Plant Ecology

, Volume 186, Issue 1, pp 23–35 | Cite as

The effect of soil nitrogen on competition between native and exotic perennial grasses from northern coastal California

  • Meredith A. Thomsen
  • Jeffrey D. Corbin
  • Carla M. D’Antonio
Article

Abstract

The invasion of European perennial grasses represents a new threat to the native coastal prairie of northern California. Many coastal prairie sites also experience anthropogenic nitrogen (N) deposition or increased N availability as a result of invasion by N-fixing shrubs. We tested the hypothesis that greater seedling competitive ability and greater responsiveness to high N availability of exotic perennial grasses facilitates their invasion in coastal prairie. We evaluated pairwise competitive responses and effects, and the occurrence of asymmetrical competition, among three common native perennial grasses (Agrostis oregonensis, Festuca rubra, and Nassella pulchra) and three exotic perennial grasses (Holcus lanatus, Phalaris aquatica, and Festuca arundinacea), at two levels of soil N. We also compared the root and shoot biomass and response to fertilization of singly-grown plants, so we could evaluate how performance in competition related to innate plant traits. Competitive effects and responses were negatively correlated and in general varied continuously across native and exotic species. Two exceptions were the exotic species Holcus, which had large effects on neighbors and small responses to them, and competed asymmetrically with all other species in the experiment, and the native grass Nassella, which had strong responses to but little effect on neighbors, and was out-competed by all but one other species in the experiment. High allocation to roots and high early relative growth rate appear to explain Holcus’s competitive dominance, but its shoot biomass when grown alone was not significantly greater than those of the species it out-competed. Competitive dynamics were unaffected by fertilization. Therefore, we conclude that seedling competitive ability alone does not explain the increasing dominance of exotic perennial grasses in California coastal prairie. Furthermore, since native and exotic species responded individualistically, grouping species as ‘natives’ and ‘exotics’ obscured underlying variation within the two categories. Finally, elevated soil N does not appear to influence competition among the native and exotic perennial grasses studied, so reducing soil N pools may not be a critical step for the restoration of California coastal prairie.

Keywords

Diallel experiment Exotic species Fertilization Greenhouse experiment Invasion 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aerts R.R., Boog G.A., van der Aart P.J.M. (1991) The relation between above- and belowground biomass allocation patterns and competitive ability. Oecologia 87:551–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson L., DiTomaso J., Hrusa G.F., Rejmanek M. (1999) The CalEPPC List: Exotic Pest Plants of Greatest Ecological Concern in California. California Invasive Plant Council, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  3. Barger N.N., D’Antonio C.M., Thaura G., Cuevas E. (2003) Constraints to colonization and growth of the African grass, Melinis minutiflora, in a Venezuelan savanna. Plant Ecol. 167:31–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carino D.A., Daehler C.C. (2002) Can inconspicuous legumes facilitate alien grass invasion? Partridge peas and fountain grass in Hawai’i. Ecography 25:31–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Casper B.B., Jackson R.B. (1997) Plant competition underground. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 28: 545–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Corbin J.D., D’Antonio C.M. (2004) Can carbon addition increase competitiveness of native grasses? A case study from California. Restor. Ecol. 12: 36–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis M.A., Pelsor M. (2001) Experimental support for a resource-based mechanistic model of invasibility. Ecol. Lett. 4:421–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davis M.A., Thompson K., Grime J.P. (2001) Charles S. Elton and the dissociation of invasion ecology from the rest of ecology. Divers. Distrib. 7:97–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Freckleton R.P., Watkinson A.R. (2001) Predicting competition coefficients for plant mixtures: reciprocity, transitivity and correlations with life-history traits. Ecol. Lett. 4:348–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gibson D.J., Connolly J., Hartnett D.C., Weidenhamer J.D. (1999) Designs for greenhouse studies of interactions between plants. J. Ecol. 87:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goldberg D.E., Barton A.M. (1992) Patterns and consequences of interspecific competition in natural communities: a review of field experiments with plants. Am. Nat. 139:771–801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goldberg D.E. (1996) Competitive ability: definitions, contingency and correlated traits. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 351:1377–1385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goldberg D.E., Werner P.A. (1983) Equivalence of competitors in plant communities: a null hypothesis and a field experimental approach. Am. J. Bot. 70:1098–1104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grime J.P. (1979) Plant Strategies and Vegetative Processes. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  15. Grime J.P., Campbell B.D., Mackey J.M.l., Crick J.C. (1991) Root plasticity, nitrogen capture and competitive ability. In: Atkinson D. (eds) Plant Root Growth: an Ecological Perspective. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp 381–397Google Scholar
  16. Gurevitch J., Wilson P., Stone J.L., Teese P., Stoutenburgh R.J. (1990) Competition among old-field perennials at different levels of soil fertility and available space. J. Ecol. 78:727–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hager H.A. (2004) Competitive effect versus competitive response of invasive and native wetland plant species. Oecologia 139:140–149PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hamilton J.G. (1997) Changing perceptions of pre-European grasslands in California. Madrono 44: 311–333Google Scholar
  19. Hatch D.A., Bartolome J.W., Fehmi J.S., Hillyard D.S. (1999) Effects of burning and grazing on a coastal California grassland. Restor. Ecol. 7:376–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Haubensak K.A. 2001. Invasion and impacts of nitrogen-fixing shrubs Genista monspessulana and Cytisus scoparius in grasslands of Washington and coastal California. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  21. Heady H. (1988) Valley grassland. In: Barbour M.G., Major J. (eds) Terrestrial Vegetation of California. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, pp 491–514Google Scholar
  22. Hickman J.C. (ed.). (1993) The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  23. Holstein G. (2001) Pre-agricultural grassland in central California. Madroño 48: 253–264Google Scholar
  24. Huenneke L.F., Hamburg S.P., Koide R., Mooney H.A., Vitousek P.M. (1990) Effects of soil resources on plant invasion and community structure in California serpentine grassland. Ecology 71: 478–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Huntsinger L.H., McClaran M.P, Dennis A., Bartolome J.W. (1996) Defoliation response and growth of Nassella pulchra (A. Hitchc.) Barkworth from serpentine and non-serpentine populations. Madroño 43:46–57Google Scholar
  26. Keddy P., Nielsen K., Weiher E., Lawson R. (2002) Relative competitive performance of 63 species of terrestrial herbaceous plants. J. Veg. Sci. 13:5–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kolb A., Alpert P., Enters D., Holzapfel C. (2002) Patterns of invasion within a grassland community. J. Ecol. 90:871–881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kotanen P.M. (1997) Effects of experimental soil disturbance on revegetation by natives and exotics in coastal Californian meadows. J. Appl. Ecol. 34: 631–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Levine J.M., D’Antonio C.M. (1999) Elton revisited: a review of evidence linking diversity and invasibility. Oikos 87: 15–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Limpens J., Berendse F., Klees H. (2003) N deposition affects N availability in interstitial water, growth of Sphagnum and invasion of vascular plants in bog vegetation. New Phytol. 157:339–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lowe P.N., Lauenroth W.K., Burke I.C. (2003) Effects of nitrogen availability on competition between Bromus tectorum and Bouteloua gracilis. Plant Ecol. 167:247–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Maron J.L., Connors P.G. (1996) A native nitrogen-fixing shrub facilitates weed invasion. Oecologia 105: 302–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Moore D.S., McCabe G.P. (1999) Introduction to the Practice of Statistics, 3rd ed. W.H. Freeman and Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Peart D.R. (1989) Species interactions in a successional grassland. III. Effects of canopy gaps, gopher mounds, and grazing on colonization. J. Ecol. 77: 267–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Reynolds H.L., D’Antonio C. (1996) The ecological significance of plasticity in root weight ratio in response to nitrogen: Opinion. Plant Soil 185: 75–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Roxburgh S.H., Wilson J.B. (2000) Stability and coexistence in a lawn community: mathematical prediction of stability using a community matrix with parameters derived from competition experiments. Oikos 88: 395–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schippers P., Snoeijing I., Kropff M.J. (1999) Competition under high and low nutrient levels among three grassland species occuppying different positions in a successional sequence. New Phytol. 143:547–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Siemann E., Rogers W.E. (2003) Changes in light and nitrogen availability under pioneer trees may indirectly facilitate tree invasions of grasslands. J. Ecol. 91:923–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sousa W.P. (1984) The role of disturbance in natural communities. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 15: 353–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stromberg M.R., Kephart P., Yadon V. (2001) Composition, invasibility, and diversity in coastal California grasslands. Madroño 48:236–252Google Scholar
  41. Underwood A.J. (1986) The analysis of competition by field experiments. In: Kikkawa J. and Anderson D.J. (eds) Community Ecology: Pattern and Process. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp 240–268Google Scholar
  42. Van der Werf A., van Nuenen M., Visser M.J., Lambers H. (1993) Contribution of physiological and morphological plant traits to a species; competitive ability at high and low nitrogen supply. Oecologia 94: 434–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Weigelt A., Jolliffe P. (2003) Indices of plant competition. J. Ecol. 91: 707–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Weiss S.B. (1999) Cars, cows, and checkerspot butterflies: nitrogen deposition and management of nutrient-poor grasslands for a threatened species. Conserv. Biol. 13: 1476–1486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zar J.H. (1999) Biostatistical analysis, 4th edition. Simon & Schuster, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Meredith A. Thomsen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jeffrey D. Corbin
    • 2
  • Carla M. D’Antonio
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of WisconsinLa CrosseUSA
  2. 2.Department of Integrative BiologyUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA
  3. 3.Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine BiologyUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA

Personalised recommendations