Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Invasive species grows faster, competes better, and shows greater evolution toward increased seed size and growth than exotic non-invasive congeners

Abstract

Comparisons of introduced exotics that invade and those that do not can yield important insights into the ecology of invasions. Centaurea solstitialis, C. calcitrapa, and C. sulphurea are closely related, share a similar life history and were each introduced to western North America from Southern Europe ~100–200 years ago. However, of these three species, only C. solstitialis has become invasive. We collected seeds from different populations for each of the three species both in the native range of Spain and the non-native range of California, measured individual seed mass, and grew plants from these seeds in a greenhouse experiment in Montana. The invasive C. solstitialis had the smallest seeds and seedlings of the three congeners. However, in contrast to its non-invasive congeners, C. solstitialis had the highest relative growth rates when grown in competition. C. solstitialis was also the only species to show significant differences in traits between populations from different ranges, with plants from the non-native range of California demonstrating greater competitive resistance, larger seed size, and larger seedling mass than plants from the native range in Spain. This suggests that C. solstitialis may be evolving toward larger seed and seedling sizes in this non-native range. Relative growth rate showed no inter-regional variation for any species, but was higher for C. solstitialis than its congeners when in competition, and thus may interact with the evolution of larger seeds and plant mass in ways that contribute to the extraordinary invasive success of this species.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Andonian K, Hierro JL, Khetsuriani L et al (2011) Range-expanding populations of a globally introduced weed experience negative plant-soil feedbacks. PLoS ONE 6:e20117

  2. Barbe GD (1989) Noxious weeds of California 1, distribution maps: Centaurea sulphurea. California Department of Food and Agriculture, Division of Plant Industry, Anaysis and Identification Branch, Sacramento

  3. Brooker RW, Kikvidze Z, Pugnaire FI et al (2005) The importance of importance. Oikos 109:63–70

  4. Brooker RW, Callaway RM, Cavieres LA et al (2009) Don’t diss integration: a comment on Ricklefs’s disintegrating communities. Am Nat 174:919–927. doi:10.1086/648058

  5. Burns JH (2004) A comparison of invasive and non-invasive dayflowers (Commelinaceae) across experimental nutrient and water gradients. Divers Distrib 10:387–397. doi:10.1111/j.1366-9516.2004.00105.x

  6. Callaway RM, Aschehoug ET (2000) Invasive plants versus their new and old neighbors: a mechanism for exotic invasion. Science 290:521–523. doi:10.1126/science.290.5491.521

  7. Callaway RM, Kim J, Mahall BE (2006) Defoliation of Centaurea solstitialis stimulates compensatory growth and intensifies negative effects on neighbors. Biol Invasions 8:1389–1397. doi:10.1007/s10530-006-0003-8

  8. Callihan RH, Prather TS, Northam FE (1993) Longevity of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) achenes in soil. Weed Technol 7:33–35

  9. Dawson W, Fischer M, van Kleunen M (2011) The maximum relative growth rate of common UK plant species is positively associated with their global invasiveness. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 20:299–306. doi:10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00599.x

  10. Garcia-Jacas N, Uysal T, Romashchenko K et al (2006) Centaurea revisited: a molecular survey of the Jacea group. Ann Bot 98:741–753

  11. Garren JM, Strauss SY (2009) Population-level compensation by an invasive thistle thwarts biological control from seed predators. Ecol Appl 19:709–721

  12. Gerlach JD, Rice KJ (2003) Testing life history correlates of invasiveness using congeneric plant species. Ecol Appl 13:167–179

  13. Goldberg DE (1996) Simplifying the study of competition at the individual plant level: the consequences of distinguishing between effect and response for forest vegetation management. New Zealand J For Sci 26:19–38

  14. Goldberg DE, Werner P (1983) Equivalece of competitors in plant communities: a null hypothesis and a field experimental approach. American J Bot 70:1098–1104

  15. Greene DF, Johnson EA (1993) Seed mass and dispersal capacity in wind-dispersed diaspores. Oikos 67:69–74

  16. Grotkopp E, Rejmánek M, Rost TL (2002) Toward a causal explanation of plant invasiveness: seedling growth and life-history strategies of 29 pine (Pinus) species. Am Nat 159:396–419. doi:10.1086/338995

  17. Grotkopp E, Erskine-Ogden J, Rejmánek M (2010) Assessing potential invasiveness of woody horticultural plant species using seedling growth rate traits. J Appl Ecol 47:1320–1328. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01878.x

  18. Guo Q, Brown JH, Valone TJ, Kachman SD (2000) Constraints of seed size on plant distribution and abundance. Ecology 81:2149–2155. doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2000)081[2149:COSSOP]2.0.CO;2

  19. He WM, Zhang SX, Dong M (2003) Gas exchange, leaf structure, and hydraulic features in relation to sex, shoot form and leaf form in an evergreen shrub Sabina vulgaris in the semi-arid Mu Us Sandland in China. Photosynthetica 41:105–109

  20. He W-M, Feng Y, Ridenour WM et al (2009) Novel weapons and invasion: biogeographic differences in the competitive effects of Centaurea maculosa and its root exudate (±)-catechin. Oecologia 159:803–815. doi:10.1007/s00442-008-1234-4

  21. 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 93:5–15

  22. Hierro JL, Villarreal D, Eren O et al (2006) Disturbance facilitates invasion: the effects are stronger abroad than at home. Am Nat 168:144–156. doi:10.1086/505767

  23. Hierro JL, Eren Ö, Khetsuriani L et al (2009) Germination responses of an invasive species in native and non-native ranges. Oikos 118:529–538. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0706.2009.17283.x

  24. Imbert E (2002) Ecological consequences and ontogeny of seed heteromorphism. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 5:13–36. doi:10.1078/1433-8319-00021

  25. Inderjit HE, Crocoll C, Bajpai D et al (2011) Volatile chemicals from leaf litter are associated with invasiveness of a neotropical weed in Asia. Ecology 92:316–324. doi:10.1890/10-0400.1

  26. Kim YO, Lee EJ (2010) Comparison of phenolic compounds and the effects of invasive and native species in East Asia: support for the novel weapons hypothesis. Ecol Res 26:87–94. doi:10.1007/s11284-010-0762-7

  27. 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

  28. Laird NM, Ware JH (1982) Random-effects models for longitudinal data. Biometrics 38:963–974

  29. MacDougall AS, Turkington R (2004) Relative importance of suppression-based and tolerance-based competition in an invaded oak savanna. J Ecol 92:422–434. doi:10.1111/j.0022-0477.2004.00886.x

  30. Maddox DM, Mayfield A, Poritz NH (1985) Distribution of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) and Russian knapweed (Centaurea repens). Weed Sci 33:315–327

  31. Mandak B, Pysek P (2005) How does seed heteromorphism influence the life history stages of Atriplex sagittata (Chenopodiaceae)? Flora—Morphology, Distribution, Functional Ecology of Plants 200:516–526. doi:10.1016/j.flora.2005.06.003

  32. Munshaw MG, Lortie CJ (2010) Back to the basics: using density series to test regulation versus limitation for invasive plants. Plant Ecol 211:1–5. doi:10.1007/s11258-010-9764-3

  33. Muth NZ, Pigliucci M (2006) Traits of invasives reconsidered: phenotypic comparisons of introduced invasive and introduced noninvasive plant species within two closely related clades. Am J Bot 93:188. doi:10.3732/ajb.93.2.188

  34. Ortega YK, Pearson DE (2005) Weak vs. strong invaders of natural plant communities: assessing invasibility and impact. Ecol Appl 15:651–661. doi:10.1890/04-0119

  35. Pearson DE, Callaway RM, Maron JL (2011) Biotic resistance via granivory: establishment by invasive, naturalized and native asters reflects generalist preference. Ecology 92:1748–1757

  36. Pennings SC, Callaway RM (1992) Salt marsh plant zonation: the relative importance of competition and physical factors. Ecology 73:681–690

  37. Pitcairn MJ, Young JA, Clements CD, Balciunas JOE (2002) Purple starthistle (Centaurea calcitrapa) seed germination. Weed Technol 16:452–456

  38. Radford IJ, Dickinson KJM, Lord JM (2010) Does disturbance, competition or resource limitation underlie Hieracium lepidulum invasion in New Zealand? Mechanisms of establishment and persistence, and functional differentiation among invasive and native species. Aust Ecol 35:282–293. doi:10.1111/j.1442-9993.2009.02034.x

  39. Reinhart KO, Callaway RM (2006) Soil biota and invasive plants. New Phytol 170:445–457. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2006.01715.x

  40. Ridenour WM, Vivanco JM, Feng Y et al (2008) No evidence for trade-offs: Centaurea plants from America are better competitors and defenders. Ecol Monogr 78:369–386

  41. Robbins WW (1940) Alien plants growing without cultivation in California. Bulletin 637. California Agricultural Experiment Station, Berkeley

  42. Roche CT, Thill DC, Shafii B (1997) Reproductive phenology in yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis). Weed Sci 47:763–770

  43. Skálová H, Pyšek P (2009) Germination and establishment of invasive and native Impatiens species in species-specific microsites. Neobiota 8:101–109

  44. Sun M (1997) Population genetic structure of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), a colonizing weed in the western United States. Can J Bot 75:1470–1478. doi:10.1139/b97-861

  45. Thompson K, Band SR, Hodgson JG (1993) Seed size and shape predict persistence in soil. Funct Ecol 7:236. doi:10.2307/2389893

  46. Thorpe AS, Aschehoug ET, Atwater DZ, Callaway RM (2011) Interactions among plants and evolution. J Ecol 99:729–740. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2745.2011.01802.x

  47. van Kleunen M, Weber E, Fischer M (2010) A meta-analysis of trait differences between invasive and non-invasive plant species. Ecol Lett 13:235–245. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01418.x

  48. Venable DL, Brown JS (1988) The selective interactions of dispersal, dormancy, and seed size as adaptations for reducing risk in variable environments. Am Nat 131:360–384

  49. Venable DL, Búrquez A, Corral G et al (1987) The ecology of seed heteromorphism in Heterosperma pinnatum in central Mexico. Ecology 68:65–76

  50. Vilà 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

  51. Westoby M, Jurado E, Leishman M (1992) Comparative evolutionary ecology of seed size. Trends Ecol Evol 7:368–372

  52. Widmer TL, Guermache F, Dolgovskaia MY, Reznik SY (2007) Enhanced growth and seed properties in introduced vs. native populations of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis). Weed Sci 55:465–473

  53. Williamson MH, Fitter A (1996) The characters of successful invaders. Biol Conserv 78:163–170. doi:10.1016/0006-3207(96)00025-0

Download references

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Dr. Esther Bochet for help with theory. Thanks to Dr. Susana Paula for statistical advice and for help with fieldwork. Thanks to everyone at Callaway Lab for their help with lab work. RCG was funded by the MILES/HHMI program of The University of Montana; RMC was funded by NSF-DEB 0614406 and DM was funded by the Spanish Micinn (2008-0662) and by Portuguese FCT (SFRH/BPD/72595/2010).

Author information

Correspondence to Ryan C. Graebner.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Graebner, R.C., Callaway, R.M. & Montesinos, D. Invasive species grows faster, competes better, and shows greater evolution toward increased seed size and growth than exotic non-invasive congeners. Plant Ecol 213, 545–553 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-012-0020-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Biogeography
  • Centaurea
  • Competition
  • Congener
  • Invasion
  • Relative growth rate
  • Seed mass