Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-568f69f84b-klmjj Total loading time: 0.23 Render date: 2021-09-19T09:52:20.665Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 April 2017

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
*Corresponding author’s E-mail: danatwater@gmail.com

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.

Type
Research and Education
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

Abrahamson, W (1975) Reproductive strategies in dewberries. Ecology 56:721726 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, LE, Appleby, AP, Weseloh, JW (1960) Characteristics of Johnsongrass rhizomes. Weeds 8:402406 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, H (1974) The evolution of weeds. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 5:124 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 56:208218 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, DM, Maechler, M, Bolker, B, Walker, S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Soft 67:148 Google Scholar
Bell, G (1980) The costs of reproduction and their consequences. Am Nat 116:4576 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackburn, TM, Duncan, RP (2001) Determinants of establishment success in introduced birds. Nature 414:195197 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 24:127135 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 94:9951004 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, DR (2000) Experimental tests of sex-allocation theory in plants. Trends Ecol Evol 15:227232 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carlton, JT (1996) Pattern, process, and prediction in marine invasion ecology. Biol Conserv 78:97106 CrossRefGoogle 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 204:1936 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 89:339350 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elton, CS (1958) The Ecology of Invasions by Animals and Plants. London: Methuen. 196 pCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grime, JP (1977) Evidence for the existence of three primary strategies in plants and its relevance to ecological and evolutionary theory. Am Nat 111:11691194 CrossRefGoogle 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 59:130 CrossRefGoogle 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 170:832843 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holm, L, Plucknett, D, Pancho, J, Herberger, J (1977) The World’s Worst Weeds. Distribution and Biology. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii. Pp. 4753 Google Scholar
Jurik, TW (1985) Differential costs of sexual and vegetative reproduction in wild strawberry populations. Oecologia 66:394403 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kenward, MG, Roger, JH (1997) Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximuml likelihood. Biometrics 53:983997 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 3157 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 20:223228 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loehle, C (1987) Partitioning of reproductive effort in clonal plants: a benefit cost model. Oikos 49:199208 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mack, RN, Simberloff, D, Lonsdale, WM, Evans, H, Clout, M, Bazzaz, FA (2000) Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol Appl 10:689710 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McWhorter, C (1961) Morphology and development of Johnsongrass plants from seeds and rhizomes. Weeds 9:558562 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McWhorter, C (1971) Growth and development of Johnsongrass ecotypes. Weed Sci 19:141147 Google Scholar
Monaghan, N (1979) The biology of Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense). Weed Res 19:261267 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Obeso, JR (2002) The costs of reproduction in plants. New Phytol 155:321348 CrossRefGoogle 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 193:97125 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rout, ME, Chrzanowski, TH, Smith, WK, Gough, L (2012) Ecological impacts of the invasive grass Sorghum halepense on native tallgrass prairie. Biol Invasions 15:327339 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylorson, RB, McWhorter, CG (1969) Seed dormancy and germination in ecotypes of Johnsongrass. Weed Sci 17:359361 Google Scholar
Warwick, S, Black, LD (1983) The biology of Canadian weeds. 61. Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers. Can J Plant Sci 63:9971014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warwick, SI, Phillips, D, Andrews, C (1986) Rhizome depth: the critical factor in winter survival of Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers. (Johnsongrass). Weed Res 26:381388 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Atwater supplementary material

Supplementary Figure

Download Atwater supplementary material(File)
File 344 KB
3
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Competition and propagule density affect sexual and clonal propagation of a weed
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Competition and propagule density affect sexual and clonal propagation of a weed
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Competition and propagule density affect sexual and clonal propagation of a weed
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *