Biological Invasions

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 1109–1122 | Cite as

Genetic differentiation and phenotypic plasticity in life-history traits between native and introduced populations of invasive maple trees

  • Laurent J. Lamarque
  • Christopher J. Lortie
  • Annabel J. Porté
  • Sylvain Delzon
Original Paper

Abstract

Genetically based phenotypic differentiation between native and invasive populations of exotic plants has been increasingly documented and commonly invoked to explain the success of some invasive species. Nonetheless, this basic information is lacking for invasive trees although they currently represent a major concern worldwide. Reciprocal common gardens were therefore set up in both native and introduced ranges of two exotic maple trees to assess the contribution of genetic differentiation and phenotypic plasticity to tree invasiveness. Almost 3,000 native and invasive seedlings of Acer negundo and Acer platanoides were planted in Canada and in France and their performances were compared in various life-history traits related to growth, leaf phenology and ecophysiology over 2 and 3 year periods. Invasive populations of A. negundo exhibited strong genetic differentiation in all the traits examined. Compared to their native conspecifics, they grew significantly larger in the introduced range and showed lower survival, reduced maximum assimilation rate and increased leaf area in the two gardens. They also expressed greater plasticity for growth and greater phenological sensitivity to temperature. Native and invasive populations of A. platanoides were plastic across environments but in contrast did not exhibit any genetic differentiation. This cross-continental comparison provides evidence that both genetic differentiation and phenotypic plasticity contribute synergistically to tree invasiveness. The influence of these respective processes depends on stage of invasion and the life-history strategy of each species. Plastic effects are likely more important during colonization and establishment whilst genetic effects may contribute more significantly during the spread of established populations.

Keywords

Acer negundo Acer platanoides Tree invasion Genetic differentiation Phenotypic plasticity Reciprocal common gardens 

Supplementary material

10530_2014_781_MOESM1_ESM.doc (57 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 57 kb)
10530_2014_781_MOESM2_ESM.doc (51 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOC 51 kb)

References

  1. Alexander JM (2010) Genetic differences in the elevational limits of native and introduced Lactuca serriola populations. J Biogeogr 37:1951–1961Google Scholar
  2. Allendorf FW, Lundquist LL (2003) Introduction: population biology, evolution, and control of invasive species. Conserv Biol 17:24–30Google Scholar
  3. Alpert P, Bone E, Holzapfel C (2000) Invasiveness, invasibility, and the role of environmental stress in the spread of non-native plants. Perspect Plant Ecol 3:52–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andonian K, Hierro JL (2011) Species interactions contribute to the success of a global plant invader. Biol Invasions 13:2957–2965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bastlova D, Kvet J (2002) Differences in dry weight partitioning and flowering phenology between native and non-native plants of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria L.). Flora 197:332–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bertin RI, Manner ME, Larrow BF, Cantwell TW, Berstene EM (2005) Norway maple (Acer platanoides) and other non-native trees in urban woodlands of central Massachusetts. J Torrey Bot Soc 132:225–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blossey B, Nötzold R (1995) Evolution of increased competitive ability in invasive nonindigenous plants: a hypothesis. J Ecol 83:887–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blumenthal DM, Hufbauer RA (2007) Increased plant size in exotic populations: a common-garden test with 14 invasive species. Ecology 88:2758–2765CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Bossdorf O, Auge H, Lafuma L, Rogers WE, Siemann E, Prati D (2005) Phenotypic and genetic differentiation between native and introduced plant populations. Oecologia 144:1–11CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Burns JH, Winn AA (2006) A comparison of plastic responses to competition by invasive and non-invasive congeners in the Commelinaceae. Biol Invasions 8:797–807Google Scholar
  11. Buswell JM, Moles AT, Hartley S (2011) Is rapid evolution common in introduced plant species? J Ecol 99:214–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cheptou PO, Carrue O, Rouifed S, Cantarel A (2008) Rapid evolution of seed dispersal in an urban environment in the weed Crepis sancta. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:3796–3799CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Chun YJ, Collyer ML, Moloney KA, Nason JD (2007) Phenotypic plasticity of native vs. invasive purple loosestrife: a two-state multivariate approach. Ecology 88:1499–1512CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Connor JK, Hartl DL (2004) A primer of ecological genetics. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  15. Cripps MG, Hinz HL, McKenney JL, Price WJ, Schwarzlander M (2009) No evidence for an ‘evolution of increased competitive ability’ for the invasive Lepidium draba. Basic Appl Ecol 10:103–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Davidson AM, Jennions M, Nicotra AB (2011) Do invasive species show higher phenotypic plasticity than native species and, if so, is it adaptive? A meta-analysis. Ecol Lett 14:419–431CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Delmas CEL, Delzon S, Lortie CJ (2011) A meta-analysis of the ecological significance of density in tree invasions. Community Ecol 12:171–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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 138:521–531CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. DeWine JM, Cooper DJ (2008) Canopy shade and the successional replacement of tamarisk by native box elder. J Appl Ecol 45:505–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dietz H, Edwards PJ (2006) Recognition that causal processes change during plant invasion helps explain conflicts in evidence. Ecology 87:1359–1367CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Ebeling SK, Stocklin J, Hensen I, Auge H (2011) Multiple common garden experiments suggest lack of local adaptation in an invasive ornamental plant. J Plant Ecol UK 4:209–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ellstrand NC, Schierenbeck KA (2000) Hybridization as a stimulus for the evolution of invasiveness in plants? Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:7043–7050CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Erfmeier A, Bruelheide H (2010) Invasibility or invasiveness? Effects of habitat, genotype, and their interaction on invasive Rhododendron ponticum populations. Biol Invasions 12:657–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Erfmeier A, Bohnke M, Bruelheide H (2011) Secondary invasion of Acer negundo: the role of phenotypic responses versus local adaptation. Biol Invasions 13:1599–1614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eriksen RL, Desronvil T, Hierro JL, Kesseli R (2012) Morphological differentiation in a common garden experiment among native and non-native specimens of the invasive weed yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis). Biol Invasions 14:1459–1467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fang W (2005) Spatial analysis of an invasion front of Acer platanoides: dynamic inferences from static data. Ecography 28:283–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Feng YL, Li YP, Wang RF, Callaway RM, Valiente-Banuet A, Inderjit (2011) A quicker return energy-use strategy by populations of a subtropical invader in the non-native range: a potential mechanism for the evolution of increased competitive ability. J Ecol 99:1116–1123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Flory SL, Long FR, Clay K (2011a) Greater performance of introduced vs. native range populations of Microstegium vimineum across different light environments. Basic Appl Ecol 12:350–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Flory SL, Long FR, Clay K (2011b) Invasive Microstegium populations consistently outperform native range populations across diverse environments. Ecology 92:2248–2257CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Franks SJ, Pratt PD, Dray FA, Simms EL (2008a) No evolution of increased competitive ability or decreased allocation to defense in Melaleuca quinquenervia since release from natural enemies. Biol Invasions 10:455–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Franks SJ, Pratt PD, Dray FA, Simms EL (2008b) Selection on herbivory resistance and growth rate in an invasive plant. Am Nat 171:678–691CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Franks SJ, Wheeler GS, Goodnight C (2012) Genetic variation and evolution of secondary compounds in native and introduced populations of the invasive plant Melaleuca quinquenervia. Evolution 66:1398–1412CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Genton BJ, Kotanen PM, Cheptou PO, Adolphe C, Shykoff JA (2005) Enemy release but no evolutionary loss of defence in a plant invasion: an inter-continental reciprocal transplant experiment. Oecologia 146:404–414CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Godoy O, Richardson DM, Valladares F, Castro-Diez P (2009) Flowering phenology of invasive alien plant species compared with native species in three Mediterranean-type ecosystems. Ann Bot 103:485–494CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Grotkopp E, Rejmanek M, Rost TL (2002) Toward a causal explanation of plant invasiveness: seedling growth and life-history strategies of 29 pine (Pinus) species. Am Nat 159:396–419CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Güsewell S, Jakobs G, Weber E (2006) Native and introduced populations of Solidago gigantea differ in shoot production but not leaf traits or litter decomposition. Funct Ecol 20:575–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hawkes CV (2007) Are invaders moving targets? The generality and persistence of advantages in size, reproduction, and enemy release in invasive plants species with time since introduction. Am Nat 170:832–843CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Hierro JL, Eren Ö, Villareal D, Chiuffo MC (2013) Non-native conditions favor non-native populations of invasive plant: demographic consequences of seed size variation? Oikos 122:583–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hodgins KA, Rieseberg L (2011) Genetic differentiation in life-history traits of introduced and native common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) populations. J Evolut Biol 24:2731–2749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Huang W, Siemann E, Wheeler GS, Zou JW, Carrillo J, Ding JQ (2010) Resource allocation to defence and growth are driven by different responses to generalist and specialist herbivory in an invasive plant. J Ecol 98:1157–1167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kaufman SR, Smouse PE (2001) Comparing indigenous and introduced populations of Melaleuca quinquenervia (Cav.) Blake: response of seedlings to water and pH levels. Oecologia 127:487–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kloeppel BD, Abrams MD (1995) Ecophysiological attributes of the native Acer saccharum and the exotic Acer platanoides in urban oak forests in Pennsylvania, USA. Tree Physiol 15:739–746CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Kowarik I (2003) Biologische Invasionen: Neophyten und Neozoen in Mitteleuropa. Eugen Ulmer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  44. Kremer A, Potts BM, Delzon S (2014) Genetic divergence in forest trees: understanding the consequences of climate change. Funct Ecol 28:22–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Küster EC, Kühn I, Bruelheide H, Klotz S (2008) Trait interactions help explain plant invasion success in the German flora. J Ecol 96:860–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lamarque LJ, Delzon S, Lortie CJ (2011) Tree invasions: a comparative test of the dominant hypotheses and functional traits. Biol Invasions 13:1969–1989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lamarque LJ, Delzon S, Sloan MH, Lortie CJ (2012) Biogeographical contrasts to assess local and regional patterns of invasion: a case study with two reciprocally introduced exotic maple trees. Ecography 35:803–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lamarque LJ, Porté AJ, Eymeric C, Lasnier J-B, Lortie CJ, Delzon S (2013) A test for pre-adapted phenotypic plasticity in the invasive tree Acer negundo L. PLoS one 8(9):e74239CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Lapointe M, Brisson J (2011) Tar spot disease on Norway maple in North America: quantifying the impacts of a reunion between an invasive tree species and its adventive natural enemy in an urban forest. Ecoscience 18:63–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lee CE (2002) Evolutionary genetics of invasive species. Trends Ecol Evol 17:386–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Leger EA, Rice KJ (2003) Invasive California poppies (Eschscholzia californica Cham.) grow larger than native individuals under reduced competition. Ecol Lett 6:257–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger RD, Schabenberger O (2006) SAS® for Mixed Models, 2nd edn. SAS Institute Inc, CaryGoogle Scholar
  53. Maeglin RR, Ohmann LF (1973) Boxelder (Acer negundo): a review and commentary. Bull Torrey Bot Club 100:357–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Maron JL, Vilà M, Arnason J (2004a) Loss of enemy resistance among introduced populations of St. John’s Wort (Hypericum perforatum). Ecology 85:3243–3253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Maron JL, Vilà M, Bommarco R, Elmendorf S, Beardsley P (2004b) Rapid evolution of an invasive plant. Ecol Monogr 74:261–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Maron JL, Elmendorf SC, Vilà M (2007) Contrasting plant physiological adaptation to climate in the native and introduced range of Hypericum perforatum. Evolution 61:1912–1924CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Martin PH, Canham CD (2010) Dispersal and recruitment limitation in native versus exotic tree species: life-history strategies and Janzen-Connell effects. Oikos 119:807–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Martin PH, Canham CD, Kobe RK (2010) Divergence from the growth-survival trade-off and extreme high growth rates drive patterns of exotic tree invasions in closed-canopy forests. J Ecol 98:778–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mędrzycki P (2007) Invasive alien species fact sheet-Acer negundo. Online Database of the North European and Baltic Network on Invasive Alien Species. NOBANIS www.nobanis.org
  60. Monty A, Bizoux J-P, Escarré J, Mahy G (2013) Rapid plant invasion in distinct climates involves different sources of phenotypic variation. PLoS one 8(1):e55627CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 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 98:451–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Nagel JM, Griffin KL (2004) Can gas-exchange characteristics help explain the invasive success of Lythrum salicaria? Biol Invasions 6:101–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Nowak DJ, Rowntree RA (1990) History and range of Norway maple. J Arboric 16:291–296Google Scholar
  64. Paquette A, Fontaine B, Berninger F, Dubois K, Lechowicz MJ, Messier C, Posada JM, Valladares F, Brisson J (2012) Norway maple displays greater seasonal growth and phenotypic plasticity to light than native sugar maple. Tree Physiol 32:1339–1347CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Parker IM, Rodriguez J, Loik ME (2003) An evolutionary approach to understanding the biology of invasions: local adaptation and general-purpose genotypes in the weed Verbascum thapsus. Conserv Biol 17:59–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pattison RR, Goldstein G, Ares A (1998) Growth, biomass allocation and photosynthesis of invasive and native Hawaiian rainforest species. Oecologia 117:449–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Porté AJ, Lamarque LJ, Lortie CJ, Michalet R, Delzon S (2011) Invasive Acer negundo outperforms native species in non-limiting resource environments due to its higher phenotypic plasticity. BMC Ecol 11:28CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Qing H, Yao YH, Xiao Y, Hu FQ, Sun YX, Zhou CF, An SQ (2011) Invasive and native tall forms of Spartina alterniflora respond differently to nitrogen availability. Acta Oecol 37:23–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rapo C, Muller-Scharer H, Vrieling K, Schaffner U (2010) Is there rapid evolutionary response in introduced populations of tansy ragwort, Jacobaea vulgaris, when exposed to biological control? Evol Ecol 24:1081–1099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Reinhart KO, VandeVoort R (2006) Effect of native and exotic leaf litter on macroinvertebrate communities and decomposition in a western Montana stream. Divers Distrib 12:776–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Reinhart KO, Greene E, Callaway RM (2005) Effects of Acer platanoides invasion on understory plant communities and tree regeneration in the northern Rocky Mountains. Ecography 28:573–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Renner SS, Beenken L, Grimm GW, Kocyan A, Ricklefs RE (2007) The evolution of dioecy, heterodichogamy, and labile sex expression in Acer. Evolution 61:2701–2719CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Rice KJ, Mack RN (1991) Ecological genetics of Bromus tectorum. 3. The demography of reciprocally sown populations. Oecologia 88:91–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 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 9:981–993CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Ridley CE, Ellstrand NC (2009) Evolution of enhanced reproduction in the hybrid-derived invasive, California wild radish (Raphanus sativus). Biol Invasions 11:2251–2264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Rusanen M, Vakkari P, Blom A (2003) Genetic structure of Acer platanoides and Betula pendula in northern Europe. Can J For Res 33:1110–1115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Saccone P, Brun JJ, Michalet R (2010) Challenging growth-survival trade-off: a key for Acer negundo invasion in European floodplains? Can J For Res 40:1879–1886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Santamour FS, McArdle AJ (1982) Checklist of Cultivated Maples III Acer platanoides L. J Arboric 8:241–246Google Scholar
  79. Sexton JP, McKay JK, Sala A (2002) Plasticity and genetic diversity may allow saltcedar to invade cold climates in North America. Ecol Appl 12:1652–1660Google Scholar
  80. Siemann E, Rogers WE (2001) Genetic differences in growth of an invasive tree species. Ecol Lett 4:514–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Siemann E, Rogers WE (2003) Increased competitive ability of an invasive tree may be limited by an invasive beetle. Ecol Appl 13:1503–1507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Theoharides KA, Dukes JS (2007) Plant invasion across space and time: factors affecting nonindigenous species success during four stages of invasion. New Phytol 176:256–273Google Scholar
  83. Urbanski J, Mogi M, O’Donnell D, DeCotiis M, Toma T, Armbruster P (2012) Rapid adaptive evolution of photoperiodic response during invasion and range expansion across a climatic gradient. Am Nat 179:490–500CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Valladares F, Sanchez-Gomez D, Zavala MA (2006) Quantitative estimation of phenotypic plasticity: bridging the gap between the evolutionary concept and its ecological applications. J Ecol 94:1103–1116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. van Kleunen M, Weber E, Fischer M (2010) A meta-analysis of trait differences between invasive and non-invasive plant species. Ecol Lett 13:235–245CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. Vitasse Y, Delzon S, Bresson CC, Michalet R, Kremer A (2009a) Altitudinal differentiation in growth and phenology among populations of temperate-zone tree species growing in a common garden. Can J For Res 39:1259–1269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Vitasse Y, Delzon S, Dufrene E, Pontailler JY, Louvet JM, Kremer A, Michalet R (2009b) Leaf phenology sensitivity to temperature in European trees: do within-species populations exhibit similar responses? Agric For Meteorol 149:735–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Wangen SR, Webster CR (2006) Potential for multiple lag phases during biotic invasions: reconstructing an invasion of the exotic tree Acer platanoides. J Appl Ecol 43:258–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Ward JK, Dawson TE, Ehleringer JR (2002) Responses of Acer negundo genders to interannual differences in water availability determined from carbon isotope ratios of tree ring cellulose. Tree Physiol 22:339–346CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. Webb SL, Kaunzinger CK (1993) Biological Invasion of the Drew-University (New-Jersey) Forest Preserve by Norway maple (Acer platanoides L). Bull Torrey Bot Club 120:343–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Williams JL, Auge H, Maron JL (2008) Different gardens, different results: native and introduced populations exhibit contrasting phenotypes across common gardens. Oecologia 157:239–248CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. Wolkovich EM, Cleland EE (2011) The phenology of plant invasions: a community ecology perspective. Front Ecol Environ 9:287–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Wright IJ, Reich PB, Westoby M, Ackerly DD, Baruch Z, Bongers F, Cavender-Bares J, Chapin T et al (2004) The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Nature 428:821–827CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. Zhao YJ, Qing H, Zhao CJ, Zhou CF, Zhang WG, Xiao Y, An SQ (2010) Phenotypic plasticity of Spartina alterniflora and Phragmites australis in response to nitrogen addition and intraspecific competition. Hydrobiologia 637:143–155Google Scholar
  95. Zou J, Rogers WE, Siemann E (2007) Differences in morphological and physiological traits between native and invasive populations of Sapium sebiferum. Funct Ecol 21:721–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Zou JW, Rogers WE, Siemann E (2009) Plasticity of Sapium sebiferum seedling growth to light and water resources: inter- and intraspecific comparisons. Basic Appl Ecol 10:79–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laurent J. Lamarque
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Christopher J. Lortie
    • 1
  • Annabel J. Porté
    • 2
    • 3
  • Sylvain Delzon
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of BiologyYork UniversityTorontoCanada
  2. 2.UMR 1202 BIOGECOUniversity of BordeauxPessacFrance
  3. 3.UMR 1202 BIOGECOINRACestasFrance

Personalised recommendations