Advertisement

Biological Invasions

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 423–433 | Cite as

Litter legacy increases the competitive advantage of invasive Phragmites australis in New England wetlands

  • Christine Holdredge
  • Mark D. Bertness
Original Paper

Abstract

Exotic plant invaders that form monocultures and exclude native plants are often the most detrimental to native diversity and the hardest to eradicate. To generate a monoculture, the invader must garner more resources than resident natives and, once established, persist despite high densities of conspecific neighbors. Coincident with expansion and long-term persistence, successful invaders typically accumulate senesced material, but the role of this litter in mediating the invader’s ability to establish and maintain monospecific dominance has rarely been investigated. We used stands of the common reed, Phragmites australis, a prolific wetland invader in North America, to explore the impact of litter on interspecific competition with the native rush, Juncus gerardii, and intraspecific competition among live shoots. In 10 × 10 m areas positioned on Phragmites expansion fronts, we removed litter to isolate its effect from live Phragmites on light availability, aboveground biomass and community composition. Compared to adjacent, unmanipulated fronts, light availability nearly tripled and Juncus biomass increased >170% in litter removal areas after 4 months. Although the positive response of Juncus and native forbs was most pronounced on the leading edge of Phragmites stands, litter removal triggered a 271% increase in native plant biomass even in the interior of stands where Phragmites’ live stem density was highest. Litter treatment did not significantly affect Phragmites biomass, but more, shorter stems emerged in litter removals revealing Phragmites modifies stem phenotype in response to local litter and light conditions. These results suggest that litter plays a central role in Phragmites’ invasion process, from initial establishment to subsequent monospecific dominance. Thus, prescribed litter removal may be an effective strategy to enhance coexistence of native plant populations in wetlands where eradication of invasive monocultures is not an ecologically or economically feasible option.

Keywords

Competition Intraspecific interactions Invasive species Juncus gerardii Monoculture Tidal marsh Wetland management 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank T. Savage, N. Herrmann and M. K. Lane for assistance in the field, J. Griffin, B. Bolker and B. R. Silliman for comments on the manuscript, and the Brown Undergraduate Teaching and Research Award program and RI Sea Grant for funding support.

References

  1. Benoit LK, Askins RA (1999) Impact of the spread of Phragmites on the distribution of birds in Connecticut tidal marshes. Wetlands 19:194–208. doi: 10.1007/BR03161749 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bertness MD, Ewanchuk PJ, Silliman BR (2002) Anthropogenic modification of New England salt marsh landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:1395–1398. doi: 10.1073/pnas.022447299 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Chambers RM, Meyerson LA, Saltonstall K (1999) Expansion of Phragmites australis into tidal wetlands of North America. Aquat Bot 64:261–273. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3770(99)00055-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coleman HM, Levine JM (2007) Mechanisms underlying the impacts of exotic annual grasses in a coastal California meadow. Biol Inv 9:65–71. doi: 10.1007/s10530-006-9008-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crain CM, Silliman BR, Bertness SL, Bertness MD (2004) Physical and biotic drivers of plant distribution across estuarine salinity gradients. Ecology 85:2539–2549. doi: 10.1890/03-0745 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. de Jong TJ, Klinkhamer PGL (1985) The negative effects of litter of parent plants of Cirsium vulgare on their offspring: autotoxicity or immobilization? Oecologia 65:153–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ellison AM (1987) Density-dependent dynamics of Salicornia europaea monocultures. Ecology 68:737–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Evans RD, Rimer R, Sperry L, Belnap J (2001) Exotic plant invasion alters nitrogen dynamics in an arid grassland. Ecol Appl 11:1301–1310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Farnsworth EJ, Meyerson LA (2003) Comparative ecophysiology of four wetland plant species along a continuum of invasiveness. Wetlands 23:750–762. doi: 10.1672/0277-5212 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Farrer EC, Goldberg DE (2009) Litter drives ecosystem and plant community changes in cattail invasion. Ecol Appl 19:398–412. doi: 10.1890/08-0485.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Farrer EC, Goldberg DE, King AE (2010) Time lags and the balance of positive and negative interactions in driving grassland community dynamics. Am Nat 175:160–173. doi: 10.1086/649584 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Harley CDG, Bertness MD (1996) Structural interdependence: an ecological consequence of morphological responses to crowding in marsh plants. Funct Ecol 10:654–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Healy MT, Zedler JB (2010) Setbacks in replacing Phalaris arundinacea monotypes with sedge meadow vegetation. Rest Ecol 18:155–164. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2009.00645.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Holbrook NM, Putz FE (1989) Influence of neighbors on tree form: effect of lateral shade and prevention of sway on the allometry of Liquidambar styraciflua (Sweet Gum). Am J Bot 76:1740–1749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Levine JM, Vila M, D’Antonio CM, Dukes JS, Grigulis K, Lavorel S (2003) Mechanisms underlying the impacts of exotic plant invasions. Proc Biol Sci 270:775–781. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2003.2327 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Levine JM, Pachepsky E, Kendall BE, Yelenik SG, HilleRisLambers J (2006) Plant-soil feedbacks and invasive spread. Ecol Lett 9:1005–1014. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00949.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. MacDougall AS, Turkington R (2005) Are invasive species the drivers or passengers of change in degraded ecosystems? Ecology 86:42–55. doi: 10.1890/04-0669 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. MacDougall AS, Gilbert B, Levine JM (2009) Plant invasions and the niche. J Ecol 97:609–615. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2009.01515.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Maron JL, Jefferies RL (2001) Restoring enriched grasslands: effects of mowing on species richness, productivity and nitrogen retention. Ecol Appl 11:1088–1100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marushia RG, Holt JS (2008) Reproductive strategy of an invasive thistle: effects of adults on seedling survival. Biol Inv 10:913–924. doi: 10.1007/s10530-008-9234-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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 131:279–288. doi: 10.1007/s00442-002-0886-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Minchinton TE (2002) Disturbance by wrack facilitates the spread of Phragmites australis in a coastal marsh. J Exp Mar Bio Ecol 281:89–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Minchinton TE, Bertness MD (2003) Disturbance-mediated competition and the spread of Phragmites australis in a coastal marsh. Ecol Appl 13:1400–1416. doi: 10.1890/02-5136 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Minchinton TE, Simpson JC, Bertness MD (2006) Mechanisms of exclusion of native coastal marsh plants by an invasive grass. J Ecol 94:342–354. doi: 10.1016/j.aquabot.2006.01.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2009.01625.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Quinn GP, Keogh MJ (2002) Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. Cambridge University, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  27. Quinn LD, Rauterkus MA, Holt JS (2007) Effects of nitrogen enrichment and competition on growth and spread of giant reed (Arundo donax). Weed Sci 53:319–326. doi: 10.1614/WS-06-139.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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. doi: 10.1073/pnas.032477999 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Seabloom EW, Harpole WS, Reichman OJ, Tilman D (2003) Invasion, competitive dominance, and resource use by exotic and native California grassland species. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100:13384–13389. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1835728100 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Silliman BR, Bertness MD (2004) Shoreline development drives invasion of Phragmites australis and the loss of plant diversity in New England salt marshes. Conserv Biol 18:1424–1434. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00112.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tewksbury L, Casagrande R, Blossey B, Hafliger P, Schwarzlander M (2002) Potential for biological control of Phragmites australis in North America. Biol Control 23:191–212. doi: 10.1006/bcon.2001.0994 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tilman D, Wedin D (1991) Oscillations and chaos in the dynamics of a perennial grass. Nature 353:653–655. doi: 10.1035/353653a0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Warren RS, Fell PE, Grimsby JL, Buck EL, Rilling GC, Fertik RA (2001) Rates, patterns, and impacts of Phragmites australis expansion and effects of experimental Phragmites control on vegetation, macroinvertebrates and fish within tidelands of the lower Connecticut River. Estuaries 24:90–107. doi: 10.2307/1352816 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Windham L (2000) Comparison of biomass production and decomposition between Phragmites australis (Common reed) and Spartina patens (salt hay grass) in brackish tidal marshes of New Jersey, USA. Wetlands 21:179–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Windham L, Ehrenfeld JG (2003) Net impact of a plant invasion on nitrogen-cycling processes within a brackish tidal marsh. Ecol Appl 13:883–896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Windham L, Lathrop RG (1999) Effects of Phragmites australis (Common reed) invasion on aboveground biomass and soil properties in brackish tidal marsh of the Mullica River, New Jersey. Estuaries 22:927–935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Woo I, Zedler JB (2002) Can nutrients alone shift a sedge meadow towards dominance by the invasive Typha x glauca. Wetlands 22:509–521. doi: 10.1672/0277-5212(2002)022[0509:CNASAS]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zedler JB, Kercher S (2004) Causes and consequences of invasive plants in wetlands: opportunities, opportunists and outcomes. Crit Rev Plant Sci 23:431–452. doi: 10.1016/j.aquabot.2004.08.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyBrown UniversityProvidenceUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations