Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-78bd46657c-5628d Total loading time: 0.175 Render date: 2021-05-09T07:16:08.837Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Competitive Interactions of Garlic Mustard (Alliaria petiolata) and Damesrocket (Hesperis matronalis)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Stacey A. Leicht-Young
Affiliation:
U.S. Geological Survey, Great Lakes Science Center, Lake Michigan Ecological Research Station, 1100 N. Mineral Springs Rd., Porter, IN 46304
Noel B. Pavlovic
Affiliation:
U.S. Geological Survey, Great Lakes Science Center, Lake Michigan Ecological Research Station, 1100 N. Mineral Springs Rd., Porter, IN 46304
Jean V. Adams
Affiliation:
U.S. Geological Survey, Great Lakes Science Center, 1451 Green Rd., Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Competitive interactions between native plants and nonnative, invasive plant species have been extensively studied; however, within degraded landscapes, the effect of interspecific interactions among invasive plants is less explored. We investigated a competitive interaction between two sympatric, invasive mustard species that have similar life history strategies and growth forms: garlic mustard and damesrocket. Greenhouse experiments using a full range of reciprocal density ratios were conducted to investigate interspecific competition. Garlic mustard had a negative effect on the final biomass, number of leaves, and relative growth rate in height of damesrocket. Survival of damesrocket was not negatively affected by interspecific competition with garlic mustard; however, garlic mustard showed higher mortality because of intraspecific competition. These results indicated that although garlic mustard has been observed to be the dominant species in this landscape, it may not completely outcompete damesrocket in all situations. Studies of invasive species in competition are important in degraded landscapes because this is the common situation in many natural areas.

Type
Research
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.

References

Adams, D. W. 2004. Restoring American Gardens: An Encyclopedia of Heirloom Ornamental Plants, 1640–1940. Portland, OR Timber. 420 p.Google Scholar
Anderson, R. C., Dhillion, S. S., and Kelley, T. M. 1996. Aspects of the ecology of an invasive plant, garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata), in central Illinois. Restor. Ecol. 4:181191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, J. T., Anderson, R. C., and Anderson, M. R. 2010. Competitive Interactions among first-year and second-year plants of the invasive, biennial garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) and native ground layer vegetation. Restor. Ecol. 18:720728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belote, R. T. and Weltzin, J. F. 2006. Interactions between two co-dominant, invasive plants in the understory of a temperate deciduous forest. Biol. Invasions 8:16291641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byers, D. L. and Quinn, J. A. 1998. Demographic variation in Alliaria petiolata (Brassicaceae) in four contrasting habitats. J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 125:138149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Call, L. J. and Nilsen, E. T. 2005. Analysis of interactions between the invasive tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima) and the native black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia). Plant Ecol. 176:275285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erskine Ogden, J. A. and Rejmánek, M. 2005. Recovery of native plant communities after the control of a dominant invasive plant species, Foeniculum vulgare: implications for management. Biol. Conserv. 125:427439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firbank, L. G. and Watkinson, A. R. 1985. On the analysis of competition within two-species mixtures of plants. J. Appl. Ecol. 22:503517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flory, S. L. and Clay, K. 2006. Invasive shrub distribution varies with distance to roads and stand age in eastern deciduous forests in Indiana, USA. Plant Ecol. 184:131141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flory, S. L. and Clay, K. 2010. Non-native grass invasion suppresses forest succession. Oecologia 164:10291038.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Francis, A., Cavers, P. B., and Warwick, S. I. 2009. The biology of Canadian weeds, 140: Hesperis matronalis L. Can. J. Plant Sci. 89:189204.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. 87:116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gleason, H. A. and Cronquist, A. 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada. 2nd ed. Bronx, NY New York Botanical Garden. 910 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, J. L. 1977. Population Biology of Plants. London, UK Academic Press. 892 p.Google Scholar
Hausman, C. E., Jaeger, J. F., and Rocha, O. J. 2010. Impacts of the emerald ash borer (EAB) eradication and tree mortality: potential for a secondary spread of invasive plant species. Biol. Invasions 12:20132023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huenneke, L. F. and Thomson, J. K. 1995. Potential interference between a threatened endemic thistle and an invasive nonnative plant. Conserv. Biol. 9:416425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hwang, B. C. and Lauenroth, W. K. 2008. Effect of nitrogen, water and neighbor density on the growth of Hesperis matronalis and two native perennials. Biol. Invasions 10:771779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hwang, B. C. and Lauenroth, W. K. 2010. Effect of nitrogen, water and neighbors on the growth of Hesperis matronalis in a natural community. Am. Midl. Nat. 163:212219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kira, T., Ogawa, H., and Shinozaki, K. 1953. Intraspecific competition among higher plants, 1: competition–density–yield inter-relationships in regularly dispersed populations. J. Inst. Polytech. Osaka City Univ. D4:116.Google Scholar
Lankau, R. 2010. Soil microbial communities alter allelopathic competition between Alliaria petiolata and a native species. Biol. Invasions 12:20592068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, D. L. and Larson, J. L. 2010. Control of one invasive plant species allows exotic grasses to become dominant in northern Great Plains grasslands. Biol. Conserv. 143:19011910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leicht, S. A., Silander, J. A., and Greenwood, K. 2005. Assessing the competitive ability of Japanese stilt grass, Microstegium vimineum (Trin.) A. Camus. J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 132:573580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mack, R. N., Simberloff, D., Lonsdale, W. M., Evans, H., Clout, M., and Bazzaz, F. A. 2000. Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol. Appl. 10:689710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, B. C. 1997. Response of a forest understory community to experimental removal of an invasive nonindigenous plant (Alliaria petiolata, Brassicaceae). Pages 117130 in Luken, J. O. and Thieret, J. W., eds. Assessment and Management of Plant Invasions. New York Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meekins, J. F. and McCarthy, B. C. 1999. Competitive ability of Alliaria petiolata (garlic mustard, Brassicaceae), an invasive, nonindigenous forest herb. Int. J. Plant Sci. 160:743752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meekins, J. F. and McCarthy, B. C. 2001. The effect of environmental variation on the invasive success of an indigenous forest herb. Ecol. Appl. 11:13361348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meekins, J. F. and McCarthy, B. C. 2002. Effect of population density on the demography of an invasive plant (Alliaria petiolata, Brassicaceae) population in a Southeastern Ohio forest. Am. Midl. Nat. 147:256278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehrhoff, L. J., Silander, J. A., Leicht, S. A., Mosher, E. S., and Tabak, N. M. 2003. IPANE: Invasive Plant Atlas of New England (http://ipane.org). Storrs, CT Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. J. and Ankeny, D. P. 2001. Effects of local conspecific density on reproductive success in Penstemon digitalis and Hesperis matronalis . Ohio J. Sci. 101:2227.Google Scholar
Morrison, J. A., Lubchansky, H. A., Mauck, K. E., McCartney, K-M., and Dunn, B. 2007. Ecological comparison of two co-invasive species in eastern deciduous forests: Alliaria petiolata and Microstegium vimineum . J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 134:117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, S. D., Flanagan, J., Noll, K., Wilson, D., and Duncan, B. 2007. How incomplete exotic species management can make matters worse: experiments in forest restoration in Ontario, Canada. Ecol. Restor. 25:8593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuzzo, V. A. 1993. Distribution and spread of the invasive biennial Alliaria petiolata (garlic mustard) in North America. Pages 137146 in McNight, B., ed. Biological Pollution: The Control and Impact of Invasive Exotic Species. Indianapolis, IN Indiana Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Nuzzo, V. A. 1999. Invasion pattern of the herb garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) in high quality forests. Biol. Invasions 1:169179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavlovic, N. B., Leicht-Young, S. A., Frohnapple, K. J., and Grundel, R. 2009. Effect of removal of Hesperis matronalis (Dame′s Rocket) on species cover of forest understory vegetation in NW Indiana. Am. Midl. Nat. 161:165176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prati, D. and Bossdorf, O. 2004. Allelopathic inhibition of germination by Alliaria petiolata (Brassicaceae). Am. J. Bot. 91:285288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2009. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Rothfels, C. J., Beaton, L. L., and Dudley, S. A. 2002. The effects of salt, manganese, and density on life history traits in Hesperis matronalis L. from oilfield and roadside populations. Can. J. Bot. 80:131139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simberloff, D. and Von Holle, B. 1999. Positive interactions of nonindigenous species: invasional meltdown? Biol. Invasions 1:2132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stinson, K. A., Campbell, S. A., Powell, J. R., Wolfe, B. E., Callaway, R. M., Thelen, G. C., Hallett, S. G., Prati, D., and Klironomos, J. N. 2006. Invasive plant suppresses the growth of native tree seedlings by disrupting belowground mutualisms. PLoS Biol. 4:727731.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stinson, K., Kaufman, S., Durbin, L., and Lowenstein, F. 2007. Impacts of garlic mustard invasion on a forest understory community. Northeast. Nat. 14:7388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA–NRCS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2011. The PLANTS Database. http://plants.usda.gov. Accessed January 14, 2011.Google Scholar
Watkinson, A. R. 1980. Density-dependence in single species populations of plants. J. Theor. Biol. 83:345357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watkinson, A. R. 1984. Yield-density relationships: the influence of resource availability on growth and self-thinning in populations of Vulpia fasciculata . Ann. Bot. (Lond.) 53:469482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wixted, K. L. and McGraw, J. B. 2010. Competitive and allelopathic effects of garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) on American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius). Plant Ecol. 208:347357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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.

Competitive Interactions of Garlic Mustard (Alliaria petiolata) and Damesrocket (Hesperis matronalis)
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.

Competitive Interactions of Garlic Mustard (Alliaria petiolata) and Damesrocket (Hesperis matronalis)
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.

Competitive Interactions of Garlic Mustard (Alliaria petiolata) and Damesrocket (Hesperis matronalis)
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *