.3–3.7 cm on average, Fig. 2F) of B. planiculmis, which partly determines the placement and density of ramets in a patch [57], [60], [64], was closer to the patch size (6.5 cm×6.5 cm) in the small patch treatment. This result agrees with scaling theory, which predicts that organisms respond to spatial heterogeneity at scales related to their own size [16], [65]. Another possible interpretation is that in the small patch treatment plants had a higher probability of finding a favorable patch (i.e. consisting of medium particles) when such favorable patches were more spread out. However, this interpretation should be considered only when patch sizes are within a range that plants can sense them, such as the two patch sizes used in the present study. If patch size is set smaller than this range, plants will likely not be able to respond to spatial heterogeneity [65].
In conclusion, soil particle size and heterogeneity may greatly affect the growth of plants. Thus, when we address the effects of soil nutrient availability or the effects of soil nutrient heterogeneity, caution should be taken when different soil types are used to form low and high nutrient conditions, because different soil types may differ greatly in soil particle composition [31]–[32], [66]–[67]. Further studies testing the effects of soil heterogeneity should distinguish the effects of soil nutrient heterogeneity from those of soil particle heterogeneity. The results also suggest that scale should always be considered when we address the effects of spatial heterogeneity [16], [18]–[21].
Acknowledgments
We thank Prof. Peter Alpert and two anonymous reviewers for valuable comments on the manuscript, and Yu-Qiang Li, Qian Zhang, Xiong-Ying Wu and Ming-Lian Chen for assistance with the harvest of the experiment.
Author Contributions
Conceived and designed the experiments: BCD FHY. Performed the experiments: LH YKP WX. Analyzed the data: LH BCD FHY. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: MXZ. Wrote the paper: LH BCD FHY.
References
- 1. Alpert P, Mooney HA (1996) Resource heterogeneity generated by shrubs and topography on coastal sand dunes. Vegetatio 122: 83–93.
- 2.
Caldwell MM, Pearcy RW (1994) Exploitation of environmental heterogeneity by plants: ecophysiological processes above-and belowground. San Diego: Academic Press.
- 3. Jackson RB, Caldwell MM (1993) Geostatistical patterns of soil heterogeneity around individual perennial plants. Journal of Ecology 81: 683–692.
- 4. Li P-X, Wang N, He W-M, Krusi BO (2008) Fertile islands under Artemisia ordosica in inland dunes of northern China: Effects of habitats and plant developmental stages. Journal of Arid Environments 72: 953–963.
- 5. Chen YF, Yu F-H, Dong M (2002) Scale-dependent spatial heterogeneity of vegetation in Mu Us sandy land, a semi-arid area of China. Plant Ecology 162: 135–142.
- 6. Fransen B, de Kroon H, Berendse F (2001) Soil nutrient heterogeneity alters competition between two perennial grass species. Ecology 82: 2534–2546.
- 7. Day KJ, Hutchings MJ, John EA (2003) The effects of spatial pattern of nutrient supply on the early stages of growth in plant populations. Journal of Ecology 91: 305–315.
- 8. García-Palacios P, Maestre FT, Gallardo A (2011) Soil nutrient heterogeneity modulates ecosystem responses to changes in the identity and richness of plant functional groups. Journal of Ecology 99: 551–562.
- 9. Mommer L, Visser EJW, van Ruijven J, de Caluwe H, Pierik R, et al. (2011) Contrasting root behaviour in two grass species: a test of functionality in dynamic heterogeneous conditions. Plant and Soil 344: 347–360.
- 10. Maestre FT, Reynolds JF (2006) Spatial heterogeneity in soil nutrient supply modulates nutrient and biomass responses to multiple global change drivers in model grassland communities. Global Change Biology 12: 2431–2441.
- 11. Wijesinghe DK, John EA, Hutchings MJ (2005) Does pattern of soil resource heterogeneity determine plant community structure? An experimental investigation. Journal of Ecology 93: 99–112.
- 12. Maestre FT, Bradford MA, Reynolds JF (2005) Soil nutrient heterogeneity interacts with elevated CO2 and nutrient availability to determine species and assemblage responses in a model grassland community. New Phytologist 168: 637–650.
- 13. Maestre FT, Reynolds JF (2007) Amount or pattern? Grassland responses to the heterogeneity and availability of two key resources. Ecology 88: 501–511.
- 14. Maestre FT, Reynolds JF (2006) Nutrient availability and atmospheric CO2 partial pressure modulate the effects of nutrient heterogeneity on the size structure of populations in grassland species. Annals of Botany 98: 227–235.
- 15. García-Palacios P, Maestre FT, Bardgett RD, de Kroon H (2012) Plant responses to soil heterogeneity and global environmental change. Journal of Ecology 100: 1303–1314.
- 16. van der Waal C, de Kroon H, Heitkönig I, Skidmore AK, van Langevelde F, et al. (2011) Scale of nutrient patchiness mediates resource partitioning between trees and grasses in a semi-arid savanna. Journal of Ecology 99: 1124–1133.
- 17. Wiens JA (1989) Spatial scaling in ecology. Functional Ecology 3: 385–397.
- 18. Kume T, Sekiya N, Yano K (2006) Heterogeneity in spatial P-distribution and foraging capability by Zea mays: effects of patch size and barriers to restrict root proliferation within a patch. Annals of Botany 98: 1271–1277.
- 19. Wang P, Lei J-P, Li M-H, Yu F-H (2012) Spatial heterogeneity in light supply affects intraspecific competition of a stoloniferous clonal plant. PloS ONE 7: e39105.
- 20. Wijesinghe DK, Hutchings MJ (1997) The effects of spatial scale of environmental heterogeneity on the growth of a clonal plant: an experimental study with Glechoma hederacea. Journal of Ecology 85: 17–28.
- 21. Wijesinghe DK, Hutchings MJ (1999) The effects of environmental heterogeneity on the performance of Glechoma hederacea: the interactions between patch contrast and patch scale. Journal of Ecology 87: 860–872.
- 22. Kleijn D, van Groenendael JM (2001) The exploitation of heterogeneity by a clonal plant in habitats with contrasting productivity levels. Journal of Ecology 87: 873–884.
- 23.
Klimes L, Klimesova J, Hendriks R, Van Groenendael J (1997) Clonal plant architecture: a comparative analysis of form and function. In: de Kroon H, van Groenendael J, editors. The ecology and evolution of clonal plants. Leiden: Backhuys Publishers. 1–29.
- 24. Roiloa SR, Retuerto R (2006) Small-scale heterogeneity in soil quality influences photosynthetic efficiency and habitat selection in a clonal plant. Annals of Botany 98: 1043–1052.
- 25. Alpert P (1999) Clonal integration in Fragaria chiloensis differs between populations: ramets from grassland are selfish. Oecologia 120: 69–76.
- 26. de Kroon H, Kreulen R, van Rheenen JWA, van Dijk A (1998) The interaction between water and nitrogen translocation in a rhizomatous sedge (Carex flacca). Oecologia 116: 38–49.
- 27. Mommer L, van Ruijven J, Jansen C, van de Steeg HM, de Kroon H (2012) Interactive effects of nutrient heterogeneity and competition: implications for root foraging theory? Functional Ecology 26: 66–73.
- 28. Roiloa SR, Retuerto R (2007) Responses of the clonal Fragaria vesca to microtopographic heterogeneity under different water and light conditions. Environmental and Experimental Botany 61: 1–9.
- 29. Zhang Y, Zhang Q, Luo P (2008) Photosynthetic response of Fragaria orientalis in different water contrast clonal integration. Ecological Research 24: 617–625.
- 30. Lamb EG, Haag JJ, Cahill JF (2004) Patch-background contrast and patch density have limited effects on root proliferation and plant performance in Abutilon theophrasti. Functional Ecology 18: 836–843.
- 31. Gee GW, Or D (2002) Methods of soil analysis: physical methods. Soil Science Society of America Journal 5: 255–278.
- 32. Shein EV (2009) The particle-size distribution in soils: problems of the methods of study, interpretation of the results, and classification. Eurasian soil science 42: 284–291.
- 33. Wang D, Fu B-J, Chen L-D, Zhao W-W, Wang Y-F (2007) Fractal analysis on soil particle size distributions under different land-use types: a case study in the loess hilly areas of the Loess Plateau, China. Acta Ecologica Sinica 27: 3081–3089.
- 34. Zhou X-F, Zhao R, Li Y-Y, Chen X-Y (2009) Effects of land use types on particle size distribution of reclaimed alluvial soil of the Yangtze Estuary. Acta Ecologica Sinica 29: 5544–5551.
- 35. Kettler T, Doran JW, Gilbert T (2001) Simplified method for soil particle-size determination to accompany soil-quality analyses. Soil Science Society of America Journal 65: 849–852.
- 36. Medinski TV, Mills AJ, Fey MV (2009) Relationships between soil particle size fractions and infiltrability. South African Journal of Plant and Soil 26: 147–156.
- 37. Montero E (2005) Rényi dimensions analysis of soil particle-size distributions. Ecological Modelling 182: 305–315.
- 38. Rawls WJ, Brakensiek DL, Saxton KE (1982) Estimation of soil water properties. Trans Asae 25: 1316–1320.
- 39. Poor A, Hershock C, Rosella K, Goldberg D (2005) Do physiological integration and soil heterogeneity influence the clonal growth and foraging of Schoenoplectus pungens? Plant Ecology 181: 45–56.
- 40. Zhou J, Dong B-C, Alpert P, Li H-L, Zhang M-X, et al. (2012) Effects of soil nutrient heterogeneity on intraspecific competition in the invasive, clonal plant Alternanthera philoxeroides. Annals of Botany 109: 813–818.
- 41. Birch CPD, Hutchings MJ (1994) Exploitation of patchily distributed soil resources by the clonal herb Glechoma hederacea. Journal of Ecology 82: 653–664.
- 42. Cahill JF, McNickle GG, Haag JJ, Lamb EG, Nyanumba SM, et al. (2010) Plants integrate information about nutrients and neighbors. Science 328: 1657.
- 43. McNickle GG, Cahill JF (2009) Plant root growth and the marginal value theorem. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106: 4747–4751.
- 44. Janecek S, Janeckova P, Leps J (2004) Influence of soil heterogeneity and competition on growth features of three meadow species. Flora 199: 3–11.
- 45. Gross KL, Peters A, Pregitzer KS (1993) Fine root growth and demographic responses to nutrient patches in four old-field plant species. Oecologia 95: 61–64.
- 46. Reynolds HL, Mittelbach GG, Darcy-Hall TL, Houseman GR, Gross KL (2007) No effect of varying soil resource heterogeneity on plant species richness in a low fertility grassland. Journal of Ecology 95: 723–733.
- 47. Day KJ, Hutchings MJ, John EA (2003) The effects of spatial pattern of nutrient supply on yield, structure and mortality in plant populations. Journal of Ecology 91: 541–553.
- 48.
Wu Z-Y (2010) Flora of China, V 23. Beijing: Science Press. 180 p.
- 49.
Huang L (2011) Effects of soil particle on the growth of the clonal plant Scirpus planiculmis [Dissertation]: Beijing Forestry University.
- 50. Bronick CJ, Lal R (2005) Soil structure and management: a review. Geoderma 124: 3–22.
- 51. Mando A, Ouattara B, Somado AE, Wopereis MCS, Stroosnijder L, et al. (2005) Long-term effects of fallow, tillage and manure application on soil organic matter and nitrogen fractions and on sorghum yield under Sudano-Sahelian conditions. Soil Use and Management 21: 25–31.
- 52. Tracy SR, Black CR, Roberts JA, Mooney SJ (2011) Soil compaction: a review of past and present techniques for investigating effects on root growth. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 91: 1528–1537.
- 53. Bengough AG, McKenzie BM, Hallett PD, Valentine TA (2011) Root elongation, water stress, and mechanical impedance: a review of limiting stresses and beneficial root tip traits. Journal of Experimental Botany 62: 59–68.
- 54. Bengough AG, Mullins CE (1990) Mechanical impedance to root growth: a review of experimental techniques and root growth responses. Journal of Soil Science 41: 341–358.
- 55. Dexter AR (1987) Mechanics of root growth. Plant and Soil 98: 303–312.
- 56. Ehlers W, Köpke U, Hesse F, Böhm W (1983) Penetration resistance and root growth of oats in tilled and untilled loess soil. Soil and Tillage Research 3: 261–275.
- 57. de Kroon H, Hutchings MJ (1995) Morphological plasticity in clonal plants: the foraging concept reconsidered. Journal of Ecology 83: 143–152.
- 58. Evans JP, Cain ML (1995) A spatially explicit test of foraging behavior in a clonal plant. Ecology 76: 1147–1155.
- 59.
Alpert P, Stuefer JF (1997) Division of labour in clonal plants. In: de Kroon H, van Groenendael J, editors. The ecology and evolution of clonal plants. Leiden: Backbuys Publishers. 137–154.
- 60. Hutchings MJ, de Kroon H (1994) Foraging in plants: the role of morphological plasticity in resource acquisition. Advances in Ecological Research 25: 159–238.
- 61. Hutchings MJ, Wijesinghe DK (1997) Patchy habitats, division of labour and growth dividends in clonal plants. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 12: 390–394.
- 62. de Kroon H, Visser EJ, Huber H, Mommer L, Hutchings MJ (2009) A modular concept of plant foraging behaviour: the interplay between local responses and systemic control. Plant, Cell & Environment 32: 704–712.
- 63. Hutchings M, Wijesinghe D (2008) Performance of a clonal species in patchy environments: effects of environmental context on yield at local and whole-plant scales. Evolutionary Ecology 22: 313–324.
- 64. Dong M (1995) Morphological responses to local light conditions in clonal herbs from contrasting habitats, and their modification due to physiological integration. Oecologia 101: 282–288.
- 65. Hutchings MJ, John EA, Wijesinghe DK (2003) Toward understanding the consequences of soil heterogeneity for plant populations and communities. Ecology 84: 2322–2334.
- 66. Keller T, Håkansson I (2010) Estimation of reference bulk density from soil particle size distribution and soil organic matter content. Geoderma 154: 398–406.
- 67. Miranda JGV, Montero E, Alves MC, Paz González A, Vidal Vázquez E (2006) Multifractal characterization of saprolite particle-size distributions after topsoil removal. Geoderma 134: 373–385.