| Literature DB >> 27897247 |
Tong Wang1, Jiangtao Hu1, Linlin Miao1, Dan Yu1, Chunhua Liu1.
Abstract
Environmental heterogeneity is considered to play a defining role in promoting invasion success, and it favours clonal plants. Although clonality has been demonstrated to be correlated with the invasion success of several species of clonal invasive plants in heterogeneous environments, little is known about how the spatial scale of heterogeneity affects their performance. In addition, the factors that distinguish invasive from non-invasive clonal species and that enhance the invasive potential of clonal exotic invaders in heterogeneous environments remain unclear. In this study, we compared several traits of a noxious clonal invasive species, Alternanthera philoxeroides, with its co-occurring non-invasive functional counterparts, the native congener Alternanthera sessilis, the exotic Myriophyllum aquaticum and the native Jussiaea repens, in three manipulative substrates with different soil distribution patterns. We found that the invasive performance of A. philoxeroides was not enhanced by heterogeneity and that it was generally scale independent. However, A. philoxeroides showed some advantages over the three non-invasives with respect to trait values and phenotypic variation. These advantages may enhance the competitive capacity of A. philoxeroides and thus promote its invasion success in heterogeneous environments.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27897247 PMCID: PMC5126666 DOI: 10.1038/srep38036
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Schematic representation of the three substrate types with different soil distribution patterns.
Area in light grey represents mixture of same volume of clay and sand in Ho. Area in dark grey represents clay patch in He1 and He2. Area with slashes represents sand patch in He1 and He2. Central black points in Ho, He1 and He2 represent where the plant were cultivated during the experiment set-up
F-value and significances of two-way ANOVA of the effects of species and substrate type on the growth traits of the four species.
| Species (S) | Substrate type (T) | S × T | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 322.4755 | 13.943 | 7.004 | ||||
| 175.140 | 4.139 | 11.492 | ||||
| 11.227 | 2.676 | 0.077 | 1.137 | 0.352 | ||
| 169.683 | 20.587 | 8.812 | ||||
| 111.105 | 5.056 | 4.219 | ||||
| 154.778 | 10.478 | 2.438 | ||||
| 110.464 | 29.362 | 3.541 | ||||
| 34.653 | 6.275 | 0.406 | 0.872 | |||
| 33.601 | 6.074 | 0.400 | 0.876 | |||
Figure 2Trait value variation of the four species in different substrates.
Values represent mean ± SE. Vertical bars with different letters represent significant differences (P < 0.05).