Plant Ecology

, Volume 201, Issue 2, pp 445–456 | Cite as

California native and exotic perennial grasses differ in their response to soil nitrogen, exotic annual grass density, and order of emergence

  • Joel K. Abraham
  • Jeffrey D. Corbin
  • Carla M. D’Antonio
Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Early emergence of plant seedlings can offer strong competitive advantages over later-germinating neighbors through the preemption of limiting resources. This phenomenon may have contributed to the persistent dominance of European annual grasses over native perennial grasses in California grasslands, since the former species typically germinate earlier in the growing season than the latter and grow rapidly after establishing. Recently, European perennial grasses have been spreading into both non-native annual and native perennial coastal grass stands in California. These exotic perennials appear to be less affected by the priority effects arising from earlier germination by European annual grasses. In addition, these species interactions in California grasslands may be mediated by increasing anthropogenic or natural soil nitrogen inputs. We conducted a greenhouse experiment to test the effects of order of emergence and annual grass seedling density on native and exotic perennial grass seedling performance across different levels of nitrogen availability. We manipulated the order of emergence and density of an exotic annual grass (Bromus diandrus) grown with either Nassella pulchra (native perennial grass), Festuca rubra (native perennial grass), or Holcus lanatus (exotic perennial grass), with and without added nitrogen. Earlier B. diandrus emergence and higher B. diandrus density resulted in greater reduction in the aboveground productivity of the perennial grasses. However, B. diandrus suppressed both native perennials to a greater extent than it did H. lanatus. Nitrogen addition had no effect on the productivity of native perennials, but greatly increased the growth of the exotic perennial H. lanatus, grown with B. diandrus. These results suggest that the order of emergence of exotic annual versus native perennial grass seedlings could play an important role in the continued dominance of exotic annual grasses in California. The expansion of the exotic perennial grass H. lanatus in coastal California may be linked to its higher tolerance of earlier-emerging annual grasses and its ability to access soil resources amidst high densities of annual grasses.

Keywords

Exotic species Fertilization Germination Invasion Priority effects Seedling dynamics 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Barbara Rotz and the staff of the Oxford Tract Greenhouse for providing space and support for this project. We also thank the Audubon Canyon Ranch for allowing access to collect seed. A. D’Amore, M. Metz, J. Schue, N. Robinson, A. Shabel, H. Schwartz, and E. Harris provided assistance in the greenhouse. W. Sousa, M. Metz, K. Suttle, R. Bhaskar, J. Skene, and two anonymous reviewers provided useful comments on drafts of this manuscript. We thank the National Science Foundation (DEB 9910008) for financial support.

References

  1. Bartolome JW, Gemmill B (1981) The ecological status of Stipa pulchra (Poaceae) in California. Madroño 28:172–184Google Scholar
  2. Brown CS, Rice KJ (2000) The mark of Zorro: effects of the exotic annual grass Vulpia myuros on California native perennial grasses. Restor Ecol 8:10–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buisson E, Holl KD, Anderson S et al (2006) Effect of seed source, topsoil removal, and plant neighbor removal on restoring California coastal prairies. Restor Ecol 14:569–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burke MJW, Grime JP (1996) An experimental study of plant community invasibility. Ecology 77:776–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chapin FS (1980) The mineral nutrition of wild plants. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 11:233–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Claassen VP, Marler M (1998) Annual and perennial grass growth on nitrogen-depleted decomposed granite. Restor Ecol 6:175–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clausnitzer DW, Borman MM, Johnson DE (1999) Competition between Elymus elymoides and Taeniatherum caput-medusae. Weed Sci 47:720–728Google Scholar
  8. Corbin JD, D’Antonio CM (2004a) Can carbon addition increase competitiveness of native grasses? A case study from California. Restor Ecol 12:36–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Corbin JD, D’Antonio CM (2004b) Competition between native perennial and exotic annual grasses: implications for an historical invasion. Ecology 85:1273–1283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Corbin JD, D’Antonio CM, Bainbridge S (2004) Tipping the balance in the restoration of native plants: experimental approaches to changing the exotic:native ratio in California grassland. In: Gordon M, Bartol S (eds) Experimental approaches to conservation biology. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  11. Corbin JD, Thomsen MA, Dawson TE et al (2005) Summer water use by California coastal prairie grasses: fog, drought, and community composition. Oecologia 145:511–521PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Corbin JD, Dyer AR, Seabloom EW (2007) Competitive interactions. In: Stromberg MR, Corbin JD, D’Antonio CM (eds) California grasslands: ecology and management. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  13. D’Antonio CM, Hughes RF, Vitousek PM (2001) Factors influencing dynamics of two invasive C-4 grasses in seasonally dry Hawaiian woodlands. Ecology 82:89–104Google Scholar
  14. D’Antonio CM, Malmstrom C, Reynolds SA et al (2007) Ecology of invasive non-native species in California grassland. In: Stromberg MR, Corbin JD, D’Antonio CM (eds) California grasslands: ecology and management. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  15. Davies A, Dunnett NP, Kendle T (1999) The importance of transplant size and gap width in the botanical enrichment of species-poor grasslands in Britain. Restor Ecol 7:271–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dise NB, Stevens CJ (2005) Nitrogen deposition and reduction of terrestrial biodiversity: evidence from temperate grasslands. Sci China C Life Sci 48:720–728PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. DiVittorio CT, Corbin JD, D’Antonio CM (2007) Spatial and temporal patterns of seed dispersal: an important determinant of grassland invasion. Ecol Appl 17:311–316PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dyer AR, Rice KJ (1997) Intraspecific and diffuse competition: the response of Nassella pulchra in a California grassland. Ecol Appl 7:484–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dyer AR, Rice KJ (1999) Effects of competition on resource availability and growth of a California bunchgrass. Ecology 80:2697–2710Google Scholar
  20. Dyer AR, Fossum HC, Menke JW (1996) Emergence and survival of Nassella pulchra in a California grassland. Madroño 43:316–333Google Scholar
  21. Dyer AR, Fenech A, Rice KJ (2000) Accelerated seedling emergence in interspecific competitive neighbourhoods. Ecol Lett 3:523–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Elliott HWI, Wehausen JD (1974) Vegetation succession on coastal rangeland of Point Reyes Peninsula. Madroño 22:231–238Google Scholar
  23. Ewing K (2002) Effects of initial site treatments on early growth and three-year survival of Idaho fescue. Restor Ecol 10:282–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fenn ME, Baron JS, Allen EB et al (2003) Ecological effects of nitrogen deposition in the western United States. Bioscience 53:404–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Foin TC, Hektner MM (1986) Secondary succession and the fate of native species in a California coastal prairie community. Madroño 33:189–206Google Scholar
  26. Hamilton JG, Holzapfel C, Mahall BE (1999) Coexistence and interference between a native perennial grass and non-native annual grasses in California. Oecologia 121:518–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harper JL (1961) Approaches to the study of plant competition. Mechanisms in biological competition. Academic Press Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Haubensak KA, D’Antonio CM, Alexander J (2004) Effects of nitrogen-fixing shrubs in Washington and coastal California. Weed Technol 18:1475–1479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Heady HF (1988) Valley grassland. In: Barbour MG, Major J (eds) Terrestrial vegetation of California. California Native Plant Society, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  30. Heady HF, Foin TC, Hektner MM et al (1988) Coastal prairie and northern coastal scrub. In: Barbour MG, Major J (eds) Terrestrial vegetation of California. California Native Plant Society, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  31. Hickman JC (ed) (1993) The Jepson manual. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  32. Hobbs RJ, Mooney HA (1985) Community and population dynamics of serpentine grassland annuals in relation to gopher disturbance. Oecologia 67:342–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Holmes TH, Rice KJ (1996) Patterns of growth and soil–water utilization in some exotic annuals and native perennial bunchgrasses of California. Ann Bot (Lond) 78:233–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hoopes MF, Hall LM (2002) Edaphic factors and competition affect pattern formation and invasion in a California grassland. Ecol Appl 12:24–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Huddleston RT, Young TP (2004) Spacing and competition between planted grass plugs and preexisting perennial grasses in a restoration site in Oregon. Restor Ecol 12:546–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Huenneke LF, Hamburg SP, Koide R et al (1990) Effects of soil resources on plant invasion and community structure in Californian serpentine grassland. Ecology 71:478–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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 58:405–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Inouye RS, Tilman D (1988) Convergence and divergence of old field plant communities along experimental nitrogen gradients. Ecology 69:995–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jackson LE, Roy J (1986) Growth patterns of Mediterranean annual and perennial grasses under simulated rainfall regimes of southern France and California. Acta Oecol Oecol Plant 7:191–212Google Scholar
  40. Johansson ME, Keddy PA (1991) Intensity and asymmetry of competition between plant pairs of different degrees of similarity: an experimental study on two guilds of wetland plants. Oikos 60:27–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kennedy PG, Bruns TD (2005) Priority effects determine the outcome of ectomycorrhizal competition between two Rhizopogon species colonizing Pinus muricata seedlings. New Phytol 166:631–638PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kolb A, Alpert P (2003) Effects of nitrogen and salinity on growth and competition between a native grass and an invasive congener. Biol Invasions 5:229–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kolb A, Alpert P, Enters D et al (2002) Patterns of invasion within a grassland community. J Ecol 90:871–881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kotanen PM (1995) Responses of vegetation to a changing regime of disturbance—effects of feral pigs in a Californian coastal prairie. Ecography 18:190–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lawler SP, Morin PJ (1993) Temporal overlap, competition, and priority effects in larval anurans. Ecology 74:174–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lenz TI, Facelli JM (2005) The role of seed limitation and resource availability in the recruitment of native perennial grasses and exotics in a south Australian grassland. Aust Ecol 30:684–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lowe PN, Lauenroth WK, Burke IC (2003) Effects of nitrogen availability on competition between Bromus tectorum and Bouteloua gracilis. Plant Ecol 167:247–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lulow ME (2006) Invasion by non-native annual grasses: the importance of species biomass, composition, and time among California native grasses of the Central Valley. Restor Ecol 14:616–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Maron JL, Connors PG (1996) A native nitrogen-fixing shrub facilitates weed invasion. Oecologia 105:302–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Maron JL, Jefferies RL (1999) Bush lupine mortality, altered resource availability, and alternative vegetation states. Ecology 80:443–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. McGuinness KA (2002) Of rowing boats, ocean liners and tests of the ANOVA homogeneity of variance assumption. Austral Ecol 27:681–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Miller TE (1987) Effects of emergence time on survival and growth in an early old field plant community. Oecologia 72:272–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Miller TE, Winn AA, Schemske DW (1994) The effects of density and spatial distribution on selection for emergence time in Prunella vulgaris (Lamiaceae). Am J Bot 81:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Moyes AB, Witter MS, Gamon JA (2005) Restoration of native perennials in a California annual grassland after prescribed spring burning and solarization. Restor Ecol 13:659–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Page HN, Bork EW (2005) Effect of planting season, bunchgrass species, and neighbor control on the success of transplants for grassland restoration. Restor Ecol 13:651–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Peart DR (1989a) Species interactions in a successional grassland. 1. Seed rain and seedling recruitment. J Ecol 77:236–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Peart DR (1989b) Species interactions in a successional grassland. 2. Colonization of vegetated sites. J Ecol 77:252–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Peart DR (1989c) Species interactions in a successional grassland. 3. Effects of canopy gaps, gopher mounds and grazing on colonization. J Ecol 77:267–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Phoenix GK, Hicks WK, Cinderby S et al (2006) Atmospheric nitrogen deposition in world biodiversity hotspots: the need for a greater global perspective in assessing N deposition impacts. Glob Change Biol 12:470–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Prober SM, Thiele KR, Lunt ID (2002) Identifying ecological barriers to restoration in temperate grassy woodlands: soil changes associated with different degradation states. Aust J Bot 50:699–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Reynolds SA, Corbin JD, D’Antonio CM (2001) The effects of litter and temperature on the germination of native and exotic grasses in a coastal California grassland. Madroño 48:230–235Google Scholar
  62. Rice KJ, Dyer AR (2001) Seed aging, delayed germination and reduced competitive ability in Bromus tectorum. Plant Ecol 155:237–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rice KJ, Nagy ES (2000) Oak canopy effects on the distribution patterns of two annual grasses: the role of competition and soil nutrients. Am J Bot 87:1699–1706PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Ross MA, Harper JL (1972) Occupation of biological space during seedling establishment. J Ecol 60:77–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Schippers P, Snoeijing I, Kropff MJ (1999) Competition under high and low nutrient levels among three grassland species occupying different positions in a successional sequence. New Phytol 143:547–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Seabloom EW, Harpole WS, Reichman OJ et al (2003) Invasion, competitive dominance, and resource use by exotic and native California grassland species. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:13384–13389PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Shorrocks B, Bingley M (1994) Priority effects and species coexistence—experiments with fungal-breeding Drosophila. J Anim Ecol 63:799–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Stromberg MR, Griffin JR (1996) Long-term patterns in coastal California grasslands in relation to cultivation, gophers, and grazing. Ecol Appl 6:1189–1211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Stromberg MR, Kephart P (1996) Restoring native grasses in California old fields. Restor Manag Notes 14:102–111Google Scholar
  70. Stromberg MR, Kephart P, Yadon V (2001) Composition, invasibility, and diversity in coastal California grasslands. Madroño 48:236–252Google Scholar
  71. Stromberg MR, D’Antonio CM, Young TP et al (2007) California grassland restoration. In: Stromberg MR, Corbin JD, D’Antonio CM (eds) California grasslands: ecology and management. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  72. Thomsen MA, Corbin JD, D’Antonio CM (2006a) The effect of soil nitrogen on competition between native and exotic perennial grasses from northern coastal California. Plant Ecol 186:23–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Thomsen MA, D’Antonio CM, Suttle KB et al (2006b) Ecological resistance, seed density and their interactions determine patterns of invasion in a California coastal grassland. Ecol Lett 9:160–170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Underwood AJ (1997) Experiments in ecology: their logical design and interpretation using analysis of variance. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  75. Verdù M, Traveset A (2005) Early emergence enhances plant fitness: a phylogenetically controlled meta-analysis. Ecology 86:1385–1394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Vitousek PM, Walker LR, Whiteaker LD et al (1987) Biological invasion by Myrica faya alters ecosystem development in Hawaii. Science 238:802–804PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Vitousek PM, Aber JD, Howarth RW et al (1997) Human alteration of the global nitrogen cycle: sources and consequences. Ecol Appl 7:737–750Google Scholar
  78. Weiss SB (1999) Cars, cows, and checkerspot butterflies: Nitrogen deposition and management of nutrient-poor grasslands for a threatened species. Conserv Biol 13:1476–1486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Weiss SB (2006) Impacts of nitrogen deposition on California ecosystems and biodiversity. California Energy Commission, PIER Energy-Related Environmental Research. CEC-500-2005-165Google Scholar
  80. Wilken DH, Painter EL (1993) Bromus. In: Hickman JC (ed) The Jepson manual. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  81. Wilson SD, Gerry AK (1995) Strategies for mixed-grass prairie restoration: herbicide, tilling, and nitrogen manipulation. Restor Ecol 3:290–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Young JA, Evans RA, Larsen JR (1981) Germinable seeds and periodicity of germination in annual grasslands. Hilgardia 49:1–35Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joel K. Abraham
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jeffrey D. Corbin
    • 1
    • 3
  • Carla M. D’Antonio
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Integrative BiologyUniversity of California, BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.Scheller Teacher Education ProgramMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA
  3. 3.Department of Biological SciencesUnion CollegeSchenectadyUSA
  4. 4.Ecology, Evolution & Marine BiologyUniversity of California, Santa BarbaraSanta BarbaraUSA

Personalised recommendations