Advertisement

Biological Invasions

, Volume 14, Issue 6, pp 1143–1155 | Cite as

Impact of Acroptilon repens on co-occurring native plants is greater in the invader’s non-native range

  • Ragan M. Callaway
  • Urs Schaffner
  • Giles C. Thelen
  • Aloviddin Khamraev
  • Tangirbergen Juginisov
  • John L. Maron
Original Paper

Abstract

Concern over exotic invasions is fueled in part by the observation that some exotic species appear to be more abundant and have stronger impacts on other species in their non-native ranges than in their native ranges. Past studies have addressed biogeographic differences in abundance, productivity, biomass, density and demography between plants in their native and non-native ranges, but despite widespread observations of biogeographic differences in impact these have been virtually untested. In a comparison of three sites in each range, we found that the abundance of Acroptilon repens in North America where it is invasive was almost twice that in Uzbekistan where it is native. However, this difference in abundance translated to far greater differences between regions in the apparent impacts of Acroptilon on native species. The biomass of native species in Acroptilon stands was 25–30 times lower in the non-native range than in the native range. Experimental addition of native species as seeds significantly increased the abundance of natives at one North American site, but the proportion of native biomass even with seed addition remained over an order of magnitude lower than that of native species in Acroptilon stands in Uzbekistan. Experimental disturbance had no long-term effect on Acroptilon abundance or impact in North America, but Acroptilon increased slightly in abundance after disturbance in Uzbekistan. In a long-term experiment in Uzbekistan, suppression of invertebrate herbivores and pathogens did not result in either consistent increases in Acroptilon biomass across years or declines in the biomass of other native species, as one might expect if the low impact of Acroptilon in the native range was due to its strong top–down regulation by natural enemies. Our local scale measurements do not represent all patterns of Acroptilon distribution and abundance that might exist at the scale of landscapes in either range, but they do suggest the possibility of fundamental biogeographic differences in the way a highly successful invader interacts with other species, differences that are not simply related to greater biomass or reduced top–down regulation of the invader in its non-native range.

Keywords

Biogeography Community ecology Competition Exotic invasion Herbivory Invasion impact Russian knapweed Seeding 

Notes

Acknowledgments

RMC and JLM thank the National Science Foundation (DEB 0614406), the US Department of Defense Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program, and the International Program at the University of Montana. US thanks the Swiss National Science Foundation (SCOPES) for financial support.

References

  1. Bard EC, Sheley RL, Jacobsen JS, Borkowski JJ (2004) Using ecological theory to guide the implementation of augmentative restoration. Weed Tech 18:1246–1249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker HG (1974) The evolution of weeds. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 5:1–24Google Scholar
  3. Beckmann M, Erfmeier A, Bruelheide H (2009) A comparison of native and invasive populations of three clonal plant species in Germany and New Zealand. J Biogeog 36:865–878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brooker RW, Callaway RM, Cavieres L, Kikvidze Z, Lortie C, Michalet R, Pugnaire P, Valiente-Banuet A, Whitham TG (2009) Don’t diss integration: a comment on Ricklefs’ disintegrating communities. Am Nat 174:919–927PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruce KA, Cameron GN, Harcombe PA, Jubinsky G (1997) Introduction, impact on native habitats, and management of a woody invader, the Chinese Tallow Tree, Sapium sebiferum (L.) Roxb. Nat Areas J 17:255–260Google Scholar
  6. Callaway RM, Ridenour WM, Laboski T, Weir T, Vivanco JM (2005) Natural selection for resistance to the allelopathic effects of invasive plants. J Ecol 93:576–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carson WP, Root RB (2000) Herbivory and plant species coexistence: community regulation by an outbreaking phytophagous insect. Ecol Monog 70:73–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Darwin C (1872) The origin of species by means of natural selection. John Murray, UKGoogle Scholar
  9. Davis MA, Grime JP, Thompson K (2000) Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invasibility. J Ecol 88:528–534Google Scholar
  10. DeWalt SJ, Denslow JS, Ickes K (2004) Natural-enemy release facilitates habitat expansion of the invasive tropical shrub Clidemia hirta. Ecology 85:471–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dukes JS (2002) Species composition and diversity affect grassland susceptibility and response to invasion. Ecol Appl 12:602–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ehrenfeld J (2004) Implications of invasive species for belowground community and nutrient processes. Weed Tech 18:1232–1235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elton CS (1958) The ecology of invasions. Methuen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Grant DW, Peters DPC, Beck GK, Fraleigh HD (2003) Influence of an exotic species, Acroptilon repens (L.) DC. On emergence and growth of native grasses. Plant Ecol 166:157–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grigulis K, Sheppard AW, Ash JE, Groves RH (2001) The comparative demography of the pasture weed Echium plantagineum between its native and invaded ranges. J Appl Ecol 38:281–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hejda M, Pysek P, Jarosik V (2009) Impact of invasive plants on the species richness, diversity and composition of invaded communities. J Ecol 97:393–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hierro JL, Maron JL, Callaway RM (2005) A biogeographic approach to plant invasions: the importance of studying exotics in their introduced and native range. J Ecol 93:5–15Google Scholar
  18. Hierro JL, Villarreal D, Eren O, Graham JM, Callaway RM (2006) Disturbance facilitates invasion: the effects are stronger abroad than at home. Am Nat 168:144–156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Inderjit EH, Crocoll C, Bajpai D, Kaur R, Feng Y, Silva C, Treviño J, Valiente-Banuet A, Gershenzon J, Callaway RM (2011) Volatile chemicals from leaf litter are associated with invasiveness of a Neotropical weed in Asia. Ecology 92:316–324PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jäger H, Tye A, Kowarik I (2007) Tree invasion in naturally treeless environments: impacts of quinine (Cinchona pubescens) trees on native vegetation in Galápagos. Cons Biol 140:297–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jakobs G, Weber E, Edwards PJ (2004) Introduced plants of the invasive Solidago gigantea (Asteraceae) are larger and grow denser than conspecifics in thenative range. Diver Distrib 10:11–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Keane RM, Crawley MJ (2002) Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. TREE 17:164–170Google Scholar
  23. Kolören O, Uygur S, Bozdogan O, Uygur N, Schaffner U (2008) Density and dynamics of Acroptilon repens L. in Turkey. Pak J Bot 40:2265–2271Google Scholar
  24. Liao C, Peng R, Luo Y, Zhou X, Wu X, Fang C, Chen J, Li B (2008) Altered ecosystem carbon and nitrogen cycles by plant invasion: a meta-analysis. New Phytol 177:706–714PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Liu H, Stiling P (2006) Testing the enemy release hypothesis: a review and meta-analysis. Biol Invasions 8:1535–1545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lu Z, Ma K (2005) Scale dependent relationships between native plant diversity and the invasion of croftonweed (Eupatorium adenophorum) in southwest China. Weed Sci 53:600–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mack RN, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM, Evans H, Clout M, Bazzaz FA (2000) Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol Appl 10:689–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Maddox DM, Mayfield A, Poritz MH (1985) Distribution of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) and Russian knapweed (Centaurea repens). Weed Sci 33:325–327Google Scholar
  29. Maron J, Marler M (2007) Native plant diversity resists invasion at both low and high resource levels. Ecology 88:2651–2661Google Scholar
  30. Maron JL, Marler M (2008) Field-based competitive impacts between invaders and natives at varying resource supply. J Ecol 96:1187–1197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Maron JL, Vila M (2001) When do herbivores affect plant invasion? Evidence for the natural enemies and biotic resistance hypotheses. Oikos 95:361–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Martin LM, Wilsey BJ (2006) Assessing grassland restoration success: relative roles of seed additions and native ungulate activities. J Appl Ecol 43:1098–1109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mealor BA, Hild AL (2006) Potential selection in native grass populations by exotic invasion. Mol Ecol 15:2291–2300PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mealor BA, Hild AL (2007) Post-invasion evolution of native plant populations: a test of biological resilience. Oikos 116:1493–1500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mitchell CE, Power AG (2003) Release of invasive plants from fungal and viral pathogens. Nature 421:625–627PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ni G, Schaffner U, Peng S, Callaway RM (2010) Acroptilon repens, an Asian invader, has stronger competitive effects on species from America than species from its native range. Biol Invasions 12:3653–3663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ortega YK, Pearson DE (2005) Weak vs. strong invaders of natural plant communities: assessing invasibility and impact. Ecol Appl 15:651–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Parker IM, Gilbert GS (2007) When there is no escape: the effects of natural enemies on native, invasive and noninvasive plants. Ecology 88:1210–1224PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Paul ND, Ayres PG, Wyness LE (1989) On the use of fungicides for experimentation in natural vegetation. Funct Ecol 3:759–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ridenour WM, Vivanco JM, Feng Y, Horiuchi J, Callaway RM (2008) No evidence for tradeoffs: Centaurea plants from America are better competitors and defenders than plants from the native range. Ecol Monog 78:369–386Google Scholar
  41. Rout ME, Callaway RM (2009) An invasive plant paradox. Science 324:734–735PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sax DF, Gaines SD, Brown JH (2002) Species invasions exceed extinctions on islands worldwide: a comparative study of plants and birds. Am Nat 160:766–783PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schaffner U, Ridenour WM, Wolf VC, Bassett T, Müller C, Müller-Schärer H, Sutherland S, Lortie CJ, Callaway RM (2011) Plant invasions, generalist herbivores, and novel defense weapons. Ecology 92:829–835PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Seabloom EW, Borer ET, Boucher VL, Burton VS, Cottingham KL, Goldwasser L, Gram WK, Kendall BE, Michelli F (2003) Competition, seed limitation, disturbance, and reestablishment of California native annual forbs. Ecol Appl 13:575–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sheley RL, Half ML (2006) Enhancing native forb establishment and persistence using a rich seed mixture. Rest Ecol 14:627–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sims PL, Singh KS, Lauenroth WK (1978) The structure and function of ten western North American grasslands: I. Abiotic and vegetational characteristics. J Ecol 66:251–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Smith MD, Hartnett DC, Rice CW (2000) Effects of long-term fungicide applications on microbial properties in tallgrass prairie soil. Soil Biol Biochem 32:935–946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sneva FA, Hyder DN (1962) Forecasting range herbage production in eastern Oregon. Oregon Agric Exp Stn Bull 588:11Google Scholar
  49. Stevens KL (1986) Allelopathic polyactelenes from Centaurea repens (Russian knapweed). J Chem Ecol 12:1205–1211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tilman D (1997) Community invasibility, recruitment limitation, and grassland biodiversity. Ecology 78:81–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vermeire LT, Heitschmidt RK, Rinella MJ (2009) Primary productivity and precipitation-use efficiency in mixed-grass prairie: a comparison of northern and southern US sites. Range Ecol Manag 62:230–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vilà M, Maron J, Marco L (2005) Evidence for the enemy release hypothesis in Hypericum perforatum. Oecologia 142:474–479PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Watson AK (1980) The biology of Canadian weeds. 43. Acroptilon (Centaurea) repens (L.) DC. Can J Plant Sci 60:993–994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wikström SA, Steinarsdöttir MB, Kautsky L, Pavia H (2006) Increased chemical resistance explains low herbivore colonization of introduced seaweed. Oecologia 148:593–601PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Williams JL, Auge H, Maron JL (2010) Testing hypotheses for exotic plant success: parallel experiments in the native and introduced ranges. Ecology 91:1355–1366PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Woodburn TL, Sheppard AW (1996) The demography of Carduus nutans as a native and an alien weed. Plant Prot Q 112:36–238Google Scholar
  57. Zavaleta ES, Hulvey KB (2004) Realistic species losses disproportionately reduce grassland resistance to biological invaders. Science 306:1175–1177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zobel M, Otsus M, Liira J, Moora M, Möls T (2000) Is small-scale species richness limited by seed availability or microsite availability? Ecology 81:3274–3282CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ragan M. Callaway
    • 1
  • Urs Schaffner
    • 2
  • Giles C. Thelen
    • 1
  • Aloviddin Khamraev
    • 3
  • Tangirbergen Juginisov
    • 3
  • John L. Maron
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Biological SciencesThe University of MontanaMissoulaUSA
  2. 2.CABI Europe—SwitzerlandDelémontSwitzerland
  3. 3.Institute of ZoologyUzbek Academy of SciencesTashkentUzbekistan

Personalised recommendations