Plant Ecology

, Volume 215, Issue 8, pp 833–843 | Cite as

An ecological comparison of Impatiens glandulifera Royle in the native and introduced range

  • Robert A. Tanner
  • Liang Jin
  • Richard Shaw
  • Sean T. Murphy
  • Alan C. Gange
Article

Abstract

Understanding the ecology of plant species in their whole range (native and introduced) can provide insights into those that become problematic weeds in the introduced range despite being benign components of the vegetative community in the native range. We studied the morphological traits of Impatiens glandulifera in the native (Indian Himalayas) and introduced (UK) range and evaluated what influences natural enemies and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) have on plant performance. We compared height, total leaf area, root: shoot ratio, natural enemy damage and the colonisation of AMF from individual plants within and between ranges twice in 2010 during the months of June and August. In addition, in August 2010, we estimated the number of reproductive units (expressed as the sum of flowers, seed capsule and seeds) at each site. We found that all morphological traits varied between populations and countries, though in general introduced populations, and the semi-natural population in India, showed higher performance compared to natural native populations. There was only an indication that natural enemy damage, which was significantly higher in the native range, negatively affected reproductive units. Within the introduced range, the percentage colonisation of AMF was negatively associated with plant performance indicating that I. glandulifera may associate with an incompatible AMF species incurring a cost to invasive populations. We conclude that species which are heavily regulated in the native range, though still show high levels of performance, should be considered undesirable introductions into similar ecoclimatic ranges due to the potential that these species will become highly invasive species.

Keywords

Invasive plants Morphological traits Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi Natural enemies 

References

  1. Abramoff MD, Magelhaes PJ, Ram SJ (2004) Image processing with ImageJ. Biophotonics Int 11:36–42Google Scholar
  2. Andrews M, Maule HG, Raven JA, Mistry A (2005) Extension growth of Impatiens glandulifera at low irradiance: importance of nitrate and potassium accumulation. Ann Bot 95:641–648PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balasuriya J (1999) Shoot population density and shoot weight of clonal tea (Camellia sinensis) at different altitudes in Sri Lanka. Eur J Agron 11:123–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beerling DJ, Perrins JM (1993) Impatiens glandulifera Royle (Impatiens roylei Walp.). J Ecol 81:367–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blatter E (1927) Beautiful flowers of Kashmir. John Bale Sons and Danielsson, Ltd., LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Blossey B, Nötzold R (1995) Evolution of increased competitive ability in invasive nonindigenous plants: a hypothesis. J Ecol 83:887–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caño L, Escarré J, Fleck I, Blanco-Moreno J, Sans FX (2008) Increased fitness and plasticity of an invasive species in its introduced range: A study using Senecio pterophorus. J Ecol 96:468–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cockel CP, Tanner RA (2011) Impatiens glandulifera Royle (Himalayan balsam). In: Francis RA (ed) A handbook of global freshwater invasive species. Earthscan, London, pp 67–77Google Scholar
  9. Crawley MJ (1987) What makes a community invisible? In: Gray AJ, Crawley MJ, Edwards PJ (eds) Colonisation succession and stability. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, pp 429–453Google Scholar
  10. Ebeling SK, Hensen I, Auge H (2008) The invasive shrub Buddleja davidii performs better in its introduced range. Divers Distrib 14:225–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Environment Agency (2010) Our river habitats: the state of river habitats in England, Wales and the Isles of Man: a snap shot. Environment Agency, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Erfmeier A, Bruelheide H (2004) Comparison of native and invasive Rhododendron ponticum populations: growth, reproduction and morphology under field conditions. Flora 199:120–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fowler SV, Holden ANG (1994) Classical biological control for exotic invasive weeds in riparian and aquatic habitats: practice and prospects. In: de Waal LC, Child LE, Wade PM, Brock JH (eds) Ecology and management of invasive riverside plants. Wiley, Chichester, pp 173–182Google Scholar
  14. Gaertner M, Breeyen A, Cang H, Richardson DM (2009) Impacts of alien plant invasions on species richness in Mediterranean-type ecosystems: a meta-analysis. Prog Phys Geogr 33:319–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harner MJ, Mummey DL, Stanford JA, Matthias CR (2010) Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi enhance spotted knapweed growth across a riparian chronosequence. Biol Invasions 12:1481–1490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harris CM, Stanford HL, Edwards C, Travis JMJ, Park KJ (2011) Integrating demographic data and a mechanistic dispersal model to predict invasion spread of Rhododendron ponticum in different habitats. Ecol Inform 6:187–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Herms DA, Mattson WJ (1992) The dilemma of plants: to grow or defend. Q Rev Biol 67:283–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hierro JL, Maron JL, Callaway RM (2005) A biogeographical approach to plant invasions: the importance of studying exotics in their introduced and native range. J Ecol 93:5–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hulme PE, Bremner ET (2006) Assessing the impact of Impatiens glandulifera on riparian habitats: partitioning diversity components following species removal. J Appl Ecol 43:43–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Keane RM, Crawley MJ (2002) Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. Trends Ecol Evol 17:164–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kleunen M, Schlaepfer DR, Glaettli M, Fischer M (2011) Preadapted for invasiveness: do species traits or their plastic response to shading differ between invasive and non-invasive plant species in their native range? J Biogeogr 38:1294–1304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Klironomos JN (2002) Feedback with soil biota contributes to plant rarity and invasiveness in communities. Nature 417:67–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kofidis G, Bosabalidis AM, Moustakas M (2007) Combined effects of altitude and season on leaf characteristics of Clinopodium vulgare L. (Labiatae). Environ Exp Bot 60:69–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Krebs C, Gerber E, Matthies D, Schaffner U (2011) Herbivore resistance of invasive Fallopia species and their hybrids. Oecologia. doi:10.1007/s00442-011-2035-8 Google Scholar
  26. Levine JM, Pachepsky E, Kendall BE, Yelenik SG, Lambers JH (2006) Plant–soil feedbacks and invasive spread. Ecol Lett 9:1005–1014PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Liu H, Stiling P (2006) Testing the enemy release hypothesis: a review and meta-analysis. Biol Invasions 8:1535–1545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McGonigle TP, Miller MH, Evans DG, Fairchild GL, Swan JA (1990) A new method which gives an objective measure of colonization of roots by vesicular–arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. New Phytol 115:495–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Olckers T, Hulley PE (1991) Impoverished insect herbivore faunas on the exotic bugweed Solanum mauritianum Scop. relative to indigenous Solanum species in Natal/KwaZulu and the Transkei. J Entomol Soc 54:39–50Google Scholar
  30. Pan H, Liu X, Cai X, Du Z, He F, Wang L, Jia C, Li M (2009) Growth and morphological responses of Fargesia angustissima to altitude in the Wolong nature reserve, southwestern China. Acta Ecol Sin 29:144–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pimentel D, McNair S, Janecka J, Wightman J, Simmonds C, O’Connell C, Wong E, Russel L, Zern J, Aquino T, Tsomondo T (2001) Economic and environmental threats of alien plant, animal, and microbe invasions. Agric Ecosyst Environ 84:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pimentel D, Zuniga R, Morrison D (2005) Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecol Econ 52:273–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Piskorz R, Klimko M (2006) The effect of Puccinia komarovii Tranzsch. infection on characters of Impatiens parviflora DC. in Galio silvatici-Carpinetum (R. Tx. 1937) Oberd. 1957 forest association. Acta Soc Bot Pol 75:51–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Polunin O, Stainton A (1997) Concise flowers of the Himalaya. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  35. Prati D, Bossdorf O (2004) Allelopathic inhibition of germination by Alliaria petiolata (Brassicaceae). Am J Bot 91:285–288PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pyšek P, Prach K (1995) Invasion dynamics of Impatiens glandulifera: a century of spreading reconstructed. Biol Conserv 74:41–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. R Development Core Team (2011) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing,Vienna, Austria. ISBN: 3-900051-07-01Google Scholar
  38. Richards CL, Bossdorf O, Muth NZ, Gurevitch J, Pigliucci M (2006) Jack of all trades, master of some? On the role of phenotypic plasticity in plant invasions. Ecol Lett 9:981–993PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sanders IR (2002) Specificity in the arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis. In: van der Heijden MGA, Sanders IR (eds) Mycorrhizal ecology. Springer, Verlag, pp 415–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Seifert EK, Bever JD, Maron JL (2009) Evidence for the evolution of reduced mycorrhizal dependence during plant invasion. Ecology 90:1055–1062PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sharma BM, Jamwal PS (1988) Flora of upper liddar valleys of Kashmir Himalaya. Scientific Publishers, JodhpurGoogle Scholar
  42. Skálová H, Havíčková V, Pyšek P (2012) Seedling traits, plasticity and local differentiation as strategies of invasive species of Impatiens in central Europe. Ann Bot 110:1429–1438PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. St. Quinton JM, Fay MF, Ingrouille M, Faull J (2011) Characterisation of Rubus niveus: a prerequisite to its biological control in oceanic islands. Biocontrol Sci Technol 21:733–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tanner RA (2012) An ecological assessment of Impatiens glandulifera in its introduced and native range and the potential for its classical biological control. Dissertation, Royal Holloway, University of LondonGoogle Scholar
  45. Tanner R, Ellison C, Shaw R, Evans H, Gange A (2008) Losing patience with Impatiens: are natural enemies the solution? Outlook Pest Manag 19:86–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tanner RA, Varia S, Eschen E, Wood S, Murphy ST, Gange AC (2013) Impacts of an invasive non-native annual weed, Impatiens glandulifera, on above- and below-ground invertebrate communities in the United Kingdom. PLoS ONE 8(6):e67271. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0067271 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vierheilig H, Coughlan AP, Wyss U, Piché Y (1998) Ink and vinegar, a simple staining technique for arbuscular-mycorrhizal fungi. Appl Environ Microbiol 64:5004–5007PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Vilà M, Basnou C, Pyšek P, Josefsson M, Genovesi P, Gollasch S et al (2010) How well do we understand the impacts of alien species on ecosystem services? A pan-European, cross-taxa assessment. Front Ecol Environ 8:135–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vogelsang KM, Reynolds HL, Bever JD (2006) Mycorrhizal fungal identity and richness determine the diversity and productivity of a tallgrass prairie system. New Phytol 172:554–562PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Widmer TL, Guermache F, Dolgovskaia MY, Reznik SY (2007) Enhanced growth and seed properties in introduced vs. native populations of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis). Weed Sci 55:465–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Williams F, Eschen R, Harris A, Djeddour D, Pratt C, Shaw RS, Varia S, Lamontagne-Godwin J, Thomas SE, Murphy ST (2010) The economic cost of invasive non-native species to the British economy. CABI, Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
  52. Williamson M (1996) Biological invasions. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  53. Zou J, Rogers WE, Sieman E (2007) Differences in morphological and physiological traits between native and invasive populations of Sapium sebiferum. Funct Ecol 21:721–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zuppinger-Dingley D, Schmid B, Chen Y, Brandl H, Heijden MGA, Joshi J (2011) In their native range, invasive plants are held in check by negative soil-feedbacks. Ecosphere 2:1–12Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert A. Tanner
    • 1
  • Liang Jin
    • 2
    • 3
  • Richard Shaw
    • 1
  • Sean T. Murphy
    • 1
  • Alan C. Gange
    • 3
  1. 1.CABIEghamUK
  2. 2.State Key Laboratory of Grassland Agro-Ecosystems, School of Pastoral Agriculture Science and TechnologyLanzhou UniversityLanzhouChina
  3. 3.School of Biological SciencesRoyal Holloway University of LondonEghamUK

Personalised recommendations