, Volume 164, Issue 4, pp 959–969

Differential response to frequency-dependent interactions: an experimental test using genotypes of an invasive grass

Population ecology - Original Paper


Positive feedbacks have been suggested as a means for non-indigenous species to successfully invade novel environments. Frequency-dependent feedbacks refer to a species performance being dependent on its local abundance in the population; however, frequency dependence is often described as a monolithic trait of a species rather than examining the variation in response for individual genotypes and fitness traits. Here, we investigate frequency-dependent outcomes for individual genotypes and fitness-related traits for the invasive grass Phalaris arundinacea. We tested for competition-mediated frequency dependence by establishing hexagonal arrays with the center target plant surrounded by either same, different or no genotype neighbors to determine how changing the small-scale frequency neighborhood-influenced invasion success. We used a Bayesian ANOVA approach which allowed us to easily accommodate our non-normal dataset and found that same neighbor plots had greater biomass production than different neighbor plots. Target plants also had greater stem height and aboveground biomass when surrounded by same genotype neighbors. A greenhouse experiment did not support the hypothesis that increased mycorrhizal associations were the cause of positive frequency dependence. We devised a frequency-dependent metric to quantify the extent of fitness-related differences for individual genotypes and found that individual genotypes showed a range of both positive and negative responses to different frequency treatments; however, only positive responses were statistically significant. The small-scale genotypic neighborhood had no effect for the fitness-related traits of leaf number, belowground biomass and total biomass. We demonstrate that individual invasive genotypes respond differently to changing frequency neighborhoods and that growth responses do not respond with the same direction and magnitude. A range of frequency-dependent responses may allow genotypes to invade a wide range of environments.


Frequency dependence Intraspecific feedbacks Mycorrhizae Phalaris arundinacea Genotype Invasive 


  1. Aarssen LW, Turkington R (1983) What is community evolution? Evol Theory 6:211–217Google Scholar
  2. Aarssen LW, Turkington R (1985) Biotic specialization between neighboring genotypes in Lolium perenne and Trifolium repens from a permanent pasture. J Ecol 73:605–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Agren J (1996) Population size, pollinator limitation, and seed set in the self-incompatible herb Lythrum salicaria. Ecology 77:1779–1790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allee WC (1931) Animal aggregations. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  5. Antonovics J (1976) The population genetics of mixtures, plant relations in pastures. CSIRO, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  6. Antonovics J, Ellstrand NC (1984) Experimental studies of the evolutionary significance of sexual reproduction. 1. A test of the frequency-dependent selection hypothesis. Evolution 38:103–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Antonovics J, Kareiva P (1988) Frequency-dependent selection and competition: empirical approaches. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 319:601–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bauer CR, Kellogg CH, Bridgham SD, Lamberti GA (2003) Mycorrhizal colonization across hydrologic gradients in restored and reference freshwater wetlands. Wetlands 23:961–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beck-Nielsen D, Madsen TV (2001) Occurrence of vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhiza in aquatic macrophytes from lakes and streams. Aquat Bot 71:141–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bennington CC, Stratton DA (1998) Field tests of density- and frequency-dependent selection in Erigeron annuus (Compositae). Am J Bot 85:540–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bever JD (1999) Dynamics within mutualism and the maintenance of diversity: inference from a model of interguild frequency dependence. Ecol Lett 2:52–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bever JD (2003) Soil community feedback and the coexistence of competitors: conceptual frameworks and empirical tests. New Phytol 157:465–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bolan NS (1991) A Critical-review on the role of mycorrhizal fungi in the uptake of phosphorus by plants. Plant Soil 134:189–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bolker BM (2008) Ecological models and data in R. Princeton University Press, NJGoogle Scholar
  15. Booth R, Grime JP (2003) Effects of genetic impoverishment on plant community diversity. J Ecol 91:721–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Broderson C, Lavergne S, Molofsky J (2008) Genetic variation in photosynthetic characteristics among invasive and native populations of reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). Biol Invasions 10:1317–1325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Callaway RM, Thelen GC, Rodriguez A, Holben WE (2004) Soil biota and exotic plant invasion. Nature 427:731–733CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Cooke JC, Lefor MW (1998) The mycorrhizal status of selected plant species from Connecticut wetlands and transition zones. Restor Ecol 6:214–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Crutsinger GM, Collins MD, Fordyce JA, Gompert Z, Nice CC, Sanders NJ (2006) Plant genotypic diversity predicts community structure and governs an ecosystem process. Science 313:966–968CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Crutsinger GM, Souza L, Sanders NJ (2008) Intraspecific diversity and dominant genotypes resist plant invasions. Ecol Lett 11:16–23PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Dudley SA, File AL (2007) Kin recognition in an annual plant. Biol Lett 3:435–438CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Elam DR, Ridley CE, Goodell K, Ellstrandt NC (2007) Population size and relatedness affect fitness of a self-incompatible invasive plant. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:549–552CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Eppstein MJ, Bever JD, Molofsky J (2006) Spatio-temporal community dynamics induced by frequency dependent interactions. Ecol Modell 197:133–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Farrer EC, Goldberg DE (2009) Litter drives ecosystem and plant community changes in cattail invasion. Ecol Appl 19:398–412CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Futuyma DJ, Wasserman SS (1980) Resource concentration and herbivory in oak forests. Science 210:920–922CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Gelman A, Hill J (2007) Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Gilks WR, Thomas A, Spiegelhalter DJ (1994) A language and program for complex Bayesian modelling. Statistician 43:169–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gleason HA, Cronquist A (1991) Manual of vascular plants of Northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. The New York Botanical Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Harper (1977) Plant population biology. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Harpole WS, Suding KN (2007) Frequency-dependence stabilizes competitive interactions among four annual plants. Ecol Lett 10:1164–1169CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Hughes AR, Inouye BD, Johnson MTJ, Underwood N, Vellend M (2008) Ecological consequences of genetic diversity. Ecol Lett 11:609–623CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Johnson MTJ, Agrawal AA (2005) Plant genotype and environment interact to shape a diverse arthropod community on evening primrose (Oenothera biennis). Ecology 86:874–885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Johnson MTJ, Agrawal AA (2007) Covariation and composition of arthropod species across plant genotypes of evening primrose (Oenothera biennis). Oikos 116:941–956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Johnson MTJ, Lajeunesse MJ, Agrawal AA (2006) Additive and interactive effects of plant genotypic diversity on arthropod communities and plant fitness. Ecol Lett 9:24–34PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Kelley S, Clay K (1987) Interspecific competitive interactions and the maintenance of genotypic variation within 2 perennial grasses. Evolution 41:92–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kilbride KM, Paveglio FL (1999) Integrated pest management to control reed canarygrass in seasonal wetlands of southwestern Washington. Wildl Soc Bull 27:292–297Google Scholar
  37. Klironomos JN (2002) Feedback with soil biota contributes to plant rarity and invasiveness in communities. Nature 417:67–70CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Kulmatiski A, Beard KH, Stevens JR, Cobbold SM (2008) Plant-soil feedbacks: a meta-analytical review. Ecol Lett 11:980–992CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Laungani R, Knops JMH (2009) Species-driven changes in nitrogen cycling can provide a mechanism for plant invasions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:12400–12405CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Lavergne S, Molofsky J (2004) Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) as a biological model in the study of plant invasions. Crit Rev Plant Sci 23:415–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lavergne S, Molofsky J (2007) Increased genetic variation and evolutionary potential drive the success of an invasive grass. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:3883–3888CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Mahall BE, Callaway RM (1996) Effects of regional origin and genotype on intraspecific root communication in the desert shrub Ambrosia dumosa (Asteraceae). Am J Bot 83:93–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. May RM, Anderson RM (1983) Epidemiology and genetics in the coevolution of parasites and hosts. In: Proc R Soc Lond A 390:219–219Google Scholar
  44. Molofsky J, Bever JD (2002) A novel theory to explain species diversity in landscapes: positive frequency dependence and habitat suitability. In: Proc R Soc Lond B 269:2389–2393Google Scholar
  45. Molofsky J, Bever JD, Antonovics J (2001) Coexistence under positive frequency dependence. In: Proc R Soc Lond B 268:273–277Google Scholar
  46. Molofsky J, Bever JD, Antonovics J, Newman TJ (2002) Negative frequency dependence and the importance of spatial scale. Ecology 83:21–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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-Rev Can Bot 76:1939–1946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Morrison SL, Molofsky J (1999) Environmental and genetic effects on the early survival and growth of the invasive grass Phalaris arundinacea. Can J Bot-Rev Can Bot 77:1447–1453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Murphy GP, Dudley SA (2009) Kin recognition: competition and cooperation in Impatiens (Balsaminaceae). Am J Bot 96:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Neuhauser C, Andow DA, Heimpe GE, May G, Shaw RG, Wagenius S (2003) Community genetics: expanding the synthesis of ecology and genetics. Ecology 84:545–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nijjer S, Rogers WE, Siemann E (2007) Negative plant-soil feedbacks may limit persistence of an invasive tree due to rapid accumulation of soil pathogens. In: Proc R Soc Lond B 274:2621–2627Google Scholar
  52. Ostrem L (1988) Studies on genetic variation in reed canary grass Phalaris arundinacea L. III. Seed yield and seed yield components. Hereditas 107:15–168Google Scholar
  53. Qian SS, Shen Z (2007) Ecological applications of multilevel analysis of variance. Ecology 88:2489–2495CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Reinhart KO, Callaway RM (2004) Soil biota facilitate exotic Acer invasions in Europe and North America. Ecol Appl 14:1737–1745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Reinhart KO, Callaway RM (2006) Soil biota and invasive plants. New Phytol 170:445–457CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Reinhart KO, Packer A, Van der Putten WH, Clay K (2003) Plant-soil biota interactions and spatial distribution of black cherry in its native and invasive ranges. Ecol Lett 6:1046–1050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rickerl DH, Sancho FO, Ananth S (1992) Vesicular-arbuscular endomycorrhizal colonization of wetland plants. In: Symp Wetl Process Water Qual, vol 23. American Society of Agronomy, Minneapolis, MN, pp 913–916Google Scholar
  58. Ronsheim ML (1996) Evidence against a frequency-dependent advantage for sexual reproduction in Allium vineale. Am Nat 147:718–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ronsheim ML, Anderson SE (2001) Population-level specificity in the plant-mycorrhizae association alters intraspecific interactions among neighboring plants. Oecologia 128:77–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Silvertown J, Charlesworth D (2001) Introduction to plant population biology, 4th edn. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  61. Stephens PA, Sutherland WJ, Freckleton RP (1999) What is the Allee effect? Oikos 87:185–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Stevens JT, Beckage B (2009) Fire feedbacks facilitate invasion of pine savannas by Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius). New Phytol 184:365–375CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Sturtz S, Ligges U, Gelman A (2005) R2WinBUGS: a package for running WinBUGS from R. J Stat Softw 12:1–16Google Scholar
  64. Taylor CM, Hastings A (2005) Allee effects in biological invasions. Ecol Lett 8:895–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Turkington R (1979) Neighbour relationships in grass–legume communities. IV. Fine scale biotic differentiation. Can J Bot 57:2711–2716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Vellend M, Drummond EBM, Tomimatsu H (2010) Effects of genotype identity and diversity on the invasiveness and invasibility of plant populations. Oecologia 162:371–381CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Whitham TG et al (2003) Community and ecosystem genetics: a consequence of the extended phenotype. Ecology 84:559–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Whitham TG et al (2006) A framework for community and ecosystem genetics: from genes to ecosystems. Nat Rev Genet 7:510–523CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Whitlock R, Grime JP, Booth R, Burke T (2007) The role of genotypic diversity in determining grassland community structure under constant environmental conditions. J Ecol 95:895–907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wilson GWT, Williamson MM (2008) Topsin-M: the new benomyl for mycorrhizal suppression experiments. Mycologia 100:548–554CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Wolfe BE, Klironomos JN (2005) Breaking new ground: soil communities and exotic plant invasion. Bioscience 55:477–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Plant BiologyUniversity of VermontBurlingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of VermontBurlingtonUSA
  3. 3.Ecology and Evolution DepartmentUniversity of FribourgFribourgSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations