Biological Invasions

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 303–317

Altered patterns of growth, physiology and reproduction in invasive genotypes of Solidago gigantea (Asteraceae)

Original Paper

Abstract

Introduced plants may leave their specialized herbivores behind when they invade new ranges. The Evolution of Increased Competitive Ability (EICA) Hypothesis holds that this escape from herbivory could lead to reduced investment in defenses, thereby freeing resources for growth and reproduction. We tested the prediction that introduced genotypes of Solidago gigantea would outperform native genotypes when grown in the absence of herbivores, and examined whether tolerance to insect herbivory has changed in introduced genotypes. S. gigantea is native to North America and an exotic invasive in Europe. Insect damage reduced plant growth and biomass for both native and exotic genotypes. While there was no evidence that continent of origin influenced the degree to which plants compensated for herbivory, the mechanisms contributing to recovery differed for native and exotic plants. Damaged US plants showed enhanced photosynthetic rates to a greater extent than damaged European plants, while damaged European plants carried more leaves than damaged US plants. At the end of the season, leaf mass of European plants was significantly greater than that of US plants. Contrary to the predictions of the EICA hypothesis, US plants were more likely to flower than European plants. European plants invested significantly more of their total reproductive biomass into rhizomes rather than flowers than US plants. While other work with S. gigantea has supported some aspects of the EICA hypothesis, the results reported here generally do not. We conclude that multiple factors influence the success of introduced plants.

Keywords

Evolution of increased competitive ability Tolerance Solidago gigantea Reproductive allocation Compensatory photosynthesis Invasive plant 

References

  1. Blossey B, Nötzold R (1995) Evolution of increased competitive ability in invasive nonindigenous plants: a hypothesis. J Ecol 83:887–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Bossdorf O, Schroder S, Prati D, Auge H (2004) Palatability and tolerance to simulated herbivory in native and introduced populations of Alliaria petiolata (Brassicaceae). Am J Bot 91:856–862Google Scholar
  4. Brown JS, Eckert CG (2005) Evolutionary increase in sexual and clonal reproductive capacity during biological invasion in an aquatic plant Butomus umbellatus (Butomaceae). Am J Bot 92:495–502Google Scholar
  5. Buschmann H, Edwards PJ, Dietz H (2005) Variation in growth pattern and response to slug damage among native and invasive provenances of four perennial Brassicaceae species. J Ecol 93:322–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Callaway RM, Maron JL (2006) What have exotic plant invasions taught us over the past 20 years? Trends Ecol Evol 21:369–374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clare RD (2003) An evaluation of the Evolution of Increased Competitive Ability (EICA) Hypothesis: insect performance on native and introduced populations of Solidago gigantea (Asteraceae). MS Thesis, University of Wisconsin-MilwaukeeGoogle Scholar
  8. Clay K, Kover PX (1996) The Red Queen hypothesis and plant/pathogen interactions. Annu Rev Phytopathol 34:29–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. D’Antonio CM, Kark S (2002) Impacts and extent of biotic invasions in terrestrial ecosystems. Trends Ecol Evol 17:202–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Daehler CC (2003) Performance comparisons of co-occurring native and alien invasive plants. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 34:183–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dietz H, Edwards PJ (2006) Recognition that causal processes change during plant invasion helps explain conflicts in evidence. Ecology 87:1359–1367PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Güsewell S, Jakobs G, Weber E (2006) Native and introduced populations of Solidago gigantea differ in shoot production but not in leaf traits or litter decomposition. Funct Ecol 20:575–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hinz HL, Schwarzlaender M (2004) Comparing invasive plants from their native and exotic range: what can we learn for biological control? Weed Technol 18:1533–1541Google Scholar
  14. Hull-Sanders HM, Clare R, Johnson RH, Meyer GA (2007) Evaluation of the Evolution of Increased Competitive Ability (EICA) hypothesis: loss of defense against generalist but not specialist herbivores. J Chem Ecol 33:781–799PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jakobs G (2004) Increased competitive ability in the invasive perennial Solidago gigantea. Dissertation, Geobotanical Institute, Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  16. Jakobs G, Weber E, Edwards PJ (2004) Introduced plants of the invasive Solidago gigantea (Asteraceae) are larger and grow denser than conspecifics in the native range. Divers Distribut 10:11–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jobin A, Schaffner U, Nentwig W (1996) The structure of the phytophagous insect fauna on the introduced weed Solidago altissima in Switzerland. Entomol Exp Appl 79:33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnson RH, Hull-Sanders HM, Meyer GA (2007) Comparison of foliar terpenes between native and invasive Solidago gigantea. Biochem Syst Ecol (in press)Google Scholar
  19. Kolar CS, Lodge DM (2001) Progress in invasion biology: predicting invaders. Trends Ecol Evol 16:199–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lively CM (1996) Do interactions between biological enemies maintain genetic variation and cross-fertilization? Bioscience 46:107–114CrossRefGoogle 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 10:689–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Maron JL, Vila M (2001) When do herbivores affect plant invasion? Evidence for the natural enemies and biotic resistance hypothesis. Oikos 95:361–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Maron JL, Vila M, Bommarco R, Elmendorf S, Beardsley P (2004) Rapid evolution of an invasive plant. Ecol Monogr 74:261–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Melville MR, Morton JK (1982) A biosystematic study of the Solidago canadensis (Compositae) complex I. The Ontario populations. Can J Bot 60:976–997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Meyer GA (1998) Mechanisms promoting recovery from defoliation in goldenrod (Solidago altissima). Can J Bot 76:450–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Meyer GA, Clare R, Weber E (2005) An experimental test of the evolution of increased competitive ability hypothesis in goldenrod, Solidago gigantea. Oecologia 144:299–307PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mitchell CE, Agrawal AA, Bever JD, Gilbert GS, Hufbauer RA, Klironomos JN, Maron JL, Morris WF, Parker IM, Power AG, Seabloom EW, Torchin ME, Vazquez DP (2006) Biotic interactions and plant invasions. Ecol Lett 9:726–740PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Morton GH (1984) A practical treatment of the Solidago gigantea complex. Can J Bot 62:1279–1282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Müller-Schärer H, Schaffner U, Steinger T (2004) Evolution in invasive plants: implications for biological control. Trends Ecol Evol 19:417–422PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Neter J, Kutner MH, Nachtsheim CJ, Wasserman W (1996) Applied linear statistical models, 4th ed. McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
  32. Pimentel D, Lach R, Zuniga R, Morrison D (2000) Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous species in the United States. Bioscience 50:53–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rasband WS (2006) ImageJ. http://rsb.info.nih.gov/ij/Google Scholar
  34. Rogers WE, Siemann E (2004) Invasive ecotypes tolerate herbivory more effectively than native ecotypes of the Chinese tallow tree Sapium sebiferum. J Appl Ecol 41:561–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rogers WE, Siemann E (2005) Herbivory tolerance and compensatory differences in native and invasive ecotypes of Chinese tallow tree (Sapium sebiferum). Plant Ecol 181:57–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sala OE, Chapin FS, Armesto JJ, Berlow E, Bloomfield J, Dirzo R, Huber-Sanwald E, Huenneke LF, Jackson RB, Kinzig A, Leemans R, Lodge DM, Mooney HA, Oesterheld M, Poff NL, Sykes MT, Walker BH, Walker M, Wall DH (2000) Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287:1770–1774PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. SAS Institute (2001) SAS Version 8.2. SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, USAGoogle Scholar
  38. Sheppard AW, Shaw RH, Sforza R (2006) Top 20 environmental weeds for classical biologicl control in Europe: a review of opportunities, regulations, and other barriers to adoption. Weed Res 46:93–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stastny M, Schaffner U, Elle E (2005) Do vigour of introduced populations and escape from specialist herbivores contribute to invasiveness? J Ecol 93:27–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Strauss SY, Agrawal AA (1999) The ecology and evolution of plant tolerance and herbivory. Trends Ecol Evol 14:179–185PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. van Kleunen M, Schmid B (2003) No evidence for an evolutionary increased competitive ability in an invasive plant. Ecology 84:2816–2823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Weber E (1998) The dynamics of plant invasions: A case study of three exotic goldenrod species (Solidago L.) in Europe. J Biogeogr 25:147–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Weber E (2001) Current and potential ranges of three exotic goldenrods (Solidago) in Europe. Conserv Biol 15:122–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Weber E, Jakobs G (2005) Biological flora of central Europe: Solidago gigantea Aiton. Flora 200:109–118Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee Field StationSaukvilleUSA
  2. 2.Canisius CollegeBuffaloUSA

Personalised recommendations