Advertisement

Biological Invasions

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 177–190 | Cite as

Habitat requirements, short-term population dynamics and coexistence of native and invasive Impatiens species: a field study

  • Jan ČudaEmail author
  • Hana Skálová
  • Zdeněk Janovský
  • Petr Pyšek
Original Paper

Abstract

The genus Impatiens (Balsaminaceae) includes three widespread species in the Czech Republic, central Europe: the native I. noli-tangere, and two invasive species, I. parviflora and I. glandulifera, differing in the dynamics of invasion. They all occur in similar habitats and share basic life-history characteristics, which make them a suitable model for studying species traits associated with invasiveness. In this study we investigated differences in habitat requirements of these Impatiens species, their coexistence and short-term population dynamics in the field. We established 84 1 × 1 m permanent plots in five localities where all three species co-occurred. In each plot vascular plant species were determined, their cover estimated and all individuals of Impatiens species counted. Site characteristics including tree canopy cover, soil moisture, nitrogen and carbon content, and slope were measured directly. Nutrients, light, humidity and soil reaction were estimated using Ellenberg indicator values. The presence of I. noli-tangere was strongly correlated with high soil moisture, that of I. parviflora with high tree canopy cover and low soil moisture. Impatiens glandulifera exhibited a unimodal response to tree canopy cover, avoiding both very shaded and fully open sites. The current-year abundances of all species were negatively related to those of congeneric species. These results suggest that the coexistence of Impatiens species in the same habitat is due to microsite differentiation. Further spread of I. glandulifera to new habitats, and reduction of the native I. noli-tangere niche, can be expected in areas where the latter species co-occurs with competitively strong invasive congeners.

Keywords

Balsam Canopy cover Congeneric species Ellenberg indicator values Microsite differentiation Soil moisture 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Radka Pokorná and Mirek Martinec for their help in the field. Christina Alba kindly improved our English and commented on the manuscript. The work was supported by grant GACR 206/07/0668 (Czech Science Foundation), long-term research development project no. RVO 67985939 (Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic), and institutional resources of Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic. Petr Pyšek acknowledges the support of a Praemium Academiae award from the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic.

References

  1. Adamowski W (2008) Balsams on the offensive: the role of planting in the invasion of Impatiens species. In: Tokarska-Guzik B, Brock JH, Brundu G, Child L, Daehler CC, Pyšek P (eds) Plant invasions: human perception, ecological impacts and management. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, pp 57–70Google Scholar
  2. Andrews M, Maule HG, Hodge S, Cherrill A, Raven JA (2009) Seed dormancy, nitrogen nutrition and shade acclimation of Impatiens glandulifera: implications for successful invasion of deciduous woodland. Plant Ecol Divers 2:145–153Google Scholar
  3. Baker HG (1965) Characteristics and modes of origin of weeds. In: Baker HG, Stebbins GL (eds) The genetics of colonizing species. Academic Press, New York, pp 147–172Google Scholar
  4. Beerling DJ, Perrins DM (1993) Biological flora of British Isles: Impatiens glandulifera Royle (Impatiens Roylei Walp.). J Ecol 81:367–381Google Scholar
  5. Berg MP, Ellers J (2010) Trait plasticity in species interactions: a driving force of community dynamics. Evol Ecol 24:617–629Google Scholar
  6. Blumenthal D, Mitchell CE, Pyšek P, Jarošík V (2009) Synergy between pathogen release and resource availability in plant invasion. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:7899–7904PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Burns JH (2004) A comparison of invasive and non-invasive dayflower (Commelinaceae) across experimental nutrient and water gradients. Divers Distrib 10:387–397Google Scholar
  8. Cavender-Bares J, Kozak KH, Fine PVA, Kembel SV (2009) The merging of community ecology and phylogenetic biology. Ecol Lett 12:693–715PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Chittka L, Schürkens S (2001) Successful invasion of a floral market—an exotic Asian plant has moved in on Europe’s river-banks by bribing pollinators. Nature 411:653PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Chmura D, Sierka E (2007) The invasibility of deciduous forest communities after disturbance: a case study of Carex brizoides and Impatiens parviflora invasion. For Ecol Manage 242:487–495Google Scholar
  11. Chytrý M, Jarošík V, Pyšek P, Hájek O, Knollová I, Tichý L, Danihelka J (2008a) Separating habitat invasibility by alien plants from the actual level of invasion. Ecology 89:1541–1553PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Chytrý M, Maskell LC, Pino J, Pyšek P, Vilà M, Font X, Smart SM (2008b) Habitat invasions by alien plants: a quantitative comparison among Mediterranean, subcontinental and oceanic regions of Europe. J Appl Ecol 45:448–458Google Scholar
  13. Clements DR, Feenstra KR, Jones K, Staniforth R (2008) The biology of invasive alien plants in Canada. 9. Impatiens glandulifera Royle. Can J Plant Sci 88:403–417Google Scholar
  14. Coombe DE (1956) Impatiens Parviflora DC. J Ecol 44:701–713Google Scholar
  15. Crawley MJ (2008) The R book. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  16. Daehler CC (2001) Darwin’s naturalization hypothesis revisited. Am Nat 158:324–330PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Darwin C (1859) The origin of species. John Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Daumann E (1967) Zur Bestäubungs- und Verbreitungsökologie dreier Impatiens-Arten. Preslia 39:43–58Google Scholar
  19. Davis MA, Grime JP, Thompson K (2000) Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invasibility. J Ecol 88:528–534Google Scholar
  20. Dayan T, Simberloff D (2005) Ecological and community-wide character displacement: the next generation. Ecol Lett 8:875–894Google Scholar
  21. Development Core Team R (2011) R: a language and environment for statistical computing, Version 2.12.2. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  22. Donohue K, Pyle EH, Messiqua D, Heschel MS, Schmitt J (2001) Adaptive divergence in plasticity in natural populations of Impatiens capensis and its consequences for performance in novel habitats. Evolution 55:692–702PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Dostál P, Weiser M, Koubek T (2012) Native jewelweed, but not other native species, displays post-invasion trait divergence. Oikos 121:1849–1859Google Scholar
  24. Dudley SA, Schmitt J (1995) Genetic differentiation in morphological responses to simulated foliage shade between populations of Impatiens capensis from open and woodland sites. Funct Ecol 9:655–666Google Scholar
  25. Ehrenberger F, Gorbach S (1973) Methoden der organischen Elementar- und Spurenanalyse. Verlag Chemie, WeinheimGoogle Scholar
  26. Ellenberg H, Weber HE, Düll R, Wirth V, Werner W, Paulissen D (1992) Zeigerwerte von Pflanzen in Mitteleuropa. Scr Geobot 18:1–258Google Scholar
  27. Faliński JB (1998) Invasive alien plants, vegetation dynamics and neophytism. Phytocoenosis 10 (N.S.). Suppl Cartogr Geobot 9:163–188Google Scholar
  28. Foxcroft LC, Rouget M, Richardson DM (2007) Risk assessment of riparian plant invasions into protected areas. Conserv Biol 21:412–421PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Foxcroft LC, Jarošík V, Pyšek P, Richardson DM, Rouget M (2011) Protected-area boundaries as filters of plant invasions. Conserv Biol 25:400–405PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Franks PJ, Farquhar GD (1999) A relationship between humidity response, growth form and photosynthetic operating point in C-3 plants. Plant Cell Environ 22:1337–1349Google Scholar
  31. Frazer GW, Canham CD, Lertzman KP (1999) Gap Light Analyzer (GLA): users manual and program documentation. Simon Frazer University, Burnaby, British Columbia, and the Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Gaertner M, Richardson DM, Privett SDJ (2011) Effects of alien plants on ecosystem structure and functioning and implications for restoration: insights from three degraded sites in South African Fynbos. Environ Manag 48:57–69Google Scholar
  33. Godefroid S, Dana ED (2007) Can Ellenberg’s indicator values for Mediterranean plants be used outside their region of definition? J Biogeogr 34:62–68Google Scholar
  34. Godefroid S, Koedam N (2010) Comparative ecology and coexistence of introduced and native congeneric forest herbs: Impatiens parviflora and Impatiens noli-tangere. Plant Ecol Evol 143:119–127Google Scholar
  35. Green EK, Galatowitsch SM (2002) Effects of Phalaris arundinacea and nitrate-N addition on the establishment of wetland plant communities. J Appl Ecol 39:134–144Google Scholar
  36. Grotkopp E, Rejmánek M (2007) High seedling relative growth rate and specific leaf area are traits of invasive species: phylogenetically independent contrasts of woody angiosperms. Am Nat 94:526–532Google Scholar
  37. Guevara-Escobar A, Tellez J, Gondalez-Sosa E (2005) Use of digital photography for analysis of canopy closure. Agrofor Syst 65:175–185Google Scholar
  38. Hatcher PE (2003) Impatiens noli-tangere L. J Ecol 91:147–167Google Scholar
  39. Hejda M (2012) What Is the impact of Impatiens parviflora on diversity and composition of herbal layer communities of temperate forests? PLoS One 7(6):e39571. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0039571 PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Hejda M, Pyšek P (2006) What is the impact of Impatiens glandulifera on species diversity of invaded riparian vegetation? Biol Conserv 132:143–152Google Scholar
  41. Hejda M, Pyšek P, Jarošík V (2009a) Impact of invasive plants on the species richness, diversity and composition of invaded communities. J Ecol 97:393–403Google Scholar
  42. Hejda M, Pyšek P, Pergl J, Sádlo J, Chytrý M, Jarošík V (2009b) Invasion success of alien plants: do habitats affinities in the native distribution range matter? Glob Ecol Biogeogr 18:372–382Google Scholar
  43. Heschel MS, Donohue K, Hausman N, Schmitt J (2002) Population differentiation and natural election for water-use efficiency in Impatiens capensis (Balsaminaceae). Int J Plant Sci 163:907–912Google Scholar
  44. Holdredge C, Bertness MD, Von Wettberg E, Silliman BR (2010) Nutrient enrichment enhances hidden differences in phenotype to drive a cryptic plant invasion. Oikos 119:1776–1784Google Scholar
  45. Hulme PE, Bremner ET (2005) Assessing the impact of Impatiens glandulifera on riparian habitats: partitioning diversity components following species removal. J Appl Ecol 43:43–50Google Scholar
  46. Huston MA, Deangelis DL (1994) Competition and coexistence—the effect of resource transport and supply rates. Am Nat 144:954–977Google Scholar
  47. Käfer J, Witte JPM (2004) Cover-weighted averaging of indicator values in vegetation analyses. J Veg Sci 15:647–652Google Scholar
  48. Kubát K, Hrouda L, Chrtek J Jr, Kaplan Z, Kirschner J, Štěpánek J (eds) (2002) Key to the flora of the Czech Republic. Academia, Praha (in Czech)Google Scholar
  49. Lambdon PW, Pyšek P, Basnou C, Hejda M, Arianoutsou M, Essl F, Jarošík V, Pergl J, Winter M, Anastasiu P, Andriopoulos P, Bazos I, Brundu G, Celesti-Grapow L, Chassot P, Delipetrou P, Josefsson M, Kark S, Klotz S, Kokkoris Y, Kühn I, Marchante H, Perglová I, Pino J, Vilà M, Zikos A, Roy D, Hulme PE (2008) Alien flora of Europe: species diversity, temporal trends, geographical patterns and research needs. Preslia 80:101–149Google Scholar
  50. Lhotská M, Kopecký K (1966) Zur Verbreitungsbiologie und Phytozönologie von Impatiens glandulifera Royle an den Flussystemen der Svitava, Svratka und oberen Odra. Preslia 38:376–385Google Scholar
  51. MacDougall AS, Gilbert B, Levine JM (2009) Plant invasions and the niche. J Ecol 97:609–615Google Scholar
  52. Mack RN, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM, Evans H, Clout M, Bazzaz FA (2000) Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol Appl 10:689–710Google Scholar
  53. Maherali H, Klironomos JN (2007) Influence of phylogeny on fungal community assembly and ecosystem functioning. Science 316:1746–1748PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Malíková L, Prach K (2010) Spread of alien Impatiens glandulifera along rivers invaded at different times. Ecohydrol Hydrobiol 10:81–85Google Scholar
  55. Maule HG, Andrews M, Watson C, Cherrill A (2000) Distribution, biomass and effect on native species of Impatiens glandulifera in a deciduous woodland in northeast England. Aspects Appl Biol 58:31–38Google Scholar
  56. Molina-Montenegro MA, Penuelas J, Munne-Bosch S (2012) Higher plasticity in ecophysiological traits enhances the performance and invasion success of Taraxacum officinale (dandelion) in alpine environments. Biol Invasions 14:21–33Google Scholar
  57. Moravcová L, Pyšek P, Jarošík V, Havlíčková V, Zákravský P (2010) Reproductive characteristics of neophytes in the Czech Republic: traits of invasive and non-invasive species. Preslia 82:365–390Google Scholar
  58. Morgan DC, Smith H (1979) A systematic relationship between phytochrome-controlled development and species habitat, for plants grown in simulated natural radiation. Planta 145:253–258PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Morris EC, Myerscough PJ (1991) Self-thinning and competition intensity over a gradient of nutrient availability. J Ecol 79:903–923Google Scholar
  60. Nagelkerke NJD (1991) A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination. Biometrika 78:691–692Google Scholar
  61. Nobis M (2005) SideLook 1.1: imaging software for the analysis of vegetation structure with true-colour photographs. http://www.appleco.ch. Accessed 30 Jan 2013
  62. Obidziński T, Symonides E (2000) The influence of the groundlayer structure on the invasion of small balsam (Impatiens parviflora DC.) to natural and degraded forests. Acta Soc Pol Bot 69:311–318Google Scholar
  63. Perglová I, Pergl J, Skálová H, Moravcová L, Jarošík V, Pyšek P (2009) Differences in germination and seedling establishment of alien and native Impatiens species. Preslia 81:357–375Google Scholar
  64. Pigliucci M (2005) Evolution of phenotypic plasticity: where are we going now? Trends Ecol Evol 20:481–486PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Pyšek P, Prach K (1995) Invasion dynamics of Impatiens glandulifera—a century of spreading reconstructed. Biol Conserv 74:41–48Google Scholar
  66. Pyšek P, Richardson DM (2007) Traits associated with invasiveness in alien plants: where do we stand? In: Nentwig W (ed) Biological invasions. Springer, Berlin, pp 97–125Google Scholar
  67. Pyšek P, Richardson DM (2010) Invasive species, environmental change and management, and health. Ann Rev Environ Res 35:25–55Google Scholar
  68. Pyšek P, Bacher S, Chytrý M, Jarošík V, Wild J, Celesti-Grapow L, Gassó N, Kenis M, Lambdon PW, Nentwig W, Pergl J, Roques A, Sádlo J, Solarz W, Vilà M, Hulme PE (2010) Contrasting patterns in the invasions of European terrestrial and freshwater habitats by alien plants, insects and vertebrates. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 19:317–331Google Scholar
  69. Pyšek P, Chytrý M, Pergl J, Sádlo J, Wild J (2012a) Plant invasions in the Czech Republic: current state, introduction dynamics, invasive species and invaded habitats. Preslia 84:575–629Google Scholar
  70. Pyšek P, Danihelka J, Sádlo J, Chrtek J Jr, Chytrý M, Jarošík V, Kaplan Z, Krahulec F, Moravcová L, Pergl J, Štajerová K, Tichý L (2012b) Catalogue of alien plants of the Czech Republic (2nd edition): checklist update, taxonomic diversity and invasion patterns. Preslia 84:155–255Google Scholar
  71. Rejmánek M (1996) A theory of seed plant invasiveness: the first sketch. Biol Conserv 78:171–181Google Scholar
  72. Richards CL, Bossdorf O, Muth NZ, Gurevitch J, Pigliucci M (2006) Jack of all trades, master of some? On the role of phenotypic plasticity in plant invasions. Ecol Lett 9:981–993PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Richardson DM, Holmes PM, Esler KJ, Galatowitsch SM, Stromberg JC, Kirkman SP, Pyšek P, Hobbs RJ (2007) Riparian vegetation: degradation, alien plant invasions, and restoration prospects. Divers Distrib 13:126–139Google Scholar
  74. Richardson PJ, MacDougall AS, Stanley AG, Kaye TN, Dunwiddie PW (2012) Inversion of plant dominance–diversity relationships along a latitudinal stress gradient. Ecology 93:1431–1438PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Roy J (1990) In search of the characteristics of plant invaders. In: di Castri F et al (eds) Biological invasions in Europe and the Mediterranean Basin. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 333–352Google Scholar
  76. Sádlo J, Chytrý M, Pyšek P (2007) Regional species pools of vascular plants in habitats of the Czech Republic. Preslia 79:303–321Google Scholar
  77. Shea K, Chesson P (2002) Community ecology theory as a framework for biological invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 17:170–176Google Scholar
  78. Shmida A, Ellner S (1984) Coexistence of plant species with similar niches. Vegetatio 58:29–55Google Scholar
  79. Skálová H, Pyšek P (2009) Germination and establishment of invasive and native Impatiens species in species-specific microsites. Neobiota 8:101–109Google Scholar
  80. Skálová H, Moravcová L, Pyšek P (2011) Germination dynamics and seedling frost resistance of invasive and native Impatiens species reflect local climatic conditions. Perspect Plant Ecol 13:173–180Google Scholar
  81. Skálová H, Havlíčková V, Pyšek P (2012) Seedling traits, plasticity and local differentiation as strategies of invasive species of Impatiens in central Europe. Ann Bot 110:1429–1438PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Skálová H, Jarošík V, Dvořáčková Š, Pyšek P (2013) Effect of intra- and interspecific competition on the performance of native and invasive species of Impatiens under varying levels of shade and moisture. PLoS One 8(5):e62842. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0062842 PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Slavík B (1996) The genus Impatiens in the Czech Republic. Preslia 67:193–211 (in Czech)Google Scholar
  84. Smart SM, Scott WA (2004) Bias in Ellenberg indicator values—problems with detection of the effect of vegetation type. J Veg Sci 15:843–846Google Scholar
  85. Suding KN, LeJeune KD, Seastedt TR (2004) Competitive impacts and response of an invasive weed: dependencies on nitrogen and phosphorus availability. Oecologia 141:526–535PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. ter Braak CJF, Šmilauer P (2002) CANOCO reference manual and CanoDraw for windows user’s guide: software for canonical community ordination (version 4.5). Microcomputer Power, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  87. Thompson K, Hodgson JG, Grime JP, Rorison IH, Band SR, Spencer RE (1993) Ellenberg numbers revisited. Phytocoenologia 23:277–289Google Scholar
  88. Tichý J (1997) Changes in forest vegetation on Ondřejník permanent plot after thirty years. Lesnictví 43:363–373 (in Czech)Google Scholar
  89. Tichý L (2002) JUICE, software for vegetation classification. J Veg Sci 13:451–453Google Scholar
  90. Tichý L, Hájek M, Zelený D (2010) Imputation of environmental variables for vegetation plots based on compositional similarity. J Veg Sci 21:88–95Google Scholar
  91. Tilman D (1982) Resource competition and community structure. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  92. Tolasz R (ed) (2007) Atlas of climate of the Czech Republic. Český hydrometeorologický ústav, Praha (in Czech)Google Scholar
  93. van Kleunen M, Weber E, Fischer M (2010) A meta-analysis of trait differences between invasive and non-invasive plant species. Ecol Lett 13:235–245PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. Vervoort A, Jacquemart AL (2012) Habitat overlap of the invasive Impatiens parviflora DC with its native congener I. noli-tangere L. Phytocoenologia 42:249–257Google Scholar
  95. Vervoort A, Cawoy V, Jacquemart AL (2011) Comparative reproductive biology in co-occurring invasive and native Impatiens species. Int J Plant Sci 172:366Google Scholar
  96. Vilà M, Basnou C, Pyšek P, Josefsson M, Genovesi P, Gollasch S, Nentwig W, Olenin S, Roques A, Roy D, Hulme PE, DAISIE Partners (2010) How well do we understand the impacts of alien species on ecosystem services? A pan-European, cross-taxa assessment. Front Ecol Environ 8:135–144Google Scholar
  97. Vilà M, Espinar JL, Hejda M, Hulme PE, Jarošík V, Maron JL, Pergl J, Schaffner U, Sun Y, Pyšek P (2011) Ecological impacts of invasive alien plants: a meta-analysis of their effects on species, communities and ecosystems. Ecol Lett 14:702–708PubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. Vinton MA, Goergen EM (2006) Plant-soil feedbacks contribute to the persistence of Bromus inermis in tallgrass prairie. Ecosystems 9:967–976Google Scholar
  99. Vitousek PM, Walker LR (1989) Biological invasion by Myrica faya in Hawai: plant demography, nitrogen fixation, ecosystem effects. Ecol Monogr 59:247–265Google Scholar
  100. VivianSmith G (1997) Microtopographic heterogeneity and floristic diversity in experimental wetland communities. J Ecol 85:71–82Google Scholar
  101. Vrchotová N, Šerá B, Krejčová J (2011) Allelopathic activity of extracts from Impatiens species. Plant Soil Environ 57:57–60Google Scholar
  102. Williamson M, Pyšek P, Jarošík V, Prach K (2005) On the rates and patterns of spread of alien plants in the Czech Republic, Britain and Ireland. Écoscience 12:424–433Google Scholar
  103. Witkowski ETF (1991) Growth and competition between seedlings of Protea repens (L) L and the alien invasive, Acacia saligna (Labill) Wendl in relation to nutrient availability. Funct Ecol 5:101–110Google Scholar
  104. Yoda K, Kira T, Ogawa H, Hozumi K (1963) Self-thinning in overcrowded pure stands under cultivated and natural conditions. J Biol Osaka City Univ 14:106–129Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Čuda
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Hana Skálová
    • 1
  • Zdeněk Janovský
    • 3
  • Petr Pyšek
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of BotanyAcademy of Sciences of the Czech RepublicPrůhoniceCzech Republic
  2. 2.Department of EcologyCharles UniversityPragueCzech Republic
  3. 3.Department of BotanyCharles UniversityPragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations