Skip to main content

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Plant Sci.

Sec. Functional Plant Ecology

Volume 16 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fpls.2025.1542205

Contrasting allocation patterns in wheat and weeds: allometric belowground and reproductive investment versus optimal partitioning adaptations

Provisionally accepted
Jiazhen Xi Jiazhen Xi 1Shengtao Shi Shengtao Shi 1Yizhong Rong Yizhong Rong 2Jie Liu Jie Liu 1Li Zhang Li Zhang 1*
  • 1 Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing, China
  • 2 Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei, Anhui Province, China

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

    Modeling differences in biomass allocation between wheat and weeds'specificallydifferences in biomass allocation to shoots (aboveground biomass), roots (belowground biomass), and reproductive tissuesseed mass (reproductive biomass)enhances our understanding of sustainable weeds management. However, few studies have examined the effects ofhow fertilization and planting density on influence biomass accumulation and allocation at both vegetative and reproductive stages within a wheat-weed community. We To address this gap, we conducted a greenhouse experiment by growing wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), wild oats (Avena fatua L.), and barnyard grass (Echinochloa crusgalli (L.) P. Beauv.) under varying planting densities (4, 8, 12, and 16 individuals per pot) and fertilization treatments (1.018 g N per pot of urea). After six months at theof vegetative stage growth and one additionalseven months at the reproductive stage, we measured the above-ground and below-ground biomass of individual plants inat both phasesstages, and reproductive biomassseed mass during the reproductive stage. Wheat and weedsWe found that the biomass of wheat and weeds in various organs increased with fertilization and but decreased with higher planting density, with no interaction between these factorsthe two. Wheat allocated more biomassto belowground to roots than shoots and more to reproductive than aboveground tissues and more to reproductive than vegetative biomass, regardless ofunaffected by fertilization or planting density, following allometric allocation theory. In contrast, some weeds distributed biomass similarly between stems shoots and roots at planting densities of 4 and 12 under fertilization, or allocated more biomass to roots than to stem shoots growthat these densities.; Additionally, some weeds also achieved higher yields at both small and large sizes under planting densities of 12 and 16, ,respectively, suggesting higher greater phenotypic plasticity. This study provides a comprehensive examination analysis of biomass allocation differences in between wheat and weeds throughout their life cycles, offering insights into plant adaptation strategies and potential guidancepractical applications for optimizingfuture agricultural management.

    Keywords: allometric partitioning theory, biomass allocation, Plant life history, Reproductive strategy, Size dependence

    Received: 09 Dec 2024; Accepted: 28 Mar 2025.

    Copyright: © 2025 Xi, Shi, Rong, Liu and Zhang. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

    * Correspondence: Li Zhang, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing, China

    Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

    Research integrity at Frontiers

    Man ultramarathon runner in the mountains he trains at sunset

    95% of researchers rate our articles as excellent or good

    Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.


    Find out more