Plant and Soil

, Volume 298, Issue 1–2, pp 7–19 | Cite as

Plant–soil relationships of the invasive annual grass Taeniatherum caput-medusae: a reciprocal transplant experiment

Regular Article

Abstract

The annual grass Taeniatherum caput-medusae (L.) Nevski (medusahead) is highly invasive on rangelands of the western United States. It originates from the Mediterranean basin and was introduced accidentally into North America in the late 1800s. To increase our knowledge of the soil factors that may contribute to its invasiveness, we conducted a reciprocal transplant experiment. Seed sources used were from an invasive population in northeastern California, USA and from a native population in southern France. Four soils were used: two from northeastern California, invaded (USI) and non-invaded (USN) by T. caput-medusae; two from southern France, with T. caput-medusae occupied (FR+) and a similar soil presently unoccupied (FR−) by T. caput-medusae. Treatments were control and autoclaved. Seeds were sown in containers (six replicates) for each soil and treatment combination of the reciprocal planting matrix and allowed to grow for 60 days. Following harvest, above-ground and below-ground tissue was dried and weight recorded separately. Above-ground tissue was analyzed for nutrient concentrations and various soil nutrient pools were quantified. Above-ground mass of T. caput-medusae was greatest in the USN soil and least in the FR- soil. Growth was affected by significant seed source × soil and treatment × soil interactions. French seed produced larger plants than did US seed when grown in the USN soil. For the USI soil, plant growth was significantly greater in the autoclaved soil than control. Availability of soil Fe, Mn, and ortho-P were significant predictors of plant growth as shown by stepwise regression. Moreover, the positive effect on growth of T. caput-medusae, due to autoclaving of USI soil, may be partially a consequence of elevated nutrient availability. Our data also suggests that US seed may have evolved a greater ability to uptake Mn from soil than French seed. Elevated soil nutrient availability in our western United States study area is a potential factor explaining the invasiveness of T. caput-medusae.

Keywords

Invasion processes Medusahead Microorganisms Soil fertility 

Notes

Acknowledgement

We thank Tye Morgan, Benoît Nusillard, and Olivier Simonot for their technical assistance.

References

  1. Anderson BH, Magdoff FR (2005) Autoclaving soil samples affects algal-available phosphorus. J Environ Qual 34:1958–1963PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bais HP, Vepachedu R, Gilroy S, Callaway RM, Vivanco JM (2003) Allelopathy and exotic plants: from genes to invasion. Science 301:1377–1380PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beckstead J, Parker IM (2003) Invasiveness of Ammophila arenaria: release from soil-borne pathogens? Ecology 84:2824–2831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belnap J, Phillips SL (2001) Soil biota in an ungrazed grassland: response to annual grass (Bromus tectorum) invasion. Ecol Appl 11:1261–1275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blank RR (2002) Amidohydrolase activity, soil N status, and the invasive crucifer Lepidium latifolium. Plant Soil 239:155–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brooks ML (2003) Effects of increased soil nitrogen on the dominance of alien plants in the Mojave Desert. J Appl Ecol 40:344–353Google Scholar
  7. Buckley YM, Downey P, Fowler SV, Hill R, Memmot J, Norambuena H, Pitcairn M, Shaw R, Sheppard AW, Winks C, Wittenberg R, Reese M (2003) Are invasives bigger? A global study of seed size variation in two invasive shrubs. Ecology 84:1434–1440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bundy LG, Meisinger JJ (1994) Nitrogen availability indices. In: Weaver RW, Angel JS, Bottomley PS (eds) Methods of soil analysis, part 2 microbiological and biochemical properties. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Inc., Madison, WI, pp 951–984Google Scholar
  9. Burke MJW, Grime JP (1996) An experimental study of plant community invasibility. Ecology 77:776–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Callaway RM, Aschehoug ET (2000) Invasive plants versus their new and old neighbors: a mechanism for exotic invasion. Science 290:731–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Callaway RM, Ridenour WM (1999) Novel weapons: invasive success and the evolution of increased competitive ability. Front Ecol Environ 2:436–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Callaway RM, Thelen G, Rodriguez A, Holben WE (2004) Release from inhibitory soil biota in Europe and positive plant–soil feedback in North America promote invasion Nature 427:731–733PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Campillo R, Andrade O, Contreras E (2001) Variaciones del contenido de Mn de dos suelos sometidos a esterilización y su efecto sobre la pudricion radical del trigo o “mal de pie” (Variation on Mn content of sterilized soil and their effect on take-all disease of wheat). Agricultura Técnica (Chile) 61:339–351Google Scholar
  14. Crawley MJ (1987) What makes a community invasible? In: Gray AJ, Crawley MJ, Edwards PJ (eds) Colonization, succession and stability. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 429–453Google Scholar
  15. D’Antonio CM, Vitousek PM (1992) Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, and global change. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 23:63–87Google Scholar
  16. Dahl BE, Tisdale EW (1975) Environmental factors related to medusahead distribution. J Range Manage 28:463–468Google Scholar
  17. Davis MA, Grime JP, Thompson K (2000) Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invasibility. J Ecol 88:528–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Elton CS (1958) The ecology of invasions by animals and plants. Methuen, London, 181 ppGoogle Scholar
  19. Fenn ME, Baron JS, Allen EB, Rueth HM, Nydick KR (2003) Ecological effect of nitrogen deposition in the Western United States. BioScience 53:404–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Green EK, Galatowitsch SM (2001) Differences in wetland plant community establishment with additions of nitrate-N and invasive species (Phalaris arundinacea and Typha glauca). Can J Bot 79:170–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Herbold B, Moyle PB (1986) Introduced species and vacant niches. Am Nat 128:751–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hierro JL, Callaway RM (2003) Allelopathy and exotic plant invasion. Plant Soil 256:29–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hierro JL, Maron JL, Callaway RM (2005) A biogeographical approach to plant invasions: the importance of studying exotics in their introduced and native range. J Ecol 93:5–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hinz HL, Schwarzlaender M (2004) Comparing invasive plants from their native and exotic range: what can we learn for biological control? Weed Technol 18:1533–1541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hironaka M (1961) The relative rate of root development of cheatgrass and medusahead. J Range Manage 14:263–267Google Scholar
  26. Klironomos JN (2002) Feedback with soil biota contributes to plant rarity and invasiveness in communities. Nature 417:67–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lindsay WL, Norvell WA (1978) Development of a DTPA soil test for zinc, iron, manganese, and copper. Soil Sci Soc Am J 42:421–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lusk WC, Jones MB, Torell DT, McKell CM (1961) Medusahead palatability. J Range Manage 14:249–251Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Maron JL, Vilá M, Bommarco R, Elmendorf S, Beardsley P (2004) Rapid evolution of an invasive plant. Ecol Monogr 74:261–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Miller RO (1998) High-temperature oxidations: dry ashing. In: Handbook of reference methods for plant analysis. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, pp 53–56Google Scholar
  32. Miller HC, Clausnitzer D, Borman MM (1999) Medusahead. In: Sheley RL, Petroff JK (eds) Biology and management of noxious rangeland weeds. Oregon State Univ. Press, Corvallis, OR, pp 271–281Google Scholar
  33. Mitchell CE, Power AG (2003) Release of invasive plants from fungal and viral pathogens. Nature 421:625–627PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Monaco TA, Mackown CT, Johnson DA, Jones TA, Norton JN, Norton JA, Redingaugh MG (2003) Nitrogen effects on seed germination and seedling growth. J Range Manage 56:646–653Google Scholar
  35. Mubarek A, Olsen RA (1976) Immiscible displacement of the soil solution by centrifugation. Soil Sci Soc Am J 40:329–331Google Scholar
  36. Reznick DN, Ghalambor CK (2001) The population ecology of contemporary adaptations: what empirical studies reveal about the conditions that promote adaptive evolution. Genetica 112–113:183–198PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rovira AD, Bowen GD (1966) The effects of micro-organisms upon plant growth II. Detoxication of heat-sterilized soils by fungi and bacteria. Plant Soil 25:129–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. SAS Institute (1999) SAS System. Version 8. SAS, Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  39. Sforza R, Eken C, Hayat R, Widmer TL (2004) First evaluation of Ustilago phrygica for the biological control of Taeniatherum caput-medusae (Triticeae). In: Proceedings of the XIIeme colloque International sur la bıologie des mauvaises herbes, Dijon, France, 31 Aug.–2 Sept., 2004, pp 407–412Google Scholar
  40. Siegwart M, Bon MC, Widmer TL, Crespy N, Sforza R (2003) First report of Fusarium arthrosporioides on Medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) and preliminary tests for host-specificity. Plant Pathol 52:416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Suding KN, LeJeune KD, Seastedt TR (2004) Competitive impacts and responses of an invasive weed: dependencies on nitrogen and phosphorus availability. Oecologia 141:526–535PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tabatabai MA (1994) Soil enzymes. In: Weaver RW, Angle JS, Bottomley PS (eds) Methods of soil analysis part 2 microbiological and biochemical properties. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Inc., Madison, WI, pp 775–834Google Scholar
  43. Thébaud C, Simberloff D (2001) Are plants really larger in their introduced ranges? Am Nat 157:231–236CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Widmer TL, Sforza R (2004) Exploration for plant pathogens against Taeniatherum caput-medusae (medusahead). In: Cullen JM, Briese DT, Kriticos DJ, Lonsdale WM, Morin L, Scott JK (eds) Proceedings of the XI international symposium on biological control of weeds. CSIRO Entomology, Canberra, Australia, pp 193–197Google Scholar
  45. Willis AJ, Blossey B (1999) Benign environments do not explain the increased vigour of non-indigenous plants: a cross-continental transplant experiment. Biocontrol Sci Technol 9:567–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Young JA, Evans RA (1970) Invasion of medusahead into the Great Basin. Weed Sci 18:89–97Google Scholar
  47. Young JA, Evans R (1982) Ecology and management of medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae ssp. asperum (Simk) Melderis). Great Basin Natur 52:245–252Google Scholar
  48. Young JA, Evans RA, Major J (1972) Alien plants in the Great Basin. J Range Manage 25:194–201Google Scholar
  49. Young JA, Trent JD, Blank RR, Palmquist DE (1998) Nitrogen interactions with medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae ssp. asperum) seedbanks. Weed Sci 46:191–195Google Scholar
  50. Ziska LH (2003) Evaluation of the growth response of six invasive species to past, present and future atmospheric carbon dioxide. J Exp Bot 54:395–404PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.USDA-Agricultural Research Service, Exotic and Invasive Weed Research UnitRenoUSA
  2. 2.USDA-Agricultural Research Service, European Biological Control LaboratoryMontpellierFrance

Personalised recommendations