Non-native conditions favor non-native populations of invasive plant: Demographic consequences of seed size variation?

Oikos

Volumn 122, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 583-590

  Hierro, José L ^a   Eren, Özkan ^b   Villarreal, Diego ^a   Chiuffo, Mariana C ^a  

^a UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL DE LA PAMPA   (Argentina)

^b ADNAN MENDERES UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DEMOGRAPHY; DICOTYLEDON; DISTURBANCE; HERBIVORY; HOME RANGE; INVASIVE SPECIES; NATIVE SPECIES; POPULATION DISTRIBUTION; POPULATION STRUCTURE; REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS; SEED SIZE;

ARGENTINA; TURKEY;

CENTAUREA; CENTAUREA SOLSTITIALIS;

EID: 84875612299     PISSN: 00301299     EISSN: 16000706     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2012.00022.x     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Agrawal A. 2001. Transgenerational consequences of plant responses to herbivory: an adaptive maternal effect? Am. Nat. 157: 555-569.
2. Andonian K. and Hierro J. L. 2011. Species interactions contribute to the success of a global plant invader. Biol. Invas. 13: 2957-2965.
3. Andonian K. et al. 2011. Range-expanding populations of a globally introduced weed experience negative plant-soil feedbacks. PLoS One 6: e20117.
4. Andonian K. et al. 2012. Geographic mosaics of plant-soil microbe interactions in a global plant invasion. J. Biogeogr. 39: 600-608.
5. Baker H. G. 1972. Seed weight in relation to environmental conditions in California. Ecology 53: 997-1010.
6. Beaton L. L. et al. 2011. Comparison of the herbivore defense and competitive ability of ancestral and modern genotypes of an invasive plant, Lespedeza cuneata. Oikos 120: 1413-1419.
7. Benefield C. B. et al. 2001. Reproductive biology of yellow starthistle: maximizing late-season control. Weed Sci. 49: 83-90.
8. Blossey B. and Nötzold R. 1995. Evolution of increased competitive ability in invasive non-indigenous plants: a hypothesis. J. Ecol. 83: 887-889.
9. Bolker B. M. et al. 2008. Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24: 127-135.
10. Bossdorf O. et al. 2005. Phenotypic and genetic differentiation between native and introduced plant populations. Oecologia 144: 1-11.
11. Brooker R. W. et al. 2008. Facilitation in plant communities: the past, the present, and the future. J. Ecol. 96: 18-34.
12. Buckley Y. M. et al. 2003. Are invasives bigger? A global study of seed size variation in two invasive shrubs. Ecology 84: 1434-1440.
13. Buswell J. M. et al. 2011. Is rapid evolution common in introduced plant species? J. Ecol. 99: 214-224.
14. Caddick L. R. and Linder H. P. 2002. Evolutionary strategies for reproduction and dispersal in African Restionaceae. Aust. J. Bot. 50: 339-355.
15. Callaway R. M. 2007. Positive interactions and interdependence in plant communities. - Springer.
16. Callaway R. M. et al. 2006. Defoliation of Centaurea solstitialis stimulates compensatory growth and intensifies negative effects on neighbors. Biol. Invas. 8: 1389-1397.
17. Clausen J. et al. 1940. Experimental studies on the nature of species. I. Effects of varied environments on western North American plants, Vol. 520. - Carnegie Inst. Wash.
18. Colautti R. I. et al. 2009. Common garden comparisons of native and introduced plant populations: latitudinal clines can obscure evolutionary inferences. Evol. Appl. 2: 187-199.
19. Conner J. K. and Hartl D. L. 2004. A premier of ecological genetics. - Sinauer.
20. Dukes J. S. 2002. Species composition and diversity affect grassland susceptibility and response to invasion. Ecol. Appl. 12: 602-617.
21. Eriksen R. L. et al. 2012. Morphological differentiation in a common garden experiment among native and non-native specimens of the invasive weed yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis). Biol. Invas. 14: 1459-1467.
22. Feng Y. et al. 2009. Evolutionary tradeoffs for nitrogen allocation to photosynthesis versus cell walls in an invasive plant. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106: 1853-1856.
23. Genton B. J. et al. 2005. Enemy release but no evolutionary loss of defence in a plant invasion: an inter-continental reciprocal transplant experiment. Oecologia 146: 404-414.
24. Gerlach J. D. 1997. How the west was lost: reconstructing the invasion dynamics of yellow starthistle and other plant invaders of western rangelands and natural areas. Proc. Calif. Exotic Pest Plant Council Symp. 3: 67-72.
25. Gerlach J. D. and Rice K. J. 2003. Testing life history correlates of invasiveness using congeneric plant species. Ecol. Appl. 13: 167-179.
26. Graebner R. et al. 2012. Invasive species grows faster, competes better, and shows greater evolution toward increased seed size and growth than exotic non-invasive congeners. Plant Ecol. 213: 545-553.
27. Graff P. et al. 2007. Shifts in positive and negative plant interactions along a grazing intensity gradient. Ecology 88: 188-199.
28. Grigulis K. et al. 2001. The comparative demography of the pasture weed Echium plantagineum between its native and invaded ranges. J. Appl. Ecol. 38: 281-290.
29. Herrera A. M. et al. 2011. Introduced populations of Genista monspessulana (French broom) are more dense and produce a greater seed rain in California, USA, than native populations in the Mediterranean Basin of Europe. Biol. Invas. 13: 369-380.
30. Hierro J. L. et al. 2006. Disturbance facilitates invasions: the effects are stronger abroad than at home. Am. Nat. 168: 144-156.
31. Hierro J. L. et al. 2009. Germination responses of an invasive species in native and non-native ranges. Oikos 118: 529-538.
32. Hierro J. L. et al. 2011. Resistance to Centaurea solstitialis invasion from annual and perennial grasses in California and Argentina. Biol. Invas. 13: 2249-2259.
33. Hijano E. and Basigalup D. 1995. El cultivo de la alfalfa en la República Argentina. - In: Hijano E. and Navarro A. (eds), La Alfalfa en la Argentina. Inst. Nacional Tecnol. Agropecuaria, Argentina, pp. 13-18, in Spanish.
34. Huey R. B. et al. 2000. Rapid evolution of a geographic cline in size in an introduced fly. Science 287: 308-309.
35. Kawecki T. J. and Ebert D. 2004. Conceptual issues on local adaptation. Ecol. Lett. 7: 1225-1241.
36. Lavergne S. and Molofsky J. 2007. Increased genetic variation and evolutionary potential drive the success of an invasive grass. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104: 3883-3888.
37. Lee C. E. 2002. Evolutionary genetics of invasive species. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17: 386-391.
38. Leger E. A. and Rice K. J. 2007. Assessing the speed and predictability of local adaptation in invasive California poppies (Eschscholzia californica). J. Evol. Biol. 20: 1090-1103.
39. Leishman M. R. and Westoby M. 1994. The role of seed size in seedling establishment in dry soil conditions - experimental evidence from semi-arid species. J. Ecol. 82: 249-258.
40. Leishman M. R. et al. 2000. The evolutionary ecology of seed size. - In: Fenner M. (ed.), Seeds, the ecology of regeneration in plant communities, 2dn ed. CABI Publishing, pp. 31-57.
41. Maddox D. M. et al. 1985. Distribution of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) and Russian knapweed (Centaurea repens). Weed Sci. 33: 315-327.
42. Maron J. L. et al. 2004a. Rapid evolution of an invasive plant. Ecol. Monogr. 74: 261-280.
43. Maron J. L. et al. 2004b. Loss of enemy resistance among introduced populations of St. John's wort (Hypericum perforatum). Ecology 85: 3243-3253.
44. Maron J. L. et al. 2007. Contrasting plant physiological adaptation to climate in the native and introduced range of Hypericum perforatum. Evolution 61: 1912-1924.
45. Mazer S. J. 1989. Ecological, taxonomic and life history correlates of seed mass among Indiana dune angiosperms. Ecol. Monogr. 59: 153-175.
46. Moles A. T. and Westoby M. 2004. Seedling survival and seed size: a synthesis of the literature. J. Ecol. 92: 372-383.
47. Moles A. T. and Westoby M. 2006. Seed size and plant strategy across the whole life cycle. Oikos 113: 91-105.
48. Müller-Schärer H. et al. 2004. Evolution in invasive plants: implications for biological control. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19: 417-422.
49. Novak S. J. and Mack R. N. 2005. Genetic bottlenecks in alien plant species: influence of mating systems and introduction dynamics. - In: Sax D. et al. (eds), Species invasions: insights into ecology, evolution and biogeography. Sinauer, pp. 341-363.
50. Paz H. et al. 1999. Seed mass, seedling emergence, and environmental factors in seven rain forest Psychotria (Rubiaceae). Ecology 80: 1594-1606.
51. Peco B. et al. 2009. Seed size and response to rainfall patterns in annual grasslands: 16 years of permanent plot data. J. Veg. Sci. 20: 8-16.
52. Phillips B. L. et al. 2006. Invasion and the evolution of speed in toads. Nature 439: 803.
53. Pitcairn M. J. and Schoenig S. 2006. Yellow starthistle continues its spread in California. Calif. Agric. 60: 83-90.
54. Prentis P. J. et al. 2008. Adaptive evolution in invasive species. Trends Plant Sci. 13: 288-294.
55. Prodan I. 1930. Centaurelle Romaniei. Buletinul Academiei de Inalte Studii Agronomice Cluj-Roumanie Institutul de Arte Grafice "Ardealul" Strada Memorandului no. 22, in German and Romanian.
56. Rees M. and Westoby M. 1997. Game-theoretical evolution of seed mass in multi-species ecological models. Oikos 78: 116-126.
57. Ridenour W. M. et al. 2008. No evidence for tradeoffs: Centaurea plants from America are better competitors and defenders than plants from the native range. Ecol. Monogr. 78: 369-386.
58. Rossiter M. C. 1996. Incidence and consequences of inherited environmental effects. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 27: 451-476.
59. Sakai A. K. et al. 2001. The population biology of invasive species. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 32: 305-332.
60. Sun M. and Ritland K. 1998. Mating system of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), a successful colonizer in North America. Heredity 80: 225-232.
61. Wagenitz C. 1955. Pollenmorphologie and Systematik in der gattung Centaurea L. S. I. Flora 142: 213-275, in German.
62. Westoby M. et al. 2002. Comparative evolutionary ecology of seed size. Trends Ecol. Evol. 7: 368-372.
63. Widmer T. L. et al. 2007. Enhanced growth and seed properties in introduced vs. native populations of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis). Weed Sci. 55: 465-473.
64. Williams J. et al. 2008. Different gardens, different results: native and introduced populations exhibit contrasting phenotypes across common gardens. Oecologia 157: 239-248.
65. Zangerl A. R. and Berenbaum M. R. 2005. Increase in toxicity of an invasive weed after reassociation with its coevolved herbivore. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102: 15529-15532.