Increased performance of Cirsium arvense from the invasive range

Flora: Morphology, Distribution, Functional Ecology of Plants

Volumn 206, Issue 12, 2011, Pages 1012-1019

  Abela Hofbauerová, Inés ^a,b   Münzbergová, Zuzana ^a,b  

^a CHARLES UNIVERSITY   (Czech Republic)

^b INSTITUTE OF BOTANY   (Czech Republic)

Author keywords

Canada thistle; Clonal growth; EICA hypothesis; Europe; North America; Noxious weeds

Indexed keywords

ABOVEGROUND BIOMASS; COMPETITIVE ABILITY; DICOTYLEDON; FECUNDITY; GROWTH RATE; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; INTERSPECIFIC VARIATION; INVASIVE SPECIES; NATIVE SPECIES; NATURAL ENEMY; NUTRIENT LIMITATION; RANGE SIZE; RESOURCE USE; SIZE; SUBSTRATE; WEED;

EUROPE; NORTH AMERICA;

CIRSIUM; CIRSIUM ARVENSE;

EID: 84866549361     PISSN: 03672530     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.flora.2011.07.007     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Abhilasha D., Joshi J. Enhanced fitness due to higher fecundity, increased defense against a specialist and tolerance towards a generalist herbivore in an invasive annual plant. J. Plant Ecol. 2009, 2:77-86.
2. Allred B.W., Fuhlendorf S.D., Monaco T.A., Will R.E. Morphological and physiological traits in the success of the invasive plant Lespedeza cuneata. Biol. Invas. 2010, 12:739-749.
3. Amor R.L., Harris R.V. Distribution and seed production of Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. in Victoria, Australia. Weed Res. 1974, 14:317-323.
4. Barney J.N., Whitlow T.H., Ditommaso A. Evolution of an invasive phenotype: shift to belowground dominance and enhanced competitive ability in the introduced range. Plant Ecol. 2009, 202:275-284.
5. Bezemer T.M., Graa O., Rousseau P., van der Putten W.H. Above- and belowground trophic interactions on Creeping Thistle (Cirsium arvense) in high- and low-diversity plant communities: potential for biotic resistance?. Plant Biol. 2004, 6:231-238.
6. Blair A.C., Wolfe L.M. The evolution of an invasive plant: an experimental study with Silene latifolia. Ecology 2004, 85:3035-3042.
7. Blossey B., Nötzold R. Evolution of increased competitive ability in invasive nonindigenous plants-a hypothesis. J. Ecol. 1995, 83:887-889.
8. Bossdorf O., Auge H., Lafuma L., Rogers W.E., Siemann E., Prati D. Phenotypic and genetic differentiation between native and introduced plant populations. Oecologia 2005, 144:1-11.
9. Cappuccino N., Carpenter D. Invasive exotic plants suffer less herbivory than non-invasive exotic plants. Biol. Lett. 2005, 1:435-438.
10. Catford J.A., Jansson R., Nilsson C. Reducing redundancy in invasion ecology by integrating hypotheses into a single theoretical framework. Divers. Distrib. 2009, 15:22-40.
11. Cripps M.G., Edwards G.R., Bourdot G.W., Saville D.J., Hinz H.L., Fowler S.V. Effects of pasture competition and specialist herbivory on the performance of Cirsium arvense. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2009, 20:641-656.
12. Colautti R.I., Ricciardi A., Grigorovich I.A., Macisaac H.J. Is invasion success explained by the enemy release hypothesis?. Ecol. Lett. 2004, 7:721-733.
13. Colautti R.I., Maron J.L., Barrett S.C.H. Common garden comparisons of native and introduced plant populations: latitudinal clines can obscure evolutionary inferences. Evol. Appl. 2008, 2:187-199.
14. Crawley M.J. Statistical Computing: An Introduction to Data Analysis using S-Plus 2002, Wiley, Chichester.
15. Detmers, F., 1927. Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense Tourn.), field thistle, creeping thistle. Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 414. 45 p.
16. Drenovsky R.E., Martin C.E., Falasco M.R., James J.J. Variation in resource acquisition and utilization traits between native and invasive perennial forbs. Am. J. Bot. 2008, 95:681-687.
17. Ehrenberger F., Gorbach S. Methoden der organischen Elementar- und Spurenanalyse 1973, Verlag Chemie, Weinheim.
18. Ehrenfeld J.G. Effects of exotic plant invasions on soil nutrient cycling processes. Ecosystems 2003, 6:503-523.
19. Erfmeier A., Bruelheide H. Comparison of native and invasive Rhododendron ponticum populations: growth, reproduction and morphology under field conditions. Flora 2004, 199:120-133.
20. Fitter A.H., Peat H.J. The ecological flora database. J. Ecol. 1994, 82:415-450.
21. Garcia-Serrano H., Caño L., Escarré J., Fleck I., Sans F.X. Physiological comparison of alien Senecio inaequidens and S. pterophorus and native S. malacitanus: implications for invasion. Flora 2009, 204:445-455.
22. Guske S., Schulz B., Boyle C. Biocontrol options for Cirsium arvense with indigenous fungal pathogens. Weed Res. 2004, 44:107-116.
23. Jacobs J, S. J., Menalled F., (2006) Ecology and Management of Canada thistle [Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop.]. Montana Invasive Species Technical Notes, No. 5.
24. Jeschke J.M., Strayer D.L. Determinants of vertebrate invasion success in Europe and North America. Global Change Biol. 2006, 12:1608-1619.
25. Julien M.H., Griffiths M.W. Biological Control of Weeds. A World Catalogue of Agents and their Target Weeds 1998, CABI, Wallingford, UK. 4th ed.
26. Jordon-Thaden I.E., Louda S.A. Chemistry of Cirsium and Carduus: a role in ecological risk assessment for biological control of weeds?. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 2003, 31:1353-1396.
27. Kruess A. Indirect interaction between a fungal plant pathogen and a herbivorous beetle of the weed Cirsium arvense. Oecologia 2002, 130:563-569.
28. Kawecki T.J., Ebert D. Conceptual issues in local adaptation. Ecol. Lett. 2004, 7:1225-1241.
29. Kay Q.O.N. Hermaphrodites and subhermaphrodites in a reputedly dioecious plant, Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. New Phytol. 1985, 100:457-472.
30. Keane R.M., Crawley M.J. Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2002, 17:164-170.
31. Linhart Y.B., Grant M.C. Evolutionary significance of local genetic differentiation in plants. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1996, 27:237-277.
32. McClay A.S., Bourchier R., Butts R.A., Peschken D.P. Cirsium arvense (L.) Scopoli, Canada thistle (Asteraceae). Biological Control Programmes in Canada 2001, 318-330. CABI, Wallingford, UK. P.G. Mason, J.T. Huber (Eds.).
33. Mitchell C.E., Power A. Release of invasive plants from fungal and viral pathogens. Nature 2003, 421:625-627.
34. Moore R.J. The biology of Canadian weeds. 13: Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. Can. J. Plant Sci. 1975, 55:1033-1048.
35. Nuzzo V. Element Stewardship Abstract for Cirsium arvense 1997, The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA, USA.
36. Olsen S.R., Cole C.V., Watanabe F.S., Dean L.A. Estimation of available phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium bicarbonate. USDA Circ. 1954, 939:1-19.
37. Olsen S.R., Sommers L.E. Phosphorus. Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties. Agron. Monogr. 9 1982, 403-430. ASA and SSSA, Madison. 2nd ed. A.L. Page, T.H. Miller, D.R. Keeney (Eds.).
38. Peschken D.P., Wilkinson A.T.S. Biocontrol of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense): releases and effectiveness of Ceutorhynchus litura (F.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in Canada. Can. Entomol. 1981, 113:777-785.
39. Pritekel C., Whittemore-Olson A., Snow N., Moore J.C. Impacts from invasive plant species and their control on the plant community and belowground ecosystem at Rocky Mountain National Park, USA. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2006, 32:132-141.
40. Pysek P., Richardson D.M. Traits associated with invasiveness in alien plants: where do we stand?. Biological Invasions, Ecol. Stud. 2007, vol. 193:97-126. Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg.
41. Rajaniemi T.K., Reynolds H.L. Root foraging for patchy resources in eight herbaceous plant species. Oecologia 2004, 141:519-525.
42. Raabova J., Münzbergova Z., Fischer M. Ecological rather than geographic or genetic distance affects local adaptation of the rare perennial herb, Aster amellus. Biol. Conserv. 2007, 139:348-357.
43. Schroeder D. The biological control of thistles. Biocontrol News Inform. 1980, 1:9-26.
44. S-PLUS Professional Edition for Windows, Release 2 2000, MathSoft, Seattle, WA, USA.
45. Torchin M.E., Lafferty K.D., Kuris A.M. Parasites and marine invasions. Parasitology 2002, 124:137-151.
46. van Kleunen M., Schmid B. No evidence for an evolutionary increased competitive ability in an invasive plant. Ecology 2003, 84:2816-2823.
47. van Kleunen M., Dawson W., Schlaepfer D., Jeschke J.M., Fischer M. Are invaders different? A conceptual framework of comparative approaches for assessing determinants of invasiveness. Ecol. Lett. 2010, 13:947-958.
48. Vitousek P.M. Biological invasions and ecosystem processes: towards an integration of population biology and ecosystem studies. Oikos 1990, 57:7-13.
49. Wilcove D.S., Rothstein D., Dubow J., Phillips A., Losos E. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. Bioscience 1998, 48:607-615.
50. Williams J.L. Flowering life-history strategies differ between the native and introduced ranges of a monocarpic perennial. Am. Nat. 2009, 174:660-672.
51. Williams J.L., Auge H., Maron J.L. Different gardens, different results: native and introduced populations exhibit contrasting phenotypes across common gardens. Oecologia 2008, 157:239-248.
52. Zou J., Rogers W.E., Siemann E. Differences in morphological and physiological traits between native and invasive populations of Sapium sebiferum. Funct. Ecol. 2007, 21:721-730.