Biological Invasions

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 21–33 | Cite as

Higher plasticity in ecophysiological traits enhances the performance and invasion success of Taraxacum officinale (dandelion) in alpine environments

  • Marco A. Molina-Montenegro
  • Josep Peñuelas
  • Sergi Munné-Bosch
  • Jordi Sardans
Original Paper


Phenotypic plasticity has long been suggested to facilitate biological invasions in changing environments, allowing a species to maintain a good ecophysiological performance. High-mountain habitats have been particularly useful for evaluation of the relative importance of environmental conditions in the colonization and invasion process, because they have heterogeneous and stressful climatic conditions, inducing photoinhibition. Light intensity is one of the most changing conditions along altitudinal gradients, showing more variability in higher altitudes. In this study, we analyzed the plasticity in photoprotective strategies and performance of the invasive Taraxacum officinale. Additionally, we tested whether higher plasticity enhances competitive ability in an alpine environment We conducted an experiment to evaluate plasticity with a second generation (F2) of T. officinale individuals from 1,600 to 3,600 m, in a greenhouse with variation in light intensity. Treatments consisted of transferring 120 individuals from each altitude to two conditions of light intensity. We then recorded concentrations of photoprotection pigment, de-epoxidation state of the xanthophyll cycle, foliar angles, photochemical efficiency by fluorescence of photosystem II, total dry biomass and flower production. Additionally, we compared plasticity in both photoprotective and performance traits between T. officinale and the co-occurring native species Hypochaeris thrincioides. Finally, we performed a manipulative experiment under two light regimes in order to assess the competitive outcome between the invasive T. officinale and the native H. thrincioides. Individuals from higher altitude showed significantly greater plasticity than individuals from lower altitude. Similarly, individuals under high light intensity showed higher levels of photoprotective pigments, biomass and flower production. On the other hand, the invasive plant species showed significantly greater plasticity than the co-occurring native species, and a strong negative impact on the biomass of the native plant. Phenotypic plasticity seems to be a successful strategy in T. officinale to compete with native species and may be positively associated with the success of invasions, being greater in individuals from more heterogeneous and stressful environments.


Altitudinal gradient Competition Fluorescence Light intensity Photoprotective pigments Xanthophyll cycle 



This research was supported by Spanish Government grants CGL2006-04025/BOS, CGL2010-17172, BFU2009-06045-E and Consolider-Ingenio Montes CSD2008-00040 and the Catalan Government grant SGR 2009-458. M.A.M–M. thanks the MECESUP UCO 0214 project and León A. Bravo for providing climatic data.


  1. Abreu ME, Munné-Bosch S (2008) Hyponastic leaf growth decreases the photoprotective demand, prevents damage to photosystem II and delays leaf senescence in Salvia broussonetii plants. Physiol Plant 134:369–379PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander JM, Kueffer C, Daehler CC, Edwards PJ, Pauchard A, Seipel T, MIREN Consortium (2011) Assembly of nonnative floras along elevational gradients explained by directional ecological filtering. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 108:656–661PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alpert P, Simms E (2002) The relative advantages of plasticity and fixity in different environments: when is it good for a plant to adjust? Evol Ecol 16:285–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bossdorf O, Lipowsky A, Prati D (2005) Selection of preadapted populations allowed Senecio inaequidens to invade Central Europe. Divers Distrib 14:676–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradshaw A, Hardwick K (1989) Evolution and stress—genotypic and phenotypic components. Biol J Linn Soc 37:137–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brock MT, Weinig C, Galen C (2005) A comparison of phenotypic plasticity in the native dandelion Taraxacum ceratophorum and its invasive congener T. officinale. New Phytol 166:173–183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cavieres LA, Badano EI, Sierra-Almeida A, Gómez-González S, Molina-Montenegro MA (2006) Positive interactions between alpine plant species and the nurse cushions plant Laretia acaulis do not increase with elevation in the Andes of central Chile. New Phytol 169:59–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Charmantier A, McCleery RH, Cole LR, Perrins C, Kruuk LEB, Sheldon BC (2008) Adaptative phenotypic plasticity in response to climate change in a wild bird population. Science 320:800–803PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davis MA, Grime JP, Thompson K (2000) Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invasibility. J Ecol 88:528–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DeWitt TJ, Scheiner SM (2004) Phenotypic plasticity. Functional and compared approaches. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Durand LZ, Goldstein G (2001) Photosynthesis, photoinhibition, and nitrogen use efficiency in native and invasive tree ferns in Hawaii. Oecologia 126:345–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eckardt NA, Snyder GW, Portis AR Jr, Ogren WL (1997) Growth and photosynthesis under high and low irradiance of Arabidopsis thaliana antisense mutants with reduced ribulose-1, 5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase activase content. Plant Physiol 113:575–586PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. García-Plazaola JI, Matsubara S, Osmond CB (2007) The lutein epoxide cycle in higher plants: its relationships to other xanthophyll cycles and possible functions. Funct Plant Biol 34:759–773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Geng YP, Pan XY, Xu CY, Zhang WJ, Li B, Chen JK, Lu BR, Song ZP (2007) Phenotypic plasticity rather than locally adapted ecotypes allow the invasive alligator weed to colonize a wide range of habitats. Biol Invasions 9:245–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gianoli E (2002) Maternal environmental effects on the phenotypic responses of the twining vine Ipomoea purpurea to support availability. Oikos 99:324–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gianoli E (2004) Plasticity traits and correlations in two populations of Convolvulus arvensis (Convolvulaceae) differing in environmental heterogeneity. Int J Plant Sci 165:825–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gianoli E, Molina-Montenegro MA (2005) Leaf damage induces twining in a climbing plant. New Phytol 167:385–390PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grace JB (1995) On the measurement of plant competition intensity. Ecology 76:305–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Holm L, Doll L, Holm E, Pacheco J, Herberger J (1997) World weeds. Natural histories and distributions. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Houle G (2002) The advantage of early flowering in the spring ephemeral annual plant Floerkea proserpinacoides. New Phytol 154:689–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hulme PE (2008) Phenotypic plasticity and plant invasions: is it all jack? Funct Ecol 22:3–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. IPCC (2007) Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change.
  23. Kilkenny FF, Galloway LF (2008) Reproductive success in varying light environments: direct and indirect effects of light on plants and pollinators. Oecologia 155:247–255PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Körner C (2003) Alpine plant life, 2nd edn. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lee CE (2002) Evolutionary genetics of invasive species. Trends Ecol Evol 17:386–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Matesanz S, Gianoli E, Valladares F (2010) Global change and the evolution of the phenotypic plasticity in plants. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1206:35–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Maxwell K, Johnson GN (2000) Chlorophyll fluorescence—a practical guide. J Exp Bot 51:659–668PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McDowell SCL (2002) Photosynthetic characteristics of invasive and non-invasive species of Rubus (Rosaceae). Am J Bot 89:1431–1438PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Molina-Montenegro MA, Cavieres LA (2010) Variación altitudinal de los atributos morfo-fisiológicos en dos especies de plantas alto-andinas y sus implicancias contra la fotoinhibición. Gayana Bot 67:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Molina-Montenegro MA, Badano EI, Cavieres LA (2006) Cushion plants as microclimatic shelters fot two ladybird beetles species in alpine zone of central Chile. Arct Antarct Alp Res 38:224–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Molina-Montenegro MA, Briones R, Cavieres LA (2009) Does global warming induce segregation among alien and native beetle species in a mountain-top. Ecol Res 24:31–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Molina-Montenegro MA, Atala C, Gianoli E (2010) Phenotypic plasticity and performance of Taraxacum officinale (dandelion) in habitats of contrasting environmental heterogeneity. Biol Invasions 12:2277–2284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Molina-Montenegro MA, Quiróz CL, Torres-Díaz C, Atala C (2011a) Functional differences in response to drought in the invasive Taraxacum officinale from native and introduced alpine habitat ranges. Plant Ecol Divers 4:37–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Molina-Montenegro MA, Cleland EE, Watts SM, Broitman BR (2011b) Can a breakdown in competition-colonization trade-offs help explain the success of exotic species in the California flora? Oikos (in press)Google Scholar
  35. Mooney H, Mack R, McNeely J, Neville L, Schei P, Waage J (2005) Invasive alien species: a new synthesis. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  36. Munné-Bosch S, Alegre L (2000) Changes in carotenoids, tocopherols and diterpenes during drought and recovery and biological significance of chlorophyll loss in Rosmarinus officinalis plants. Planta 210:925–931PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Munné-Bosch S, Peñuelas J (2003) Photo- and antioxidative protection during summer leaf senescence in Pistacia lentiscus L. grown under Mediterranean field conditions. Ann Bot 92:385–391PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Muñoz AA, Cavieres LA (2008) The presence of a showy invasive plant disrupts pollinator service and reproductive output in native alpine species only at high densities. J Ecol 96:459–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Oliveira G, Peñuelas J (2001) Allocation of absorbed light energy into photochemistry and dissipation in a semi-deciduous and an evergreen Mediterranean woody species during winter. Funct Plant Biol 28:471–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pérez-Torres E, García A, Dinamarca J, Alberdi M, Gutiérrez A, Gidekel M, Ivanov AG, Huner NPA, Corcuera LJ, Bravo LA (2004) The role of photochemical quenching and antioxidants in photoprotection of Deschampsia antartica. Funct Plant Biol 31:731–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pyšek P, Richardson DM (2007) Traits associated with invasiveness in alien plants: where do we stay? In: Caldwell MM (ed) Biological invasions. Springer, Berlin, pp 97–125Google Scholar
  42. Quiróz CL, Choler P, Bapist F, Molina-Montenegro MA, González-Teuber M, Cavieres LA (2009) Alpine dandelion originated in the native and introduced ranges differ in their responses to environmental constraints. Ecol Res 24:175–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rejmánek M, Richardson DM, Higgins SI, Pitcairn MJ, Grotkopp E (2005) Ecology of Invasive Plants: State of the Art. In: Mooney HA, Mack RN, McNeely JA, Neville LE, Schei PJ, Waage JK (eds) Invasive alien species a new synthesis. Island Press, Washington, pp 104–161Google Scholar
  44. 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
  45. Roux F, Touzet P, Fuguen J, Le Corre V (2006) How to be early flowering: an evolutionary perspective. Trends Plant Sci 11:375–381PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Saldaña A, Gianoli E, Lusk CH (2005) Ecophysiological responses to light availability in three Blechnum species (Pteridophyta, Blechnaceae) of different ecological breadth. Oecologia 145:252–257PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sambatti JB, Rice KJ (2007) Functional ecology of ecotypic differentiation in the Californian serpentine sunflower (Helianthus exilis). New Phytol 175:107–119PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schoeppner NM, Relyea RA (2009) Phenotipic plasticity in response to fine-grained environmental variation in predation. Funct Ecol 23:587–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sultan SE (2004) Promising directions in plants phenotypic plasticity. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 6:227–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Valladares F, Gianoli E, Gomez JM (2007) Ecological limits to plant phenotypic plasticity. New Phytol 176:749–763PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. van Kleunen M, Fischer M (2001) Adaptive evolution of plastic foraging responses in a clonal plant. Ecology 82:3309–3319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. van Kleunen M, Weber E, Fischer M (2010) A meta-analysis of trait differences between invasive and non-invasive plant species. Ecol Lett 13:235–245PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vilà M, Weiner J (2004) Are invasive plant species better competitors than native plant species? - Evidence from pairwise experiments. Oikos 105:229–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zar JH (1996) Biostatistical Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marco A. Molina-Montenegro
    • 1
  • Josep Peñuelas
    • 2
  • Sergi Munné-Bosch
    • 3
  • Jordi Sardans
    • 2
  1. 1.Centro de Estudios Avanzados en Zonas Áridas (CEAZA), Facultad de Ciencias del MarUniversidad Católica del NorteCoquimboChile
  2. 2.Global Ecology Unit CREAF-CEAB-CSIC, Center for Ecological Research and Forestry ApplicationsUniversitat Autónoma de BarcelonaBellaterra, BarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.Departament de Biología Vegetal, Facultat de BiologiaUniversitat de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations