| Literature DB >> 29636551 |
Shuping Zhang1,2, Maike Isermann3, Wenhao Gan4, Martin Breed5.
Abstract
Increased performance of invasive plant species in their introduced range vs. their native range has been previously documented. However, performance differences among invasive populations have rarely been explored, despite this information being central to understanding the evolution of invasiveness as well as being a useful basis to inform management of invasive species. To examine variation in performance among populations of Rosa rugosa in its introduced range, and whether introduced populations perform better than native populations, we quantified growth and reproductive traits in five invasive populations in northwest Europe and two native and declining populations in China. Overall, we found that the introduced R. rugosa populations we sampled performed significantly better than the sampled native populations for growth and reproductive traits (2 to 4 fold increase). However, there was significant variation for most traits among the five invasive populations, demonstrating that some introduced populations we sampled were more successful invaders than others. Our findings provide a useful foundation for management of invasive R. rugosa in Europe, and support the recent call for more intra-species research in invasive species biology.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29636551 PMCID: PMC5893583 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-23974-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Nested ANOVA results showing effects of region and population nested within region on eight performance traits of Rosa rugosa.
| Trait | Factor | df | SS | MS | F | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Hips/m2 a | Region | 1 | 3328.00 | 3328.20 | 5.81 | <0.05* |
| Region: population | 4 | 12760.00 | 3189.90 | 5.56 | <0.001*** | |
| Residual | 65 | 37263.00 | 573.30 | |||
| Seeds per hipa | Region | 1 | 5967.90 | 5967.90 | 21.27 | <0.001*** |
| Region: population | 4 | 1639.60 | 409.90 | 1.46 | 0.224 NS | |
| Residual | 65 | 18240.30 | 280.60 | |||
| Seeds/m2 a,b | Region | 1 | 3189.00 | 3189.00 | 11.81 | <0.001** |
| Region: population | 4 | 5824.10 | 1456.00 | 5.39 | <0.001*** | |
| Residual | 65 | 17554.20 | 270.10 | |||
| Hip length: width | Region | 1 | 0.41 | 0.41 | 55.48 | <0.001*** |
| Region: population | 4 | 0.13 | 0.03 | 4.34 | <0.01** | |
| Residual | 65 | 0.48 | 0.00 | |||
| Hip volume (cm3) | Region | 1 | 31.816 | 32.82 | 30.39 | <0.001*** |
| Region: population | 4 | 50.92 | 12.73 | 12.16 | <0.001*** | |
| Residual | 65 | 68.05 | 1.05 | |||
|
| ||||||
| Shrub size (m2)b | Region | 1 | 740.02 | 740.02 | 10.47 | <0.01** |
| Region: population | 5 | 962.90 | 192.58 | 2.72 | <0.05* | |
| Residual | 74 | 5232.00 | 70.70 | |||
| Cover (%) | Region | 1 | 14931.00 | 14930.00 | 50.85 | <0.001*** |
| Region: population | 5 | 4249.70 | 849.90 | 2.89 | <0.05* | |
| Residual | 74 | 21727.30 | 293.60 | |||
| Height (cm)c | Region | 1 | 13912.50 | 13912.50 | 20.97 | <0.001*** |
| Region: population | 5 | 11490.00 | 2298.00 | 3.46 | <0.01** | |
| Residual | 56 | 37161.00 | 663.60 | |||
Significant P values were shown as follows: ‘***’ < 0.001, ‘**’ < 0.01, ‘*’ < 0.05. df is degrees of freedom, SS is sum of squares, MS is mean squares, F is the F statistic.
aTraits without data from population HCH, since there was no available hip and seed data due to flower collection by local residents.
bTraits were square root transformed before ANOVA to increase normality and decrease heteroscedasticity of the variables.
cTrait was analyzed after omitting 18 shrubs with mowing management in HUN, DRA, HEA, SKA.
Performance traits comparison of Rosa rugosa between introduced European range and native Chinese range.
| Trait | Introduced Europe | Native China | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | Mean | Range | SD | n | Mean | Range | SD | |
|
| ||||||||
| Hips/m2 | 61 | 32 | 1–112 | 28 | 10 | 12 | 2–36 | 11 |
| Seeds/hip | 61 | 58 | 20–101 | 18 | 10 | 31 | 24–43 | 5 |
| Seeds/m2 | 61 | 1862 | 46–7171 | 1735 | 10 | 440 | 76–1044 | 354 |
| Hip volume (cm3) | 61 | 3.41 | 0.83–5.94 | 1.40 | 10 | 1.48 | 1.08–2.19 | 0.40 |
| Hip length: width | 61 |
| 0.59–1.02 |
| 10 | 0.94 | 0.80–1.18 | 0.11 |
|
| ||||||||
| Shrub size (m2) | 61 | 368 | 3.00–3000.00 | 493.65 | 20 | 113.25 | 8.00–520 | 117.47 |
| Cover (%) | 61 | 75 | 23.00–98.00 |
| 20 | 43.40 | 10–72 | 18.39 |
| Height (cm)* | 43 | 97 | 47.00–177.00 | 31.40 | 20 | 64.75 | 34.0–103.0 | 19.53 |
Values significantly smaller in the introduced European range than in the native Chinese range are underlined.
*Trait was analyzed after omitting all 18 shrubs with mowing management in HUN, DRA, HEA, SKA.
Figure 1The bar plots of means with 95% confidence intervals (mean ± 1.96 SE) indicating trait differences among populations. (a) Hips/m2, (b) Seeds/m2, (c) Hip length: width, (d) Hip volume (cm3), (e) Shrub size (m2), and (f) Cover (%). The introduced European populations are Langeoog LAN, Hundige HUN, Dragør DRA, Heatherhill HEA, and Skanor SKA, while native Chinese populations are Muping MUP and Hunchun HCH. There were no significant differences between bars marked by the same letter.
Figure 2Maps of the sampling sites and investigated regions. The solid black triangles in map (a) indicate the sampling sites of five introduced populations in Europe including LAN Langeoog, HUN Hundige, DRA Dragor, HEA Heatherhill, and SKA Skanor, the solid black dots in map (b) indicate the sampling sites of two native populations in China including MUP Muping and HCH Hunchun, and the two rectangles in map (c) show the two investigated regions in Eurasia.
Location, sample size and habitat of each investigated Rosa rugosa population.
| Population | Abbreviation | n | Habitat |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Langeoog, Germany | LAN | 15 | Manmade sand dunes, North Sea |
| Hundige, Denmark* | HUN | 13 | Manmade sand beach, Baltic Sea |
| Dragor, Denmark* | DRA | 11 | Sandy beach, Baltic Sea |
| Heatherhill, Denmark* | HEA | 10 | Sandy cliff facing the Kattegat |
| Scanor, Sweden* | SKA | 12 | Sandy beach, Baltic Sea |
|
| 61 | ||
|
| |||
| Muping, China | MUP | 10 | Sand beach, Bohai Sea |
| Hunchun, China | HCH | 10 | Sand dunes, Tumenjiang Valley |
|
| 20 | ||
Five naturalized introduced populations from Northwest Europe and two native populations from China were sampled. The geographic locations of all seven populations are shown in Fig. 2.
*Populations with partial mowing management.