Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 163, Issue 3, pp 775–784 | Cite as

Early emergence and resource availability can competitively favour natives over a functionally similar invader

  • Jennifer Firn
  • Andrew S. MacDougall
  • Susanne Schmidt
  • Yvonne M. Buckley
Community ecology - Original Paper

Abstract

Invasive plant species can form dense populations across large tracts of land. Based on these observations of dominance, invaders are often described as competitively superior, despite little direct evidence of competitive interactions with natives. The few studies that have measured competitive interactions have tended to compare an invader to natives that are unlikely to be strong competitors because they are functionally different. In this study, we measured competitive interactions among an invasive grass and two Australian native grasses that are functionally similar and widely distributed. We conducted a pair-wise glasshouse experiment, where we manipulated both biotic factors (timing of establishment, neighbour identity and density) and abiotic factors (nutrients and timing of water supply). We found that the invader significantly suppressed the performance of the natives; but its suppression ability was contingent on resource levels, with pulsed water/low nutrients or continuous watering reducing its competitive effects. The native grasses were able to suppress the performance of the invader when given a 3-week head-start, suggesting the invader may be incapable of establishing unless it emerges first, including in its own understorey. These findings provide insight for restoration, as the competitive effect of a functionally similar invader may be reduced by altering abiotic and biotic conditions in favour of natives.

Keywords

Competitive effect and response Facilitation and suppression Pulsed water regime Inter- and intraspecific competition Nutrient availability 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thank you to Richard Unwin and Karri Hartley for their assistance throughout the glasshouse competition trial including setting up the experiment, measurements and harvesting. We also thank Lawrie Stephenson and Nikki Sims for help setting up the glasshouse competition trial. Thank you also to Scott Collins and two anonymous reviewers whose comments improved this manuscript considerably. Thank you to Richard Hobbs, Ian Lunt, Alan House and Anna Richardson for comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. Funding was provided by a Science and Innovation Award from the Australia Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Australia Bureau of Rural Sciences (J.F.), CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems (J.F.), Wildlife Preservation Society (J.F.), Ecological Society of Australia (J.F.), University of Queensland Graduate School Travel Award (J.F.), and an ARC Australian Research Fellowship and ARC grants (LP0667489, DP0771387) (Y.B.). We declare that this study complies with the current laws of Australia, where it was performed.

Supplementary material

442_2010_1583_MOESM1_ESM.doc (76 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 75 kb)

References

  1. Aarssen LW, Epp GA (1990) Neighbour manipulations in natural vegetation: a review. J Veg Sci 1:13–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abrams P (1983) The theory of limiting similarity. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 14:359–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson E (2003) Plants of Central Queensland, their identification and uses. Queensland Department of Primary Industries, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  4. Badgery W, Kemp D, Michalk D, King W (2005) Competition for nitrogen between Australian native grass and the introduced weed Nassella trichotoma. Ann Bot 96:799–809CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bayer AW (1955) The Ecology of grasslands. In: Meredith D (ed) The grasses and pastures of South Africa. Cape Times Press, Capetown, pp 539–571Google Scholar
  6. Bazzaz FA (1996) Plants in changing environments: linking physiological, population, and community ecology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Biggs A, Coutts A, Harris PS (eds) (1999) Central Darling Downs land management manual. Queensland Department of Primary Industries, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  8. Buckley YM, Briese DT, Rees M (2003) Demography and management of the invasive plant species Hypericum perforatum. I. Using multi-level mixed-effects models for characterizing growth, survival and fecundity in a long-term data set. J Appl Ecol 40:481–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell MH (1983) Area, distribution and weed potential of Eragrostis curvula (Schrad.) Nees in New South Wales. Aust Weeds 2:107–112Google Scholar
  10. Chapin FS III, Torn MS, Tateno M (1996) Principles of ecosystem sustainability. Am Nat 148:1016–1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chesson P (2000) Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 31:343–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chesson P, Kuang JJ (2008) The interaction between predation and competition. Nature 456:235–238CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Cousens R (2000) Greenhouse studies of interactions between plants: the flaws are in interpretation rather than design. J Ecol 88:352–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crawley MJ (2002) Statistical computing, an introduction to data analysis using S-Plus. Wiley, West SussexGoogle Scholar
  15. Davis MA, Grime JP, Thompson K (2000) Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invasibility. J Ecol 88:528–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dukes JS (2001) Biodiversity and invasibility in grassland microcosms. J Ecol 126:563–568Google Scholar
  17. Dwyer G, Morris W (2006) Resource-dependent dispersal and the speed of biological invasions. Am Nat 167:165–176CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Emery SM (2007) Limiting similarity between invaders and dominant species in herbaceous plant communities. J Ecol 95:1027–1035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fargione J, Brown C, Tilman D (2003) Community assembly and invasion: an experimental test of neutral versus niche processes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:8916–8920PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Firn J (2009) African lovegrass in Australia: a valuable pasture species or embarrassing invader. Trop Grassland 43:86–97Google Scholar
  21. Firn J, Rout T, Possingham HP, Buckley YM (2008) Managing beyond the invader: manipulating disturbance of natives simplifies control efforts. J Appl Ecol 45:1143–1151Google Scholar
  22. Firn J, House APN, Buckley YM (2010) Alternative states models provide an effective framework for invasive species control and restoration of native communities. J Appl Ecol 47:96–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Freckleton RP, Watkinson AR (2000) Designs for greenhouse studies of interactions between plants: an analytical perspective. J Ecol 88:386–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Funk JL, Cleland EE, Suding KN, Zavaleta ES (2008) Restoration through reassembly: plant traits and invasion resistance. Trends Ecol Evol 23:695–703CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Gibson DJ, Connolly J, Hartnett DC, Weidenhamer JD (1999) Designs for greenhouse studies of interactions between plants. J Ecol 87:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Goldberg DE (1996) Competitive ability: definitions, contingency and correlated Traits. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 351:1377–1385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Goldberg D, Landa K (1991) Competitive effect and response: hierarchies and correlated traits in the early stages of competition. J Ecol 79:1013–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Goldberg DE, Novoplansky A (1997) On the relative importance of competition in unproductive environments. J Ecol 85:409–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Goldberg DE, Rajaniemi T, Gurevitch J, Stewart-Oaten A (1999) Empirical approaches to quantifying interaction intensity: competition and facilitation along productivity gradients. Ecology 80:1118–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Grime JP (2001) Plant strategies, vegetation processes, and ecosystem properties, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Hansen MJ, Wilson SD (2006) Is management of an invasive grass Agropyron cristatum contingent on environmental variation? J Appl Ecol 43:269–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hautier Y, Niklaus PA, Hector A (2009) Competition for light causes plant biodiversity loss after eutrophication. Science 324:636–638CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Henry DR, Hall TJ, Jordan DJ, Milson JA, Schefe CM, Silcock RG (1995) Pasture plants of southern inland Queensland. Queensland Department of Primary Industries, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  34. Ives AR, Zhu J (2006) Statistics for correlated data: phylogenies, space, and time. Ecol Appl 16:20–32CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Jankju-Borzelabad M, Griffiths H (2006) Competition for pulsed resources: an experimental study of establishment and coexistance for an arid-land grass. Oecologia 148:555–563CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Keddy PA (2001) Competition, 2nd edn. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  37. Levine JM, Vila M, D’Antonio CM, Dukes JS, Grigulis K, Lavorel S (2003) Mechanisms underlying the impacts of exotic plant invasions. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:775–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. MacArthur RH, Levins R (1967) The limiting similarity, convergence and divergence of coexisting species. Am Nat 101:377–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. MacDougall A, Turkington R (2004) Relative importance of suppression based and tolerance based competition in an invaded oak savanna. J Ecol 92:422–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. MacDougall AS, Gilbert B, Levine JM (2009) Plant invasions and the niche. J Ecol. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2009.01514.x
  41. McMahon SM, Diez JM (2007) Scales of association: hierarchical linear models and the measurement of ecological systems. Ecol Lett 10:437–452CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. McNaughton SJ, Wolf LL (1970) Dominance and the niche in ecological systems. Science 9:131–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mitchell M (2002) Native grasses: an identification handbook for temperate Australia. Landlinks, CollingwoodGoogle Scholar
  44. Novoplansky A, Goldberg DE (2001) Effects of water pulsing on individual performance and competitive hierarchies in plants. J Veg Sci 12:199–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Parsons WT, Cuthbertson EG (1992) African Lovegrass. In: Noxious weeds of Australia. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, pp 106–109Google Scholar
  46. Pinheiro JC, Bates DM (2000) Mixed-effects models in S and S-plus. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rout ME, Callaway RM (2009) An invasive plant paradox. Science 324:734–735CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Sharp D, Simon BK (2002) AusGrass: Grasses of Australia. Australian Biological Resources Study, Canberra and Environmental Protection Agency, QueenslandGoogle Scholar
  49. Sher AA, Goldberg DE, Novoplansky A (2004) The effect of mean and variance in resource supply on survival of annuals from Mediterranean and desert environments. Oecologia 141:353–362CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Snyman HA (2003) Revegetation of bare patches in a semi-arid rangeland of South Africa: an evaluation of various techniques. J Arid Environ 55:417–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Strauss SY, Webb CO, Salamin N (2006) Exotic taxa less related to native species are more invasive. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:5841–5845CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Tilman D (1988) Plant Strategies and the dynamics and structure of plant communities. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  53. Tothill JC, Hacker JB (1993) The grasses of southern Queensland. University of Queensland Press, St-LuciaGoogle Scholar
  54. Turnbull LA, Rahm S, Baudois O, Eichenberger-Glinz S, Wacker L, Schmid B (2005) Experimental invasion by legumes reveals non-random assembly rules in grassland communities. J Ecol 93:1062–1070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vila M, Weiner J (2004) Are invasive plant species better competitors than native plant species? Evidence from pair-wise experiments. Oikos 105:229–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Voight PW, Kneebone WR, McIlvain EH, Shoop MC, Webster JE (1970) Palatability, chemical composition, and animal gains from selection of Weeping Lovegrass, Eragrostis curvula (Schrad.) Nees. Agron J 62:673–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Weigelt A, Jolliffe P (2003) Indices of plant competition. J Ecol 91:707–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jennifer Firn
    • 1
  • Andrew S. MacDougall
    • 2
  • Susanne Schmidt
    • 3
  • Yvonne M. Buckley
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.CSIRO Sustainable EcosystemsSt LuciaAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Integrative BiologyUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada
  3. 3.School of Biological SciencesThe University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations