BioEnergy Research

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 139–148 | Cite as

Environmental Tolerances of Miscanthus sinensis in Invasive and Native Populations

  • Lauren D. Quinn
  • J. Ryan Stewart
  • Toshihiko Yamada
  • Yo Toma
  • Masanori Saito
  • Katsuhisa Shimoda
  • Fabián G. Fernández
Article

Abstract

Miscanthus sinensis is a moderately invasive ornamental grass species being considered as a bioenergy species in the USA and elsewhere. In this study, we show the range of environmental conditions tolerated by this species in wild populations in the USA and in Japan. Six naturalized populations in the USA and five native populations in Japan were sampled in summer 2009. In each population, environmental factors (canopy cover and soil fertility) were measured, along with measurements of size and morphology for 30 plants. Relationships between M. sinensis size and environmental variables in the two countries were determined using linear mixed effects models. Results indicated that M. sinensis can tolerate extremely wide variation in soil and climate conditions in the populations we sampled across both ranges, suggesting that it could be successfully grown across a wide distribution in the USA, both intentionally as a bioenergy crop and unintentionally as an escaped invader. Plant size generally responded to different environmental conditions in both ranges, with USA plants being negatively influenced by canopy cover and Japanese plants being positively influenced by soil fertility measures. We recommend caution in growing M. sinensis for bioenergy or ornamental purposes to minimize escape outside of its native range.

Keywords

Biofuel Introduced range Invasion ecology Invasive range Japan Native range 

References

  1. 1.
    Alexander JM, Edwards PJ, Poll M, Parks CG, Dietz H (2009) Establishment of parallel altitudinal clines in traits of native and introduced forbs. Ecology 90:612–622PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson NO, Gomez N, Galatowitsch SM (2006) A non-invasive crop ideotype to reduce invasive potential. Euphytica 148:185–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baker HG (1974) The evolution of weeds. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 5:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barney JN, DiTomaso JM (2008) Nonnative species and bioenergy: are we cultivating the next invader? Bioscience 58:64–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bossdorf O, Auge H, Lafuma L, Rogers WE, Siemann E, Prati D (2005) Phenotypic and genetic differentiation between native and introduced plant populations. Oecologia 144:1–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brownell PF, Crossland CJ (1972) The requirement for sodium as a micronutrient by species having the C4 dicarboxylic photosynthetic pathway. Plant Physiol 49:794–797PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Buckley YM, Downey P, Fowler SV, Hill R, Memmot J, Norambuena H et al (2003) Are invasives bigger? A global study of seed size variation in two invasive shrubs. Ecology 84:1434–1440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Buddenhagen CE, Chimera C, Clifford P (2009) Assessing biofuel crop invasiveness: a case study. Plos One 4(4):e5261PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Burke MJW, Grime JP (1996) An experimental study of plant community invasibility. Ecology 77:776–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    D’Antonio C, Dudley TL, Mack M (2000) Disturbance and biological invasions: direct effects and feedbacks. In: Walker LR (ed) Ecosystems of disturbed ground ecosystems of the world. Elsevier, New York, pp 429–468Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Davis AS, Cousens RD, Hill J, Mack RN, Simberloff D, Raghu S (2010) Screening bioenergy feedstock crops to mitigate invasion risk. Front Ecol Environ. doi:10.1890/090030
  12. 12.
    Ebeling SK, Hensen I, Auge H (2008) The invasive shrub Buddleja davidii performs better in its introduced range. Divers Distrib 14:225–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    EDDMaps (2010) Early detection and distribution mapping system. http://www.eddmaps.org/. The University of Georgia—Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health. Accessed 14 Jan 2010
  14. 14.
    Ezaki B, Nagao E, Yamamoto Y, Nakashima S, Enomoto T (2008) Wild plants, Andropogon virginicus L. and Miscanthus sinensis Anders, are tolerant to multiple stresses including aluminum, heavy metals and oxidative stresses. Plant Cell Rep 27:951–961PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gonzalez AL, Kominoski JS, Danger M, Ishida S, Iwai N, Rubach A (2010) Can ecological stoichiometry help explain patterns of biological invasions? Oikos 119:779–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gordon DR, Tancig KJ, Onderdonk DA, Gantz CA (2011) Assessing the invasive potential of biofuel species proposed for Florida and the United States using the Australian Weed Risk Assessment. Biomass Bioenergy 35:74–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Heaton EA, Dohleman FG, Long SP (2008) Meeting US biofuel goals with less land: the potential of Miscanthus. Glob Chang Biol 14:2000–2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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 93:5–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hierro JL, Villarreal D, Eren O, Graham JM, Callaway RM (2006) Disturbance facilitates invasion: the effects are stronger abroad than at home. Am Nat 168:144–156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hijmans RJ, Cameron SE, Parra JL, Jones PG, Jarvis A (2005) Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int J Climatol 25:1965–1978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hobbs RJ, Huenneke LF (1992) Disturbance, diversity, and invasion—implications for conservation. Conserv Biol 6:324–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Horton JL, Fortner R, Goklany M (2010) Photosynthetic characteristics of the C4 invasive exotic grass Miscanthus sinensis Andersson growing along gradients of light intensity in the southeastern USA. Castanea 75:52–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jorgensen U (2010) Benefits versus risks of growing biofuel crops: the case of Miscanthus. Current Opinion in Environ Sustainability. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2010.12.003
  24. 24.
    Kayama M (2001) Comparison of the aluminum tolerance of Miscanthus sinensis Anderss. and Miscanthus sacchariflorus Bentham in hydroculture. Int J Plant Sci 162:1025–1031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kramer M (2005) R2 Statistics for Mixed Models. 17th Annual Kansas University Conference on Applied Statistics in Agriculture. Manhattan, KSGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lewandowski I, Schmidt U (2006) Nitrogen, energy and land use efficiencies of miscanthus, reed canary grass and triticale as determined by the boundary line approach. Agric Ecosyst Environ 112:335–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Li Y, Cheng ZM, Smith WA, Ellis DR, Chen YQ, Zheng XL et al (2004) Invasive ornamental plants: Problems, challenges, and molecular tools to neutralize their invasiveness. Crit Rev Plant Sci 23:381–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mehta VK, Sullivan PJ, Walter MT, Krishnaswamy J, DeGloria SD (2008) Impacts of disturbance on soil properties in a dry tropical forest in Southern India. Ecohydrology 1:161–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Minamisawa K, Nishioka K, Miyaki T, Ye B, Miyamoto T, You M et al (2004) Anaerobic nitrogen-fixing consortia consisting of clostridia isolated from gramineous plants. Appl Environ Microbiol 70:3096–3102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nelson DW, Summers LE (1996) Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. In: Sparks DL (ed) Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 3-Chemical Methods. SSSA, Madison, WI, pp 961–1010Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ohtsuka T, Sakura T, Ohsawa M (1993) Early herbaceous succession along a topographical gradient on forest clear-felling sites in mountainous terrain, central Japan. Ecol Res 8:329–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Quinn LD, Allen DJ, Stewart JR (2010) Invasiveness potential of Miscanthus sinensis: implications for bioenergy production in the U.S. GCB Bioenergy 2:310–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Quinn LD, Matlaga DP, Stewart JR, Davis AS (2011) Empirical evidence of long distance dispersal in Miscanthus sinensis and Miscanthus x giganteus. Invasive Plant Science and Management 4:142–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    R Development Core Team (2011) R: A language and environment for statistical computing, version 2.13.1. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical ComputingGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Raghu S, Anderson RC, Daehler CC, Davis AS, Wiedenmann RN, Simberloff D et al (2006) Adding biofuels to the invasive species fire? Science 313:1742–1742PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Reichard SH, White P (2001) Horticulture as a Pathway of Invasive Plant Introductions in the United States. Bioscience 51:103–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Saito A, Minamisawa K (2006) Evaluation of the Nitrogen-fixing Ability of Endophytic Clostridia based on Acetylene Reduction and Reverse Transcription-PCR Targeting the nifH Transcript and Ribosomal RNA Microbes and Environments 21:23–35Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Stewart JR, Toma Y, Fernandez FG, Nishiwaki A, Yamada T, Bollero G (2009) The ecology and agronomy of Miscanthus sinensis, a species important to bioenergy crop development, in its native range in Japan: a review. GCB Bioenergy 1:126–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Taiz L, Zeiger E (2006) Plant Physiology, 4th edn. Sinauer Associates, Inc, Sunderland, MAGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Takeuchi K, Shimano K (2009) Vegetation succession at the abandoned Ogushi sulfur mine, central Japan. Landsc Ecol Eng 5:33–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Thebaud C, Simberloff D (2001) Are plants really larger in their introduced ranges? Am Nat 157:231–236PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Treier UA, Broennimann O, Normand S, Guisan A, Schaffner U, Steinger T et al (2009) Shift in cytotype frequency and niche space in the invasive plant Centaurea maculosa. Ecology 90:1366–1377PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Yoshii Y (1937) Aluminum requirements of solfatara plants. The Botanical Magazine 51:262–270Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Zub HW, Brancourt-Hulmel M (2010) Agronomic and physiological performances of different species of Miscanthus, a major energy crop. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 30:201–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lauren D. Quinn
    • 1
  • J. Ryan Stewart
    • 2
  • Toshihiko Yamada
    • 3
  • Yo Toma
    • 4
  • Masanori Saito
    • 5
  • Katsuhisa Shimoda
    • 6
  • Fabián G. Fernández
    • 2
  1. 1.Energy Biosciences InstituteUniversity of IllinoisUrbanaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Crop SciencesUniversity of IllinoisUrbanaUSA
  3. 3.Field Science Center for Northern BiosphereHokkaido UniversitySapporoJapan
  4. 4.Faculty of Agriculture, Ehime UniversityMatsuyamaJapan
  5. 5.Field Science Center, Graduate School of Agricultural ScienceTohoku UniversityOsakiJapan
  6. 6.National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science, Nasu Research StationNasushiobaraJapan

Personalised recommendations