Biological Invasions

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 797–807

A Comparison of Plastic Responses to Competition by Invasive and Non-invasive Congeners in the Commelinaceae



Evidence supporting an association between phenotypic plasticity and invasiveness across a range of plant taxa is based primarily on comparisons between invasive species and native species whose potential invasiveness is typically unknown. Comparison of invasive and non-invasive exotic species would provide a better test of whether plasticity promotes invasion. Such comparisons should distinguish between adaptive and non-adaptive plasticity because they have different consequences for invasiveness. Adaptive plasticity is expected to promote the invasion of multiple habitats, but non-adaptive plasticity may reflect specialization for invading more favorable habitats only. We grew four invasive and four non-invasive species of the Commelinaceae with and without competitors and compared their putatively adaptive plasticity of three traits related to competitive ability and non-adaptive plasticity in performance. The invasive species grew significantly more than the non-invasive species only in the non-competitive environment. The invasive species had greater plasticity of performance (total biomass) in response to competition than non-invasives, but there was no consistent difference in the plasticities of the traits related to competitive ability. These results are consistent with specialization of these invasive taxa for invading the more productive non-competitive environment rather than a superior ability to invade both competitive and non-competitive environments. A comprehensive understanding of the relationship between plasticity and invasiveness will require many more comparisons of the plasticity of invasive and non-invasive taxa in a range of traits in response to a variety of environments.


competition phenotypic plasticity root:shoot specific leaf area stem elongation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alpert P, Bone E and Holzapfel C (2000). Invasiveness, invasibility and the role of environmental stress in the spread of non-native plants. Prespectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 3/1: 52–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arendt JD (1997). Adaptive intrinsic growth rates: an integration across taxa. Quarterly Review of Biology 72: 149–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker HG (1974). The evolution of weeds. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 5: 1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baruch Z, Ludlow MM and Davis R (1985). Photosynthetic responses of native and introduced C4 grasses from Venezuelan savannas. Oecologia 67: 388–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baruch Z and Bilbao B (1999). Effects of fire and defoliation on the life history of native and invader C4 grasses in a Neotropical savanna. Oecologia 119: 510–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baruch Z and Goldstein G (1999). Leaf construction cost, nutrient concentration and net CO2 assimilation of native and invasive species in Hawaii. Oecologia 121: 183–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bjorkman O (1981). Responses to different quantum flux densities. In: Lange, L, Nobel, PS, Osmond, CB and Ziegler, H (eds) Encyclopedia of Plant Physiology, Vol. 12A, Springer, Berlin 57–107Google Scholar
  8. Black RA, Richards JH and Manwaring JH (1994). Nutrient uptake from enriched soil microsites by three great basin perennials. Ecology 75: 110–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bloom AJ, Chapin FS III and Mooney HA (1985). Resource limitation in plants—an economic analogy. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 16: 363–392Google Scholar
  10. Burns JH (2004). A comparison of invasive and non-invasive dayflowers (Commelinaceae) across experimental nutrient and water gradients. Diversity and Distributions 10: 387–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chapin FS, Autumn K and Pugnaire F (1993). Evolution of suites of traits in response to environmental stress. American Naturalist 142: S78–S92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Daehler CC (1998). The taxonomic distribution of invasive angiosperm plants: ecological insights and comparison to agricultural weeds. Biological Conservation 84: 167–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Daehler CC (2003). Performance comparisons of co-occurring native and alien invasive plants: implications for conservation and restoration. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 34: 183–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davis MA, Grime JP and Thompson K (2000). Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invasibility. Journal of Ecology 88: 528–534 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Donohue K and Schmitt J (1999). The genetic architecture of plasticity to density in Impatiens capensis. Evolution 53: 1377–1386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dolye RD, Francis MD and Smart RM (2003). Interference competition between Ludwigia repens and Hygrophila polysperma: two morphologically similar aquatic plant species. Aquatic Botany 77: 223–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dorn LA, Pyle EH and Schmitt J (2000). Plasticity to light cues and resources in Arabidopsis thaliana: testing for adaptive value and costs. Evolution 54: 1982–1994PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Dudley SA and Schmitt J (1996). Testing the adaptive plasticity hypothesis: density dependent selection on manipulated stem length in Impatiens capensis. American Naturalist 147: 445–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dukes JS and Mooney HA (1999). Does global change increase the success of biological invaders. Trends in Ecology of Evolution 14: 135–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Durand LZ and Goldstein G (2001). Photosynthesis, photoinhibition and nitrogen use efficiency in native and invasive tree ferns in Hawaii. Oecologia 126: 345–354 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Evans TM, Faden RB, Simpson MG and Sytsma KJ (2000). Phylogenetic relationships in the Commelinaceae: I. A cladistic analysis of morphological data. Systematic Botany 25: 668–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Faden RB (1982) Commelinaceae. In: Monocot Weeds 3, pp 98–111. CIBA-GEIGY, Basel, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  23. Faden RB (2000). Floral biology of Commelinaceae. In: Wilson, KL and Morrison, DA (eds) Monocots: Systematics and Evolution, CSIRO, Melbourne 309–317Google Scholar
  24. Fitter AH (1994). Architecture and biomass allocation as components of the plastic response of root systems to soil heterogeneity. In: Caldwell, MM and Pearcy, RW (eds) Exploitation of Environmental Heterogeneity by Plants, Academic Press, New York 305–323Google Scholar
  25. FLEPPC (Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council) (2003a) Database. Cited 24 Feb 2004Google Scholar
  26. FLEPPC (Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council) (2003b) List of invasive species. Cited 24 Feb 2004Google Scholar
  27. FNA (Flora of North America Editorial Committee), eds (2002) Flora of North America.;jsessionid=B078CE68992EB9DF07799 5EDFEBF1225?flora_id=1. Cited 18 Mar 2003Google Scholar
  28. Gerlach JD and Rice KJ (2003). Testing life history correlates of invasiveness using congeneric plant species. Ecological Applications 13: 167–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Grotkopp E, Rejmanek M and Rost TL (2002). Toward a causal explanation of plant invasiveness: seedling growth and life history strategies of 29 pine (Pinus) species. American Naturalist 159: 396–419CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Holm LG, Plucknett DL, Pancho JV, Herberger JP (1977) Commelina benghalensis L., Commelina diffusa Burm. f. (=C. nudiflora sensu Merr., non L.), and Murdannia nudiflora (L.) Brenan (=Commelina nudiflora L., Aneilema nudiflorum [L.] Wall., and Aneilema malabaricum [L.] Merr.): Commelinaceae, spiderwort family. In: Holm LG (ed) The World’s Worst Weeds: Distribution and Biology, pp 225–235. University of Hawaii Press, HonoluluGoogle Scholar
  31. Kelly D and Skipworth JP (1984). Tradescantia fluminensis in a Manawatu (New Zealand) forest: I. Growth and effects on regeneration. New Zealand Journal of Botany 22: 393–397Google Scholar
  32. Kolb A and Alpert P (2003). Effects of nitrogen and salinity on growth and competition between a native grass and an invasive congener. Biological Invasions 5: 229–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kolb A, Alpert P, Enters D and Holzapfel C (2002). Patterns of invasion within a grassland community. Journal of Ecology 90: 871–881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Krings A, Burton MG and York AC (2002). Commelina benghalensis (Commelinaceae) new to North Carolina and an updated key to Carolina congeners. Sida 20: 419–422Google Scholar
  35. Kurchania SP, Tiwari JP and Parakdkar NR (1991). Weed control in rice (Oryza sativa)–wheat (Triticum aestivum) cropping systems. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 61: 720–725Google Scholar
  36. Lambers H and Poorter H (1992). Inherent variation in growth rate between higher plants: a search for physiological causes and ecological consequences. Advances in Ecological Research 23: 187–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Leger EA and Rice KJ (2003). Invasive California poppies (Eschscholzia californica Cham.) grow larger than natives under reduced competition. Ecology Letters 6: 257–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lortie CJ and Aarssen LW (1996). The specialization hypothesis for phenotypic plasticity in plants. International Journal of Plant Science 157: 484–487 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Maillet J and Lopez-Garcia C (2000). What criteria are relevant for predicting the invasive capacity of a new agricultural weed? The case of invasive American species in France. Weed Research 40: 11–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Niinements U, Valladares F and Ceulemans R (2003). Leaf level phenotypic plasticity of invasive Rhododendron ponticum and non-invasive Ilex aquifolium co-occurring at two contrasting European sites. Plant, Cell and Environments 26: 941–956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. NRCS Plants (2004) Natural Resources Conservation Service online database. Cited 31 Mar 2004Google Scholar
  42. Parker IM, Rodriguez J and Loik ME (2003). An evolutionary approach to understanding the biology of invasions: local adaptation and general-purpose genotypes in the weed Verbascum thapsus. Conservation Biology 17: 59–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pattison RR, Goldstein G and Ares A (1998). Growth, biomass allocation and photosynthesis of invasive and native Hawaiian rainforest species. Oecologia 117: 449–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Poorter L (1999). Growth responses of 15 rain-forest tree species to a light gradient: the relative importance of morphological and physiological traits. Functional Ecology 13: 396–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pyšek P, Prach K and Smilauer P (1995). Relating invasion success to plant traits: an analysis of the Czech alien flora. In: Pyšek, P, Prach, K, Rejmanek, M, and Wade, M (eds) Plant Invasions, General Aspects and Special Problems, SPB Academic, Amsterdam 39–60Google Scholar
  46. Rice KJ and Mack RN (1991). Ecological genetics of Bromus tectorum. II. Intraspecific variation in phenotypic plasticity. Oecologia 88: 84–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. SAS Institute (1989). JMP version 3.2.6. SAS Institute, Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  48. Schweitzer JA and Larson KC (1999). Greater morphological plasticity of exotic honeysuckle species may make them better invaders than native species. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 126: 15–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Simoes MA and Baruch Z (1991). Responses to simulated herbivory and water stress in two tropical C-4 grasses. Oecologia 88: 173–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Standish RJ, Robertson AW and Williams PA (2001). The impact of an invasive weed Tradescantia fluminensis on native forest regeneration. Journal of Applied Ecology 38: 1253–1263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Steinger T, Roy BA and Stanton ML (2003). Evolution in stressful environments II: adaptive value and costs of plasticity in response to low light in Sinapis arvensis. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 16: 313–323CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) (2002) Cited 7 Feb 2002Google Scholar
  53. Vila M and Weiner J (2004). Are invasive plant species better competitors than native plant species?—evidence from pair-wise experiments. Oikos 105: 229–238 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Weinig C (2000). Differing selection in alternative competitive environments: shade avoidance responses and germination timing. Evolution 54: 124–136PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Wiersema JH and Leon B (1999). World Economic Plants: A Standard Reference. CRC Press, Boca Raton, 749Google Scholar
  56. Williams DG and Black RA (1994). Drought response of a native and introduced Hawaiian grass. Oecologia 97: 512–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Williamson MH and Fitter A (1996). The characteristics of successful invaders. Biological Conservation 78: 163–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wilson AK (1981). Commelinaceae—a review of the distribution, biology and control of the important weeds belonging to this family. Tropical Pest Management 27: 405–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Winn AA (1999). Is seasonal plasticity in leaf traits adaptive for the annual plant Dicerandra linearifolia?. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 12: 306–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Yamashita N, Ishida A, Kushima H and Tanaka N (2000). Acclimation to sudden increase in light favoring an invasive over native trees in subtropical islands, Japan. Oecologia 125: 412–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological ScienceFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA

Personalised recommendations