Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55597f9d44-qcsxw Total loading time: 0.309 Render date: 2022-08-10T17:40:10.672Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Exploitation of Nutrient-Rich Soil Patches by Invasive Annual and Native Perennial Grasses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jeremy J. James*
Affiliation:
USDA–Agricultural Research Service, Burns, OR 97720 USA
L. Ziegenhagen
Affiliation:
USDA–Agricultural Research Service, Burns, OR 97720 USA
Z. T. Aanderud
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Wildlife Sciences, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: jeremy.james@oregonstate.edu

Abstract

Invasion of nutrient-poor habitats might be related to the ability of a species to exploit nutrient-rich microsites. Recent research suggests fast-growing species might have a greater ability to allocate root biomass to nutrient-rich microsites (root foraging precision) than slow-growing species. We examined if differences in relative growth rate (RGR) between invasive and native species were related to differences in foraging precision. We hypothesized that invasive species would: (1) have greater foraging precision than native species but (2) greater foraging precision would come at a cost in terms of root nutrient uptake rate. Foraging precision was evaluated on plants growing in soils with uniform or patchy nutrient distribution. Plants were harvested at a common time and a common developmental stage to separate indirect effects of RGR on foraging. Nutrient uptake rate was examined by exposing plants to a low or high nitrogen pulse. Invasives foraged more precisely than natives but had lower nitrogen uptake rate. Although these results support the idea of a positive relationship between RGR and foraging precision, biomass production in heterogeneous soils showed no relationship to foraging precision. Instead, species with greater RGR produced more biomass and root length across all treatments, allowing greater nutrient capture in heterogeneous soils. Although these results do not exclude a role for proliferation in influencing invasion of nutrient-poor systems or the potential for heterogeneity to influence population processes, these results suggest other traits may have an overriding importance in determining invader success in these systems.

Type
Research
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aanderud, Z. T., Bledsoe, C. S., and Richards, J. H. 2003. Contribution of relative growth rate to root foraging by annual and perennial grasses from California Oak Woodlands. Oecologia 136:424430.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baker, H. G. 1974. The evolution of weeds. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst 5:124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, S. A. 1995. Soil Nutrient Bioavailability: A Mechanistic Approach. New York John Wiley. 414.Google Scholar
Berendse, F. 1994. Competition between plant populations at low and high nutrient supplies. Oikos 71:253260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bilbrough, C. J. and Caldwell, M. M. 1995. The effects of shading and N-status on root proliferation in nutrient patches by the perennial grass Agropyron desertorum in the field. Oecologia 103:1016.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bilbrough, C. J. and Caldwell, M. M. 1997. Exploitation of springtime ephemeral N pulses by six Great Basin plant species. Ecology 78:231243.Google Scholar
Blumenthal, D. M. 2006. Interactions between resource availability and enemy release in plant invasion. Ecol. Lett 9:887895.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bouma, T. J., Nielsen, K. L., and Koustaal, B. 2000. Sample preparation and scanning protocol for computerized analysis of root length and diameter. Plant Soil 218:185196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burns, J. H. 2004. A comparison of invasive and non-invasive dayflowers (Commelinaceae) across experimental nutrient and water gradients. Divers. Distrib 10:387397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, B. D. and Grime, J. P. 1989. A comparative study of plant responsiveness to the duration of episodes of mineral nutrient enrichment. New Phytol 112:261267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, J. S., McConnaughay, K. D. M., and Ackerly, D. D. 1994. Interpreting phenotypic variation in plants. Trends Ecol. Evol 9:187191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coley, P. D. 1988. Effects of plant growth rate and leaf lifetime on the amount and type of anti-herbivore defense. Oecologia 74:531536.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crick, J. C. and Grime, J. P. 1987. Morphological plasticity and mineral nutrient capture in two herbaceous species of contrasted ecology. New Phytol 107:403414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, K. J., Hutchings, M. J., and John, E. A. 2003. The effects of spatial pattern of nutrient supply on yield, structure and mortality in plant populations. J. Ecol 91:541553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diaz, S., Hodgson, J. G., Thompson, K., et al. 2004. The plant traits that drive ecosystems: evidence from three continents. J. Veg. Sci 15:295304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiVittorio, C. T., Corbin, J. D., and D'Antonio, C. M. 2007. Spatial and temporal patterns of seed dispersal: an important determinant of grassland invasion. Ecol. Appl 17:311316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dyer, A. R. and Rice, K. J. 1999. Effects of competition on resource availability and growth of a California bunchgrass. Ecology 80:26972710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einsmann, J. C., Jones, R. H., Pu, M., and Mitchell, R. J. 1999. Nutrient foraging traits in 10 co-occurring plant species of contrasting life forms. J. Ecol 87:609619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eissenstat, D. M. and Yanai, R. D. 1997. The ecology of root lifespan. Pages 160. in Begon, M. and Fitter, A. H. eds. Advances in Ecological Research. Vol 27. London Academic Press.Google Scholar
Farley, R. A. and Fitter, A. H. 1999. Temporal and spatial variation in soil resources in a deciduous woodland. J. Ecol 87:688694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fransen, B., de Kroon, H., and Berendse, F. 1998. Root morphological plasticity and nutrient acquisition of perennial grass species from habitats of different nutrient availability. Oecologia 115:351358.Google ScholarPubMed
Fransen, B., de Kroon, H., and Berendse, F. 2001. Soil nutrient heterogeneity alters competition between two perennial grass species. Ecology 82:25342546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fransen, B., De Kroon, H., De Kovel, C. G. F., and Van den Bosch, F. 1999. Disentangling the effects of root foraging and inherent growth rate on plant biomass accumulation in heterogeneous environments: a modeling study. Ann. Bot 84:305311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funk, J. L. 2008. Differences in plasticity between invasive and native plants from a low resource environment. J. Ecol 96:11621173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funk, J. L. and Vitousek, P. M. 2007. Resource-use efficiency and plant invasion in low-resource systems. Nature 446:10791081.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grime, J. P. 1994. The role of plasticity in exploiting environmental heterogeneity. Pages 219. in Caldwell, M. M. and Pearcy, R. W. eds. Exploitation of Environmental Heterogeneity by Plants. San Diego, CA Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gross, K. L., Pregitzer, K. S., and Burton, A. J. 1995. Spatial variation in nitrogen availability in three successional plant communities. J. Ecol 83:357367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grotkopp, E. and Rejmanek, 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 94:526532.Google ScholarPubMed
Grotkopp, E., Rejmanek, M., and Rost, T. L. 2002. Toward a causal explanation of plant invasiveness: seedling growth and life-history strategies of 29 pine (Pinus) species. Am. Nat 159:396419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, M. A., Murray, B. R., Cadotte, M. W., Hose, G. C., Baker, A. C., Harris, C. J., and Licari, D. 2005. Life history correlates of plant invasiveness at regional and continental scales. Ecol. Lett 8:10661074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, G. A. 1967. Some competitive relationships between Agropyron spicatum and Bromus tectorum . Ecol. Monogr 37:89111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedges, L. V., Gurevitch, J., and Curtis, P. S. 1999. The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology. Ecology 80:11501156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodge, A. 2004. The plastic plant: root responses to heterogeneous supplies of nutrients. New Phytol 162:924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodge, A., Stewart, J., Robinson, D., Griffiths, B. S., and Fitter, A. H. 1998. Root proliferation, soil fauna and plant nitrogen capture from nutrient-rich patches in soil. New Phytol 139:479494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchings, M. J. and Dekroon, H. 1994. Foraging in plants: the role of morphological plasticity in resource acquisition. Pages 159238. in Begon, M. and Fitter (s), A. H. eds. Advances in Ecological Research. London, UK Academic Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, R. B. and Caldwell, M. M. 1993. The scale of nutrient heterogeneity around individual plants and its quantification with geostatistics. Ecology 74:612614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, R. B. and Caldwell, M. M. 1996. Integrating resource heterogeneity and plant plasticity: modeling nitrate and phosphate uptake in a patchy soil environment. J. Ecol 84:891903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, R. B., Manwaring, J. H., and Caldwell, M. M. 1990. Rapid physiological adjustment of roots to localized soil enrichment. Nature 344:5860.Google ScholarPubMed
James, J. J., Caird, M. A., Drenovsky, R. E., and Sheley, R. L. 2006. Influence of resource pulses and perennial neighbors on the establishment of an invasive annual grass in the Mojave Desert. J. Arid Environ 67:528534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, J. J., Davies, K. W., Sheley, R. L., and Aanderud, Z. T. 2008. Linking nitrogen partitioning and species abundance to invasion resistance in the Great Basin. Oecologia 156:637648.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
James, J. J. and Drenovsky, R. E. 2007. A basis for relative growth rate differences between native and invasive forb seedlings. Range Ecol. Manag 60:395400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kembel, S. W. and Cahill, J. F. 2005. Plant phenotypic plasticity belowground: a phylogenetic perspective on root foraging trade-offs. Am. Nat 166:216230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kembel, S. W., De Kroon, H., Cahill, J. F., and Mommer, L. 2008. Improving the scale and precision of hypotheses to explain root foraging ability. Ann. Bot 101:12951301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larigauderie, A. and Richards, J. H. 1994. Root proliferation characteristics of seven perennial arid-land grasses in nutrient-enriched microsites. Oecologia 99:102111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leishman, M. R., Haslehurst, T., Ares, A., and Baruch, Z. 2007. Leaf trait relationships of native and invasive plants: community- and global-scale comparisons. New Phytol 176:635643.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lentz, D. R. and Simonson, G. H. 1986. A Detailed Soils Inventory and Associated Vegetation of the Squaw Butte Range Experiment Station. Special report 760. Corvallis, OR Agricultural Experiment Station.: Oregon State University. 135.Google Scholar
Levine, J. M., Vila, M., D'Antonio, C. M., Dukes, J. S., Grigulis, K., and Lavorel, S. 2003. Mechanisms underlying the impacts of exotic plant invasions. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. Biol. Sci. Ser B 270:775781.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lonsdale, W. M. 1999. Global patterns of plant invasions and the concept of invasibility. Ecology 80:15221536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mack, R. N., Simberloff, D., Lonsdale, W. M., Evans, H., Clout, M., and Bazzaz, F. A. 2000. Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol. Appl 10:689710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moyle, P. B. and Light, T. 1996. Biological invasions of fresh water: empirical rules and assembly theory. Biol. Conserve 78:149161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neter, J., Wasserman, W., and Kutner, M. H. 1990. Applied Linear Statistical Models: Regression, Analysis of Variance and Experimental Design. 3rd ed. Boston, MA McGraw-Hillr. 1408.Google Scholar
Newsome, A. E. and Nobel, I. R. 1986. Ecological and physiological characteristics of invading species. Pages 120. in Groves, R. H. and Burdon, J. J. eds. Ecology of Biological Invasions: An Australian Perspective. Cambridge, State or UK Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Noble, I. R. and Slatyer, R. O. 1980. The use of vital attributes to predict successional changes in plant communities subject to recurrent disturbances. Vegetatio 43:521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Dell, R. E. and Claassen, V. P. 2006. Relative performance of native and exotic grass species in response to amendment of drastically disturbed serpentine substrates. J. Appl. Ecol 43:898908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perrins, J., Williamson, M., and Fitter, A. 1992. Do annual weeds have predictable characters. Acta Oecol 13:517533.Google Scholar
Rajaniemi, T. K. and Reynolds, H. L. 2004. Root foraging for patchy resources in eight herbaceous species. Oecologia 141:519525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rejmanek, M. and Richardson, D. M. 1996. What attributes make some plant species more invasive? Ecology 77:16551661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, W. R. 1989. Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43:223225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robinson, D. 1994. The responses of plants to nonuniform supplies of nutrients. New Phytol 127:635674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, D., Hodge, A., Griffiths, B. S., and Fitter, A. H. 1999. Plant root proliferation in nitrogen-rich patches confers competitive advantage. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. Biol. Sci. Ser. B 266:431435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryel, R. J., Caldwell, M. M., and Manwaring, J. H. 1996. Temporal dynamics of soil spatial heterogeneity in sagebrush–wheatgrass steppe during a growing season. Plant Soil 184:299309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryser, P. 1996. The importance of tissue density for growth and life span of leaves and roots: a comparison of five ecologically contrasting grasses. Funct. Ecol 10:717723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS 2001. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 8. Vol. 1–3. Cary, NC SAS Institute. 805.Google Scholar
Stark, J. M. 1994. Causes of soil nutrient heterogeneity at different scales. Pages 225284. in Pearcy, R. W. and Caldwell, M. M. eds. Exploitation of Environmental Heterogeneity by Plants. New York Academic Press.Google Scholar
Svejcar, T. and Tausch, R. 1991. Anaho Island, Nevada: a relict area dominated by annual invader species. Rangelands 13:233236.Google Scholar
Westoby, M., Falster, D. S., Moles, A. T., Vesk, P. A., and Wright, I. J. 2002. Plant ecological strategies: some leading dimensions of variation between species. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst 33:125159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wijesinghe, D. K., John, E. A., Beurskens, S., and Hutchings, M. J. 2001. Root system size and precision in nutrient foraging: responses to spatial pattern of nutrient supply in six herbaceous species. J. Ecol 89:972983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wijesinghe, D. K., John, E. A., and Hutchings, M. J. 2005. Does pattern of soil resource heterogeneity determine plant community structure? An experimental investigation. J. Ecol 93:99112.Google Scholar
Wright, I. J., Reich, P. B., Westoby, M., et al. 2004. The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Nature 428:821827.Google ScholarPubMed
10
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Exploitation of Nutrient-Rich Soil Patches by Invasive Annual and Native Perennial Grasses
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Exploitation of Nutrient-Rich Soil Patches by Invasive Annual and Native Perennial Grasses
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Exploitation of Nutrient-Rich Soil Patches by Invasive Annual and Native Perennial Grasses
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *