Free 1

The Impacts of Interspecific Competition on Plant Growth

Britney Free
Missouri Southern State University
Principles of Biology II
David A. Penning
Laboratory Report
May 10, 2021
 Free 2

Abstract:
The impact of interspecific competition was evaluated under laboratory conditions on Brassica
rapa grown in various competition levels with Raphanus raphanistrum. Four levels of
competition were examined control, low, medium, and high, each having zero, one, two, and
four competitors, respectively. The experiment took place over a 49-day period with 80 trials run
total split evenly among all four competition levels. Experimental data was collected on above-
ground height, above-ground mass, number of flowers, and number of leaves were collected.
Upon analysis, the only significant difference found was in above-ground mass, B. rappa grown
in high and medium competition was significantly lighter than the control group.

Introduction:
Competition occurs everywhere and is the relationship between two organisms that strive for the
same limited resources such as food, water, or space (Mader & Windelspecht, 2016). Since
Darwin, competition has been considered one of the driving forces in shaping plants'
morphology and life history. As a result of this position, plant competition has been studied from
a multitude of perspectives (Grace, 2012). Intraspecific competition occurs between members of
the same species while, interspecific competition refers to the competition between two different
species (Miller & Spoolman, 2009). Interference is a type of interspecific competition in which
two species use direct methods to deal with competitors (Grether et al., 2009). Exploitation is a
more indirect method of interspecific competition where a species uses up the resources in a
specific space and competitors lose access to those resources (Bhuyain & Lim, 2019). Moreover,
Interspecific competition in plant communities is highly dependent on nutrient availability:
“At high levels of nutrient availability, competition is mainly for light. As light is a
unidirectional resource, high-nutrient habitats are dominated by fast-growing perennials
with a tall stature and a rather uniform vertical distribution of leaf area. Moreover, these
species have high turnover rates of leaves and roots and a high morphological plasticity
during the differentiation of leaves.” (Aerts, 1999, para 1)
There has, however, been less of a consensus on the effects of interspecific competition in
nutrient-poor environments (Aerts, 1999).

In this experiment, we test how various levels of competition will affect our primary organism of
study for this experiment was Brassica rapa. Brassica rapa will be grown in four competition
levels control, low, medium, and high, each having zero, one, two, and four competitors
respectively. We will be studying how this interspecific competition affects above-ground
height, above-ground mass, number of leaves, number of flowers, and below-ground mass if
possible. Our competitor for this experiment will be Raphanus raphanistrum.
 Free 3

Materials and Methods:

We investigated the impacts of interspecific competition on plant growth in a laboratory setting.
Our primary organism of study for this experiment was Brassica rapa which was grown in
various competition levels with Raphanus raphanistrum.

Our experimentation began on January 26th, in which 80 square nursery pots were prepared and
filled with topsoil before being split evenly between our four levels of competition which were
labeled as control, low, medium, and high. These consisted of none, one, two, and four
competitors respectively. For our control group, one Brassica rapa seed was planted in the center
of the pot. For our low, medium, and high levels of competition, one Brassica rapa seed was
planted in the center of the pot, and one, two, and four Raphanus raphanistrum seeds were
planted in the corners of the pot, opposite of one another were applicable (Figure 1). All seeds
were planted approximately about a pinky finger’s length into the soil. The pots were then
labeled and randomly placed in clusters of four beneath a 121.92 cm fluorescent bulb. Each pot
was watered regularly and given the same amount of water regardless of competition level. The
experiment was left to run over a 7-week period before data collection occurred on March 16th,
where experimental data on above-ground height, above-ground mass, number of leaves, number
of flowers. We reported ground height, above-ground mass, number of leaves, number of flowers
as a response variable based on previously published methods (Aerts,1999; Ronchi & Silva,
2006; McPhee & Aarssen, 2001)

Figure 1. Visual representation of competition levels

 Free 4

Results:
We started with 20 replicates of each treatment, 80 treatments total. However, 22 individual
samples did not germinate, leaving us with 62 samples across four treatments. In general, B.
rappa grew to 258mm in the control, 218mm in low competition, 237mm in medium
competition, and 216mm in high competition. While there was some difference in the average
growth across groups, there was no significant difference in above-ground height of B. rappa
when exposed to different levels of competition with R. raphanistrum (F3,58=0.88, p>0.45; Fig
2.).

270
260
Above Ground

250
Height (mm)

240
230
220
210
200
190
Control Low Medium High
Competition Level

Figure 2. Mean (± 1 standard deviation) above-ground plant height (mm) for B. rappa
grown in four different levels of competition with R. raphanistrum.

In general, B. rappa weighed 1.4g in the control, 0.9g in low competition, 0.7g in medium
competition, and 0.7g in high competition. There was a significant difference in above-ground
mass of B. rappa when exposed to different levels of competition with R. raphanistrum
(F3,56=3.92, p<0.02; Fig 3.). B. rappa grown in high (0.72±0.33g) and medium competition
(0.73±0.30g) was significantly lighter than the control group (1.39±0.80g; p<0.02 and p<0.03
respectively). All other comparisons were not significantly different (p>0.05).
 Free 5

1.6
Above Ground Mass (g) 1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Control Low Medium High
Competition Level

Figure 3 Mean (± 1 standard deviation) above-ground plant mass (g) for B. rappa grown in
four different levels of competition with R. raphanistrum.

In general, B. rappa had 15 flowers in the control, 10 flowers in low competition, 11 flowers in
medium competition, and 7 flowers in high competition. While there was some difference in the
number of flowers across groups, there was no significant difference in the number of flowers of
B. rappa when exposed to different levels of competition with R. raphanistrum (F3,54=1.74,
p>0.17; Fig 4.).

16
14
Number of Flowers

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Control Low Medium High
Competition Level

Figure. 4 Mean (± 1 standard deviation) number of flowers for B. rappa grown in four
different levels of competition with R. raphanistrum.
 Free 6

In general, B. rappa had 11 leaves in the control, 9 leaves in low competition, 9 leaves in
medium competition, and 9 leaves in high competition. While there was some difference in the
number of leaves across groups, there was no significant difference in the number of leaves of B.
rappa when exposed to different levels of competition with R. raphanistrum (F3,57=1.03, p>0.39;
Fig 5.).

12
Number of Leaves

10
8
6
4
2
0
Control Low Medium High
Competition Level

Figure 5. Mean (± 1 standard deviation) number of leaves for B. rappa grown in four
different levels of competition with R. raphanistrum.
 Free 7

Discussion:
For many of our measurements, we did not find any change in growth as competition changed.
However, a significant difference was found for above-ground mass. B. rappa grown in high and
medium competition with R. raphanistrum were significantly lighter than the control.

A similar study found that the harmful effects of weed competition on coffee plant growth or
weed competition degree varied greatly depending on both the weed species and their density.
The most aggressive weeds affecting stem diameter, plant height, leaf number and shoot dry
matter. Shoot dry matter being affected by only the strongest competitors (Ronchi & Silva,
2006). Our study only evaluated one competitor, R. raphanistrum, in which we found the only
significance difference in above-ground mass. Finding no significance in plant height and leaf
number it makes it difficult to compare our results. The results of our experiment were not
unexpected, as we did find some change in growth in above-ground mass, but our result held
more variability than perhaps we would have liked. We also had a number of errors occur
throughout our experiment in both methodology and data collection which makes our experiment
particularly hard to compare with former research. We found that how our plants were placed
under the fluorescent light affected their growth, those placed on the ends seemingly much
smaller than those placed towards the center. Our plants, however, were placed randomly under
the fluorescent bulb, but we had several of B. rappa and R. raphanistrum across all groups fail to
germinate. The length of our experiment was also rather short, perhaps given more time we
would have seen more less variability in results. In a similar study testing effects of weed species
competition on the growth of young coffee plants the experiment took place over 77-133 days
(Ronchi & Silva, 2006). This is in stark contrast to our 49 days of growth. Perhaps with more
time we may have found a more of an effect on plant height and leaf number making our studies
more comparable.

Ideally, we would have liked to test for below-ground mass. Data collection was attempted but
our data collection was too varied due to root systems being torn apart, taggled together and
clumps of topsoil latching to the root systems skewing our attempted data collection. This could
be fixed in future iterations by perhaps more careful procedure when removing the root systems.
Or through different methodology like testing root and shoot competition separately through
methods such as the divided pot technique, the row technique, or the target technique (McPhee &
Aarssen, 2001). As at high levels of nutrient availability, competition is mainly for light (Aerts,
1999). It would be interesting to test this experiment in both high and low nutrient levels in
future iterations of the experiment as it would allow us to compare our results to many other
experiments (Aerts et al., 1990).

In conclusion, we have presented experimental evidence that interspecific competition affected

above-ground mass for B. rappa grown in high and medium competition with R. raphanistrum.
For now, this suggests R. raphanistrum may not be a strong competitor, but further testing would
need to be done due to potential error in experimentation and data collection.
 Free 8

Literature Cited:

Aerts, R. (1999). Interspecific competition in natural plant communities: mechanisms, trade-offs

and plant-soil feedbacks. Journal of Experimental Botany, 50(330), 29–37.
doi:10.1093/jxb/50.330.29

Aerts, R., R. G. A. Boot, & Van der Aart, P. (1991). The Relation between above- and Belowground Biomass
Allocation Patterns and Competitive Ability. Oecologia, 87(4), 551-559. Retrieved May 5, 2021, from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4219733

Bhuyain, M. M., & Lim, U. T. (2019). Interference and Exploitation competition between
Frankliniella occidentalis and F. Intonsa (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) in LABORATORY
ASSAYS. Florida Entomologist, 102(2), 322. doi:10.1653/024.102.0206

Grace, J. (Ed.). (2012). Perspectives on plant competition. Elsevier.

Grether, G. F., Losin, N., Anderson, C. N., & Okamoto, K. (2009). The role of interspecific
interference competition in character displacement and the evolution of competitor
recognition. Biological Reviews, 84(4), 617-635. doi:10.1111/j.1469-185x.2009.00089.x

Mader, S. S., & Windelspecht, M. (2016). Competition. In Biology (12th ed., pp. 857-858). New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

McPhee, C.S., Aarssen, L.W (2001). The separation of above- and below-ground competition in
plants A review and critique of methodology. Plant Ecology 152, 119–136.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011471719799

Miller, T. G., & Spoolman, S. E. (2009). Essentials of Ecology (5th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning.

Ronchi, C.P., & Silva, A.A. (2006). Effects of weed species competition on the growth of young
coffee plants. Planta Daninha, 24(3), 415-423. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-
83582006000300001