Comparison of the herbivore defense and competitive ability of ancestral and modern genotypes of an invasive plant, Lespedeza cuneata

Oikos

Volumn 120, Issue 9, 2011, Pages 1413-1419

  Beaton, Laura L ^a,b   van Zandt, Peter A ^a,c   Esselman, Elizabeth J ^d   Knight, Tiffany M ^a  

^a WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

^c BIRMINGHAM SOUTHERN COLLEGE   (United States)

^d SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY EDWARDSVILLE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGGRESSION; ANTIHERBIVORE DEFENSE; COEVOLUTION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPETITIVE ABILITY; DICOTYLEDON; GENOTYPE; GRASSLAND; INVASIVE SPECIES; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; NATURAL ENEMY; NATURAL SELECTION;

NORTH AMERICA;

LESPEDEZA; LESPEDEZA CUNEATA;

EID: 80051601939     PISSN: 00301299     EISSN: 16000706     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2011.18893.x     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Agrawal A. A. and Rutter M. T. 1998. Dynamic anti-herbivore defense in ant-plants: the role of induced responses. Oikos 83: 227-236.
2. Baldwin I. T. et al. 2001. Merging molecular and ecological approaches in plant-insect interactions. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 4: 351-358.
3. Bergelson J. et al. 2001. Models and data on plant-enemy coevolution. Annu. Rev. Genet. 35: 469-499.
4. Blossey B. and Nötzold R. 1995. Evolution of increased competitive ability in invasive nonindigenous plants: a hypothesis. J. Ecol. 83: 887-889.
5. Blumenthal D. M. and Hufbauer R. 2007. Increased plant size in exotic populations: a common-garden test with 14 invasive species. Ecology (New York) 88: 2758-2765.
6. Bossdorf O. et al. 2005. Phenotypic and genetic differentiation between native and introduced plant populations. Oecologia 144: 1-11.
7. Bossdorf O. et al. 2008. Selection of preadapted populations allowed Senecio inaequidens to invade central Europe. Div. Distr. 14: 676-685.
8. Buntin G. D. 1991. Effect of insect damage on the growth, yield, and quality of Sericea lespedeza forage. J. Econ. Entomol. 84: 277-284.
9. Caño L. et al. 2009. Palatability to a generalist herbivore, defence and growth of invasive and native Senecio species: testing the evolution of increased competitive ability hypothesis. Oecologia 159: 95-106.
10. Cipollini D. et al. 2005. Expression of constitutive and inducible chemical defenses in native and invasive populations of Alliaria petiolata. J. Chem. Ecol. 31: 1255-1267.
11. Cox G. W. 2004. Alien species and evolution: the evolutionary ecology of exotic plants, animals, microbes, and interacting native species. - Island Press.
12. Cripps M. G. et al. 2009. No evidence for an 'evolution of increased competitive ability' for the invasion of Lepidium draba. Basic Appl. Ecol. 10: 103-112.
13. Deng F. et al. 2007. New flavonoids and other constituents from Lespedeza cuneata. J. Asian Nat. Products Res. 9: 655-658.
14. Eddy T. A. and Moore C. M. 1998. Effects of Sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata (Dumont) G. Don) invasion on oak savannas in Kansas. Trans. Wisconsin Acad. Sci. Arts Lett. 86: 57-62.
15. Eigenbrode S. D. et al. 2008. Induced chemical defenses in invasive plants: a case study with Cynoglossum officinale L. Biol. Invas. 10: 1373-1379.
16. El-Ghareeb R. 1991. Vegetation and soil changes induced by Mesembryanthemum crystallinum L. in a Mediterranean desert. J. Arid Environ. 20: 321-330.
17. Ellner S. P. et al. 1999. The roles of fluctuating selection and long-term diapause in microevolution of diapause timing in a freshwater copepod. Evolution 53: 111-122.
18. Franks S. J. et al. 2008a. No evolution of increased comopetitive ability or decreased allocation to defense in Melaleuca quinquenervia since release from natural enemies. Biol. Invas. 10: 455-466.
19. Franks S. J. et al. 2008b. Selection on herbivory resistance and growth rate in an invasive plant. Am. Nat. 171: 678-691.
20. Guernsey W. J. 1970. Sericea lespedeza, its use and management. USDA Farmer's Bull. 2245: 1-29.
21. Hairston N. G. et al. 1999. Lake ecosystems - rapid evolution revealed by dormant eggs. Nature 401: 446-446.
22. Handley R. J. et al. 2008. Testing the evolution of increased competitive ability (EICA) hypothesis in a novel framework. Ecology (New York) 89: 407-417.
23. Holmes P. M. and Crowling R. M. 1997. The effects of invasion by Acacia saligna on the guild structure and regeneration capabilities of South African fynbos shrublands. J. Appl. Ecol. 34: 317-332.
24. Hull-Sanders H. M. et al. 2007. Evaluation of the evolution of increased competitive ability (EICA) hypothesis: loss of defense against generalist but not specialist herbivores. J. Chem. Ecol. 33: 781-799.
25. Jakobs G. et al. 2004. Introduced plants of the invasive Solidago gigantea (Asteraceae) are larger and grow denser than conspecifics in the native range. Div. Distr. 10: 11-19.
26. Johnson R. H. et al. 2007. Comparison of foliar terpenes between native and invasive Solidago gigantea. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 35: 821-830.
27. Joshi J. and Vrieling K. 2005. The enemy release and EICA hypothesis revisited: incorporating the fundamental difference between specialist and generalist herbivores. Ecol. Lett. 8: 704-714.
28. Kahl J. et al. 2000. Herbivore induced ethylene suppreses a direct defense but not a putative indirect defense against an adapted herbivore. Planta 210: 336-342.
29. Kalburtji K. L. et al. 2001. Allelopathic plants. 2. Lespedeza cuneata. Allelopathy J. 8: 41-50.
30. Karban R. and Baldwin I. T. 1997. Induced responses to herbivory. - Univ. of Chicago Press.
31. Keane R. M. and Crawley M. J. 2002. Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17: 164-170.
32. Kinnison M. T. et al. 1998. Growth and salinity tolerance of underyearling chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) from two introduced New Zealand populations. Can. J. Zool. 76: 2219-2226.
33. Kwon D. and Bae Y. 2009. Flavonoids from the aerial parts of Lespedeza cuneata. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 37: 46-48.
34. Lee C. E. 2002. Evolutionary genetics of invasive species. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17: 386-391.
35. Leger E. A. and Rice K. J. 2003. Invasive California poppies (Eschscholzia californica Cham.) grow larger than native individuals under reduced competition. Ecol. Lett. 6: 257-264.
36. Losos J. B. et al. 1997. Adaptive differentiation following experimental island colonization in Anolis lizards. Nature 387: 70-73.
37. Maron J. L. and Vilá M. 2001. When do herbivores affect plant invasions? Evidence for the natural enemies and biotic resistance hypotheses. Oikos 95: 361-373.
38. McKenney J. L. et al. 2007. No difference in competitive ability between invasive North American and native European Lepidium draba populations. Plant Ecol. 193: 293-303.
39. Meyer G. A. and Hull-Sanders H. M. 2008. Altered patterns of growth, physiology and reproduction in invasive genotypes of Solidago gigantea (Asteraceae). Biol. Invas. 10: 303-317.
40. Mitchell C. E. and Power A. G. 2003. Release of invasive plants from fungal and viral pathogens. Nature 421: 625-627.
41. Müller-Schärer H. et al. 2004. Evolution in invasive plants: implications for biological control. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19: 417-422.
42. Ohlenbusch P. D. et al. 2001. Sericea lespedeza: history, characteristics and identification. Kansas State Univ. Agric. Exp. Stn Coop. Ext. Serv. MF-2408.
43. Reznick D. N. et al. 1997. Evaluation of the rate of evolution in natural populations of guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Science 275: 1934-1937.
44. Ridenour W. M. et al. 2008. No evidence for tradeoffs: Centaurea plants from America are better competitors and defenders. Ecol. Monogr. 78: 369-386.
45. Roach D. A. and Wulff R. D. 1987. Maternal effects in plants. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 18: 209-235.
46. Schutzenhofer M. R. and Knight T. M. 2007. Population-level effects of augmented herbivory on Lespedeze cuneata: implications for biological control. Ecol. Appl. 17: 965-971.
47. Siemann E. and Rogers W. E. 2003. Reduced resistance of invasive varieties of the alien tree Sapium sebiferum to a generalist herbivore. Oecologia 135: 451-457.
48. Stastny M. et al. 2005. Do vigour of introduced populations and escape from specialist herbivores contribute to invasiveness? J. Ecol. 93: 27-37.
49. van Kleunen M. and Schmid B. 2003. No evidence for an evolutionary increased competitive ability in an invasive plant. Ecology 84: 2816-2823.
50. van Kleunen M. and Fischer M. 2008. Adaptive rather than non-adaptive evolution of Mimulus gattutus in its invasive range. Basic Appl. Ecol. 9: 213-223.
51. Van Zandt P. A. 2007. Plant defense, growth, and habitat: s comparative assessment of consitutive and induced resistance. Ecology 88: 1984-1993.
52. Vilà M. et al. 2003. Are alien plants more competitive than their native conspecifics? A test using Hypericum perforatum L. Oecologia 137: 211-215.
53. Wilcove D. S. et al. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States: assessing the relative importance of habitat destruction, alien species, pollution, overexploitation and disease. Bioscience 48: 607-615.
54. Williams J. L. et al. 2008. Different gardens, different results: native and introduced populations exhibit contrasting phenotypes across common gardens. Oecologia 157: 239-248.
55. Windham W. R. et al. 1988. Analysis for tannin concentration in Sericea lespedeza by near and far infrared refelction spectroscopy. Crop Sci. 28: 705-708.
56. Wolfe L. M. et al. 2004. Increased susceptibility to enemies following introduction in the invasive plant Silene latifolia. Ecol. Lett. 7: 813-820.
57. Zheng H. et al. 2006. Lespedeze cuneata. - In: Anonymous invasive plants of Asian origin established in the United States and their natural enemies. USDA For. Serv. FLTET 2004-05: 88-92.
58. Zou J. et al. 2008. Increased competitive ability and herbivory tolerance in the invasive plant Sapium sebiferum. Biol. Invas. 10: 291-302.