Biologia

, Volume 69, Issue 4, pp 449–462 | Cite as

The influence of habitat conditions on the performance of two invasive, annuals — Impatiens glandulifera and Bidens frondosa

Section Botany
  • 179 Downloads

Abstract

The investigations of habitat conditions on the variability of selected population features in the two invasive, annuals with different life-history traits were conducted in the years 2008–2010, in the Polish part of the Carpathian Mountains in communities characterized by the gradual decrease of light availability. The individuals of Impatiens glandulifera were surveyed along roadsides, in willow thickets, as well as inside and along the edges of the riparian forest, whereas the individuals of Bidens frondosa were observed in riverside gravels characterized by a different species composition. Each year, the number and density of individuals (stems) occurring in the particular sites were examined, as well as the height and the fruit production in 30 randomly chosen stems were surveyed. Moreover, the number of seeds per fruit, the diaspore dimensions and the seedling recruitment in laboratory conditions were examined during each season. As the values of height of individuals, number of fruits per stem, number of seeds per fruit, as well as the seedling abundance in some groups were not consistent with the normal distribution and the variances were not homogeneous, the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test was used in statistical analyses.

Much greater number and density of individuals of Impatiens glandulifera were found in riparian forest, than in willow thickets and along the roadsides. In all sites the number and density of individuals increased steadily in consecutive seasons. The great number and density of Bidens frondosa individuals observed in shady and partly shady sites during the first year of studies raised in the second year and subsequently dramatically decreased in the third season. The lowest number and density of individuals noted in the first season in unshaded site raised substantially in subsequent years. The height of stems, as well as seed and fruit production of both taxa diminished with a decrease of height of neighboring plants. The seed dimensions presented the spatial and temporal variability, whereas the number of seedlings among consecutive years and in successive sites did not differ.

The considerable height of the individuals of Impatiens glandulifera, high production of large fruits and seeds in open and dry roadside areas can contribute to more effective ballistic dissemination, while substantial seedling recruitment enables the colonization of new, perhaps more advantageous sites. On the other hand, lower individual height, as well as fruit and seed production and considerable seedling emergence allow the population to last and to gradually extend the area in forest communities. The considerable abundance of the high-statured Bidens frondosa individuals, substantial production of large capitula and achenes contribute to long persistence of populations in open and sun-lit sites. The gradually decrease in the height of the stems, achene number and size observed in partly-shaded and shaded places might allow to long-distance dispersal of seeds by animals, while substantial seedling recruitment might contribute to establishment in new areas.

Key words

fruit production seed production seed size seedling recruitment stem length 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andrews M., Maule H.G., Hodge S., Cherrill A. & Raven J.A. 2009. Seed dormancy, nitrogen nutrition and shade acclimation of Impatiens glandulifera: implications for successful invasion of deciduous woodland. Plant Ecol. Diversity 2: 145–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrews M., Maule H.G., Raven J.A. & Mistry A. 2005. Extension growth of Impatiens glandulifera at low irradiance: importance of nitrate and potassium accumulation. Ann. Bot. 95: 641–648.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aule H. & Brandl R. 1997. Seedling recruitment in the invasive clonal shrub, Mahonia aquifolium Pursh (Nutt.). Oecologia 110: 205–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balogh L. 2008. Himalayan balsam (Impatiens glandulifera Royle), pp: 129–137. In: Botta-Dukát Z. & Balogh L. (eds), The most important invasive plants in Hungary, Institute of Ecology and Botany, Hungarian Academy of. Sciences, Vácrátót, Hungary.Google Scholar
  5. Baumann D.T., Bastiaans L. & Kropf M.J. 2001. Effects of intercropping on growth and reproductive capacity of lateemerging Senecio vulgaris L., with special reference to competition for light. Ann. Bot. 87: 209–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bennington C.C. & McGraw J.C. 1995. Natural selection and ecotypic differentiation in Impatiens pallida. Ecol. Monogr. 65: 303–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berling D.J. & Perrins J.M. 1993. Impatiens glandulifera Royle (Impatiens royleyi Walp.). J. Ecol. 81: 367–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown J.S. & Eckert C.G. 2005. Evolutionary increase in sexual and clonal reproductive capacity during biological invasion in an aquatic plant Butomus umbellatus (Butomaceae). Am. J. Bot. 92: 495–502.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chapman D.S. & Gray A. 2012. Complex interactions between the wind and ballistic seed dispersal in Impatiens glandulifera (Royle). J.Ecol. 100: 874–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chivinge O.A. & Shweppenhauer M.A. 1995. Competition of soybean with blackjack (Bidens pilosa L.) and pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus L.). Afr. Crop Sci. J. 3: 73–82.Google Scholar
  11. Cui Q-G. & He W-M. 2009. Soil biota, but not soil nutrients, facilitate the invasion of Bidens pilosa relative to a native species Saussurea deltoidea. Weed Res. 49: 201–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dietz H. & Ullmann I. 1998. Ecological application of ‘herbchronology’: Comparative stand age structure analyses of the invasive plant Bunias orientalis L. Ann. Bot. 82: 471–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dietz H., Köhler A. & Ullmann I. 2002. Regeneration growth of the invasive clonal forb Rorippa austriaca (Brasicaceae) in relation to fertilization and intraspecific competition. Plant Ecol. 158: 171–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Donohue K. & Schmitt J. 1999. The genetic architecture of plasticity to density in Impatiens capensis. Evolution 53: 1377–1386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dudley S.A. & Schmidt J. 1995. Genetic differentiation in morphological responses to simulated foliage shade between populations of Impatiens capensis from open and woodland sites. Funct. Ecol. 9: 655–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dudley S.A. & Schmidt J. 1996. Testing the adaptive plasticity hypothesis: Density-dependent selection on manipulated stem length in Impatiens capensis. Amer. Nat. 147: 445–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Falińska K. 2002. Przewodnik do badań biologii populacji roślin. PWN, Warszawa, Poland, 586 pp.Google Scholar
  18. Fitter A.H. & Peat H.J. 1994. The Ecological Flora Database. J. Ecol. 82: 415–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fumanal B., Chauvel B., Sabatier A. & Bretagnolle F. 2007. Variability and cryptic heteromorphism of Ambrosia artemisiifolia seeds: What consequences for its invasion in France? Ann. Bot. 100: 305–313.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fumanal B., Gaudota I. & Bretagnolle F. 2008. Seed-bank dynamics in the invasive plant, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. Seed Sci. Res. 18: 101–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gibson K.D., Fischer A.J. & Foin T.C. 2001. Shading and the growth and photosynthetic responses of Ammannia coccinnea. Weed Res. 41: 59–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Graae B.J. 2002. The role of epizoochorous seed dispersal of forest plant species in a fragmented landscape. Seed Sci. Res. 12: 113–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gravuer K., von Wettberg E.J. & Schmitt J. 2003. Dispersal biology of Liatris scariosa var. novae-angliae (Asteraceae), a rare New England grassland perennial. Am. J. Bot. 90: 1159–1167.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gubertová H., Bendová K. & Prah K. 2001. Seed ecology of alien Bidens frondosa in comparison with native species of the genus, pp: 99–104. In: Brundu G., Brock J., Camarda I., Child L. & Wade M. (eds), Plant Invasions: Species Ecology and Ecosystem Management, Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  25. Kasperek G. 2004. Fluctuations in numbers of neophytes, especially Impatiens glandulifera, in permanent plots in a west German floodplain during 13 years. Neobiota 3: 27–37.Google Scholar
  26. Kollmann J., Bañuelos M.J. & Nielsen S.L. 2007. Effects of virus infection on growth of the invasive alien Impatiens glandulifera. Preslia 79: 33–44.Google Scholar
  27. Lambdon P.W., Pyšek P., Basnou C., Hejda M., Arianoutsou M., Essl F., Jarošík V., Pergl J., Winter M. Anastasiu P., Andriopoulos P., Bazos I., Brundu G., Celesti-Grapow L., Chassot P., Delipetrou P., Jossefson M., Kark S., Klotz S., Kokkoris Y., Kühn I., Marchante H., Perglová I. Pino J., Vilá Zikos A.., Roy D.B. & Hulme P.E. 2008. Alien flora of Europe: species diversity, temporal trends, geographical patterns and research needs. Preslia 80: 101–149.Google Scholar
  28. Lambrecht-McDowell S.C. & Radosevich S.R. 2005. Population demographics and trade-offs to reproduction of an invasive and noninvasive species of Rubus. Biol. Invas. 7: 281–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Li W., Wang B. & Wang J. 2006. Lack of genetic variation of an invasive clonal plant Eichhornia crassipes in China revealed by RAPD and ISSR markers. Aquatic Bot. 84: 176–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Maule H., Andrews M., Watson C. & Cherrill A. 2000. Distribution, biomass and effect on native species of Impatiens glandulifera in a deciduous woodland in northeast England. Aspects Appl. Biol. 58: 31–38.Google Scholar
  31. McGoey B.V. & Stinchcombe J.R. 2009. Interspecific competition alters natural selection on shade avoidance phenotypes in Impatiens capensis. New Phytologist 183: 880–891.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Meyer S.E. 1997. Ecological correlates of achene mass variation in Chrysothamnus nauseosus (Asteraceae). Am. J. Bot. 84: 471–477.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Meyer S.E. & Carlson L.S. 2001. Achene mass variation in Ericameria nauseosus (Asteraceae) in relation to dispersal ability and seedling fitness. Funct. Ecol. 15: 274–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Molina-Montenegro M.A., Badano E.I. & Cavieres L.A. 2008. Positive interactions among plant species for pollinator service: assessing the ‘magnet species’ concept with invasive species. Oikos 117: 1833–1839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Moravcová L., Pyšek P., Jarošík V., Havlčíkovákravsky P. 2010. Reproductive characteristics of neophytes in the Czech Republic: traits of invasive and non-invasive species. Preslia 82: 365–390.Google Scholar
  36. Murphy G.P. & Dudley S.A. 2009. Kin recognition: Competition and cooperation in Impatiens (Balsaminaceae). Am. J. Bot. 96: 1990–1996.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nienhuis C.M. & Stout J.C. 2009. Effectiveness of native bumblebees as pollinators of the alin invasive plant Impatiens glandulifera (Balsaminaceae) in Ireland. J. Pollin. Ecol. 1: 1–11.Google Scholar
  38. Paquin V. & Aarssen L.W. 2004. Allometric gender allocation in Ambrosia artemisiifolia (Asteraceae) has adaptive plasticity. Am. J. Bot. 91: 430–438.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pergl J., Perglová I., Pyšek P. & Dietz H. 2006. Population age structure and reproductive behavior of the monocarpic perennial Heracleum mantegazzianum (Apiaceae) in its native and invaded distribution ranges. Am. J. Bot. 93: 1018–1028.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Perglová I., Pergl J., Skálová H., Moravcová L., Jarošík V. & Pyšek P. 2009. Differences in germination and seedling establishment of alien and native Impatiens species. Preslia 81: 357–357.Google Scholar
  41. Perrins J., Fitter A. & Williamson M. 1993. Population biology and rates of invasion of three introduced Impatiens species in the British Isles. J. Biogeogr. 20: 33–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Piskorz R. 2005. The effect of oak-hornbeam diversity on flowering and fruiting of Impatiens parviflora. Rocz. AR. Pozn. CCCLXXIII Bot-Stec. 9: 187–196.Google Scholar
  43. Prach K. 1994. Seasonal dynamics of Impatiens glandulifera in two riparian habitats in central England, pp. 127–133. In: de Waal LC (ed.) Ecology and Management of Invasive Reverside Plants, John Wiley Sohns, Chichester.Google Scholar
  44. Prowse A. 1998. Patterns of early growth and mortality in Impatiens glandulifera, pp. 245–252. In: Starfinger U., Edwards K., Kowarik I. & Williamson M. (eds), Plant Invasions: Ecological Mechanisms and Human Responses. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  45. Pyšek P. & Richardson D.M. 2010. Invasive species, environmental change and management, and health. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 35: 25–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Riba M., Mignot M., Fréville H., Colas B., Imbert E., Vile D., Virevaire M. & Olivieri I. 2005. Variation in dispersal traits in a narrow-endemic plant species, Centaurea corymbosa Pourret. (Asteraceae). Ecol. Evol. 19: 241–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Riis T., Lambertini C., Olesen B., Clayton J.S., Brix H. & Sorrell B.K. 2010. Invasion strategies in clonal aquatic plants: are phenotypic differences caused by phenotypic plasticity or local adaptation? Ann. Bot. 106: 813–822.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rinella M.J., Masters R.A. & Bellows S.E. 2010. Growth regulator herbicides prevent invasive annual grass seed production under field conditions. Rangeland Ecol. Manage. 63: 487–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Römermann C., Tackenberg O. & Poschlod P. 2005. How to predict attachment potential of seeds to sheep and cattle coat from simple morphological seed traits. Oikos 110: 219–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sakai A.K., Allendorf F.W., Holt J.S., Lodge D.M., Molofsky J., With K.A., Baughman S., Cabin R.J., Cohen J.E., Ellstrand N.C., McCauley D.E., O’Neil P., Parker I.M., Thompson J.N. & Weller S.G. 2001. The population biology of invasive species. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 32: 305–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Santalla E.M., Dosio G.A.A., Nolasco S.M. & Aguirezzabál L.A.N. 2002. The effects of intercepted solar radiation on sun-flower (Helianthus annuus L.) seed composition from different seed position. JAOCS 79: 69–74.Google Scholar
  52. Schmidt J., Eccleston J. & Ehrhardt D.W. 1987. Densitydependent flowering phenology, outcrossing, and reproduction in Impatiens capensis. Oecologia 72: 341–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Skálová H., Havličkovšek P. 2012. Seedling traits, plasticity and local differentiation as strategies of invasive species of Impatiens in Central Europe. Ann. Bot. 110: 1429–1438.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Skálová H., Jarošík V., Dvořáčková Š. & Pyšek P. 2013. Effect of intra- and interspecific competition on the performance of native and invasive species of Impatiens under varying levels of shade and moisture. PLoS One. 8: e62842.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Strømme C.B. 2012. Quantity and quality of light affect growth and reproduction of the invasive annual plant Impatiens glandulifera. Norwegian University of Plant Sciences Department of Ecology and natural resource management, Master ThesisGoogle Scholar
  56. Suzuki M., Kaya Y., Ishida T.A., Hattori K., Miki K., Nakamura T. & Kiura M.T. 2007. Flowering phenology and survival of two annual plants Impatiens noli-tangere and Persicaria thunbergii co-occurring in streamside environments. Ecol. Res. 22: 496–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Toussaint B. & Bedouet F. 2005. Les espčces végétales invasives des milieux aquatiques et humides du bassin Artois-Picardie. Agence de l’Eau Artois-Picardie, 38 pp.Google Scholar
  58. van Kleunen M. & Johnson S.D. 2005. Testing for ecological and genetic Allee effects in the invasive shrub Senna didymobotrya (Fabaceae). Am. J. Bot. 92: 1124–1130.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wang N., Yu F-H., Li P-X., He W-M., Liu F-H., Liu J-M. & Dong M. 2008. Clonal integration affects growth, photosynthetic efficiency and biomass allocation, but not the competitive ability, of the alien invasive Alternanthera philoxeroides under severe stress. Ann Bot 101: 671–678.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Washitani I. & Nishiyama S. 1992. Effects of seed size and seedling emergence time on the fitness components of Ambrosia trifida and A. artemisiaefolia var. elatior in competition with grass perennials. Plant Spec. Biol. 7: 11–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Weing C., Gravuer K.A., Kane N.C. & Schmitt J. 2004. Testing adaptive plasticity to UV: costs and benefits of stem elongation and light-induced phenolics. Evolution 58: 2645–2656.Google Scholar
  62. Vervoort A., Cawoy V. & Jacquemart A.L. 2011. Comparative reproductive biology in co-occurring invasive and native Impatiens species. Int. J. Plant Sci. 172: 366–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vilá M., Espinar J.L., Hejda M., Hulme P.E., Jarosik V., Maron J.L., Perl J., Schaffner U., Sun Y. & Pyšek P. 2011. Ecological impacts of invasive alien plants: a meta-analysis of their effects on species, communities and ecosystems. Ecol. Lett. 14: 702–708.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Willis S.G. & Hulme P.E. 2004. Environmental severity and variation in the reproductive traits of Impatiens glandulifera. Funt. Ecol. 18: 887–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wisskirchen R. 2006. An experimental study on the growth and flowering of riparian pioneer plants under long- and short-day conditions. Flora 201: 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Xiao Y., Junbing T., Hua Q., Changfang Z., Wijing K. & Squging A. 2011. Trade-offs among growth, clonal, and sexual reproduction in an invasive plant Spartina alterniflora responding to inundation and clonal integration. Hydrobiologia 658: 353–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Zollinger R.K. & Kells J.J. 1991. Effect of soil pH, soil water, light intensity, and temperature on perennial sowhistle (Sonchus arvensis L.). Weed Sci. 39: 376–384.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Versita Warsaw and Springer-Verlag Wien 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Plant Ecology, Institute of BotanyJagiellonian UniversityKrakówPoland
  2. 2.Department of Plant TaxonomyPhytogeography & HerbariumKrakówPoland

Personalised recommendations