Biological Invasions

, Volume 6, Issue 4, pp 417–432 | Cite as

An Experimental Test of Resistance to Cheatgrass Invasion: Limiting Resources at Different Life Stages

  • Julie Beckstead
  • Carol K. Augspurger
Article

Abstract

Variable densities of an invasive species may represent variation in invasion resistance, due to variation in resource availability. This study determined whether low- and high-density cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.) patches within a shadscale-bunchgrass community of western Utah, USA, can be explained by variation in resource availability. It also explored the possible role of seed limitation and enemy pressure on invasion patterns. Two parallel field experiments were conducted:(1) increasing resources within low-density cheatgrass patches and, conversely (2) reducing resources within high-density cheatgrass patches. Treatments were applied at three life stages separately and across all stages. In low-density cheatgrass patches (assumed to represent high resistance), a disturbance that reduced soil compaction had the strongest positive effect, significantly increasing biomass by 250% and density by 104% in comparison to the control. The second strongest effect was reducing neighbors (native grasses), which significantly increased cheatgrass biomass and density. These results indicate that resources are present in low-density cheatgrass patches, but they are unavailable without disturbance and/or are exploited by competitors, and hence represent resistance to invasion. In high-density cheatgrass patches (assumed to represent low resistance), nitrogen availability was important in maintaining cheatgrass densities. Reducing nitrogen (via sucrose addition) significantly decreased density (by 37%) but not biomass. Life stages of cheatgrass were differentially affected by these resource manipulations. In addition, herbivore (primarily grasshoppers) and pathogen (head smut) pressures were documented to affect cheatgrass density, but did not explain resistance patterns. Instead, we found that differential resource availability explains the observed variation in cheatgrass density, and variation in natural resistance.

Bromus tectorum community susceptibility disturbance grasshopper herbivory Great Basin head smut invasion biology plant competition resource availability soil compaction 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aguirre L and Johnson DA (1991) Influence of temperature and cheatgrass competition on seedling development of two bunchgrasses. Journal of Range Management 44:347–354Google Scholar
  2. Alexopoulos CJ, Mims CW and Blackwell M (1996) Introductory Mycology. John Wiley and Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Arshad MA, Lowery B and Grossman B (1996) Physical test for monitoring soil quality. In: Doran JW and Jones AJ (eds) Methods for Assessing Soil Quality, pp 123–141. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WisconsinGoogle Scholar
  4. Beckstead J (2001) A community's natural resistance to invasion by cheatgrass and the effects of associational herbivory. PhD dissertation. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  5. Beckstead J, Meyer SE and Allen PS (1995) Effects of afterripening on cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum ) and squirreltail (Elymus elymoides ) germination. In: Roundy BA, McArthur ED, Haley JS and Mann DK (eds) Proceedings: Wildland Shrub and Arid Land Restoration Symposium, pp 165–172. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UtahGoogle Scholar
  6. Beckstead J, Meyer SE and Allen PS (1996) Bromus tectorum seed germination:between-population and between-year variation. Canadian Journal of Botany 74: 875–882Google Scholar
  7. Bilbrough CJ and Caldwell MM (1997) Exploitation of springtime ephemeral N pulses by six Great Basin plant species. Ecology 78:231–243Google Scholar
  8. Billings WD (1990) Bromus tectorum, a biotic cause of ecosystem impoverishment in the Great Basin. In: Woodwell GM (ed) The Earth in Transition:Patterns and Processes of Biotic Impoverishment, pp 301–322. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Blackburn WH (1975) Factors influencing in ltration and sediment production of semiarid rangelands in Nevada. Water Resources Research 11:929–937Google Scholar
  10. Burke MJW and Grime JP (1996) An experimental study of plant community invasibility. Ecology 77:776–790Google Scholar
  11. Cline JF and Rickard WH (1973) Herbage yields in relation to soil water and assimilated nitrogen. Journal of Range Management 26:296–298Google Scholar
  12. Costello DF (1944) Important species of the major forage types in Colorado and Wyoming. Ecological Monograph 14:107–134Google Scholar
  13. Crawford CS and Gosz JR (1982) Desert ecosystems:their resources in space and time. Environmental Conservation 9:181–195Google Scholar
  14. Crawley MJ (1987) What makes a community invasible? In: Gray AJ, Crawley MJ and Edwards PJ (eds) Colonization, Succession and Stability, pp 429–453. Blackwell Scientific Publication, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Dakheel AJ, Radosevich SR and Barbour MG (1993) Effect of nitrogen and phosphorus on growth and interference between Bromus tectorum and Taeniatherum asperum. Weed Research 33:415–422Google Scholar
  16. Dakheel AJ, Radosevich SR and Barbour MG (1994) Effects of temperature and moisture on growth, interference and photosynthesis of Bromus tectorum and Taeniatherum asperum. Weed Research 34:11–22Google Scholar
  17. Davis MA, Grime JP and Thompson K (2000) Fluctuating resources in plant communities:a general theory of invasibility. Journal of Ecology 88:528–534Google Scholar
  18. Dent CL and Grimm NB (1999) Spatial heterogeneity of stream water nutrient concentrations over successional time. Ecology 80:2283–2298Google Scholar
  19. Elton CG (1958) The Ecology of Invasions by Animals and Plants. Methuen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Fox MD and Fox BJ (1986) The susceptibility of natural communities to invasion. In: Groves RH and Burdon JJ (eds) Ecology of Biological Invasions, pp 57–66. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Francis MG and Pyke DA (1996) Crested wheatgrass cheatgrass seedling competition in a mixed-density design. Journal of Range Management 49:432–438Google Scholar
  22. Harper JL (1977) Population Biology of Plants. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Hassink J, Bouwman LA, Zwart KB and Brussaard L (1993) Relationships between habitable pore space, soil biota and mineralization rates in grassland soils. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 25:47–55Google Scholar
  24. Herrick JE and Jones TL (2002) A dynamic cone penetrometer for measuring soil penetration resistance. Soil Science Society of America Journal 66:1320–1324Google Scholar
  25. Hobbs RJ (1989) The nature and effects of disturbance relative to invasion. In: Drake JA, Mooney HA, di Castri F, Groves RH, Kruger FJ, Rejmanek M and Williamson M (eds) Biological Invasions:a Global Perspective, pp 389–405. John Wiley and Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Hobbs RJ and Atkins L (1988) Effect of disturbance and nutrient addition on native and introduced annuals in plant communities in the Western Australian wheatbelt. Australian Journal of Ecology 13:171–179Google Scholar
  27. Hobbs RJ and Mooney HA (1985) Community and population dynamics of serpentine annuals in relation to gopher disturbance. Oecologia 67:342–351Google Scholar
  28. Hobbs RJ and Mooney HA (1991) Effects of rainfall variability and gopher disturbance on serpentine annual grassland dynamics. Ecology 72:59–68Google Scholar
  29. Holmes EE (1997) Basic epidemiology concepts in a spatial context. In: Tilman D and Kareiva P (eds) Spatial Ecology:the Role of Space in Population Dynamics and Interspeci c Interaction, pp 111–136. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  30. Huenneke LF, Hamburg SP, Koide R, Mooney HA and Vitousek PM (1990) Effects of soil resources on plant invasion and community structure in California serpentine grassland. Ecology 71:478–491Google Scholar
  31. Hulbert LC (1955) Ecological studies of Bromus tectorum and other annual bromegrasses. Ecological Monographs 25: 181–123Google Scholar
  32. Kelrick MI (1991) Factors affecting seeds in a sagebrushsteppe ecosystem and implications for the dispersion of an annual plant species, cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.). PhD dissertation, Utah State University, Logan, UtahGoogle Scholar
  33. Klemmedson JO and Smith JG (1964) Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.). Botanical Review 30:226–262Google Scholar
  34. Knapp PA (1996) Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.) dominance in the Great Basin desert–history, persistence, and influences to human activities. Global Environmental Change Human and Policy Dimensions 6:37–52Google Scholar
  35. Lamb D (1980) Soil nitrogen mineralisation in a secondary rainforest succession. Oecologia 47:257–263Google Scholar
  36. Levine JM (2000) Species diversity and biological invasions: relating local process to community pattern. Science 288: 852–854Google Scholar
  37. Link SO, Bolton H, Thiede ME and Rickard WH (1995) Responses of downy brome to nitrogen and water. Journal of Range Management 48:290–297Google Scholar
  38. Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW and Wolfinger RD (1996) SAS Systems for Mixed Models. pp 171–227. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North CarolinaGoogle Scholar
  39. Mack RN (1981) Invasion of Bromus tectorum L. into Western North America:an ecological chronicle. Agro Ecosystems 7:145–165Google Scholar
  40. Mack RN and Pyke DA (1983) The demography of Bromus tectorum:variation in time and space. Journal of Ecology 71:69–93Google Scholar
  41. Mack RN and Pyke DA (1984) The demography of Bromus tectorum:the role of microclimate, grazing and disease. Journal of Ecology 72:731–748Google Scholar
  42. Maron JL and Vilà M (2001) When do herbivores affect plant invasion? Evidence for the natural enemies and biotic resistance hypotheses. OIKOS 95:361–373Google Scholar
  43. McLendon T and Redente EF (1991) Nitrogen and phosphorus effects on secondary succession dynamics on a semiarid sagebrush site. Ecology 72:2016–2024Google Scholar
  44. McLendon T and Redente EF (1992) Effects of nitrogen limitation on species replacement dynamics during early secondary succession on a semiarid sagebrush site. Oecologia 91:312–317Google Scholar
  45. Melgoza G, Nowak RS and Tausch RJ (1990) Soil water exploitation after re:competition between Bromus tectorum (cheatgrass) and two native species. Oecologia 83:7–13Google Scholar
  46. Mueller-Dombois D and Ellenberg H (1974) Aims and methods of vegetation ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Noy-Meir I (1985) Desert ecosystem structure and function. In: Evenari M (ed) Hot Deserts and Arid Shrublands, pp 93–103. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  48. Pfadt RE (1994) Field Guide to Common Western Grasshoppers, 2nd edn. Wyoming Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 912. University of Wyoming, Cheyenne, WyomingGoogle Scholar
  49. Pierson EA and Mack RN (1990) The population biology of Bromus tectorum in forests:effect of disturbance, grazing, and litter on seedling establishment and reproduction. Oecologia 84:526–533Google Scholar
  50. Platt WJ (1975) The colonization and formation of equilibrium plant species associations on badger disturbances in a tall-grass prairie. Ecological Monographs 45:285–305Google Scholar
  51. Prieur-Richard A-H, Lavorel S, Grigulis K and Dos Santos A (2000) Plant community diversity and invasibility by exotics:invasion of Mediterranean old elds by Conyza bonariensis and Conya canadensis. Ecology Letters 3:412–422Google Scholar
  52. Quinn MA, Kepner RL, Walgenbach DD, Bohls RA, Pooler PD, Foster RN, Reuter KC and Swain JL (1989) Immediate and second-year impact of insecticide and insecticidal bait treatments on populations of rangeland grasshoppers. Canadian Entomologist 121:589–602Google Scholar
  53. SAS (1999) SAS Statistical Software, version 8. 0. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North CarolinaGoogle Scholar
  54. Schupp EW (1995) Seed-seedling con cts, habitat choice, and patterns of plant recruitment. American Journal of Botany 82:399–409Google Scholar
  55. Steel RGD, Torrie JH and Dickey DA (1997) Principles and procedures of statistics:a biometrical approach. McGrawHill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  56. Stevens DJ, Brough RC, Griffin RD and Richardson EA (1983) Utah Weather Guide, pp 20–46. Society for Applied Climatology, West Jordan, UtahGoogle Scholar
  57. Stewart G and Hull AC (1949) Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L. )–an ecologic intruder in southern Idaho. Ecology 30: 58–74Google Scholar
  58. Stohlgren T, Binkley JD, Chong GW, Kalkhan MA, Schell LD, Bull KA, Otsuki Y, Newman G, Bashkin M and Son Y (1999) Exotic plant species invade hot spots of native plant diversity. Ecological Monographs 69:25–46Google Scholar
  59. Thill DC, Schirman RD and Appleby AP (1979) Influence of soil moisture, temperature, and compaction on the germination and emergence of downy brome (Bromus tectorum). Weed Science 27:625–630Google Scholar
  60. Tilman D (1997) Community invasibility, recruitment limitation, and grassland biodiversity. Ecology 78:81–92Google Scholar
  61. Tilman D (1999) The ecological consequences of changes in biodiversity:a search for general principles. Ecology 80: 1455–1474Google Scholar
  62. Wakeland C (1959) Mormon crickets in North America. Technical Bulletin No. 1202. Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  63. Welsh SL, Atwood ND, Goodrich S and Higgins LC (1987) A Utah Flora. Brigham Young University, Provo, UtahGoogle Scholar
  64. West NE (1991) Nutrient cycling in soils of semiarid and arid regions. In: Skujins J (ed) Semiarid Lands and Deserts: Soil Resources and Reclamation, pp 295–332. Marcel Dekker, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  65. West NE (1994) Effects of re on salt-desert shrub rangelands. In: Monsen SB and Kitchen SG (eds) Proceedings: Ecology and Management of Annual Rangelands, pp 71–74. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UtahGoogle Scholar
  66. Wiens JA (1976) Population responses to patchy environments. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 7:81–120Google Scholar
  67. Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical Analysis, 4th edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New JerseyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julie Beckstead
    • 1
  • Carol K. Augspurger
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Plant BiologyUniversity of IllinoisUrbanaUSA; e-mail:
  2. 2.Department of BiologyGonzaga UniversitySpokaneUSA

Personalised recommendations