The independent effects of nutrient enrichment and pulsed nutrient delivery on a common wetland invader and its native conspecific

Abstract

Human activities often lead natural systems to be nutrient enriched, with anthropogenically derived nutrients commonly delivered in discrete pulses. Both nutrient enrichment and nutrient pulses can impact plant performance and phenotypic plasticity, especially in invasive species, but quantifying their independent effects remains challenging. To explore the effects of nutrient enrichment and nutrient pulse magnitude, we established a common garden experiment using the North American wetland invader Phragmites australis and its native conspecific Phragmites australis subsp. americanus (five source populations each). We exposed plants to three levels of nutrient enrichment that were delivered either in small or large-magnitude pulses, examining productivity and plasticity responses over a single growing season. Productivity and biomass allocation differed by lineage, with invasive Phragmites producing 73% more biomass and 66% more culms, but with the native growing 31% taller and allocating more of its biomass belowground. Contrary to expectations, both lineages responded similarly to nutrient enrichment and were similarly plastic in their traits. Nutrient enrichment, rather than nutrient pulses, led to large productivity gains and trait plasticity magnitudes. However, total biomass and leaf-level traits (specific leaf area and chlorophyll concentration) were responsive to variation in nutrient pulse magnitudes. By decoupling the effects of nutrient enrichment from nutrient pulses, our study demonstrates the independent effects of these two key factors for plant performance and, by extension, invasion success. We report trait-based similarities between two lineages of Phragmites that play contrasting ecological roles in North American wetlands, and we highlight the potentially detrimental effects of nutrient pulses.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Data availability

The datasets generated and analyzed for the current study are available in the Knowledge Network for Biocomplexity repository (http://knb.ecoinformatics.org) and can be searched and cited with the following https://doi.org/10.5063/f1bv7dxw.

References

  1. Allen WJ, Meyerson LA, Flick AJ, Cronin JT (2018) Intraspecific variation in indirect plant-soil feedbacks influences a wetland plant invasion. Ecology 99:1430–1440. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2344

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Álvarez-Rogel J, Jiménez-Cárceles FJ, Nicolás CE (2006) Phosphorus and nitrogen content in the water of a coastal wetland in the Mar Menor Lagoon (Se Spain): relationships with effluents from urban and agricultural areas. Water Air Soil Pollut 173:21–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-005-9020-y

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bartoń K (2014). MuMIn: multi-model inference. R package version 1.10. 0. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn

  4. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 1:1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Benoit LK, Askins RA (1999) Impact of the spread of Phragmites on the distribution of birds in Connecticut tidal marshes. Wetlands 19:194–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03161749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bhattarai GP, Meyerson LA, Anderson J et al (2016) Biogeography of a plant invasion: genetic variation and plasticity in latitudinal clines for traits related to herbivory. Ecol Monogr. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecm.1233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  8. Burns JH (2004) A comparison of invasive and non-invasive dayflowers (Commelinaceae) across experimental nutrient and water gradients. Divers Distrib 10:387–397. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1366-9516.2004.00105.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Campbell BD, Grime JP (1989) A comparative study of plant responsiveness to the duration of episodes of mineral nutrient enrichment. New Phytol 112:261–267. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1989.tb02382.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chambers RM, Meyerson LA, Saltonstall K (1999) Expansion of Phragmites australis into tidal wetlands of North America. Aquat Bot 64:261–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3770(99)00055-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cheplick GP (1995) Genotypic variation and plasticity of clonal growth in relation to nutrient availability in Amphibromus scabrivalvis. J Ecol 83:459–468. https://doi.org/10.2307/2261599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cronin JT, Bhattarai GP, Allen WJ, Meyerson LA (2015) Biogeography of a plant invasion: plant–herbivore interactions. Ecology 96:1115–1127. https://doi.org/10.1890/14-1091.1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Crosbie B, Chow-Fraser P (1999) Percentage land use in the watershed determines the water and sediment quality of 22 marshes in the Great Lakes basin. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 56:1781–1791. https://doi.org/10.1139/f99-109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Daehler CC (2003) Performance comparisons of co-occurring native and alien invasive plants: implications for conservation and restoration. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:183–211. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Davidson AM, Jennions M, Nicotra AB (2011) Do invasive species show higher phenotypic plasticity than native species and if so, is it adaptive? A meta-analysis. Ecol Lett 14:419–431. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01596.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Davis MA, Grime JP, Thompson K (2000) Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invasibility. J Ecol 88:528–534. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2745.2000.00473.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. de Groot R, Brander L, van der Ploeg S et al (2012) Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosyst Serv 1:50–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Doane TA, Horwáth WR (2003) Spectrophotometric determination of nitrate with a single reagent. Anal Lett 36:2713–2722. https://doi.org/10.1081/AL-120024647

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Drexler JZ, Bedford BL (2002) Pathways of nutrient loading and impacts on plant diversity in a New York peatland. Wetlands 22:263–281. https://doi.org/10.1672/0277-5212(2002)022%5b0263:ponlai%5d2.0.co;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ehrenfeld JG (2000) Evaluating wetlands within an urban context. Ecol Eng 15:253–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-8574(00)00080-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Eller F, Brix H (2012) Different genotypes of Phragmites australis show distinct phenotypic plasticity in response to nutrient availability and temperature. Aquat Bot 103:89–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquabot.2012.07.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Eller F, Skálová H, Caplan JS et al (2017) Cosmopolitan species as models for ecophysiological responses to global change: the common reed Phragmites australis. Front Plant Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01833

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Fitch R, Theodose T, Dionne M (2009) Relationships among upland development, nitrogen, and plant community composition in a Maine salt marsh. Wetlands 29:1179–1188. https://doi.org/10.1672/08-154.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP et al (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science 309:570–574. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1111772

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Gersberg RM, Elkins BV, Lyon SR, Goldman CR (1986) Role of aquatic plants in wastewater treatment by artificial wetlands. Water Res 20:363–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1354(86)90085-0

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Godoy O, Valladares F, Castro-Diez P (2011) Multispecies comparison reveals that invasive and native plants differ in their traits but not in their plasticity. Funct Ecol 25:1248–1259. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2011.01886.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Gotelli NJ, Ellison AM (2004) A primer of ecological statistics. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland

    Google Scholar 

  28. Green EK, Galatowitsch SM (2002) Effects of Phalaris arundinacea and nitrate-N addition on the establishment of wetland plant communities. J Appl Ecol 39:134–144. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.2002.00702.x

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Haslam SM (1972) Phragmites communis Trin. (Arundo phragmites L.,? Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steudel). J Ecol 60:585–610. https://doi.org/10.2307/2258363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hoagland DR, Arnon DI (1950) The water-culture method for growing plants without soil. Circular California Agricultural Experiment Station 347: 2nd edit

  31. Huett DO, Morris SG, Smith G, Hunt N (2005) Nitrogen and phosphorus removal from plant nursery runoff in vegetated and unvegetated subsurface flow wetlands. Water Res 39:3259–3272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2005.05.038

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Lajtha K, Driscoll CT, Jarrell WM, Elliott ET (1999) Soil phosphorus: characterization and total element analysis. Standard soil methods for long-term ecological research. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 115–142

    Google Scholar 

  33. League MT, Colbert EP, Seliskar DM, Gallagher JL (2006) Rhizome growth dynamics of native and exotic haplotypes of Phragmites (Common reed). Estuaries Coasts 29:269–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02781995

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Li W, Stevens MHH (2012) Fluctuating resource availability increases invisibility in microbial microcosms. Oikos 121:435–441. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2011.19762.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Lichvar RW (2014) The national wetland plant list: 2014 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 41:1–42

    Google Scholar 

  36. Liu Y, van Kleunen M (2017) Responses of common and rare aliens and natives to nutrient availability and fluctuations. J Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12733

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Liu Y, Zhang X, van Kleunen M (2018) Increases and fluctuations in nutrient availability do not promote dominance of alien plants in synthetic communities of common natives. Funct Ecol 32:2594–2604. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.13199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Meyerson L, Saltonstall K, Chambers R (2009) Phragmites australis in Eastern North America: a historical and ecological perspective. In: Silliman BR, Grosholz ED, Bertness MD (eds) Human impacts on salt marshes: a global perspective. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 57–82

    Google Scholar 

  39. Meyerson LA, Cronin JT, Pyšek P (2016) Phragmites australis as a model organism for studying plant invasions. Biol Invasions 18:2421–2431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-016-1132-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Minchinton TE, Bertness MD (2003) Disturbance-mediated competition and the spread of Phragmites australis in a coastal marsh. Ecol Appl 13:1400–1416. https://doi.org/10.1890/02-5136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Mitsch WJ, Gosselink JG (2015) Wetlands, 5th edn. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  42. Moran MD (2003) Arguments for rejecting the sequential Bonferroni in ecological studies. Oikos 100:403–405. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.12010.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Mozdzer TJ, Megonigal JP (2012) Jack-and-master trait responses to elevated CO2 and N: a comparison of native and introduced Phragmites australis. PLoS One 7:e42794. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0042794

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Mozdzer TJ, Zieman JC (2010) Ecophysiological differences between genetic lineages facilitate the invasion of non-native Phragmites australis in North American Atlantic coast wetlands. J Ecol 98:451–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2009.01625.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Mozdzer TJ, Zieman JC, McGlathery KJ (2010) Nitrogen uptake by native and invasive temperate coastal macrophytes: importance of dissolved organic nitrogen. Estuaries Coasts 33:784–797. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-009-9254-9

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Mozdzer TJ, Brisson J, Hazelton ELG (2013) Physiological ecology and functional traits of North American native and Eurasian introduced Phragmites australis lineages. AoB PLANTS. https://doi.org/10.1093/aobpla/plt048

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Nowlin WH, González MJ, Vanni MJ et al (2007) Allochthonous subsidy of periodical cicadas affects the dynamics and stability of pond communities. Ecology 88:2174–2186. https://doi.org/10.1890/06-0570.1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Ostfeld RS, Keesing F (2000) Pulsed resources and community dynamics of consumers in terrestrial ecosystems. Trends Ecol Evol 15:232–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(00)01862-0

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Palacio-López K, Gianoli E (2011) Invasive plants do not display greater phenotypic plasticity than their native or non-invasive counterparts: a meta-analysis. Oikos 120:1393–1401. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.19114.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Parepa M, Fischer M, Bossdorf O (2013) Environmental variability promotes plant invasion. Nat Commun 4:1604. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms2632

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Piazza BP, Peyre MKL (2012) Measuring changes in consumer resource availability to riverine pulsing in Breton Sound, Louisiana, USA. PLoS One 7:e37536. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0037536

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Poor CJ, McDonnell JJ (2007) The effects of land use on stream nitrate dynamics. J Hydrol 332:54–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.06.022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Poorter H, Bühler J, van Dusschoten D et al (2012) Pot size matters: a meta-analysis of the effects of rooting volume on plant growth. Funct Plant Biol 39:839–850. https://doi.org/10.1071/FP12049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Pyšek P, Richardson DM, Pergl J et al (2008) Geographical and taxonomic biases in invasion ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 23:237–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2008.02.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Qian P, Schoenau JJ, Huang WZ (1992) Use of ion exchange membranes in routine soil testing. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 23:1791–1804. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103629209368704

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Rickey MA, Anderson RC (2004) Effects of nitrogen addition on the invasive grass Phragmites australis and a native competitor Spartina pectinata. J Appl Ecol 41:888–896. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-8901.2004.00948.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Russell L (2016) Least-squares means: the R package lsmeans. J Stat Softw. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v069.i01

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Saltonstall K (2002) Cryptic invasion by a non-native genotype of the common reed, Phragmites australis, into North America. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:2445–2449. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.032477999

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Saltonstall K (2003) Microsatellite variation within and among North American lineages of Phragmites australis. Mol Ecol 12:1689–1702. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294X.2003.01849.x

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Saltonstall K, Stevenson J (2007) The effect of nutrients on seedling growth of native and introduced Phragmites australis. Aquat Bot 86:331–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquabot.2006.12.003

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Saltonstall K, Peterson PM, Soreng RJ (2004) Recognition of Phragmites australis subso. americanus (Poaceae: Arundinoideae) in North America: evidence from morphological and genetic analyses. Sida 21:683–692

    Google Scholar 

  62. Silliman BR, Bertness MD (2004) Shoreline development drives invasion of Phragmites australis and the loss of plant diversity on New England salt marshes. Conserv Biol 18:1424–1434. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00112.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Valladares F, Sanchez-Gomez D, Zavala MA (2006) Quantitative estimation of phenotypic plasticity: bridging the gap between the evolutionary concept and its ecological applications. J Ecol 94:1103–1116. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2006.01176.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Vasquez EA, Glenn EP, Brown JJ et al (2005) Salt tolerance underlies the cryptic invasion of North American salt marshes by an introduced haplotype of the common reed Phragmites australis (Poaceae). Mar Ecol Prog Ser 298:1–8. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps298001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Vretare V, Weisner SEB, Strand JA, Granéli W (2001) Phenotypic plasticity in Phragmites australis as a functional response to water depth. Aquat Bot 69:127–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3770(01)00134-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Wathugala AG, Suzuki T, Kurihara Y (1987) Removal of nitrogen, phosphorus and COD from waste water using sand filtration system with Phragmites australis. Water Res 21:1217–1224. https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1354(87)90173-4

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Windham L, Meyerson LA (2003) Effects of common reed (Phragmites australis) expansions on nitrogen dynamics of tidal marshes of the northeastern U.S. Estuaries 26:452–464. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02823722

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Yang LH, Edwards KF, Byrnes JE et al (2010) A meta-analysis of resource pulse–consumer interactions. Ecol Monogr 80:125–151. https://doi.org/10.1890/08-1996.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Zedler JB, Kercher S (2004) Causes and consequences of invasive plants in wetlands: opportunities, opportunists, and outcomes. Crit Rev Plant Sci 23:431–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352680490514673

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

For assistance in the field and lab, we wish to thank Olivia Petryszyn, Phoebe Honscheid, Ivan Gonzalez-Alvarez, Nate Hofford, Colin Day, Raleigh Ricart and the Waterman Agricultural and Natural Resources Laboratory staff. Native Phragmites collection sites were identified with help from Rick Gardner. Funding was provided to SH by The Ohio State University.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

DF and SH conceived the ideas and study methodology. DF carried out the experiment, analyzed the data and drafted the manuscript. SH funded the research. Both authors contributed to manuscript revisions.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen M. Hovick.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Communicated by Sarah M Emery.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 73 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Frevola, D.M., Hovick, S.M. The independent effects of nutrient enrichment and pulsed nutrient delivery on a common wetland invader and its native conspecific. Oecologia 191, 447–460 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-019-04493-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Phragmites australis
  • Invasive species
  • Phenotypic plasticity
  • Leaf traits
  • Anthropogenic land-use