Biological Invasions

, Volume 12, Issue 6, pp 1815–1823 | Cite as

Physiological integration increases the survival and growth of the clonal invader Carpobrotus edulis

  • Sergio R. Roiloa
  • Susana Rodríguez-Echeverría
  • Eduardo de la Peña
  • Helena Freitas
Original Paper


Clonal growth seems to be a common trait for many of the most aggressive invasive plant species. However, little research has been conducted to determine the role of clonality in the successful invasion of new areas by exotic species. Carpobrotus edulis (L.) N.E. Br. is a mat-forming succulent plant, native to South Africa that is invasive in coastal dunes of Australia, New Zealand, USA and Southern Europe. Although Carpobrotus edulis is a clonal plant, there is no information on the role of clonality for the invasion by this species, therefore the objective of this study was to test whether or not physiological integration improves the performance of C. edulis invading coastal sand dunes. To do that, a 6-month field experiment was designed in which the stolon connections between the apical ramets and the C. edulis mats were severed to prevent physiological integration. This treatment was applied to ramets growing under high and low competition with the native species. Apical ramets with intact stolon connections were used as control. Integration improved the survivorship and growth of apical ramets, both in high and low competition. Connected ramets showed a more pronounced increase of clonal growth (estimated as stolon length) during the experimental period and a higher total biomass and number of ramets at the completion of the experiment. In terms of survivorship, the benefit of integration was greater under high competition. Physiological integration can therefore be considered an important factor in the invasiveness of C. edulis, both in open space and in direct competition with the native plants.


Biomass allocation Clonal growth Coastal dune Competition Physiological Integration Plant invasion 



We thank D. Bachmann for field assistance, J. Sanchez-Vilas for statistics comments and Kerrin Forster for English correction. We are grateful to an anonymous referee and to Editor Daniel Simberloff for their valuable comments on an earlier version of this paper. S. R. Roiloa was supported by an “Ángeles Alvariño” research grant awarded by the Autonomous Government of Galicia, Spain.


  1. Almeida JD, Freitas H (2001) The exotic and invasive flora of Portugal. Botanica Complutensis 25:317–327Google Scholar
  2. Almeida JD, Marchante E, Marchante H, Freitas H (2003) A brief report on the invasive flora of Portugal. Aliens 18:16–18Google Scholar
  3. Alpert P (1991) Nitrogen sharing among ramets increases clonal growth in Fragaria chiloensis. Ecology 72:69–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alpert P (1999) Clonal integration in Fragaria chiloensis differs between populations: ramets from grassland are selfish. Oecologia 120:69–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alpert P, Bone E, Holzapfel C (2000) Invasiveness, invasibility, and the role of environmental stress in preventing the spread of non-native plants. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 3:52–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Amsberry L, Baker MA, Ewanchuk PJ, Bertness MD (2000) Clonal integration and the expansion of Phragmites australis. Ecol Appl 10:1110–1118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baker HG (1974) The evolution of weeds. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 5:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bloom AJ, Chapin FS III, Mooney HA (1985) Resource limitation in plants–an economic analogy. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 16:363–392Google Scholar
  9. Costa JC, Aguiar C, Capelo J, Lousã M, Neto C (1998) Biogeografia de Portugal continental. Quercetea 0:5–56Google Scholar
  10. Costa JC, Lousã M, Capelo J, Espírito Santo MD, Izco Sevillano J, Arsénio P (2000) The coastal vegetation of the Portuguese divisory sector: dunes cliffs and low-scrub communities. Finisterra XXXV 69:69–93Google Scholar
  11. D’Antonio CM (1993) Mechanisms controlling invasion of coastal plant communities by the alien succulent Carpobrotus edulis. Ecology 74:83–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. D’Antonio CM, Mahall BE (1991) Root profiles and competition between the invasive, exotic perennial, Carpobrotus edulis, and two native shrub species in California coastal scrub. Am J Bot 78:885–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Evans JP (1992) The effect of local resource availability and clonal integration on ramet functional morphology in Hydrocotyle bonariensis. Oecologia 89:265–276Google Scholar
  14. Gleeson SK, Tilman D (1992) Plant allocation and the multiple limitation hypothesis. Am Nat 139:1322–1343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gonçalves ML (1990) Carpobrotus. In: Castroviejo S (ed) Flora Iberica. Plantas vasculares de la Península Ibérica e Islas Baleares. Vol. II Platanaceae–Plumbaginaceae (partim). Real Jardín Botánico-CSIC, Madrid, pp 82–84Google Scholar
  16. Grime JP, Mackey JML (2002) The role of plasticity in resource capture by plants. Evol Ecol 16:299–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Groves RH, di Castri F (1991) Biogeography of Mediterranean invasions. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hartnett DC, Bazzaz FA (1983) Physiological integration among intraclonal ramets in Solidago canadensis. Ecology 64:779–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hutchings MJ, Bradbury IK (1986) Ecological perspectives on clonal perennial herbs. Bioscience 36:178–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnson IR, Thornley JHM (1987) A model of root:shoot partitioning and optimal growth. Ann Bot 60:133–142Google Scholar
  21. Jónsdóttir IS, Watson MA (1997) Extensive physiological integration: an adaptive trait in resource-poor environments? In: de Kroon H, van Groenendael J (eds) The ecology and evolution of clonal plants. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, pp 109–136Google Scholar
  22. Kaplan EL, Meier P (1958) Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc 53:457–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kolar CS, Lodge DM (2001) Progress in invasion biology: predicting invaders. Trends Ecol Evol 16:199–204CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Levine JM, Vilà M, D’Antonio CM, Dukes JS, Grigulis K, Lavorel S (2003) Mechanisms underlying the impacts of exotic plant invasions. Proc R Soc B 270:775–781CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Liu J, Dong M, Miao S, Li Z, Song M, Wang R (2006) Invasive alien plants in China: role of clonality and geographical origin. Biol Invasions 8:1461–1470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Liu J, He WM, Zhang SM, Liu FH, Dong M, Wang RQ (2008) Effect of clonal integration on photosynthesis of the invasive clonal plant Alternanthera philoxeroides. Photosynthetica 46:299–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lodge DM (1993) Biological invasions: lessons for ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 8:133–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mack RN, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM, Evans H, Clout M, Bazzaz FA (2000) Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol Appl 10:689–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Maurer DA, Zedler JB (2002) Differential invasion of a wetland grass explained by tests of nutrients and light availability on establishment and clonal growth. Oecologia 131:279–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Otfinowski R, Kenkel NC (2008) Clonal integration facilitates the proliferation of smooth brome clones invading northern fescue prairies. Plant Ecol 199:235–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Peltzer DA (2002) Does clonal integration improve competitive ability? A test using aspen (Populus tremuloides [Salicaceae]) invasion into prairie. Am J Bot 89:494–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pennings SC, Callaway RM (2000) The advantages of clonal integration under different ecological conditions: a community-wide test. Ecology 81:709–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Peperkorn R, Werner C, Beyschlag W (2005) Phenotypic plasticity of an invasive acacia versus two native Mediterranean species. Funct Plant Biol 32:933–944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pitelka LF, Ashmun JW (1985) Physiology and integration of ramets in clonal plants. In: Jackson JBC, Buss LW, Cook RE (eds) Population biology and evolution of clonal organisms. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp 399–435Google Scholar
  35. Price EAC, Marshall C (1999) Clonal plants and environmental heterogeneity. Plant Ecol 141:3–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pyšek P (1997) Clonality and plant invasion: can a trait make a difference? In: de Kroon H, van Groenendal J (eds) The ecology and evolution of clonal plants. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, pp 405–427Google Scholar
  37. Rejmánek M, Richardson DM (1996) What attributes make some plant species more invasive? Ecology 77:1655–1661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rodríguez-Echeverría S, Crisóstomo JA, Nabais C, Freitas H (2009) Belowground mutualists and the invasive ability of Acacia longifolia in coastal dunes of Portugal. Biol Invasions 11:651–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Roiloa SR, Retuerto R (2005) Presence of developing ramets of Fragaria vesca L. increases photochemical efficiency in parent ramets. Int J Plant Sci 166:795–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Roiloa SR, Retuerto R (2006a) Small-scale heterogeneity in soil quality influences photosynthetic efficiency and habitat selection in a clonal plant. Ann Bot 98:1043–1052CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Roiloa SR, Retuerto R (2006b) Physiological integration amiliorates effects of serpentine soils in the clonal herb Fragaria vesca. Physiol Plantarum 128:662–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Roy J (1990) In search of characteristics of plant invaders. In: di Castri AJ, Hansen AJ, Debushe M (eds) Biological invasions in Europe and the Mediterranean Basin. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 335–352Google Scholar
  43. Saitoh T, Seiwa K, Nishiwaki A (2002) Importance of physiological integration of dwarf bamboo to persistence in forest understorey: a field experiment. J Ecol 90:78–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sakai AK, Allendorf FW, Holt JS, Lodge DM, Molofsky J, With KA, Baughman S, Cabin RJ, Cohen JE, Ellstrand NC, McCauley DE, O’Neil P, Parker IM, Thompson JN, Weller SG (2001) The population biology of invasive species. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 32:305–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Salzman AG, Parker MA (1985) Neighbors ameliorate local salinity stress for a rhizomatous plant in a heterogeneous environment. Oecologia 65:273–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shumway SW (1995) Physiological integration among clonal ramets during invasion of disturbance patches in a New England salt marsh. Ann Bot 76:225–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Silander JA Jr (1985) Microevolution in clonal plants. In: Jackson JBC, Buss LW, Cook RE (eds) Population biology and evolution of clonal organisms. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp 107–152Google Scholar
  48. Sintes T, Moragues E, Traveset A, Rita J (2007) Clonal growth dynamics of the invasive Carpobrotus affine acinaciformis in Mediterranean coastal systems: a non-linear model. Ecol Model 206:110–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Slade AJ, Hutchings MJ (1987) An analysis of the costs and benefits of physiological integration between ramets in the clonal perennial herb Glechoma hederacea. Oecologia 73:425–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stuefer JF, de Kroon H, During HJ (1996) Exploitation of environmental heterogeneity by spatial division of labour in a clonal plant. Funct Ecol 10:328–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Traveset A, Brundu G, Carta L, Mprezetou I, Lambdon P, Manca M, Médail F, Moragues E, Rodríguez-Pérez J, Siamantziouras AKD, Suehs CM, Troumbis A, Vilà M, Hulme PE (2008a) Consistent performance of invasive plant species within and among islands of the Mediterranean basin. Biol Invasions 10:847–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Traveset A, Moragues E, Valladares F (2008b) Spreading of the invasive Carpobrotus aff. acinaciformis in Mediterranean ecosystems: the advantage of performing in different light environments. Appl Veg Sci 11:45–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vilà M, Siamantziouras AKD, Brundu G, Camarda I, Lambdon P, Médail F, Moragues E, Suehs CM, Traveset A, Troumbis AY, Hulme PE (2008) Widespread resistance of Mediterranean island ecosystems to the establishment of three alien species. Divers Distrib 14:839–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wang N, Yu FH, Li PX, He WM, Liu FH, Liu JM, Dong M (2008) Clonal integration affects growth, photosynthetic efficiency and biomass allocation, but not the competitive ability, of the alien invasive Alternanthera philoxeroides under severe stress. Ann Bot 101:671–678CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Wijesinghe DK, Handel SN (1994) Advantages of clonal growth in heterogeneous habitats: an experiment with Potentilla simplex. J Ecol 82:495–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Williamson MH (1996) Biological invasions. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  57. Wisura W, Glen HF (1993) The South African species of Carpobrotus (Mesembryanthema–Aizoaceae). Contrib Bolus Herbarium 15:76–107Google Scholar
  58. Yu F, Dong M, Krüsi B (2004) Clonal integration helps Psammochloa villosa survive sand burial in an inland dune. New Phytol 162:697–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sergio R. Roiloa
    • 1
    • 2
  • Susana Rodríguez-Echeverría
    • 1
  • Eduardo de la Peña
    • 1
  • Helena Freitas
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Functional Ecology, Department of BotanyUniversity of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal
  2. 2.Unit of Ecology, Faculty of BiologyUniversity of Santiago de CompostelaSantiago de CompostelaSpain

Personalised recommendations