Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T15:14:23.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Competition and propagule density affect sexual and clonal propagation of a weed

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 April 2017

Daniel Z. Atwater ,
Wonjae Kim ,
Daniel R. Tekiela  and
Jacob N. Barney
Daniel Z. Atwater*
Affiliation:
Postdoctoral Research Associate, Undergraduate Student, Graduate Student, and Associate Professor, Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology and Weed Science; Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061
Wonjae Kim
Affiliation:
Postdoctoral Research Associate, Undergraduate Student, Graduate Student, and Associate Professor, Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology and Weed Science; Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061
Daniel R. Tekiela
Affiliation:
Postdoctoral Research Associate, Undergraduate Student, Graduate Student, and Associate Professor, Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology and Weed Science; Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061
Jacob N. Barney
Affiliation:
Postdoctoral Research Associate, Undergraduate Student, Graduate Student, and Associate Professor, Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology and Weed Science; Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061
*
*Corresponding author’s E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many introduced species are capable of both sexual and vegetative reproduction. Our understanding of the ecology of such species depends on the trade-offs between vegetative and sexual reproduction and the ecological conditions that favor both modes of reproduction and how those factors influence the population ecology of introduced species. Here, we studied the efficacy of propagation via both seeds and rhizomes in Johnsongrass, a widespread invasive grass whose success is due to its prolific production of shattering seeds and rhizomes, the latter of which are readily dispersed by anthropogenic and natural processes. In a common garden in Virginia, we varied the density of seeds and rhizomes and manipulated whether recruits experienced interspecific competition. Johnsongrass recruited from both seeds and rhizomes. We compared the efficacy of seeds and rhizomes on a per propagule basis and by standardizing them according to their total carbon content. Rhizomes were more efficient than seeds on a per propagule basis, but seeds propagated more efficiently than rhizomes on a per unit of carbon basis, establishing in nearly all plots and obtaining much greater biomass than rhizomes. We also found that rhizomes were subject to stronger negative density dependence than seeds and were more sensitive to site variation and competition. Our results suggest that, provided sufficient dispersal, a single Johnsongrass plant produces enough propagules to establish over more than a hectare, even at relatively low propagule densities. Proper understanding of both seed and vegetative propagation is crucial for understanding the ecology of this and other invasive species that utilize multiple reproductive modes.

Keywords

JohnsongrassSorghum halepense (L.) Pers. SORHACompetitiondispersalpropagule pressure
Type
Research and Education
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , March 2017 , pp. 17 - 25
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2017 

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.)

Footnotes

a

Current address of second author: Department of Plant Sciences, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071.

Associate Editor for this paper: John Cardina, Ohio State University.

References

Literature Cited

Abrahamson, W (1975) Reproductive strategies in dewberries. Ecology 56:721–726 Google Scholar
Anderson, LE, Appleby, AP, Weseloh, JW (1960) Characteristics of Johnsongrass rhizomes. Weeds 8:402–406 Google Scholar
Baker, H (1974) The evolution of weeds. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 5:1–24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, HG, Stebbins, L (1965) The Genetics of Colonizing Species. New York, NY: Academic Press, Inc. 588 pGoogle Scholar
Barney, JN, Ho, MW, Atwater, DZ (2016) Propagule pressure cannot always overcome biotic resistance: the role of density-dependent establishment in four invasive species. Weed Res 56:208–218 Google Scholar
Bates, DM, Maechler, M, Bolker, B, Walker, S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Soft 67:1–48 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, G (1980) The costs of reproduction and their consequences. Am Nat 116:45–76 Google Scholar
Blackburn, TM, Duncan, RP (2001) Determinants of establishment success in introduced birds. Nature 414:195–197 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bolker, BM, Brooks, ME, Clark, CJ, Geange, SW, Poulsen, JR, Stevens, MHH, White, J-SS (2009) Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 24:127–135 Google Scholar
Burns, JH, Pardini, EA, Schutzenhofer, MR, Chung, YA, Seidler, KJ, Knight, TM (2013) Greater sexual reproduction contributes to differences in demography of invasive plants and their noninvasive relatives. Ecology 94:995–1004 Google Scholar
Campbell, DR (2000) Experimental tests of sex-allocation theory in plants. Trends Ecol Evol 15:227–232 Google Scholar
Carlton, JT (1996) Pattern, process, and prediction in marine invasion ecology. Biol Conserv 78:97–106 Google Scholar
Catford, JA, Jansson, R (2014) Drowned, buried and carried away: effects of plant traits on the distribution of native and alien species in riparian ecosystems. New Phytol 204:19–36 Google Scholar
Davis, MA (2009) Invasion Biology. New York: Oxford University Press. 264 pGoogle Scholar
Dorken, ME, Eckert, CG (2001) Severely reduced sexual reproduction in northern populations of a clonal plant, Decodon verticillatus (Lythraceae). J Ecol 89:339–350 Google Scholar
Elton, CS (1958) The Ecology of Invasions by Animals and Plants. London: Methuen. 196 pGoogle Scholar
Grime, JP (1977) Evidence for the existence of three primary strategies in plants and its relevance to ecological and evolutionary theory. Am Nat 111:1169–1194 Google Scholar
Halekoh, U, Hojsgaard, S (2014) A Kenward-Roger approximation and parametric bootstrap methods for tests in linear mixed models: the {R} package {pbkrtest}. J Stat Softw 59:1–30 Google Scholar
Hawkes, CV (2007) Are invaders moving targets? The generality and persistence of advantages in size, reproduction, and enemy release in invasive plant species with time since introduction. Am Nat 170:832–843 Google Scholar
Holm, L, Plucknett, D, Pancho, J, Herberger, J (1977) The World’s Worst Weeds. Distribution and Biology. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii. Pp. 47–53 Google Scholar
Jurik, TW (1985) Differential costs of sexual and vegetative reproduction in wild strawberry populations. Oecologia 66:394–403 Google Scholar
Kenward, MG, Roger, JH (1997) Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximuml likelihood. Biometrics 53:983–997 Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, A, Brockhoff, PB, Christensen, RHB (2015) Package “lmerTest,” version 2.0–2.9. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lmerTest Google Scholar
Leishman, MR, Wright, IJ, Moles, AT, Westoby, M (2000) Dispersal and establishment. Pages 31–57 in Fenner M, ed. Seeds: The Ecology of Regeneration in Plant Communities. 2nd edn. New York: CABI CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lockwood, JL, Cassey, P, Blackburn, T (2005) The role of propagule pressure in explaining species invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 20:223–228 Google Scholar
Loehle, C (1987) Partitioning of reproductive effort in clonal plants: a benefit cost model. Oikos 49:199–208 Google Scholar
Mack, RN, Simberloff, D, Lonsdale, WM, Evans, H, Clout, M, Bazzaz, FA (2000) Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol Appl 10:689–710 Google Scholar
McWhorter, C (1961) Morphology and development of Johnsongrass plants from seeds and rhizomes. Weeds 9:558–562 Google Scholar
McWhorter, C (1971) Growth and development of Johnsongrass ecotypes. Weed Sci 19:141–147 Google Scholar
Monaghan, N (1979) The biology of Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense). Weed Res 19:261–267 Google Scholar
Obeso, JR (2002) The costs of reproduction in plants. New Phytol 155:321–348 Google Scholar
Paterson, A, Schertz, K, Lin, Y-R, Liu, S-C, Chang, Y-L (1995) The weediness of wild plants: molecular analysis of genes influencing dispersal and persistence of Johnsongrass, Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 92:6127–6131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pyšek, P, Richardson, DM (2007) Traits associated with invasiveness in alien plants: where do we stand? Biol Invasions 193:97–125 Google Scholar
Rout, ME, Chrzanowski, TH, Smith, WK, Gough, L (2012) Ecological impacts of the invasive grass Sorghum halepense on native tallgrass prairie. Biol Invasions 15:327–339 Google Scholar
Taylorson, RB, McWhorter, CG (1969) Seed dormancy and germination in ecotypes of Johnsongrass. Weed Sci 17:359–361 Google Scholar
Warwick, S, Black, LD (1983) The biology of Canadian weeds. 61. Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers. Can J Plant Sci 63:997–1014 Google Scholar
Warwick, SI, Phillips, D, Andrews, C (1986) Rhizome depth: the critical factor in winter survival of Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers. (Johnsongrass). Weed Res 26:381–388 Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Atwater supplementary material

Supplementary Figure

Download Atwater supplementary material(File)
File 343.7 KB