Agroecosystems
Agroecosystems: Competition or Collaboration?
In contemporary scientific debate, the dichotomy between competition and collaboration within agroecosystems is a hotly debated topic.
Agroecosystems, as intrinsically adaptive and complex biological systems, do not exist along a linear competition-cooperation axis, but exhibit simultaneous and contextual dynamics, mediated by biochemical signals (at very low concentrations), trophic interactions, and agroecoevolutionary processes (Tilman, 1982; Brooker et al., 2008).
The correct question we should perhaps ask is: under what ecological, metabolic, and management conditions does one dynamic prevail over the other, and with what functional implications?
Competition represents one of the theoretical pillars of classical ecology. Since the work of Gause’s Law and the subsequent developments of Robert H. MacArthur, the functioning of plant communities has been interpreted as the result of competitive interactions for limiting resources: light, water, mineral nutrients, and space (Tilman, 1982).
In this theoretical framework, two organisms sharing exactly the same ecological niche cannot coexist stably over the long term.
This approach had an enormous impact on twentieth-century agronomy, helping to build a production model based on three implicit assumptions:
• minimizing the presence of “non-useful” species,
• eliminating all forms of biological interference,
• concentrating resources on the main crop.
This has led to monoculture, systematic weeding, and the intensive use of external inputs.
However, a more in-depth analysis highlights some structural criticalities.
First, competition is not only interspecific, but often even more intense at the intraspecific level.
In a monoculture field, individuals with identical physiological needs compete simultaneously for the same resources at the same phenological times.
This can lead to:
• inefficient nutrient use,
• increased physiological stress,
• strong individual variability in yields.
As highlighted by Weiner (1990), intraspecific competition can be highly asymmetric, with a few dominant individuals capturing most of the resources.
Secondly, competition, if not balanced by other ecological processes, tends to simplify the system.
Biological simplification results in:
• reduction of functional biodiversity,
• impoverishment of the soil microbiome,
• loss of system resilience.
This condition makes agroecosystems more vulnerable to pathogens, insects, and abiotic stress, increasing dependence on external inputs.
An additional, often overlooked, aspect concerns the intrinsically unstable nature of pure competition.
In nature, systems dominated exclusively by competitive interactions tend to evolve toward forms of functional differentiation or the establishment of positive interactions.
From an operational perspective, this implies that:
the more an agricultural system is driven toward pure competition, the greater the need for external control.
Competition, therefore, is a real and inevitable process, but the limitation lies in having transformed it into the dominant organizing principle, neglecting collaborative dynamics.
In recent decades, ecology has progressively recognized the role of positive interactions. The work of Ragan M. Callaway has shown how, especially under conditions of environmental stress, plants can facilitate each other (Callaway, 2007; Bertness & Callaway, 1994).
In agroecology, this translates into:
• intercropping,
• agroforestry,
• cover crops,
• management of spontaneous biodiversity.
The main mechanisms include:
• niche complementarity, which reduces direct competition (Tilman et al., 1997; Loreau & Hector, 2001);
• biochemical collaboration, through root exudates and secondary metabolites (Badri & Vivanco, 2009);
• microbial symbiosis, which improves nutrition and resilience (van der Heijden et al., 2008);
• mycorrhizal networks, which allow the transfer of signals and resources (Simard et al., 2012).
A key element in interpreting the balance between competition and collaboration is the Stress Gradient Hypothesis, developed by Mark D. Bertness.
According to this theory:
• under favorable conditions, competition prevails;
• under stressful conditions, collaboration prevails (Bertness & Callaway, 1994).
In Mediterranean environments, characterized by water stress and often poor soils, collaboration plays a structural role in maintaining ecosystem functionality.
The goal of agroecology is to create the conditions for triggering systemic processes of collaboration.
To operationalize collaboration in agroecology, it is necessary to move from a purely descriptive perspective to a structured assessment of interactions, even without resorting to mathematical formalisms.
Two species can be considered complementary when they use different resources in space or time. Differences in root architecture, phenology, or nutritional strategy reduce competition and increase the overall efficiency of the system (Tilman et al., 1997; Loreau & Hector, 2001).
From an agroecological perspective, collaboration is also measured in terms of yield. When intercropping produces more than monocultures, for the same area, it means that the species are interacting beneficially.
This allows us to translate an ecological principle into a concrete numerical and operational parameter for farm management.
Plants release secondary metabolites into the soil that influence the microbiome and nutrient availability. Compatibility between species can also be interpreted in terms of metabolic similarity or complementarity.
• Excessively different metabolic profiles → possible functional discontinuity
• Partially overlapping metabolic profiles → greater compatibility
In this sense, plants can be viewed as organisms that communicate through a shared biochemical language (Badri & Vivanco, 2009).
Let’s not forget that plant-to-plant interactions are strongly mediated by the soil microbiome.
Stable and functionally integrated microbial communities improve the resilience of the system (van der Heijden et al., 2008).
Specifically, two species are compatible when:
• they do not negatively interfere with each other’s symbionts,
• they promote coherent microbial communities,
• they contribute to rhizospheric stability.
For an agronomist, this implies a paradigm shift, no longer:
• “Does this species compete?”
but:
• “Is this species functionally complementary?”
• “Does it improve the efficiency of the system?”
• “Is it metabolically and microbiologically compatible with existing or future species?”
Scientific evidence indicates that plants operate as nodes in a complex biochemical network. Secondary metabolites act as ecological signals, and the microbiome mediates these interactions (van der Heijden et al., 2008).
Agroecosystems are therefore systems of continuous metabolic negotiation, in which competition and collaboration coexist and modulate each other.
For professional practice, it would be useful and interesting to:
• design intercropping based on secondary functional and metabolic factors
• manage biodiversity as a resource
• activate the soil microbiome
• reduce external inputs while improving internal efficiency
The opposition between competition and collaboration is therefore a mere simplification.
Agroecosystems function through a dynamic balance between these two forces.
The true paradigm shift consists in moving from:
• competition management
to
• interaction engineering
where the goal is not to maximize a single species, but to optimize the overall functionality of the farm system.
Francesco Di Lorenzo
Agronomist
References
• Badri, D. V., & Vivanco, J. M. (2009). Plant, Cell & Environment.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2009.01926.x
• Bertness, M. D., & Callaway, R. (1994).
Trends in Ecology & Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(94)90088-4
• Brooker, R. W., et al. (2008). Journal of Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2007.01295.x
• Callaway, R. M. (2007). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6224-7
• Loreau, M., & Hector, A. (2001).
Nature.
https://doi.org/10.1038/35083573
• Simard, S. W., et al. (2012).
Fungal Biology Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbr.2012.01.001
• Tilman, D. (1982).
• Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400882774
• Tilman, D., et al. (1997).
Science.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5330.1300
• van der Heijden, M. G. A., et al. (2008).
Ecology Letters.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01139.x
• Weiner, J. (1990).
Trends in Ecology & Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(90)90095-U
• Willey, R. W. (1979). Field Crop
Abstracts.