Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T13:44:29.215Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does Superior Competitive Ability Explain Yellow Starthistle's (Centaurea solstitialis) Successful Invasion of Annual Grasslands in California?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

David Spencer ,
Stephen Enloe ,
Pul-Sze Liow ,
Greg Ksander  and
Raymond Carruthers
David Spencer*
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Exotic and Invasive Weeds Research, Department of Plant Sciences, MS 4, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616
Stephen Enloe
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Soils, 119 Extension Hall, Auburn University, Alabama 36849
Pul-Sze Liow
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Exotic and Invasive Weeds Research, Department of Plant Sciences, MS 4, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616
Greg Ksander
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Exotic and Invasive Weeds Research, Department of Plant Sciences, MS 4, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616
Raymond Carruthers
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Exotic and Invasive Weeds Research Unit, 800 Buchanan Street, Albany, CA 94710
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Yellow starthistle represents one of the most spectacular examples of biological invasion in the western United States. However, the mechanisms leading to its success have not been clearly elucidated. Although its success has been attributed to superior competitive ability, few competition studies have been performed with yellow starthistle to test this assertion. Yellow starthistle and wild oat (a dominant component of California annual grasslands) were grown in monocultures and mixtures to assess the strength of competitive interactions between them. For either species, intraspecific competition exerted a greater influence over mean plant weight than did interspecific competition. A companion study revealed temporal separation in the phenology of these plants, explaining the weak role of interspecific competition. Additional measurements of growth and soil moisture dynamics in large 270-cm-tall by 50-cm-diam polyvinyl chloride columns also showed a lack of interspecific competition and confirmed that water use patterns differed between these species, indicating niche partitioning. Wild oat reduced soil moisture to 5% but only to a depth of approximately 150 cm. Yellow starthistle depleted soil moisture to less than 5% throughout the column to a depth of at least 270 cm. These patterns were present when wild oat and yellow starthistle were grown individually or together in the columns, indicating that yellow starthistle had a greater impact on soil moisture and to greater depths. Yellow starthistle's invasion of grasslands in California does not appear to be due to superior competitive ability, but may be due to its ability to access deeper soil moisture. These results support the empty niche hypothesis that implies that invasive species are successful in new habitats because they access resources not available to resident species.

Keywords

Yellow starthistleCentaurea solstitialis L. CENSOwild oatAvena fatua L.Competitionphenologyinvasion successempty niche hypothesis
Type
Research
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 4 , Issue 3 , September 2011 , pp. 284 - 295
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

Literature Cited

Balciunas, J. K. and Villegas, B. 2001. Unintentionally released Chaetorellia succinea (Diptera: Tephritidae): is this natural enemy of yellow starthistle a threat to safflower growers? Environ. Entom. 30:953–963.Google Scholar
Begon, M., Harper, J. L., and Townsend, C. R. 1990. Ecology: Individuals, Populations and Communities. 2nd ed. Boston Blackwell Scientific. 945 p.Google Scholar
Benefield, C. B., DiTomaso, J. M., Kyser, G. G., Orloff, S. B., Churches, K. R., Marcum, D. B., and Nader, G. A. 1999. Success of mowing to control yellow starthistle depends on timing and plant's branching form. Calif. Agric. 53:17–21.Google Scholar
Benefield, C. B., DiTomaso, J. M., Kyser, G. B., and Tschohl, A. 2001. Reproductive biology of yellow starthistle: maximizing late-season control. Weed Sci. 49:83–90.Google Scholar
Blair, A. C., Hanson, B. D., Brunk, G. R., Marrs, R. A., Westra, P., Nissen, S. J., and Hufbauer, R. A. 2005. New techniques and findings in the study of a candidate allelochemical implicated in invasion success. Ecol. Lett. 8:1039–1047.Google Scholar
Blossey, B. and Notzold, R. 1995. Evolution of increased competitive ability in invasive nonindigenous plants: a hypothesis. J. Ecol. 83:887–889.Google Scholar
Bossdorf, O., Auge, H., Lafuma, L., Rogers, W. E., Siemann, S., and Prati, D. 2005. Phenotypic and genetic differentiation between native and introduced plant populations. Oecologia 144:1–11.Google Scholar
Buschmann, H., Edwards, P. J., and Dietz, H. 2005. Variation in growth pattern and response to slug damage among native and invasive provenances of four perennial Brassicaceae species. J. Ecol. 93:322–334.Google Scholar
Callaway, R. M. and Aschehoug, E. T. 2000. Invasive plants versus their new and old neighbors: a mechanism for exotic invasion. Science 290:521–523.Google Scholar
Consortium of California Herbaria. 2010. Consortium of California Herbaria. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium. Accessed December 13, 2010.Google Scholar
Coombs, J., Hall, D. O., Long, S. P., and Scurlock, J. M. O. 1985. Techniques in Bioproductivity and Photosynthesis. 2nd edition. New York. Pergamon. 298.Google Scholar
Cripps, M. G., Hinz, H. L., McKenney, J. L., Price, W. J., and Schwarzlander, M. 2009. No evidence for an ‘evolution of increased competitive ability’ for the invasive Lepidium draba . Basic Appl. Ecol. 10:103–112.Google Scholar
DiTomaso, J. M. 2000. Invasive weeds in rangelands: species impacts and management. Weed Sci. 48:255–265.Google Scholar
DiTomaso, J. M., Kyser, G. B., and Hastings, M. S. 1999. Prescribed burning for control of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) and enhanced native plant diversity. Weed Sci. 47:233–242.Google Scholar
DiTomaso, J. M., Kyser, G. B., and Pirosko, C. B. 2003. Effect of light and density on yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) root growth and soil moisture use. Weed Sci. 51:334–341.Google Scholar
Duke, S. O., Blair, A. C., Dayan, F. E., Johnson, R. D., Meepagala, K. M., Cook, D., and Bajsa, J. 2009. Is (−)-catechin a novel weapon of spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe)? J. Chem. Ecol. 35:141–153.Google Scholar
Dukes, J. S. 2002. Species composition and diversity affect grassland susceptibility and response to invasion. Ecol. Appl. 12:602–617.Google Scholar
El-Shatnawi, J. K. J., Saoub, H. M., and Haddad, N. I. 2004. Growth and chemical composition of wild oat (Avena fatua) under Mediterranean conditions. Grass Forage Sci. 59:100–103.Google Scholar
Elton, C. S. 1958. The Ecology of Invasions by Animals and Plants. London Methuen. 196 p.Google Scholar
Enloe, S. F., DiTomaso, J. M., Orloff, S. B., and Drake, D. J. 2004. Soil water dynamics differ among rangeland plant communities dominated by yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), annual grasses, or perennial grasses. Weed Sci. 52:929–935.Google Scholar
Franks, S. J., Praatt, P. D., Dray, F. A., and Simms, E. L. 2008. No evolution of increased competitive ability or decreased allocation to defense in Melaleuca quinquenervia since release from natural enemies. Biol. Invasions 10:455–466.Google Scholar
Gerlach, J. D. 1997. How the West was lost: reconstructing the invasion dynamics of yellow star-thistle and other plant invaders of Western rangelands and natural areas. Proc. Calif. Exotic Pest Plant Council Symp. 3:67–72.Google Scholar
Gerlach, J. D. Jr 2004. The impacts of serial land-use changes and biological invasions on soil water resources in California, USA. J. Arid Environ. 57:365–379.Google Scholar
Gerlach, J. D., Dyer, A., and Rice, K. J. 1998. Grassland and foothill woodland ecosystems of the Central Valley. Fremontia. 26:39–43.Google Scholar
Huang, W., Siemann, E., Wheeler, G. S., Zou, J., Carrillo, J., and Ding, J. 2010. Resource allocation to defense and growth are driven by different responses to generalist and specialist herbivory in an invasive plant. J. Ecol. 98:1157–1167.Google Scholar
Joley, D. B., Maddox, D. M., Supkoff, D. M., and Mayfield, A. 1992. Dynamics of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) achenes in the field and laboratory. Weed Sci. 40:190–194.Google Scholar
Jones, B. J. and Love, R. M. 1945. Improving California Ranges. Berkeley, CA California Agricultural Extension Service Circular 129. 48 p.Google Scholar
Lass, L. W., Carson, H. W., and Callihan, R. H. 1996. Detection of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) and common St. Johnswort (Hypericum perforatum) with multispectral digitial imagery. Weed Technol. 10:466–474.Google Scholar
Martinson, K., Durgan, B., Forcella, F., Wiersma, J., Spokas, K., and Archer, D. 2007. An emergence model for wild oat (Avena fatua). Weed Sci. 55:584–591.Google Scholar
McKenney, J. L., Cripps, M. G., Price, W. J., Hinz, H. L., and Schwarzlander, M. M., 2007. No difference in competitive ability between invasive North American and native European Lepidium draba populations. Plant Ecol. 193:293–303.Google Scholar
Meyer, G., Clare, R., and Weber, E. 2005. An experimental test of the evolution of increased competitive ability hypothesis in goldenrod, Solidago gigantea . Oecologia 144:299–307.Google Scholar
Meyer, G. A. and Hull-Sanders, H. M. 2008. Altered patterns of growth, physiology and reproduction in invasive genotypes of Solidago gigantea (Asteraceae). Biol. Invasions 10:303–317.Google Scholar
Minnich, R. A. 2008. California's Fading Wildflowers: Lost Legacy and Biological Invasions. Berkeley, CA University of California Press. 360 p.Google Scholar
Mitchell, C. E., Agrawal, A. A., Bever, J. D., Gilbert, G. S., Hufbauer, R. A., Klironomos, J. N., Maron, J. L., Morris, W. F., Parker, I. M., Power, A. G., Seabloom, E. W., Torchin, M. W., and Vazquez, D. P. 2006. Biotic interactions and plant invasions. Ecol. Lett. 9:726–740.Google Scholar
Morghan, K. J. R. and Rice, K. J. 2005. Centaurea solstitialis invasion success is influenced by Nassella pulchra size. Restor. Ecol. 13:524–528.Google Scholar
Motomura, S., Shinozaki, K., and Yoda, K. 1986. Competition between two similar plant varieties, green shrunk perilla and red shrunk perilla, in mixed cultures. Bot. Mag. 99:395–405.Google Scholar
Muller, C. and Martens, N. 2005. Testing predictions of the ‘evolution of increased competitive ability’ hypothesis for an invasive crucifer. Evol. Ecol. 19:533–550.Google Scholar
O'Brien, J. M., Kyser, G. B., Woods, D. M., and DiTomaso, J. M. 2010. Effects of the rust Puccinia jaceae var. solstitialis on Centaurea solstitialis (yellow starthistle) growth and competition. Biol. Control 52:174–181.Google Scholar
Pitcairn, M. J., Schoenig, S., Yacoub, R., and Gendron, J. 2006. Yellow starthistle continues its spread in California. Calif. Agric. 60:83–90.Google Scholar
Prather, T. S. and Callihan, R. H. 1991. Interference between Centaurea solstitialis and pubescent wheat-grass during grass establishment. J. Range Manag. 44:443–447.Google Scholar
Preston, W. 1997. Serpent in the garden: environmental change in colonial California. Calif. Hist. 76:260–298.Google Scholar
Qin, B., Lau, J. A., Kopshever, J., Callaway, R. M., McGray, H., Perry, L. G., Weir, T. L., Paschke, M. W., Hierro, J. L., Yoder, J., Vivanco, J. M., and Strauss, S. 2007. No evidence for root-mediated allelopathy in Centaurea solstitialis, a species in a commonly allelopathic genus. Biol. Invasions 9:897–907.Google Scholar
Rejmanek, M., Robinson, G. R., and Rejmankova, E. R. 1989. Weed–crop competition: experimental designs and models for data analysis. Weed Sci. 37:276–284.Google Scholar
Roché, B. F. Jr, Roché, C. T., and Chapman, R. C. 1994. Impacts of grassland habitat on Centaurea solstitialis invasion. Northwest Sci. 68:86–96.Google Scholar
Roché, C. T. and Thill, D. C. 2001. Biology of common crupina and Centaurea solstitialis, two Mediterranean winter annual invaders in western North America. Weed Sci. 49:439–447.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L. and Larson, L. L. 1995. Interference between cheatgrass and Centaurea solstitialis at 3 soil depths. J. Range Manag. 48:392–397.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Larson, L. L., and Johnson, D. E. 1993. Germination and root dynamics of range weeds and forage species. Weed Technol. 7:234–237.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L. and Rinella, M. J. 2001. Incorporating biological control in ecologically based weed management. Pages 211–228 in Wajnberg, E., Scott, J. K., and Quimby, P. C., eds. Evaluating Indirect Ecological Effects of Biological Control. Cambridge, MA CAB International.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Svejcar, T. J., and Maxwell, B. D. 1996. A theoretical framework for developing successional weed management strategies on rangeland. Weed Technol. 10:766–773.Google Scholar
Shinn, S. L. and Thill, D. C. 2002. The response of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), annual grasses, and smooth brome (Bromus inermis) to imazapic and picloram. Weed. Technol. 16:366–370.Google Scholar
Silvertown, J. W. 1987. Introduction to Plant Population Ecology. 2nd ed. New York J. Wiley. 229 p.Google Scholar
Spencer, D. F. and Rejmanek, M. 1989. Propagule type influences competition between two submersed aquatic macrophytes. Oecologia 81:132–137.Google Scholar
Spitters, C. J. T. 1983. An alternative approach to the analysis of mixed cropping experiments. 1. Estimation of competition effects. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 31:1–11.Google Scholar
Stastny, M., Schaffner, U., and Elle, E. 2005. Do vigour of introduced populations and escape from specialist herbivores contribute to invasiveness? J. Ecol. 93:27–37.Google Scholar
Suehiro, K. and Ogawa, H. 1980. Competition between two annual herbs, Atriplex gmelini A. A. Mey and Chenopodium album L., in mixed cultures irrigated with seawater of various concentrations. Oecologia 45:167–177.Google Scholar
Thomsen, C. D., Williams, W. A., Vayssières, M. P., Turner, C. E., and Lanini, W. T. 1996. Yellow starthistle biology and control. University of California DANR Publ. No. 21541. 19.Google Scholar
University of California Integrated Pest Management Online. 2010. Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program World Wide Web Site. http://ipm.ucdavis.edu. Accessed December 13, 2010.Google Scholar
Van, T. K., Wheeler, G. S., and Center, T. D. 1998. Competitive interactions between hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) and vallisneria (Vallisneria americana) as influenced by insect herbivory. Biol. Control 11:185–192.Google Scholar
Van, T. K., Wheeler, G. S., and Center, T. D. 1999. Competition between Hydrilla verticillata and Vallisneria americana as influenced by soil fertility. Aquat. Bot. 62:225–233.Google Scholar
Vitousek, P. M. 1990. Biological invasions and ecosystem processes: towards an integration of population biology and ecosystem studies. Oikos 57:7–13.Google Scholar
Vitousek, P. M., Dantonio, C. M., Loope, L. L., Rejmanek, M., and Westbrooks, R. 1997. Introduced species: a significant component of human-caused global change. N. Z. J. Ecol. 21:1–16.Google Scholar
Watkinson, A. R. 1981. Interference in pure and mixed populations of Agrostemma githago . J. Appl. Ecol. 18:967–976.Google Scholar
Widmer, T. L., Guermache, F., Dolgovskaia, Y., and Reznik, S. Y. 2007. Enhanced growth and seed properties in introduced vs. native populations of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis). Weed Sci. 55:465–473.Google Scholar
Whittaker, R. H. 1975. Communities and Ecosystems. 2nd edition. New York Macmillan. 385 p.Google Scholar
Wright, A. J. 1981. The analysis of yield-density relationships in binary mixtures using inverse polynomials. J. Agric. Sci. (Cambridge) 96:561–567.Google Scholar
Young, S. L., Barney, J. N., Kyser, G. B., Jones, T. S., and DiTomaso, J. M. 2008. Functionally similar species confer greater resistance to invasion: implications for grassland restoration. Restor. Ecol. DOI: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2008.00448.x.Google Scholar
Zar, J. H. 1996. Biostatistical Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ Prentice Hall. 662 p.Google Scholar