Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 170, Issue 4, pp 1123–1132 | Cite as

Expansion of a globally pervasive grass occurs without substantial trait differences between home and away populations

  • A. Leifso
  • A. S. MacDougall
  • B. Husband
  • J. L. Hierro
  • M. Köchy
  • M. Pärtel
  • D. A. Peltzer
Community ecology - Original research

Abstract

The global expansion of species beyond their ancestral ranges can derive from mechanisms that are trait-based (e.g., post-establishment evolved differences compared to home populations) or circumstantial (e.g., propagule pressure, with no trait-based differences). These mechanisms can be difficult to distinguish following establishment, but each makes unique predictions regarding trait similarity between ancestral (‘home’) and introduced (‘away’) populations. Here, we tested for trait-based population differences across four continents for the globally distributed grass Dactylis glomerata, to assess the possible role of trait evolution in its worldwide expansion. We used a common-environment glasshouse experiment to quantify trait differences among home and away populations, and the potential relevance of these differences for competitive interactions. Few significant trait differences were found among continents, suggesting minimal change during global expansion. All populations were polyploids, with similar foliar carbon:nitrogen ratios (a proxy for defense), chlorophyll content, and biomass. Emergence time and growth rate favored home populations, resulting in their competitive superiority over away populations. Small but significant trait differences among away populations suggest different introductory histories or local adaptive responses following establishment. In summary, the worldwide distribution of this species appears to have arisen from its pre-adapted traits promoting growth, and its repeated introduction with cultivation and intense propagule pressure. Global expansion can thus occur without substantial shifts in growth, reproduction, or defense. Rather than focusing strictly on the invader, invasion success may also derive from the traits found (or lacking) in the recipient community and from environmental context including human disturbance.

Keywords

Invasion ecology Common-environment trial Competition Plant functional traits Orchard grass 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Julie Maniecki, Erin Leclair, Greg Baute, Paul Kron, Sarah Baldwin, Tannis Slimmon, Mike Mucci, Pedro Tognetti, Enrique Chaneton, Walter Martin, Karl Fiander, Jennifer Firn, Hafiz Maherali, Merritt Turetsky, John Klironomos, and Rieger-Hoffmann. Seed importation and the destruction of plant material at the end of the experiment followed the guidelines of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Funding provided by NSERC (Canada), the European Union through the European Regional Development Fund (Estonian Center of Excellence FIBIR) (Estonia), FCEyN and CONICET (Argentina), the International Bureau of the Federal Ministry for Education and Research (Germany), and by the New Zealand Foundation for Research, Science and Technology grant C09X0502.

Supplementary material

442_2012_2370_MOESM1_ESM.doc (96 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 96 kb)

References

  1. Ainouche ML, Fortune PM, Salmon A, Parisod C, Grandbastien M-A, Fukunaga K, Ricou M, Misset M-T (2009) Hybridization, polyploidy and invasion: lessons from Spartina (Poaceae). Biol Invas 11:1159–1173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennett MD, Smith JB (1976) Nuclear DNA amounts in angiosperms. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 274:227–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blossey B, Nötzold R (1995) Evolution of increased competitive ability in invasive non-indigenous plants: a hypothesis. J Ecol 83:887–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bossdorf O, Auge H, Lafuma L, Rogers WE, Siemann E, Prati D (2005) Phenotypic and genetic differentiation between native and introduced plant populations. Oecologia 144:1–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bretagnolle F, Thompson JD (2001) Phenotypic plasticity in sympatric diploid and autotetraploid Dactylis glomerata. Int J Plant Sci 162:309–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Callaway RM, Thelen GC, Rodriguez A, Holben W (2004) Release from inhibitory soil biota in Europe may promote exotic plant invasion in North America. Nature 427:731–733PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Casler MD, Fales SL, McElroy AR, Hall MH, Hoffman LD, Leath KT (2000) Genetic progress from 40 years of orchard grass breeding in North America measured under hay management. Crop Sci 40:1019–1025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chapin FS, Mooney HA, Matson PA (2002) Principles of terrestrial ecosystem ecology. Springer, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  9. Colautti RI, Maron JL, Barrett SCH (2009) Common garden comparisons of native and introduced plant populations: latitudinal clines can obscure evolutionary inferences. Evol Appl 2:187–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Creber H, Daview MS, Francis D, Walker HD (1994) Variation in DNA C value in natural populations of Dactylis glomerata L. New Phytol 128:555–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. D’Antonio C, Vitousek PM (1992) Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass fire cycle, and global change. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 23:63–87Google Scholar
  12. Didham RK, Tylianakis JM, Hutchison MA, Ewers RM, Gemmell NJ (2005) Are invasive species the drivers of ecological change? Trends Ecol Evol 20:470–474PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dolezel J, Binarová P, Lucretti S (1989) Analysis of nuclear DNA content in plant cells by flow cytometry. Biol Plant 31:113–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Firn J, MacDougall AS, Schmidt S, Buckley YM (2010) Early emergence and resource availability can competitively favour natives over a functionally similar invader. Oecologia 163:775–784PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Firn J, Moore JL, MacDougall AS, Borer ET, Seabloom EW et al (2011) Abundance of introduced species at home predicts abundance away in herbaceous communities. Ecol Lett 14:274–281PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gaskin JF, Schaal BA (2002) Hybrid Tamarix widespread in U.S. invasion and undetected in native Asian range. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 99:11256–11259PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gauthier P, Lumaret R, Bedecarrats A (1998) Ecotype differentiation and coexistence of two parapatric tetraploid subspecies of cocksfoot (Dactylis glomerata) in the Alps. New Phytol 139:741–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goldberg DE, Landa K (1991) Competitive effect and response: hierarchies and correlated traits in the early stages of competition. J Ecol 79:1013–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harnden J, MacDougall AS, Sikes B (2011) Field-based effects of allelopathy in invaded tallgrass prairie. Botany 89:227–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harpole WS, Tilman D (2005) Non-neutral patterns of species abundance in grassland communities. Ecol Lett 9:15–23Google Scholar
  21. Henery ML, Bowman G, Mráz P, Treier UA, Gex-Fabr E, Schaffner U, Müller-Schrer H (2010) Evidence for a combination of pre-adapted traits and rapid adaptive change in the invasive plant Centaurea stoebe. J Ecol 98:800–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hierro JL, Maron JL, Callaway RM (2005) A biogeographical approach to plant invasions: the importance of studying exotica in their introduced and native range. J Ecol 98:800–813Google Scholar
  23. Hierro JL, Eren Ö, Khetsuriani L, Diaconu A, Török K et al (2009) Germination responses of an invasive species in native and non-native ranges. Oikos 118:529–538Google Scholar
  24. HilleRisLambers J, Yelenik SG, Colman BP, Levine JM (2010) California annual grass invaders: the passengers, not drivers, of change. J Ecol 98:1147–1156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Küster EC, Kühn I, Bruelheide H, Klotz S (2008) Trait interactions help explain plant invasion success in the German flora. J Ecol 96:860–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lambdon PW (2008) Why is habitat breadth correlated strongly with range size? Trends amongst the alien and native floras of Mediterranean islands. J Biogeogr 35:1095–1105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lindner R, Lema M, García A (1999) Ecotypic differences and performance of the genetic resources of cocksfoot (Dactylis glomerata L.) in northwest Spain. Grass Forage Sci 54:336–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lolicato S, Rumball W (1994) Past and present improvement of cocksfoot (Dactylis glomerata L.) in Australia and New Zealand. NZ J Agr Res 37:379–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lortie CJ, Munshaw M, Zikovitz A, Hierro J (2009) Cage matching: head to head competition experiments of an invasive plant species from different regions as a means to test for differentiation. PLoS One 4:e4823PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lumaret R (1988) Cytology, genetics and evolution in the genus Dactylis. Crit Rev Plant Sci 7:55–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. MacDougall AS, Turkington R (2004) Relative importance of suppression-based and tolerance-based competition in an invaded oak savanna. J Ecol 92:422–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. MacDougall AS, Turkington R (2005) Are invasive species the drivers or passengers of change in degraded ecosystems? Ecology 86:42–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. MacDougall AS, Beckwith B, Maslovat C (2004) Defining conservation strategies with historical perspectives: a case study from a degraded oak ecosystem. Conserv Biol 18:455–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. MacDougall AS, Rillig M, Klironomos J (2011) Weak conspecific feedbacks and exotic dominance in a species-rich savanna. Proc R Soc Lond B 278:2939–2945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Maceira NO, Jacquard P, Lumaret R (1993) Competition between diploid and derivative autotetraploid Dactylis glomerata L. from Galicia: implications for the establishment of novel polyploid populations. New Phytol 124:321–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mack RN, Pyke DA (1983) The demography of Bromus tectorum: variation in time and space. J Ecol 71:69–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mason RAB, Cooke J, Moles AT, Leishman MR (2008) Reproductive output of invasive versus native plants. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 17:633–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Norton DA (2009) Species invasions and the limits to restoration: learning from the New Zealand experience. Science 325:569–571PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Petitpierre B, Kueffer C, Broennimann O, Randin C, Daehler C, Guisan A (2012) Climate niche shifts are rare among terrestrial plant invaders. Science 335:1344–1347PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ramette A (2007) Multivariate analyses in microbial ecology. FEMS Microb Ecol 62:142–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ricklefs RE, Guo Q, Qian H (2008) Growth form and distribution of introduced plants in their native and non-native ranges in Eastern Asia and North America. Divers Distrib 14:381–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rout ME, Callaway RM (2009) An invasive plant paradox. Science 324:734–735PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sax D, Brown J (2000) The paradox of invasion. Divers Distrib 14:381–386Google Scholar
  44. Schepers JS, Francis DD, Vigil M, Below FE (1992) Comparison of corn leaf nitrogen and chlorophyll meter readings. Comm Soil Sci Plant Anal 23:2173–2187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Seabloom EW, Harpole WS, Reichman OJ, Tilman D (2003) Invasion, competitive dominance, and resource use by exotic and native California grassland species. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 100:13384–13389PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Simpson GM (2007) Seed dormancy in grasses, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Stebbins GL (1985) Polyploidy, hybridization, and the invasion of new habitats. Ann Miss Bot Gard 72:824–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Suda J, Trávniček P (2006) Reliable DNA ploidy determination in dehydrated tissues of vascular plants by DAPI flow cytometry—new prospects for plant research. Cytometry 69:273–280PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sugiyama S (2003) Geographical distribution and phenotype differentiation in populations of Dactylis glomerata L. in Japan. Plant Ecol 169:295–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Thebaud C, Simberloff D (2001) Are plants really larger in their introduced ranges? Am Nat 157:231–236PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thebault A, Gillet F, Müller-Schärer H, Buttler A (2011) Polyploidy and invasion success: trait trade-offs in native and introduced cytotypes of two Asteraceae species. Plant Ecol 212:315–325Google Scholar
  52. Tilman D (1988) Plant strategies and the dynamics of plant communities. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  53. Tuna M, Khadka DK, Shrestha MK, Arumuganathan K, Golan-Goldhirsh A (2004) Characterization of natural orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata L.) populations of the Thrace Region of Turkey based on ploidy and DNA polymorphisms. Euphytica 135:39–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. van Kleunen M, Dawson W, Schlaepfer DR, Jeschke JM, Fischer M (2010) Are invaders different? A conceptual framework of comparative approaches for assessing determinants of invasiveness. Ecol Lett 13:947–958PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Vilhar B, Vidie T, Jogan N, Dermastia M (2002) Genome size and the nucleolar number as estimators of ploidy level in Dactylis glomerata in the Slovenian Alps. Plant Syst Evol 234:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zohary D (1959) Natural triploids in the orchard grass, Dactylis glomerata L., polyploid complex and their significance for gene flow from diploid to tetraploid levels. Evolution 13:311–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Leifso
    • 1
  • A. S. MacDougall
    • 1
  • B. Husband
    • 1
  • J. L. Hierro
    • 2
  • M. Köchy
    • 3
  • M. Pärtel
    • 4
  • D. A. Peltzer
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Integrative BiologyUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada
  2. 2.Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, (INCITAP) CONICET-UNLPamUniversidad Nacional de La PampaSanta RosaArgentina
  3. 3.Department of Biochemistry and BiologyUniversität PotsdamPotsdamGermany
  4. 4.Institute of Ecology and Earth SciencesUniversity of TartuTartuEstonia
  5. 5.Ecosystems Processes Landcare InstituteLincolnNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations