| Literature DB >> 35342567 |
Danfeng Liu1,2, Li Chen1,2, Chao Chen1,2, Yue Zhou1,2, Feng Xiao1,2, Yi Wang1,2, Qingjun Li1,2.
Abstract
Invasive plants often pose great threats to the growth of co-occurring native plant species. Identifying environmental factors that facilitate exotic plant invasion and native species decline are important. In this study, we measured the effects of plant volatile organic compounds (VOCs), light intensity, and their interactions on the growth and reproduction performance of indigenous Phytolacca acinosa, and invasive Phytolacca americana, which has largely replaced the former in China. VOCs of invasive P. americana and low light levels both had negative effects on P. acinosa morphological and reproductive traits (stem length, average leaf number, total number, and length of racemes), and biomass allocation (total biomass, and leaf and flower mass fraction); low light also affected photosynthesis-related trait (specific leaf area) of P. acinosa. In contrast, VOCs of P. acinosa had no significant effect on P. americana, but low light levels adversely affected its morphological and reproductive traits (stem length, total number, and length of racemes) and biomass allocation (total biomass, stem, and leaf mass fraction). Interactions between plant VOCs and light intensity had no significant effects on P. acinosa or P. americana. Under all experimental treatments, stem length, average leaf area, total number, and length of racemes, Root/Shoot ratio, root and flower mass fraction of P. americana were higher than those of P. acinosa, while average leaf number, specific leaf area, and leaf mass fraction was lower. These results indicated that P. acinosa was sensitive to P. americana VOCs and low light, which might affect the growth of sympatric P. acinosa. P. americana was negatively influenced by low light, but higher plant height and more reproductive organ resource allocation relative to sympatric P. acinosa might contribute to invasion success.Entities:
Keywords: invasive Phytolacca americana; light intensity; native Phytolacca acinosa; plant VOCs; plant growth and reproduction performance
Year: 2022 PMID: 35342567 PMCID: PMC8932221 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.8522
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 2.912
Two‐way ANOVA analysis of the effects of VOCs and light intensity on plant traits of Phytolacca acinosa and Phytolacca americana
| Plant traits | VOCs (V) | Light intensity (L) | V × L | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| ||||||
| Stem length |
|
|
|
| 1.060 | .379 |
| Average leaf number |
| . |
| . | 0.409 | .802 |
| Average leaf area | 2.741 | .068 | 0.938 | .394 | 1.418 | .232 |
| Specific leaf area | 0.104 | .902 |
|
| 1.289 | .278 |
| Relative content of chlorophyll | 0.147 | .863 | 0.194 | .824 | 0.453 | .770 |
| The total number of racemes |
| . |
|
| 0.552 | .698 |
| Length of the 1st raceme |
| . |
|
| 1.600 | .178 |
| Total biomass |
|
|
|
| 0.904 | .464 |
| R/S ratio | 1.492 | .229 |
|
| 0.157 | .959 |
| Root mass fraction | 1.399 | .251 |
|
| 0.236 | .918 |
| Stem mass fraction |
| . | 0.293 | .747 | 0.378 | .824 |
| Leaf mass fraction |
| . |
|
| 0.576 | .681 |
| Flower mass fraction |
| . |
|
| 1.313 | .269 |
|
| ||||||
| Stem length | 1.338 | .266 |
|
| 0.888 | .473 |
| Average leaf number | 0.078 | .925 | 1.977 | .143 | 0.137 | .968 |
| Average leaf area | 0.728 | .485 | 0.966 | .383 | 0.223 | .925 |
| Specific leaf area | 0.014 | .986 | 0.970 | .382 | 0.010 | 1.000 |
| Relative content of chlorophyll | 0.118 | .889 | 1.514 | .224 | 0.132 | .971 |
| The total number of racemes | 0.254 | .776 |
| . | 0.375 | .826 |
| Length of the 1st raceme | 1.097 | .337 |
|
| 0.183 | .947 |
| Length of the 2nd raceme | 0.072 | .931 |
|
| 0.29 | .884 |
| Length of the 3rd raceme | 0.114 | .892 | 0.755 | .472 | 0.059 | .993 |
| Total biomass | 0.531 | .589 |
|
| 0.088 | .986 |
| R/S ratio | 0.156 | .855 | 2.364 | .098 | 0.005 | 1.000 |
| Root mass fraction | 0.422 | .656 | 2.255 | .109 | 0.009 | 1.000 |
| Stem mass fraction | 0.161 | .852 |
|
| 1.028 | .395 |
| Leaf mass fraction | 0.576 | .563 |
|
| 0.076 | .989 |
| Flower mass fraction | 0.245 | .783 | 1.941 | .148 | 0.225 | .924 |
F and p values were showed, with df 2, 126 for V, df 2, 126 for L, df 4, 126 for V × L. p values lower than .05 indicated significant differences, which were presented in bold.
FIGURE 1Morphological and physiological traits of native Phytolacca acinosa and invasive Phytolacca americana under the treatments of plant VOCs, light intensity, and their interactions. (a) stem length, (b) average leaf number, (c) average leaf area, (d) specific leaf area (SLA), (e) relative content of chlorophyll. CK, plants grown under 3000 lux; L1, plants grown under 2000 lux; L2, plants grown under 1500 lux; V1, plants grown with the VOCs of P. americana; L1V1, plants grown under the interaction of 2000 lux and VOCs of P. americana; L2V1, plants grown under the interaction of 1500 lux and VOCs of P. americana; V2, plants grown with the VOCs of P. acinosa; L1V1, plants grown under the interaction of 2000 lux and VOCs of P. acinosa; L2V1, plants grown under the interaction of 1500 lux and VOCs of P. acinosa. Data was shown as the means ± SE. Capital letter indicated significant difference among the treatment of light intensity, and lowercase letter suggested statistical difference among the treatment of plant VOCs, *p < .001
FIGURE 2Reproductive traits of native Phytolacca acinosa and invasive Phytolacca americana under the treatments of plant VOCs, light intensity, and their interactions. (a) total number of racemes, (b) length of the 1st raceme, (c) length of the 2nd raceme, (d) length of the 3rd raceme of native P. acinosa and invasive P. americana. Treatment codes and statistical analyses were shown as in Figure 1
FIGURE 3Biomass allocation of native Phytolacca acinosa and invasive Phytolacca americana, under the treatments of plant VOCs, light intensity, and their interactions. (a) total biomass, (b) root to shoot (R/S) ratio, (c) leaf mass fraction (LMF), (d) stem mass fraction (SMF), (e) root mass fraction (RMF), (f) flower mass fraction (FMF). Treatment codes and statistical analyses were shown as in Figure 1