Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Comparison of Plastic Responses to Competition by Invasive and Non-invasive Congeners in the Commelinaceae

  • Published:
Biological Invasions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Evidence supporting an association between phenotypic plasticity and invasiveness across a range of plant taxa is based primarily on comparisons between invasive species and native species whose potential invasiveness is typically unknown. Comparison of invasive and non-invasive exotic species would provide a better test of whether plasticity promotes invasion. Such comparisons should distinguish between adaptive and non-adaptive plasticity because they have different consequences for invasiveness. Adaptive plasticity is expected to promote the invasion of multiple habitats, but non-adaptive plasticity may reflect specialization for invading more favorable habitats only. We grew four invasive and four non-invasive species of the Commelinaceae with and without competitors and compared their putatively adaptive plasticity of three traits related to competitive ability and non-adaptive plasticity in performance. The invasive species grew significantly more than the non-invasive species only in the non-competitive environment. The invasive species had greater plasticity of performance (total biomass) in response to competition than non-invasives, but there was no consistent difference in the plasticities of the traits related to competitive ability. These results are consistent with specialization of these invasive taxa for invading the more productive non-competitive environment rather than a superior ability to invade both competitive and non-competitive environments. A comprehensive understanding of the relationship between plasticity and invasiveness will require many more comparisons of the plasticity of invasive and non-invasive taxa in a range of traits in response to a variety of environments.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alpert P, Bone E and Holzapfel C (2000). Invasiveness, invasibility and the role of environmental stress in the spread of non-native plants. Prespectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 3/1: 52–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arendt JD (1997). Adaptive intrinsic growth rates: an integration across taxa. Quarterly Review of Biology 72: 149–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker HG (1974). The evolution of weeds. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 5: 1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baruch Z, Ludlow MM and Davis R (1985). Photosynthetic responses of native and introduced C4 grasses from Venezuelan savannas. Oecologia 67: 388–393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baruch Z and Bilbao B (1999). Effects of fire and defoliation on the life history of native and invader C4 grasses in a Neotropical savanna. Oecologia 119: 510–520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baruch Z and Goldstein G (1999). Leaf construction cost, nutrient concentration and net CO2 assimilation of native and invasive species in Hawaii. Oecologia 121: 183–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjorkman O (1981). Responses to different quantum flux densities. In: Lange, L, Nobel, PS, Osmond, CB and Ziegler, H (eds) Encyclopedia of Plant Physiology, Vol. 12A, Springer, Berlin 57–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Black RA, Richards JH and Manwaring JH (1994). Nutrient uptake from enriched soil microsites by three great basin perennials. Ecology 75: 110–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloom AJ, Chapin FS III and Mooney HA (1985). Resource limitation in plants—an economic analogy. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 16: 363–392

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns JH (2004). A comparison of invasive and non-invasive dayflowers (Commelinaceae) across experimental nutrient and water gradients. Diversity and Distributions 10: 387–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapin FS, Autumn K and Pugnaire F (1993). Evolution of suites of traits in response to environmental stress. American Naturalist 142: S78–S92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daehler CC (1998). The taxonomic distribution of invasive angiosperm plants: ecological insights and comparison to agricultural weeds. Biological Conservation 84: 167–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daehler CC (2003). Performance comparisons of co-occurring native and alien invasive plants: implications for conservation and restoration. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 34: 183–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donohue K and Schmitt J (1999). The genetic architecture of plasticity to density in Impatiens capensis. Evolution 53: 1377–1386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolye RD, Francis MD and Smart RM (2003). Interference competition between Ludwigia repens and Hygrophila polysperma: two morphologically similar aquatic plant species. Aquatic Botany 77: 223–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorn LA, Pyle EH and Schmitt J (2000). Plasticity to light cues and resources in Arabidopsis thaliana: testing for adaptive value and costs. Evolution 54: 1982–1994

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dudley SA and Schmitt J (1996). Testing the adaptive plasticity hypothesis: density dependent selection on manipulated stem length in Impatiens capensis. American Naturalist 147: 445–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dukes JS and Mooney HA (1999). Does global change increase the success of biological invaders. Trends in Ecology of Evolution 14: 135–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durand LZ and Goldstein G (2001). Photosynthesis, photoinhibition and nitrogen use efficiency in native and invasive tree ferns in Hawaii. Oecologia 126: 345–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans TM, Faden RB, Simpson MG and Sytsma KJ (2000). Phylogenetic relationships in the Commelinaceae: I. A cladistic analysis of morphological data. Systematic Botany 25: 668–697

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faden RB (1982) Commelinaceae. In: Monocot Weeds 3, pp 98–111. CIBA-GEIGY, Basel, Switzerland

  • Faden RB (2000). Floral biology of Commelinaceae. In: Wilson, KL and Morrison, DA (eds) Monocots: Systematics and Evolution, CSIRO, Melbourne 309–317

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitter AH (1994). Architecture and biomass allocation as components of the plastic response of root systems to soil heterogeneity. In: Caldwell, MM and Pearcy, RW (eds) Exploitation of Environmental Heterogeneity by Plants, Academic Press, New York 305–323

    Google Scholar 

  • FLEPPC (Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council) (2003a) Database. http://www.fleppc.org/database/data_intro.htm. Cited 24 Feb 2004

  • FLEPPC (Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council) (2003b) List of invasive species. http://www.fleppc.org/Plantlist/list.htm. Cited 24 Feb 2004

  • FNA (Flora of North America Editorial Committee), eds (2002) Flora of North America. http://flora.huh.harvard.edu:8080/flora/flora_page.jsp;jsessionid=B078CE68992EB9DF07799 5EDFEBF1225?flora_id=1. Cited 18 Mar 2003

  • Gerlach JD and Rice KJ (2003). Testing life history correlates of invasiveness using congeneric plant species. Ecological Applications 13: 167–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grotkopp E, Rejmanek M and Rost TL (2002). Toward a causal explanation of plant invasiveness: seedling growth and life history strategies of 29 pine (Pinus) species. American Naturalist 159: 396–419

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Holm LG, Plucknett DL, Pancho JV, Herberger JP (1977) Commelina benghalensis L., Commelina diffusa Burm. f. (=C. nudiflora sensu Merr., non L.), and Murdannia nudiflora (L.) Brenan (=Commelina nudiflora L., Aneilema nudiflorum [L.] Wall., and Aneilema malabaricum [L.] Merr.): Commelinaceae, spiderwort family. In: Holm LG (ed) The World’s Worst Weeds: Distribution and Biology, pp 225–235. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu

  • Kelly D and Skipworth JP (1984). Tradescantia fluminensis in a Manawatu (New Zealand) forest: I. Growth and effects on regeneration. New Zealand Journal of Botany 22: 393–397

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolb A and Alpert P (2003). Effects of nitrogen and salinity on growth and competition between a native grass and an invasive congener. Biological Invasions 5: 229–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolb A, Alpert P, Enters D and Holzapfel C (2002). Patterns of invasion within a grassland community. Journal of Ecology 90: 871–881

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krings A, Burton MG and York AC (2002). Commelina benghalensis (Commelinaceae) new to North Carolina and an updated key to Carolina congeners. Sida 20: 419–422

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurchania SP, Tiwari JP and Parakdkar NR (1991). Weed control in rice (Oryza sativa)–wheat (Triticum aestivum) cropping systems. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 61: 720–725

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lambers H and Poorter H (1992). Inherent variation in growth rate between higher plants: a search for physiological causes and ecological consequences. Advances in Ecological Research 23: 187–261

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Leger EA and Rice KJ (2003). Invasive California poppies (Eschscholzia californica Cham.) grow larger than natives under reduced competition. Ecology Letters 6: 257–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lortie CJ and Aarssen LW (1996). The specialization hypothesis for phenotypic plasticity in plants. International Journal of Plant Science 157: 484–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maillet J and 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 Research 40: 11–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niinements U, Valladares F and Ceulemans R (2003). Leaf level phenotypic plasticity of invasive Rhododendron ponticum and non-invasive Ilex aquifolium co-occurring at two contrasting European sites. Plant, Cell and Environments 26: 941–956

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NRCS Plants (2004) Natural Resources Conservation Service online database. http://plants.usda.gov. Cited 31 Mar 2004

  • Parker IM, Rodriguez J and Loik ME (2003). An evolutionary approach to understanding the biology of invasions: local adaptation and general-purpose genotypes in the weed Verbascum thapsus. Conservation Biology 17: 59–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pattison RR, Goldstein G and Ares A (1998). Growth, biomass allocation and photosynthesis of invasive and native Hawaiian rainforest species. Oecologia 117: 449–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poorter L (1999). Growth responses of 15 rain-forest tree species to a light gradient: the relative importance of morphological and physiological traits. Functional Ecology 13: 396–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pyšek P, Prach K and Smilauer P (1995). Relating invasion success to plant traits: an analysis of the Czech alien flora. In: Pyšek, P, Prach, K, Rejmanek, M, and Wade, M (eds) Plant Invasions, General Aspects and Special Problems, SPB Academic, Amsterdam 39–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Rice KJ and Mack RN (1991). Ecological genetics of Bromus tectorum. II. Intraspecific variation in phenotypic plasticity. Oecologia 88: 84–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SAS Institute (1989). JMP version 3.2.6. SAS Institute, Cary, NC

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweitzer JA and Larson KC (1999). Greater morphological plasticity of exotic honeysuckle species may make them better invaders than native species. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 126: 15–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simoes MA and Baruch Z (1991). Responses to simulated herbivory and water stress in two tropical C-4 grasses. Oecologia 88: 173–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Standish RJ, Robertson AW and Williams PA (2001). The impact of an invasive weed Tradescantia fluminensis on native forest regeneration. Journal of Applied Ecology 38: 1253–1263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinger T, Roy BA and Stanton ML (2003). Evolution in stressful environments II: adaptive value and costs of plasticity in response to low light in Sinapis arvensis. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 16: 313–323

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) (2002) Invasivespecies.gov. http://www.invasivespecies.gov. Cited 7 Feb 2002

  • Vila M and Weiner J (2004). Are invasive plant species better competitors than native plant species?—evidence from pair-wise experiments. Oikos 105: 229–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinig C (2000). Differing selection in alternative competitive environments: shade avoidance responses and germination timing. Evolution 54: 124–136

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wiersema JH and Leon B (1999). World Economic Plants: A Standard Reference. CRC Press, Boca Raton, 749

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams DG and Black RA (1994). Drought response of a native and introduced Hawaiian grass. Oecologia 97: 512–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson MH and Fitter A (1996). The characteristics of successful invaders. Biological Conservation 78: 163–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson AK (1981). Commelinaceae—a review of the distribution, biology and control of the important weeds belonging to this family. Tropical Pest Management 27: 405–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winn AA (1999). Is seasonal plasticity in leaf traits adaptive for the annual plant Dicerandra linearifolia?. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 12: 306–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yamashita N, Ishida A, Kushima H and Tanaka N (2000). Acclimation to sudden increase in light favoring an invasive over native trees in subtropical islands, Japan. Oecologia 125: 412–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biological Science, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, 32306-1100, USA

    Jean H. Burns & Alice A. Winn

Authors
  1. Jean H. Burns
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alice A. Winn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alice A. Winn.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Burns, J.H., Winn, A.A. A Comparison of Plastic Responses to Competition by Invasive and Non-invasive Congeners in the Commelinaceae. Biol Invasions 8, 797–807 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-005-3838-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-005-3838-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation