Advertisement

Plant and Soil

, Volume 331, Issue 1–2, pp 105–114 | Cite as

Nitrogen uptake and utilisation as a competition factor between invasive Duchesnea indica and native Fragaria vesca

  • Johanna Littschwager
  • Marianne Lauerer
  • Evgenia Blagodatskaya
  • Yakov Kuzyakov
Regular Article

Abstract

The Indian mock strawberry [Duchesnea indica (Andrews) Focke] is an invasive plant in several regions of central Europe and Germany. In order to explore its competitive ability, we compared it with the native woodland strawberry (Fragaria vesca L.) by growing it alone as well as in intra- or inter-specific competition in a pot experiment under greenhouse conditions. Nutrient solution was added several times at two nitrogen (N) levels. One addition involved 15N labelling to determine whether the competition of both plant species depends on their ability to acquire N from soil. Duchesnea had a higher biomass production than Fragaria when grown in nutrient-rich soil, both in competition and as a solitary plant. Under N-poor conditions, root interference could change this superiority due to limited soil space. After 65 days of growth, total plant dry weight, total N content and 15N content in the plant tissues were determined. The results show that the predominance of Duchesnea in biomass production was confirmed at high, but not at low N availability. The assimilate partitioning strategy of Duchesnea differs from that of Fragaria: the former generally had a higher shoot-to-root ratio. The N content in shoots and roots was affected only by N addition but not by competition or species. Duchesnea allocated more N to the leaves, Fragaria to the roots. The amount of 15N taken up was nearly equal for both species. In relation to root biomass, Duchesnea had a higher specific uptake rate at low N addition because of the higher root biomass in Fragaria. The roots of Fragaria and Duchesnea did not affect each other when grown together. We conclude that the invasive potential of Duchesnea is only poorly related to the N uptake rate or to better root competition for N. In N-rich environments, however, Duchesnea is highly competitive because of the preferred investment in shoot biomass. Therefore, environments with increased N deposition, i.e. from anthropogenic sources, could promote the invasive potential of Duchesnea.

Keywords

N utilisation Duchesnea indica Fragaria vesca 15N uptake Competition strategies Invasive species 

References

  1. Aeschimann D, Lauber K, Moser DM, Theurillat JP (2004) Flora alpina. Haupt, BernGoogle Scholar
  2. Albornoz P, Arias M, Castagnaro A, Díaz Ricci JC (2007) Comparative root anatomy of Duchesnea indica, Fragaria vesca and Potentilla tucumanensis (Rosaceae) in Tucumán province, Argentina. Adansonia 29(2):255–267Google Scholar
  3. Breunig T (2006) Die Verbreitung der Indischen Scheinerdbeere (Duchesnea indica) in Baden-Württemberg. Die Pflanzenpresse, Rundbrief der Botanischen Arbeitsgemeinschaft Südwestdeutschland e.V. 13/2006. Botanischen Arbeitsgemeinschaft Südwestdeutschland, KarlsruheGoogle Scholar
  4. Callaway RM (2002) The detection of neighbors by plants. Trends Ecol Evol 17:104–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Craine JM (2005) Reconciling plant strategy theories of Grime and Tilman. J Ecol 93:1041–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dudley SA, File AL (2007) Kin recognition in an annual plant. Biol Lett 3:435–438CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Fusseder A, Kraus M (1986) Individuelle Wurzelkonkurrenz und Ausnutzung der immobilen Makronährstoffe im Wurzelraum von Mais. Flora 178:11–18Google Scholar
  8. Gersani M, Brown JS, O'Brien EE, Maina GM, Abramsky Z (2001) Tragedy of the commons as a result of root competition. J Ecol 89:660–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goldberg DE (1990) Components of resource competition in plant communities. In: Grace J, Tilman GD (eds) Perspectives in plant competition. Academic, New York, pp 27–47Google Scholar
  10. Grime JP (1977) Evidence for the existence of three primary strategies in plants and its relevance to ecological and evolutionary theory. Am Nat 111:1169–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hegi G (1906–1995) Illustrierte Flora von Mitteleuropa. Parey, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  12. Hodge A (2004) The plastic plant: root responses to heterogeneous supplies of nutrients. New Phytol 162:9–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jungk A (2001) Root hairs and the acquisition of plant nutrients from soil. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 164:121–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kamminga-van Wijk C, Prins HBA (1993) The kinetics of NH4+ and NO3 uptake by Douglas fir from single N-solutions and from solutions containing both NH4+ and NO3. Plant Soil 151:92–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kolb A, Alpert P, Enters D, Holzapfel C (2002) Patterns of invasion within a grassland community. J Ecol 90:871–881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Krannitz PG, Caldwell MM (1995) Root growth responses of three great Basin perennials to intra- and interspecific contact with other roots. Flora 190:161–167Google Scholar
  17. Kronzucker HJ, Siddiqi MY, Glass ADM (1997) Conifer root discrimination against soil nitrate and the ecology of forest succession. Nature 385:59–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kronzucker HJ, Siddiqi MY, Glass ADM, Britto DT (2003) Root ammonium transport efficiency as a determinant in forest colonization patterns: an hypothesis. Physiol Plant 117:164–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kuzyakov Y (2002) Review: factors affecting rhizosphere priming effects. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 165:382–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kuzyakov Y, Ehrensberger H, Stahr K (2001) Carbon partitioning and below-ground translocation by Lolium perenne. Soil Biol Biochem 33:61–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Liefländer A, Lauerer M (2007) Spontanvorkommen von Duchesnea indica: Ein Neophyt breitet sich in den letzten Jahren verstärkt aus. Ber Bayer Bot Ges 77:187–200Google Scholar
  22. Liljeroth E, Van Veen JA, Miller HJ (1990) Assimilate translocation to the rhizosphere of two wheat lines and subsequent utilization by rhizosphere microorganisms at two soil nitrogen concentrations. Soil Biol Biochem 22:1015–1021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Maina GM, Brown JS, Gersani M (2002) Intra-plant versus inter-plant root competition in beans: avoidance, resource matching or tragedy of the commons. Plant Ecol 160:235–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Maskell LC, Firbank LG, Thompson K, Bullock JM, Smart SM (2006) Interactions between non-native plant species and the floristic composition of common habitats. J Ecol 94:1052–1060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McConnaughay KDM, Bazzaz FA (1991) Is physical space a soil resource? Ecology 72(1):94–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Murphy GP, Dudley SA (2007) Above- and below-ground competition cues elicit independent responses. J Ecol 95:261–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nepple A (2003) Vergleich der autökologischen Merkmale und der Konkurrenzstärke von Fragaria vesca und Duchesnea indica. Diploma thesis, University of BayreuthGoogle Scholar
  28. Schenk HJ, Callaway RM, Mahall BE (1999) Spatial root segregation: are plants territorial? Adv Ecol Res 28:145–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schenk HJ (2006) Root competition: beyond resource depletion. J Ecol 94:725–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schilling G (2000) Pflanzenernährung und Düngung. Ulmer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  31. Semchenko M, Hutchings MJ, John EA (2007) Challenging the tragedy of the commons in root competition: confounding effects of neighbor presence and substrate volume. J Ecol 95:252–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Taiz L, Zeiger E (2007) Plant physiology, 4th edn. Spektrum, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  33. Weiner J, Wright DB, Castro S (1997) Symmetry of below-ground competition between Kochia scoparia individuals. Oikos 79:85–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zhang DY, Sun GJ, Jiang XH (1999) Donald’s ideotype and growth redundancy: a game theoretical analysis. Field Crops Res 61:179–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Johanna Littschwager
    • 1
  • Marianne Lauerer
    • 2
  • Evgenia Blagodatskaya
    • 1
  • Yakov Kuzyakov
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Agroecosystem Research, BayCEERUniversity of BayreuthBayreuthGermany
  2. 2.Ecological-Botanical GardensUniversity of BayreuthBayreuthGermany

Personalised recommendations