Advertisement

Plant Ecology

, Volume 218, Issue 10, pp 1233–1241 | Cite as

Allelopathic invasive tree (Rhamnus cathartica) alters native plant communities

  • R. J. WarrenII
  • Adam Labatore
  • Matt Candeias
Article

Abstract

Many plants release allelopathic chemicals that can inhibit germination, growth, and/or survival in neighboring plants. These impacts appear magnified with the invasion of some non-native plants which may produce allelochemicals against which native fauna have not co-evolved resistance. Our objective was to examine the potential allelopathic impact of an invasive non-native shrub/tree on multiple plant species using field observation and experimental allelopathy studies. We surveyed and collected an invasive, non-native tree/shrub (Rhamnus cathartica) at Tifft Nature Preserve (a 107-ha urban natural area near Lake Erie in Buffalo, NY). We also surveyed understory plant communities in the urban forest to examine correlations between R. cathartica abundance and local plant community abundance and richness. We then used experimental mesocosms to test if patterns observed in the field could be explained by adding increased dosages of R. cathartica to soils containing five plant species, including native and non-native woody and herbaceous species. In the highly invaded urban forest, we found that herbaceous cover, shrubs and woody seedlings negatively covaried with R. cathartica basal area and seedlings density. In the mesocosm experiments, R. cathartica resulted in significant decreases in plant community species richness, abundance, and shifted biomass allocation from roots. Our results provide evidence that R. cathartica is highly allelopathic in its invaded range, that R. cathartica roots have an allelopathic effect and that some plant species appear immune. We suggest that these effects may explain the plant’s ability to form dense monocultures and resist competitors, as well as shift community composition with species-specific impacts.

Keywords

Allelopathy Phytotoxicity Recruitment Urban ecology 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the views of USACE or the United States. We thank Elise Labatore for field and lab assistance. We also thank two anonymous reviewers and Luke Flory for helpful comments on the manuscript.

References

  1. Archibold OW, Brooks D, Delanoy L (1997) An investigation of the invasive shrub European buckthorn, Rhamnus cathartica L., near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Can Field Nat 111:617–621Google Scholar
  2. Blaney CS, Kotanen PM (2001) Effects of fungal pathogens on seeds of native and exotic plants: a test using congeneric pairs. J Appl Ecol 38:1104–1113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boudreau D, Wilson G (1992) Buckthorn research and control at Pipestone National Monument (Minnesota). Restor Manag Notes 10:94–95Google Scholar
  4. Callaway RM, Ridenour WM (2004) Novel weapons: invasive success and the evolution of increased competitive ability. Front Ecol Environ 2:436–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Callaway RM, Cipollini D, Barto K et al (2008) Novel weapons: invasive plant suppresses fungal mutualists in America but not in its native Europe. Ecology 89:1043–1055CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Cipollini K, Bohrer MG (2016) Comparison of allelopathic effects of five invasive species on two native species. J Torrey Bot Soc 143:427–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cottam G, Curtis JT (1956) The use of distance measure in phytosociological sampling. Ecology 37:451–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fenner M, Kitajima K (1999) Seed and seedling ecology. In: Pugnaire FI, Valladares F (eds) Handbook of functional plant ecology. Marcel-Dekker, New York, pp 589–611Google Scholar
  9. Fernandez C, Monnier Y, Santonja M et al (2016) The impact of competition and allelopathy on the trade-off between plant defense and growth in two contrasting tree species. Front Plant Sci 7:594PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Gavier-Pizarro GI, Radeloff VC, Stewart SI et al (2010) Rural housing is related to plant invasions in forests of southern Wisconsin, USA. Landsc Ecol 25:1505–1518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Godwin H (1936) Studies in the ecology of Wicken Fen III. The establishment and development of fed scrub (Carr). J Ecol 24:82–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grunzweig L, Spiering D, Labatore A et al (2015) Non-native plant invader renders suitable habitat unsuitable. Arthropod Plant Interact 9:577–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harrington RA, Brown BJ, Reich PB et al (1989) Ecophysiology of exotic and native shrubs in southern Wisconsin I. Oecologia 80:368–373CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Heneghan L, Clay C, Brundage C (2002) Rapid decomposition of Buckthorn litter may change soil nutrient levels. Ecol Restor 20:108–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heneghan L, Fatemi F, Umek L et al (2006) The invasive shrub European buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica L.) alters soil properties in Midwestern US woodlands. Appl Soil Ecol 32:142–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Izhaki I (2002) Emodin—a secondary metabolite with multiple ecological functions in higher plants. New Phytol 155:205–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Klionsky SM, Amatangelo KL, Waller DM (2011) Above- and belowground impacts of European buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) on bour native forbs. Restor Ecol 19:728–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Knight KS, Reich PB (2005) Opposite relationships between invasibility and native species richness at patch versus landscape scales. Oikos 109:81–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Knight KS, Kurylo JS, Endress AG et al (2007) Ecology and ecosystem impacts of common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica): a review. Biol Invasions 9:925–937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kurylo J, Endress AG (2012) Rhamnus cathartica: notes on its Early History in North America. Northeast Nat 19:601–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lankau RA (2011) Interpopulation variation in allelopathic traits informs restoration of invaded landscapes. Evol Appl 5:270–282CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Mascaro J, Schnitzer SA (2007) Rhamnus cathartica L. (common buckthorn) as an ecosystem dominant in southern Wisconsin forests. Northeast Nat 14:387–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McCay TS, McCay DH (2009) Processes regulating the invasion of European buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) in three habitats of the northeastern United States. Biol Invasions 11:1835–1844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Moffatt SF, McLachlan SM (2004) Understorey indicators of disturbance for riparian forests along an urban-rural gradient in Manitoba. Ecol Ind 4:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moles AT, Westoby M (2004) What do seedlings die from and what are the implications for evolution of seed size? Oikos 106:193–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Orr SP, Rudgers JA, Clay K (2005) Invasive plants can inhibit native tree seedlings: testing potential allelopathic mechanisms. Plant Ecol 181:153–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pisula NL, Meiners SJ (2010) Relative allelopathic potential of invasive plant species in a young disturbed woodland. J Torrey Bot Soc 137:81–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Poorter H, Niklas KJ, Reich PB et al (2012) Biomass allocation to leaves, stems and roots: meta-analyses of interspecific variation and environmental control. New Phytol 193:30–50CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Powell KI, Chase JM, Knight TM (2013) Invasive plants have scale-dependent effects on diversity by altering species-area relationships. Science 339:316–318CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. R Development Core Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  31. Rice EL (1984) Allelopathy. Academic Press, OrlandoGoogle Scholar
  32. Ridenour WM, Callaway RM (2011) The relative importance of allelopathy in interference: the effects of an invasive weed on native bunchgrass. Oecologia 126:444–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schneider SC, Miller JR (2014) Response of avian communities to invasive vegetation in urban forest fragments. Condor 116:459–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schuh M, Larsen KJ (2015) Rhamnus cathartica (Rosales: Rhamnaceae) invasion reduces ground-dwelling insect abundance and diversity in Northeast Iowa forests. Environ Entomol 44:647–657CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Seltzner S, Eddy TL (2003) Allelopathy in Rhamnus cathartica, European buckthorn. Mich Bot 42:51–61Google Scholar
  36. Small CJ, White DC, Hargbol B (2010) Allelopathic influences of the invasive Ailanthus altissima on a native and a non-native herb. J Torrey Bot Soc 137:366–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Thorpe AS, Thelen GC, Diaconu A et al (2009) Root exudate is allelopathic in invaded community but not in native community: field evidence for the novel weapons hypothesis. J Ecol 97:641–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Trial H Jr, Diamond JB (1979) Emodin in buckthorn: a feeding deterrent to phytophagous insects. Can Entomol 111:207–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Warren RJ II, Bradford MA (2011) The shape of things to come: woodland herb niche contraction begins during recruitment in mesic forest microhabitat. Proc R Soc B 278:1390–1398CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Whitfield TJS, Lodge AG, Roth AM et al (2014) Community phylogenetic diversity and abiotic site characteristics influence abundance of the invasive plant Rhamnus cathartica L. J Plant Ecol 7:202–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zipperer WC (2002) Species composition and structure of regenerated and remnant forest patches within an urban landscape. Urban Ecosyst 6:271–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologySUNY Buffalo StateBuffaloUSA
  2. 2.U.S. Army Corps of EngineersWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Natural Resources and Environmental SciencesUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations