Plant and Soil

, Volume 326, Issue 1–2, pp 331–343

Intraspecific and interspecific pair-wise seedling competition between exotic annual grasses and native perennials: plant–soil relationships

Regular Article


Few studies have examined plant–soil relationships in competitive arenas between exotic and native plants in the western United States. A pair-wise competitive design was used to evaluate plant–soil relationships between seedlings of the exotic annual grasses Bromus tectorum and Taeniatherium caput-medusae and the native perennial grasses Elymus elymoides and Pseudoroegneria spicata. Two soils were tested: an arid soil (argid) occupied by E. elymoides and presently invaded by B. tectorum and a high elevation, high organic matter, soil (aquept) where none of the tested species would typically occur. Plant growth proceeded for 85 days at which time above-ground biomass and tissue nutrient concentrations were quantified. Soil also was collected from the rooting zone beneath each species and analyzed for various nutrient pools. The exotic species had significantly greater above-ground biomass than the natives and grew far better in the aquept soil than the argid soil. Growth of B. tectorum, and to some degree, T. caput-medusae was suppressed in intraspecific competition and enhanced, especially in the aquept soil, when competing with the natives. Although not significant, biomass of natives strongly trended downward when competing with the exotic grasses. Overall, concentrations of tissue nutrients were minimally affected by competition, but natives tended to be more negatively affected by competition with exotics. Except for phosphorus (P), all species had significantly greater nutrient concentrations when growing in the aquept soil compared to the argid soil. In both soils, exotics had significant greater tissue concentrations of manganese (Mn), magnesium (Mg), and iron (Fe), while natives had significantly greater nitrogen (N). Species affects on soil nutrient pools occurred mostly in the aquept soil with exotic species significantly decreasing pools of available N, potentially available N, and soil-solution pools of calcium (Ca2+), potassium (K+), and magnesium (Mg2+) relative to natives. Overall, the data suggest that, in the seedling state, B. tectorum is a superior competitor. Moreover, when the natives compete intra- or interspecifically, particularly in the aquept soil, availability of N and other nutrients in their rooting zone is consistently greater than when they compete interspecifically with the exotic grasses. These data suggest the exotics are able to co-opt nutrients in the rooting zone of the natives and perhaps gain a competitive advantage.


Bromus tectorum Elymus elymoides Intraspecific competition Interspecific competition Plant–soil relationships Pseudoroegneria spicata Taeniatherum caput-medusae 


  1. Adair CE, Burke IC, Lauenroth WK (2008) Contrasting effects of resource availability and plant mortality on plant community invasion by Bromus tectorum L. Plant Soil 304:103–115. doi:10.1007/s11104-007-9525-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arredondo KT, Johnson DA (2002) Root architecture and biomass allocation of three range grasses in response to nonuniform supply of nutrients and shoot defoliation. New Phytol 143:373–385. doi:10.1046/j.1469-8137.1999.00460.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bever JD (1993) Soil community feedback and the coexistence of competitors: conceptual frameworks and empirical tests. New Phytol 157:465473Google Scholar
  4. Bever JD (1994) Feedback between plants and their soil communities in an old-field community. Ecol 75:1965–1977. doi:10.2307/1941601 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bias HP, Vepachedu R, Gilroy S, Callaway RM, Vivanco JM (2003) Allelopathy and exotic plant invasion: from molecules and genes to species interactions. Sci 301:1377–1380. doi:10.1126/science.1083245 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blank RR, Young JA (2004) Influence of three weed species on soil nutrient dynamics. Soil Sci 169:385–397. doi:10.1097/ CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blank RR, Svjecar TJ, Riegel GM (1995) Soil genesis and morphology of a montane meadow in the northern Sierra Nevada Range. Soil Sci 160:136–152. doi:10.1097/00010694-199516020-00007 Google Scholar
  8. Blank RR, Trent JD, Young JA (2002) Sagebrush communities on clayey soils of northeastern California: a fragile equilibrium. In: Clary WP, McArthur ED, Bedunah D, Wambolt CL (compliers) Proceedings–symposium on ecology and management of riparian shrub communities. Gen Tech Rep INT-289. USDA-Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. pp 198–202Google Scholar
  9. Blossey B, Nötzold R (1995) Evolution of increased competitive ability in invasive nonindigenous plants: a hypothesis. J Ecol 83:887–889. doi:10.2307/2261425 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bradley MA, Mustard JF (2005) Identifying land cover variability distinct from land cover change: cheatgrass in the Great Basin. Remote Sens Environ 94:204–213. doi:10.1016/j.rse.2004.08.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bremner JM, Mulvaney CS (1982) Nitrogen-Total. In: Page AL (ed) Methods of soil analysis, part 2 chemical and microbiological properties. ASA, Madison, WI, pp 595–624Google Scholar
  12. Bundy LG, Meisinger JJ (1994) Nitrogen availability indices. In: Weaver AL (ed) Methods of soil analysis, part 2 microbiological and biochemical properties. SSSA, Madison, WI, pp 951–984Google Scholar
  13. Burke MJW, Grime JP (1996) An experimental study of plant community invasibility. Ecol 77:776–790. doi:10.2307/2265501 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Callaway RM (1995) Positive interactions among plants. Bot Rev 61:306–340. doi:10.1007/BF02912621 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Callaway RM (2002) The detection of neighbors by plants. Tends Ecol Evolution 17:104–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Callaway RM, Thelen GC, Rodriguez A, Holben WE (2004) Soil biota and exotic plant invasion. Nature 427:731–733. doi:10.1038/nature02322 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Casper BB, Jackson RB (1997) Plant competition underground. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 28:545–570. doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.28.1.545 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Clausnitzer DW, Borman MM, Johnson DE (1999) Competition between Elymus elymoides and Taeniatherum caput-medusae. Weed Sci 47:720–728Google Scholar
  19. Crooks JA (2002) Characterizing ecosystem-level consequences of biological invasions: the role of ecosystem engineers. Oikos 97:153–166. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2002.970201.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Davis MA, Grime JP, Thompson K (2001) Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invasibility. J Ecol 88:528–534. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2745.2000.00473.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Dietz H, Edwards PJ (2006) Recognition that causal processes change during plant invasion helps explain conflicts in evidence. Ecol 87:1359–1367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ehrenfeld JG, Ravit B, Elgersma K (2005) Feedback in the plant–soil system. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30:75–115. doi:10.1146/ CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gee GE, Bauder JW (1986) Particle-size analysis. In: A Klute (ed) Methods of soil analysis, Part 1 physical and mineralogical methods. ASA, Madison WI, pp 383–411Google Scholar
  25. Goldberg DE (1990) Components of resource competition in plant communities. In: Grace JB, Tilman D (eds) Perspectives on plant competition. Academic, New York, pp 27–49Google Scholar
  26. Harris GA (1967) Some competitive relationships between Agropyron spicatum and Bromus tectorum. Ecol Monogr 37:89–111. doi:10.2307/2937337 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harris GA, Wilson AM (1970) Competition for moisture among seedling of annual grasses as influenced by root elongation at low temperatures. Ecol 51:530–534. doi:10.2307/1935392 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hart SC, Stark JM, Davidson EA, Firestone MK (1994) Nitrogen mineralization, immobilization, and nitrification. In: RW Weaver (ed) Methods of soil analysis, Part 2 microbiological and biochemical properties. SSSA, Madison WI, pp 985–1018Google Scholar
  29. Henderson S, Dawson TP, Whittaker RJ (2006) Progress in invasive plants research. Prog Phys Geogr 30:25–46. doi:10.1191/0309133306pp468ra CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hobbs RJ, Humphries SE (1995) An integrated approach to the ecology and management of plant invasions. Conserv Biol 9:761–770. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1995.09040761.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Humphrey LD, Schupp EW (2004) Competition as a barrier to establishment of a native perennial grass (Elymus elymoides) in alien annual grass (Bromus tectorum) communities. J Arid Environ 58:405–422. doi:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2003.11.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. James JJ (2008) Leaf nitrogen productivity as a mechanism driving the success of invasive annual grasses under low and high nitrogen supply. J Arid Environ 72:1775–1784. doi:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2008.05.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Keddy P, Twolan-Strutt L, Shipley B (1997) Experimental evidence that interspecific competitive asymmetry increases with soil productivity. Oikos 80:253–256. doi:10.2307/3546593 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Knick ST, Rotenberry JT (1997) Landscape characteristics of disturbed shrubsteppe habitats in southwestern Idaho (U.S.A.). Landscape Ecol 12:287–297. doi:10.1023/A:1007915408590 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kulmatiski A, Beard KH, Stevens JR, Cobbold SM (2008) Plant–soil feedbacks: a meta-analytical review. Ecol Lett 11:980–992. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01209.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Kuske CR, Tichnor LO, Miller ME, Dunbar JM, Davis JA, Barns SM, Belnap J (2002) Comparison of soil bacterial communities in rhizospheres of three plant species and the interspaces in an arid grassland. Appl Environ Microbiol 68:1854–1863. doi:10.1128/AEM.68.4.1854-1863.2002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Lambrinos JG (2004) How interactions between ecology and evolution influence contemporary invasion dynamics. Ecol 85:2061–2070. doi:10.1890/03-8013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Liao C, Peng R, Luo Y, Zhou X, Wu X, Fang C, Chen J, Li B (2008) Altered ecosystem carbon and nitrogen cycles by plant invasion: a meta-analysis. New Phytol 177:706–714CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 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
  40. Mack RN (1981) Invasion of Bromus tectorum L. into Western North America: an ecological chronicle. Agro-ecosyst 7:145–165. doi:10.1016/0304-3746(81)90027-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McLean EO (1982) Soil pH and lime requirement. In: Page AL (ed) Methods of soil analysis, part 2 chemical and microbiological properties. ASA, Madison, WI, pp 199–224Google Scholar
  42. Melgoza G, Nowak RS, Tausch RJ (1990) Soil water exploitation after fire: competition between Bromus tectorum (cheatgrass) and two native species. Oecologia 83:7–13. doi:10.1007/BF00324626 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Monaco TA, Johnson DA, Norton JM, Jones TA, Connors KJ, Norton JB, Redinbaugh MB (2003) Contrasting responses of Intermountain West grasses to soil nitrogen. J Range Manage 56:282–290. doi:10.2307/4003820 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mubarak A, Olsen RA (1977) A laboratory technique for appraising in situ salinity of soil. Soil Sci Soc Am J 41:1018–1020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nelson DW, Sommers LE (1982) Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. In: Page AL (ed) Methods of soil analysis, part 2 chemical and microbiological properties. SSSA, Madison WI, pp 539–579Google Scholar
  46. Olsen SR, Sommers LE (1982) Phosphorus. In: Page AL (ed) Methods of soil analysis, part 2 chemical and microbiological properties. ASA, Madison, WI, pp 403–430Google Scholar
  47. Perry DA, Amaranthus MP, Borchers JG, Borchers SL, Brainerd RE (1989) Bootstrapping in ecosystems. Bioscience 39:230–237. doi:10.2307/1311159 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Radosevich SR, Stubbs MM, Ghersa CM (2003) Plant invasions: process and patterns. Weed Sci 51:254–259. doi:10.1614/0043-1745(2003)051[0254:PIPAP]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Reinhart KO, Callaway RM (2006) Soil biota and invasive plants. New Phytol 170:445–457. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2006.01715.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Rice EL (1964) Inhibition of nitrogen-fixing and nitrifying bacteria by seed plants. Ecol 45:824–837. doi:10.2307/1934928 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rummell RS (1946) Some effects of competition from cheagrass brome on crested wheatgrass and bluestem wheatgrass. Ecol 27:159–167. doi:10.2307/1932510 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sakai AK, Allendorf FW, Holt JS, Lodge DM, Molofsky J, With KA, Baughman S, Cabin RJ, Cohen JE, Ellstrand NC, McCauley DE, O’Neil P, Parker IM, Thompson JN, Weller SG (2001) The population biology of invasive species. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 2001:305–332. doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.32.081501.114037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sheley RL, Bingham BS, Svejcar TJ (2008) Crested wheatgrass defoliation intensity and season on medusahead invasion. Rangeland Ecol Manag 61:211–217. doi:10.2111/07-062.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stoll P, Prati D (2001) Intraspecific aggregation alters competitive interactions in experimental plant communities. Ecology 82:319–327Google Scholar
  55. Thomas GW (1982) Exchangeable cations. In: Page AL (ed) Methods of soil analysis part 2 chemical and microbiological properties. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, pp 159–166Google Scholar
  56. Thompson K, Hodgson JG, Rich TCG (2006) Native and alien invasive plants: more of the same? Ecography 18:390–402. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0587.1995.tb00142.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Van Breemen N, Finzi AC (1998) Plant–soil interactions: ecological aspects and evolutionary implications. Biogeochem 42:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Vilá M, Weiner J (2004) Are invasive plant species better competitors than native plant species?—evidence from pair-wise experiments. Oikos 105:229–238. doi:10.1111/j.0030-1299.2004.12682.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wolfe JE, Klironomos JN (2005) Breaking new ground: soil communities and exotic plant invasion. Bioscience 55:477–487. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0477:BNGSCA]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Young JA, Evans RA (1970) Invasion of medusahead into the Great Basin. Weed Sci 18:89–97Google Scholar
  61. Young K, Mangold J (2008) Medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) outperforms squirreltail (Elymus elymoides) through interference and growth rate. Invasive Plant Sci Manage 1:73–81. doi:10.1614/IPSM-07-021.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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

Copyright information

© US Government 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.USDA-Agricultural Research Service Exotic and Invasive Weed Research UnitRenoUSA

Personalised recommendations