Biological Invasions

, Volume 16, Issue 7, pp 1359–1372 | Cite as

Are plasticity in functional traits and constancy in performance traits linked with invasiveness? An experimental test comparing invasive and naturalized plant species

  • Eszter Ruprecht
  • Annamária Fenesi
  • Ivan Nijs
Original Paper


The role of phenotypic plasticity in plant invasions is among the most often discussed relationships in invasion ecology. However, despite the large number of studies on this topic, there is little consistency. Reconsideration of the role of plasticity by distinguishing two substantially distinct trait-groups, performance traits (contributing directly to fitness) and functional traits (influencing fitness indirectly), could form a more operative framework for comparative studies. In the current study we expect that invasive species benefit from being plastic in functional traits, which allows them to maintain a more constant performance across different environmental conditions compared to non-invasive alien species. We compared invasive and naturalized non-invasive alien plant species by their germination (20 species), their vegetative (10 species) and their reproductive (four species) responses to three different levels of water, light and nutrient availability in a common garden experiment. Used traits were classified into performance (germination ratio, total biomass, seed number) and functional traits (time to germination, root:shoot ratio, specific leaf area, reproductive allocation). We found that invasive and non-invasive species responded similarly to environmental factors, except for example that invasive species germinated earlier with decreasing light conditions or, surprisingly, non-invasive species reacted more intensely to increased nitrogen availability by having a superior ability to achieve greater biomass. The two groups were equally plastic in all the germination and vegetative traits measured but the reproductive traits, since higher plasticity in relative reproductive allocation and higher constancy in reproductive performance showed a pronounced relation with invasiveness.


Alien species Biomass Fitness Germination Invasion ecology Light Nitrogen Water 



We are very grateful to J. Tökölyi for help with data analysis, to L. Bartha, M. Beldean, E. Fodor, É. Juhos, E. Kocsis, E. Kőműves, T. Kuhn, and H. Tyirla for their assistance during the experiments, and to M. Beldean, L. Filipaş, P.L. Pap and C.I. Vágási for their help in seed collection. We thank the “Alexandru Borza” Botanical Garden from Cluj-Napoca, especially Prof. V. Cristea and G. Feszt, for ensuring the necessary infrastructure during the experiment. This work was supported by a BOF-IWS grant from the University of Antwerp.

Supplementary material

10530_2013_574_MOESM1_ESM.doc (54 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 54 kb)
10530_2013_574_MOESM2_ESM.doc (84 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOC 84 kb)
10530_2013_574_MOESM3_ESM.doc (56 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOC 56 kb)


  1. Anastasiu P, Negrean G (2009) Neophytes in Romania. In: Rákosy L, Momeu L (eds) Neobiota din România. Presa Universitară Clujeană, Cluj-Napoca, pp 66–97Google Scholar
  2. Baker HG (1965) Characteristics and modes of origin of weeds. In: Baker HG, Stebbins GL (eds) The genetics of colonizing species. Academic Press, New York, pp 147–169Google Scholar
  3. Balogh L, Dancza I, Király G (2004) A magyarországi neofitonok időszerű jegyzéke és besorolásuk inváziós szempontból. In: Mihály B, Botta-Dukát Z (eds) Özönnövények. Biológiai inváziók Magyarországon. TermészetBÚVÁR Alapítvány Kiadó, Budapest, pp 61–92Google Scholar
  4. Blumenthal D (2005) Interrelated causes of plant invasion. Science 310:243–244PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bolker BM (2008) Ecological models and data in R. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  6. Bradshaw AD (1965) Evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity in plants. Adv Genet 13:115–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Britton T, Anderson CL, Jacquet D, Lundqvist S, Bremer K (2007) Estimating divergence times in large phylogenetic trees. Syst Biol 56:741–752PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burns JH (2004) A comparison of invasive and noninvasive dayflowers (Commelinaceae) across experimental nutrient and water gradients. Divers Distrib 10:387–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burns JH (2006) Relatedness and environment affect traits associated with invasive and noninvasive introduced Commelinaceae. Ecol Appl 16:1367–1376PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burns JH, Winn AA (2006) A comparison of plastic responses to competition by invasive and non-invasive congeners in the Commelinaceae. Biol Invasions 8:797–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Capella-Gutiérrez S, Silla-Martínez J, Gabaldón T (2009) trimAl: a tool for automated alignment trimming in large-scale phylogenetic analyses. Bioinformatics 25:1972–1973PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Caswell H (1989) Matrix population models: construction, analysis, and interpretation. Sinauer, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  13. Colautti RI, Grigorovich IA, MacIsaac HJ (2006) Propagule pressure: a null model for biological invasions. Biol Invasions 8:1023–1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Daehler CC (2003) Performance comparisons of co-occurring native and alien invasive plants: implications for conservation and restoration. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:183–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davidson AM, Jennions M, Nicotra AB (2011) Do invasive species show higher phenotypic plasticity than native species and, if so, is it adaptive? A meta-analysis. Ecol Lett 14:419–431PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Davis MA, Grime JP, Thompson K (2000) Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invasibility. J Ecol 88:528–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dawson W, Fischer M, van Kleunen M (2012a) Common and rare plant species respond differently to fertilisation and competition, whether they are alien or native. Ecol Lett 15:873–880PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dawson W, Rohr RP, van Kleunen M, Fischer M (2012b) Alien plant species with a wider global distribution are better able to capitalize on increased resource availability. New Phytol 194:859–867PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Donohue K, de Casas RR, Burghardt L, Kovach K, Willis CG (2010) Germination, postgermination adaptation, and species ecological ranges. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 41:293–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dorn LA, Pyle EH, Schmitt J (2000) Plasticity to light cues and resources in Arabidopsis thaliana: testing for adaptive value and costs. Evolution 54:1982–1994PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Felsenstein J (1985) Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am Nat 125:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Forcella F, Wood JT, Dillon SP (1986) Characteristics distinguishing invasive weeds within Echium (Buglos). Weed Res 26:351–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Funk JL (2008) Differences in plasticity between invasive and native plants from a low resource environment. J Ecol 96:1162–1173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gerlach JD, Rice KJ (2003) Testing life history correlates of invasiveness using congeneric plant species. Ecol Appl 13:167–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ghalambor CK, McKay JK, Carroll SP, Reznick DN (2007) Adaptive versus non-adaptive phenotypic plasticity and the potential for contemporary adaptation in new environments. Funct Ecol 21:394–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Godoy O, Valladares F, Castro-Díez P (2011) Multispecies comparison reveals that invasive and native plants differ in their traits but not in their plasticity. Funct Ecol 25:1248–1259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Godoy O, Valladares F, Castro-Díez P (2012) The relative importance for plant invasiveness of trait means, and their plasticity and integration in a multivariate framework. New Phytol 195:912–922PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hadfiled J (2010) MCMC methods for multi-response generalized linear mixed models: the MCMCglmm R package. J Stat Softw 33:1–22Google Scholar
  29. Katoh K, Kuma KI, Toh H, Miyata T (2005) MAFFT version 5: improvement in accuracy of multiple sequence alignment. Nucleic Acids Res 33:511–518PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leishman MR, Thomson VP (2005) Experimental evidence for the effects of additional water, nutrients and physical disturbance on invasive plants in low fertility Hawkesbury Sandstone soils, Sydney, Australia. J Ecol 93:38–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lososová Z, Láníková D (2010) Differences in trait compositions between rocky natural and artificial habitats. J Veg Sci 21:520–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Maillet J, Lopez-Garcia C (2000) What criteria are relevant for predicting the invasive capacity of a new agricultural weed? The case of invasive American species in France. Weed Res 40:11–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Medvecká J, Kliment J, Májeková J, Halada Ľ, Zaliberová M, Gojdičová E, Feráková V, Jarolímek I (2012) Inventory of the alien flora of Slovakia. Preslia 84:257–309Google Scholar
  34. Messier C, Parent S, Bergeron Y (1998) Effects of overstory and understory vegetation on the understory light environment in mixed boreal forests. J Veg Sci 9:511–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Moles AT, Westoby M (2004) Seedling survival and seed size: a synthesis of the literature. J Ecol 92:372–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Moles AT, Westoby M (2006) Seed size and plant strategy across the whole life cycle. Oikos 113:91–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Orrock JL, Christopher CC (2010) Density of intraspecific competitors determines the occurrence and benefits of accelerated germination. Am J Bot 97:694–699PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Palació-López K, Gianoli E (2011) Invasive plants do not display greater phenotypic plasticity than their native or non-invasive counterparts: a meta-analysis. Oikos 120:1393–1401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pearse WD, Purvis A (2013) phyloGenerator: an automated phylogeny generation tool for ecologists. Methods Ecol Evol 4:692–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pigliucci M (2001) Phenotypic plasticity: beyond nature and nurture. John Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  41. Pohlman CL, Nicotra AB, Murray BR (2005) Geographic range size, seedling ecophysiology and phenotypic plasticity in Australian Acacia species. J Biogeogr 32:341–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Prinzing A, Durka W, Klotz S, Brandl R (2001) The niche of higher plants: evidence for phylogenetic conservatism. Proc R Soc B 268:2383–2389PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pyšek P, Richardson DM (2007) Traits associated with invasiveness in alien plants: where do we stand? In: Nentwig W (ed) Biological invasions, Ecological studies. Springer, Berlin, vol 193, pp 97–126Google Scholar
  44. Pyšek P, Sádlo J, Mandák B (2002) Catalogue of alien plants of the Czech Republic. Preslia 74:97–186Google Scholar
  45. Pyšek P, Danihelka J, Sádlo J, Chrtek J Jr, Chytrý M, Jarošík V, Kaplan Z, Krahulec F, Moravcová L, Pergl J, Štajerová K, Tichý L (2012) Catalogue of alien plants of the Czech Republic (2nd edition): checklist update, taxonomic diversity and invasion patterns. Preslia 84:155–255Google Scholar
  46. R Development Core Team (2010) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
  47. 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
  48. Richardson DM, Pyšek P, Rejmánek M, Barbour MG, Panetta FD, West CJ (2000) Naturalization and invasion of alien plants: concepts and definitions. Divers Distrib 6:93–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ruprecht E, Enyedi MZ, Eckstein RL, Donath TW (2010) Restorative removal of plant litter and vegetation 40 years after abandonment enhances re-emergence of steppe grassland vegetation. Biol Conserv 143:449–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schlaepfer DR, Glättli M, Fischer M, van Kleunen M (2010) A multi-species experiment in their native range indicates pre-adaptation of invasive alien plant species. New Phytol 185:1087–1099PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schlichting CD, Levin DA (1986) Phenotypic plasticity: an evolving plant character. Biol J Linn Soc 29:37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schumacher E, Kueffer C, Edwards PJ, Dietz H (2009) Influence of light and nutrient conditions on seedling growth of native and invasive trees in the Seychelles. Biol Invasions 11:1941–1954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Spehn EM, Joshi J, Schmid B, Diemer M, Körner C (2000) Above-ground resource use increases with plant species richness in experimental grassland ecosystems. Funct Ecol 14:326–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stamatakis A (2006) RAxML-VI-HPC: maximum likelihood-based phylogenetic analyses with thousands of taxa and mixed models. Bioinformatics 22:2688–2690PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sultan SE (2000) Phenotypic plasticity for plant development, function and life history. Trends Plant Sci 5:537–542PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sultan SE (2001) Phenotypic plasticity for fitness components in Polygonum species of contrasting ecological breadth. Ecology 82:328–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tielbörger K, Prasse R (2009) Do seeds sense each other? Testing for density-dependent germination in desert perennial plants. Oikos 118:792–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Valladares F, Sanchez-Gomez D, Zavala MA (2006) Quantitative estimation of phenotypic plasticity: bridging the gap between the evolutionary concept and its ecological applications. J Ecol 94:1103–1116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. van Kleunen M, Johnson SD (2007) South Arican Iridaceae with rapid and profuse seedling emergence are more likely to become naturalized in other regions. J Ecol 95:674–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. van Kleunen M, Dawson W, Schlaepfer D, Jeschke JM, Fischer M (2010a) Are invaders different? A conceptual framework of comparative approaches for assessing determinants of invasiveness. Ecol Lett 13:947–958PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. van Kleunen M, Weber E, Fischer M (2010b) A meta-analysis of trait differences between invasive and non-invasive plant species. Ecol Lett 13:235–245PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. van 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
  63. Violle C, Navas ML, Vile D, Kazakou E, Fortunel C, Hummel I, Garnier E (2007) Let the concept of trait be functional! Oikos 116:882–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zheng YL, Feng Y-L, Liu WX, Liao ZY (2009) Growth, biomass allocation, morphology, and photosynthesis of invasive Eupatorium adenophorum and its native congeners grown at four irradiances. Plant Ecol 203:263–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eszter Ruprecht
    • 1
    • 2
  • Annamária Fenesi
    • 1
  • Ivan Nijs
    • 2
  1. 1.Hungarian Department of Biology and EcologyBabeş-Bolyai UniversityCluj-NapocaRomania
  2. 2.Research Group Plant and Vegetation Ecology, Department of BiologyUniversity of AntwerpWilrijkBelgium

Personalised recommendations