| Literature DB >> 27995984 |
Lin Liu1, Han Quan1, Bi-Cheng Dong1, Xiang-Qi Bu1, Lin Li1, Fu-De Liu2, Guang-Chun Lei1, Hong-Li Li1.
Abstract
Nutrients may affect the invasiveness of alien plants and the invasibility of native plant communities. We performed a greenhouse experiment to investigate the interactive effect of invasion by a clonal herb Hydrocotyle vulgaris and nutrient enrichment on biomass and evenness of native plant communities. We established three types of plant communities (H. vulgaris alone, native plant communities without or with H. vulgaris) under low and high levels of nutrients. Native communities consisted of eight native, terrestrial species of three functional groups, i.e. four grasses, two legumes, and two forbs. Invasion of H. vulgaris had no effect on biomass of the native community, the functional groups, or the individual species. High nutrients increased biomass of grasses, but reduced evenness of the community. High nutrients also decreased the competitive effect, and the relative dominance index of H. vulgaris. Therefore, high nutrients reduced the competitive ability of H. vulgaris and enhanced the resistance of the native community to invasion. The results provide a basis for management strategies to control the invasion and spread of H. vulgaris by manipulating resource availability to support native communities.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27995984 PMCID: PMC5172361 DOI: 10.1038/srep39468
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Effects of plant community and nutrient level on the growth of H. vulgaris (mean ± SE): (A) total mass; (B) root mass; (C) stem mass; (D) leaf mass; (E) number of nodes; (F) petiole length; (G) stem length; and (H) leaf area. See Table 1 for ANOVA summaries.
Summary of ANOVAs for the effects of plant community and nutrient level on the growth of Hydrocotyle vulgaris.
| Traits | Plant community (P) | Nutrient (N) | P × N | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total mass | 3.60 | 0.072 | 3.25 | 0.087 | ||
| Root mass | 1.34 | 0.261 | 3.37 | 0.081 | ||
| Stem mass | 3.28 | 0.085 | 2.93 | 0.103 | ||
| Leaf mass | ||||||
| No. of nodes | ||||||
| Petiole length | 0.65 | 0.429 | 1.61 | 0.692 | ||
| Stem length | ||||||
| Leaf areaa | 3.44 | 0.079 | ||||
Values are in bold if P < 0.01 and in italics if P < 0.05. See Fig. 1 for graphical representation of data.
aIndicates log-transformed data.
bIndicates square root-transformed data.
Figure 2Effects of H. vulgaris invasion and nutrient level on measure of the native plant communities (mean ± SE): (A) total mass; (B) aboveground mass; (C) belowground mass; and (D) evenness of mass. See Table 2A for ANOVA summaries.
Summary of ANOVAs for the effects of Hydrocotyle vulgaris invasion and nutrient level on biomass and evenness of the native communities (A) and biomass of each native species (B).
| Traits | Invasion (I) | Nutrient (N) | I × N | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (A) Native plant communities | ||||||
| Total mass | 0.06 | 0.808 | 3.05 | 0.100 | ||
| Aboveground mass | 0.01 | 0.942 | 3.17 | 0.094 | ||
| Underground mass | 0.55 | 0.467 | 2.58 | 0.128 | ||
| Evenness of mass | 1.49 | 0.240 | 1.53 | 0.233 | ||
| (B) Native species | ||||||
| 0.05 | 0.819 | 2.25 | 0.152 | |||
| 0.01 | 0.930 | 0.48 | 0.495 | 0.76 | 0.397 | |
| 0.03 | 0.859 | 2.46 | 0.136 | 0.75 | 0.398 | |
| 0.31 | 0.588 | 0.25 | 0.623 | 1.60 | 0.224 | |
| 1.17 | 0.293 | 0.02 | 0.889 | 0.36 | 0.556 | |
| 4.78 | 0.049 | 0.10 | 0.756 | 0.20 | 0.661 | |
| 1.89 | 0.188 | 0.84 | 0.374 | 0.14 | 0.711 | |
| 1.12 | 0.305 | 0.93 | 0.350 | 0.00 | 0.986 | |
Values are in bold if P < 0.01 and in italics if P < 0.05. See Figs 2 and 5 for data.
bIndicates square root-transformed data.
Figure 3Effects of H. vulgaris invasion and nutrient level on biomass of functional groups (mean ± SE).
(A,B and C) total mass; (D,E and F) aboveground mass; and (G,H and I) belowground mass. See Table 3 for ANOVA summaries.
Summary of ANOVAs for the effects of Hydrocotyle vulgaris invasion and nutrient level on biomass of each functional group.
| Traits | Invasion (I) | Nutrient (N) | I × N | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (A) Grasses | ||||||
| Total mass | 0.54 | 0.470 | 3.01 | 0.100 | ||
| Aboveground mass | 0.40 | 0.533 | 2.69 | 0.117 | ||
| Underground mass | 1.10 | 0.307 | 3.51 | 0.077 | ||
| (B) Legumes | ||||||
| Total mass | 1.13 | 0.302 | 0.27 | 0.609 | 0.75 | 0.397 |
| Aboveground mass | 0.87 | 0.364 | 0.30 | 0.590 | 0.78 | 0.388 |
| Underground mass | 0.69 | 0.416 | 0.00 | 0.991 | 0.12 | 0.732 |
| (C) Forbs | ||||||
| Total mass | 0.54 | 0.473 | 0.05 | 0.832 | 0.03 | 0.856 |
| Aboveground mass | 0.52 | 0.479 | 0.11 | 0.741 | 0.10 | 0.753 |
| Underground mass | 0.86 | 0.366 | 0.00 | 0.953 | 0.21 | 0.655 |
Values are in bold if P < 0.01 and in italics if P < 0.05. See Fig. 3 for data.
Figure 4Effects of H. vulgaris invasion and nutrient level on total mass of each of eight species (mean ± SE).
See Table 2B for ANOVA summaries.
Figure 5Effects of nutrition level on (A) competitive effect and (B) relative dominance index of H. vulgaris (mean ± SE).