Advertisement

Hydrobiologia

, Volume 655, Issue 1, pp 37–47 | Cite as

Asexual propagations of introduced exotic macrophytes Elodea nuttallii, Myriophyllum aquaticum, and M. propinquum are improved by nutrient-rich sediments in China

  • Dong Xie
  • Dan Yu
  • Ling-Fei Yu
  • Chun-Hua Liu
Primary research paper

Abstract

An increasing number of recent studies indicate that multiple interacting factors can affect the invasion of plants. However, few studies have focused on asexual propagation and the interaction of propagation with environmental factors that regulate the invasive potential of introduced exotic species in aquatic habitats. This study was designed to investigate the differences in asexual propagation between introduced exotic and non-invasive native aquatic macrophytes in nutrient-poor and nutrient-rich sediments and to test the hypothesis that differences in asexual propagation (stem fragment production) and propagule establishment between introduced exotic and non-invasive native macrophytes are driven by sediment nutrient levels. Three exotic aquatic macrophytes (Elodea nuttallii, Myriophyllum aquaticum, and M. propinquum) recently introduced to China and their non-invasive native counterparts (Hydrilla verticillata, Moguraense, and M. ussuriense) were used for comparison in nutrient-poor (TN 0.59 and TP 0.03 mg g−1) and nutrient-rich (TN 2.35 and TP 0.10 mg g−1) sediments. After 8 weeks of growth, the exotic species tended to produce more total biomass, branch biomass and apical shoots and have higher relative growth rate (RGR) than their native counterparts in nutrient-rich sediment. Rooting efficiency and root growth of exotic fragments were higher than that of native counterparts in nutrient-rich sediment, although the survival rates of fragments did not differ between native and exotic species. In addition, superior traits (rooting efficiency and root growth) of exotic species were also observed in nutrient-poor sediment, but to a lesser degree than in nutrient-rich sediment. These results suggest that asexual propagation of these three introduced exotic macrophytes is more effective in nutrient-rich sediment than in nutrient-poor sediment in China.

Keywords

Biological invasion Elodea Fragmentation Hydrilla Myriophyllum Resource hypothesis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Keyan Xiao, Wen Xiong, and Qiang Wang for discussion and comments on the manuscript. We also greatly appreciate Dr. Sidinei M. Thomaz and two anonymous reviewers for valuable comments on an early version of the manuscript. This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (30770363 and 30930011).

References

  1. Barrat-Segretain, M. H., 1996. Strategies of reproduction, dispersion, and competition in river plants: a review. Plant Ecology 123: 13–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrat-Segretain, M. H., 2005. Competition between invasive and indigenous species: impact of spatial pattern and developmental stage. Plant Ecology 180: 153–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrat-Segretain, M. H. & G. Bornette, 2000. Regeneration and colonization abilities of aquatic plant fragments: effect of disturbance seasonality. Hydrobiologia 421: 31–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrat-Segretain, M. H., A. Elger, P. Sagnes & S. Puijalon, 2002. Comparison of three life-history traits of invasive Elodea canadensis Michx. and Elodea nuttallii (Planch.)H. St. John. Aquatic Botany 74: 299–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blumenthal, D. M., 2006. Interactions between resource availability and enemy release in plant invasion. Ecology Letters 9: 887–895.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Blumenthal, D. M., C. E. Mitchell, P. Pyšek & V. Jarošík, 2009. Synergy between pathogen release and resource availability in plant invasion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106: 7899–7904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boedeltje, G., W. A. Ozinga & A. Prinzing, 2008. The trade-off between vegetative and generative reproduction among angiosperms influences regional hydrochorous propagule pressure. Global Ecology and Biogeography 17: 50–58.Google Scholar
  8. Burns, J. H., 2004. A comparison of invasive and non-invasive dayflowers (Commelinaceae) across experimental nutrient and water gradients. Diversity and Distributions 10: 387–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Byers, J. E., 2002. Impact of non-indigenous species on natives enhanced by anthropogenic alteration of selection regimes. Oikos 97: 449–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carpenter, S. R., N. F. Caraco, D. L. Correll, R. W. Howarth, A. N. Sharpley & V. H. Smith, 1998. Nonpoint pollution of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen. Ecological Applications 8: 559–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ceska, O., A. Ceska & P. D. Warrington, 1986. Myriophyllum quitense and Myriophyllum ussuriense (haloragaceae) in British Columbia, Canada. Brittonia 38: 73–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chadwell, T. B. & K. A. M. Engelhardt, 2008. Effects of pre-existing submersed vegetation and propagule pressure on the invasion success of Hydrilla verticillata. Journal of Applied Ecology 45: 515–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chase, J. M. & T. M. Knight, 2006. Effects of eutrophication and snails on Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) invasion. Biological Invasions 8: 1643–1649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Collingsworth, P. D., R. A. Oster, C. W. Hickey, R. C. Heidinger & C. C. Kohler, 2009. Factors affecting water willow establishment in a large reservoir. Lake and Reservoir Management 25: 191–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cook, C. D. K., 1990. Aquatic Plant Book. SPB Academic Publishing, Amsterdam, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  16. Daehler, C., 2003. Performance comparisons of co-occurring native and alien invasive plants: implications for conservation and restoration. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 34: 183–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Davis, M., J. Grime & K. Thompson, 2000. Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invasibility. Journal of Ecology 88: 528–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Didham, R. K., J. M. Tylianakis, N. J. Gemmell, T. A. Rand & R. M. Ewers, 2007. Interactive effects of habitat modification and species invasion on native species decline. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 22: 489–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Feng, Y. L., Y. B. Lei, R. F. Wang, R. M. Callaway, A. Valiente-Banuet, Inderjit, Y. P. Li & Y. L. Zheng, 2009. Evolutionary tradeoffs for nitrogen allocation to photosynthesis versus cell walls in an invasive plant. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106: 1853–1856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Funk, J., 2008. Differences in plasticity between invasive and native plants from a low resource environment. Journal of Ecology 96: 1162–1173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Funk, J. & P. Vitousek, 2007. Resource-use efficiency and plant invasion in low-resource systems. Nature 446: 1079–1081.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Gu, X., S. Zhang, X. Bai, W. Hu, Y. Hu & X. Wang, 2005. Evolution of community structure of aquatic macrophytes in east Taihu Lake and its wetlands. Acta Ecologica Sinica 25: 1541–1548.Google Scholar
  23. Hastwell, G., A. Daniel & G. Vivian-Smith, 2008. Predicting invasiveness in exotic species: do subtropical native and invasive exotic aquatic plants differ in their growth responses to macronutrients? Diversity and Distributions 14: 243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Li, Z. & C. Hsieh, 1996. New reports of the genus Myriohyllum L. (Haloragaceae) in Taiwan. Taiwania 41: 322–328.Google Scholar
  25. Liu, J., M. Dong, S. L. Miao, Z. Y. Li, M. H. Song & R. Q. Wang, 2006. Invasive alien plants in China: role of clonality and geographical origin. Biological Invasions 8: 1461–1470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lockwood, J. L., P. Cassey & T. Blackburn, 2005. The role of propagule pressure in explaining species invasions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 20: 223–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lozon, J. D. & H. J. MacIsaac, 1997. Biological invasions: are they dependent on disturbance? Environmental Reviews 5: 131–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Madsen, J. D., 1997. Seasonal biomass and carbohydrate allocation in a southern population of Eurasian watermilfoil. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 35: 15–21.Google Scholar
  29. Madsen, J. D. & D. H. Smith, 1999. Vegetative spread of dioecious hydrilla colonies in experimental ponds. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 37: 25–29.Google Scholar
  30. Maurer, D. & J. Zedler, 2002. Differential invasion of a wetland grass explained by tests of nutrients and light availability on establishment and clonal growth. Oecologia 131: 279–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Melbourne, B. A., H. V. Cornell, K. F. Davies, C. J. Dugaw, S. Elmendorf, A. L. Freestone, R. J. Hall, S. Harrison, A. Hastings & M. Holland, 2007. Invasion in a heterogeneous world: resistance, coexistence or hostile takeover? Ecology Letters 10: 77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Pan, X., Y. Geng, W. Zhang, B. Li & J. Chen, 2006. The influence of abiotic stress and phenotypic plasticity on the distribution of invasive Alternanthera philoxeroides along a riparian zone. Acta Oecologica 30: 333–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pan, X., Y. Geng, A. Sosa, W. Zhang, B. Li & J. Chen, 2007. Invasive Alternanthera philoxeroides: biology, ecology and management. Acta Phytotaxonomica Sinica 45: 884–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pieczyńska, E., 2003. Effect of damage by the snail Lymnaea (Lymnaea) stagnalis (L.) on the growth of Elodea canadensis Michx. Aquatic Botany 75: 137–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Potters, G., T. P. Pasternak, Y. Guisez, K. J. Palme & M. A. K. Jansen, 2006. Stress-induced morphogenic responses: growing out of trouble? Trends in Plant Science 12: 98–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pyšek, P. & D. Richardson, 2007. Traits associated with invasiveness in alien plants: where do we stand? In Nentwig, W. (ed.), Biological Invasions. Springer, Heidelberg: 97–125.Google Scholar
  37. Rahel, F. J., 2002. Homogenization of freshwater faunas. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33: 291–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Riis, T. & K. Sand-Jensen, 2006. Dispersal of plant fragments in small streams. Freshwater Biology 51: 274–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ruiz, G. M., P. Fofonoff, A. H. Hines & E. D. Grosholz, 1999. Non-indigenous species as stressors in estuarine and marine communities: assessing invasion impacts and interactions. Limnology and Oceanography 44: 950–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Santamaría, L., 2002. Why are most aquatic plants widely distributed? Dispersal, clonal growth and small-scale heterogeneity in a stressful environment. Acta Oecologica 23: 137–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sheppard, A. W., R. H. Shaw & R. Sforza, 2005. Top 20 environmental weeds for classical biological control in Europe: a review of opportunities regulations and other barriers to adoption. Weed Research 46: 93–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sidorkewicj, N. S., M. R. Sabbatini & J. H. Irigoyen, 2000. The spread of Myriophyllum elatinoides Gaudich. and M. aquaticum (Vell.) Verdc. from stem fragments. In Légère, A. (ed.), Abstracts of the Third International Weed Science Congress. International Weed Science Society, Oregon: 224–225.Google Scholar
  43. Smith, C. S. & J. W. Barko, 1990. Ecology of Eurasian watermilfoil. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 28: 55–64.Google Scholar
  44. Strayer, D. L., V. T. Eviner, J. M. Jeschke & M. L. Pace, 2006. Understanding the long-term effects of species invasions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21: 645–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sytsma, M. D. & L. W. J. Anderson, 1993. Transpiration by an emergent macrophyte: source of water and implications for nutrient supply. Hydrobiologia 271: 97–108.Google Scholar
  46. Tanentzap, A. J. & D. R. Bazely, 2009. Propagule pressure and resource availability determine plant community invisibility in a temperate forest understorey. Oikos 118: 300–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Thiébaut, G., 2007. Invasion success of non-indigenous aquatic and semi-aquatic plants in their native and introduced ranges. A comparison between their invasiveness in North America and in France. Biological Invasions 9: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wang, J. W., D. Yu, W. Xiong & Y. Q. Han, 2008. Above-and belowground competition between two submersed macrophytes. Hydrobiologia 607: 113–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wei, X., W. Li, G. Liu, L. Zhang & W. Liu, 2007. Inter-specific competition between two submerged macrophytes Elodea nuttallii and Hydrilla verticillata. Journal of Plant Ecology 31: 83–92.Google Scholar
  50. Wu, Z. Y., 2004. Flora Reipublicae Popularis Sinicae Tomus I. Science Press, Beijing.Google Scholar
  51. Xie, Y., Z. Li, W. P. Gregg & D. Li, 2001. Invasive species in China—an overview. Biodiversity and Conservation 10: 1317–1341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Xie, Y., M. Wen, D. Yu & Y. Li, 2004. Growth and resource allocation of water hyacinth as affected by gradually increasing nutrient concentrations. Aquatic Botany 79: 257–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Xiong, W., D. Yu, Q. Wang, C. Liu & L. Wang, 2008. A snail prefers native over exotic freshwater plants: implications for the enemy release hypotheses. Freshwater Biology 53: 2256–2263.Google Scholar
  54. Xu, H., S. Qiang, Z. Han, J. Guo, Z. Huang, H. Sun, S. He, H. Ding, H. Wu & F. Wan, 2004. The distribution and introduction pathway of alien invasive species in China. Biodiversity Science 12: 626–638.Google Scholar
  55. Yeates, G. W. & P. A. Williams, 2006. Export of plant and animal species from an insular biota. In Allen, R. B. & W. G. Lee (eds), Biological Invasions in New Zealand. Springer, Heidelberg: 85–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The National Field Station of Freshwater Ecosystem in Liangzi Lake, College of Life SciencesWuhan UniversityWuhanPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations