, Volume 53, Issue 3, pp 419–429 | Cite as

Response of invasive Chromolaena odorata and two coexisting weeds to contrasting irradiance and nitrogen

  • G. M. Quan
  • D. J. Mao
  • J. E. ZhangEmail author
  • J. F. Xie
  • H. Q. Xu
  • M. An
Original Papers


Chromolaena odorata is a widespread exotic weed in southern China and other regions of the world. To better understand its invasive strategies, we compared leaf pigment contents and gas-exchange traits of the invader with its two coexisting species (native Urena lobata and invasive Bidens pilosa) under combined conditions of irradiance (full, medium, and low) and nitrogen (full, medium, and low) supplies. The chlorophyll (Chl) a+b content of U. lobata was the highest and the Chl a/b ratio of C. odorata was the lowest among the three weed species. In most treatments, leaf pigment, light-saturated photosynthetic rate (P max), and light saturation point (LSP) of all the species increased, while their Chl a/b ratios decreased with the increasing nitrogen. The P max and LSP of U. lobata were greater than those of the coexisting weeds under full irradiance (FI), but significantly declined with the decreasing irradiance. The invasive weeds, especially C. odorata, showed lower P max and LSP under FI, but they showed slight decrease under low irradiance. Compared to U. lobata, C. odorata exhibited the lower light compensation point (LCP) in most treatments, higher LSP under low and medium irradiance, and lower dark respiration rate under FI. In addition, all the three species showed similar responses to different irradiance and nitrogen conditions, mean phenotypic plasticity index (MPPI) of most photosynthetic variables of the two invasive species was lower than that of U. lobata. These results suggested that C. odorata behaved as a facultative shadetolerant weed, being able to grow in moderately sheltered environments; the lower MPPI might be one of the important competitive strategies during its invasion. However, its invasion should be limited to some very shady habitats. In the field, control should be mainly directed against populations growing in the open or nutrient-rich habitats, where its expansion speed could be much faster. Deep shade by intact canopies or luxuriant forests might be an effective barrier against its invasion.

Additional key words

gas exchange invasive species irradiance nitrogen supply pigment 



Bidens pilosa




Chromolaena odorata


full irradiance


stomatal conductance


high nitrogen content


light compensation point


low irradiance


low nitrogen content


light saturation point


medium irradiance


medium nitrogen content


mean phenotypic plasticity index


light-saturated photosynthetic rate


net photosynthetic rate


dark respiration rate


specific leaf area


Urena lobata


intrinsic water-use efficiency


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allred B.W., Fuhlendorf S.D., Monaco T.A. et al.: Morphological and physiological traits in the success of the invasive plant Lespedeza cuneata. — Biol. Invasions 12: 739–749, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson J.M., Aro E.M.: Grana stacking and protection of photosystem II in thylakoid membranes of higher plant leaves under sustained high irradiance: An hypothesis. — Photosynth. Res. 41: 315–326, 1994PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baruch Z., Goldstein G.: Leaf construction cost, nutrient concentration, and net CO2 assimilation of native and invasive species in Hawaii. — Oecologia 121: 183–192, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bassman J., Zwier J.C.: Gas exchange characteristics of Populus trichocarpa, Populus deltoides and Populus trichocarpa × P. deltoides clone. — Tree Physiol. 8: 145–159, 1991.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Björkman O.: Responses to different quantum flux densities. — In: Lange O.L., Nobel P.S., Osmond C.B. et al. (ed.): Physiological Plant Ecology I. Responses to the Physical Environment. Pp. 57–107. Springer Verlag, Berlin — Heidelberg — New York 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brewer S.: Declines in plant species richness and endemic plant species in longleaf pine savannas invaded by Imperata cylindrical. — Biol. Invasions 10: 1257–1264, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brock M.T., Weinig C., Galen C.: A comparison of phenotypic plasticity in the native dandelion Taraxacum ceratophorum and its invasive congener T. officinale. — New Phytol. 166: 173–183, 2005.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chau M.M., Walker L.R., Mehltreter K.: An invasive tree fern alters soil and plant nutrient dynamics in Hawaii. — Biol. Invasions 15: 355–370, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen H.F.: [Ecological mechanism of invasion for the forestry harmful plant Eupatorium odoratum.] — MD Thesis, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin 2006. [In Chinese]Google Scholar
  10. D’Antonio C.M., Kark S.: Impacts and extent of biotic invasions in terrestrial ecosystems. — Trends Ecol. Evol. 17: 202–204, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davies K.W.: Plant community diversity and native plant abundance decline with increasing abundance of an exotic annual grass. — Oecologia 167: 481–491, 2011.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Droste T., Flory S.L., Clay K.: Variation for phenotypic plasticity among populations of an invasive exotic grass. — Plant Ecol. 207: 297–306, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Feng Y.L., Lei Y.B., Wang R.F. et al.: Evolutionary tradeoffs for nitrogen allocation to photosynthesis versus cell walls in an invasive plant. — P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106: 1853–1856, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Feng Y.L., Wang J.F., Sang W.G.: Irradiance acclimation, capture ability, and efficiency in invasive and non-invasive alien plant species. — Photosynthetica 45: 245–253, 2007a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Feng Y.L., Wang J.F., Sang W.G.: Biomass allocation, morphology and photosynthesis of invasive and noninvasive exotic species grown at four irradiance levels. — Acta Oecol. 31: 40–47, 2007b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gaertner M., Richardson D.M., Privett S.D.J.: Effects of alien plants on ecosystem structure and functioning and implications for restoration: insights from three degraded sites in South African fynbos. — Environ. Manage. 48: 57–69, 2011.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Garcia-Serrano H., Caño L., Escarré J. et al.: Physiological comparison of alien Senecio inaequidens and S. pterophorus and native S. malacitanus: Implications for invasion. — Flora 204: 445–455, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holm L.G., Plucknett D.L., Pancho J.V. et al.: Chromolaena odorata. The world’s worst weeds: distribution and biology. Pp. 212–216. University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu 1977.Google Scholar
  19. Honu Y.A.K., Dang Q.L.: Spatial distribution and species composition of tree seeds and seedlings under the canopy of the shrub, Chromolaena odorata Linn., in Ghana. — Forest Ecol. Manag. 164: 185–196, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hulme P.E.: Phenotypic plasticity and plant invasions: is it all Jack? — Funct. Ecol. 22: 3–7, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jiang L.F., Luo Y.Q., Chen J.K. et al.: Ecophysiological characteristics of invasive Spartina alterniflora and native species in salt marshes of Yangtze River estuary, China. — Estuar. Coast Shelf S. 81: 74–82, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Joshi C., De Leeuw J., van Andel J. et al.: Indirect remote sensing of a cryptic forest understory invasive species. — Forest Ecol. Manag. 225: 245–256, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lei T.T., Tabuchi R., Kitao M. et al.: Functional relationship between chlorophyll content and leaf reflectance, and light-capturing efficiency of Japanese forest speciese. — Physiol. Plantarum 96: 411–418, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leishman M.R., Thomson V.P.: Experimental evidence for the effects of additional water, nutrients and physical disturbance on invasive plants in low fertility Hawkesbury Sandstone soils, Sydney, Australia. — J. Ecol. 93: 38–49, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lu P., Sang W.G., Ma K.P.: Differential responses of the activities of antioxidant enzymes to thermal stresses between two invasive Eupatorium species in China. — J. Integr. Plant Biol. 50: 393–401, 2008.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mangla S., Inderjit, Callaway R.M.: Exotic invasive plant accumulates native soil pathogens which inhibit native plants. — J. Ecol. 96: 58–67, 2008.Google Scholar
  27. Maron J.L., Elmendorf S.C., Vilà M.: Contrasting plant physiological adaptation to climate in the native and introduced range of Hypericum perforatum. — Evolution 61: 1912–1924, 2007.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mcalpine K.G., Jesson L.K., Kubien D.S.: Photosynthesis and water-use efficiency: A comparison between invasive (exotic) and non-invasive (native) species. — Austral. Ecol. 33: 10–19, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McDowell S.C.L.: Photosynthetic characteristics of invasive and noninvasive species of Rubus (Rosaceae). — Am. J. Bot. 89: 1431–1438, 2002.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McFadyen R.C., Skarratt B.: Potential distribution of Chromolaena odorata (siam weed) in Australia, Africa and Oceania. — Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 59: 89–96, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Molina-Montenegro M.A., Atala C., Gianoli E.: Phenotypic plasticity and performance of Taraxacum officinale (dandelion) in habitats of contrasting environmental heterogeneity. — Biol. Invasions 12: 2277–2284, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Moutinho-Pereira J.M., Correia C.M., Gonçalves B.M. et al.: Leaf gas exchange and water relations of grapevines grown in three different conditions. — Photosynthetica 42: 81–86, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nagel J.M., Griffin K.L.: Can gas-exchange characteristics help explain the invasive success of Lythrum salicaria? — Biol. Invasions 6: 101–111, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pattison R.R., Goldstein G., Ares A.: Growth, biomass allocation and photosynthesis of invasive and native Hawaiian rainforest species. — Oecologia 117: 449–459, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Qin R.M., Zheng Y.L., Valiente-Banuet A. et al.: The evolution of increased competitive ability, innate competitive advantages, and novel biochemical weapons act in concert for a tropical invader. — New Phytol. 197: 979–988, 2013.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Qing H., Yao Y.H., Xiao Y. et al.: Invasive and native tall forms of Spartina alterniflora respond differently to nitrogen availability. — Acta Oecol. 37: 23–30, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Richards C.L., Bossdorf O., Muth N.Z. et al.: Jack of all trades, master of some? On the role of phenotypic plasticity in plant invasions. — Ecol. Lett. 9: 981–993, 2006.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rodgers V.L., Wolfe B.E., Werden L.K. et al.: The invasive species Alliaria petiolata (garlic mustard) increases soil nutrient availability in northern hardwood-conifer forests. — Oecologia 157: 459–471, 2008.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sangakkara U.R., Attanayake K.B., Dissanayake U. et al.: Allelopathic impact of Chromolaena odorata (L.) King and Robinson on germination and growth of selected tropical crops. — J. Plant Dis. Protect. 21: 321–326, 2008.Google Scholar
  40. Smith M.D., Knapp A.K.: Physiological and morphological traits of exotic, invasive exotic and native plant species in tallgrass prairie. — Int. J. Plant Sci. 162: 785–792, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sousa R., Morais P., Dias E. et al.: Biological invasions and ecosystem functioning: time to merge. — Biol. Invasions 13: 1055–1058, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Strickland M.S., DeVore J.L., Maerz J.C. et al.: Loss of fastercycling soil carbon pools following grass invasion across multiple forest sites. — Soil Biol. Biochem. 43: 452–454, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Valladares F., Wright S.J., Lasso E. et al.: Plastic phenotypic response to light of 16 congeneric shrubs from a Panamanian rainforest. — Ecology 81: 1925–1936, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. van Kleunen M., Weber E., Fischer M.: A meta-analysis of trait differences between invasive and non-invasive plant species. — Ecol. Lett. 13: 235–245, 2010.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wang J.F., Feng Y.L., Li Z.: [Acclimation of photosynthesis to growth light intensity in Chromolaena odorata L. and Gynura sp.] — J. Plant Physiol. Mol. Bio. 29: 542–548, 2003. [In Chinese]Google Scholar
  46. Williams J.L., Auge H., Maron J.L.: Different gardens, different results: native and introduced populations exhibit contrasting phenotypes across common gardens. — Oecologia 157: 239–248, 2008.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Witkowski E.T.F., Wilson M.: Changes in density, biomass, seed production and soil seed banks of the non-native invasive plant, Chromolaena odorata, along a 15 year chronosequence. — Plant Ecol. 152: 13–27, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wu Y.Y., Liu C.Q., Li P.P. et al.: Photosynthetic characteristics involved in adaptability to Karst soil and alien invasion of paper mulberry (Broussonetia papyrifera (L.) Vent.) in comparison with mulberry (Morus alba L.). — Photosynthetica 47: 155–160, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Xu C.Y., Griffin K.L., Schuster W.S.F.: Leaf phenology and seasonal variation of photosynthesis of invasive Berberis thunbergii (Japanese barberry) and two co-occurring native understory shrubs in a northeastern United States deciduous forest. — Oecologia 154: 11–21, 2007.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zhang L.L., Wen D.Z.: Structural and physiological responses of two invasive weeds, Mikania micrantha and Chromolaena odorata, to contrasting light and soil water conditions. — J. Plant Res. 122: 69–79, 2009.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zhang L.L., Wen D.Z., Fu S.L.: Responses of photosynthetic parameters of Mikania micrantha and Chromolaena odorata to contrasting irradiance and soil moisture. — Biol. Plantarum 53: 517–522, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zheng Y.L., Feng Y.L., Lei Y.B. et al.: Comparisons of plastic responses to irradiance and physiological traits by invasive Eupatorium adenophorum and its native congeners. — J. Plant Physiol. 169: 884–891, 2012.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Institute of Experimental Botany 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. M. Quan
    • 1
    • 2
  • D. J. Mao
    • 1
  • J. E. Zhang
    • 1
    Email author
  • J. F. Xie
    • 1
  • H. Q. Xu
    • 3
  • M. An
    • 4
  1. 1.Institute of Tropical and Subtropical EcologySouth China Agricultural UniversityGuangzhouChina
  2. 2.Department of Urban Construction EngineeringGuangzhou City PolytechnicGuangzhouChina
  3. 3.Agricultural CollegeHunan Agricultural UniversityChangshaChina
  4. 4.Environmental and Analytical Laboratories, Faculty of Science; E H Graham Centre for Agricultural Innovation (Industry & Investment NSW and Charles Sturt University)Charles Sturt UniversityWagga WaggaAustralia

Personalised recommendations