Advertisement

Plant and Soil

, Volume 437, Issue 1–2, pp 301–311 | Cite as

Waterlogging tolerance of Bidens pilosa translates to increased competitiveness compared to native Bidens biternata

  • Maofeng Yue
  • Hao ShenEmail author
  • Weihua Li
  • Jinfeng Chen
  • Wanhui Ye
  • Xingshan Tian
  • Aiguo Yin
  • Shuiming Cheng
Regular Article

Abstract

Background and aims

Waterlogging is a common natural disturbance that has negative impacts on dry-land plant species. However, few studies have focused on how waterlogging influences the invasiveness of non-native plant species on dry lands. Bidens pilosa is an invasive dry-land plant of the Asteraceae family that causes serious damage to biodiversity and agricultural production in southern China. To date, it remains unclear how waterlogging affects the competitiveness and growth of B. pilosa. The goal of this study is to determine whether waterlogging promotes the competitiveness of invasive B. pilosa.

Methods

The growth and physiological responses of invasive B. pilosa and native B. biternata and the competition effects between them were studied after 0 (control), 5, 10, 15, and 20 days of waterlogging stress (wherein the water level was maintained at the soil surface level).

Results

After short-term waterlogging stress, the competitive balance index of invasive B. pilosa significantly increased, indicating that short-term waterlogging on dry lands could significantly improve the competitiveness of invasive B. pilosa. Invasive B. pilosa maintained more rapid adventitious root generating capacity and higher root dehydrogenase activity under waterlogging conditions than native B. biternata, which allowed B. pilosa to adapt to the anoxic conditions much more rapidly. The smaller reductions in net photosynthetic rate, actual quantum yield of photosystem II and relative growth rate in B. pilosa than in B. biternata showed that invasive B. pilosa had stronger tolerance to waterlogging than native B. biternata.

Conclusion

Our results indicate that invasive B. pilosa has stronger tolerance to waterlogging than native B. biternata and that short-term waterlogging on dry lands can significantly improve the competitiveness of invasive B. pilosa. Short-term waterlogging on dry lands caused by extreme precipitation during the rainy season is expected to promote the invasive potential of exotic B. pilosa.

Keywords

Invasive plants Bidens pilosa Waterlogging Growth Physiological responses Competitiveness 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (31370446), National Key Technologies R&D Program of China (2015BAD08B02), Science and Technology Program of Guangdong (2014B020206003), Talent Introduction Project of Guangdong University of Petrochemical Technology (2018RC58), and Foundation of President of Guangdong Academy of Agricultural Sciences (201610).

Supplementary material

11104_2019_3967_MOESM1_ESM.doc (46 kb)
ESM 1 (DOC 46 kb)

References

  1. Afrasyab R, Richarda J, Kazem P, Rana M (2010) Stomatal conductance as a screen for osmotic stress tolerance in durum wheat growing in saline soil. Funct Plant Biol 37:255–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agrawal AA (2001) Phenotypic plasticity in the interactions and evolution of species. Science 294:321–326CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Alpert P, Bone E, Holzapfel C (2000) Invasiveness, invasibility and the role of environmental stress in the spread of non-native plants. Perspect Plant Ecol 3:52–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bailey-Serres J, Fukao T, Gibbs DJ, Holdsworth MJ, Lee SC, Licausi F, Perata P, Voesenek LACJ, van Dongen JT (2012) Making sense of low oxygen sensing. Trends Plant Sci 17:129–138CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Callaway RM, Ridenour WM (2004) Novel weapons: invasive success and the evolution of increased competitive ability. Front Ecol Environ 2:436–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Catford JA, Daehler CC, Murphy HT, Sheppard AW, Hardesty BD, Westcott DA, Rejmánek M, Bellingham PJ, Pergl J, Horvitz CC, Hulme PE (2012) The intermediate disturbance hypothesis and plant invasions: implications for species richness and management. Perspect Plant Ecol 14:231–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen Y, Zhou Y, Yin TF, Liu CX, Luo FL (2013) The invasive wetland plant Alternanthera philoxeroides shows a higher tolerance to waterlogging than its native congener Alternanthera sessilis. PLoS One 8:e81456CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen T, Yuan F, Song J, Wang B (2016) Nitric oxide participates in waterlogging tolerance through enhanced adventitious root formation in the euhalophyte Suaeda salsa. Funct Plant Biol 43:244–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dalmagro HJ, de Lobo FA, Vourlitis GL, Dalmolin ÂC, Jr AMZ, ORTÍZ CER, Nogueira JDS (2013) Photosynthetic parameters of two invasive tree species of the Brazilian Pantanal in response to seasonal flooding. Photosynthetica 51:281–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dawood T, Yang X, Visser EJ, Te Beek TA, Kensche PR, Cristescu SM, Lee S, Floková K, Nguyen D, Mariani C, Rieu L (2016) A co-opted hormonal cascade activates dormant adventitious root primordia upon flooding in Solanum dulcamara. Plant Physiol 170:2351–2364CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. De Wit CT (1960) On competition. Pudoc. Wageningen, Netherlands, pp 1–82Google Scholar
  12. Dias-Filho MB, Carvalho CJR (2000) Physiological and morphological responces of Brachiaria spp to flooding. Pesq Agrop Brasileira 35:1959–1966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Etherington JR (1984) Comparative studies of plant growth and distribution in relation to waterlogging. X. Differential formation of adventitious roots and their experimental excision in Epilobium hirsutum and Chamerion angustifolium. J Ecol 72:389–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fan SF, Yu HH, Liu CH, Yu D, Yan YQ, Wang LG (2015) The effects of complete submergence on the morphological and biomass allocation response of the invasive plant Alternanthera philoxeroides. Hydrobiologia 746:159–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fowler N (1982) Competition and coexistence in a North Carolina grassland: III mixtures of component species. J Ecol 70:77–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gibson KD, Fischer AJ, Foin TC (2004) Compensatory responses of late watergrass (Echinochloa phyllopogon) and rice to resource limitations. Weed Sci 52:271–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hawrylak-Nowak B, Matraszek R, Pogorzelec M (2015) The dual effects of two inorganic selenium forms on the growth, selected physiological parameters and macronutrients accumulation in cucumber plants. Acta Physiol Plant 37:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Herzog M, Striker GG, Colmer TD, Pedersen O (2016) Mechanisms of waterlogging tolerance in wheat–a review of root and shoot physiology. Plant Cell Environ 39:1068–1086CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Jakobs G, Weber E, Edwards PJ (2004) Introduced plants of the invasive Solidago gigantea (Asteraceae) are larger and grow denser than conspecifics in the native range. Divers Distrib 10:11–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jauni M, Gripenberg S, Ramula S (2015) Non-native plant species benefit from disturbance: a meta- analysis. Oikos 124:122–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kercher SM, Zedler JB (2004) Flood tolerance in wetland angiosperms: a comparison of invasive and noninvasive species. Aquat Bot 80:89–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Klughammer C, Schreiber U (2008) Complementary PSII quantum yields calculated from simple fluorescence parameters measured by PAM fluorometry and the saturation pulse method. PAM Appl Notes 1:27–35Google Scholar
  23. Lazar D (2015) Parameters of photosynthetic energy partitioning. J Plant Physiol 175:131–147CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Lee CE (2002) Evolutionary genetics of invasive species. Trends Ecol Evol 17:386–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Liu TD, Song FB (2012) Maize photosynthesis and microclimate within the canopies at grain-filling stage in response to narrow-wide row planting patterns. Photosynthetica 50:215–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Liu J, Wang W, Wang L, Sun Y (2015) Exogenous melatonin improves seedling health index and drought tolerance in tomato. Plant Growth Regul 77:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lloret F, Casanovas C, Penuelas J (1999) Seedling survival of mediterranean shrubland species in relation to root: shoot ratio, seed size and water and nitrogen use. Funct Ecol 13:210–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lombardi L, Sebastiani L (2005) Copper toxicity in Prunus cerasifera: growth and antioxidant enzymes responses of in vitro grown plants. Plant Sci 168:797–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Malik AI, Colmer TD, Lambers H, Schortemeyer M (2001) Changes in physiological and morphological traits of roots and shoots of wheat in response to different depths of waterlogging. Aust J Plant Physiol 28:1121–1131Google Scholar
  30. Maxwell K, Johnson GN (2000) Chlorophyll fluorescence - a practical guide. J Exp Bot 51:659–668CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Mielke MS, de Almeida AAF, Gomes FP, Aguilar MAG, Mangabeiraa PAO (2003) Leaf gas exchange, chlorophyll fluorescence and growth responses of Genipa americana seedlings to soil flooding. Environ Exp Bot 50:221–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pan YM, Tang SC, Wei CQ, Liu MC (2012) Comparison of growth traits between invasive species Bidens pilosa and its indigenous congener B. biternata under different light and water conditions. J Trop Subtrop Bot 20:489–496 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  33. Pan YM, Tang SC, Wei CQ, Li XQ (2017) Comparison of growth, photosynthesis and phenotypic plasticity between invasive and native Bidens species under different light and water conditions. Biodivers Sci 25:1257–1126 (in Chinese)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Polacik KA, Maricle BR (2013) Effects of flooding on photosynthesis and root respiration in saltcedar (Tamarix ramosissima), an invasive riparian shrub. Environ Exp Bot 89:19–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Reddy KN, Singh M (1992) Germination and emergence of hairy beggarticks (Bidens pilosa). Weed Sci 40:195–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sachs MM, Ho THD (1986) Alteration of gene expression during environmental stress in plants. Annu Rev Plant Physiol 37:363–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shen S, Xu G, Clements DR, Jin G, Chen A, Zhang F, Kato-Noguchi H (2015) Suppression of the invasive plant mile-a-minute (Mikania micrantha) by local crop sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) by means of higher growth rate and competition for soil nutrients. BMC Ecol 15:1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Song LY, Chow WS, Sun LL, Peng CL (2010) Acclimation of photosystem II to high temperature in two Wedelia species from different geographical origins: implications for biological invasions upon global warming. J Exp Bot 61:4087–4096CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Soukupová L (1994) Allocation plasticity and modular structure in clonal graminoids in response to waterlogging. Folia Geobot 29:227–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Striker GG, Colmer TD (2017) Flooding tolerance of forage legumes. J Exp Bot 68:1851–1872PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Tang L, Xu X, Fang S (1998) Influence of soil waterlogging on growth and physiological properties of poplar and willow seedlings. Chin J Appl Ecol 9:471–474 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  42. Thomas MK, Litchman E (2016) Effects of temperature and nitrogen availability on the growth of invasive and native cyanobacteria. Hydrobiologia 763:357–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tongra T, Bharti S, Jajoo A (2014) Proton concentration in the thylakoid membranes can regulate energy distribution between the two photosystems. Photosynthetica 52:636–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. van Kooten O, Snel JF (1990) The use of chlorophyll fluorescence nomenclature in plant stress physiology. Photosynth Res 25:147–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vandoorne B, Descamps C, Mathieu AS, Van den Ende W, Vergauwen R, Javaux M, Lutts S (2014) Long term intermittent flooding stress affects plant growth and inulin synthesis of Cichorium intybus (var. sativum). Plant Soil 376:291–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Vilà M, Weiner J (2004) Are invasive plant species better competitors than native plant species? - evidence from pair-wise experiments. Oikos 105:229–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Voesenek LACJ, Bailey-Serres J (2015) Flood adaptive traits and processes: an overview. New Phytol 206:57–73CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Wardle DA, Bardgett RD, Callaway RM, Van der Putten WH (2011) Terrestrial ecosystem responses to species gains and losses. Science 332:1273–1277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wilson PJ, Thompson KEN, Hodgson JG (1999) Specific leaf area and leaf dry matter content as alternative predictors of plant strategies. New Phytol 143:155–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wu SH, Wang HH (2005) Potential Asteraceae invaders in Taiwan: insights from the flora and herbarium records of casual and naturalized alien species. Taiwania 50:62–70Google Scholar
  51. Wu H, Ismail M, Ding J (2017) Global warming increases the interspecific competitiveness of the invasive plant alligator weed, Alternanthera philoxeroides. Sci Total Environ 575:1415–1422CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Zhang H, Chang R, Guo X, Liang X, Wang R, Liu J (2017) Shifts in growth and competitive dominance of the invasive plant Alternanthera philoxeroides under different nitrogen and phosphorus supply. Environ Exp Bot 135:118–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zhou J, Tian X, Qiao L, Qin P (2012) Respiratory enzyme activity and regulation of respiration pathway in seashore mallow (Kosteletzkya virginica) seedlings under waterlogging conditions. Aust J Crop Sci 6:756–762Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maofeng Yue
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Hao Shen
    • 2
    Email author
  • Weihua Li
    • 5
  • Jinfeng Chen
    • 6
  • Wanhui Ye
    • 2
  • Xingshan Tian
    • 4
  • Aiguo Yin
    • 1
  • Shuiming Cheng
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Biological and Food EngineeringGuangdong University of Petrochemical TechnologyMaomingChina
  2. 2.Key Laboratory of Vegetation Restoration and Management of Degraded Ecosystems/Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Applied Botany, South China Botanical GardenChinese Academy of SciencesGuangzhouChina
  3. 3.College of Resources and EnvironmentUniversity of Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  4. 4.Institute of Plant ProtectionGuangdong Academy of Agricultural Sciences/ Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of High Technology for Plant ProtectionGuangzhouChina
  5. 5.Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Biotechnology for Plant Development; Guangzhou Key Laboratory of Subtropical Biodiversity and Biomonitoring; School of Life ScienceSouth China Normal UniversityGuangzhouChina
  6. 6.Environmental Horticulture Research InstituteGuangdong Academy of Agricultural Sciences/Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Ornamental Plant Germplasm Innovation and UtilizationGuangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations