, Volume 138, Issue 4, pp 521–531

Biomass allocation, growth, and photosynthesis of genotypes from native and introduced ranges of the tropical shrub Clidemia hirta

  • Saara J. DeWalt
  • Julie S. Denslow
  • J. L. Hamrick
Population Ecology


We tested the hypothesis that the tropical shrub Clidemia hirta appears more shade tolerant and is more abundant in its introduced than native range because of genetic differences in resource acquisition, allocation, and phenotypic plasticity between native and introduced genotypes. We examined growth, biomass allocation, and photosynthetic parameters of C. hirta grown in a greenhouse from seed collected from four populations in part of its native range (Costa Rica) and four populations in part of its introduced range (Hawaiian Islands). Six-month-old seedlings were placed in high (10.3–13.9 mol m−2 day−1) or low (1.4–4.5 mol m−2 day−1) light treatments and grown for an additional 6 months. Our study provided little evidence that Hawaiian genotypes of C. hirta differed genetically from Costa Rican genotypes in ways that would contribute to differences in habitat distribution or abundance. Some of the genetic differences that were apparent, such as greater allocation to stems and leaf area relative to whole plant biomass in Costa Rican genotypes and greater allocation to roots in Hawaiian genotypes, were contrary to predictions that genotypes from the introduced range would allocate more biomass to growth and less to storage than those from the native range. Hawaiian and Costa Rican genotypes displayed no significant differences in relative growth rates, maximal photosynthetic rates, or specific leaf areas in either light treatment. In the high light environment, however, Hawaiian genotypes allocated more biomass to reproductive parts than Costa Rican genotypes. Phenotypic plasticity for only 1 of 12 morphological and photosynthetic variables was greater for Hawaiian than Costa Rican genotypes. We conclude that genetic shifts in resource use, resource allocation, or plasticity do not contribute to differences in habitat distribution and abundance between the native and introduced ranges of C. hirta.


Common garden Growth rates Invasive species Phenotypic plasticity Shade tolerance 

Supplementary material

Online Appendix

supp.pdf (66 kb)
(PDF 67 KB)


  1. Anonymous (1954) Notes and exhibitions. Proc Hawaiian Entomol Soc 15:263–265Google Scholar
  2. Balaguer L, Martínez-Ferri E, Valladares F, Pérez-Corona ME, Baquedano FJ, Castillo FJ, Manrique E (2001) Population divergence in the plasticity of the response of Quercus coccifera to the light environment. Funct Ecol 15:124–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baruch Z, Goldstein G (1999) Leaf construction cost, nutrient concentration, and net CO2 assimilation of native and invasive species in Hawaii. Oecologia 121:183–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blossey B, Kamil J (1996) What determines the increased competitive ability of invasive non-indigenous plants? In: Moran VC, Hoffmann JH (eds) IX International Symposium on Biological Control. University of Cape Town, Stellenbosch, South Africa, pp 3–9Google Scholar
  5. Blossey B, Nötzold R (1995) Evolution of increased competitive ability in invasive nonindigenous plants: a hypothesis. J Ecol 83:887–889Google Scholar
  6. Boardman NK (1977) Comparative photosynthesis of sun and shade plants. Annu Rev Plant Physiol 28:355–377Google Scholar
  7. Chazdon RL (1988) Sunflecks and their importance to forest understorey plants. Adv Ecol Res 18:1–62Google Scholar
  8. Chazdon RL, Fetcher N (1984) Photosynthetic light environments in a lowland tropical rainforest in Costa Rica. J Ecol 72:553–564Google Scholar
  9. Chazdon RL, Pearcy RW, Lee DW, Fetcher N (1996) Photosynthetic responses of tropical plants to contrasting light environments. In: Mulkey SS, Chazdon RL, Smith AP (eds) Tropical forest plant ecophysiology. Chapman, New York, pp 5–55Google Scholar
  10. Cornelissen JHC, Castro Diez P, Hunt R (1996) Seedling growth, allocation and leaf attributes in a wide range of woody plant species and types. J Ecol 84:755–765Google Scholar
  11. Denslow JS, Schultz JC, Vitousek PM, Strain BR (1990) Growth responses of tropical shrubs to treefall gap environments. Ecology 71:165–179Google Scholar
  12. DeWalt SJ (2003) The invasive tropical shrub Clidemia hirta (Melastomataceae) in its native and introduced ranges: tests of hypotheses of invasion. Ph.D. dissertation. Louisiana State University, Baton RougeGoogle Scholar
  13. DeWalt SJ, Denslow JS, Ickes K (2004) Natural-enemy release facilitates habitat expansion of the invasive tropical shrub Clidemia hirta. Ecology (in press)Google Scholar
  14. Durand LZ, Goldstein G (2001) Photosynthesis, photoinhibition, and nitrogen use efficiency in native and invasive tree ferns in Hawaii. Oecologia 126:345–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ellstrand NC, Schierenbeck KA (2000) Hybridization as a stimulus for the evolution of invasiveness in plants? Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:7043–7050CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Elton CS (1958) The ecology of invasions of animals and plants. Methuen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Evans GC (1972) The quantitative analysis of plant growth. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Fowler SV, Harman HM, Memmott J, Paynter Q, Shaw R, Sheppard AW, Syrett P (1996) Comparing the population dynamics of broom, Cytisus scoparius, as a native plant in the United Kingdom and France and as an invasive alien weed in Australia and New Zealand. In: Moran VC, Hoffmann JH (eds) IX International Symposium on Biological Control. University of Cape Town, Stellenbosch, pp 19–26Google Scholar
  19. Gerlach J (1993) Invasive Melastomataceae in Seychelles. Oryx 27:22–26Google Scholar
  20. Grime JP, Cornelissen JHC, Thompson K, Hodgson JG (1996) Evidence of a causal connection between anti-herbivore defence and the decomposition rate of leaves. Oikos 77:489–494Google Scholar
  21. Grotkopp E, Rejmánek M, Rost TL (2002) Toward a causal explanation of plant invasiveness: seedling growth and life-history strategies of 29 pine ( Pinus) species. Am Nat 159:396–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Huante P, Rincon E (1998) Responses to light changes in tropical deciduous woody seedlings with contrasting growth rates. Oecologia 113:53–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Keane RM, Crawley MJ (2002) Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. Trends Ecol Evol 17:164–170Google Scholar
  24. Kitajima K (1994) Relative importance of photosynthetic traits and allocation patterns as correlates of seedling shade tolerance of 13 tropical trees. Oecologia 98:419–428Google Scholar
  25. Leger EA, Rice KJ (2003) Invasive California poppies ( Eschscholzia californica Cham.) grow larger than native individuals under reduced competition. Ecol Lett 6:257–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lusk CH, Contreras O, Figueroa J (1997) Growth, biomass allocation and plant nitrogen concentration in Chilean temperate rainforest tree seedlings: effects of nutrient availability. Oecologia 109:49–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McDowell SCL (2002) Photosynthetic characteristics of invasive and noninvasive species of Rubus (Rosaceae). Am J Bot 89:1431–1438Google Scholar
  28. Mitchell CE, Power AG (2003) Release of invasive plants from fungal and viral pathogens. Nature 421:625–627CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Moles AT, Westoby M (2000) Do small leaves expand faster than large leaves, and do shorter expansion times reduce herbivore damage? Oikos 90:517–524Google Scholar
  30. Montgomery RA, Chazdon RL (2002) Light gradient partitioning by tropical tree seedlings in the absence of canopy gaps. Oecologia 131:165–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Noble IR (1989) Attributes of invaders and the invading process: terrestrial and vascular plants. In: Drake JA, et al (eds) Biological invasions: a global perspective. Wiley, New York, pp 301–313Google Scholar
  32. Oberbauer SF, Clark DA, Clark DB, Quesada M (1989) Comparative analysis of photosynthetic light environments within the crowns of juvenile rain-forest trees. Tree Physiol 5:13–23Google Scholar
  33. Pattison RR, Goldstein G, Ares A (1998) Growth, biomass allocation and photosynthesis of invasive and native Hawaiian rainforest species. Oecologia 117:449–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Paynter Q, Fowler SV, Hinz HL, Memmott J, Shaw R, Sheppard AW, Syrett P (1996) Are seed-feeding insects of use for the biological control of broom? In: Moran VC, Hoffmann JH (eds) IX International Symposium on Biological Control. University of Cape Town, Stellenbosch, pp 495–501Google Scholar
  35. Prioul JL, Chartier P (1977) Partitioning of transfer and carboxylation components of intracellular resistance to photosynthetic CO2 fixation: a critical analysis of the method used. Ann Bot 41:789–800Google Scholar
  36. Pritchard T (1960) Race formation in weedy species with special reference to Euphorbia cyparissias L. and Hypericum perforatum L. In: Harper JL (ed) The biology of weeds: a symposium of the British Ecological Society, Oxford, 2–4 April 1959. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 61–66Google Scholar
  37. Reich PB, Uhl C, Walters MB, Ellsworth DS (1991) Leaf lifespan as a determinant of leaf structure and function among 23 Amazonian tree species. Oecologia 86:16–24Google Scholar
  38. Reich PB, Walters MB, Ellsworth DS (1997) From tropics to tundra: global convergence in plant functioning. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:13730–13734PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Reich PB, Walters MB, Ellsworth DS, Vose JM, Volin JC, Gresham C, Bowman WD (1998) Relationships of leaf dark respiration to leaf N, SLA and lifespan: a test across biomes and functional groups. Oecologia 114:471–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Reichard SH, Hamilton CW (1997) Predicting invasions of woody plants introduced into North America. Conserv Biol 11:193–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rejmánek M, Richardson DM (1996) What attributes make some plant species more invasive? Ecology 77:1655–1661Google Scholar
  42. Renner SS (1989) A survey of reproductive biology in Neotropical Melastomataceae and Memecylaceae. Ann Mo Bot Gard 76:496–518Google Scholar
  43. Roy J (1990) In search of the characteristics of plant invaders. In: di Castri F, Hansen AJ, Debussche M (eds) Biological invasions in Europe and the Mediterranean Basin. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 335–352Google Scholar
  44. SAS (2000) SAS/STAT User’s Guide, Version 8, vols 1, 2, and 3. Cary, N.C.Google Scholar
  45. Schweitzer JA, Larson KC (1999) Greater morphological plasticity of exotic honeysuckle species may make them better invaders than native species. J Torrey Bot Soc 126:15–23Google Scholar
  46. Shipley B (2002) Trade-offs between net assimilation rate and specific leaf area in determining relative growth rate: relationship with daily irradiance. Funct Ecol 16:682–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Siemann E, Rogers WE (2001) Genetic differences in growth of an invasive tree species. Ecol Lett 4:514–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Siemann E, Rogers WE (2003a) Herbivory, disease, recruitment limitation, and success of alien and native tree species. Ecology 84:1489–1505Google Scholar
  49. Siemann E, Rogers WE (2003b) Reduced resistance of invasive varieties of the alien tree Sapium sebiferum to a generalist herbivore. Oecologia 135:451–457PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Smith CW (1992) Distribution, status, phenology, rate of spread, and management of Clidemia in Hawaii. In: Stone CP, Tunison JT, Smith CW (eds) Alien plant invasions in native ecosystems of Hawaii: management and research. University of Hawaii Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, Honolulu, pp 241–253Google Scholar
  51. Smith MD, Knapp AK (2001) Physiological and morphological traits of exotic, invasive exotic, and native plant species in tallgrass prairie. Int J Plant Sci 162:785–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Valladares F, Allen MT, Pearcy RW (1997) Photosynthetic responses to dynamic light under field conditions in six tropical rainforest shrubs occurring along a light gradient. Oecologia 111:505–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Valladares F, Wright SJ, Lasso E, Kitajima K, Pearcy RW (2000) Plastic phenotypic response to light of 16 congeneric shrubs from a Panamanian rainforest. Ecology 81:1925–1936Google Scholar
  54. Veneklaas EJ, Poorter L (1998) Growth and carbon partitioning of tropical tree seedlings in contrasting light environments. In: Lambers H, Poorter H, van Vuuren MMI (eds) Inherent variation in plant growth: physiological mechanisms and ecological consequences. Backhuys, Leiden, pp 337–361Google Scholar
  55. Vilà M, Gómez A, Maron JL (2003) Are alien plants more competitive than their native conspecifics? A test using Hypericum perforatum L. Oecologia 137:211–215CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Walters MB, Reich PB (1999) Low-light carbon balance and shade tolerance in the seedlings of woody plants: do winter deciduous and broad-leaved evergreen species differ? New Phytol 143:143–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Walters MB, Reich PB (2000) Trade-offs in low-light CO2 exchange: a component of variation in shade tolerance among cold temperate tree seedlings. Funct Ecol 14:155–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wester L (1992) Origin and distribution of adventive alien flowering plants in Hawaii. In: Stone CP, Tunison JT, Smith CW (eds) Alien plant invasions in native ecosystems of Hawaii: management and research. University of Hawaii Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, Honolulu, pp 99–154Google Scholar
  59. Wester LL, Wood HB (1977) Koster’s curse ( Clidemia hirta), a weed pest in Hawaiian forests. Environ Conserv 4:35–41Google Scholar
  60. Williamson M, Fitter A (1996) The characters of successful invaders. Biol Conserv 78:163–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Willis AJ, Blossey B (1999) Benign environments do not explain the increased vigour of non-indigenous plants: a cross-continental transplant experiment. Biocontrol Sci Technol 9:567–577Google Scholar
  62. Willis AJ, Thomas MB, Lawton JH (1999) Is the increased vigour of invasive weeds explained by a trade-off between growth and herbivore resistance? Oecologia 120:632–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Willis AJ, Memmott J, Forrester RI (2000) Is there evidence for the post-invasion evolution of increased size among invasive plant species? Ecol Lett 3:275–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Witkowski ETF, Lamont BB (1991) Leaf specific mass confounds leaf density and thickness. Oecologia 88:486–493Google Scholar
  65. Wright IJ, Westoby M (1999) Differences in seedling growth behaviour among species: trait correlations across species, and trait shifts along nutrient compared to rainfall gradients. J Ecol 87:85–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Saara J. DeWalt
    • 1
    • 4
  • Julie S. Denslow
    • 2
  • J. L. Hamrick
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesLouisiana State UniversityBaton RougeUSA
  2. 2.Institute of Pacific Islands ForestryUSDA Forest ServiceHiloUSA
  3. 3.Department of Plant Biology, Department of GeneticsUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  4. 4.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, MS 170Rice UniversityHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations