Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Meta-analysis of standing crop reduction byRhinanthus spp. and its effect on vegetation structure

  • Published:
Folia Geobotanica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We performed a quantitative literature review on the effect of the root hemiparasiteRhinanthus on vegetation standing crop.

(1) Across all available experimental studies in mixed vegetation and in pots, above-ground biomass of co-occurring species is generally reduced, with on average 40% and 60% of the value in the controls respectively. Total above-ground biomass, as the sum of parasite biomass and biomass of co-occurring species, decreases in most cases. For field experiments this reduction amounts, on average, to 26% of the control value. This implies that there is no compensation by the parasites’ biomass for the loss of biomass of co-occurring species due to parasite infection. This can be attributed to the low resource-use efficiency of hemiparasites. Meta-analysis confirmed these trends.

(2) In pot experiments, the negative effect of the parasite on the above-ground biomass of the host increases with the number ofRhinanthus plants. In field experiments, we found no relationship between biomass reduction andRhinanthus density.

(3) Total above-ground biomass reduction in field experiments increases with standing crop of the vegetation. However, reduction in above-ground biomass of co-occurring species seems to decrease with standing crop. Functional and species diversity buffer the community against negative effects ofRhinanthus.

(4) In field experiments, functional groups are affected differently byRhinanthus spp. Grasses and legumes are mostly strongly reduced by the hemiparasites. Non-leguminous dicots mostly benefit from the presence ofRhinanthus.

(5) In one out of four weeding experiments,Rhinanthus spp. has a significant (positive) effect on species number. However, the response of plant diversity to invasion of parasitic plants requires further research.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Atsatt P.R. &Strong D.R. (1970): The population biology of annual grassland hemiparasites. I. The host environment.Evolution 24: 278–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies D.M. &Graves J.D. (1998): Interactions between arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and the hemiparasitic angiospermRhinanthus minor during co-infection of a host.New Phytol. 139: 555–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies D.M. &Graves J.D. (2000): The impact of phosphorus on interactions of the hemiparasitic angiospermRhinanthus minor and its hostLolium perenne.Oecologia 124: 100–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies D.M., Graves J.D., Elias C.O. &Williams P.J. (1997): The impact ofRhinanthus spp. on sward standing crop and composition: implications for the restoration of species-rich grasslands.Biol. Conservation 82: 87–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Hullu E. (1985): The distribution ofRhinanthus angustifolius in relation to host plant species. In:de Hullu E.,The population dynamics of Rhinanthus angustifoliusin a succession series, PhD thesis, University of Groningen, Groningen, pp. 69–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fürst F. (1931): Der Klappertopf (alectorolophus) als Acker-und Wiesenunkraut. Untersuchungen über Bau, Lebensverhältnisse, Schaden und Bekämpfungsmöglichkeiten.Arch. Pflanzenbau 6: 28–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson C.C. &Watkinson A.R. (1989): The host range and selectivity of a parasitic plant:Rhinanthus minor L.Oecologia 78: 401–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson C.C. &Watkinson A.R. (1991): Host selectivity and the mediation of competition by the root hemiparasiteRhinanthus minor.Oecologia 86: 81–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson C.C. &Watkinson A.R. (1992): The role of the hemiparasitic annualRhinanthus minor in determining grassland community structure.Oecologia 89: 62–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graves J.D., Press M.C. &Stewart G.R. (1989): A carbon balance model of the sorghum-Striga hermonthica host-parasite association.Pl. Cell Environm. 12: 101–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gurevitch J. &Hedges L.V. (2001): Meta-analysis. Combining the results of independent experiments. In:Scheiner S.M. &Gurevitch J. (eds.),Design and analysis of ecological experiments, Oxford University Press, Inc., New York, pp. 347–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones R.B. (1999): TechDig v2.0. Shareware (available at http://www.xnet.com/~°ronjones).Jones R.B., Mundelein.

  • Joshi J., Matthies D. &Schmid B. (2000): Root hemiparasites and plant diversity in experimental grassland communities.J. Ecol. 88: 634–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keith A.M., Cameron D.D. &Seel W.E. (2004): Spatial interactions between the hemiparasitic angiospermRhinanthus minor and its host are species-specific.Funct. Ecol. 18: 435–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerguélen (1999):Index synonymique de la Flore de France. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Paris. URL: http://www.dijon.inra.fr/flore-france/rh-rn.htm.

  • Klaren C.H. &van de Dijk S.J. (1976): Water relations of the hemiparasiteRhinanthus serotinus before and after attachment.Physiol. Pl. 38: 121–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krylova N.P. (1963): K voprosu o povyshenii ustoichivosti bobovykh v travostoyakh prirodnykh zalivnykh lugov (Increasing stability of legumes in swards of flood meadows).Byull. Moskovsk. Obshch. Isp. Prir. B. Otd. Biol. 68: 72–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuijt J. (1969):The biology of parasitic flowering plants. University of California Press, Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuijt J. (1979): Host selection by parasitic angiosperms.Symb. Bot. Upsal. 22 (4): 194–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marvier M.A. (1998): Parasite impacts on host communities: plant parasitism in a California coastal prairie.Ecology 79: 2616–2623.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthies D. (1995a): Parasitic and competitive interactions between the hemiparasitesRhinanthus serotinus andOdontites rubra and their hostMedicago sativa.J. Ecol. 83: 245–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthies D. (1995b): Host-parasite relations in the root hemiparasiteMelampyrum arvense.Flora 190: 383–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthies D. (1996): Interactions between the root hemiparasiteMelampyrum arvense and mixtures of host plants: heterotrophic benefit and parasite-mediated competition.Oikos 75: 118–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthies D. (1997): Parasite-host interactions inCastilleja andOrthocarpus.Canad. J. Bot. 75: 1252–1260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mizianty M. (1975): WplywRhinanthus serotimus (Schönheit)Oborny na produkcję i sklad florystyczny ląkovego zespolu roślinnego (Influence ofRhinanthus serotinus (Schönheit)Oborny on the standing crop and floristic composition of the meadow plant association).Fragm. Florist. Geobot. 21: 490–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Musselman L.J. &Press M.C. (1995): Introduction to parasitic plants. In:Press M.C. &Graves J.D. (eds.),Parasitic plants, Chapman & Hall, London, pp. 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennings S.C. &Callaway R.M. (1996): Impact of a parasitic plant on the structure and dynamics of salt marsh vegetation.Ecology 77: 1410–1419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennings S.C. &Callaway R.M. (2002): Parasitic plants: parallels and contrasts with herbivores.Oecologia 131: 479–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phoenix G.K. &Press M.C. (2005): Linking physiological traits to impacts on community structure and function: the role of root hemiparasiticOrobanchaceae (ex-Scrophulariaceae).J. Ecol. 93: 67–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Press M.C. (1989): Autotrophy and heterotrophy in root hemiparasites.Trends Ecol. Evol. 4: 258–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Press M.C. (1995): Carbon and nitrogen relations. In:Press M.C. &Graves J.D. (eds.),Parasitic plants, Chapman & Hall, London, pp. 103–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Press M.C., Scholes J.D. &Watling J.R. (1999): Parasitic plants: physiological and ecological interactions with their hosts. In:Press M.C., Scholes J.D. &Barker M.G. (eds.),Physiological plant ecology, Blackwell Scientific Ltd., Oxford, pp. 175–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puustinen S. &Salonen V. (1999): Effects of intensity and duration of infection by a hemiparasitic plant,Rhinanthus serotinus, on growth and reproduction of a perennial grass,Agrostis capillaris.Ecography 22: 160–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pywell R.F., Bullock J.M., Walker K.J., Coulson S.J., Gregory S.J., Stevenson M.J. (2004): Facilitating grassland diversification using the hemiparasitic plantRhinanthus minor.J. Appl. Ecol. 41: 880–887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabotnov T.A. (1959): Vliyanie pogremka (Rhinanthus majorEhrh.) na urozhai i sostav travostoya poimennogo luga (The effect ofRhinanthus majorEhrh. upon the yield and composition of grasses of the floodland meadows).Byull. Moskov. Obshch. Isp. Prir. B. Otd. Biol. 64: 105–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schädler M., Jung G., Brandl R. &Auge H. (2004): Secondary succession is influenced by belowground insect herbivory on a productive site.Oecologia 138: 242–252.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Seel W.E., Cooper R.E. &Press M.C. (1993): Growth, gas exchange and water use efficiency of the facultative hemiparasiteRhinanthus minor associated with hosts differing in foliar nitrogen concentration.Physiol. Pl. 89: 64–70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Seel W.E. &Jeschke W.D. (1999): Simultaneous collection of xylem sap fromRhinanthus minor and the hostsHordeum andTrifolium: hydraulic properties, xylem sap composition and effects of attachment.New Phytol. 143: 281–298.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Seel W.E. &Press M.C. (1996): Effects of repeated parasitism byRhinanthus minor on the growth and photosynthesis of a perennial grass,Poa alpina.New Phytol. 134: 495–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith R.S., Shiel R.S., Bardgett R.D., Millward D., Corkhill P., Rolph G., Hobbs P.J. &Peacock S. (2003): Soil microbial community, fertility, vegetation and diversity as targets in the restoration management of a meadow grassland.J. Appl. Ecol. 40: 51–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SPSS (2001):SPSS for Windows 11.0.1. SPSS Inc., Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stryckers J. (1951): Verdelging vanRhinanthus majorEhrh., Ratelaar. Selectieve onkruidbestrijding in vochtig grasland (Eradication ofRhinanthus majorEhrh., Yellow Rattle. Selective weed control in wet meadows).Meded. Landbouwhoogeschool Opzorkingsstat. Staat Gent 16: 81–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • ter Borg S.J. (1972):Variability in of Rhinanthus serotinus (Shönh.)Oborny in relation to the environment. Dissertation, University of Groningen, Groningen.

    Google Scholar 

  • ter Borg S.J. (1985a): Population biology and habitat relations of some hemiparasiticScrophulariaceae. In:White J. (ed.),Handbook of vegetation science. The population structure of vegetation, Dr. W. Junk Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 463–487.

    Google Scholar 

  • ter Borg S.J. (1985b): Relaties tussen autotrofe en heterotrofe planten in (half)natuurlijke gemeenschappen (Relations between autotrophic and heterotrophic plants in (semi-)natural communities).Vakbl. Biol. 65: 461–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • ter Borg S.J. &Bastiaans J.C. (1973): Host-parasite relations inRhinanthus serotinus. I. The effect of growth conditions and host; a preliminary report. In:Edwards W.G.H., Kasasian L., Parker C., Saghir A.R. &van der Zweep W. (eds.),Proceedings, Symposium on parasitic weeds, Malta. European Weed Research Council, Wageningen, pp. 236–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tolwińska M. (1962): Pobieranie pokarmów, wzrost i rozwój oraz próba zwalczania na łąkach szelężnika większego (Alectorolophus glaber (Lam.)Beck) (The absorption of food, growth and development ofAlectorolophus glaber (Lam.)Beck and the attempt of its control on meadows).Roczn. Nauk Roln. 75: 497–519.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tutin T.G., Heywood H.H., Bruges N.A. Moore D.M., Valetin D.H., Walter S.M. &Webb D.A. (1972):Flora europaea 3. Diapensiaceaeto Myoporaceae. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Hulst R., Shipley B. &Thériault A. (1987): Why isRhinanthus minor (Orobanchaceae) such a good invader?Canad. J. Bot. 65: 2373–2379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber H.C. (1976): Über Wirtspflanzen und Parasitismus einiger mitteleuropäischerRhinanthoideae (Orobanchaceae).Pl. Syst. Evol. 125: 97–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory for Forest, Nature and Landscape Research, Catholic University of Leuven, Vital Decosterstraat 102, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium

    Els Ameloot, Kris Verheyen & Martin Hermy

Authors
  1. Els Ameloot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kris Verheyen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Martin Hermy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Els Ameloot.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ameloot, E., Verheyen, K. & Hermy, M. Meta-analysis of standing crop reduction byRhinanthus spp. and its effect on vegetation structure. Folia Geobot 40, 289–310 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02803241

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02803241

Keywords

Nomenclature

Search

Navigation