4.7 Article

Effects of an endogeic and an anecic earthworm on the competition between four annual plants and their relative fecundity

期刊

SOIL BIOLOGY & BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 41, 期 8, 页码 1668-1673

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2009.05.009

关键词

Aboveground-belowground interactions; Earthworms; Plant competition; Plant fitness; Plant community

资金

  1. ANR program [UC0552230]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Competition between plants for essential resources determines the distribution of biomasses between species as well as the composition of plant communities through effects on species reproductive potentials. Soil organisms influence plant competitive ability and access to resources: thus they should modify plant community composition. The effects of an endogeic (Aporrectodea caliginosa) and an anecic (Lumbricus terrestris) earthworm species on the competition between grass (Poa annual, two forbs (Veronica persica and Cerastium glomeratum) and legume (Trifolium dubium) were investigated in a greenhouse experiment. We established two types of plant communities: monocultures and polycultures of the four species. L terrestris increased the biomass of P. annua and V. persica (in monocultures as well as in polycultures). However, the presence of L terrestris allowed the grass to produce the highest biomass in polycultures suggesting that this earthworm species promoted the growth of P. annua against the other plant species. In monocultures as well as in polycultures, the presence of L terrestris to increased the number of seeds of T dubium and the total seed mass of V. persica. These results suggest that L terrestris enhanced the short term competitive ability of P. annua by promoting its growth. The increased number of seeds of T dubium in the presence of L terrestris suggests that this earthworm species could enhance the long-term competitive ability of this legume and may increase its number of individuals after several generations. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据