Biological Invasions

, Volume 10, Issue 8, pp 1317–1325 | Cite as

Genetic variation in photosynthetic characteristics among invasive and native populations of reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea)

  • Craig Brodersen
  • Sébastien Lavergne
  • Jane Molofsky
Original Paper

Abstract

With the extensive spread of invasive species throughout North America and Europe there is an urgent need to better understand the morphological and physiological characteristics of successful invasive plants and the evolutionary mechanisms that allow introduced species to become invasive. Most ecological studies have focused on morphological differences and changes in community dynamics, and physiological studies have typically explored the differences between native and invasive species. In this study, 15 different genotypes of Phalaris arundinacea from both its native (European) and invasive (North American) range were grown in a common garden experiment to monitor the physiological differences between native and invasive genotypes. Here we present data that suggests high variability exists in the physiological traits among genotypes of P. arundinacea, yet genotypes from the native range are not necessarily physiologically inferior to the hybridized invasive genotypes. Previous work has shown that multiple introductions of P. arundinacea from various European locations to the United States resulted in numerous hybridization events, yielding more genetic variability and phenotypic plasticity in the invasive range. Of the genotypes studied, both morphological and physiological traits of genotypes with French origin were significantly different from the plants from the Czech Republic, North Carolina, and Vermont. The lack of clear differences between native and invasive genotypes indicates that physiological traits may be highly conserved in P. arundinacea and enhanced photosynthetic rates are not indicative of successful invasive genotypes. Instead, morphological traits and defensive secondary compound metabolism may play a more important role in the success of P. arundinacea within its invasive range, and patterns of genetic variation in physiological traits between invasive and native range may be more important than the mean traits of each region when explaining reed canarygrass’ invasive potential in North America.

Keywords

Phalaris arundinacea Genotype Invasive Native Physiology Photosynthesis Morphology 

References

  1. Amsellem L, Noyer J-L, Hossaert-McKey M (2001) Evidence for a switch in the reproductive biology of Rubus alceifolius (Rosaceae) towards apomixis, between its native range and its area of introduction. Am J Bot 88:2243–2251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arntz MA, Delph LF (2004) Pattern and process: evidence for the evolution of photosynthetic traits in natural populations. Oecologia 127(4):455–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baskauf CJ, Eickmeier WG (1994) Comparative ecophysiology of a rare and a widespread species of Echinacea (Asteraceae). Am J Bot 81:958–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benowicz A, Guy RD, El-Kassaby YA (2000) Geographic pattern of genetic variation in photosynthetic capacity and growth in two hardwood species from British Columbia. Oecologia 123:168–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blair AC, Wolfe LM (2004) The evolution of an invasive plant: an experimental study with Silene latifolia. Ecology 85:3035–3042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blossey B, Notzold R (1995) Evolution of increased competitive ability in invasive nonindigenous plants: a hypothesis. J Ecol 83:887–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bohn T, Sandlund OT, Amundsen P, Primicerio R (2004) Rapidly changing life history during invasion. Oikos 106:138–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bonnin I, Prosperi JM, Olivieri I (1996) Genetic markers and quantitative genetic variation in Medicago truncatula (Leguminosae): a comparative analysis of population structure. Genetics 143:1795–1805PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown JS, Eckert CG (2005) Evolutionary increase in sexual and clonal reproductive capacity during biological invasion in an aquatic plant Butomus umbellatus (Butomaceae). Am J Bot 92:495–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Callaway R, Maron JL (2006) What have exotic plant invasions taught us over the past 20 years? Trends Ecol Evol 21:369–374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chapin FSI, Oechel WC (1983) Photosynthesis, respiration, and phosphate absorption by Carex aquatilis ecotypes along latitudinal and local environmental gradients. Ecology 64:743–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cruz C, Lips H, Martins-Loução MA (2003) Nitrogen use efficiency by a slow-growing species as affected by CO2 levels, root temperature, N source and availability. J Plant Physiol 160(12):1421–1428PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DeWalt SJ, Denslow JS, Hamrick JL (2004) Biomass allocation, growth, and photosynthesis of genotypes from native and introduced ranges of the tropical shrub Clidemia hirta. Oecologia 138:521–531PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dijkstra P, Lambers H (1989) Analysis of specific leaf area and photosynthesis of two inbred lines of Plantago major differing in relative growth rate. New Phytol 113:283–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Farquhar GD, Sharkey TD (1982) Stomatal conductance and photosynthesis. Annu Rev Plant Physiol 33:317–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Feng Y, Wang J, Sang W (2007) Biomass allocation, morphology and photosynthesis of invasive and noninvasive exotic species grown at four irradiance levels. Acta Oecologica 31:40–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Funk JL, Vitousek PM (2007) Resource-use efficiency and plant invasion in low-resource systems. Nature 446:1079–1081PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grime JP (1977) Evidence for three primary strategies in plant and its relevance to ecological and evolutionary theory. Am Nat 111:1169–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grime JP, Hunt R (1975) Relative growth-rate: its range and adaptative significance in a local flora. J Ecol 63:393–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heschel MS, Stinchcombe JR, Holsinger KE, Schmitt J (2004) Natural selection on light response curve parameters in the herbaceous annual, Impatiens capensis. Oecologia 139:487–494PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Houle D (1992) Comparing evolvability and variability of quantitative traits. Genetics 130:195–204PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Huey RB, Gilchrist GW, Carlson ML, Berrigan D, Serra L (2000) Rapid evolution of a geographic cline in size in an introduced fly. Science 287:308–309PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Körner C, Diemer M (1987) In situ photosynthetic responses to light, temperature and carbon dioxide in herbaceous plants from low and high altitude. Funct Ecol 1:179–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lafuma L, Maurice S (2007) Increase in mate availability without loss of self-incompatibility in the invasive species Senecio inaequidens (Asteraceae). Oikos 116:201–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lambrinos JL (2004) How interactions between ecology and evolution influence contemporary invasion dynamics. Ecology 85:2061–2070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lavergne S, Molofsky J (2004) Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.), as a biological model in the study of plant invasions. Crit Rev Plant Sci 23:415–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lavergne S, Molofsky J (2006) Control strategies for the invasive reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) in North American wetlands: the need for an integrated management plan. Nat Areas J 26:208–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lavergne S, Molofsky J (2007) Increased genetic variation and evolutionary potential drive the success of an invasive grass. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:3883–3888PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mack RN (1995) Predicting the identity and fate of plant invaders: emergent and emerging approaches. Biol Conserv 78(1):107–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Maron JL (2006) The relative importance of latitude matching and propagule pressure in the colonization success of an invasive forb. Ecography 29:819–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Maron JL, Vilà M, Bommarco R, Elmendorf S,Beardsley P (2004) Rapid evolution of an invasive plant. Ecol Monogr 74:261–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Massei G, Hartley SE, Bacon PJ (2000) Chemical and morphological variation of Mediterranean woody evergreen species: Do plants respond to ungulate browsing? J Veg Sci 11(1):1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McDowell SCL (2002) Photosynthetic characteristics of invasive and noninvasive species of Rubus (Rosaceae). Am J Bot 89:1431–1438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mooney HA, Billings WD (1961) Comparative physiological ecology of arctic and alpine populations of Oxyria digyna. Ecol Monogr 31:1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Peek MS, Russek-Cohen E, Wait DA, Forseth IN (2002) Physiological response curve analysis using nonlinear mixed models. Oecologia 132:175–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pinheiro JC, Bates DM (2000) Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Poorter H, Garnier E (1999) Ecological significance of inherent variation in relative growth rate and its components. In: Pugnaire FI, Valladore F (eds) Handbook of functional plant ecology. Marcel Dekker Inc, New York, pp 81–103Google Scholar
  39. Potvin C, Lechowicz MJ, Tardif S (1990) The statistical analysis of ecophysiological response curves obtained from expriments involving repeated measures. Ecology 71:1389–1400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Reich PB, Walters MB, Ellsworth DS (1997) From tropics to tundra: global convergence in plant functioning. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:13730–13734PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Reich PB, Ellsworth DS, Walters MB, Vose JM, Gresham C, Volin JC, Bowman WD (1999) Generality of leaf trait relationships: a test across six biomes. Ecology 80:1955–1969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Roff DA (1997) Evolutionary quantitative genetics. Chapman and Hall, New York, 493 ppGoogle Scholar
  43. Siemann E, Rogers WE (2001) Genetic differences in growth of an invasive tree species. Ecol Lett 4:514–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stockwell CA, Hendry AP, Kinnison MT (2003) Contemporary evolution meets conservation biology. Trends Ecol Evol 18:94–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Venables WN, Ripley BD (2002) Modern applied statistics with S. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  46. Zangerl AR, Bazzaz FA (1983) Plasticity and genotypic variation in photosynthetic behavior of an early and late successional species of Polygonum. Oecologia 57:270–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Craig Brodersen
    • 1
  • Sébastien Lavergne
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jane Molofsky
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Plant BiologyUniversity of VermontBurlingtonUSA
  2. 2.Laboratoire d’Ecologie AlpineCNRS - UMR 5553GrenobleFrance

Personalised recommendations