| Literature DB >> 30687373 |
Lise Thouvenot1,2, Benoit Gauzens1,3, Jacques Haury4,5, Gabrielle Thiébaut6.
Abstract
With the increase in the number of introduced species each year, biological invasions are considered as one of the most important environmental problems for native biodiversity. In invaded habitats, the establishment of exotic plant species depends on the abiotic and biotic environment. Herbivores and neighboring plants (native or exotic) comprise an important part of the latter. Herbivores cause trophic and non-trophic damage to focal plants, which respond to herbivory by varying their different traits quantitatively (e.g., growth rate and biomass changes) and qualitatively (e.g., variation in morphological and chemical defenses strategies affecting plant palatability). Neighboring plant species also affect functional traits and the fitness of focal plant species, thus herbivore effects on a focal plant could also depend indirectly on the palatability and defensive traits of the neighboring species inside the community. Here, in a first step toward the integration of associational susceptibility/resistance theories in the field of ecological invasion, we performed a microcosm experiment to consider the effects of an exotic crayfish on the growth rate, morphological traits and damage level of three macrophytes (two exotic, one native) growing in pairwise combinations. We found that (i) the response to herbivore presence and to neighboring species identity seemed to be species specific, and (ii) crayfish enhance the fragmentation rate of the two exotic macrophytes Ludwigia grandiflora and Egeria densa in the presence of the native macrophyte Myriophyllum spicatum, which could indirectly facilitate their invasion success. Indeed, fragmentation can increase dispersal abilities of the exotic macrophytes considered in this study as they are able to generate new plants from their fragments. However, our results showed that the interaction herbivore-neighbor species was hardly significant. Our paper presents some first results on associational resistance/susceptibility and lays the foundation for developing a general framework that combines plant community ecology and biological invasion ecology to explain invasive species success.Entities:
Keywords: associational susceptibility/resistance; biological invasion; community assemblage; ecological strategy; functional traits; herbivory
Year: 2019 PMID: 30687373 PMCID: PMC6335397 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2018.01981
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
Characteristics (common name, family, biological type, status, habitat, and morphology) of the three aquatic plant species used in mixed cultures: Egeria densa, Ludwigia grandiflora, and Myriophyllum spicatum.
| Common name | Brazilian waterweed | Water primrose | Eurasian watermilfoil |
| Family | Hydrocharitaceae | Onagraceae | Haloragaceae |
| Biological type | Submerged freshwater plant | Amphibious freshwater plant | Submerged freshwater plant |
| Status/native area | Exotic in some European countries, Australia, New Zealand, Turkey/Native to South America1 . | Native to Europe, Asia, and Northern Africa/ Exotic in the United-States, Australia, South Africa, India6 | |
| Habitat | Still and flowing waters, lakes, ponds, pools and quiet streams. | Marshes, ponds, slow-running rivers, as well as wet meadows3. | Slow moving or still eutrophic water7. |
| Morphology | Dense monospecific stands Very bushy plant with dense whorls of robust leaves Four leaves per whorl and each leaf is at least 2 cm long. Palatable aquatic macrophyte2 | Creeping submerged stems (glabrous to sparsely pubescent) and aerial shoots. Alternate, polymorphic4 leaves Reported as an unpalatable plant, whereas cases of grazing have been observed5 | Stems grow to water surface and frequently form dense mats. Mature leaves: typically arranged in whorls of four leaves. Leaf has 12 or more leaflet pairs. Low palatable plant8: production of polyphenols9. |
Summary of two-factor Bayesian ANOVAs performed for each species and each measured trait: relative growth rate (RGR), dry matter content (DMC), leaf dry matter content (LDMC), and specific leaf area (SLA).
| Neighboring species (N) | 0.032 | (0.288) | 0.055 | (0.234) | 0.067 | (0.267) | ||
| Crayfish treatment (C) | 0.156 | (0.399) | 0.095 | (0.107) | 0.116 | (0.128) | ||
| Interaction (N) × (C) | 0.069 | (0.268) | 0.917 | (0.400) | 0.230 | ( | ||
| Neighboring species (N) | 0.009 | (0.320) | 0.135 | (0.377) | ( | |||
| Crayfish treatment (C) | 0.107 | (0.398) | 0.016 | (0.280) | 0.012 | (0.319) | ||
| Interaction (N) × (C) | 0.041 | (0.173) | 0.022 | (0.496) | ( | 0.014 | (0.393) | |
| Neighboring species (N) | 0.005 | (0.465) | 1.261 | (0.146) | / | |||
| Crayfish treatment (C) | 0.730 | (0.271) | 0.056 | (0.196) | / | |||
| Interaction (N) × (C) | 0.857 | (0.352) | 0.072 | (0.299) | ||||
Summary of two-factor Bayesian ANOVAs performed for each species and each type of damage induced by crayfish: percentage of damaged leaves, free leaf biomass and number of cut shoots.
| Species | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Neighboring species | ||||||
| Neighboring species (N) | 0.254 (0.123) | 0.014 (0.458) | 0.004 (0.490) | |||
| Crayfish treatment (C) | ||||||
| Neighboring species (N) | 0.002 (0.409) | 0.113 (0.125) | 0.071 (0.195) | |||
| Crayfish treatment (C) | 0.005 (0.134) | |||||
| Neighboring species (N) | 0.359 (0.297) | |||||
| Crayfish treatment (C) | 0.504 (0.158) | 0.614 (0.136) | 0.255 (0.237) | |||
FIGURE 1Effect of neighboring species and herbivory on the damaged leaves (A–C), free leaf biomass (D–F), and number of cut shoots (G–I) of E. densa, L. grandiflora and M. spicatum (Means ± SE). Colors code the identity of the neighboring species: orange for E. densa, red for L. grandiflora and green for M. spicatum. Stars show the significant herbivory effects (significance threshold of 0.05).
FIGURE 2Effect of neighboring species and herbivory on the relative growth rate (A–C) and dry matter content (D–F) of E. densa, L. grandiflora and M. spicatum (Means ± SE). Colors code the identity of the neighboring species: orange for E. densa, red for L. grandiflora and green for M. spicatum. Letters indicate the significance of pairwise comparisons (significance threshold of 0.05).
Summary of the pairwise comparisons performed for each species and each measured trait: relative growth rate (RGR), dry matter content (DMC), leaf dry matter content (LDMC), and specific leaf area (SLA).
| Crayfish, | –0.303 | (0.344) | | |||||
| Crayfish, | –0.066 | (0.263) | | |||||
| Crayfish, | –0.637 | (0.206) | 0.179 | (0.114) | ||||
| Control, | | –0.948 | (0.129) | 0.039 | (0.361) | 0.0003 | (0.360) | |
| Control, | 0.002 | (0.474) | –0.334 | (0.298) | 0.060 | (0.282) | –0.062 | (0.209) |
| Control, | 0.614 | (0.226) | 0.020 | (0.418) | –0.062 | (0.312) | ||
| Crayfish, | –0.096 | (0.411) | 0.004 | (0.442) | ||||
| Crayfish, | 0.030 | (0.223) | 0.146 | (0.413) | –0.003 | (0.474) | ||
| Crayfish, | 0.028 | (0.473) | 0.025 | (0.249) | ||||
| Control, | | 0.242 | (0.366) | | ||||
| Control, | –0.011 | (0.220) | 0.123 | (0.402) | | |||
| Control, | –0.118 | (0.433) | 0.028 | (0.247) | 0.019 | (0.311) | ||
| Crayfish, | –0.008 | (0.466) | –1.158 | (0.256) | –0.008 | (0.467) | / | |
| Crayfish, | 0.082 | (0.196) | –1.690 | (0.158) | 0.061 | (0.255) | / | |
| Crayfish, | –0.082 | (0.147) | –1.991 | (0.142) | | / | ||
| Control, | 0.090 | (0.130) | –0.532 | (0.342) | 0.069 | (0.215) | / | |
| Control, | –0.833 | (0.294) | | / | ||||
| Control, | ( | –0.301 | (0.411) | 0.094 | (0.164) | / | ||
FIGURE 3Effect of neighboring species and herbivory on the leaf dry matter content (A–C) and specific leaf area (D,E) of E. densa, L. grandiflora, and M. spicatum (Means ± SE). Colors code the identity of the neighboring species: orange for E. densa, red for L. grandiflora and green for M. spicatum. Letters indicate the significance of pairwise comparisons (significance threshold of 0.05).
FIGURE 4Schematic diagram of the effects of interactions between the different plant species (the native species M. spicatum, and the exotic species E. densa and L. grandiflora) under herbivore pressure on the development (RGR, LDMC) and fragmentation (number of cut shoots) of the plant species involved in the experiment. The effects are positive (+), negative (–) and neutral (i.e., without effect, Ø).