The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Tragedy of the commons as a result of root competition
Open accessAbstract
Summary: We develop and test a game‐theoretic model for considering the effects of intra‐ and interplant competition on root proliferation and reproductive yield. We predict that if space and resources per individual are held constant, plants should produce more roots per individual and less reproductive yield per individual as the number of plants sharing the combined space increases. We tested the predictions using soybean plants (Glycine max) cultivated in the glasshouse either as owners or as two individuals sharing twice the space and nutrients. Sharing individuals produced 85% more root mass than owners. Owners, however, produced 30% more reproductive yield per plant (dry mass of seeds), as a result of significantly more seed pods (8.70 vs. 7.66), more seeds per pod (1.87 vs. 1.72) and larger seeds (0.205 vs. 0.195 g seed−1), than did sharing individuals. Total plant biomass did not differ between owners and sharing individuals, but owners had significantly higher shoot to root ratios, produced significantly more seeds per unit root mass, and allocated a significantly higher percentage of total biomass production to seeds. Possession of an evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS) of root competition suggests that different roots and parts of a plant assess and respond to opportunities in a manner that maximizes the good of the whole plant. Thus, plants may be more sophisticated and share more in common with animals in their non‐cognitive behaviours than previously thought. A plant operating as a co‐ordinated whole should, all else being equal, first proliferate roots in unoccupied soil, then in soil occupied by a conspecific competitor, and lastly in soil already occupied by its own roots.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Herbivore-mediated linkages between aboveground and belowground communities
Bardgett, R. D., & Wardle, D. A. (2003) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/02-0274 · Cited by 1,173
Allocation, plasticity and allometry in plants
Weiner, J. (2004) · Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics · doi:10.1078/1433-8319-00083 · Cited by 938
Root competition: beyond resource depletion
SCHENK, H. J. (2006) · Journal of Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2745.2006.01124.x · Cited by 587
Hinsinger, P., Betencourt, E., Bernard, L., Brauman, A., Plassard, C., Shen, J., Tang, X., & Zhang, F. (2011) · Plant Physiology · doi:10.1104/pp.111.175331 · Cited by 474
Green plants as intelligent organisms
Trewavas, A. (2005) · Trends in Plant Science · doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2005.07.005 · Cited by 212
Metadata
- Authors
- Gersani, M., Brown, J. S., O'Brien, E. E., Maina, G. M., & Abramsky, Z.
- Venue
- Journal of Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-08
- Volume
- 89
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 660-669
- ISSN
- 0022-0477 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2745
- OpenAlex
- W2157657940
- Cited by
- 524
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 27.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Tragedy of the commons as a result of root competition. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.0022-0477.2001.00609.x
- The paper
- Gersani, M., Brown, J. S., O'Brien, E. E., Maina, G. M., & Abramsky, Z. (2001). Tragedy of the commons as a result of root competition. Journal of Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0022-0477.2001.00609.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.