Advertisement

Hydrobiologia

, Volume 737, Issue 1, pp 45–56 | Cite as

Which adaptations of some invasive Ludwigia spp. (Rosidae, Onagraceae) populations occur in contrasting hydrological conditions in Western France?

  • Jacques Haury
  • Arsène Druel
  • Teipotemarama Cabral
  • Yann Paulet
  • Michel Bozec
  • Julie Coudreuse
PLANTS IN HYDROSYSTEMS

Abstract

Biological invasions in wetlands by Water Primroses (Ludwigia grandiflora ssp. hexapetala and L. peploides ssp. montevidensis) are an increasing problem especially in wet meadows. The aim of this paper is to quantify differences between species and the adaptation of these amphibious plants in order to establish the consequences for site managers. The hypotheses were: (i) that these species differ in biomass and morphology, and (ii) that terrestrial habitats determine particular adaptations such as reduced biomass, more roots and a bushy form. Biomasses from five sites were collected, following seasonal changes and biological traits were measured on selected plants. Comparing species in aquatic habitats, L. peploides produced less biomass than L. grandiflora. Comparing habitats for L. grandiflora, the biomass in meadows was almost twice that in dykes, particularly due to old stems, the converse of the hypothesis. Terrestrial forms were characterized by a bushy morphology, with shorter internodes and stems, as well as more secondary ramifications, while in aquatic habitats the plant architecture was simpler. Models were built linking morphology to species, sites and water conditions. Adaptations to terrestrial habitats of a particularly resistant form with a significant potential biomass are practical constraints for farmers and managers.

Keywords

Invasive macrophyte Ludwigia Adaptation Phenoplasticity Biomass Meadow 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the site managers: Jean-Luc Maisonneuve (EDENN), Jean-Patrice Damien (PNR Brière), Nathalie Saur (GIP Loire-Estuaire), Bertrand Martin (Ville de Rennes) for their collaboration. Financial support was provided by the Direction Régionale de l’Environnement de l’Aménagement et du Logement des Pays de la Loire (Roland Matrat). We also thank students involved in data collection. We are grateful to Mrs Frances Bucquet for checking her native language English in the first version and Mrs Aldyth Nys for the revised ones. We are also grateful to the anonymous referees and the Editor in Chief for their helpful comments on different versions of the manuscript.

Supplementary material

10750_2014_1815_MOESM1_ESM.docx (9.3 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 2473 kb)

References

  1. Alpert, P., E. Bone & C. Holzapfel, 2000. Invasiveness, invasibility and the role of environmental stress in the spread of non-native plants. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 3: 52–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, J. T., J. H. Willis & T. Mitchell-Olds, 2011. Evolutionary genetics of plant adaptation. Trends in Genetics 27: 258–266.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blossey, B. & R. Notzold, 1995. Evolution of increased competitive ability in invasive nonindigenous plants: a hypothesis. Journal of Ecology 83: 887–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dandelot, S., 2004. Les Ludwigia spp. invasives du sud de la France : historique, biosystématique, biologie et écologie. Thèse doctorale, sciences de l’environnement, Université d’Aix-Marseille III: 207 pp.Google Scholar
  5. Davis, M. A., J. Pergl, A.-M. Truscott, J. Kollmann, J. P. Bakker, R. Domenech, K. Prach, A.-H. Prieur-Richard, R. M. Veeneklaas, P. Pysek, R. del Moral, R. J. Hobbs, S. L. Collins, S. T. A. Pickett & P. B. Reich, 2005. Vegetation change: a reunifying concept in plant ecology. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 7: 69–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dutartre, A., J. Haury, S. Dandelot, J. Coudreuse, B. Ruaux, E. Lambert, P. Le Goffe & M.-J. Menozzi, 2007. Les jussies : caractérisation des relations entre sites, populations et activités humaines. Implications pour la gestion Programme de recherche INVABIO 2003–2006, rapport final: 128 pp.Google Scholar
  7. EPPO, 2011. Ludwigia grandiflora and Ludwigia peploides Onagraceae—Water primroses. EPPO Bulletin 41: 414–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grillas, P., L. Tan Ham, A. Dutartre & F. Mesléard, 1992. Distribution de Ludwigia en France. Etude des causes de l’expansion récente en Camargue. 15ème Conférence. Internationale. COLUMA—Annales de l’Association Nationale de Protection des Plantes 3: 1083–1090.Google Scholar
  9. Grime, J. P. & J. M. L. Mackey, 2002. The role of plasticity in resource capture by plants. Evolutionary Ecology 16: 299–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Haury, J. & J.-P. Damien, 2012. Les invasions biologiques dans le Parc naturel régional de Brière : présentation d’une recherche-action. Sciences Eaux et Territoires n° spécial Invasions biologiques 06-2012: 26–33.Google Scholar
  11. Haury, J., J. Coudreuse, J. Debril, B. Ruaux & A. Jigorel, 2008. The role of invasive macrophytes in Nitrogen and Phosphorus dynamics in two gravel pits, Rennes—France. Verhandlungen der Internationalen Vereinigung für Theoretische und Angewandte Limnologie (Montréal Aug. 2007) 30: 607–610.Google Scholar
  12. Haury, J., F. Noël, M. Bozec, J. Coudreuse, J. Guil, G. Marrel, J.-L. Maisonneuve & J.-P. Damien, 2011. Importance of Ludwigia grandiflora as invasive weed in meadows and pastures in Western France. 3rd International Symposium on Weeds and Invasive Plants October 2–7, 2011 in Ascona, Switzerland: 5. http://www.wsl.ch/epub/ewrs/authors/detail_EN?id=139&type=authors.
  13. Haury, J., J.-P. Damien, J.-L. Maisonneuve & B. Bottner, 2012. La gestion des Jussies en milieu aquatique et en prairies humides. In Haury, J. & R. Matrat (eds), 2012. Plantes invasives, la nécessité de différentes approches. Actes du colloque régional Les plantes invasives en Pays-de-la-Loire, 11–12 mai 2011, Angers, Terra botanica. Æstuaria, collection Paroles des Marais atlantiques: 171–189.Google Scholar
  14. Hobbs, R. J. & L. F. Huenneke, 1992. Disturbance, diversity and invasion: implications for conservation. Conservation Biology 6: 324–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hussner, A., 2009. Growth and photosynthesis of four invasive aquatic plant species in Europe. Weed Research 49: 506–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hussner, A., 2010. Growth response and root system development of the invasive Ludwigia grandiflora and Ludwigia peploides to nutrient availability and water level. Fundamental and Applied Limnology, Archiv für Hydobiologie 177: 189–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hussner, A., 2012. Alien aquatic plant species in European countries. Weed Research 52: 297–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Huston, A., 2004. Management strategies for plant invasions: manipulating productivity, disturbance, and competition. Diversity and Distributions 10: 167–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lambert, E., A. Dutartre, J. Coudreuse & J. Haury, 2010. Relationships between the biomass production of invasive Ludwigia species and physical properties of habitats in France. Hydrobiologia 656: 173–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lee, C. E., 2002. Evolutionary genetics of invasive species. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 17: 386–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Richardson, D. M., P. Pyšek & J. T. Carlton, 2011. A compendium of essential concepts and terminology in invasion ecology. In Richardson, D. M. (ed.), Fifty years of invasion ecology: the legacy of Charles Elton. Blackwell, London: 409–420.Google Scholar
  22. Ruaux, B., 2008. Les plantes envahissantes des corridors fluviaux : traits biologiques, impacts de Ludwigia peploides et L. grandiflora en Loire moyenne et implications pour la gestion. Université François Rabelais de Tours; Pôle Universités Centre Val de Loire. Tours, Université François Rabelais: 278 pp.Google Scholar
  23. Ruaux, B., S. Greulich, J. Haury & J.-P. Berton, 2009. Sexual reproduction of two alien invasive Ludwigia (Onagraceae) on the middle Loire River, France. Aquatic Botany 90: 143–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Simberloff, D., J. L. Martin, P. Genovesi, V. Maris, D. A. Wardle, J. Aronson, F. Courchamp, B. Galil, E. García-Berthou, M. Pascal, P. Pyšek, R. Sousa, E. Tabacchi & M. Vilà, 2013. Impacts of biological invasions: what’s what and the way forward. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 28: 58–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Thouvenot, L., 2012. Stratégies de réponse de l’espèce invasive Ludwigia grandiflora aux contraintes environnementales. Thèse, Université de Rennes 1—Ecole doctorale Vie-Agro-Santé, Rennes: 205 pp.Google Scholar
  26. Thouvenot, L., J. Haury & G. Thiébaut, 2013a. Seasonal plasticity of Ludwigia grandiflora under light and water depth gradients: an outdoor mesocosm experiment. Flora 208: 430–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thouvenot, L., J. Haury & G. Thiébaut, 2013b. A success story: water primroses, aquatic plant pests. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 23: 790–803.Google Scholar
  28. Vilà, M., C. Basnou, P. Pyšek, M. Josefsson, P. Genovesi, S. Gollasch, W. Nentwig, S. Olenin, A. Roques, D. Roy, P. E. Hulme & DAISIE Partners, 2010. How well do we understand the impacts of alien species on ecosystem services? A pan-European, cross-taxa assessment. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8: 135–144.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jacques Haury
    • 1
  • Arsène Druel
    • 1
  • Teipotemarama Cabral
    • 1
  • Yann Paulet
    • 1
  • Michel Bozec
    • 1
  • Julie Coudreuse
    • 1
  1. 1.UMR INRA-AGROCAMPUS OUEST 985 Ecologie et Santé des EcosystèmesRennes CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations