Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T05:08:34.309Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Native and Exotic Grass Competition with Invasive Hoary Cress (Cardaria draba)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Kenneth P. Puliafico ,
Mark Schwarzländer ,
William J. Price ,
Bradley L. Harmon  and
Hariet L. Hinz
Kenneth P. Puliafico*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Soil and Entomological Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844–2339
Mark Schwarzländer
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Soil and Entomological Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844–2339
William J. Price
Affiliation:
Statistical Programs, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844–2337
Bradley L. Harmon
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Soil and Entomological Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844–2339
Hariet L. Hinz
Affiliation:
Biological Weed Control, CABI Europe—Switzerland, 1 Rue des Grillons, Delémont, Switzerland CH–2800
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Eurasian perennial mustard, hoary cress, Cardaria draba (Brassicaceae), is an invasive weed in western North America that can displace native plants and other desirable forage species in pastures and rangelands. This study investigated the competitive ability of 11 grasses representing nine species in the genera Festuca and Poa from either North America (NA) or Europe (EU) against hoary cress. Hoary cress was grown alone and with four different grass densities under controlled conditions with ample water and nutrient supply, typical for riparian and disturbed habitats, in which hoary cress infestations are commonly found. Of the five Festuca grasses tested, only Schedonorus phoenix (= F. arundinacea) decreased hoary cress biomass. Four of the six Poa grasses tested decreased hoary cress biomass and were ranked by decreasing competitive effects as follows: P. annua > P. compressa (EU) > P. pratensis (EU) > P. compressa (NA). The most competitive grass species also experienced higher intraspecific competition. Within both grass genera, Eurasian species were more competitive against hoary cress than their North American congeners, which suggests that hoary cress establishment may be facilitated by lower biotic resistance in the invaded range. Regardless of origin, sod-forming Poa species were competitive at low densities, while Festuca species only had significant effects at high densities if at all. Based on our results we recommend the use of Poa species for restoration of riparian and disturbed sites following the control of hoary cress infestations to restrict recolonization.

Keywords

Annual bluegrass, Poa annua L. POAANCanada bluegrass, Poa compressa L. POACOhoary cress, Cardaria draba (L.) Desv. [ = Lepidium draba L.] CADDRIdaho fescue, Festuca idahoensis ElmerKentucky bluegrass, Poa pratensis L. POAPRred fescue, Festuca rubra L. FESRUrough fescue, Festuca campestris Rydb.Sandberg bluegrass, Poa secunda J. Presl.sheep fescue, Festuca ovina L. FESOVtall fescue, Schedonorus phoenix (Scop.) Holub [ = Festuca arundinacea Schreb.] FESARRevegetationrestorationintraspecific competitioninterspecific competitionplanting density
Type
Research
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 38 - 49
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

Akaike, H. 1973. Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. Pages 267–281. In Petrov, B. and Csaki, F. eds. Second International Symposium on Information Theory. Budapest, Hungary Akademiai Kiado.Google Scholar
Badgery, W. B., Kemp, D. R., Michalk, D. L., and King, W. 2005. Competition for nitrogen between Australian native grasses and the introduced weed Nassella trichotoma . Ann. Bot 96:799–809.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bakker, J. P. 2005. Vegetation conservation, management and restoration. Pages 309–331. In van der Maarel, E. ed. Vegetation Ecology. Malden, MA Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ball, P. W. 1964. Cardaria Desv. Pages 333. In Tutin, T. G., Heywood, V. H., and Burgeset, N. A. eds. Flora Europaea. Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Borman, M. M., Krueger, W. C., and Johnson, D. E. 1990. Growth patterns of perennial grasses in the annual grassland type of southwest Oregon. Agron. J 82:1093–1098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooker, R. W., Maestre, F. T., Callaway, R. M., et al. 2008. Facilitation in plant communities: the past, the present, and the future. J. Ecol 96:18–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruggink, J. 2007. Long-term ecological changes with postfire emergency seeding. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-689-part 1. Portland, OR USDA Forest Service—Pacific Northwest Research Station. 20–26.Google Scholar
Byers, J. E. and Noonburg, E. G. 2003. Scale dependent effects of biotic resistance to biological invasions. Ecology 84:1428–1433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callaway, R. M., Pennings, S. C., and Richards, C. L. 2003. Phenotypic plasticity and interactions among plants. Ecology 84:1115–1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callaway, R. M. and Ridenour, W. L. 2004. Novel weapons: invasive success and the evolution of increased competitive ability. Front. Ecol. Environ 2:436–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawley, M. J., Harvey, P. H., and Purvis, A. 1996. Comparative ecology of the native and alien floras of the British Isles. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci 351:1251–1259.Google Scholar
Cripps, M. G., Hinz, H. L., McKenney, J. L., Harmon, B. L., Merickel, F. W., and Schwarzlaender, M. 2006. Comparative survey of the phytophagous arthropod faunas associated with Lepidium draba in Europe and the western United States, and the potential for biological weed control. Biocontrol Sci. Technol 16:1007–1030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'Antonio, C. and Meyerson, L. A. 2002. Exotic plant species as problems and solutions in ecological restoration: a synthesis. Restor. Ecol 10:703–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firbank, L. G. and Watkinson, A. R. 1985. On the analysis of competition within two-species mixtures of plants. J. Appl. Ecol 22:503–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francis, A. and Warwick, S. I. 2008. The biology of Canadian weeds. 3. Lepidium draba L., L. chalepense L., L. appelianum Al Shehbaz (updated). Can. J. Plant Sci 88:379–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freckleton, R. P. and Watkinson, A. R. 2000. Designs for greenhouse studies of interactions between plants: an analytical perspective. J. Ecol 88:386–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, D. J., Connolly, J., Hartnett, D. C., and Weidenhamer, J. D. 1999. Designs for greenhouse studies of interactions between plants. J. Ecol 87:1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, H. T., Kester, D. E., and Davies, F. T. 1990. Plant Propagation Principles and Practices. 5th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice-Hall. 647 p.Google Scholar
Kiemnec, G. L. and McInnis, M. L. 2002. Hoary cress (Cardaria draba) root extract reduces germination and root growth of five plant species. Weed Technol 16:231–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klironomos, J. N. 2002. Feedback with soil biota contributes to plant rarity and invasiveness in communities. Nature 417:67–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larson, L. L., Kiemnec, G., and Smergut, T. 2000. Hoary cress reproduction in a sagebrush ecosystem. J. Range Manag 53:556–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, L. L., McInnis, M. L., Miller, R. F., and Tanaka, J. A. 1989. Forage reduction and seedling emergence by whitetop (Cardaria draba (L.) Desv.). Northwest Sci 63:67.Google Scholar
Levine, J. M., Adler, P. B., and Yelenik, S. G. 2004. A meta-analysis of biotic resistance to exotic plant invasions. Ecol. Lett 7:975–989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKenney, J. L. 2005. An intercontinental comparison of vigor and herbivory for the invasive plant Lepidium draba. Master's thesis. Moscow, ID University of Idaho. 62 p.Google Scholar
McKenney, J. L., Cripps, M. G., Price, W. J., Hinz, H. L., and Schwarzlander, M. 2007. No difference in competitive ability between invasive North American and native European Lepidium draba populations. Plant Ecol 193:293–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mealor, B. A., Hild, A. L., and Shaw, N. L. 2004. Native plant community composition and genetic diversity associated with long-term weed invasions. West. N. Am. Nat 64:503–513.Google Scholar
Miller, R. R., Svejcar, T. J., Rose, J. A., and McInnis, M. L. 1994. Plant development, water relations, and carbon allocation of heart-podded hoary cress. Agron. J 86:487–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monsen, S. B., Stevens, R., and Shaw (compiliers), N. L. 2004. Restoring western ranges and wildlands. Fort Collins, CO USDA Forest Service—Rocky Mountain Research Station. 294 p. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-136. Vol. 1.Google Scholar
Mulligan, H. A. and Findlay, J. N. 1974. The biology of Canadian weeds. 3. Cardaria draba, C. chalepensis and C. pubescens . Can. J. Plant Sci 54:149–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neter, J., Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., and Wasserman, W. 1996. Applied Linear Statistical Models. 4th ed. Chicago WCB McGraw Hill. 1408 p.Google Scholar
Niemela, P. and Mattson, W. J. 1996. Invasion of North American forests by European phytophagous insects: legacy of the European crucible? Bioscience 46:741–753.Google Scholar
Renne, I. J., Rios, B. G., Fehmi, J. S., and Tracy, B. F. 2004. Low allelopathic potential of an invasive forage grass on native grassland plants: a cause for encouragement? Basic Appl. Ecol 5:261–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS Institute 2004. SAS Online Doc 9.1.2, Cary, NC. SAS Institute Inc. http://support.sas.com. Accessed: April 21, 2008.Google Scholar
Seabloom, E. W., Harpole, W. S., Reichman, O. J., and Tilman, D. 2003. Invasion, competitive dominance, and resource use by exotic and native California grassland species. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100:13384–13389.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Selleck, G. W. 1965. An ecological study of lens- and globe-podded hoary cresses in Saskatchewan. Weeds 13:1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Mangold, J. M., and Anderson, J. L. 2006. Potential for successional theory to guide restoration of invasive-plant-dominated rangeland. Ecol. Monogr 76:365–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheley, R. L. and Stivers, J. 1999. Whitetop. Pages 401–407. In Sheley, R. L. and Petroff, J. K. eds. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis, OR Oregon State University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, H. 1982. Light quality, photoreception, and plant strategy. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol 33:481–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soreng, R. J. and Terrell, E. E. 1997. Taxonomic notes on Schedonorus, a segregate genus from Festuca or Lolium, with a new nothogenus, x Schedololium, and new combinations. Phytologia 83:85–88.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
USDA–NRCS 2007. The PLANTS Database, Version 3.5. National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA. http://plants.usda.gov. Accessed: March 24, 2008.Google Scholar
Weidenhamer, J. D. 2006. Distinguishing allelopathy from resource competition: the role of density. Pages 85–103. In Reigosa, M. J., Pedrol, N., and González, L. eds. Allelopathy: A Physiological Process with Ecological Implications. Dordrecht, Netherlands Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weigelt, A. and Jolliffe, P. 2003. Indices of plant competition. J. Ecol 91:707–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeo, J. J. 2005. Effects of grazing exclusion on rangeland vegetation and soils, East Central Idaho. West. N. Am. Nat 65:91–102.Google Scholar