Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Multiple spatial scales affect direct and indirect interactions between a non-native and a native species

  • Published:
Plant Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Plant–plant interactions influence community assembly and species responses to environmental change. However, species interactions are complex phenomena influenced by context and scale. We conducted a one-year replacement experiment between two grasses in subtropical grasslands (native Axonopus fissifolius and non-native Paspalum notatum) in central Florida, USA. We evaluated interactions between these species at three ecological scales, ‘pairwise interactions,’ ‘patch’ (33 cm × 33 cm), and ‘plot’ (1 m x 3 m) and along a gradient (15 levels) of increasing non-native and decreasing native plot ground cover within enclosures in semi-native pastures. We transplanted 18 individuals of each species per plot (18 × 30 plots = 1080 plants in total) in a 2 × 2 design intersecting direct pairwise interactions (additional transplanted neighbor: absent/present) with recipient patch type (Axonopus fissifolius/Paspalum notatum). Leaf length, leaf number, and plant biomass were measured at the beginning and the end of the experiment along with soil nutrients and pH at patch level. Over 92% of the transplants survived. We observed an interactive effect between patch type (non-native vs. native dominated) and plant abundance at plot level on plant performance, suggesting that indirect effects at larger spatial scales can influence effects at smaller scales. Surprisingly, both species exhibited enhanced performance with increasing abundance of the non-native species at plot level. We discuss several mechanisms explaining these indirect effects including Paspalum notatum-induced changes in soil pH, soil feedbacks from the soil microbial community, preconditioning effects of the native species on the recipient soil, and positive density dependence effects after transplantation.

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

  • Abrams PA (2001) Describing and quantifying interspecific interactions: a commentary on recent approaches. Oikos 94(2):209–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abrams PA, Matsuda H (1996) Positive indirect effects between prey species that share predators. Ecology 77(2):610–616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Afkhami ME, Rudgers JA, Stachowicz JJ (2014) Multiple mutualist effects: conflict and synergy in multispecies mutualisms. Ecology 95(4):833–844

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Allen EB, Allen MF, Egerton-Warburton L, Corkidi L, Gómez-Pompa A (2003) Impacts of early-and late-seral mycorrhizae during restoration in seasonal tropical forest, Mexico. Ecol Appl 13(6):1701–1717

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antonovics J, Levin DA (1980) The ecological and genetic consequences of density-dependent regulation in plants. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 11(1):411–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbosa P, Hines J, Kaplan I, Martinson H, Szczepaniec A, Szendrei Z (2009) Associational resistance and associational susceptibility: having right or wrong neighbors. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 40:1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67(1):1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergvall UA, Rautio P, Kesti K, Tuomi J, Leimar O (2006) Associational effects of plant defences in relation to within-and between-patch food choice by a mammalian herbivore: neighbour contrast susceptibility and defense. Oecologia 147(2):253–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bever JD, Westover KM, Antonovics J (1997) Incorporating the soil community into plant population dynamics: the utility of the feedback approach. J Ecol 85(5):561–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bezemer TM, Lawson CS, Hedlund K, Edwards AR, Brook AJ, Igual JM, Van der Putten WH (2006) Plant species and functional group effects on abiotic and microbial soil properties and plant–soil feedback responses in two grasslands. J Ecol 94(5):893–904

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Boughton EH, Quintana-Ascencio PF, Bohlen PJ (2011a) Refuge effects of Juncus effusus in grazed, subtropical wetland plant communities. Plant Ecol 212(3):451–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boughton EH, Quintana-Ascencio PF, Bohlen PJ, Nickerson D (2011b) Differential facilitative and competitive effects of a dominant macrophyte in grazed subtropical wetlands. J Ecol 99(5):1263–1271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boughton EH, Quintana-Ascencio PF, Nickerson D, Bohlen P (2011c) Management intensity affects the relationship between non-native and native species in subtropical wetlands. J Appl Veg Sci 14:210–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chamberlain SA, Bronstein JL, Rudgers JA (2014) How context dependent are species interactions? Ecol Lett 17(7):881–890

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cipollini D, Dorning M (2008) Direct and indirect effects of conditioned soils and tissue extracts of the invasive shrub, Lonicera maackii, on target plant performance. Castanea 73(3):166–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman TS, Morris WF, Wilson WG (2004) When can two plant species facilitate each other’s pollination? Oikos 105:197–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg DE (1990) Components of resource competition in plant communities. In: Grace JB, Tilman D (eds) Perspectives on plant competition. Academic Press, San Diego, California, pp 27–49

    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(5):664–670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grove S, Haubensak KA, Parker IM (2012) Direct and indirect effects of allelopathy in the soil legacy of an exotic plant invasion. Plant Ecol 213(12):1869–1882

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambäck PA, Inouye BD, Andersson P, Underwood N (2014) Effects of plant neighborhoods on plant–herbivore interactions: resource dilution and associational effects. Ecology 95(5):1370–1383

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton NRS (1994) Replacement and additive designs for plant competition studies. J Appl Ecol 31:599–603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heger T, Pahl AT, Botta-Dukát Z, Gherardi F, Hoppe C, Hoste I et al (2013) Conceptual frameworks and methods for advancing invasion ecology. Ambio 42(5):527–540

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Iacarella JC, Mankiewicz PS, Ricciardi A (2015) Negative competitive effects of invasive plants change with time since invasion. Ecosphere 6(7):1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ighovie ES, Ikechukwu EE (2014) Phytoremediation of crude oil contaminated soil with Axonopus compressus in the Niger delta region of Nigeria. Natural Resources 5:59–67

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly EF, Chadwick OA, Hilinski TE (1998) The effect of plants on mineral weathering. Biogeochemistry 42(1–2):21–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kriedemann PE, Virgona JM, Atkin OK (2017) Chapter 6. Growth analysis: a quantitative approach. In: Price C, Munns R (Chapter editors). Plants in action. Australian Society of Plant Scientists 2nd edition. https://www.asps.org.au/plants-in-action-2nd-edition-pdf-files

  • Li H (2021) Multiple spatial scales affect direct and indirect interactions between a non-native and a native species (version 1). Environ Data Initiat. https://doi.org/10.6073/pasta/93749e86403e44c1d9978faeaec65881

  • Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H (2013) A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods Ecol Evol 4(2):133–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orians CM, Björkman C (2009) Associational resistance to a tropical leaf-miner: does neighbour identity matter? J Trop Ecol 25(5):551–554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, and the R Development Core Team (2013) nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1–108.

  • 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(5):1725–1737

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quarin CL, Burson BL, Burton GW (1984) Cytology of intra-and interspecific hybrids between two cytotypes of Paspalum notatum and P. cromyorrhizon. Botanical Gazette 145(3):420–426.

  • R Core Team (2018) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.

  • Reinhart KO, Callaway RM (2006) Soil biota and invasive plants. New Phytol 170(3):445–457

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez LF (2006) Can invasive species facilitate native species? Evidence of how, when, and why these impacts occur. Biol Invasions 8(4):927–939

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoener TW (1993) On the relative importance of direct versus indirect effects in ecological communities. In: Kawanabe H, Cohen JE, Iwasaki K (eds) Mutualism and community organisation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 365–415

    Google Scholar 

  • Silander JA, Antonovics J (1982) Analysis of interspecific interactions in a coastal plant community—a perturbation approach. Nature 298(5874):557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith LM, Reynolds HL (2015) Plant–soil feedbacks shift from negative to positive with decreasing light in forest understory species. Ecology 96(9):2523–2532

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sokol NW, Kuebbing SE, Karlsen-Ayala E, Bradford MA (2019) Evidence for the primacy of living root inputs, not root or shoot litter, in forming soil organic carbon. New Phytol 221(1):233–246

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Soliveres S, DeSoto L, Maestre FT, Olano JM (2010) Spatio-temporal heterogeneity in abiotic factors modulate multiple ontogenetic shifts between competition and facilitation. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 12(3):227–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sparks DL, et al (1996) Methods of soil analysis—soil science society of America book series. ASA and SSA, Madison, WI, USA.

  • Tan KH, Beaty ER, McCreery RA, Jones JB (1975) Differential effect of Bermuda and Bahiagrasses on soil chemical characteristics 1. Agron J 67(3):407–411

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas CD (1986) Butterfly larvae reduce host plant survival in vicinity of alternative host species. Oecologia 70(1):113–117

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson JN (1988) Variation in interspecific interactions. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 19(1):65–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomsen MS, Wernberg T, Olden JD, Griffin JN, Silliman BR (2011) A framework to study the context-dependent impacts of marine invasions. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 400(12):322–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torres-Arias Y, Fors RO, Nobre C, Gómez EF, Berbara RLL (2017) Production of native arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi inoculum under different environmental conditions. Braz J Microbiol 48(1):87–94

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Underwood N, Inouye BD, Hambäck PA (2014) A conceptual framework for associational effects: when do neighbors matter and how would we know? Q Rev Biol 89(1):1–19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • USDA plant Profile. https://plants.usda.gov/java/charProfile?symbol=PHNO2. Accessed 14 June 2018.

  • Van der Putten WH, Macel M, Visser ME (2010) Predicting species distribution and abundance responses to climate change: why it is essential to include biotic interactions across trophic levels. Philos Trans R Soc B 365(1549):2025–2034

    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(2):229–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venables WN, Ripley BD (2002) Modern applied statistics with S, 4th edn. Springer, New York

  • Weidenhamer JD, Callaway RM (2010) Direct and indirect effects of invasive plants on soil chemistry and ecosystem function. J Chem Ecol 36(1):59–69

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Weigelt A, Jolliffe P (2003) Indices of plant competition. J Ecol 707–720.

  • Weigelt A, Steinlein T, Beyschlag W (2002) Does plant competition intensity rather depend on biomass or on species identity? Basic Appl Ecol 3(1):85–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiner J, Thomas SC (1992) Competition and allometry in three species of annual plants. Ecology 73(2):648–656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiner, J., Berntson, G. M., & Thomas, S. C. (1990). Competition and growth form in a woodland annual. J Ecol 459–469.

  • White EM, Wilson JC, Clarke AR (2006) Biotic indirect effects: a neglected concept in invasion biology. Divers Distrib 12(4):443–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson CH, Strickland MS, Hutchings JA, Bianchi TS, Flory SL (2018) Grazing enhances belowground carbon allocation, microbial biomass, and soil carbon in a subtropical grassland. Glob Change Biol 24(7):2997–3009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Younginger BS, Sirová D, Cruzan MB, Ballhorn DJ (2017) Is biomass a reliable estimate of plant fitness? Appl Plant Sci 5(2):1600094

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

All the authors have read the policy of conflict of interest and claim none. We thank the people at BIR for their generous support on providing equipment and help. We thank the support from UCF graduate students, Interns, and Staff at BIR for their generous help setting up experiment plots, transplanting sod, planting individuals, collecting soil, harvesting the plants, and removing enclosures at the end. We thank Federico Lopez Borghesi, Phoebe Judge, and several anonymous reviewers for their comments on the manuscript. This research was a contribution from the Long-Term Agroecosystem Research (LTAR) network. LTAR is supported by the United States Department of Agriculture.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA

    Haoyu Li, David G. Jenkins & Pedro F. Quintana-Ascencio

  2. Agroecology Lab, Buck Island Ranch, Archbold Biological Station, 300 Buck Island Ranch road, Lake Placid, FL, 33852, USA

    Haoyu Li, Elizabeth H. Boughton & Grégory Sonnier

  3. Plant Ecology Lab, Archbold Biological Station, Lake Placid, FL, USA

    Pedro F. Quintana-Ascencio

Authors
  1. Haoyu Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elizabeth H. Boughton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David G. Jenkins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Grégory Sonnier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Pedro F. Quintana-Ascencio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Haoyu Li.

Additional information

Communicated by Devan Allen McGranahan.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material and data.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 210 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, H., Boughton, E.H., Jenkins, D.G. et al. Multiple spatial scales affect direct and indirect interactions between a non-native and a native species. Plant Ecol 222, 1335–1346 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-021-01182-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-021-01182-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation