Next Article in Journal
Comparison of Physiological Characteristics of Pea (Pisum sativum L.) Varieties Under Different Nutritional Conditions and Their Relationship with Meteorological Parameters
Previous Article in Journal
Genome-Wide Identification and Evolutionary Analysis of m6A-Related Gene Family in Poplar Nanlin895
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 14
Issue 13
10.3390/plants14132018
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Beyond Pairwise Interactions: How Other Species Regulate Competition Between Two Plants?

by
Wang-Xin Cheng
1,2,
Wei Xue
2,
Jie-Jie Jiao
3,
Hao-Ming Yuan
2,
Lin-Xuan He
2,
Xiao-Mei Zhang
2,
Tao Xu
1 and
Fei-Hai Yu
2,*
1
College of Life Science and Medicine, Zhejiang Sci-Tech University, Hangzhou 310018, China
2
Institute of Wetland Ecology & Clone Ecology/Zhejiang Provincial Key Laboratory of Evolutionary Ecology and Conservation, Taizhou University, Taizhou 318000, China
3
Zhejiang Academy of Forestry, Hangzhou 310023, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2025, 14(13), 2018; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14132018
Submission received: 4 April 2025 / Revised: 6 June 2025 / Accepted: 28 June 2025 / Published: 1 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Plant Ecology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

A plant species in a community often grows with some other plant species. While many studies have assessed interspecific interactions between two target plant species, few have considered the impacts of the other plant species (e.g., the third, fourth, and fifth plant species) on these interactions. To assess the impacts, we grew one seedling of each of the five herbaceous plant species that are common in China (Cynodon dactylon, Plantago asiatica, Taraxacum mongolicum, Nepeta cataria, and Leonurus japonicus) alone (no competition) or with one seedling of one, two, three, or four of the other species. The presence of a neighbor plant generally reduced the growth of the target species, suggesting that the interspecific relationships were mostly competitive. The presence of other neighbor species (the third, fourth, and fifth species) could alter the interspecific interactions between two target species, but such effects varied depending on both the identity of the target species and the identity of the other species. Additionally, the effects of the third species depended little on the presence of the fourth and fifth species. We conclude that interspecific interactions between two plant species are commonly regulated by the presence of other species, facilitating species coexistence. However, our findings do not support the idea that the impacts of the fourth and fifth species on interactions among three plant species are common. This study highlights the complex interactions among multiple plant species within a community and also the importance of including these high-order interactions when modelling community dynamics and species coexistence.

1. Introduction

In natural ecosystems, species are rarely found in isolation; they typically grow and interact with a variety of other species [1,2]. Interactions among plant species are important determinants of species coexistence and community structure, and ecosystem function [3,4,5]. Competition is one of the most common plant–plant interactions and plays a key role in natural ecosystems, influencing species survival and growth, resource acquisition, population dynamics, and ecosystem stability [6,7,8]. Understanding factors regulating plant competition is important for developing predictive models of species coexistence and community dynamics [9,10,11].
Competitive interactions between two target plant species can be regulated by various environmental factors, including temperature [12,13,14], CO2 concentration [15], O3 concentration [16], water [17,18], light [19], nutrients [20,21], salinity [22], heavy metal contamination [23], and individual density [24]. For example, in a maize–soybean cropping system, maize typically outcompetes soybean; however, the addition of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers can reduce this competitive advantage [25]. Invasive species often outcompete native species, reducing native species’ richness and abundance, but such a competitive effect can be modified by light, soil water, and nutrients [26,27,28].
As a plant species often coexists with more than one plant species, indirect interactions between two plant species can also be essential for species coexistence and biodiversity maintenance [29]. One example of this is that competitive interactions between two target plant species can be modified by organisms from other tropic levels [30]. For instance, Solanum altissima and Solidago carolinense can coexist when insect herbivores are not present, but S. altissima may outcompete S. carolinense when the herbivores are present [31]. Also, compared to the absence of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, the presence of the fungi can increase the competitive ability of Vicia faba on Hordeum vulgare by improving the nitrogen uptake of V. faba [32]. Moreover, endophyte-infected plants show a higher competitive ability than those that are not infected [33].
The introduction of new plant species into a community can further complicate competitive interactions and, thus, coexistence between two target species [34,35]. In a recent study, the duckweed Spirodela Polyrhiza was found to suppress another duckweed, Lemna minor, when Pistia stratiotes was not present, but such a suppressing effect diminished when P. stratiotes was included [36]. Studies have also shown that both the species richness of a plant community and genotypic richness of a clonal plant population could alter competitive interactions between two target plant species [37,38]. However, as the number of other plant species increases, interspecific interactions between two target plant species may become more complex. So far, however, it is still unknown as to whether the impact of the other plant species (e.g., the third plant species) on competitive interactions between two target plant species is common and whether the impact varies depending on the presence of more additional plant species (e.g., the fourth and the fifth plant species).
To assess the impacts of other plant species on competitive interactions between two target plant species, we grew one seedling of each of the five herbaceous plant species that are common in China (Cynodon dactylon, Plantago asiatica, Taraxacum mongolicum, Nepeta cataria, and Leonurus japonicus) alone (no competition) or with one seedling of one, two, three, or four of the other species. Specifically, we address (1) how common the impact of the third plant species is on competition between two target plant species, (2) whether the impact of the third plant species varies depending on the identity of the target species and the identity of the third species, and (3) whether the impact of the third plant species varies depending on the presence of the fourth and the fifth species.

2. Results

The presence of neighbor plants generally reduced the growth of the target species, as shown by the negative value of the log response ratio, suggesting that the interspecific relationships were mostly competitive (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The presence of the third species could alter the interspecific interactions between two target species (Table 1, Figure 1 and Figure 2). Specifically, the presence of P. asiatica aggravated (p < 0.05) or tended to aggravate (0.05 < p < 0.1) the competitive effect of C. dactylon on T. mongolicum (Table 1C, Figure 1C); T. mongolicum on C. dactylon (Table 1D, Figure 1D), N. cataria (Table 1O, Figure 2E) and L. japonicus (Table 1Q, Figure 2G); C. dactylon on N. cataria (Table 1E, Figure 1E) and L. japonicus (Table 1G, Figure 1G); L. japonicus on C. dactylon (Table 1H, Figure 1H), T. mongolicum (Table 1R, Figure 2H) and N. cataria (Table 1T, Figure 2J); and N. cataria on L. japonicus (Table 1S, Figure 2I). Similarly, the presence of C. dactylon aggravated (p < 0.05) or tended to aggravate (0.05 < p < 0.1) the competitive effect of P. asiatica on T. mongolicum (Table 1I, Figure 1I), N. cataria (Table 1K, Figure 2A), and L. japonicus (Table 1M, Figure 2C); N. cataria on P. asiatica (Table 1L, Figure 2B) and T. mongolicum (Table 1P, Figure 2F); T. mongolicum on N. cataria (Table 1O, Figure 2E) and L. japonicus (Table 1Q, Figure 2G); and L. japonicus on T. mongolicum (Table 1R, Figure 2H). However, the presence of N. cataria only tended to aggravate (0.05 < p < 0.1) the competitive effect of C. dactylon on P. asiatica (Table 1A, Figure 1A), and T. mongolicum on P. asiatica (Table 1J, Figure 1J); the presence of L. japonicus only aggravated (p < 0.05) the competitive effect of T. mongolicum on C. dactylon (Table 1D, Figure 1D); and the presence of T. mongolicum tended to aggravate (0.05 < p < 0.1) the competitive effect of P. asiatica on C. dactylon (Table 1B, Figure 1B) and N. cataria (Table 1K, Figure 2A), and L. japonicus on C. dactylon (Table 1H, Figure 1H).
We found a significant interaction effect of C. dactylon × T. mongolicum × N. cataria on the competitive effect of L. japonicus on P. asiatica (Table 1N): without N. cataria, the presence of C. dactylon weakened the competitive effect of L. japonicus on P. asiatica in the absence of T. mongolicum, but strengthened it in the presence of T. mongolicum; with N. cataria, however, the presence of C. dactylon aggravated the competitive effect of L. japonicus on P. asiatica in the absence of T. mongolicum, but had no impact in the presence of T. mongolicum (Figure 2D). There was also a marginally significant effect of P. asiatica × T. mongolicum × N. cataria on the competitive effect of species L. japonicus on C. dactylon (Table 1H): without N. cataria, the presence of P. asiatica had no impact on the competitive effect of L. japonicus on C. dactylon in the absence of T. mongolicum, but aggravated it in the presence of T. mongolicum; with N. cataria, the presence of P. asiatica aggravated the competitive effect of L. japonicus on C. dactylon, but such an impact was much weaker in the presence than in the absence of T. mongolicum (Figure 1H). However, we found no other significant two- or three-way interaction effects (Table 1).

3. Discussion

While it is well known that interspecific interactions between two plant species can be regulated by many biotic and abiotic factors [15,16,19,22,23], including the presence of species from other trophic levels [31,32] and the presence of other plant species [39,40], relatively few studies have explored how the presence of multiple additional plant species modifies interspecific plant–plant interactions [37]. Understanding these multi-species effects is crucial for predicting species coexistence and community stability in natural ecosystems. Our results suggest that it may be a common phenomenon that the presence of one additional plant species in a community can alter the competition between two target plant species, but it may be uncommon that this impact depends also on the presence of more plant species (i.e., a fourth and/or fifth plant species). These findings highlight the complexity of multi-species interactions within a plant community.
While the impact of the third plant species on competition was found to be relatively common, it varied depending on the identity of the target species. For instance, the presence of Plantago asiatica aggravated the competitive effect of Cynodon dactylon on Taraxacum mongolicum (Table 1C, Figure 1C), T. mongolicum on C. dactylon (Table 1D, Figure 1D), and C. dactylon on Nepeta cataria (Table 1E, Figure 1E), but did not alter the competitive effect of N. cataria on C. dactylon (Table 1F, Figure 1F). This variation may be due to the fact that different target plant species may differ greatly in factors such as their competitive abilities, resource utilization strategies, and potential allelopathic effects [41,42]. For example, C. dactylon uses a strategy of rapid stolon expansion and its root system allows it to rapidly occupy limitedly soil space and acquire soil resources [43], but N. cataria is capable of releasing allelopathic compounds that affect the growth of neighboring plants, altering the competitive balance [44]. Consequently, the impact of the third species on the competitive effect differed among target species, reflecting the complexity of interspecific relationships [45,46].
Additionally, the impact of the third plant species on plant–plant competition varied with the identity of the third plant species. For example, the competitive effect of C. dactylon on T. mongolicum was not influenced by the presence of N. cataria, Leonurus. japonicus, N. cataria, or L. japonicus, but it was aggravated by the presence of P. asiatica (Table 1C, Figure 1C). The rosette growth form of P. asiatica enables it to quickly occupy aboveground space and intercept light at low canopy levels, which was particularly influential during the early stage of community in this experiment. This trait likely reduced light availability for neighboring seedlings, thereby modifying the growth performance and interspecific interactions of co-occurring species. Again, this context-dependent impact of the third species is likely due to the differences in, for example, competitive abilities and resource acquisition strategies among the third plant species involved [41,42]. These results suggest that different third species may play functionally distinct roles in modifying competition, either amplifying or mitigating the strength of interactions depending on their traits. These findings align with those of previous studies that emphasize the role of plant functional traits (e.g., root [47] or leaf area [48]) in shaping competitive dynamics. For instance, plant size asymmetry has been shown to influence competition strength, with larger individuals often exerting stronger suppressive effects on smaller competitors [36]. Similarly, species with extensive root systems and high resource acquisition rates tend to increase competition intensity, whereas species with complementary resource-use strategies reduce direct competition [49,50]. This could explain why some third species in our study intensified competition, while others had little or no effect. Additionally, indirect interactions mediated by belowground processes, such as root exudates influencing microbial activity, may have further contributed to these species–specific differences in competitive effects [51].
We observed that the impact of P. asiatica on competition between L. japonicus and C. dactylon and the impact of C. dactylon on competition between L. japonicus and P. asiatica varied depending on the presence of both T. mongolicum and N. cataria (Table 1H,N, Figure 1H and Figure 2D). These findings suggest that the presence of a fourth and/or a fifth plant species can influence the impact of the third plant species on plant–plant interactions. However, we found no other significant two- or three-way interaction effects (Table 1), suggesting that these impacts are not so common. One explanation is that increasing species richness may directly reduce the strength of individual pairwise interactions due to resource partitioning or niche differentiation, leading to a more diffuse interaction network [52,53,54,55]. Another explanation lies in the stabilization of interaction networks [56]. Previous studies have shown that competitive rings tend to be more stable when the number of species involved is odd rather than even [57], suggesting that community-level patterns of interaction may be sensitive to species number and composition [58,59]. This complexity highlights the non-additive nature of species interactions, where the presence of more species does not simply accumulate effects but reshapes the entire interaction web.
One caveat is that the current experimental design (additive design) does not allow us to exclude the potential cofounding effect of changing density [60,61], and the lack of morphological, physiological. and allocational measurements precludes the possibility to explore the underlying mechanisms. Therefore, a novel experimental design and morphological, physiological, and allocational measurements are required to better understand the complex multi-species interactions in a plant community. The experiment for lasted more than three months in the greenhouse, which is more than the period of most potting experiments. Also, the pots used were small (10 cm × 10 cm × 10 cm) and plant roots and the above-ground parts had filled the pot. Thus, the experiment duration was long enough to address our questions.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Plant Species

To address the questions, we chose five plant species, i.e., Cynodon dactylon (L.) Persoon (Poaceae), Plantago asiatica L. (Plantaginaceae), Taraxacum mongolicum Hand.-Mazz. (Asteraceae), Nepeta cataria L. (Lamiaceae), and Leonurus japonicus Houtt. (Lamiaceae) (Table 2; Flora of China, www.iplant.cn (accessed on 30 May 2023)). They were chosen because they are all herbaceous plant species that are common in China and can co-occur in, for example, hillside grasslands, abandoned fields, and roadsides in eastern China where the experiment was conducted. C. dactylon is cable of clonal growth by rooting at the nodes of its creeping stems, while all of the other four species are non-clonal plants. C. dactylon, T. mongolicum, and N. cataria are perennial, P. asiatica is biennial or perennial, while L. japonicus is annual or biennial.
Seeds of these species were purchased online from the Ferryman’s Seed Superstore (Zhoukou, Henan Province, China). In June 2023, we sowed the seeds of the five species in trays (54 cm long × 28 cm wide × 5 cm deep) filled with peat and placed the trays in a greenhouse at Taizhou University in Taizhou, Zhejiang Province, China. After one month of germination and growth, for each species, more than 96 seedlings of a similar size were selected and used for the experiment described below.

4.2. Experimental Design

The competition experiment used an additive design. One seedling of each of the five species was grown alone (no competition) in a pot or with one seedling of one, two, three or four of the other species in a pot, resulting in a total of 31 treatments (species combinations; Table 3). Each treatment was replicated six times, resulting in a total of 186 pots.
On 24 July 2023, we transplanted the seedlings into square pots (10 cm × 10 cm × 10 cm) filled with a 2:1:1 (v:v:v) mixture of peat, river sand, and a local soil, and covered the pots with shading nets to facilitate initial seedling establishment. The local soil was collected from the mountainous area of Taizhou and contained 0.62 ± 0.17 (mean ± SE) g kg−1 total nitrogen and 0.13 ± 0.03 g kg−1 total phosphorus. During the first two weeks, the survival status of each seedling was monitored daily and dead seedlings were replaced immediately. The shading net was then removed. During the experiment, we watered the plants once the soil surface of most pots dried out and supplied 50 mL of a 10% Hoagland nutrient solution to each pot once a month [62].

4.3. Harvest and Measurement

We harvested the aboveground parts of each species in each pot on 2 November 2023, after more than three months of growth. All plant materials were oven-dried at 70 °C for at least 48 h and weighed to obtain the biomass.

4.4. Data Analysis

To directly quantify the competitive effect, we calculated the log response ratio as follows: LogRRij = ln (Bij/Bi), where LogRRij is the log response ratio of species j on species i, Bij represents the aboveground biomass of species i in the presence of species j for each replicate, and Bi represents the mean aboveground biomass of target species i when grown alone (no competition) across the replicates. A three-way ANOVA was performed to analyze the effect of the presence each of the other three species (the 3rd species) and their two-way and three-way interactions on the competitive effect (LogRR) of the two target species. A significant two-way interaction effect indicates that the effect of the 3rd species on the competition between two target species depends on the presence of the 4th species, and a significant three-way interaction effect means that the effect of the 3rd species on the competition between two target species depends also on the presence of the 5th species. All analyses were carried out using SPSS Statistics 26.0 software (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

5. Conclusions

We conclude that interspecific interactions between two plant species in a multi-species community may be commonly regulated by the presence of other species. However, it seems uncommon that the impact of the third plant species on competition is regulated by the presence of the fourth and/or the fifth plant species. This study highlights the complex interactions among multiple plant species within a community and also the importance of including these high-order interactions when modelling community dynamics and species coexistence.

Author Contributions

Investigation, Data Curation, Visualization, Writing—original draft, W.-X.C.; Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, W.X.; Writing, Review and Editing, J.-J.J.; Resources, H.-M.Y.; Formal analysis, L.-X.H.; Resources, X.-M.Z.; Writing, Review and Editing, T.X.; Funding acquisition, Formal analysis, Writing, Review and Editing, Conceptualization, Methodology, F.-H.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by National Key R&D Program of China (2023YFE0124900).

Data Availability Statement

Data will be made available on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Ninkovic, V.; Rensing, M.; Dahlin, I.; Markovic, D. Who is my neighbor? Volatile cues in plant interactions. Plant Signal. Behav. 2019, 14, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Bascompte, J. Disentangling the web of life. Science 2009, 325, 416–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Brooker, R.W.; Maestre, F.T.; Callaway, R.M.; Lortie, C.L.; Cavieres, L.A.; Kunstler, G.; Liancourt, P.; Tielbörger, K.; Travis, J.M.J.; Anthelme, F.; et al. Facilitation in plant communities: The past, the present, and the future. J. Ecol. 2008, 96, 18–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Adler, P.B.; Smull, D.; Beard, K.H.; Choi, R.T.; Furniss, T.; Kulmatiski, A.; Meiners, J.M.; Tredennick, A.T.; Veblen, K.E. Competition and coexistence in plant communities: Intraspecific competition is stronger than interspecific competition. Ecol. Lett. 2018, 21, 1319–1329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Fukano, Y.; Tachiki, Y.; Kasada, M.; Uchida, K. Evolution of competitive traits changes species diversity in a natural field. Proc. R. Soc. B-Biol. Sci. 2022, 289, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Chesson, P. Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 2000, 31, 343–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Novoplansky, A. Picking battles wisely: Plant behaviour under competition. Plant Cell Environ. 2009, 32, 726–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Golivets, M.; Wallin, K.F. Neighbour tolerance, not suppression, provides competitive advantage to non-native plants. Ecol. Lett. 2018, 21, 745–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Laird, R.A.; Schamp, B.S. Does local competition increase the coexistence of species in intransitive networks? Ecology 2008, 89, 237–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Eigentler, L. Species coexistence in resource-limited patterned ecosystems is facilitated by the interplay of spatial self-organisation and intraspecific competition. Oikos 2021, 130, 609–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Trinder, C.J.; Brooker, R.W.; Robinson, D. Plant ecology’s guilty little secret: Understanding the dynamics of plant competition. Funct. Ecol. 2013, 27, 918–929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Zhang, L.; Sun, Y.F.; Cheng, J.H.; Cui, G.L.; Huang, Y.; Yang, Z. Warming mitigates the enhancement effect of elevated air CO2 on anti-grazer morphological defense in Scenedesmus obliquus. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 770, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Zhang, Y.; Peng, C.R.; Wang, Z.C.; Zhang, J.L.; Li, L.J.; Huang, S.; Li, D.H. The species-specific responses of freshwater diatoms to elevated temperatures are affected by interspecific interactions. Microorganisms 2018, 6, 82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Germain, S.J.; Lutz, J.A. Climate warming may weaken stabilizing mechanisms in old forests. Ecol. Monogr. 2022, 92, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bazzaz, F.A.; Jasienski, M.; Thomas, S.C.; Wayne, P. Microevolutionary responses in experimental populations of plants to CO2-enriched environments: Parallel results from two model systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1995, 92, 8161–8165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kaciene, G.; Miskelyte, D.; AbdElgawad, H.; Beemster, G.; Asard, H.; Diksaityte, A.; Zaltauskaite, J.; Sujetoviene, G.; Januskaitiene, I.; Juknys, R. O3 pollution in a future climate increases the competition between summer rape and wild mustard. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2019, 135, 194–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Yu, K.; Saha, M.V.; D’Odorico, P. The effects of interannual rainfall variability on tree-grass composition along kalahari rainfall gradient. Ecosystems 2017, 20, 975–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Cournault, Q.; Colbach, N.; Busset, H.; Matejicek, A.; Souche-Suchovsky, P.; Prudent, M.; Moreau, D. Interspecies diversity in morphological responses to water stress: Study on a panel of weed and crop species. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2024, 224, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Liu, X.; Wang, W.X.; Lin, X.; Gu, S.B.; Wang, D. The effects of intraspecific competition and light transmission within the canopy on wheat yield in a wide-precision planting pattern. J. Integr. Agric. 2020, 19, 1577–1585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Liu, S.; Streich, J.; Borevitz, J.O.; Rice, K.J.; Li, T.; Li, B.; Bradford, K.J. Environmental resource deficit may drive the evolution of intraspecific trait variation in invasive plant populations. Oikos 2019, 128, 171–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Sheng, M.; Chen, X.D.; Yu, X.J.; Yan, J.; Zhang, X.L.; Hamel, C.; Sheng, Y.Y.; Tang, M. Neighborhood effects on soil properties, mycorrhizal attributes, tree growth, and nutrient status in afforested zones. Restor. Ecol. 2020, 28, 459–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Li, Y.; Duan, B.L.; Chen, J.; Korpelainen, H.; Niinemets, Ü.; Li, C.Y. Males exhibit competitive advantages over females of Populus deltoides under salinity stress. Tree Physiol. 2016, 36, 1573–1584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Zhao, Z.; Shi, H.J.; Kang, X.J.; Liu, C.Q.; Chen, L.C.; Liang, X.F.; Jin, L. Inter- and intra-specific competition of duckweed under multiple heavy metal contaminated water. Aquat. Toxicol. 2017, 192, 216–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Wang, Y.F.; Qin, Y.Z.; Chai, Q.; Feng, F.X.; Zhao, C.; Yu, A.Z. Interspecies interactions in relation to root distribution across the rooting profile in wheat-maize intercropping under different plant densities. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Li, Z.W.; Khan, K.; Yang, L.; Pan, Y.Q.; Zhou, X.B. Continuous straw returning combined with nitrogen application improve soil properties and yield of double cropping maize in subtropical regions. Sustainability 2024, 16, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hejda, M.; Sádlo, J.; Kutlvasr, J.; Petrík, P.; Vítková, M.; Vojík, M.; Pysek, P.; Pergl, J. Impact of invasive and native dominants on species richness and diversity of plant communities. Preslia 2021, 93, 181–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Driscoll, D.A. Disturbance maintains native and exotic plant species richness in invaded grassy woodlands. J. Veg. Sci. 2017, 28, 573–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Sena, K.; Gauger, L.; Johnson, T.; Shirkey, F.; Caldbeck, W.; Hammock, J.; Kim, A.; Mazza, B.; Pethtel, I.; Leuenberger, W. Honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii) presence is associated with reduced diversity and richness of flowering spring flora in Central Kentucky. Nat. Areas J. 2021, 41, 249–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Gallien, L.; Zimmermann, N.E.; Levine, J.M.; Adler, P.B. The effects of intransitive competition on coexistence. Ecol. Lett. 2017, 20, 791–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Martin, G.D.; Coetzee, J.A.; Compton, S. Plant-herbivore-parasitoid interactions in an experimental freshwater tritrophic system: Higher trophic levels modify competitive interactions between invasive macrophytes. Ecol. Model. 2018, 817, 307–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kim, T.N.; Underwood, N.; Inouye, B.D. Insect herbivores change the outcome of plant competition through both inter- and intraspecific processes. Ecology 2013, 94, 1753–1763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Bahadur, A.; Jin, Z.C.; Long, X.L.; Jiang, S.J.; Zhang, Q.; Pan, J.B.; Liu, Y.J.; Feng, H.Y. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi alter plant interspecific interaction under nitrogen fertilization. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2019, 93, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Vázquez-de-Aldana, B.R.; Zabalgogeazcoa, I.; García-Ciudad, A.; García-Criado, B. An Epichloë endophyte affects the competitive ability of Festuca rubra against other grassland species. Plant Soil 2013, 362, 201–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Simberloff, D.; Von Holle, B. Positive interactions of nonindigenous species: Invasional meltdown? Biol. Invasions 1999, 1, 21–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Catford, J.A.; Bode, M.; Tilman, D. Introduced species that overcome life history tradeoffs can cause native extinctions. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 2131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Peng, L.; Xue, W.; Yu, F.H. Live under strong power: A third plant species alters interspecific interactions between two plant species. Ecol. Indic. 2023, 146, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Liu, J.N.; Wu, F.R.; Roiloa, S.R.; Xue, W.; Lei, N.F.; Yu, F.H. Emergent plant presence and richness alter competitive interactions between two floating plants. J. Plant Ecol. 2024, 17, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Liu, J.N.; Wu, F.R.; Xue, W.; Wu, C.P.; Tang, M.; Yu, F.H. Genetic diversity of a dominant plant alters interspecific interactions between two subordinate species and facilitates their coexistence. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2024, 222, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Arroyo, A.I.; Pueyo, Y.; Saiz, H.; Alados, C.L. Plant–plant interactions and local patterns of diversity from semi-arid to subalpine Mediterranean plant communities. Biodivers. Conserv. 2021, 30, 3481–3508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Sotomayor, D.A.; Lortie, C.J. Indirect interactions in terrestrial plant communities: Emerging patterns and research gaps. Ecosphere 2015, 6, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Chen, X.F.; Qian, L.S.; Shi, H.H.; Zhang, Y.Z.; Song, M.S.; Sun, H.; Chen, J.G. Allelopathic potentials of surrounding vegetation on seedling establishment of alpine cushion Arenaria polytrichoides Edgew. J. Plant Ecol. 2024, 17, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Craine, J.M.; Dybzinski, R. Mechanisms of plant competition for nutrients, water and light. Funct. Ecol. 2013, 27, 833–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Dong, M.; de Kroon, H. Plasticity in Morphology and Biomass Allocation in Cynodon dactylon, a Grass Species Forming Stolons and Rhizomes. Oikos 1994, 70, 99–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Mohammad, J.S.; Pouria, Z.; Fatemeh, K. Essential oil analysis and phytotoxic activity of catnip (Nepeta cataria L.). Am. J. Essent. Oil Nat. Prod. 2016, 4, 40–45. [Google Scholar]
  45. Wu, S.N.; Wen, L.; Dong, S.K.; Gao, X.X.; Xu, Y.D.; Li, S.; Dong, Q.M.; Wessell, K. The plant interspecific association in the revegetated alpine grasslands determines the productivity stability of plant community across restoration time on qinghai-tibetan plateau. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Queijeiro-Bolaños, M.E.; González, E.J.; Martorell, C.; Cano-Santana, Z. Competition and facilitation determine dwarf mistletoe infection dynamics. J. Ecol. 2017, 105, 775–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Sun, L.J.; Ataka, M.; Han, M.G.; Han, Y.F.; Gan, D.Y.; Xu, T.L.; Guo, Y.P.; Zhu, B. Root exudation as a major competitive fine-root functional trait of 18 coexisting species in a subtropical forest. New Phytol. 2021, 229, 259–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Bennett, J.A.; Riibak, K.; Tamme, R.; Lewis, R.J.; Pärtel, M. The reciprocal relationship between competition and intraspecific trait variation. J. Ecol. 2016, 104, 1410–1420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Guiz, J.; Ebeling, A.; Eisenhauer, N.; Hacker, N.; Hertzog, L.; Oelmann, Y.; Roscher, C.; Wagg, C.; Hillebrand, H. Interspecific competition alters leaf stoichiometry in 20 grassland species. Oikos 2018, 127, 903–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Semchenko, M.; Lepik, A.; Abakumova, M.; Zobel, K. Different sets of belowground traits predict the ability of plant species to suppress and tolerate their competitors. Plant Soil 2018, 424, 157–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Schofield, E.J.; Brooker, R.W.; Rowntree, J.K.; Price, E.A.C.; Brearley, F.Q.; Paterson, E. Plant-plant competition influences temporal dynamism of soil microbial enzyme activity. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2019, 139, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Liu, Q.; Sterck, F.J.; Zhang, J.L.; Scheire, A.; Konings, E.; Cao, M.; Sha, L.Q.; Poorter, L. Traits, strategies, and niches of liana species in a tropical seasonal rainforest. Oecologia 2021, 196, 499–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Baptist, F.; Aranjuelo, I.; Legay, N.; Lopez-Sangil, L.; Molero, G.; Rovira, P.; Nogués, S. Rhizodeposition of organic carbon by plants with contrasting traits for resource acquisition: Responses to different fertility regimes. Plant Soil 2015, 394, 391–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Forrester, D.I.; Bauhus, J. A review of processes behind diversity-productivity relationships in forests. Curr. For. Rep. 2016, 2, 45–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Zhu, D.H.; Wang, P.; Zhang, W.Z.; Yuan, Y.; Li, B.; Wang, J. Sampling and complementarity effects of plant diversity on resource use increases the invasion resistance of communities. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Freilich, M.A.; Wieters, E.; Broitman, B.R.; Marquet, P.A.; Navarrete, S.A. Species co-occurrence networks: Can they reveal trophic and non-trophic interactions in ecological communities? Ecology 2018, 99, 690–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Allesina, S.; Levine, J.M. A competitive network theory of species diversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 5638–5642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Adler, P.B.; Seabloom, E.W.; Borer, E.T.; Hillebrand, H.; Hautier, Y.; Hector, A.; Harpole, W.S.; O’Halloran, L.R.; Grace, J.B.; Anderson, T.M.; et al. Productivity is a poor predictor of plant species richness. Science 2011, 333, 1750–1753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Castagneri, D.; Vacchiano, G.; Hacket-Pain, A.; DeRose, R.J.; Klein, T.; Bottero, A. Meta-analysis reveals different competition effects on tree growth resistance and resilience to drought. Ecosystems 2022, 25, 30–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Inouye, B.D. Response surface experimental designs for investigating interspecific competition. Ecology 2001, 82, 2696–2706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Gibson, D.J.; Connolly, J.; Hartnett, D.C.; Weidenhamer, J.D. Designs for greenhouse studies of interactions between plants. J. Ecol. 1999, 87, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Zhang, X.M.; Jin, Y.; Xue, W.; Gao, J.Q.; Lei, N.F.; Chen, J.S.; Yu, F.H. Clonal transgenerational effects transmit for multiple generations in a floating plant. Phyton-Int. J. Exp. Bot. 2023, 92, 1589–1601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Plants 14 02018 g001
Figure 1. Effects of the presence of other species on the competitive effect of (A) C on P, (B) P on C (C) C on T, (D) T on C, (E) C on N, (F) N on C, (G) C on L, (H) L on C, (I) P on T, and (J) T on P. Bars and vertical lines are means ± SE. C, P, T, N, and L represent Cynodon dactylon, Plantago asiatica, Taraxacum mongolicum, Nepeta cataria, and Leonurus japonicus, respectively.
Figure 1. Effects of the presence of other species on the competitive effect of (A) C on P, (B) P on C (C) C on T, (D) T on C, (E) C on N, (F) N on C, (G) C on L, (H) L on C, (I) P on T, and (J) T on P. Bars and vertical lines are means ± SE. C, P, T, N, and L represent Cynodon dactylon, Plantago asiatica, Taraxacum mongolicum, Nepeta cataria, and Leonurus japonicus, respectively.
Plants 14 02018 g001
Plants 14 02018 g002
Figure 2. Effects of the presence of other species on the competitive effect of (A) P on N, (B) N on P (C) P on L, (D) L on P, (E) T on N, (F) N on T, (G) T on L, (H) L on T, (I) N on L, and (J) L on N. Bars and vertical lines are means ± SE. C, P, T, N, and L represent Cynodon dactylon, Plantago asiatica, Taraxacum mongolicum, Nepeta cataria, and Leonurus japonicus, respectively.
Figure 2. Effects of the presence of other species on the competitive effect of (A) P on N, (B) N on P (C) P on L, (D) L on P, (E) T on N, (F) N on T, (G) T on L, (H) L on T, (I) N on L, and (J) L on N. Bars and vertical lines are means ± SE. C, P, T, N, and L represent Cynodon dactylon, Plantago asiatica, Taraxacum mongolicum, Nepeta cataria, and Leonurus japonicus, respectively.
Plants 14 02018 g002
Table 1. Effects of the presence of other species (the third, fourth, and fifth species) on the competitive effect of one target species on the other. C, P, T, N, and L represent Cynodon dactylon, Plantago asiatica, Taraxacum mongolicum, Nepeta cataria, and Leonurus japonicus, respectively. Values are in bold when p < 0.05 and in italics when 0.05 < p < 0.1.
Table 1. Effects of the presence of other species (the third, fourth, and fifth species) on the competitive effect of one target species on the other. C, P, T, N, and L represent Cynodon dactylon, Plantago asiatica, Taraxacum mongolicum, Nepeta cataria, and Leonurus japonicus, respectively. Values are in bold when p < 0.05 and in italics when 0.05 < p < 0.1.
EffectFpEffectFp
(A) Competitive effect of species C on P(B) Competitive effect of species P on C
T1.6550.206T3.7730.059
N3.3940.073N1.7810.190
L0.1410.709L2.0360.161
T × N0.1030.750T × N0.1140.738
T × L3.1910.082T × L0.4890.488
N × L0.4370.512N × L0.0080.928
T × N × L1.0750.306T × N × L0.3700.547
(C) Competitive effect of species C on T(D) Competitive effect of species T on C
P7.2430.010P3.9560.054
N1.1300.294N0.2620.612
L0.5540.461L4.4770.041
P × N0.2790.600P × N0.0850.772
P × L0.5360.468P × L0.0980.756
P × L0.2300.634P × L0.1720.680
P × N × L0.7610.388P × N × L0.3050.584
(E) Competitive effect of species C on N(F) Competitive effect of species N on C
P10.0120.003P0.2870.595
T1.3070.260T0.7300.398
L0.2010.656L0.2800.599
P × T0.0480.827P × T0.0270.870
P × L0.5210.475P × L1.0800.305
T × L2.4570.125T × L0.8370.366
P × T × L0.7220.400P × T × L0.0020.965
(G) Competitive effect of species C on L(H) Competitive effect of species L on C
P3.2750.078P7.4350.009
T0.4320.515T3.1380.084
N0.1470.703N0.8690.357
P × T0.0190.892P × T0.0260.872
P × N0.7130.404P × N1.2290.274
T × N0.0380.845T × N2.6460.112
P × T × N0.3000.587P × T × N3.8670.056
(I) Competitive effect of species P on T(J) Competitive effect of species T on P
C10.7050.002C1.8600.180
N<0.0010.988N2.9890.092
L1.8920.177L2.3640.132
C × N1.0290.316C × N0.9560.334
C × L0.6720.417C × L0.5350.469
N × L0.1470.704N × L1.8990.176
C × N × L0.1140.737C × N × L0.2250.638
(K) Competitive effect of species P on N(L) Competitive effect of species N on P
C3.5970.065C2.9630.093
T4.0350.051T0.0260.873
L2.8390.100L0.8300.368
C × T0.5380.468C × T0.9410.338
C × L0.0060.939C × L0.0980.756
C × L0.2790.600C × L0.1510.699
C × T × L0.4080.527C × T × L0.5420.466
(M) Competitive effect of species P on L(N) Competitive effect of species L on P
C7.0450.011C2.6240.113
T1.7200.197T1.2400.272
N0.1090.743N2.8180.101
C × T1.8840.177C × T0.3070.582
C × N1.2480.271C × N0.1900.665
T × N0.0040.951T × N1.5220.224
C × T × N0.0460.832C × T × N6.1930.017
(O) Competitive effect of species T on N(P) Competitive effect of species N on T
C3.8340.057C11.9300.001
P15.772<0.001P1.7800.190
L0.8050.375L0.0000.990
C × P2.2880.138C × P0.8560.360
C × L0.8760.355C × L2.4970.122
P × L0.5090.480P × L0.2530.618
C × P × L0.2080.651C × P × L0.3530.556
(Q) Competitive effect of species T on L(R) Competitive effect of species L on T
C10.6240.002C4.5040.040
P11.0700.002P6.8610.012
N0.0820.776N0.4480.507
C × P0.4670.499C × P0.0130.910
C × N0.0310.861C × N1.9850.167
P × N0.0210.886P × N0.0450.834
C × P × N0.1960.660C × P × N0.4940.486
(S) Competitive effect of species N on L(T) Competitive effect of species L on N
C2.1810.148C1.7770.190
P3.7150.061P9.2780.004
T0.4110.525T0.7180.402
C × P0.0010.974C × P0.2530.618
C × T0.3230.573C × T0.5090.480
P × T0.0060.939P × T0.9120.345
C × P × T0.1080.744C × P × T1.0290.317
Table 2. Information in relation to the five species used in this study.
Table 2. Information in relation to the five species used in this study.
SpeciesLife FormMorphological FeaturesPhenologyTypical Habitat
Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.Perennial herbStems erect or creeping at the base; adventitious roots at nodes; erect parts 10–40 cm tall.Flowering and fruiting: May–OctoberRoadsides, field margins, riverbanks, wastelands, hillside grasslands
Plantago asiatica L.Biennial or perennial herbLeaves basal in a rosette and broadly ovate or oblong; flowers in spikes.Flowering: April–August; fruiting: June–SeptemberRiverbanks, wetlands, field margins, roadsides, hillside grasslands
Taraxacum mongolicum Hand.-Mazz.Perennial herbLeaves lanceolate, 4–20 cm long; one to several scapes, 10–25 cm tall; flowers surrounded by a bell-shaped involucre.Flowering: April–September; fruiting: May–OctoberAbandoned fields, hillside grasslands, roadsides, and riverbanks.
Nepeta cataria L.Perennial herbLeaves ovate or triangular-cordate; stems nearly quadrangular at the base, 40–150 cm tall.Flowering: July–September; fruiting: September–OctoberAbandoned fields, field margins, roadsides, shrublands, hillside grasslands.
Leonurus japonicus Houtt.Annual or biennial herbStems quadrangular with shallow grooves; covered with retrorse hairs, especially dense at nodes and along ridges; usually 30–120 cm tall.Flowering: June–September; fruiting: September–OctoberHillside grasslands, abandoned fields, field margins, roadsides.
Table 3. Information of the 31 treatments (species combinations). C, P, T, N, and L represent Cynodon dactylon, Plantago asiatica, Taraxacum mongolicum, Nepeta cataria, and Leonurus japonicus, respectively. For the five species, “1” stands for the presence of one seedling of the species and “-” means the absence of the species.
Table 3. Information of the 31 treatments (species combinations). C, P, T, N, and L represent Cynodon dactylon, Plantago asiatica, Taraxacum mongolicum, Nepeta cataria, and Leonurus japonicus, respectively. For the five species, “1” stands for the presence of one seedling of the species and “-” means the absence of the species.
Trt. No.CPTNLTotal Number of Seedlings per Pot
11----1
211---2
31-1--2
41--1-2
51---12
6111--3
711-1-3
811--13
91-11-3
101-1-13
111--113
121111-4
13111-14
1411-114
151-1114
16111115
17-1---1
18-11--2
19-1-1-2
20-1--12
21-111-3
22-11-13
23-1-113
24-11114
25--1--1
26--11-2
27--1-12
28--1113
29---1-1
30---112
31----11
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cheng, W.-X.; Xue, W.; Jiao, J.-J.; Yuan, H.-M.; He, L.-X.; Zhang, X.-M.; Xu, T.; Yu, F.-H. Beyond Pairwise Interactions: How Other Species Regulate Competition Between Two Plants? Plants 2025, 14, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14132018

AMA Style

Cheng W-X, Xue W, Jiao J-J, Yuan H-M, He L-X, Zhang X-M, Xu T, Yu F-H. Beyond Pairwise Interactions: How Other Species Regulate Competition Between Two Plants? Plants. 2025; 14(13):2018. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14132018

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cheng, Wang-Xin, Wei Xue, Jie-Jie Jiao, Hao-Ming Yuan, Lin-Xuan He, Xiao-Mei Zhang, Tao Xu, and Fei-Hai Yu. 2025. "Beyond Pairwise Interactions: How Other Species Regulate Competition Between Two Plants?" Plants 14, no. 13: 2018. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14132018

APA Style

Cheng, W.-X., Xue, W., Jiao, J.-J., Yuan, H.-M., He, L.-X., Zhang, X.-M., Xu, T., & Yu, F.-H. (2025). Beyond Pairwise Interactions: How Other Species Regulate Competition Between Two Plants? Plants, 14(13), 2018. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14132018

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop