Biological Invasions

, Volume 8, Issue 5, pp 1061–1066

Is Hybridization Responsible for Invasive Growth of Non-indigenous Water-milfoils?

Article

Abstract

Heterosis, or hybrid vigor, has recently been proposed as a factor promoting invasive growth of some non-indigenous aquatic plant species, particularly those capable of spreading rapidly within and among lakes through clonal reproduction. We tested this hypothesis for variable-leaf water milfoil (Myriophyllum heterophyllum), a non-indigenous aquatic plant that has become a major management and conservation concern in New England. Using nuclear ribosomal DNA, we looked for F1 hybrid populations of invasive M. heterophyllum in 25 New Hampshire (NH) lakes. In contrast to a previous study that found F1 hybrid lineages of invasive M. heterophyllum in Connecticut, we did not find hybrids in our study lakes. This result has two implications: (1) pure lineages of M. heterophyllum are also capable of invasive growth, and (2) the distribution of invasive M. heterophyllum lineages (hybrid vs. pure) may be spatially structured across New England. We stress the importance of more detailed distributional and ecological studies for understanding the invasive potential of this species.

Keywords

hybrid vigor invasion lake macrophyte New England range expansion weed 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ayres DR, Smith DL, Zaremba K, Klohr S and Strong DR (2004). Spread of exotic cordgrasses and hybrids (Spartina sp.) in the tidal marshes of San Francisco Bay, California, USA. Biological Invasions 6: 221–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boylen CW, Eichler LW and Madsen JD (1999). Loss of native aquatic plant species in a community dominated by Eurasian watermilfoil. Hydrobiologia 415: 207–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buchan LA and Padilla DK (2000). Predicting the likelihood of Eurasian watermilfoil presence in lakes, a macrophyte monitoring tool. Ecological Applications 10: 1442–1455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Colautti RI and MacIsaac HJ (2004). A neutral terminology to define ‘invasive’ species. Diversity and Distributions 10: 135–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Colautti RI, Ricciardi A, Grigorovich IA and MacIsaac HJ (2004). Is invasion success explained by the enemy release hypothesis?. Ecology Letters 7: 721–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Daehler CC (2003). Performance comparisons of co-occurring native and alien invasive plants: Implications for conservation and restoration. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics 34: 183–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Daehler CC and Strong DR (1997). Hybridization between introduced smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora; Poaceae) and native California cordgrass (S. foliosa) in San Francisco Bay, California, USA. American Journal of Botany 84: 607–611 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Halstead JM, Michaud J, Hallas-Burt S and Gibbs JP (2003). Hedonic analysis of effects of a nonnative invader (Myriophyllum heterophyllum) on New Hampshire (USA) lakefront properties. Environmental Management 32: 391–398 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kumar S, Tamura K, Jakobsen IB and Nei M (2001). MEGA2: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis software. Bioinformatics 17: 1244–1245 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lennon JT, Smith VH and Dzialowski AR (2003). Invasibility of plankton food webs along a trophic state gradient. Oikos 103: 191–203 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Madsen JD, Sutherland JW, Bloomfield JA, Eichler LW and Boylen CW (1991). The decline of native vegetation under dense Eurasian watermilfoil canopies. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 29: 94–99 Google Scholar
  12. Moody ML and Les DH (2002). Evidence of hybridity in invasive watermilfoil (Myriophyllum) populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, USA 99: 14867–14871 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pimentel D, Lach L, Zuniga R and Morrison D (2000). Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous species in the United States. Bioscience 50: 53–65 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ravit B, Ehrenfeld JG and Haggblom MM (2003). A comparison of sediment microbial communities associated with Phragmites australis and Spartina alterniflora in two brackish wetlands of New Jersey. Estuaries 26: 465–474 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ruiz GM, Fofonoff P, Hines AH and Grosholz ED (1999). Non-indigenous species as stressors in estuarine and marine communities: Assessing invasion impacts and interactions. Limnology and Oceanography 44: 950–972 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Smith CS and Barko JW (1990). Ecology of Eurasian watermilfoil. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 28: 55–64 Google Scholar
  17. Soltis D and Kuzoff R (1995). Discordance between nuclear and chloroplast phylogenies in the Heuchera group (Saxifragaceae). Evolution 49: 727–742 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Thompson JD, Gibson TJ, Plewniak F, Jeanmougin F and Higgins DG (1997). The CLUSTAL X-windows interface: Flexible strategies for multiple sequence alignment aided by quality analysis tools. Nucleic Acids Research 25: 4876–4882 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Windham L and Lathrop RG (1999). Effects of Phragmites australis (common reed) invasion on aboveground biomass and soil properties in brackish tidal marsh of the Mullica River, New Jersey. Estuaries 22: 927–935 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesDartmouth CollegeHanoverUSA
  2. 2.Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyCornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  3. 3.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyBox G, Brown UniversityProvidenceUSA

Personalised recommendations