Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Competition, legacy, and priority and the success of three invasive species

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biological Invasions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Competitive ability, the ability to generate legacy effects, and the potential to benefit from priority, individually or interactively, are traits that may increase the invasive potential of plants. In this project we examine these three traits in three invasive species (Agropyron cristatum, Bromus tectorum, and Taeniatherum caput-medusae). Specifically in this study, we examine competitive effects of these invasive species, the ability of these invasive species to generate legacy effects (as plant–soil feedback), and the potential of these three species benefit from priority (being sown concurrently, 30 days before, and 30 days after the restoration species) in a greenhouse study using field collected soil. Our results suggest that all three invasive species can benefit from priority and all three have high competitive ability. However, only A. cristatum benefited from legacy effects of plant–soil feedback.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Armas C, Ordiales R, Pugnaire FI (2004) Measuring plant interactions: a new comparative index. Ecology 85:2682–2686

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker H (1974) The evolution of weeds. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 5:1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bever JD, Dickie IA, Facelli E et al (2010) Rooting theories of plant community ecology in microbial interactions. Trends Ecol Evol 25:468–478

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bilbrough CJ, Caldwell MM (1997) Exploitation of springtime ephemeral N pulses by six great basin plant species. Ecology 78:231–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Blank RR (2010) Intraspecific and interspecific pair-wise seedling competition between exotic annual grasses and native perennials: plant–soil relationships. Plant Soil 326:331–343

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brinkman EP, Van der Putten WH, Bakker EJ et al (2010) Plant–soil feedback: experimental approaches, statistical analyses and ecological interpretations. J Ecol 98:1063–1073

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clausnitzer DW, Borman MM, Johnson DE (1999) Competition between Elymus elymoides and Taeniatherum caput-medusae. Weed Sci 47:720–728

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cuddington K (2011) Legacy effects: the persistent impact of ecological interactions. Biol Theory 6:203–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuddington K, Hastings A (2004) Invasive engineers. Ecol Model 178:335–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dante SK, Schamp BS, Aarssen LW (2013) Evidence of deterministic assembly according to flowering time in an old-field plant community. Funct Ecol 27:555–564

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies KW, Svejcar TJ (2008) Comparison of medusahead-invaded and noninvaded Wyoming big sagebrush steppe in southeastern Oregon. Rangel Ecol Manag 61:623–629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies KW, Boyd C, Nafus A (2013) Restoring the sagebrush component in crested wheatgrass-dominated communities. Rangel Ecol Manag 66(4):472–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeFalco LA, Fernandez GCJ, Nowak RS (2007) Variation in the establishment of a non-native annual grass influences competitive interactions with Mojave Desert perennials. Biol Invasions 9:293–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickson TL, Hopwood JL, Wilsey BJ (2012) Do priority effects benefit invasive plants more than native plants? An experiment with six grassland species. Biol Invasions 14:2617–2624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elton C (1958) The ecology of invasions by animals and plants. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Francis MG, Pyke DA (1996) Crested wheatgrass cheatgrass seedling competition in a mixed-density design. J Range Manag 49:432–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goergen EM, Leger EA, Espeland EK (2011) Native perennial grasses show evolutionary response to Bromus tectorum (Cheatgrass) invasion. PLoS One 6:e18145

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg DE, Landa K (1991) Competitive effect and response: hierarchies and correlated traits in the early stages of competition. J Ecol 79:1013–1030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grman E, Suding KN (2010) Within-year soil legacies contribute to strong priority effects of exotics on native California grassland communities. Restor Ecol 18:664–670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart SP, Marshall DJ (2012) Advantages and disadvantages of interference-competitive ability and resource-use efficiency when invading established communities. Oikos 121:396–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey LD, Schupp EW (2004) Competition as a barrier to establishment of a native perennial grass (Elymus elymoides) in alien annual grass (Bromus tectorum) communities. J Arid Environ 58:405–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan NR, Larson DL, Huerd SC (2008) Soil modification by invasive plants: effects on native and invasive species of mixed-grass prairies. Biol Invasions 10:177–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan NR, Aldrich Wolfe L, Huerd SC et al (2012) Soil-occupancy effects of invasive and native grassland plant species on composition and diversity of mycorrhizal associations. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 5:494–505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jurand BS, Abella SR, Suazo AA (2013) Soil seed bank longevity of the exotic annual grass Bromus rubens in the Mojave Desert, USA. J Arid Environ 94:68–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kueffer C, Pyšek P, Richardson DM (2013) Integrative invasion science: model systems, multi-site studies, focused meta-analysis and invasion syndromes. New Phytol 200:615–633

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kulmatiski A, Beard KH, Stevens JR et al (2008) Plant–soil feedbacks: a meta-analytical review. Ecol Lett 11:980–992

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mack RN, Pyke DA (1983) The demography of Bromus tectorum: variation in time and space. J Ecol 71:69–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meisner A, de Boer W, Cornelissen JHC et al (2012) Reciprocal effects of litter from exotic and congeneric native plant species via soil nutrients. PLoS One 7:8

    Google Scholar 

  • Moles AT, Flores-Moreno H, Bonser SP et al (2012) Invasions: the trail behind, the path ahead, and a test of a disturbing idea. J Ecol 100:116–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris LR, Monaco TA, Sheley RL (2011) Land-use legacies and vegetation recovery 90 years after cultivation in great basin sagebrush ecosystems. Rangel Ecol Manag 64:488–497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkins LB, Nowak RS (2013a) Native and non-native grasses generate common types of plant–soil feedbacks by altering soil nutrients and microbial communities. Oikos 122:199–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkins LB, Nowak RS (2013b) Soil conditioning and plant–soil feedbacks affect competitive relationships between native and invasive grasses. Plant Ecol 213:1337–1344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkins LB, Nowak RS (2013c) Invasion syndromes: hypotheses on relationships among invasive species attributes and characteristics of invaded sites. J Arid Land 5:275–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson EB (2005) Estimating cover of an invasive grass (Bromus tectorum) using tobit regression and phenology derived from two dates of Landsat ETM plus data. Int J Remote Sens 26:2491–2507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radford IJ (2013) Fluctuating resources, disturbance and plant strategies: diverse mechanisms underlying plant invasions. J Arid Land 5:284–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radford IJ, Dickinson KJM, Lord JM (2009) Does disturbance, competition or resource limitation underlie Hieracium lepidulum invasion in New Zealand? Mechanisms of establishment and persistence, and functional differentiation among invasive and native species. Aust Ecol 35:282–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwinning S, Weiner J (1998) Mechanisms determining the degree of size asymmetry in competition among plants. Oecologia 113:447–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart G, Hull AC (1949) Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.): an ecologic intruder in Southern Idaho. Ecology 30:58–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanner RA, Gange AC (2013) The impact of two non-native plant species on native flora performance: potential implications for habitat restoration. Plant Ecol 214:423–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaccaro LE, Bedford BL, Johnston CA (2009) Litter accumulation promotes dominance of invasive species of cattails (Typha spp.) in Lake Ontario wetlands. Wetlands 29:1036–1048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vila M, Weiner J (2004) Are invasive plant species better competitors than native plant species? Evidence from pair-wise experiments. Oikos 105:229–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wainwright CE, Wolkovich EM, Cleland EE (2012) Seasonal priority effects: implications for invasion and restoration in a semi-arid system. J Appl Ecol 49:234–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolkovich EM, Cleland EE (2011) The phenology of plant invasions: a community ecology perspective. Front Ecol Environ 9:287–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young JA, Evans RA (1973) Downy brome: intruder in the plant succession of big sagebrush communities in the Great Basin. J Range Manag 26:410–415

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the South Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station and the Nevada Agricultural Experiment Station. The manuscript was improved by comments and suggestions of anonymous reviewers and Dr. KC Jensen.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Natural Resource Management, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD, 57007, USA

    Lora B. Perkins

  2. Department of Mathematics and Statistics, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD, 57007, USA

    Gary Hatfield

Authors
  1. Lora B. Perkins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gary Hatfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lora B. Perkins.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Perkins, L.B., Hatfield, G. Competition, legacy, and priority and the success of three invasive species. Biol Invasions 16, 2543–2550 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-014-0684-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-014-0684-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation