pith. sign in

arxiv: 1912.04166 · v2 · submitted 2019-12-09 · 🧬 q-bio.PE · math.AP· nlin.PS

Modeling competitive interactions and plant-soil feedback in vegetation dynamics

Addolorata Marasco , Francesco Giannino , Annalisa Iuorio This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 14:58 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧬 q-bio.PE math.APnlin.PS
keywords plant-soil feedbackcompetitive interactionsvegetation patternsspecies coexistencepartial differential equationsspatial dynamicsinter-specific feedbackintra-specific feedback
0
0 comments X

The pith

A four-PDE model shows that positive and negative plant-soil feedbacks decide whether two competing species coexist or one dominates and whether spatial patterns form.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper builds a system of four partial differential equations that track two plant species together with the positive and negative soil feedbacks each exerts on itself and on the other. By varying every parameter, the authors map the regions of parameter space in which both species persist, in which one excludes the other, and in which uniform vegetation breaks into spatial patterns. The work addresses the realistic case in which plants rarely grow alone but interact through soil changes that alter growth rates. A sympathetic reader would value the result if the chosen feedback functions correctly represent how soil conditions modify plant performance, because the same mechanisms are observed to shape biodiversity and patterning in humid-field communities.

Core claim

Using a mathematical model consisting of four PDEs, we investigate mechanisms of inter- and intra-specific plant-soil feedback on the coexistence of two competing plant species. In particular, the model takes into account both negative and positive feedback influencing the growth of the same and the other plant species. Both the coexistence of the plant species and the dominance of a particular plant species is examined with respect to all model parameters together with the emergence of spatial vegetation patterns.

What carries the argument

Four coupled PDEs for the two plant densities and the two associated soil-feedback fields, with intra-specific and inter-specific positive and negative interaction terms that modify growth rates.

If this is right

  • Coexistence is stable inside bounded intervals of the feedback and competition coefficients.
  • One species dominates when its intra-specific positive feedback is sufficiently stronger than the competitor's or its negative feedback is weaker.
  • Spatial patterns arise when parameter values push the spatially uniform equilibrium past a Turing-type instability.
  • The balance between intra-specific and inter-specific feedback strengths determines whether patterns are possible at all.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If feedback strengths can be estimated from soil bioassays, the model supplies testable predictions for how altering microbial communities would shift competitive outcomes.
  • The same local feedback rules could be embedded in larger spatial models to forecast how climate-driven changes in soil biota might reorganize vegetation mosaics.
  • Remote-sensing signatures of pattern wavelength might be inverted to estimate the relative strength of positive versus negative feedbacks without direct soil sampling.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen functional forms for the positive and negative feedback terms correctly capture how soil conditions alter the growth rates of both plant species.

What would settle it

A controlled experiment that measures the actual coexistence threshold and pattern wavelength for two species whose intra- and inter-specific feedback strengths have been quantified independently, and finds outcomes outside the ranges predicted by the four-PDE system.

read the original abstract

Plant-soil feedback is recognized as a causal mechanism for the emergence of vegetation patterns of the same species especially when water is not a limiting resource (e.g. humid environments). Nevertheless, in the field, plants rarely grow in monoculture but compete with other plant species. In these cases, plant-soil feedback was shown to play a key role in plant-species coexistence. Using a mathematical model consisting of four PDEs, we investigate mechanisms of inter- and intra-specific plant-soil feedback on the coexistence of two competing plant species. In particular, the model takes into account both negative and positive feedback influencing the growth of the same and the other plant species. Both the coexistence of the plant species and the dominance of a particular plant species is examined with respect to all model parameters together with the emergence of spatial vegetation patterns.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents a system of four coupled PDEs describing the densities of two competing plant species and two associated soil variables. Positive and negative intra- and inter-specific plant-soil feedbacks are incorporated via specific functional forms that modulate growth rates; numerical continuation and simulation are used to map coexistence versus dominance regions across the full parameter space and to identify conditions for spatial pattern formation.

Significance. If the chosen feedback nonlinearities prove robust, the work supplies a concrete mechanistic link between plant-soil feedback strength, competition coefficients, and both species coexistence and emergent spatial heterogeneity, thereby extending earlier single-species models to a competitive setting of direct ecological interest.

major comments (2)
  1. [model construction section] Model construction section: the specific functional forms chosen for the positive and negative feedback terms (modulating growth rates as functions of the two soil variables) are introduced by assumption rather than derived from uptake kinetics or microbial dynamics; no alternative monotonic or saturating forms are tested, so the reported coexistence regions and spatial structures may be artifacts of these particular nonlinearities.
  2. [results / bifurcation analysis] Parameter-sweep and bifurcation analysis (throughout results): while all model parameters are varied, the absence of any sensitivity analysis to the precise shape of the feedback functions or to initial-condition dependence leaves open whether the claimed boundaries between coexistence, dominance, and patterning are structurally stable.
minor comments (2)
  1. [model construction section] Equation numbering and cross-referencing in the model section would improve readability when the four PDEs and their feedback terms are later referenced in the parameter analysis.
  2. [figures] Figure captions should explicitly state the parameter values held fixed during each sweep so that the reader can reproduce the reported regimes without consulting the main text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript. We respond point-by-point to the major comments below and indicate the planned revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [model construction section] Model construction section: the specific functional forms chosen for the positive and negative feedback terms (modulating growth rates as functions of the two soil variables) are introduced by assumption rather than derived from uptake kinetics or microbial dynamics; no alternative monotonic or saturating forms are tested, so the reported coexistence regions and spatial structures may be artifacts of these particular nonlinearities.

    Authors: The functional forms are phenomenological choices selected to represent the qualitative effects of positive and negative plant-soil feedbacks while preserving analytical tractability for bifurcation analysis. They are not derived from explicit microbial uptake kinetics, as incorporating such detail would require additional state variables and parameters beyond the scope of the present four-PDE model. We will revise the model construction section to provide stronger justification with references to empirical studies supporting these forms. In addition, we will add sensitivity tests using alternative monotonic and saturating functional forms to confirm that the main qualitative outcomes remain robust. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [results / bifurcation analysis] Parameter-sweep and bifurcation analysis (throughout results): while all model parameters are varied, the absence of any sensitivity analysis to the precise shape of the feedback functions or to initial-condition dependence leaves open whether the claimed boundaries between coexistence, dominance, and patterning are structurally stable.

    Authors: We agree that explicit sensitivity analysis to functional shape is needed to establish structural stability. As noted above, we will incorporate such tests in the revised results. The bifurcation and continuation methods already identify equilibria and patterns independently of initial conditions. To address multistability concerns, we will supplement the numerical results with simulations from varied initial conditions to map basins of attraction for the reported coexistence, dominance, and patterned states. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: explicit PDE model explored numerically with no fitted predictions or self-referential derivations

full rationale

The paper constructs an explicit four-PDE system with chosen functional forms for feedback terms and then performs parameter sweeps and numerical simulations to explore coexistence and patterns. No quantities are fitted to data and then re-presented as predictions; no self-citation chains justify core premises; the derivation chain consists of standard PDE analysis applied to the stated model. This matches the default non-circular case for theoretical modeling papers.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a reaction-diffusion modeling framework whose feedback functions and competition terms are introduced as modeling choices rather than derived quantities.

free parameters (2)
  • feedback coefficients (positive and negative)
    Varied across ranges to map coexistence and pattern regimes
  • competition coefficients
    Varied to examine inter- versus intra-specific effects
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Vegetation dynamics are adequately described by a closed system of four reaction-diffusion PDEs with local feedback terms
    This is the foundational modeling premise stated in the abstract

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5677 in / 1095 out tokens · 44851 ms · 2026-05-24T14:58:01.864471+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Baudena, M., D’Andrea, F., Provenzale, A.: An idealized model for tree-grass coexistence in savan- nas: the role of life stage structure and fire disturbances. J. Ecol. 98(1), 74–80 (2010). DOI 10.1111/ j.1365-2745.2009.01588.x. URL https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1365-2745.2009.01588.x

    work page arXiv 2010

  2. [2]

    Theoretical Ecology 6(2), 131–141 (2012)

    Baudena, M., Rietkerk, M.: Complexity and coexistence in a simple spatial model for arid savanna ecosystems. Theoretical Ecology 6(2), 131–141 (2012). DOI 10.1007/s12080-012-0165-1. URL https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs12080-012-0165-1 5 In the version of Theorem 4.1 of [9] reported here, we have corrected the typo present in the original paper, where the unsta...

    work page doi:10.1007/s12080-012-0165-1 2012

  3. [3]

    Ecology 75(7), 1965–1977 (1994)

    Bever, J.: Feeback between Plants and Their Soil Communities in an Old Field Community. Ecology 75(7), 1965–1977 (1994). DOI 10.2307/1941601. URL https://doi.org/10.2307%2F1941601

    work page doi:10.2307/1941601 1965

  4. [4]

    Oikos 111(2), 311–321 (2005)

    Bonanomi, G., Giannino, F., Mazzoleni, S.: Negative plant-soil feedback and species coexistence. Oikos 111(2), 311–321 (2005). DOI 10.1111/j.0030-1299.2005.13975.x. URL https://doi.org/ 10.1111%2Fj.0030-1299.2005.13975.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.0030-1299.2005.13975.x 2005

  5. [5]

    New Phytologist191(4), 1018–1030 (2011)

    Bonanomi, G., Incerti, G., Barile, E., Capodilupo, M., Antignani, V ., Mingo, A., Lanzotti, V ., Scala, F., Mazzoleni, S.: Phytotoxicity, not nitrogen immobilization, explains plant litter inhibitory effects: evidence from solid-state 13C NMR spectroscopy. New Phytologist191(4), 1018–1030 (2011). DOI 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2011.03765.x. URL https://doi.org/1...

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2011.03765.x 2011

  6. [6]

    Community Ecology 15(1), 77–86 (2014)

    Bonanomi, G., Incerti, G., Stinca, A., Carten `ı, F., Giannino, F., Mazzoleni, S.: Ring formation in clonal plants. Community Ecology 15(1), 77–86 (2014). DOI 10.1556/comec.15.2014.1.8. URL https://doi.org/10.1556%2Fcomec.15.2014.1.8

    work page doi:10.1556/comec.15.2014.1.8 2014

  7. [7]

    IEEE Access 6, 4720–4724 (2018)

    Campagna, R., Cuomo, S., Giannino, F., Severino, G., Toraldo, G.: A Semi-Automatic Numerical Algorithm for Turing Patterns Formation in a Reaction-Diffusion Model. IEEE Access 6, 4720–4724 (2018). DOI 10.1109/access.2017.2780324. URL https://doi.org/10.1109%2Faccess.2017. 2780324

    work page doi:10.1109/access.2017.2780324 2018

  8. [8]

    Carten `ı, F., Marasco, A., Bonanomi, G., Mazzoleni, S., Rietkerk, M., Giannino, F.: Negative plant soil feedback explaining ring formation in clonal plants. J. Theor. Biol. 313, 153–161 (2012). DOI 10.1016/j.jtbi.2012.08.008. URL https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.jtbi.2012.08.008

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2012.08.008 2012

  9. [9]

    Castillo-Chavez, C., Song, B.: Dynamical models of tuberculosis and their applications. Math. Biosci. Eng. 1(2), 361–404 (2004). DOI 10.3934/mbe.2004.1.361. URL https://doi.org/10.3934% 2Fmbe.2004.1.361

    work page doi:10.3934/mbe.2004.1.361 2004

  10. [10]

    Darwin, C.: The V oyage of the Beagle. P. F. Collier & Son, (1909). DOI 10.5962/bhl.title.98662. URL https://doi.org/10.5962%2Fbhl.title.98662

    work page doi:10.5962/bhl.title.98662 1909

  11. [11]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.10801 (2019)

    Eigentler, L., Sherratt, J.: Spatial self-organisation enables species coexistence in a model for savanna ecosystems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.10801 (2019)

    work page arXiv 1911

  12. [12]

    Eigentler, L., Sherratt, J.A.: Metastability as a coexistence mechanism in a model for dryland vegeta- tion patterns. Bull. Math. Biol. 81(7), 2290–2322 (2019). DOI 10.1007/s11538-019-00606-z. URL https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11538-019-00606-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s11538-019-00606-z 2019

  13. [13]

    Nature Ecology & Evolution 2(9), 1403–1407 (2018)

    Eppinga, M., Baudena, M., Johnson, D., Jiang, J., Mack, K., Strand, A., Bever, J.: Frequency- dependent feedback constrains plant community coexistence. Nature Ecology & Evolution 2(9), 1403–1407 (2018). DOI 10.1038/s41559-018-0622-3. URL https://doi.org/10.1038% 2Fs41559-018-0622-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41559-018-0622-3 2018

  14. [14]

    Journal of Theoretical Biology 244(4), 680–691 (2007)

    Gilad, E., von Hardenberg, J., Provenzale, A., Shachak, M., Meron, E.: A mathematical model of plants as ecosystem engineers. Journal of Theoretical Biology 244(4), 680–691 (2007). DOI 10. 1016/j.jtbi.2006.08.006. URL https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.jtbi.2006.08.006

    work page 2007

  15. [15]

    Physical Review Letters 87(19) (2001)

    von Hardenberg, J., Meron, E., Shachak, M., Zarmi, Y .: Diversity of Vegetation Patterns and De- sertification. Physical Review Letters 87(19) (2001). DOI 10.1103/physrevlett.87.198101. URL https://doi.org/10.1103%2Fphysrevlett.87.198101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.87.198101 2001

  16. [16]

    Hassard, B., Kazarinoff, N., Wan, Y ., Wan, Y .: Theory and applications of Hopf bifurcation, vol. 41. CUP Archive (1981)

    work page 1981

  17. [17]

    Kealy, B., Wollkind, D.: A Nonlinear Stability Analysis of Vegetative Turing Pattern Formation for an Interaction–Diffusion Plant-Surface Water Model System in an Arid Flat Environment. Bull. Math. Biol. 74(4), 803–833 (2011). DOI 10.1007/s11538-011-9688-7. URL https://doi.org/ 10.1007%2Fs11538-011-9688-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s11538-011-9688-7 2011

  18. [18]

    Kielh ¨ofer, H.: Bifurcation theory: An introduction with applications to PDEs, vol. 156. Springer Science & Business Media (2006)

    work page 2006

  19. [19]

    Science284(5421), 1826–1828 (1999)

    Klausmeier, C.: Regular and Irregular Patterns in Semiarid Vegetation. Science284(5421), 1826–1828 (1999). DOI 10.1126/science.284.5421.1826. URL https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience. 284.5421.1826

    work page doi:10.1126/science.284.5421.1826 1999

  20. [20]

    Ecology Letters 11(9), 980–992 (2008)

    Kulmatiski, A., Beard, K., Stevens, J., Cobbold, S.: Plant-soil feedbacks: a meta-analytical review. Ecology Letters 11(9), 980–992 (2008). DOI 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01209.x. URL https: //doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1461-0248.2008.01209.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01209.x 2008

  21. [21]

    Liu, W.: Criterion of hopf bifurcations without using eigenvalues. J. Math. Anal. Appl., 182(1), 250– 256 (1994). DOI 10.1006/jmaa.1994.1079. URL https://doi.org/10.1006%2Fjmaa.1994. 1079 24 A. Marasco et al

    work page doi:10.1006/jmaa.1994.1079 1994

  22. [22]

    Marasco, A., Iuorio, A., Carten `ı, F., Bonanomi, G., Tartakovsky, D., Mazzoleni, S., Giannino, F.: Veg- etation Pattern Formation Due to Interactions Between Water Availability and Toxicity in Plant–Soil Feedback. Bull. Math. Biol. 76(11), 2866–2883 (2014). DOI 10.1007/s11538-014-0036-6. URL https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11538-014-0036-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s11538-014-0036-6 2014

  23. [23]

    Community Ecol- ogy 8(1), 103–109 (2007)

    Mazzoleni, S., Bonanomi, G., Giannino, F., Rietkerk, M., Dekker, S., Zucconi, F.: Is plant biodiversity driven by decomposition processes? An emerging new theory on plant diversity. Community Ecol- ogy 8(1), 103–109 (2007). DOI 10.1556/comec.8.2007.1.12. URL https://doi.org/10.1556% 2Fcomec.8.2007.1.12

    work page doi:10.1556/comec.8.2007.1.12 2007

  24. [24]

    Mazzoleni, S., Bonanomi, G., Giannino, F., Incerti, G., Dekker, S., Rietkerk, M.: Modelling the effects of litter decomposition on tree diversity patterns. Ecol. Model. 221(23), 2784–2792 (2010). DOI 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2010.08.007. URL https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.ecolmodel.2010. 08.007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2010.08.007 2010

  25. [25]

    DOI 10.1111/nph.13121

    Mazzoleni, S., Bonanomi, G., Incerti, G., Chiusano, M., Lanzotti, V ., et al.: Inhibitory and toxic effects of extracellular self-DNA in litter: a mechanism for negative plant-soil feedbacks? New Phytologist 205(3), 1195–1210 (2014). DOI 10.1111/nph.13121. URL https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fnph. 13121

    work page doi:10.1111/nph.13121 2014

  26. [26]

    Meron, E.: Pattern-formation approach to modelling spatially extended ecosystems. Ecol. Model. 234, 70–82 (2012). DOI 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.05.035. URL https://doi.org/10.1016% 2Fj.ecolmodel.2011.05.035

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.05.035 2012

  27. [27]

    Nature 362(6415), 53–56 (1993)

    van der Putten, W., Dijk, C.V ., Peters, B.: Plant-specific soil-borne diseases contribute to succession in foredune vegetation. Nature 362(6415), 53–56 (1993). DOI 10.1038/362053a0. URL https: //doi.org/10.1038%2F362053a0

    work page doi:10.1038/362053a0 1993

  28. [28]

    The American Naturalist 160(4), 524–530 (2002)

    Rietkerk, M., Boerlijst, M., van Langevelde, F., HilleRisLambers, R., van de Koppel, J., Kumar, L., Prins, H., de Roos, A.: Self-organization of vegetation in arid ecosystems. The American Naturalist 160(4), 524–530 (2002). DOI 10.1086/342078. URL https://doi.org/10.1086%2F342078

    work page doi:10.1086/342078 2002

  29. [29]

    Shampine, L., Reichelt, M.: The MATLAB ODE suite. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 18(1), 1–22 (1997). DOI 10.1137/s1064827594276424. URL https://doi.org/10.1137%2Fs1064827594276424

    work page doi:10.1137/s1064827594276424 1997

  30. [30]

    Journal of Mathematical Biology 51(2), 183–197 (2005)

    Sherratt, J.: An Analysis of Vegetation Stripe Formation in Semi-Arid Landscapes. Journal of Mathematical Biology 51(2), 183–197 (2005). DOI 10.1007/s00285-005-0319-5. URL https: //doi.org/10.1007%2Fs00285-005-0319-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s00285-005-0319-5 2005

  31. [31]

    Uecker, H.: Hopf Bifurcation and Time Periodic Orbits with pde2path – Algorithms and Applications. Commun. Comput.Phys. 25(3) (2019). DOI 10.4208/cicp.oa-2017-0181. URL https://doi.org/ 10.4208%2Fcicp.oa-2017-0181

    work page doi:10.4208/cicp.oa-2017-0181 2019

  32. [32]

    Catena 37(1–2), 1–24 (1999)

    Valentin, C., dHerbes, J., Poesen, J.: Soil and water components of banded vegetation patterns. Catena 37(1–2), 1–24 (1999). DOI 10.1016/S0341-8162(99)00053-3

    work page doi:10.1016/s0341-8162(99)00053-3 1999

  33. [33]

    581.5264 W3

    Walter, H., Mueller-Dombois, D., et al.: Ecology of tropical and subtropical vegetation. 581.5264 W3. Oliver & Boyd Edinburgh (1971)

    work page 1971

  34. [34]

    Journal of Ecology91(5), 707–720 (2003)

    Weigelt, A., Jolliffe, P.: Indices of plant competition. Journal of Ecology91(5), 707–720 (2003). DOI 10.1046/j.1365-2745.2003.00805.x. URL https://doi.org/10.1046%2Fj.1365-2745.2003. 00805.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-2745.2003.00805.x 2003

  35. [35]

    Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 34(1), 273–309 (2003)

    Willig, M., Kaufman, D., Stevens, R.: Latitudinal Gradients of Biodiversity: Pattern, Process, Scale, and Synthesis. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 34(1), 273–309 (2003). DOI 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.012103.144032. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1146%2Fannurev. ecolsys.34.012103.144032

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.012103.144032 2003