Biological Invasions

, Volume 12, Issue 11, pp 3809–3816 | Cite as

Competive ability of invasive Miscanthus biotypes with aggressive switchgrass

  • Mary Hockenberry Meyer
  • Joe Paul
  • Neil O. Anderson
Original Paper

Abstract

Miscanthus (Miscanthus sinensis Anderss. [Poaceae]) is an ornamental and invasive grass native to Asia that has naturalized in several areas of the Middle Atlantic United States. Predicting how likely miscanthus is to become invasive in other areas of the US is a concern of ecologists and horticulturists. The objective of this study was to measure the competitive ability of miscanthus with an aggressive native grass, switchgrass (Pancium virgatum L. [Poaceae]), in order to show which grass would be more likely to dominate when the two species were grown together. Although switchgrass is a smaller plant than miscanthus, in this greenhouse experiment it was significantly taller and had more vegetative and flowering culms than miscanthus. Miscanthus however, was a stable competitor and did not significantly change in shoot or root dry weight as 2 and 4 switchgrass plants replaced the respective number of miscanthus plants in each treatment. When miscanthus biotypes from four locations were compared, the Pennsylvania biotype was significantly larger and more competitive with switchgrass than was the Washington, DC biotype. As switchgrass plants were replaced with miscanthus, the shoot and root dry weights of the remaining switchgrass plants increased significantly, showing a higher competitive ability of switchgrass. Despite the fact that switchgrass was more competitive with itself than miscanthus, the highest overall dry weight per treatment contained eight switchgrass plants. Miscanthus showed stable, competitive growth when planted together with switchgrass and it is predicted to likely do the same in a field setting.

Keywords

Biomass Invasive Growth measurements Interspecific Intraspecific Monoculture 

References

  1. Adati S, Shiotani I (1962) The cytotaxonomy of the genus Miscanthus and its phylogenetic status. Bull Fac Agric Mie Univ 25:1–24Google Scholar
  2. Alderson J, Sharp WC (1995) Grass varieties in the United States. Agricultural handbook 170. CRC Press, Inc., New York, p 196Google Scholar
  3. Brooks A (1980) Woodlands: a practical handbook. British Trust for Conservation Volunteers, Wallingford, p 187Google Scholar
  4. Bullard MJ (1996) The agronomy of Miscanthus. Landwards 51:12–15Google Scholar
  5. Burns JH, Halpern SL, Winn AA (2007) A test for cost of opportunism in invasive species in the Commelinaceae. Biol Invasions 9:213–225. doi:10.1007/s10530-006-9027-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Christian DG, Poulton PR, Riche AB, Yates NE (1997) The recovery of 15N-labelled fertilizer applied to Miscanthus × giganteus. Biomass Bioenergy 12:21–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clifton-Brown JC, Stampfl PF, Jones MB (2004) Miscanthus biomass production for energy in Europe and its potential contribution to decreasing fossil fuel carbon emissions. Glob Change Biol 10:509–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Darke R (2007) The encyclopedia of grasses for livable landscapes. Timber Press, Portland, p 484Google Scholar
  9. Dozier H (1999) Plant introductions and invasion: history, public awareness, and the case of Ardisia crenata. Dissertation, University of FloridaGoogle Scholar
  10. Evers GW, Butler TW, Berdahl J (2000) Switchgrass establishment on coastal plain soil. In: Philips M, Terril T, Belesky D (ed) Proceedings reports of the American forage and grassland council, 37th North American Alfalfa improvement conference. American Forage and Grassland Council, Georgetown, Washington, DC, pp 150–154Google Scholar
  11. George JR, Reigh GS, Mullen RE, Hunczak JJ (1990) Switchgrass herbage and seed yield and quality with partial spring defoliation. Crop Sci 30:845–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Greef JM, Deuter M, Jung C, Schondelmaier J (1997) Genetic diversity of European miscanthus species revealed by AFLP fingerprinting. Genet Resour Crop Evol 44:185–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hamilton JG, Holzapfel C, Mahall BE (1999) Coexistence and interference between a native perennial grass and non-native annual grasses in California. Oecologia 121:518–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hartnett DC (1993) Regulation of clonal growth and dynamics of Panicum virgatum (Poaceae) in tallgrass prairie: effects of neighbor removal and nutrient addition. Am J Bot 80:1114–1120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hitchcock AS (1901) Miscanthus. In: Bailey LH (ed) Cyclopedia of horticulture. Macmillan, New York, p 1021Google Scholar
  16. Hitchcock AS (1951) Manual of the grasses of the United States, 2nd edn. USDA Miscellaneous Publication, Washington, DC (revised by A. Chase)Google Scholar
  17. Holm LG (1991) The world’s worst weeds: distribution and ecology. Krieger, MalabarGoogle Scholar
  18. James JJ, Davies KW, Sheley RL, Aanderud ZT (2008) Linking nitrogen partitioning and species abundance to invasion resistance in the Great Basin. Oecologia 156:637–648CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Knee M, Thomas LC (2002) Light utilization and competition between Echinaceae purpurea, Panicum virgatum and Ratibida pinnata under greenhouse and field conditions. Ecol Res 17:591–599. doi:10.1046/j.1440-1703.2002.00517.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lewandowski I, Clifton-Brown JC, Scurlock JMO, Huisman W (2000) Miscanthus: European experience with a novel energy crop. Biomass Bioenergy 19:209–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lowe PN, Lauenroth WK, Burke IC (2003) Effects of nitrogen availability on competition between Bromus tectorum and Bouteloua gracilis. Plant Ecol 167:247–254. doi:10.1023/A:1023934515420 CrossRefGoogle 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 10:689–710. doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[0689:BICEGC]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McLaughlin SB, Kszos LA (2005) Development of switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) as a bioenergy feedstock in the United States. Biomass Bioenergy 28:515–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Meyer MH (2003) Miscanthus: ornamental and invasive grass. Sabbatical in the parks project summary. Minnesota Landscape Arboretum, Chaska, p 68Google Scholar
  25. Meyer MH (2004a) Ornamental grasses for cold climates. University of Minnesota Extension, St Paul, p 41Google Scholar
  26. Meyer MH (2004b) Miscanthus: ornamental and invasive grass. University of Minnesota. Available via: http://horticulture.cfans.umn.edu/miscanthus/. Accessed 27 Dec 2007
  27. Muir JP, Sanderson MA, Ocumpaugh WR, Jones RM, Reed RL (2001) Biomass production of ‘Alamo’ switchgrass in response to nitrogen, phosphorous, and row spacing. Agronomy J 93:896–901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nasri M, Doescher PS (1995) Effect of competition by cheatgrass on growth of Idaho fescue. J Range Manage 48:402–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Newingham BA, Belnap J (2006) Direct effects of soil amendments on field emergence and growth of the invasive annual grass Bromus tectorum L. and the native perennial grass Hilaria jamesii (Torr.) Benth. Plant Soil 280:29–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nobel PS, Franco AC (1986) Annual root growth and intraspecific competition for a desert bunchgrass. J Ecol 74:1119–1126. doi:10.2307/2260238 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ohashi Y (2000) Dominant weed species on paddy levees in Kyoto prefecture. J Weed Sci Tech 45:34–38Google Scholar
  32. Ohwi J (1964) Flora of Japan. Smithsonian Inst, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  33. Peter SW, Allison ES (1998) Where do we go from here? The challenges of risk assessment for invasive plants. Weed Tech 12:744–751Google Scholar
  34. Randall J, Marinelli J (1996) Invasive plants: weeds of the global garden. Brooklyn Botanic Garden, New York, p 111Google Scholar
  35. Reichard SH, White P (2001) Horticulture as a pathway of invasive plant introductions in the United States. Bioscience 51:103–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sanderson MA, Reed RL (2000) Switchgrass growth and development: water, nitrogen, and plant density effects. J Range Manage 53:221–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Smart AJ, Moser LE (1997) Morphological development of switchgrass as affected by planting date. Agronomy J 89:958–962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Southeast Exotic Pest Plant Council [SE-EPPC] (2001) Invasive exotic pest plants in Tennessee. Tennessee Exotic Pest Plant Council. Avaiable via: http://www.se-eppc.org/State/TN/TNIList.html. Accessed 20 Dec 2007
  39. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences [SPSS] (2004) Ver 8.0 SPSS, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  40. Stepan J, Janeckova P, Leps J (2004) Influence of soil heterogeneity and competition on growth features of three meadow species. Flora Morphol Distrib Funct Ecol Plants 199:3–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Swearingen J, Reshetiloff K, Slattery B, Zwicker S (2002) Plant invaders of mid-Atlantic natural areas. National Park Service and US Fish & Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, p 82Google Scholar
  42. Tange T, Suzuki M, Yagi H, Griffith JA (1996) Site quality and the competition between weeds and planted seedlings in relation to weeding. In: Second international conference on forest vegetation management; 1995, March 20–24. N Z J For Sci 26:118–125Google Scholar
  43. Thomas FC, Peter A (1998) Conservation issues: lack of public awareness of biological invasions by plants. Nat Area J 18:262–266Google Scholar
  44. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service [USDA NRCS] (2007) The PLANTS database, version 3.5. National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge. Available via: http://plants.usda.gov. Accessed 20 Dec 2007
  45. United States Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] (2007) Invasive plants in our backyard. Available via: http://www.fws.gov/southeast/ea/Fun_Facts/pubbck9.pdf. Accessed 27 Dec 2007
  46. Westbrooks R (1998) Invasive plants, changing the landscape of America: fact book. Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds (FICMNEW), Washington, DC, p 109Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mary Hockenberry Meyer
    • 1
  • Joe Paul
    • 1
  • Neil O. Anderson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Horticultural ScienceUniversity of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations