Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55597f9d44-zdfhw Total loading time: 0.275 Render date: 2022-08-12T21:22:38.158Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Porcelain Berry (Ampelopsis brevipedunculata), Bushkiller (Cayratia japonica), and Virginia-Creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia) in Interspecific Competition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Sherrie E. Emerine
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
Robert J. Richardson*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
Consuelo Arellano
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: rob_richardson@ncsu.edu

Abstract

Porcelain berry and bushkiller are confamilial, exotic, perennial vines in the Vitaceae family that are considered nuisance/invasive weeds of natural and riparian areas in the eastern United States. To better understand the competitive abilities of these aggressive weeds, greenhouse competition experiments were conducted on cuttings of porcelain berry, bushkiller, and Virginia-creeper, a native member of the Vitaceae family. Plants grown singly or in combination were monitored for stem growth and biomass production. In this research, porcelain berry and Virginia-creeper exhibited similar rates of stem growth, whereas bushkiller grew taller and faster than either of the other species. Porcelain berry stem growth was reduced in competition with bushkiller. All three species exhibited reduced stem biomass when grown with both other species. Root biomass of porcelain berry and Virginia-creeper were not affected by competition, but bushkiller, which produced the heaviest roots, exhibited reduced root biomass when grown with both other species. Porcelain berry root length was reduced by competition with both other species, but neither Virginia-creeper nor bushkiller root lengths were affected by competition. These results indicate that bushkiller is likely the strongest competitor of the three species studied. In these experiments, porcelain berry was less aggressive and vigorous than bushkiller but was similar to Virginia-creeper.

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. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Current address: Center for Integrated Pest Management, 1730 Varsity Drive, Ste. 300, Raleigh NC, 27606

References

Aerts, R. 1999. Interspecific competition in natural plant communities: mechanisms, trade-offs, and plant-soil feedbacks. Exp. Bot. 50 :2937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous, . 1993. Flora of Taiwan, National Taiwan University Herbarium Digital Archives Project. 1st ed., Volume 3. http://tai2.ntu.edu.tw/fotdv/fotmain.htm. Accessed February 20, 2012.Google Scholar
Bush, T. 2002. Virginia-creeper plant fact sheet Baton Rouge, LA. National Plant Data Center, United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service.Google Scholar
Carmer, S. G., Nyquist, W. E., and Walker, W. M. 1989. Least significant differences for combined analyses of experiments with two- or three-factor treatment designs. Agron. J. 81 :665672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, G. A. and Teramura, A. H. 1988. Vine photosynthesis and relationships to climbing mechanics in a forest understory. Am. J. Bot. 75 :10111018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connolly, J. and Wayne, P. 1996. Asymmetric competition between plant species. Oecologia 108 :311320.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Connolly, J., Wayne, P., and Bazzazz, F. A. 2001. Interspecific competition in plants: how well do current methods answer fundamental questions? Am. Nat. 157 :107125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cousens, R. 2000. Greenhouse studies of interactions between plants: the flaws are in interpretation rather than design. J. Ecol. 88 :352353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillenburg, L. R., Whigham, D. F., Teramura, A. H., and Forseth, I. N. 1993. Effects of vine competition on availability of light, water, and nitrogen to a tree host (Liquidambar styraciflua). Am. J. Bot. 80 :244252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, L. H. and Keddy, P. A. 2005. Can competitive ability predict structure in experimental plant communities? J. Veg. Sci. 16 :571578.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
Goldberg, D. E. and Werner, P. A. 1983. Equivalence of competitors in plant communities: a null hypothesis and a field experimental approach. Am. J. Bot. 70 :10981104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, C. J. and Goertzen, L. R. 2006. Cayratia japonica (Vitaceae) naturalized in Alabama. Castanea 71 :248251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HARC. 2010. The quiet invasion: A guide to invasive species of the Galveston Bay Area. Houston Advanced Research Center (HARC). http://www.galvbayinvasives.org/guides.org. Accessed February 20, 2012.Google Scholar
Hsu, T. W. and Kuoh, C-S. 1999. Cayratia maritima B. R. Jackes (Vitaceae), a new addition to the flora of Taiwan. Bot. Bull. Acad. Sin. (Taipei) 40 :329332.Google Scholar
Leicht-Young, S. A., Latimer, A. M., and Silander, J. A. Jr. 2011. Lianas escape self-thinning: experimental evidence of positive density dependence in temperate lianas Celastrus orbiculatus and C. scandens. Perspect. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst. 13 :163172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lutz, H. J. 1943. Injuries to trees caused by Celastrus and Vitis . Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 70 :436439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehrhoff, L. J., Silander, J. A. Jr, Leicht, S. A., Mosher, E. S., and Tabak, N. M. 2003. IPANE: Invasive Plant Atlas of New England. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut. http://nbii-nin.ciesin.columbia.edu/ipane/icat/browse.do?specieId=38. Accessed February 20, 2012.Google Scholar
Schnitzer, S. A., Dalling, J. W., and Carson, W. P. 2001. The impact of lianas on tree regeneration in tropical forest canopy gaps: evidence for an alternative pathway of gap-phase regeneration. J. Ecol. 88 :655666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siccama, T. G., Weir, G., and Wallace, K. 1976. Ice damage in a mixed hardwood forest in Connecticut in relation to Vitis infestation. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 103 :180183.Google Scholar
Smith, C. 2008. Invasive exotic plants of North Carolina. Raleigh, NC : North Carolina Department of Transportation. Pp. 8485.Google Scholar
Teramura, A. H., Forseth, I. N., and Gold, W. G. 1991. Physiological ecology of mesic, temperate vines. Pages 245286 in Putz, F. E. and Mooney, H. A., eds. The Biology of Vines. New York : Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
[USDA, ARS] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 2011. National Genetic Resources Program, Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN) Online Database. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Agricultural Research Service (ARS). http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/paper.pl. Accessed February 20, 2012.Google Scholar
[USDA, NRCS] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2011. The PLANTS Database. National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA. http://plants.usda.gov/. Accessed February 20, 2012.Google Scholar
Vilá, M. and Weiner, J. 2004. Are invasive plant species better competitors than native plant species? Evidence from pair-wise experiments. Oikos 105 :229238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vitousek, P. M., Walker, L. R., Whiteaker, L. D., Mueller-Dombois, D., and Matson, P. A. 1987. Biological invasion by Myrica faya alters ecosystem development in Hawaii. Science 238 :802804.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
West, A. M., Richardson, R. J., Arellano, C., and Burton, M. G. 2010. Bushkiller (Cayratia japonica) growth in interspecific and intraspecific competition. Weed Sci. 58 :195198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yurkonis, K. A. and Meiners, S. J. 2004. Invasion impacts local species turnover in a successional system. Ecol. Lett. 7 :764769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhiduan, C. and Wen, J. 2007. Flora of China 12. http://www.foc.org/china/. Accessed November 15, 2012.Google Scholar
2
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@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 saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved 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.

Porcelain Berry (Ampelopsis brevipedunculata), Bushkiller (Cayratia japonica), and Virginia-Creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia) in Interspecific Competition
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save 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 used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Porcelain Berry (Ampelopsis brevipedunculata), Bushkiller (Cayratia japonica), and Virginia-Creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia) in Interspecific Competition
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save 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 used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Porcelain Berry (Ampelopsis brevipedunculata), Bushkiller (Cayratia japonica), and Virginia-Creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia) in Interspecific Competition
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? *