Oecologia

, Volume 141, Issue 1, pp 24–39 | Cite as

What makes a weed a weed: life history traits of native and exotic plants in the USA

Population Ecology

Abstract

I compared ten life history traits (vegetative reproduction, breeding system, compatibility, pollination system, shade tolerance, habitat, life span, life form, morphology, and toxicity) from two existing databases for the 19,960 plant species that occur in the USA. I used two-way tests of independence to determine if there were significant life history traits that distinguish weeds from non-weeds, exotic weeds from native weeds, and invasive exotic weeds from non-invasive exotic weeds. Life span was the most significant life history trait for weeds in general; weeds were more likely to be annuals and biennials and less likely to perennials than non-weeds. In addition, vegetative reproduction, breeding system, compatibility, shade tolerance, and life form were related to life span. Annual and biennial weeds (whether native, exotic, or exotic invasives) were more likely to be wetland adapted, armed, and toxic than annual or biennial non-weeds. Perennial weeds (whether native, exotic, or exotic invasives) were less likely to be forbs or subshrubs, and more likely to be wetland adapted, toxic, shade intolerant, grasses, vines and trees than perennial non-weeds. Exotic annual and perennial weeds were less likely to be wetland species than native weeds, but more likely to be wetland species than non-weeds. Invasive exotic weeds, in contrast, were less likely to be forbs and more likely to be perennial, monoecious, self-incompatible, and trees and than non-invasive exotics.

Keywords

Life span Compatibility Toxicity Vegetative reproduction Invasive 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Elaine K. Sutherland, Jane Kapler Smith, Jeanne Chambers, and an anonymous reviewer for comments on the manuscript.

References

  1. Aarssen LW (2000) Why are most selfers annuals? A new hypothesis for the fitness benefit of selfing. Oikos 89:606-612Google Scholar
  2. Asher J, Spurrier C (1998) The spread of invasive weeds in western wildlands. http://www.blm.gov/BIOSUMMI.wpd.htm
  3. Baker HG (1954) Research in Great Britain on species with weedy tendencies. Rapp Et Comm 8th Intern Congr De Botanique, vol 8. Paris, pp 110-112Google Scholar
  4. Baker HG (1962) Weeds-native and introduced. J Calif Hortic Soc 23:97-104Google Scholar
  5. Baker HG (1965) Characteristics and modes of origin of weeds. In: Baker HG, Stebbins GL (eds) The genetics of colonizing species. Academic Press, New York, pp 147-172Google Scholar
  6. Baker HG (1967) The evolution of weedy taxa in the Eupatorium microstemon species aggregate. Taxon 16:293-300Google Scholar
  7. Baker HG (1974) The evolution of weeds. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 5:1-24Google Scholar
  8. Baker HG (1986) Patterns of invasion in North America. In: Mooney HA, Drake JA (eds) Ecology of biological invasions in North America and Hawaii. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 44-57Google Scholar
  9. Baker HG (1991) The continuing evolution of weeds. Econ Bot 45:445-449Google Scholar
  10. Blossey B (1996) The search for patterns or what determines the increased competitive ability of invasive non-indigenous plants? In: Moran VC, Hoffman JH (eds) Proceedings of the IX international symposium on biological control of weeds, Stellenbosch, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, pp 3-9Google Scholar
  11. Blossey B, Notzold R (1995) Evolution of increased competitive ability in invasive non-indigenous plants: a hypothesis. J Ecol 83:887-889Google Scholar
  12. Bossard CC, Randall JM, Hoshovsky MC (eds) (2000) Invasive plants of California’s wildlands. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 360Google Scholar
  13. Crawley MJ (1987) What makes a community invasible? In: Gray AJ, Crawley MJ, Edwards PF (eds) Colonization, succession and stability. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 429-453Google Scholar
  14. Crawley MJ, Harvey PH, Purvis A (1996) Comparative ecology of the native and alien floras of the British Isles. Phil Trans R Soc London B 351:1251-1259Google Scholar
  15. Daehler CC (1998) The taxonomic distribution of invasive angiosperm plants: ecological insights and comparison to agricultural weeds. Biol Conserv 84:167-180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Daehler CC, Strong DR (1993) Prediction and biological invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 8:380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kartesz JT (1999) A synonymized checklist and Atlas with biological attributes for the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. In: Kartesz JT, Meacham CA (eds) Synthesis of the North American Flora. North Carolina Botanical Garden, Chapel HillGoogle Scholar
  18. Kartesz JT, Meacham CA (1999) Synthesis of the North American Flora. North Carolina Botanical Garden, Chapel HillGoogle Scholar
  19. Keane RM, Crawley MJ (2002) Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. Trends Ecol Evol 17:164-169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kolar CS, Lodge DM (2001) Progress in invasion biology: predicting invaders. Trends Ecol Evol 16:199-204CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Mack RN (1996) Predicting the identity and fate of plant invaders: emergent and emerging approaches. Biol Conserv 78:107-121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mack RN, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM, Evans H, Clout M, Bazzaz FA (2000) Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol Appl 10:689-710Google Scholar
  23. Noss RF, LaRoe ET, Scott JM (1995) Endangered ecosystems of the United States: a preliminary assessment of loss and degradation. Nat Biol Serv Biol Rep 128:58Google Scholar
  24. Olson B (1999) Impacts of noxious weeds on ecological and economic systems. In: Sheley R, Petroff J (eds) Biology and management of noxious rangeland weeds. Oregon State University Press, Corvalis, pp 4-18Google Scholar
  25. Perrins J, Williamson M, Fitter A (1992) A survey of differing views of weed classification: implications for regulation of introductions. Biol Conserv 60:47-56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pimentel DL, Lach L, Zuniga R, Morrison D (2000) Environmental and economic costs of non-indigenous species in the United States. Bioscience 50:53-65Google Scholar
  27. Plants for a Future (2002) Plants for a future database, Devon, England. http://www.comp.leeds.ac.uk/pfaf/
  28. Pysek P (2001) Past and future of predictions in plant invasions: a field test by time. Divers Distrib 7:145-151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Randall JM (1997) Defining weeds in natural areas. In: Luken JO, Thieret JW (eds) Assessment and management of plant invasions. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Randall JM, Hoshovsky MC (2000) California’s wildland invasive plants. In: Bossard CC, Randall JM, Hoshovsky MC (eds) Invasive plants of California’s wildlands. University of California Press, Berkeley, p 360Google Scholar
  31. Reichard SH, Hamilton CW (1997) Predicting invasions of woody plants introduced into North America. Conserv Biol 11:193-203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rejmanek M (1995) What makes a species invasive? In: Pysek P, Prach K, Rejmanek M, Wade M (eds) Plant invasions-general aspects and special problems. SPB Academic, Amsterdam, pp 3-13Google Scholar
  33. Rejmanek M (1996) A theory of seed plant invasiveness: the first sketch. Biol Conserv 78:171-181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rejmanek M, Richardson DM (1996) What attributes make some plants more invasive? Ecology 77:1655-1661Google Scholar
  35. Schmitz DC, Simberloff D (1997) Biological invasions: a growing threat. Issues in science and technology online. http://www.nap.edu/issues/13.4/schmit.htm
  36. Shea K, Chesson P (2002) Community ecology theory as a framework for biological invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 17:170-176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Siemann E, Rogers WE (2001) Genetic differences in growth of an invasive tree species. Ecol Lett 4:514-518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Siemann E, Rogers WE (2003) Herbivory, disease, recruitment limitation, and success of alien and native tree species. Ecology 84:1489-1505Google Scholar
  39. Simberloff D (2000) Introduced species: the threat to biodiversity and what can be done. http://www.actionbioscience.org/biodiversity/simberloff.html.
  40. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry, 3rd edn. Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  41. Sokal R, Rohlf FJ (2000) Biometry. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1993) Harmful, non-indigenous species in the United States. OTA-F-565. US Government, Printing Office, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  43. USDA, NRCS (2002) The PLANTS Database, Version 3.5 (http://plants.usda.gov). National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge
  44. Williamson M (1999) Invasions. Ecography 22:5-12Google Scholar
  45. Williamson MH, Fitter A (1996) The characters of successful invaders. Biol Conserv 78:163-170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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
  47. Wolfe LM (2002) Why alien invaders succeed: support for the escape-from-enemy hypothesis. Am Nat 160:705-711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fire Sciences LaboratoryRocky Mountain Research StationMissoulaUSA

Personalised recommendations