Reconciling plant strategy theories of Grime and Tilman

Summary The theories of Grime and Tilman are ambitious attempts to unify disparate theories regarding the construction of plants, their interaction with the environment and the assembly of communities. After over two decades of parallel research, their ideas have not been reconciled, hindering progress in understanding the functioning of ecosystems. Grime's theories do not adequately incorporate the importance of non‐heterogeneous supplies of nutrients and how these supplies are partitioned over long time scales, are inconsistent regarding the importance of disturbance in nutrient‐limited habitats and need to reconsider the carbon economy of shade‐tolerant plants. Failure to account for differences between aquatic and terrestrial systems in how resource supplies are partitioned led Tilman to develop a shifting set of theories that have become reduced in mechanistic detail over time. The most recent highlighted the reduction of nutrient concentrations in soil solution, although it can no longer be derived from any viable mechanistic model. The slow diffusion of nutrients in soils means that the reduction of average soil solution nutrient concentrations cannot explain competitive exclusion. Although neither theory, nor a union of the two, adequately characterizes the dynamics of terrestrial plant assemblages, the complementarity in their assumptions serve as an important foundation for future theory and research. Reconciling the approaches of Grime and Tilman leads to six scenarios for competition for nutrients and light, with the outcome of each depending on the ability of plants to pre‐empt supplies. Under uniform supplies, pulses or patches, light competition requires leaf area dominance, while nutrient competition requires root length dominance. There are still important basic questions regarding the nature of nutrient supplies that will need to be answered, but recent research brings us closer to a unified set of theories on resource competition.