Scaling relationships that describe variation in population density with body size in ecological communities, such as the thinning law in plant ecology1,2,3, can be explained in terms of how individuals use resources as a function of their size. Data for rates of xylem transport as a function of stem diameter show that rates of resource use in individual plants scale as approximately the 3/4 power of body mass, which is the same as metabolic rates of animals4,5,6,7. Here we use this relationship to develop a mechanistic model for relationships between density and mass in resource-limited plants. It predicts that average plant size should scale as the −4/3 power of maximum population density, in agreement with empirical evidence and comparable relationships in animals5,6,8, but significantly less than the −3/2 power predicted by geometric models1. Our model implies that fundamental constraints on metabolic rate are reflected in the scaling of population density and other ecological and evolutionary phenomena, including the finding that resource allocation among species in ecosystems is independent of body size5,6,8.
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $3.90 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Yoda, K., Kira, T., Ogawa, H. & Hozumi, K. Self-thinning in overcrowded pure stands under cultivated and natural conditions. J. Biol. Osaka City Univ. 14, 107–129 (1963).
Gorham, E. Shoot height, weight and standing crop in relation to density of monospecific stands. Nature 279, 148–150 (1979).
White, J. in Studies on Plant Demography: A Festschrift for John L. Harper (ed. White, J.) 291–301 (Academic, New York, (1985)).
Schmidt-Nielsen, K. Scaling: Why is Animal Size so Important? (Cambridge Univ. Press, (1984)).
McMahon, T. A. & Bonner, J. T. On Size and Life (Scientific American Library, New York, (1983)).
Brown, J. H. Macroecology (Univ. Chicago Press, (1995)).
West, G. B., Brown, J. H. & Enquist, B. J. Ageneral model for the origin of allometric scaling laws in biology. Science 276, 122–126 (1997).
Damuth, J. Population density and body size in mammals. Nature 290, 699–700 (1981).
Niklas, K. J. Plant Allometry: The Scaling of Form and Process (Univ. Chicago Press, (1994)).
Agusti, S., Duarte, C. M. & Kalf, J. Algal cell size and the maximum density and biomass of phytoplankton. Limnol. Oceanogr. 32, 983–986 (1987).
White, J. The allometric interpretation of the self-thinning rule. J. Theor. Biol. 89, 475–500 (1981).
Petraitis, P. S. Use of average vs. total biomass in self-thinning relationships. Ecology 76, 656–658 (1995).
Weller, D. E. Areevaluation of the −3/2 power rule of plant self-thinning. Ecol. Monog. 57, 23–43 (1987).
Weller, D. E. The interspecific size-density relationship among crowded plant stands and its implications for the −3/2 power rule of self-thinning. Am. Nat. 133, 20–41 (1989).
Norberg, R. A. Theory of growth geometry of plants and self-thinning of plant populations: geometric similarity, elastic similarity, and different growth modes of plant parts. Am. Nat. 131, 220–256 (1988).
Osawa, A. & Allen, R. B. Allometric theory explains self-thinning relationships of mountain beech and red pine. Ecology 74, 1020–1032 (1993).
Lonsdale, W. M. The self-thinning rule: dead or alive? Ecology 71, 1373–1388 (1990).
Franco, M. & Kelly, C. K. The interspecific mass-density relationship and plant geometry. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 95, 7830–7835 (1998).
Smith, W. B. & Brand, G. J. Allometric Biomass Equations for 98 Species of Herbs, Shrubs, and Small Trees (North Central Forest Experimental Station Research Note NC-299, Forest Service—USDA, (1983)).
Kozlowski, T. T. & Pallardy, S. G. Physiology of Woody Plants (Academic, New York, (1997)).
Chapin, S. F. II in Scaling Physiological Processes: Leaf to Globe (ed. Ehleringer, J. R.) 287–319 (Academic, New York, (1993)).
Grime, J. P. & Hunt, R. Relative growth-rate: its range and adaptive significance in a local flora. J. Ecol. 63, 393–422 (1975).
Tilman, D. Plant Strategies and the Dynamics and Structure of Plant Communities (Princeton Univ. Press, (1988)).
Yoda, K., Shinozaki, K., Ogawa, J., Hozumi, K. & Kira, T. Estimation of the total amount of respiration in woody organs of trees and forest communities. J. Biol. Osaka City Univ. 16, 15–26 (1965).
Whittaker, R. H. & Woodwell, G. M. Dimension and production relations of trees and shrubs in the Brookhaven Forest, New York. Ecology 56, 1–25 (1968).
Huston, M. A. & DeAngelis, D. Competition and coexistence: the effects of resource transport and supply rates. Am. Nat. 144, 954–977 (1994).
Rosenzweig, M. L. Net primary productivity of terrestrial communities: prediction from climatological data. Am. Nat. 102, 67–74 (1968).
Charnov, E. L. Life History Invariants: Some Explorations of Symmetry in Evolutionary Ecology (Oxford Univ. Press, (1993)).
Shulze, E. D.et al. Canopy transpiration and water fluxes in the xylem of the trunk of Larix and Picea trees—comparison of xylem flow, porometer and cuvette measurements. Oceologia 66, 475–483 (1985).
Cannell, M. G. R. World Forest Biomass and Primary Production Data (Academic, New York, (1982)).
We thank G. C. Stevens, C. A. F. Enquist, H. S. Horn, T. K. Lowrey, D. Marshall, K. J. Niklas, J. T. Bonner and J. Damuth for their help. B.J.E. was supported by a Fulbright fellowship and funding by NSF; J.H.B. by NSF; and G.B.W. by the US Department of Energy.
About this article
Cite this article
Enquist, B., Brown, J. & West, G. Allometric scaling of plant energetics and population density. Nature 395, 163–165 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1038/25977
Forest Ecosystems (2021)
Nature Plants (2021)
Nature Communications (2021)
Wetlands Ecology and Management (2021)
Community structure and ecosystem carbon stock dynamics along a chronosequence of mangrove plantations in China
Plant and Soil (2021)