Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Functional morphology underlies performance differences among invasive and non-invasive ruderal Rubus species

  • Physiological ecology - Original research
  • Published:
Oecologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The ability of some introduced plant species to outperform native species under altered resource conditions makes them highly productive in ecosystems with surplus resources. However, ruderal native species are also productive when resources are available. The differences in abundance among invasive and non-invasive ruderal plants may be related to differences in ability to maintain access to or store resources for continual use. For a group of ruderal species in the Pacific Northwest of North America (invasive Rubus armeniacus; non-invasive R. ursinus, R. parviflorus, R. spectabilis, and Rosa nutkana), we sought to determine whether differences in functional morphological traits, especially metrics of water access and storage, were consistent with differences in water conductance and growth rate. We also investigated the changes in these traits in response to abundant vs. limited water availability. Rubus armeniacus had among the largest root systems and cane cross-sectional areas, the lowest cane tissue densities, and the most plastic ratios of leaf area to plant mass and of xylem area to leaf area, often sharing its rank with R. ursinus or Rosa nutkana. These three species had the highest water conductance and relative growth rates, though Rubus armeniacus grew the most rapidly when water was not limited. Our results suggest that water access and storage abilities vary with morphology among the ruderal species investigated, and that these abilities, in combination, are greatest in the invasive. In turn, functional morphological traits allow R. armeniacus to maintain rapid gas exchange rates during the dry summers in its invaded range, conferring on it high productivity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2a–o
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alice LA (2012) Jepson eFlora, Rubus. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/IJM.html

  • Alpert P, Bone E, Holzapfel C (2000) Invasiveness, invasibility and the role of environmental stress in the spread of non-native plants. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 3:52–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amor RL, Richardson RG, Pritchard GH, Bruzzese E (1998) Rubus fruticosus L. agg. In: Panetta FD, Groves RH, Shepherd RCH (eds) The biology of Australian weeds, vol 2. Richardson, Australia, pp 225–246

    Google Scholar 

  • Andraski TW, Bundy LG (2003) Relationships between phosphorus levels in soil and in runoff from corn production systems. J Environ Qual 32:310–316

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Baret S, Nicolini E, Le Bourgeois T, Strasberg D (2003) Developmental patterns of the invasive bramble (Rubus alceifolius Poiret, Rosaceae) in Réunion Island: an architectural and morphometric analysis. Ann Bot 91:39–48

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bruzzese E (1998) The biology of blackberry in south-eastern Australia. Plant Prot Q 13:160–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryla DR, Strik BC (2008) Do primocanes and floricanes compete for soil water in blackberry? Acta Hortic 777:477–482

    Google Scholar 

  • Busby AL, Himelrick DG (1999) Propagation of blackberries (Rubus spp.) by stem cuttings using various IBA formulations. Acta Hortic 505:327–332

    Google Scholar 

  • Caldwell JD (1984) Blackberry propagation. HortScience 19:193–195

    Google Scholar 

  • Caplan JS, Yeakley JA (2006) Rubus armeniacus (Himalayan blackberry) occurrence and growth in relation to soil and light conditions in western Oregon. Northwest Sci 80:9–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Caplan JS, Yeakley JA (2010) Water relations advantages for invasive Rubus armeniacus over two native ruderal congeners. Plant Ecol 210:169–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter JL, White DA (2009) Plasticity in the Huber value contributes to homeostasis in leaf water relations of a Mallee eucalypt with variation to groundwater depth. Tree Physiol 29:1407–1418

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cavaleri MA, Sack L (2010) Comparative water use of native and invasive plants at multiple scales: a global meta-analysis. Ecology 91:2705–2715

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ceska A (1999) Rubus armeniacus—a correct name for Himalayan blackberries. Bot Electr News 230

  • Chen J, Franklin JF, Spies TA (1995) Growing-season microclimatic gradients from clear cut edges in old-growth Douglas-fir forests. Ecol Appl 5:74–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook GD, Dias L (2006) Turner review no. 12. It was no accident: deliberate plant introductions by Australian government agencies during the 20th century. Aust J Bot 54:601–625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbin JD, D’Antonio CM (2010) Not novel, just better: competition between native and non-native plants in California grasslands that share species traits. Plant Ecol 209:71–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daehler CC (2003) Performance comparisons of co-occurring native and alien invasive plants: implications for conservation and restoration. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:183–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis MA, Grime JP, Thompson K (2000) Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invasibility. J Ecol 88:528–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis MA, Chew MK, Hobbs RJ, Lugo AE, Ewel JJ, Vermeij GJ, Brown JH, Rosenzweig ML, Gardener MR, Carroll SP, Thompson K, Pickett STA, Stromberg JC, Tredici PD, Suding KN, Ehrenfeld JG, Grime JP, Mascaro J, Briggs JC (2011) Don’t judge species on their origins. Nature 474:153–154

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson W, Fischer M, van Kleunen M (2011) The maximum relative growth rate of common UK plant species is positively associated with their global invasiveness. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 20:299–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drenovsky RE, Grewell BJ, D’Antonio CM, Funk JL, James JJ, Molinari N, Parker IM, Richards CL (2012) A functional trait perspective on plant invasion. Ann Bot 110:141–153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dybzinski R, Farrior C, Wolf A, Reich PB, Pacala SW (2011) Evolutionarily stable strategy carbon allocation to foliage, wood, and fine roots in trees competing for light and nitrogen: an analytically tractable, individual-based model and quantitative comparisons to data. Am Nat 177:153–166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dyrness CT (1973) Early stages of plant succession following logging and burning in the western Cascades of Oregon. Ecology 54:57–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenfeld JG (2010) Ecosystem consequences of biological invasions. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 41:59–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans KJ, Weber HE (2003) Rubus anglocandicans (Rosaceae) is the most widespread taxon of European blackberry in Australia. Aust Syst Bot 16:527–537

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evett SR (2003) Soil water measurement by time domain reflectometry. In: Stewart BA, Howell TA (eds) Encyclopedia of water science. Dekker, New York, pp 894–898

    Google Scholar 

  • Farquhar GD, Ehleringer JR, Hubik KT (1989) Carbon isotope discrimination and photosynthesis. Annu Rev Plant Physiol 40:503–537

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fierke MK, Kauffman JB (2006) Invasive species influence riparian plant diversity along a successional gradient, Willamette River, Oregon. Nat Areas J 26:376–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fotelli MN, Geßler A, Peuke AD, Rennenberg H (2001) Drought affects the competitive interactions between Fagus sylvatica seedlings and an early successional species, Rubus fruticosus: responses of growth, water status and δ13C composition. New Phytol 151:427

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Funk JL, Vitousek PM (2007) Resource-use efficiency and plant invasion in low-resource systems. Nature 446:1079–1081

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gartner BL (1995) Plant stems: physiological and functional morphology. Academic Press, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • Godoy O, Valladares F, Castro-Diez P (2011) Multispecies comparison reveals that invasive and native plants differ in their traits but not in their plasticity. Funct Ecol 25:1248–1259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grime JP (1977) Evidence for the existence of three primary strategies in plants and its relevance to ecological and evolutionary theory. Am Nat 111:1169–1194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grime JP, Mackey JML (2002) The role of plasticity in resource capture by plants. Evol Ecol 16:299–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimm NB, Faeth SH, Golubiewski NE, Redman CL, Wu J, Bai X, Briggs JM (2008) Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 319:756–760

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Grotkopp E, Rejmánek M (2007) High seedling relative growth rate and specific leaf area are traits of invasive species: phylogenetically independent contrasts of woody angiosperms. Am J Bot 94:526–532

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs RJ, Huenneke LF (1992) Disturbance, diversity, and invasion: implications for conservation. Conserv Biol 6:324–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodge A, Berta G, Doussan C, Merchan F, Crespi M (2009) Plant root growth, architecture and function. Plant Soil 321:153–187

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchings MJ, de Kroon H (1994) Foraging in plants: the role of morphological plasticity in resource acquisition. In: Begon M, Fitter AH (eds) Advances in Ecological Research, vol 25. Academic Press, London, pp 159–238

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson DA (1993) Stopping rules in principal components analysis: a comparison of heuristical and statistical approaches. Ecology 74:2204–2214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson RB, Jobbágy EG, Nosetto MD (2009) Ecohydrology in a human-dominated landscape. Ecohydrology 2:383–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kowarik I (2011) Novel urban ecosystems, biodiversity, and conservation. Environ Pollut 159:1974–1983

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kummerow J (1980) Adaptation of roots in water-stressed native vegetation. In: Turner NC, Kramer PJ (eds) Adaptation of plants to water and high temperature stress. Wiley, New York, pp 57–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Larjavaara M, Muller-Landau HC (2010) Rethinking the value of high wood density. Funct Ecol 24:701–705

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mack RN, Lonsdale WM (2001) Humans as global plant dispersers: getting more than we bargained for. BioScience 51:95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald RI, Motzkin G, Foster DR (2008) Assessing the influence of historical factors, contemporary processes, and environmental conditions on the distribution of invasive species. J Torrey Bot Soc 135:260–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDowell SCL (2002) Photosynthetic characteristics of invasive and noninvasive species of Rubus (Rosaceae). Am J Bot 89:1431–1438

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McDowell SCL, Turner DP (2002) Reproductive effort in invasive and noninvasive Rubus. Oecologia 133:102–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meiners SJ, Cadenasso ML, Pickett STA (2004) Beyond biodiversity: individualistic controls of invasion in a self-assembled community. Ecol Lett 7:121–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nobel PS, Turner NC, Kramer PJ (1980) Leaf anatomy and water use efficiency. In: Turner NC, Kramer PJ (eds) Adaptation of plants to water and high temperature stress. Wiley, New York, pp 43–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Oleskevich C, Shamoun SF, Punja ZK (1996) The biology of Canadian weeds. 105. Rubus strigosus Michx., Rubus parviflorus Nutt., and Rubus spectabilis Pursh. Can J Plant Sci 76:187–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson ME (2005) Wood, bark, and pith anatomy in Pittocaulon (~Senecio, Asteraceae): water storage and systematics. J Torrey Bot Soc 132:173–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ordoñez JC, van Bodegom PM, Witte JPM, Wright IJ, Reich PB, Aerts R (2009) A global study of relationships between leaf traits, climate and soil measures of nutrient fertility. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 18:137–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozawa CP, Yeakley JA (2007) Performance of management strategies in the protection of riparian vegetation in three Oregon cities. J Environ Plann Manage 50:803–822

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poorter H, Garnier E (1996) Plant growth analysis: an evaluation of experimental design and computational methods. J Exp Bot 47:1343–1351

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Potter D, Eriksson T, Evans RC, Oh S, Smedmark JEE, Morgan DR, Kerr M, Robertson KR, Arsenault M, Dickinson TA, Campbell CS (2007) Phylogeny and classification of Rosaceae. Plant Syst Evol 266:5–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson DM, Pyšek P (2006) Plant invasions: merging the concepts of species invasiveness and community invasibility. Prog Phys Geogr 30:409–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson DM, Pyšek P, Rejmánek M, Barbour MG, Panetta FD, West CJ (2000) Naturalization and invasion of alien plants: concepts and definitions. Divers Distrib 6:93–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ringold PL, Magee TK, Peck DV (2008) Twelve invasive plant taxa in US western riparian ecosystems. J Am Benth Soc 27:949–966

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts J (2000) The influence of physical and physiological characteristics of vegetation on their hydrological response. Hydrol Process 14:2885–2901

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose R, Chachulski CEC, Haase DL (1998) Propagation of Pacific Northwest native plants. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis

    Google Scholar 

  • Shen XY, Peng SL, Chen BM, Pang JX, Chen LY, Xu HM, Hou YP (2011) Do higher resource capture ability and utilization efficiency facilitate the successful invasion of native plants? Biol Invasions 13:869–881

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonoda K, Yeakley JA, Walker CE (2001) Near-stream landuse effects on streamwater nutrient distribution in an urbanizing watershed. J Am Water Resour Assoc 37:1517–1532

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Souza L, Bunn WA, Simberloff D, Lawton RM, Sanders NJ (2011) Biotic and abiotic influences on native and exotic richness relationship across spatial scales: favourable environments for native species are highly invasible. Funct Ecol 25:1106–1112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stafne ET, Clark JR, Rom CR (2001) Leaf gas exchange response of ‘Arapaho’ blackberry and six red raspberry cultivars to moderate and high temperatures. HortScience 36:880–883

    Google Scholar 

  • Tinoco-Ojanguren C (2008) Diurnal and seasonal patterns of gas exchange and carbon gain contribution of leaves and stems of Justicia californica in the Sonoran Desert. J Arid Environ 72:127–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Topp GC, Davis JL, Annan AP (1980) Electromagnetic determination of soil water content: measurements in coaxial transmission lines. Water Resour Res 16:574–582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 94:1103–1116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waring RH, Franklin JF (1979) Evergreen coniferous forests of the Pacific Northwest. Science 204:1380–1386

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Williams JW, Seabloom EW, Slayback D, Stoms DM, Viers JH (2005) Anthropogenic impacts upon plant species richness and net primary productivity in California. Ecol Lett 8:127–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Funding for this research was provided by the Center for Invasive Species Management, Missoula, Montana. J. S. C. also received support from the Biology of Weedy and Invasive Species program through the USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture (2009-35900-06016). We thank Sarah Eppley, Joe Maser, Todd Rosensteil, Mark Sytsma, Peter Morin, Joan Ehrenfeld, Susan Schwinning, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. We also thank Mary Wright, Padma Raman-Caplan, and Gita Raman for assistance with data collection. Additional resources and ideas were provided by Bill Berry, Lane Greer, Lena Struwe, Jason Grabosky, Bernadine Strik, and the Department of Horticulture at Oregon State University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA

    Joshua S. Caplan

  2. Environmental Science and Management, Portland State University, Portland, OR, USA

    Joshua S. Caplan & J. Alan Yeakley

Authors
  1. Joshua S. Caplan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Alan Yeakley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joshua S. Caplan.

Additional information

Communicated by Susanne Schwinning.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Caplan, J.S., Yeakley, J.A. Functional morphology underlies performance differences among invasive and non-invasive ruderal Rubus species. Oecologia 173, 363–374 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-013-2639-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-013-2639-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation