Advertisement

Co-occurring invasive plant interactions do not predict the impacts of invasion in experimental tallgrass prairie communities

  • Emma OschrinEmail author
  • Heather L. Reynolds
Original Paper
  • 18 Downloads

Abstract

Co-occurring invasive plants are an understudied yet common phenomenon, and likely to become even more frequent with climate change-driven range shifts. Invasive–invasive interactions can be competitive, neutral, or facilitative; symmetric or asymmetric; and their impact on natives can be additive or non-additive. Non-additive impacts, wherein co-occurring invasives either reduce or enhance one another’s effects, have heightened implications for invasive management and native restoration. We investigated interactions among three invasive species—the legume Lotus corniculatus, the forb Cirsium arvense, and the grass Phalaris arundinacea—that co-occur in North American prairie grassland, and impacts on native prairie communities. Employing greenhouse microcosms, we observed invasive–invasive interactions by growing invasive species alone, in pairs, and in three-way combination. To assess impacts of co-occurring invasives, native prairie communities were grown with each single invader, all pairs of invaders, or all three invaders together. For insight into mechanisms of species interactions, measurements of above- and below-ground resources were made. We predicted that the invasive legume would facilitate the other invasive species via nitrogen enrichment, promoting non-additive impacts on native communities. We observed that the legume promoted yields of the other invasive species and was associated with higher soil ammonium content. However, we also observed strongly asymmetric competition between co-occurring invasive species. Impacts of invaders on functionally diverse native communities were similar among invasion treatments and less than expected based on invasive impacts in monoculture. These results warrant future tests of functional group identity and diversity as predictors of co-occurring invasive species interactions and impacts.

Keywords

Co-occurring invasive species Tallgrass prairie Invasive–invasive interactions Community dynamics Invasive plants 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Dr. Bui Thi Kim Anh, Corben Andrews, and Maja Šljivar for assisting with data collection. Thanks to Stephanie Dickinson of the Indiana University Statistical Consulting Center and to Jay Lennon for assisting with data analysis. Thanks to the staff at Kankakee Sands Nature Conservancy Site, in particular Ted Anchor and Stuart Orr, for their guidance in regard to target species and soil collection. This research was supported by Indiana University Department of Biology funds awarded to H.L.R. and E.O.

Supplementary material

10530_2019_1984_MOESM1_ESM.docx (125 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 124 kb)
10530_2019_1984_MOESM2_ESM.docx (17 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 17 kb)

References

  1. Bauer JT (2012) Invasive species: “back-seat drivers” of ecosystem change? Biol Invasions 14(7):1295–1304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Belote RT, Weltzin JF (2006) Interactions between two co-dominant, invasive plants in the understory of a temperate deciduous forest. Biol Invasions 8:1629–1641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Contolling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc 57(1):289–300Google Scholar
  4. Bever JD (1994) Feeback between plants and their soil communities in an old field community. Ecology 75(7):1965–1977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bever JD et al (2010) Rooting theories of plant community ecology in microbial interactions. Trends Ecol Evol 25(8):468–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blumenthal DM, Kray JA (2014) Climate change, plant traits and invasion in natural and agricultural ecosystems. In: Ziska LH, Dukes JS (eds) Invasive species and global climate change. CABI, BostonGoogle Scholar
  7. Byun C, de Blois S, Brisson J (2013) Plant functional group identity and diversity determine biotic resistance to invasion by an exotic grass. J Ecol 101:128–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Callaway RM, Kim J, Mahall BE (2006) Defoliation of Centaurea solstitialis stimulates compensatory growth and intensifies negative effects on neighbors. Biol Conserv 8:1389–1397Google Scholar
  9. Culley T et al (2016) Association of non-native Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii, Caprifoliaceae) with other invasive plant species in eastern deciduous forests in southwestern Ohio. J Torrey Bot Soc 143(4):398–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cushman JH, Lortie CJ, Christian CE (2011) Native herbivores and plant facilitation mediate the performance and distribution of an invasive exotic grass. J Ecol 99:524–531Google Scholar
  11. Dukes JS (2001) Biodiversity and invasibility in grassland microcosms. Oecologia 126:563–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gerla PJ et al (2012) Talking big: lessons learned from a 9000 hectare restoration in the Northern Tallgrass Prairie. Sustainability 4:3066–3087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gibson DJ et al (1999) Designs for greenhouse studies of interactions between plants. J Ecol 87:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hooper DU, Dukes JS (2010) Functional composition controls invasion success in a California serpentine grassland. J Ecol 98(4):764–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Klironomos JN (2002) Feedback with soil biota contributes to plant rarity and invasiveness in communities. Nature 417:67–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kuebbing SE, Nunez MA (2015) Negative, neutral, and positive interactions among nonnative plants: patterns, processes, and management implications. Glob Change Biol 21(2):926–934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kuebbing SE, Nunez MA, Simberloff D (2013) Current mismatch between research and conservation efforts: the need to study co-occurring invasive plant species. Biol Conserv 160:121–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kuebbing SE, Classen AT, Simberloff D (2014) Two co-occurring invasive woody shrubs alter soil properties and promote subdominant invasive species. J Appl Ecol 51(1):124–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kuebbing SE et al (2015) Plant-soil interactions promote co-occurrence of three nonnative woody shrubs. Ecology 96(8):2289–2299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leffler AJ, Monaco TA, James JJ (2011) Nitrogen acquisition by annual and perennial grass seedlings: testing the roles of performance and plasticity to explain plant invasion. Plant Ecol 212:1601–1611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Loreau M (1998) Separating sampling and other effects in biodiversity experiments. Oikos 82(3):600–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. MacDougall AS, Gilbert B, Levine JM (2009) Plant invasions and the niche. J Ecol 97(4):609–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mack RN et al (2000) Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol Appl 10(3):689–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Metlen KL, Aschehoug ET, Callaway RM (2013) Competitive outcomes between two exotic invaders are modified by direct and indirect effects of a native conifer. Oikos 122:632–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nsikani MM et al (2017) Acacia saligna’s soil legacy effects persist up to 10 years after clearing: Implications for ecological restoration. Austral Ecol 42(8):880–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Perrings C, Fenichel E, Kinzig A (2010) Globalization and invasive alien species: trade, pests, and pathogens. In: Perrings C, Mooney H, Williamson M (eds) Bioinvasions and globalization. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Perry LG, Galatowitsch SM, Rosen CJ (2004) Competitive control of invasive vegetation: a native wetland sedge suppresses Phalaris arundinacea in carbon-enriched soil. J Appl Ecol 41:151–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pfeifer-Meister L et al (2008) Abiotic constraints on the competitive ability of exotic and native grasses in a Pacific Northwest prairie. Oecologia 155:357–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pickart AJ, Miller LM, Duebendorfer TE (1998) Yellow bush lupine invasion in Northern California coastal dunes i ecological impacts and manual restoration techniques. Restor Ecol 6(1):59–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pokorny ML et al (2005) Plant functional group diversity as a mechanism for invasion resistance. Restor Ecol 13(3):448–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reinhart KO, Callaway RM (2006) Soil biota and invasive plants. New Phytol 170:445–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Reynolds HL, Rajaniemi TK (2007) Plant interactions: competition. In: Pugnaire FI, Valladares F (eds) Functional plant ecology. CRC Press, Boca Ratonm, pp 457–480Google Scholar
  33. Rowe HI, Fargione J, Holland JD (2013) Prairie restorations can protect remnant tallgrass prairie plant communities. Am Midl Nat 170(1):26–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schmidt CD et al (2008) Competitive abilities of native grasses and non-native (Bothriochloa spp.) grasses. Plant Ecol 197:69–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schramm P (1990) Prairie restoration: a twenty-five year perspective on establishment and management. Proc Twelfth N Am Prairie Conf 12:169–178Google Scholar
  36. Simberloff D (2005) Non-native species do threaten the natural environment! J Agric Environ Ethics 18:595–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Simberloff D (2006) Invasional meltdown 6 years later: important phenomenon, unfortunate metaphor, or both? Ecol Lett 9:912–919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Simberloff D, Von Holle B (1999) Positive interactions of nonindigenous species: invasional meltdown? Biol Invasions 1:21–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Szymura M, Szymura TH (2016) Interactions between alien goldenrods (Solidago and Euthamia species) and comparison with native species in Central Europe. Flora 218:51–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tekiela DR, Barney JN (2017) Co-invasion of similar invaders results in analogous ecological impact niches and no synergies. Biol Invasions 19(1):147–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. USDA (2017) The PLANTS database national plant data team. USDA, GreensboroGoogle Scholar
  42. Vitousek PM (1986) Biological invasions and ecosystem properties: can species make a difference? In: Mooney HA, Drake JA (eds) Ecology of biological invasions of North America and Hawaii. Springer, New York, pp 163–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vitousek PM, Walker LR (1989) Biological invasion by Myrica Faya in Hawai’i: plant demography, nitrogen fixation, ecosystem effects. Ecol Monogr 59(3):247–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yang S, Ferrari MJ, Shea K (2011) Pollinator behavior mediates negative interactions between two congeneric invasive plant species. Am Nat 177(1):110–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations