Plant Ecology

, Volume 166, Issue 1, pp 1–11 | Cite as

Experimental study of vegetative regeneration in four invasive Reynoutria taxa (Polygonaceae)

  • Kateřina Bímová
  • Bohumil Mandák
  • Petr Pyšek
Article

Abstract

Garden experiments focused on vegetative regeneration were carried out with four invasive taxa of the genus Reynoutria (R. japonica var. japonica, R. japonica var. compacta, R. sachalinensis and a hybrid between R. sachalinensis and R. japonica var. japonica, R. ×bohemica). Regeneration ability of stems and rhizomes, timing of shoot emergence and biomass production were studied under the following treatments: laid horizontally on the soil surface; placed upright; buried in the soil; floating in water. Two different soils (sand and garden loam) representing contrasting nutrient levels were applied. Differences were found in the capability and speed of regeneration, as well as in the quality of shoots produced. Regeneration from stems was less efficient than that from rhizomes in all taxa except R. sachalinensis. R. ×bohemica exhibits higher regeneration potential (61%) than all other taxa and can be considered as the most successful taxon of the Czech representatives of the genus Reynoutria in terms of regeneration and establishment of new shoots. High regeneration capacity was also exhibited by R. japonica var. compacta (52%). Other taxa showed generally lower regeneration rates (R. japonica var. japonica 39% and R. sachalinensis 21%), but under some treatments the percentage of regenerated segments was high, too. R. japonica var. japonica rhizomes regenerated successfully in all three soil treatments but not in the water. An opposite pattern was found for its stems: they regenerated well if exposed to water treatment but in the soil, they did not regenerate at all. Particular taxa responded to the soil type in a contrasting way. R. sachalinensis and R. ×bohemica regenerated better in loam while the opposite was true in R. japonica var. japonica. R. japonica var. compacta produced the tallest and R. ×bohemica the heaviest and most robust shoots. It is concluded that rhizomes are more crucial than stems for the spread of knotweeds through fragmentation and clonal growth, suggesting the importance of soil disturbance.

Clonal growth Czech Republic Fallopia Hybridization Rhizome tissue Shoot emergence Stem tissue 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abbott R.J. 1992. Plant invasions, interspecific hybridisation and the evolution of new plant taxa. TREE 7: 401–405.Google Scholar
  2. Adachi N., Terashima I. and Takahashi M. 1996. Central die-back of monoclonal stands of Reynoutria japonica in an early stage of primary succession on Mount Fuji. Ann. of Bot. 77: 477– 486.Google Scholar
  3. Bailey J.P. and Stace C.A. 1992. Chromosome number, morphology, pairing, and DNA values of species and hybrids in the genus Fallopia (Polygonaceae). Plant Syst. and Evol. 180: 29– 52.Google Scholar
  4. Bailey J.P. 1994. Reprodictive biology and fertility of Fallopia japonica (Japanese knotweed) and its hybrids in the British Isles. In: de Waal (ed.), Ecology and management of invasive riverside plants. J. Willey and sons, Chichester, pp. 140–158.Google Scholar
  5. Bailey J.P., Child L.E. and Wade M. 1995. Assessment of the genetics variation of British populations of Fallopia japonica and its hybrid Fallopia × bohemica. In: Pyšek P., Prach K., Rejmánek M. and Wade M. (eds), Plant Invasion – General Aspects and Special Problems. SPB Academic Publishing, Amsterdam, pp. 141–150.Google Scholar
  6. Beerling D.J., Bailey J.P. and Conolly A.P. 1994. Fallopia japonica (Houtt.) Ronse Decraene (Reynoutria japonica Houtt.; Polygonum cuspidatum Sieb. & Zucc.). J. Ecol. 82: 959–979.Google Scholar
  7. Bímová K., Mandák B. and Pyšek P. 2001. Experimental control of Reynoutria congeners: a comparative study of a hybrid and its parents. In: Brundu G., Brock J., Camarda I., Child L. and Wade M. (eds), Plant Invasion: Species Ecology and Ecosystem Management. Backuys Publishing, Leiden, pp. 283–290.Google Scholar
  8. Brock J.H. and Wade M. 1992. Regeneration of Japanes knotweed (Fallopia japonica) from rhizome and stems: Observation from greenhouse trials. In: Proc. IXth Intern. Symp. on the Biology of Weeds. Dijon., pp. 85–94.Google Scholar
  9. Brock J.H., Child L.E., de Waal L.C. and Wade P.M. 1995. The invasive nature of Fallopia japonica is enhanced by vegetative regeneration from stem tissues. In: Pyšek P., Prach K., Rejmánek M. and Wade M. (eds), Plant Invasion–General Aspects and Special Problems. SPB Academic Publishing, Amsterdam, pp. 131–139.Google Scholar
  10. Child L.E. 1999. Vegetative regeneration and distribution of Fallopia japonica and Fallopia bohemica: Implications for control and management. 4.0 The regeneration potential of congeners of Fallopia japonica from rhizome fragments and cut stem material. PhD Dissertation, Loughbrough University, UK.Google Scholar
  11. Chrtek J. and Chrtková A. 1983. DeReynoutria × bohemica, nový kríženec z?celedi rdesnovitých. Čas. Národ. Muz. v Praze, ser. natur. 2: 120.Google Scholar
  12. Chrtek J., Hejný S. and Slavík B. (eds) 1990. Flora of the CSR. Academia Praha.Google Scholar
  13. Conolly A.P. 1977. The distribution and history on the British Isles of some alien species of Polygonum and Reynoutria. Watsonia 11: 291–311.Google Scholar
  14. Crawley M.J. 1987. What makes the community invasible? In: Gray A.J., Crawley M.J. and Edwards P.J. (eds), Colonization, Succession and Stability. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp. 429–453.Google Scholar
  15. Crawley M.J. 1997. Plant Ecology. 2nd edn. Blackwell Science Ltd, Oxford.Google Scholar
  16. di Castri A.J. 1990. On invading species and invaded ecosystems: the interplay of historical chance and biological necessity. In:di Castri A.J., Hansen A.J. and Debussche M. (eds), Biological Invasions Europe and the Mediterranean Basin. Kluwer Academic Publish., Dordrecht, pp. 3–16.Google Scholar
  17. Eriksson O. 1986. Mobility and space capture in the stoloniferous plant Potentilla anserina. Oikos 46: 82–87.Google Scholar
  18. Fritz R.S. 1999. Resistance of hybrid plants to herbivores: genes, environment, or both? Ecology 80: 382–391.Google Scholar
  19. Gallagher K.G., Schierenbeck K.A. and D'Antonio C. 1997. Hybridization and introgression in Carpobrotus spp. (Aizoaceae) in California, II. Allozyme evidence. Am. J. Bot. 84: 905–911.Google Scholar
  20. Hlavá?ek R., Mandák B. and Pyšek P. 1996. Nekolik poznámek k nálezu Reynoutria japonica var. compacta v Ceské republice. Zpr. Ces. Bot. Spolec. 31: 167–171.Google Scholar
  21. Hollingsworth M.L., Hollingsworth P.M., Jenkins G.I. and Bailey J.P. 1998. The use of molecular markers to study patterns of genotypic diversity in some invasive alien Fallopia ssp. (Polygonaceae). Molec. Ecol. 7: 1681–1691.Google Scholar
  22. Hollingsworth M.L. and Bailey J.P. 2000. Evidence for massive clonal growth in the invasive weed Fallopia japonica (Japanese Knotweed). Bot. J. Linnean Society 133: 463–472.Google Scholar
  23. Jalas J. and Suominen J. 1988. Atlas Florae Europae – Distribution of Vascular Plants in Europe. Vol. 4. Cambridge University Press, maps 422, 423.Google Scholar
  24. Jongman R.H., ter Braak C.J.F. and van Tongeren O.F.R. 1987.Data Analysis in Community and Landscape Ecology. Pudoc, Wageningen.Google Scholar
  25. Klimeš L., Klimešová J. and Osbornová J. 1993. Regeneration capacity and carbohydrate reserves in clonal plant Rumex alpinus: effect of burial. Vegetatio 109: 153–160.Google Scholar
  26. Klimeš L., Klimešová J., Hendriks R. and van Groenendalel J. 1997. Clonal plant architecture: a comparative analysis of form and function. In: de Kroon H. and van Groenendael J. (eds), The Cology and Evolution of Clonal Plants. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, pp. 1–30.Google Scholar
  27. Kowarik I. 1995. Time lags in biological invasions with regard to the success and failure of alien pecies. In: Pyšek P., Prach K., Rejmánek M. and Wade M. (eds), Plant Invasion-General Aspects and Special Problems. SPB Academic Publishing, Amsterdam, pp. 15–38.Google Scholar
  28. Lodge D.M. 1993. Biological invasions: lessons for ecology. Tree 8: 133–137.Google Scholar
  29. Mandák B. and Pyšek P. 1997. Taxony rodu Reynoutria v České republice. – Zpr. Čes. Bot. Spolec., Praha, 32, Mater. 14: 45– 57.Google Scholar
  30. Perrins J., Williamson M. and Fitter A. 1992. A survey of differing views of weed classification: implications for regulation of introductions. Biol. Conserv. 59: 47–56.Google Scholar
  31. Pyšek P. 1997. Clonality and plant invasions. In: de Kroon H. and van Groenendael J. (eds), The Cology and Evolution of Clonal Plants. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, pp. 405–427.Google Scholar
  32. Pyšek P., Mandák B., Francírková T. and Prach K. 2000. Persistence of stout clonal herbs as invaders in the landscape: a field test of historical records. In: Camarda I. (ed.), Proc. International Conference on Alien Plants, La Maddalena, Sardegna. Backhuys Publishing, Leiden, pp. 235–244.Google Scholar
  33. Pyšek P. and Prach K. 1993. Plant invasions and the role of riparian habitats – a comparison of four species alien to central Europe. J. Biogeogr. 20: 413–420.Google Scholar
  34. Pyšek P., Prach K. and Šmilauer P. 1995. Invasion sucess related to plant traits: an analysis of Czech alien flora. In: Pyšek P., Prach K., Rejmánek M. and Wade M. (eds), Plant Invasion – General Aspects and Special Problems. SPB Academic Publishing, Amsterdam, pp. 39–60.Google Scholar
  35. Rejmánek M. 1995. What makes a species invasive? In: Pyšek P., Prach K., Rejmánek M. and Wade M. (eds), Plant Invasion-General Aspects and Special Problems. SPB Academic Publishing, Amsterdam, pp. 3–16.Google Scholar
  36. Rejmánek M. 1997. What makes a species invasive? In: Pyšek P., Prach K., Rejmánek M. and Wade M. (eds), Plant Invasion-General Aspects and Special Problems. SPB Academic Publishing, Amsterdam, pp. 3–13.Google Scholar
  37. Rice W.R. 1989. Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43: 223–225.Google Scholar
  38. Shaw R.G. and Mitchell-Olds T. 1993. ANOVA for unbalanced data: An overview. Ecology 74: 1638–1645.Google Scholar
  39. Stuefer J.F., During H.J. and de Kroon H. 1994. High benefits of clonal integration in two stoloniferous species, in response to heterogeneous light environmments. J. Ecol. 82: 511–518.Google Scholar
  40. Sukopp H. and Starfinger U. 1995. Reynoutria sachalinensis in Europe and in the Far East: a comparison of the species ecology in its native and adventive distribution range. In: Pyšek P., Prach K., Rejmánek M. and Wade M. (eds), Plant Invasions – General Aspects and Special Problems. SPB Academic Publishing, Amsterdam, pp. 151–159.Google Scholar
  41. Sukopp H. and Sukopp U. 1988. Reynoutria japonica Houtt. In Japan und in Europa. Veröff. Geobot. Inst. ETH, Stiftung Rübel, Zürich 98: 354–372.Google Scholar
  42. van Groenendael J. and de Kroon H. 1990. Regulation and function of clonal growth in plants: an evaluation. In: van Groenendael J. and de Kroon H. (eds), Clonal Growth in Plants: Regulation and Function. SPB Academic Publishing, Hague, pp. 177–186.Google Scholar
  43. Vogt Andersen U. 1995. Comparison of dispersal strategies of alien and native species in the Danish flora. In: Pyšek P., Prach K., Rejmánek M. and Wade M. (eds), Plant Invasions – General Aspects and Special Problems. SPB Academic Publishing, Amsterdam, pp. 61–70.Google Scholar
  44. Waite S. 1994. Field evidence of plastic growth responses to habitat heterogeneity in the clonal herb Ranunculus repens. Ecol. Res. 9: 311–316.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kateřina Bímová
    • 1
  • Bohumil Mandák
    • 2
  • Petr Pyšek
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Applied EcologyCzech Agricultural University of PragueKostelec nad Černými lesyCzech Republic
  2. 2.Academy of Sciences of the Czech RepublicInstitute of BotanyPrůhoniceCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations