Oecologia

, Volume 138, Issue 3, pp 455–464 | Cite as

Multiple disturbances accelerate invasion of reed canary grass ( Phalaris arundinacea L.) in a mesocosm study

Community Ecology

Abstract

Disturbances that intensify with agriculture and/or urban development are thought to promote the spread of invasive plants, such as the clonal perennial reed canary grass ( Phalaris arundinacea L). To test this relationship and interactions among disturbances, we subjected wet prairie assemblages within 1.1 m2 mesocosms to invasion by Phalaris and addition of nutrients, sediments, and flooding. Species richness decreased with the application of sediments and/or flooding of 4 consecutive weeks or longer. Losses of up to six dominant and subdominant species in these treatments increased light transmission through the plant canopy by as much as 400% over the control. Light availability in July and September was a strong predictor of end-of-season aboveground biomass of Phalaris. Phalaris was also 35% and 195% more productive when nutrients were added at low and high levels, respectively. Multiple factors in combination were usually additive in their effects on invasion, but sediments and nutrients interacted with flood regime to synergistically increase invasion in some cases. A separate experiment likewise revealed a synergistic interaction between added nutrients and simulated grazing. We suggest that multiple factors be mitigated simultaneously to reduce invasion of Phalaris.

Keywords

Eutrophication Flooding Fluctuating resource hypothesis Invasibility Invasive species 

References

  1. Burke MJW, Grime JP (1996) An experimental study of plant community invasibility. Ecology 77:776–790Google Scholar
  2. Cottam G, Wilson HC (1966) Community dynamics of an artificial prairie. Ecology 47:88–96Google Scholar
  3. Crawley MJ (1987) What makes a community invasible? In: Gray AJ, Crawley MJ, Edwards PJ (eds) Colonization, succession, and stability. Blackwell Scientific, London, UK, pp 429–453Google Scholar
  4. Curtis JT (1959) The vegetation of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wis., USAGoogle Scholar
  5. Davis MA, Grime JP, Thompson K (2000) Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invasibility. J Ecol 88:528–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Day JW, Pieczynska E, Úlehlová B (1998) Further fate of organic matter in wetlands. In: Westlake DF, Kvêt J, Szczepánski A (eds) The production ecology of wetlands. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 169–191Google Scholar
  7. De Kroon H, Bobbink R (1997) Clonal plant dominance under elevated nitrogen deposition, with special reference to Brachypodium pinnatum in chalk grassland. In: de Kroon H, van Groenendael J (eds) The ecology and evolution of clonal plants. Backhuys, Leiden, the Netherlands, pp 359–379Google Scholar
  8. Diboll N (1996) Designing seed mixes. In: Packard S, Mutel CF (eds) The tallgrass restoration handbook. Island, Washington, D.C., USA, pp 135–149Google Scholar
  9. Elton CS (1958) The ecology of invasions by animals and plants. Methuen, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  10. Ewing K (1996) Tolerance of four wetland plant species to flooding and sediment deposition. Environ Exp Bot 36:131–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fassett NC (1951) Grasses of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wis., USAGoogle Scholar
  12. Galatowitsch SM, Anderson NO, Ascher PD (1999) Invasiveness in wetland plants in temperate North America. Wetlands 19:733–755Google Scholar
  13. Galatowitsch SM, Whited DC, Lehtinen R, Husveth J, Schik K (2000) The vegetation of wet meadows in relation to their land-use. Environ Monit Assess 60:121–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Green EK, Galatowitsch SM (2002) Effects of Phalaris arundinacea and nitrate-N addition on the establishment of wetland plant communities. J Appl Ecol 39:134–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hobbs RJ, Atkins L (1988) Effect of disturbance and nutrient addition on native and introduced annuals in plant communities in the Western Australia wheat belt. Aust J Ecol 13:171–179Google Scholar
  16. Huenneke LF, Hamburg SP, Koide R, Mooney HA, Vitousek PM (1990) Effects of soil resources on plant invasion and community structure in Californian serpentine grassland. Ecology 71:478–491Google Scholar
  17. Larson, DL, Anderson PJ, Newton W (2001) Alien plant invasion in mixed-grass prairie: effects of vegetation type and anthropogenic disturbance. Ecol Appl 11:128–141Google Scholar
  18. Lindig-Cisneros RA, Zedler JB (2002a) Phalaris arundinacea seedling establishment: effects of canopy complexity in fen, mesocosm, and restoration experiments. Can J Bot 80:617–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lindig-Cisneros RA, Zedler JB (2002b) Relationships between canopy complexity and germination microsites for Phalaris arundinacea L. Oecologia 133:159–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Maurer DA, Zedler JB (2002) Differential invasion of a wetland grass explained by tests of nutrients and light availability on establishment and vegetative growth. Oecologia 131:279–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Maurer DA, Lindig-Cisneros R, Werner KJ, Kercher S, Miller R, Zedler JB (2003) The replacement of wetland vegetation by reed canary grass ( Phalaris arundinacea). Ecol Restor 21:116–119Google Scholar
  22. McCune B, Grace JB (2002) Analysis of ecological communities. MjM Software, Gleneden Beach, Oregon, USAGoogle Scholar
  23. McCune B, Mefford MJ (1997) Multivariate analysis of ecological data, version 3.14. MjM Software, Gleneden Beach, Oregon, USAGoogle Scholar
  24. Morrison SL, Molofsky J (1998) Effects of genotypes, soil moisture, and competition on the growth of an invasive grass, Phalaris arundinacea (reed canary grass). Can J Bot 76:1939–1946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Patrick WH, Gambrell RP, Faulkner SP (1996) Redox measurements of soils. In: Sparks DL, Page AL, Helmke PA, Loeppert RH, Foltanpour PN, Tabatabai MA, Johnston CT, Sumner ME, Bartels JM, Bingham JM (eds) Methods of soil analysis. (Part 3, Chemical Methods, Series 5) Soil Science Society of America and American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, pp 1255–1273Google Scholar
  26. Rejmánek M (1989) Invasibility of plant communities. In: Drake JA, et al (eds) Biological invasions: a global perspective. Wiley, Chichester, UK, pp 369–388Google Scholar
  27. SAS (1999) SAS Version 8.0. Cary, N.C., USAGoogle Scholar
  28. USDA, NRCS (2002) The PLANTS Database, Version 3.5 (http://plants.usda.gov). National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USAGoogle Scholar
  29. Van der Valk AG (2000) Vegetation dynamics and models. In: Murkin HR, van der Valk AG, Clark WR (eds) Prairie wetland ecology. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, USA, pp 125–161Google Scholar
  30. Vermeer JG, Berendse F (1983) The relationship between nutrient availability, shoot biomass and species richness in grassland and wetland communities. Vegetatio 53:121–136Google Scholar
  31. Watson VJ, Loucks OL, Wojner W (1981) The impact of urbanization on seasonal hydrologic and nutrient budgets of a small North American watershed. Hydrobiologia 77:87–90Google Scholar
  32. Werner KJ, Zedler JB (2002) How sedge meadow soils, microtopography, and vegetation respond to sedimentation. Wetlands 22:451–466Google Scholar
  33. Woo I, Zedler JB (2002) Can nutrients alone shift a sedge meadow towards dominance by the invasive Typha × glauca? Wetlands 22:509–521Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BotanyUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonmadisonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Botany and ArboretumUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations