Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of interspecific alien versus intraspecific native competition on growth of native woody plants

  • Published:
Plant Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The success of invasive plants and their impacts on community structure are commonly explained by referring to their supposed higher competitive ability. However, invasive plants do not consistently outperform native species; and the role of competition may also depend on the stage of the invasion process. This study investigated competitive effects of woody alien plant species at an early stage of invasion (Archontophoenix cunninghamiana and Psidium guajava) on closely related New Zealand native species of similar life form (Rhopalostylis sapida and Lophomyrtus bullata, respectively) at several points over time in a shadehouse experiment. Effects of interspecific competition from the paired alien species seedlings on a native seedling were compared to the effects from intraspecific competition of other seedlings of the native species over a 65 week period. Mortality was low throughout the experiment. The native species were affected by density-dependent competition generally, resulting in decreased performance with increasing neighbour density or biomass. The alien palm, A. cunninghamiana, however, had stronger competitive effects on the native palm, R. sapida, than intraspecific competition among R. sapida individuals. Also, P. guajava showed some stronger competitive effects on L. bullata than intraspecific competition among L. bullata individuals. These alien species displayed some traits often associated with invasive plants: A. cunninghamiana had higher RGR, height, biomass production and SLA than R. sapida, while P. guajava had higher SLA than L. bullata. Competitive ability of these newly naturalised species may be an important factor influencing their establishment success and subsequent invasion potential.

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. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bengtsson J, Fagerström T, Rydin H (1994) Competition and coexistence in plant communities. Trends Ecol Evol 9:246–250

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burns JH, Winn AA (2006) A comparison of plastic responses to competition by invasive and non-invasive congeners in the Commelinaceae. Biol Invasions 8:797–807

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callaway RM, Walker LR (1997) Competition and facilitation: a synthetic approach to interactions in plant communities. Ecology 78:1958–1965

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christianini AV (2006) Fecundity, dispersal and predation of seeds of Archontophoenix cunninghamiana H. Wendl. & Drude, an invasive palm in the Atlantic forest. Rev Bras Bot 29:587–594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coomes DA, Allen RB (2007) Effects of size, competition and altitude on tree growth. J Ecol 95:1084–1097

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craine JM (2009) Resource strategies of wild plants. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Craine JM, Dybzinski R (2013) Mechanisms of plant competition for nutrients, water and light. Funct Ecol 27:833–840

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craine JM, Lee WG, Walker S (2006) The context of plant invasions in New Zealand: evolutionary history and novel niches. In: Allen RB, Lee WG (eds) Biological invasions in New Zealand. Springer, Berlin, pp 167–177

    Chapter  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 

  • Domènech R, Vilà M (2008) Response of the invader Cortaderia selloana and two coexisting natives to competition and water stress. Biol Invasions 10:903–912

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Serrano H, Sans FX, Escarré J (2007) Interspecific competition between alien and native congeneric species. Acta Oecol 31:69–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson DJ, Connolly J, Hartnett DC, Weidenhamer JD (1999) Designs for greenhouse studies of interactions between plants. J Ecol 87:1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg DE, Barton AM (1992) Patterns and consequences of interspecific competition in natural communities: a review of field experiments with plants. Am Nat 139:771–801

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg DE, Landa K (1991) Competitive effect and response: hierarchies and correlated traits in the early stages of competition. J Ecol 79:1013–1030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg DE, Scheiner SM (2001) ANOVA and ANCOVA. Field competition experiments. In: Scheiner SM, Gurevitch J (eds) Design and analysis of ecological experiments. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 69–93

    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 

  • Jones DL (1996) Palms in Australia. Reed Books Australia, Melbourne

    Google Scholar 

  • Kawaletz H, Mölder I, Zerbe S, Annighöfer P, Terwei A, Ammer C (2013) Exotic tree seedlings are much more competitive than natives but show underyielding when growing together. J Plant Ecol 6:305–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamarque LJ, Delzon S, Lortie CJ (2011) Tree invasions: a comparative test of the dominant hypotheses and functional traits. Biol Invasions 13:1969–1989

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine JM, Vilà M, D’Antonio CM, Dukes JS, Grigulis K, Lavorel S (2003) Mechanisms underlying the impacts of exotic plant invasions. P Roy Soc Lond B Bio 270:775–781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacDougall AS, Gilbert B, Levine JM (2009) Plant invasions and the niche. J Ecol 97:609–615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mangla S, Sheley RL, James JJ, Radosevich SR (2011) Intra and interspecific competition among invasive and native species during early stages of plant growth. Plant Ecol 212:531–542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (2013) Climate. http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate. Accessed 25 June 2013

  • Ordonez A, Wright IJ, Olff H (2010) Functional differences between native and alien species: a global-scale comparison. Funct Ecol 24:1353–1361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramseier D, Weiner J (2006) Competitive effect is a linear function of neighbour biomass in experimental populations of Kochia scoparia. J Ecol 94:305–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Randall R (2007) Global compendium of weeds. http://www.hear.org/gcw/. Accessed 21 June 2013

  • Reich PB, Ellsworth DS, Walters MB (1998) Leaf structure (specific leaf area) modulates photosynthesis-nitrogen relations: evidence from within and across species and functional groups. Funct Ecol 12:948–958

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson DM, Rejmánek M (2011) Trees and shrubs as invasive alien species—a global review. Divers Distrib 17:788–809

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwinning S, Weiner J (1998) Mechanisms determining the degree of size asymmetry in competition among plants. Oecologia 113:447–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard CS (2013) How does selection of climate variables affect predictions of species distributions? A case study of three new weeds in New Zealand. Weed Res 53:259–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorpe AS, Aschehoug ET, Atwater DZ, Callaway RM (2011) Interactions among plants and evolution. J Ecol 99:729–740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilman D (1982) Resource competition and community structure. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Trinder CJ, Brooker RW, Robinson D (2013) Plant ecology’s guilty little secret: understanding the dynamics of plant competition. Funct Ecol 27:918–929

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Kleunen M, Weber E, Fischer M (2010) A meta-analysis of trait differences between invasive and non-invasive plant species. Ecol Lett 13:235–245

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Venables WN, Ripley BD (2002) Modern applied statistics with S. Fourth edition. Springer

  • Vilà M, 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 

  • Vilà M, Espinar JL, Hejda M, Hulme PE, Jarošík V, Maron JL, Pergl 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Weiner J (1990) Asymmetric competition in plant populations. Trends Ecol Evol 5:360–364

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Williams PA (2006) The role of blackbirds (Turdus merula) in weed invasion in New Zealand. New Zeal J Ecol 30:285–291

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank M. Stanley for her input into this study and helpful comments on a draft of this manuscript. We are grateful to L. Buetje, K. Booth, M. Perez and A. Probert for their assistance with harvesting plants. This research was funded by The University of Auckland and Auckland Council.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Biodiversity and Biosecurity, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand

    Christine S. Sheppard & Bruce R. Burns

  2. Institute of Landscape and Plant Ecology, University of Hohenheim, August-von-Hartmann Str. 3, 70599, Stuttgart, Germany

    Christine S. Sheppard

Authors
  1. Christine S. Sheppard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bruce R. Burns
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christine S. Sheppard.

Additional information

Communicated by R. Ostertag.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 382 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sheppard, C.S., Burns, B.R. Effects of interspecific alien versus intraspecific native competition on growth of native woody plants. Plant Ecol 215, 1527–1538 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-014-0411-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-014-0411-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation