Biological Invasions

, Volume 20, Issue 9, pp 2553–2565 | Cite as

Different traits predict competitive effect versus response by Bromus madritensis in its native and invaded ranges

  • Chandler E. Puritty
  • Margaret M. Mayfield
  • Francisco M. Azcárate
  • Elsa E. Cleland
Original Paper


Community assembly and coexistence theories predict that both fitness and plant functional traits should influence competitive interactions between native and invasive species. The evolution of the increased competitive ability hypothesis predicts that species will grow larger (a measure of fitness) in their invaded than native range; hence we hypothesized that species might exert greater competitive effects in their invaded range, lessening the importance of functional traits for competitive outcomes. In a greenhouse experiment we compared traits and competitive interactions between Bromus madritensis (an annual grass) and resident species from its native range in Spain, and its invaded range in Southern California. As predicted, B. madritensis collected in California grew larger and had a greater competitive effect on resident species than B. madritensis collected in Spain. However, residents from California also suppressed the growth of B. madritensis more than species from its native range in Spain. Competitive interaction strengths were predicted by different suites of traits in the native versus invaded range of B. madritensis; surprisingly, however, size of the resident species (fitness), did not predict variation in competitive interactions. This study shows that different suites of traits may aid in identifying those native species likely to strongly compete with invaders, versus those that will be competitively suppressed by invaders, with important implications for the design of restoration efforts aimed at promoting native species growth and preventing invasion. More generally, our study shows that fitness differences may not be as important as traits when predicting competitive outcomes in this system.


Coexistence EICA Fitness differences Functional traits Limiting similarity 



This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant No. (DGE-16540112) and the UC Office of the President’s UC-HBCU Initiative. MMM’s contributions to this project were funded by the University of Queensland’s Special Studies Program. Fieldwork in Spain was partially supported by the REMEDINAL-3 Project (S2013/MAE-2719, Madrid Regional Government).

Supplementary material

10530_2018_1719_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.5 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1551 kb)


  1. Abrams P (1983) The theory of limiting similarity. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 14:359–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armas C, Ordiales R, Pugnaire FI (2004) Measuring plant interactions: a new comparative index. Ecology 85:2682–2686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67(1):1–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blossey B, Notzold R (1995) Evolution of increased competitive ability in invasive nonindigenous plants: a hypothesis. J Ecol 83:887–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2003) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  6. Callaway RM, Waller LP, Diaconu A, Pal R, Collins AR, Mueller-Schaerer H, Maron JL (2011) Escape from competition: neighbors reduce Centaurea stoebe performance at home but not away. Ecology 92:2208–2213CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Chesson P (2000) Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics:343-366Google Scholar
  8. Cleland EE et al (2013) Sensitivity of grassland plant community composition to spatial vs. temporal variation in precipitation. Ecology 94:1687–1696CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cleland EE, Funk J, Allen EB (2016) Coastal sage scrub. In: Zavaleta E, Mooney HA (eds) Ecosystems of California, Chap 22. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, pp 429–448Google Scholar
  10. Crawley MJ (1987) What makes a community invasible? In: Crawley MJ, Edwards PJ, Gray AJ (eds) Colonization, succession and stability, pp 629–654Google Scholar
  11. Diaz S, Cabido M, Casanoves F (1998) Plant functional traits and environmental filters at a regional scale. J Veg Sci 9:113–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Drenovsky RE, Khasanova A, James JJ (2012) Trait convergence and plasticity among native and invasive species in resource-poor environments. Am J Bot 99:629–639CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Dukes JS (2002) Species composition and diversity affect grassland susceptibility and response to invasion. Ecol Appl 12:602–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Emery SM (2007) Limiting similarity between invaders and dominant species in herbaceous plant communities? J Ecol 95:1027–1035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fargione J, Brown CS, Tilman D (2003) Community assembly and invasion: an experimental test of neutral versus niche processes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:8916–8920CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Feng Y-L, Fu G-L, Zheng Y-L (2008) Specific leaf area relates to the differences in leaf construction cost, photosynthesis, nitrogen allocation, and use efficiencies between invasive and noninvasive alien congeners. Planta 228:383–390CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Funk JL, Vitousek PM (2007) Resource-use efficiency and plant invasion in low-resource systems. Nature 446:1079–1081CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. García Y, Callaway RM, Diaconu A, Montesinos D (2013) Invasive and non-invasive congeners show similar trait shifts between their same native and non-native ranges. PLoS ONE 8(12):e82281CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Garnier E et al (2001) Consistency of species ranking based on functional leaf traits. New Phytol 152:69–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gelman A (2008) Scaling regression inputs by dividing by two standard deviations. Stat Med 27:2865–2873CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Goldberg DE (1990) Components of resource competition in plant communities. In: Grace JB, Tilman D (eds) Perspectives on plant competition, pp 27–49 Google Scholar
  22. Goldberg DE, Landa K (1991) Competitive effect and response: hierarchies and correlated traits in the early stages of competition. J Ecol 79:1013–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goldstein LJ, Suding KN (2014) Intra-annual rainfall regime shifts competitive interactions between coastal sage scrub and invasive grasses. Ecology 95:425–435CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 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 J Bot 94:526–532CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Grueber C, Nakagawa S, Laws R, Jamieson I (2011) Multimodel inference in ecology and evolution: challenges and solutions. J Evol Biol 24:699–711CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Hufft RA, Zelikova TJ (2016) Ecological genetics, local adaptation, and phenotypic plasticity in Bromus tectorum in the context of a changing climate. In: Germino MJ, Chambers JC, Brown CS (eds) Exotic brome-grasses in arid and semiarid ecosystems of the Western US. Springer, Cham, pp 133–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Iwasa Y, Roughgarden J (1984) Shoot/root balance of plants: optimal growth of a system with many vegetative organs. Theor Popul Biol 25:78–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jelbert K, Stott I, McDonald RA, Hodgson D (2015) Invasiveness of plants is predicted by size and fecundity in the native range. Ecol Evol 5:1933–1943CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Keane RM, Crawley MJ (2002) Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. Trends Ecol Evol 17:164–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kitajima K (1994) Relative importance of photosynthetic traits and allocation patterns as correlates of seedling shade tolerance of 13 tropical trees. Oecologia 98:419–428CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Kraft NJ, Crutsinger GM, Forrestel EJ, Emery NC (2014) Functional trait differences and the outcome of community assembly: an experimental test with vernal pool annual plants. Oikos 123:1391–1399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kunstler G et al (2012) Competitive interactions between forest trees are driven by species’ trait hierarchy, not phylogenetic or functional similarity: implications for forest community assembly. Ecol Lett 15:831–840CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Lai HR, Mayfield MM, Gay-des-combes JM, Spiegelberger T, Dwyer JM (2015) Distinct invasion strategies operating within a natural annual plant system. Ecol Lett 18:336–346CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Lavorel S, Garnier É (2002) Predicting changes in community composition and ecosystem functioning from plant traits: revisiting the Holy Grail. Funct Ecol 16:545–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Leishman MR (1999) How well do plant traits correlate with establishment ability? Evidence from a study of 16 calcareous grassland species. New Phytol 141:487–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Levine JM, Vila M, Antonio CM, Dukes JS, Grigulis K, Lavorel S (2003) Mechanisms underlying the impacts of exotic plant invasions. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 270:775–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Liao C et al (2008) Altered ecosystem carbon and nitrogen cycles by plant invasion: A meta-analysis. New Phytol 177:706–714CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. MacArthur R, Levins R (1967) The limiting similarity, convergence, and divergence of coexisting species. Am Nat 101:377–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. MacDougall AS, Gilbert B, Levine JM (2009) Plant invasions and the niche. J Ecol 97:609–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Meyer GA, Hull-Sanders HM (2008) Altered patterns of growth, physiology and reproduction in invasive genotypes of Solidago gigantea (Asteraceae). Biol Invasions 10:303–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Morrison JA, Mauck K (2007) Experimental field comparison of native and non-native maple seedlings: natural enemies, ecophysiology, growth and survival. J Ecol 95:1036–1049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ni G-Y, Schaffner U, Peng S-L, Callaway RM (2010) Acroptilon repens, an Asian invader, has stronger competitive effects on species from America than species from its native range. Biol Invasions 12:3653–3663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Parker JD et al (2013) Do invasive species perform better in their new ranges? Ecology 94:985–994CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Pattison R, Goldstein G, Ares A (1998) Growth, biomass allocation and photosynthesis of invasive and native Hawaiian rainforest species. Oecologia 117:449–459CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Poorter H, Niklas KJ, Reich PB, Oleksyn J, Poot P, Mommer L (2012) Biomass allocation to leaves, stems and roots: meta-analyses of interspecific variation and environmental control. New Phytol 193:30–50CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Powell KI, Chase JM, Knight TM (2011) A synthesis of plant invasion effects on biodiversity across spatial scales. Am J Bot 98:539–548CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Price JN, Pärtel M (2013) Can limiting similarity increase invasion resistance? A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Oikos 122:649–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pyšek P, Richardson DM (2008) Traits associated with invasiveness in alien plants: where do we stand? In: Nentwig W (ed) Biological invasions. Ecological studies (Analysis and synthesis), vol 193. Springer, Berlin, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  49. Pyšek P, Jarošík V, Hulme PE, Pergl J, Hejda M, Schaffner U, Vilà M (2012) A global assessment of invasive plant impacts on resident species, communities and ecosystems: the interaction of impact measures, invading species’ traits and environment. Glob Change Biol 18:1725–1737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. R Core Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  51. Reynolds PL, Glanz J, Yang S, Hann C, Couture J, Grosholz E (2017) Ghost of invasion past: legacy effects on community disassembly following eradication of an invasive ecosystem engineer. Ecosphere 8(3):e01711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Robeson SM (2015) Revisiting the recent California drought as an extreme value. Geophys Res Lett 42:6771–6779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sale PF (1977) Maintenance of high diversity in coral reef fish communities. Am Nat 111:337–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schwilk DW, Ackerly DD (2005) Limiting similarity and functional diversity along environmental gradients. Ecol Lett 8:272–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Titlyanova A, Romanova I, Kosykh N, Mironycheva-Tokareva N (1999) Pattern and process in above-ground and below-ground components of grassland ecosystems. J Veg Sci 10:307–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Turnbull LA, Rees M, Crawley MJ (1999) Seed mass and the competition/colonization trade-off: a sowing experiment. J Ecol 87:899–912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Van Kleunen M, Dawson W, Schlaepfer D, Jeschke JM, Fischer M (2010) Are invaders different? A conceptual framework of comparative approaches for assessing determinants of invasiveness. Ecol Lett 13:947–958PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Vila M, Weiner J (2004) Are invasive plant species better competitors than native plant species?–evidence from pair-wise experiments. Oikos 105:229–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Vilà M et al (2011) Ecological impacts of invasive alien plants: a meta-analysis of their effects on species, communities and ecosystems. Ecol Lett 14:702–708CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Von Holle B, Simberloff D (2004) Testing Fox’s assembly rule: does plant invasion depend on recipient community structure? Oikos 105:551–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wainwright CE, Wolkovich EM, Cleland EE (2012) Seasonal priority effects: implications for invasion and restoration in a semi-arid system. J Appl Ecol 49:234–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wainwright CE, Dwyer JM, Hobbs RJ, Mayfield MM (2016) Diverse outcomes of species interactions in an invaded annual plant community. J Plant Ecol 10:918–926Google Scholar
  63. Watson S (1880) Geological survey of California. Bot Calif 2:1–559Google Scholar
  64. Wilsey BJ, Polley HW (2006) Aboveground productivity and root–shoot allocation differ between native and introduced grass species. Oecologia 150:300–309CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Wilson PJ, Thompson K, Hodgson JG (1999) Specific leaf area and leaf dry matter content as alternative predictors of plant strategies. New Phytol 143:155–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Younginger BS, Sirová D, Cruzan MB, Ballhorn DJ (2017) Is biomass a reliable estimate of plant fitness? Appl Plant Sci 5(2):1600094CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Biological Sciences, Ecology, Behavior & Evolution SectionUniversity of California San DiegoLa JollaUSA
  2. 2.School of Biological SciencesThe University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  3. 3.Terrestrial Ecology Group, Departamento de EcologíaUniversidad Autónoma de MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations