, Volume 159, Issue 4, pp 803–815

Novel weapons and invasion: biogeographic differences in the competitive effects of Centaurea maculosa and its root exudate (±)-catechin

  • Wei-Ming He
  • Yulong Feng
  • Wendy M. Ridenour
  • Giles C. Thelen
  • Jarrod L. Pollock
  • Alecu Diaconu
  • Ragan M. Callaway
Community Ecology - Original Paper


Recent studies suggest that the invasive success of Centaurea maculosa may be related to its stronger allelopathic effects on native North American species than on related European species, one component of the “novel weapons” hypothesis. Other research indicates that C. maculosa plants from the invasive range in North America have evolved to be larger and better competitors than conspecifics from the native range in Europe, a component of the “evolution of increased competitive ability” hypothesis. These hypotheses are not mutually exclusive, but this evidence sets the stage for comparing the relative importance of evolved competitive ability to inherent competitive traits. In a competition experiment with a large number of C. maculosa populations, we found no difference in the competitive effects of C. maculosa plants from North America and Europe on other species. However, both North American and European C. maculosa were much better competitors against plants native to North America than congeners native to Romania, collected in areas where C. maculosa is also native. These results are consistent with the novel weapons hypothesis. But, in a second experiment using just one population from North America and Europe, and where North American and European species were collected from a broader range of sites, competitive interactions were weaker overall, and the competitive effects of C. maculosa were slightly stronger against European species than against North American species. Also consistent with the novel weapons hypothesis, (±)-catechin had stronger effects on native North American species than on native European species in two experiments. Our results suggest that the regional composition of the plant communities being invaded by C. maculosa may be more important for invasive success than the evolution of increased size and competitive ability.


Allelopathy (±)-Catechin Competition Evolution of increased competitive ability (EICA) Invasion Novel weapons hypothesis 

Supplementary material

442_2008_1234_MOESM1_ESM.doc (80 kb)
MOESM1 (DOC 81 kb)
442_2008_1234_MOESM2_ESM.doc (462 kb)
MOESM2 (DOC 462 kb)


  1. Bais HP, Walker TS, Stermitz FR, Hufbauer RA, Vivanco JM (2002) Enantiomeric-dependent phytotoxic and antimicrobial activity of (±)-catechin. A rhizosecreted racemic mixture from spotted knapweed. Plant Physiol 128:1173–1179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bais HP, Vepachedu R, Gilroy S, Callaway RM, Vivanco JM (2003) Allelopathy and exotic plant invasion: from molecules and genes to species interactions. Science 301:1377–1380PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blair AC, Hanson BD, Brunk GR, Marrs RA, Westra P, Nissen SJ, Hufbauer RA (2005) New techniques and findings in the study of a candidate allelochemical implicated in invasion success. Ecol Lett 8:1039–1047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blair AC, Nissen SJ, Brunk GR, Hufbauer RA (2006) A lack of evidence for an ecological role of the putative allelochemical (±)-catechin in spotted knapweed invasion success. J Chem Ecol 32:2327–2331PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blossey B, Nötzold R (1995) Evolution of increased competitive ability in invasive nonindigenous plants: a hypothesis. J Ecol 83:887–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bossdorf O, Prati D, Auge H, Schmid B (2004) Reduced competitive ability in an invasive plant. Ecol Lett 7:346–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bossdorf O, Auge H, Lafuma L, Rogers WE, Siemann W, Prati D (2005) Phenotypic and genetic differentiation between native and introduced plant populations. Oecologia 144:1–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Callaway RM, Aschehoug ET (2000) Invasive plants versus their new and old neighbors: a mechanism for exotic invasion. Science 290:521–523PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Callaway RM, Maron JL (2006) What have exotic plant invasions taught us over the past 20 years? Trends Ecol Evol 21:369–374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Callaway RM, Ridenour WM (2004) Novel weapons: a biochemically based hypothesis for invasive success and the evolution of increased competitive ability. Front Ecol Environ 2:436–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Callaway RM, Thelen GC, Rodriguez A, Holben WE (2004) Soil biota and exotic plant invasion. Nature 427:731–733PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Callaway RM, Ridenour WM, Laboski T, Weir T, Vivanco JM (2005) Natural selection for resistance to the allelopathic effects of invasive plants. J Ecol 93:576–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Callaway RM, Cipollini D, Barto K, Thelen GC, Hallett SG, Prati D, Stinson K, Klironomos J (2008) Novel weapons: invasive plant suppresses fungal mutualists in America but not in its native Europe. Ecology 89:1043–1055PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cappuccino N, Arnason JT (2006) Novel chemistry of invasive exotic plants. Biol Lett 2:189–193PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cappuccino N, Carpenter D (2005) Invasive exotic plants suffer less herbivory than non-invasive plants. Biol Lett 1:435–438PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carpenter D, Cappuccino N (2005) Herbivory, time since introduction and the invasiveness of exotic plants. J Ecol 93:315–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. D’Abrosca B, Dellagreca M, Fiorention A, Isidori M, Monaco P, Pacifico S (2006) Chemical constituents of the aquatic plant Schoenoplectus lacustris: evaluation of phytotoxic effects on the green alga Selenatrum capricornutum. J Chem Ecol 32:81–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ellstrand NC, Schierenbeck KA (2000) Hybridization as a stimulus for the evolution of invasiveness in plants. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:7043–7050PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Furubayashi A, Hiradate S, Fujii Y (2007) Role of catechol structure in the adsorption and transformation reactions of l-DOPA in soils. J Chem Ecol 33:239–250PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Genton BJ, Kotanen PM, Cheptou P-O, Adolphe C, Shykoff JA (2005) Enemy release but no evolutionary loss of defence in a plant invasion: an inter-continental reciprocal transplant experiment. Oecologia 146:404–414PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goldberg DE (1987) Neighborhood competition in an old-field plant community. Ecology 68:1211–1223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hierro JL, Maron JL, Callaway RM (2005) A biogeographic approach to plant invasions: the importance of studying exotics in their introduced and native range. J Ecol 93:5–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Inderjit, Pollock JL, Callaway RM, Holben W (2008a) Phytotoxic effects of (±)-catechin in vitro, in soil, and in the field. PLoS ONE 3(7):e2536. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002536 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Inderjit, Seastedt TR, Callaway RM, Pollock JL, Kaur J (2008b) Allelopathy and plant invasions: traditional, congeneric, and biogeographical approaches. Biol Invasions 10:875–890. doi:10.1007/s10530-008-9239-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Iqbal Z, Hiradate S, Noda A, Isojima SI, Fujii Y (2003) Allelopathic activity of buckwheat: isolation and characterization of phenolics. Weed Sci 51:657–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jakobs G, Weber E, Edwards PJ (2004) Introduced plants of the invasive Solidago gigantean (Asteraceae) are larger and grow denser than conspecifics in the native range. Divers Distrib 10:11–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Janzen DH (1975) Pseudomyrmex nigripilosa: a parasite of a mutualism. Science 188:936–937PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Joshi J, Vrieling K (2005) The enemy release and EICA hypothesis revisited: incorporating the fundamental difference between specialist and generalist herbivores. Ecol Lett 8:704–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Keane RM, Crawley MJ (2002) Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. Trends Ecol Evol 17:164–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leger EA, Rice KJ (2003) Invasive Californian poppies (Eschscholzia californica Cham.) grow larger than native individuals under reduced competition. Ecol Lett 6:257–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. LeJeune KD, Seastedt TR (2001) Centaurea species: the forb that won the west. Conserv Biol 15:1568–1574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mallik AU, Pellissier F (2000) Effects of Vaccinium myrtillus on spruce regeneration: testing the notion of coevolutionary significance of allelopathy. J Chem Ecol 26:2197–2209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Maron JL, Vilà M, Arnason J (2004a) Loss of enemy resistance among introduced populations of St. John’s Wort, Hypericum perforatum. Ecology 85:3243–3253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Maron JL, Vilà M, Bommarco R, Elmendorf S, Beardsley P (2004b) Rapid evolution of an invasive plant. Ecol Monogr 74:261–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McKenney JL, Cripps MG, Price WJ, Hinz HL, Schwarzländer M (2007) No difference in competitive ability between invasive North American and native European Lepidium draba populations. Plant Ecol 193:293–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Müller H (1989) Growth pattern of diploid and tetraploid spotted knapweed, Centaurea maculosa Lam. (Compositae), and effects of the root-mining moth Agapeta. Weed Res 29:103–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Müller-Schärer H, Schroeder D (1993) The biological control of Centaurea spp. in North America: do insects solve the problem? Pestic Sci 37:343–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Müller-Schärer H, Schaffner U, Steinger T (2004) Evolution in invasive plants: implications for biological control. Trends Ecol Evol 19:417–422PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Perry LG, Johnson C, Alford ER, Vivanco JM, Paschke MW (2005a) Screening of grassland plants for restoration after spotted knapweed invasion. Restor Ecol 13:725–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Perry LG, Thelen GC, Ridenour WM, Weir TL, Callaway RM, Paschke MW, Vivanco JM (2005b) Dual role for an allelochemical: (±)-catechin from Centaurea maculosa root exudates regulates conspecific seedling establishment. J Ecol 93:1126–1135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Perry LG, Thelen GC, Ridenour WM, Callaway RM, Paschke MW, Vivanco JM (2007) Soil concentrations of the allelochemical (±)-catechin. J Chem Ecol 2171–2345Google Scholar
  42. Prati D, Bossdorf O (2004) Allelopathic inhibition of germination by Alliaria petiolata (Brassicaceae). Am J Bot 91:285–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rabotnov TA (1982) Importance of the evolutionary approach to the study of allelopathy. Ékologia 3:5–8 (translated from Russian)Google Scholar
  44. Ridenour WM, Callaway RM (2001) The relative importance of allelopathy in interference: the effects of an invader on a native bunchgrass. Oecologia 126:444–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ridenour WM, Vivanco JM, Feng Y, Horiuchi J, Callaway RM (2008) No evidence for tradeoffs: Centaurea plants from America are better competitors and defenders than plants from the native range. Ecol Monogr 78:369–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Roché BF, Roché CT (1988) Distribution and amount of four knapweed (Centaurea L.) species in eastern Washington. Northwest Sci 62:242–253Google Scholar
  47. Rudrappa T, Bonsall J, Gallagher JL, Seliskar DM, Bais HP (2007) Root-secreted allelochemical in the noxious weed Phragmites australis deploys a reactive oxygen species response and microtubule assembly disruption to execute rhizotoxicity. J Chem Ecol 33:1898–1918PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sheley RL, Jacob JS, Carpinelli MF (1998) Distribution, biology, and management of diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa) and spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa). Weed Technol 12:353–362Google Scholar
  49. Siemann E, Rogers WE (2001) Genetic differences in growth of an invasive tree species. Ecol Lett 4:514–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Siemann E, Rogers WE (2003a) Increased competitive ability of an invasive tree may be limited by an invasive beetle. Ecol Appl 13:1503–1507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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
  52. Simões K, Du J, Kretzshmar FS, Broeckling CD, Stermiz FS, Vivanco JM, Braga MR (2008) Phytotoxic catechin exuded by seeds of the tropical weed Sesbania virgata. J Chem Ecol 34:681–687PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Strauss S, Webb CO, Salamin N (2006) Exotic taxa less related to native species are more invasive. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:5841–5845PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Thelen GC, Vivanco JM, Newingham B, Good W, Bais HP, Landres P, Caesar A, Callaway RM (2005) Insect herbivory stimulates allelopathic exudation by an invasive plant and suppression of natives. Ecol Lett 8:209–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Thorpe AS (2006) Biochemical effects of Centaurea maculosa on soil nutrient cycles and plant communities. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Montana, Missoula, MTGoogle Scholar
  56. Vivanco JM, Bais HP, Stermitz F, Thelen GC, Callaway RM (2004) Biogeographical variation in community response to root allelochemistry: novel weapons and exotic invasion. Ecol Lett 7:285–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Weir TL, Bais HP, Vivanco JM (2003) Intraspecific and interspecific interactions mediated by a phytotoxin, (±)-catechin, secreted by the roots of Centaurea maculosa (spotted knapweed). J Chem Ecol 29:2379–2393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Weir TL, Bais HP, Stull VJ, Callaway RM, Thelen GC, Ridenour WM, Bhamidi S, Stermitz FR, Vivanco JM (2006) Oxalate contributes to the resistance of Gaillardia grandiflora and Lupinus sericeus to a phytotoxin produced by Centaurea maculosa. Planta 223:785–795PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wolfe LM (2002) Why alien invaders succeed: support for the escape-from-enemy hypothesis. Am Nat 160:705–711PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wei-Ming He
    • 1
  • Yulong Feng
    • 2
  • Wendy M. Ridenour
    • 3
  • Giles C. Thelen
    • 3
  • Jarrod L. Pollock
    • 3
  • Alecu Diaconu
    • 4
  • Ragan M. Callaway
    • 3
  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Vegetation and Environmental Change, Institute of BotanyChinese Academy of Sciences (CAS)BeijingChina
  2. 2.Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical GardenChinese Academy of Sciences (CAS)MenglaChina
  3. 3.Division of Biological SciencesThe University of MontanaMissoulaUSA
  4. 4.Institute of Biological ResearchIasiRomania

Personalised recommendations