Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T10:57:24.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Relative Risk of Invasion: Evaluation of Miscanthus × giganteus Seed Establishment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Larissa L. Smith  and
Jacob N. Barney
Larissa L. Smith
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology and Weed Science, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061
Jacob N. Barney*
Affiliation:
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

The sterile hybrid, giant miscanthus, has emerged as a promising cellulosic bioenergy crop because of its rapid growth rate, high biomass yields, and tolerance to poor growing conditions; these are traits that are desirable for cultivation, but also have caused concern for their contribution to invasiveness. New seed-bearing lines of giant miscanthus would decrease establishment costs for growers, yet this previously unresearched propagule source increases fears of escape from cultivation. To evaluate the consequences of seed escape, we compared seedling establishment among seven habitats: no-till agricultural field, agricultural field edge, forest understory, forest edge, riparian, pasture and roadside; these were replicated in Virginia (Blacksburg and Virginia Beach) and Georgia (Tifton), USA. We use a novel head-to-head comparison of giant miscanthus against five invasive and three noninvasive species, thus generating relative comparisons. Overall seed germination was low, with no single species achieving germination rates >37%, in all habitats and geographies. However, habitats with available bare ground and low resident plant competition, such as the agricultural field and forest understory, were more invasible by all species. Giant miscanthus seeds emerged in the roadside and forest edge habitats at all sites. Early in the growing season, we observed significantly more seedlings of giant miscanthus than the invasive and noninvasive species in the agricultural field. Interestingly, overall seedling mortality of giant miscanthus was 99.9%, with only a single 4 cm (1.58 in) tall giant miscanthus seedling surviving at the conclusion of the 6-mo study. The ability to make relative comparisons, by using multiple control species, was necessary for our conclusions in which both giant miscanthus and the noninvasive control species survival (≤1%) contrasted with that of our well-documented invasive species (≤10%). Considering the low overall emergence, increased propagule pressure may be necessary to increase the possibility of giant miscanthus escape. Knowledge gained from our results may help prepare for widespread commercialization, while helping to identify susceptible habitats to seedling establishment and aiding in the development of management protocols.

Keywords

Giant miscanthus, Miscanthus × giganteus J. M. Greef and Deuter ex Hodk. and RenvoizeBioenergybiofuelcontrolled introductiongiant miscanthushabitat susceptibilityinvasibility
Type
Research Article
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , March 2014 , pp. 93 - 106
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

Anderson, LE (1969) The ten worst weeds of field crops; johnsongrass. Crop Sci 22:7–9.Google Scholar
Anonymous. (1984) Horticulture and Arboriculture in the United States. Bulletin of Miscellaneous Information. London Kew. Pp. 37–66 Google Scholar
Baker, HG (1965) Characteristics and modes of origin of weeds. Pages 147–169 in Baker, HG, Stebbins, GL, eds. The Genetics of Colonizing Species. New York Academic Google Scholar
Barnes, TG, Madison, LA, Sole, JD, Lacki, MJ (1995) An assessment of habitat quality for northern bobwhite in tall fescue-dominated fields. Wildlife Soc Bull 23:231–237.Google Scholar
Barney, JN, DiTomaso, JM (2008) Nonnative species and bioenergy: are we cultivating the next invader? BioScience 58:64–70.Google Scholar
Barney, JN, DiTomaso, JM (2010) Invasive species biology, ecology, management and risk assessment: evaluating and mitigating the invasion risk of biofuel crops. Pages 263–284 in Mascia, PN, Scheffran, J, Widholm, JM, eds. Plant Biotechnology for Sustainable Production of Energy and Co-products. Berlin Heidelberg Springer-Verlag Google Scholar
Barney, JN, Mann, JJ, Kyser, GB, DiTomaso, JM (2012) Assessing habitat susceptibility and resistance to invasion by the bioenergy crops switchgrass and Miscanthus × giganteus in California. Biomass Bioenerg 40:143–154.Google Scholar
Barney, JN, Whitlow, TH (2008) A unifying framework for biological invasions: the state factor model. Biol Invasions 10:259–272.Google Scholar
Bauer, BD (2006) The Population Dynamics of Tansy Ragwort (Senecio jacobaea) in Northwestern Montana. MS Thesis. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University Press. 206 pGoogle Scholar
Beard, JB (1973) Turfgrass: Science and Culture. Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice-Hall. 658 pGoogle Scholar
Bell, GP (1997) Ecology and management of Arundo donax, and approaches to riparian habitat restoration in Southern California. Pages 103–113 in Brock, JH, Wade, M, Pysek, P, Green, D, eds. Plant Invasions: studies from North America and Europe. Leiden, The Netherlands Blackhuys Google Scholar
Box, GEP, Cox, DR (1964) An analysis of transformations. J Roy Stat B Met 26:211–234.Google Scholar
Christian, DG, Yates, NE, Riche, AB (2005) Establishing Miscanthus sinensis from seed using conventional sowing methods. Ind Crop Prod 21:109–111.Google Scholar
Clifton-Brown, JC, Lewandowski, I (2000) Water use efficiency and biomass partitioning of three different Miscanthus genotypes with limited and unlimited water supply. Ann Bot 86:191–200.Google Scholar
Clifton-Brown, JC, Lewandowski, I, Bangerth, F, Jones, MB (2002) Comparative responses to water stress in stay-green, rapid- and slow senescing genotypes of the biomass crop, Miscanthus . New Phytol 154:335–345.Google Scholar
Crooks, J, Soule, ME (1999) Lag times in population explosions of invasive species: causes and implications. Pages 103–125 in Sandlund, OT, Schei, PJ, Viken, A, eds. Invasive Species and Biodiversity Management. Dordrecht, The Netherlands Kluwer Academic Google Scholar
Dalling, JW, Davis, AS, Schutte, BJ, Arnold, AE (2011) Seed survivalin soil: interacting effects of predation, dormancy and the soil microbial community. J Ecol 99:89–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, MA (2009) Biological Invasions. New York Oxford University Press. 244 pGoogle Scholar
DiTomaso, JM, Barney, JN, Mann, JJ, Kyser, GB (2013) For switchgrass cultivated as biofuel in California, invasiveness limited by several steps. California Agric 67:96–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiTomaso, JM, Healy, EA (2007) Weeds of California and Other Western States. Oakland, CA University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources. 1808 pGoogle Scholar
Dougherty, RF (2013) Ecology and Niche Characterization of the Invasive Ornamental Grass Miscanthus sinensis . MS Thesis. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Tech University Press. 70 pGoogle Scholar
Ellenberg, H (1988) Vegetation Ecology of Central Europe. Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press. 731 pGoogle Scholar
Field, CB, Campbell, JE, Lobell, DB (2008) Biomass energy: the scale of the potential resource. Trends Ecol Evol 23:65–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gleason, HA (1952) New Britton and Brown Illustrated Flora of the Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada. Lancaster, PA Lancaster. 482 pGoogle Scholar
Heaton, EA, Dohleman, FG, Miguez, AF, Juvik, JA, Lozovaya, V, Widholm, J, Zabotina, OA, Mcisaac, GF, David, MB, Voigt, TB, Boersma, NN, Long, SP (2010) Miscanthus: A Promising Biomass Crop. Adv Bot Res 56:75–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hintz, RL, Harmoney, KR, Moore, KJ, George, JR, Brummer, EC (1998) Establishment of switchgrass and big bluestem in corn with atrazine. Agron J 90:591–596.Google Scholar
Holm, LG, Plucknett, DL, Juan, PV, Herberger, JP (1977) The Worlds Worst Weeds. Distribution and Biology. Honolulu, HI University Press of Hawaii Press. 609 pGoogle Scholar
Jakubowski, AR, Casler, MD, Jackson, RD (2011) Has selection for improved agronomic traits made reed canarygrass invasive? PLoS One 6:e25757.Google Scholar
Jorgensen, U, Muhs, HJ (2001) Miscanthus breeding and improvement. Pages 68–85 in Jones, MB, Walsh, M, eds. Miscanthus for Energy and Fibre. London, UK James and James Google Scholar
Katibah, EF (1984) A brief history of riparian forests in the Central Valley of California. Pages 22–29 in Warner, RE, Hendrix, KE, eds. Environemntal Restoration; Science and Ecology, Conservation, and Productive Management. Berkley, CA Univsersity of California Press Google Scholar
Kempel, A, Chrobock, T, Fischer, M, Rohr, RP, Van Kleunen, M (2013) Determinants of plant establishment sucess in a multispecies introduction experiment with native and alien species. PNAS. doi10.1073/pnas.1300481110Google Scholar
Koop, AL, Fowler, L, Newton, LP, Caton, BP (2011) Development and validation f a weed screening tool for the United States. Biol Invasions 14:273–294.Google Scholar
Levine, JM (2000) Species diversity and biological invasions: relating local processes to community pattern. Science 288:852–854.Google Scholar
Lewandowski, I, Clifton-Brown, JC, Scurlock, JMO, Huisman, W (2000) Miscanthus: European experience with a novel energy crop. Biomass Bioenerg 19:209–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewandowski, I, Scurlock, JMO, Lindvall, E, Christou, M (2003) The development and current status of perennial rhizomatous grasses as energy crops in the US and Europe. Biomass Bioenerg 25:335–361.Google 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
Mack, RN, Barrett, SCH, Defur, PL, Macdonald, WL, Madden, LV, Marshall, DS, Mac Cullough, DG, Mcevoy, PB, Nyrop, JP, Reichard, SEH, Rice, KJ, Tolin, SA (2002) Predicting Invasions of Nonindigenous Plants and Plant Pests. Washington, D.C. National Research Council. 194 pGoogle Scholar
Martin, JH, Richard, PW, David, LS (2006) Principles of Field Crop Production. Upper Saddle River, NJ Prentice Hall. 954 pGoogle Scholar
Martin, TG, Wintle, BA, Rhodes, JR, Kuhnert, PM, Field, SA, Low-Choy, SJ, Tyre, AJ, Possingham, HP (2005) Zero tolerance ecology: improving ecological inference by modelling the source of zero observations. Ecol Lett 8:1235–1246.Google Scholar
Matlaga, DP, Davis, AS (2013) Minimizing invasive potential of Miscanthus × giganteus grown for bioenergy: identifying demographic thresholds for population growth and spread. J Appl Ecol 50:479–487.Google Scholar
Matlaga, DP, Schutte, BJ, Davis, AS (2012) Age-dependent demographic rates of the bioenergy crop Miscanthus × giganteus in Illinois. Invasive Plant Sci Manage 5:238–248.Google Scholar
Meyer, MH, Tchida, CL (1999) Miscanthus Andress. Produces viable seed in four USDA hardiness zones. J Environ Hort 17:137–140.Google Scholar
National Climatic Data Center. 2013 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ Accessed August, 2013Google Scholar
Perlack, RD, Wright, LL, Turhollow, AF, Graham, RL, Stokes, BJ, Erbach, DC (2005) Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: the Technical Feasibility of a Billion-ton Annual Supply. Oak Ridge, TN Rep. ORNL/TM-2006/66Google Scholar
Pyšek, P, Prach, K (1994) How important are rivers for supporting plant invasions? Pages 19–26 in De Waal, LC, Child, LE, Wade, PM, Brock, JH, editors. Ecology and Management of Invasive Riverside Plants. Chichester, UK J Wiley Google Scholar
Quinn, L, Allen, DJ, Stewart, R (2010) Invasiveness potential of Miscanthus sinensis: implications for bioenergy production in the United States. GCB Bioenergy 2:310–320.Google Scholar
Quinn, L, Barney, J, Mccubbins, J, Endres, A (2013) Navigating the “noxious” and “invasive” regulatory landscape: suggestions for improved regulation. BioScience 63:124–131.Google Scholar
Quinn, LD, Matlaga, DP, Stewart, JR, Davis, AS (2011a) Empirical evidence of long-distance dispersal in Miscanthus sinensis and Miscanthus × giganteus . Invasive Plant Sci Manage 4:142–150.Google Scholar
Quinn, LD, Stewart, JR, Yamada, T, Toma, Y, Saito, M, Shimoda, K, Fernández, FG (2011b) Environmental tolerances of Miscanthus sinensis in invasive and native populations. BioEnergy Res 5:139–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raghu, S, Anderson, RC, Daehler, CC, Davis, AS, Wiedenmann, RN, Simberloff, D, Mack, RN (2006) Ecology. Adding biofuels to the invasive species fire? Science 313:1742.Google Scholar
Rauschert, ESJ, Mortensen, DA, Bjørnstad, ON, Nord, AN, Peskin, N (2009) Slow spread of the aggressive invader, Microstegium vimineum (Japanese stiltgrass). Biol Invasions 12:563–579.Google Scholar
Rejmánek, M, Richardson, DM, Higgins, SI, Pitcairn, MJ, E (G. 2005) Ecology of invasive plants: state of the art. Pages 104–161 in Mooney, HA, Mack, RN, Mc Neeley, JA, Neville, L, Schei, PJ, Waage, J, eds. Invasive Alien Species: a New Synthesis. Washington, D.C. Island Google Scholar
Richter, GM, Riche, AB, Dailey, AG, Gezan, SA, Powlson, DS (2008) Is UK biofuel supply from Miscanthus water-limited? Soil Use Manage 24:235–245.Google Scholar
Robertson, GP, Dale, VH, Doering, OC, Hamburg, SP, Melillo, JM, Wander, WM, Parton, WJ, Adler, PR, Barney, JN, Cruse, RM, Duke, CS, Fearnside, PM, Follett, RF, Gibbs, HK, Gloldemberg, J, Maldenoff, DJ, Ojima, D, Plamer, MW, Sharlpey, A, Wallace, L, Weathers, KC, Weiens, JA, Wilhelm, WW (2008) Sustainable biofuels redux. Science 322:49–50.Google Scholar
Smart, AJ, Moser, LE, Vogel, KP (2003) Establishment and seedling growth of big bluestem and switchgrass populations divergently selected for seedling tiller number. Crop Sci 43:1434–1440.Google Scholar
United States Drought Monitor Archives. (2013). http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/monitor.html Accessed August 2013Google Scholar
Von Holle, B (2005) Biotic resistance to invader establishment of a southern Appalachian plant community is determined by environmental conditions. J Ecol 93:16–26.Google Scholar
Von Holle, B, Simberloff, D (2005) Ecological resistance to biological invasion overwhelmed by propagule pressure. Ecology 86:3212–3218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, LR, Zasada, JC, Chapin, FS (1986) The role of life history processes in primary sucession on an Alaskan floodplain. Ecology 67:753–761.Google Scholar
Warwick, SI, Black, LD (1983) The biology of Canadian weeds. 61. Sorghum halepense (L.) PERS. Can J Plant Sci 63:997–1014.Google Scholar
Williamson, M (1996) Biological Invasions. London, UK Chapman and Hall. 244 pGoogle Scholar