BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Success of invasive plant species is thought to be linked with their higher leaf carbon fixation strategy, enabling them to capture and utilize resources better than native species, and thus pre-empt and maintain space. However, these traits are not well-defined for invasive woody vines. METHODS: In a glass house setting, experiments were conducted to examine how leaf carbon gain strategies differ between non-indigenous invasive and native woody vines of south-eastern Australia, by investigating their biomass gain, leaf structural, nutrient and physiological traits under changing light and moisture regimes. KEY RESULTS: Leaf construction cost (CC), calorific value and carbon : nitrogen (C : N) ratio were lower in the invasive group, while ash content, N, maximum photosynthesis, light-use efficiency, photosynthetic energy-use efficiency (PEUE) and specific leaf area (SLA) were higher in this group relative to the native group. Trait plasticity, relative growth rate (RGR), photosynthetic nitrogen-use efficiency and water-use efficiency did not differ significantly between the groups. However, across light resource, regression analyses indicated that at a common (same) leaf CC and PEUE, a higher biomass RGR resulted for the invasive group; also at a common SLA, a lower CC but higher N resulted for the invasive group. Overall, trait co-ordination (using pair-wise correlation analyses) was better in the invasive group. Ordination using 16 leaf traits indicated that the major axis of invasive-native dichotomy is primarily driven by SLA and CC (including its components and/or derivative of PEUE) and was significantly linked with RGR. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrated that while not all measures of leaf resource traits may differ between the two groups, the higher level of trait correlation and higher revenue returned (RGR) per unit of major resource need (CC) and use (PEUE) in the invasive group is in line with their rapid spread where introduced.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Success of invasive plant species is thought to be linked with their higher leaf carbon fixation strategy, enabling them to capture and utilize resources better than native species, and thus pre-empt and maintain space. However, these traits are not well-defined for invasive woody vines. METHODS: In a glass house setting, experiments were conducted to examine how leaf carbon gain strategies differ between non-indigenous invasive and native woody vines of south-eastern Australia, by investigating their biomass gain, leaf structural, nutrient and physiological traits under changing light and moisture regimes. KEY RESULTS: Leaf construction cost (CC), calorific value and carbon : nitrogen (C : N) ratio were lower in the invasive group, while ash content, N, maximum photosynthesis, light-use efficiency, photosynthetic energy-use efficiency (PEUE) and specific leaf area (SLA) were higher in this group relative to the native group. Trait plasticity, relative growth rate (RGR), photosynthetic nitrogen-use efficiency and water-use efficiency did not differ significantly between the groups. However, across light resource, regression analyses indicated that at a common (same) leaf CC and PEUE, a higher biomass RGR resulted for the invasive group; also at a common SLA, a lower CC but higher N resulted for the invasive group. Overall, trait co-ordination (using pair-wise correlation analyses) was better in the invasive group. Ordination using 16 leaf traits indicated that the major axis of invasive-native dichotomy is primarily driven by SLA and CC (including its components and/or derivative of PEUE) and was significantly linked with RGR. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrated that while not all measures of leaf resource traits may differ between the two groups, the higher level of trait correlation and higher revenue returned (RGR) per unit of major resource need (CC) and use (PEUE) in the invasive group is in line with their rapid spread where introduced.
Authors: Ian J Wright; Peter B Reich; Mark Westoby; David D Ackerly; Zdravko Baruch; Frans Bongers; Jeannine Cavender-Bares; Terry Chapin; Johannes H C Cornelissen; Matthias Diemer; Jaume Flexas; Eric Garnier; Philip K Groom; Javier Gulias; Kouki Hikosaka; Byron B Lamont; Tali Lee; William Lee; Christopher Lusk; Jeremy J Midgley; Marie-Laure Navas; Ulo Niinemets; Jacek Oleksyn; Noriyuki Osada; Hendrik Poorter; Pieter Poot; Lynda Prior; Vladimir I Pyankov; Catherine Roumet; Sean C Thomas; Mark G Tjoelker; Erik J Veneklaas; Rafael Villar Journal: Nature Date: 2004-04-22 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Hendrik Poorter; Steeve Pepin; Toon Rijkers; Yvonne de Jong; John R Evans; Christian Körner Journal: J Exp Bot Date: 2005-11-22 Impact factor: 6.992
Authors: Christina L Richards; Oliver Bossdorf; Norris Z Muth; Jessica Gurevitch; Massimo Pigliucci Journal: Ecol Lett Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 9.492
Authors: Kaixiong Xing; Mingfei Zhao; Ülo Niinemets; Shuli Niu; Jing Tian; Yuan Jiang; Han Y H Chen; Philip J White; Dali Guo; Zeqing Ma Journal: Front Plant Sci Date: 2021-06-11 Impact factor: 5.753