Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Different traits predict competitive effect versus response by Bromus madritensis in its native and invaded ranges

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biological Invasions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Community assembly and coexistence theories predict that both fitness and plant functional traits should influence competitive interactions between native and invasive species. The evolution of the increased competitive ability hypothesis predicts that species will grow larger (a measure of fitness) in their invaded than native range; hence we hypothesized that species might exert greater competitive effects in their invaded range, lessening the importance of functional traits for competitive outcomes. In a greenhouse experiment we compared traits and competitive interactions between Bromus madritensis (an annual grass) and resident species from its native range in Spain, and its invaded range in Southern California. As predicted, B. madritensis collected in California grew larger and had a greater competitive effect on resident species than B. madritensis collected in Spain. However, residents from California also suppressed the growth of B. madritensis more than species from its native range in Spain. Competitive interaction strengths were predicted by different suites of traits in the native versus invaded range of B. madritensis; surprisingly, however, size of the resident species (fitness), did not predict variation in competitive interactions. This study shows that different suites of traits may aid in identifying those native species likely to strongly compete with invaders, versus those that will be competitively suppressed by invaders, with important implications for the design of restoration efforts aimed at promoting native species growth and preventing invasion. More generally, our study shows that fitness differences may not be as important as traits when predicting competitive outcomes in this system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrams P (1983) The theory of limiting similarity. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 14:359–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armas C, Ordiales R, Pugnaire FI (2004) Measuring plant interactions: a new comparative index. Ecology 85:2682–2686

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67(1):1–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blossey B, Notzold R (1995) Evolution of increased competitive ability in invasive nonindigenous plants: a hypothesis. J Ecol 83:887–889

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2003) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Callaway RM, Waller LP, Diaconu A, Pal R, Collins AR, Mueller-Schaerer H, Maron JL (2011) Escape from competition: neighbors reduce Centaurea stoebe performance at home but not away. Ecology 92:2208–2213

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chesson P (2000) Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics:343-366

  • Cleland EE et al (2013) Sensitivity of grassland plant community composition to spatial vs. temporal variation in precipitation. Ecology 94:1687–1696

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cleland EE, Funk J, Allen EB (2016) Coastal sage scrub. In: Zavaleta E, Mooney HA (eds) Ecosystems of California, Chap 22. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, pp 429–448

  • Crawley MJ (1987) What makes a community invasible? In: Crawley MJ, Edwards PJ, Gray AJ (eds) Colonization, succession and stability, pp 629–654

  • Diaz S, Cabido M, Casanoves F (1998) Plant functional traits and environmental filters at a regional scale. J Veg Sci 9:113–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drenovsky RE, Khasanova A, James JJ (2012) Trait convergence and plasticity among native and invasive species in resource-poor environments. Am J Bot 99:629–639

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dukes JS (2002) Species composition and diversity affect grassland susceptibility and response to invasion. Ecol Appl 12:602–617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emery SM (2007) Limiting similarity between invaders and dominant species in herbaceous plant communities? J Ecol 95:1027–1035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fargione J, Brown CS, Tilman D (2003) Community assembly and invasion: an experimental test of neutral versus niche processes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:8916–8920

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Feng Y-L, Fu G-L, Zheng Y-L (2008) Specific leaf area relates to the differences in leaf construction cost, photosynthesis, nitrogen allocation, and use efficiencies between invasive and noninvasive alien congeners. Planta 228:383–390

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Funk JL, Vitousek PM (2007) Resource-use efficiency and plant invasion in low-resource systems. Nature 446:1079–1081

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • García Y, Callaway RM, Diaconu A, Montesinos D (2013) Invasive and non-invasive congeners show similar trait shifts between their same native and non-native ranges. PLoS ONE 8(12):e82281

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Garnier E et al (2001) Consistency of species ranking based on functional leaf traits. New Phytol 152:69–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelman A (2008) Scaling regression inputs by dividing by two standard deviations. Stat Med 27:2865–2873

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg DE (1990) Components of resource competition in plant communities. In: Grace JB, Tilman D (eds) Perspectives on plant competition, pp 27–49 

  • Goldberg DE, Landa K (1991) Competitive effect and response: hierarchies and correlated traits in the early stages of competition. J Ecol 79:1013–1030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein LJ, Suding KN (2014) Intra-annual rainfall regime shifts competitive interactions between coastal sage scrub and invasive grasses. Ecology 95:425–435

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grotkopp E, Rejmánek 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 94:526–532

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grueber C, Nakagawa S, Laws R, Jamieson I (2011) Multimodel inference in ecology and evolution: challenges and solutions. J Evol Biol 24:699–711

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hufft RA, Zelikova TJ (2016) Ecological genetics, local adaptation, and phenotypic plasticity in Bromus tectorum in the context of a changing climate. In: Germino MJ, Chambers JC, Brown CS (eds) Exotic brome-grasses in arid and semiarid ecosystems of the Western US. Springer, Cham, pp 133–154

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Iwasa Y, Roughgarden J (1984) Shoot/root balance of plants: optimal growth of a system with many vegetative organs. Theor Popul Biol 25:78–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jelbert K, Stott I, McDonald RA, Hodgson D (2015) Invasiveness of plants is predicted by size and fecundity in the native range. Ecol Evol 5:1933–1943

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Keane RM, Crawley MJ (2002) Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. Trends Ecol Evol 17:164–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitajima K (1994) Relative importance of photosynthetic traits and allocation patterns as correlates of seedling shade tolerance of 13 tropical trees. Oecologia 98:419–428

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kraft NJ, Crutsinger GM, Forrestel EJ, Emery NC (2014) Functional trait differences and the outcome of community assembly: an experimental test with vernal pool annual plants. Oikos 123:1391–1399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunstler G et al (2012) Competitive interactions between forest trees are driven by species’ trait hierarchy, not phylogenetic or functional similarity: implications for forest community assembly. Ecol Lett 15:831–840

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lai HR, Mayfield MM, Gay-des-combes JM, Spiegelberger T, Dwyer JM (2015) Distinct invasion strategies operating within a natural annual plant system. Ecol Lett 18:336–346

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lavorel S, Garnier É (2002) Predicting changes in community composition and ecosystem functioning from plant traits: revisiting the Holy Grail. Funct Ecol 16:545–556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leishman MR (1999) How well do plant traits correlate with establishment ability? Evidence from a study of 16 calcareous grassland species. New Phytol 141:487–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine JM, Vila M, Antonio CM, Dukes JS, Grigulis K, Lavorel S (2003) Mechanisms underlying the impacts of exotic plant invasions. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 270:775–781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liao C et al (2008) Altered ecosystem carbon and nitrogen cycles by plant invasion: A meta-analysis. New Phytol 177:706–714

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur R, Levins R (1967) The limiting similarity, convergence, and divergence of coexisting species. Am Nat 101:377–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacDougall AS, Gilbert B, Levine JM (2009) Plant invasions and the niche. J Ecol 97:609–615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer GA, Hull-Sanders HM (2008) Altered patterns of growth, physiology and reproduction in invasive genotypes of Solidago gigantea (Asteraceae). Biol Invasions 10:303–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison JA, Mauck K (2007) Experimental field comparison of native and non-native maple seedlings: natural enemies, ecophysiology, growth and survival. J Ecol 95:1036–1049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ni G-Y, Schaffner U, Peng S-L, Callaway RM (2010) Acroptilon repens, an Asian invader, has stronger competitive effects on species from America than species from its native range. Biol Invasions 12:3653–3663

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker JD et al (2013) Do invasive species perform better in their new ranges? Ecology 94:985–994

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pattison R, Goldstein G, Ares A (1998) Growth, biomass allocation and photosynthesis of invasive and native Hawaiian rainforest species. Oecologia 117:449–459

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Poorter H, Niklas KJ, Reich PB, Oleksyn J, Poot P, Mommer L (2012) Biomass allocation to leaves, stems and roots: meta-analyses of interspecific variation and environmental control. New Phytol 193:30–50

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Powell KI, Chase JM, Knight TM (2011) A synthesis of plant invasion effects on biodiversity across spatial scales. Am J Bot 98:539–548

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Price JN, Pärtel M (2013) Can limiting similarity increase invasion resistance? A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Oikos 122:649–656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pyšek P, Richardson DM (2008) Traits associated with invasiveness in alien plants: where do we stand? In: Nentwig W (ed) Biological invasions. Ecological studies (Analysis and synthesis), vol 193. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Pyšek P, Jarošík V, Hulme PE, Pergl J, Hejda M, Schaffner U, Vilà M (2012) A global assessment of invasive plant impacts on resident species, communities and ecosystems: the interaction of impact measures, invading species’ traits and environment. Glob Change Biol 18:1725–1737

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds PL, Glanz J, Yang S, Hann C, Couture J, Grosholz E (2017) Ghost of invasion past: legacy effects on community disassembly following eradication of an invasive ecosystem engineer. Ecosphere 8(3):e01711

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robeson SM (2015) Revisiting the recent California drought as an extreme value. Geophys Res Lett 42:6771–6779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sale PF (1977) Maintenance of high diversity in coral reef fish communities. Am Nat 111:337–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwilk DW, Ackerly DD (2005) Limiting similarity and functional diversity along environmental gradients. Ecol Lett 8:272–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Titlyanova A, Romanova I, Kosykh N, Mironycheva-Tokareva N (1999) Pattern and process in above-ground and below-ground components of grassland ecosystems. J Veg Sci 10:307–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turnbull LA, Rees M, Crawley MJ (1999) Seed mass and the competition/colonization trade-off: a sowing experiment. J Ecol 87:899–912

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Kleunen M, Dawson W, Schlaepfer D, Jeschke JM, Fischer M (2010) Are invaders different? A conceptual framework of comparative approaches for assessing determinants of invasiveness. Ecol Lett 13:947–958

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vila M, Weiner J (2004) Are invasive plant species better competitors than native plant species?–evidence from pair-wise experiments. Oikos 105:229–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vilà M et al (2011) Ecological impacts of invasive alien plants: a meta-analysis of their effects on species, communities and ecosystems. Ecol Lett 14:702–708

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Von Holle B, Simberloff D (2004) Testing Fox’s assembly rule: does plant invasion depend on recipient community structure? Oikos 105:551–563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wainwright CE, Wolkovich EM, Cleland EE (2012) Seasonal priority effects: implications for invasion and restoration in a semi-arid system. J Appl Ecol 49:234–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wainwright CE, Dwyer JM, Hobbs RJ, Mayfield MM (2016) Diverse outcomes of species interactions in an invaded annual plant community. J Plant Ecol 10:918–926

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson S (1880) Geological survey of California. Bot Calif 2:1–559

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilsey BJ, Polley HW (2006) Aboveground productivity and root–shoot allocation differ between native and introduced grass species. Oecologia 150:300–309

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson PJ, Thompson K, Hodgson JG (1999) Specific leaf area and leaf dry matter content as alternative predictors of plant strategies. New Phytol 143:155–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Younginger BS, Sirová D, Cruzan MB, Ballhorn DJ (2017) Is biomass a reliable estimate of plant fitness? Appl Plant Sci 5(2):1600094

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant No. (DGE-16540112) and the UC Office of the President’s UC-HBCU Initiative. MMM’s contributions to this project were funded by the University of Queensland’s Special Studies Program. Fieldwork in Spain was partially supported by the REMEDINAL-3 Project (S2013/MAE-2719, Madrid Regional Government).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Biological Sciences, Ecology, Behavior & Evolution Section, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, USA

    Chandler E. Puritty & Elsa E. Cleland

  2. School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, 4072, Australia

    Margaret M. Mayfield

  3. Terrestrial Ecology Group, Departamento de Ecología, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 28049, Madrid, Spain

    Francisco M. Azcárate

Authors
  1. Chandler E. Puritty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Margaret M. Mayfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Francisco M. Azcárate
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Elsa E. Cleland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chandler E. Puritty.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1551 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Puritty, C.E., Mayfield, M.M., Azcárate, F.M. et al. Different traits predict competitive effect versus response by Bromus madritensis in its native and invaded ranges. Biol Invasions 20, 2553–2565 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-018-1719-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-018-1719-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation