Comparison of root traits among two invasive and three native species
Qi Shi-Hua1,2, Niu Yan-Fen3, Wang Rui-Fang4, Li Ju1,2, Li Yang-Ping1, Zhang Jiao-Lin1
1. CAS Key Laboratory of Tropical Forest Ecology, Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Mengla, Yunnan 666303, China;
2. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China;
3. Kunming University, Kunming 650214;
4. Puer University, Puer, Yunnan 665000, China
High competitiveness is vital for successful invasion by invasive plants. Previous studies related to invasive species competitiveness have primarily focused on aboveground properties, with research on root traits, which are responsible for water and nutrient uptake, remaining limited. To reveal the responses of height, biomass, and fine root traits to mixed planting (competition), we investigated two invasive species (Chromolaena odoratum (L.) R.M.King & H.Rob and Eupatorium adenophorum Speng) and three native species (Eupatorium heterophyllum DC., Eupatorium fortune Turcz., and Eupatorium japonicum Thunb.) with similar life forms from Asteraceae. Monocultures were applied as controls. Results showed that under monoculture, the two invasive species had higher values for height and shoot biomass than the three native species. However, no significant differences were found in height and aboveground biomass for the two invasive species between monoculture and mixed planting treatments. Compared with the monoculture treatments, height, aboveground biomass, fine root biomass, length, surface area, and volume were significantly reduced in the three native species under mixed planting. Furthermore, root tissue density in the two invasive species was significantly reduced under mixed planting; in addition, specific root length and specific root area were significantly increased in E. adenophorum Speng. Across the five species under monoculture and mixed planting treatments, plant height was significantly positively correlated with fine root length and root biomass, and shoot biomass was significantly positively correlated with fine root volume and surface area. Principle component analysis showed that the two invasive plants were located at the end with greater plant height and shoot biomass. In summary, the above results suggest that the two invasive plants, C. odoratum and E. adenophorum, showed strong competitiveness against the native species by modifying their carbon investment strategies in roots, especially at the seedling stage.
祁世华, 牛燕芬, 王睿芳, 李菊, 李扬苹, 张教林. 两种入侵植物与三种本地植物根系特征的比较研究[J]. 植物科学学报, 2021, 39(2): 183-192.
Qi Shi-Hua, Niu Yan-Fen, Wang Rui-Fang, Li Ju, Li Yang-Ping, Zhang Jiao-Lin. Comparison of root traits among two invasive and three native species. Plant Science Journal, 2021, 39(2): 183-192.
[1] Liu YJ, Oduor AMO, Zhang Z, Manea A, Tooth LM, et al. Do invasive alien plants benefit more from global environmental change than native plants?[J]. Global Change Biol, 2017, 23(8):3363-3370.
[2] Golivets M, Wallin KF. Neighbour tolerance, not suppression, provides competitive advantage to non-native plants[J]. Ecol Lett, 2018, 21(5):745-759.
[3] Guerrero S, Guerrero GGR, Ibarra-Montes TM, Bastarrachea AR, Cobos RS, et al. Functional traits indicate faster resource acquisition for alien herbs than native shrubs in an urban Mediterranean shrubland[J]. Biol Invasions, 2020, 22(9):2699-2712.
[4] Wang YJ, Chen D, Yan R, Yu FH, van Kleunen M. Invasive alien clonal plants are competitively superior over co-occurring native clonal plants[J]. Perspect Plant Ecol, 2019, 40:125484.
[5] Schultheis EH, Macguigan DJ. Competitive ability, not to-lerance, may explain success of invasive plants over natives[J]. Biol Invasions, 2018, 20(10):2793-2806.
[6] Abe T, Tanake N, Shimizu Y. Outstanding performance of an invasive alien tree Bischofia javanica relative to native tree species and implications for management of insular primary forests[J]. PeerJ, 2020, 8:e9573.
[7] Leishman MR, Haslehurst T, Ares A, Baruch Z. Leaf trait relationships of native and invasive plants:community- and global-scale comparisons[J]. New Phytol, 2007, 176(3):635-643.
[8] Van Kleunen M, Weber E, Fischer M. A meta-analysis of trait differences between invasive and non-invasive plant species[J]. Ecol Lett, 2010, 13(2):235-245.
[9] Morris LL, Walck JL, Hidayati SN. Growth and reproduction of the invasive Ligustrum sinense and native Forestiera ligustrina (Oleaceae):implications for the invasion and persistence of a nonnative shrub[J]. Int J Plant Sci, 2002, 163(6):1001-1010.
[10] Feng YL, Li YP, Wang RF, Callaway RM, Valiente-Banuet A, Inderjit. A quicker return energy-use strategy by populations of a subtropical invader in the non-native range:a potential mechanism for the evolution of increased competitive ability[J]. J Ecol, 2011, 99(5):1116-1123.
[11] Wang CY, Zhou JW, Liu J, Xiao HG, Wang L. Differences in functional traits and reproductive allocations between native and invasive plants[J]. J Cent South Univ, 2018, 25(3):516-525.
[12] Wei M, Wang S, Wu BD, Jiang K, Zhou JW, Wang CY. Variability of leaf functional traits of invasive tree Rhus typhina L. in North China[J]. J Cent South Univ, 2020, 27(1):155-163.
[13] Gioria M, Osborne BA. Resource competition in plant invasions:emerging patterns and research needs[J]. Front Plant Sci, 2014, 5:501.
[14] Lambers H, Shane MW, Cramer MD, Pearse SJ, Veneklaas EJ. Root structure and functioning for efficient acquisition of phosphorus:matching morphological and physiological traits[J]. Ann Bot, 2006, 98(4):693-713.
[15] Pregitzer KS, Deforest JL, Burton AJ, Allen MF, Ruess RW, Hendrick RL. Fine root architecture of nine north American trees[J]. Ecol Monogr, 2002, 72(2):293-309.
[16] Chen W, Koide RT, Eissenstat DM. Nutrient foraging by mycorrhizas:from species functional traits to ecosystem processes[J]. Funct Ecol, 2018, 32(4):858-869.
[17] Ma ZQ, Guo DL, Xu XL, Lu MZ, Bardgett RD, et al. Erratum:evolutionary history resolves global organization of root functional traits[J]. Nature, 2018, 556(7699):135-135.
[18] James JJ, Mangold JM, Sheley RL, Svejcar T. Root plasticity of native and invasive Great Basin species in response to soil nitrogen heterogeneity[J]. Plant Ecol, 2009, 202(2):211-220.
[19] Keser LH, Dawson W, Song YB, Yu FH, Fischer M, et al. Invasive clonal plant species have a greater root-foraging plasticity than non-invasive ones[J]. Oecologia, 2014, 174(3):1055-1064.
[20] Jo I, Fridley JD, Frank DA. Linking above- and belowground resource use strategies for native and invasive species of temperate deciduous forests[J]. Biol Invasions, 2015, 17(5):1545-1554.
[21] Huang XL, Shen N, Guan X, Xu X, Kong FJ, et al. Root morphological and structural comparisons of introduced and native aquatic plant species in multiple substrates[J]. Aquat Ecol, 2018, 52(1):65-76.
[22] Ni M, Liu Y, Chu CJ, Xu H, Fang SQ. Fast seedling root growth leads to competitive superiority of invasive plants[J]. Biol Invasions, 2018, 20(7):1821-1832.
[23] Xia TT, Wang YJ, He YJ, Wu CB, Shen KP, et al. An invasive plant experiences greater benefits of root morphology from enhancing nutrient competition associated with arbuscular mycorrhizae in karst soil than a native plant[J]. PLoS One, 2020, 15(6):18.
[24] Monson RK. The use of phylogenetic perspective in comparative plant physiology and developmental biology[J]. Ann Mo Bot Gard, 1996, 83(1):3-16.
[25] 余香琴, 冯玉龙, 李巧明. 外来入侵植物飞机草的研究进展与展望[J]. 植物生态学报, 2010, 34(5):591-600. Yu XQ, Feng YL, Li QM. Review of research advances and prospects of invasive Chromolaena odorata[J]. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2010, 34(5):591-600.
[26] 王文琪. 外来物种紫茎泽兰Eupatorium adenophorum Speng入侵机制的研究[D]. 重庆:西南大学, 2006.
[27] 中国科学院中国植物志编辑委员会. 中国植物志:第74卷:第2分册[M]. 北京:科学出版社, 2001:58-64.
[28] Zheng YL, Burns JH, Liao ZY, Li YP, Yang J, et al. Species composition, functional and phylogenetic distances correlate with success of invasive Chromolaena odorata in an experimental test[J]. Ecol Lett, 2018, 21(8):1211-1220.
[29] Freschet GT, Cornelissen JHC, van Logtestijn RSP, Aerts R. Evidence of the ‘plant economics spectrum’ in a subarctic flora[J]. J Ecol, 2010, 98(2):362-373.
[30] Mommer L, van Ruijven J, Jansen C, van de Steeg HM, de Kroon H. Interactive effects of nutrient heterogeneity and competition:implications for root foraging theory?[J]. Funct Ecol, 2012, 26(1):66-73.
[31] Reich PB. The world-wide ‘fast-slow’ plant economics spectrum:a traits manifesto[J]. J Ecol, 2014, 102(2):275-301.
[32] Ruger N, Wirth C, Wright SJ, Condit R. Functional traits explain light and size response of growth rates in tropical tree species[J]. Ecology, 2012, 93(12):2626-2636.
[33] Zheng YL, Feng YL, Liu WX, Liao ZY. Growth, biomass allocation, morphology, and photosynthesis of invasive Eupatorium adenophorum and its native congeners grown at four irradiances[J]. Plant Ecol, 2009, 203(2):263-271.
[34] Zheng YL, Feng YL, Lei YB, Liao ZY. Comparisons of plastic responses to irradiance and physiological traits by invasive Eupatorium adenophorum and its native congeners[J]. J Plant Physiol, 2012, 169(9):884-891.
[35] Liao ZY, Scheepens JF, Li WT, Wang RF, Zheng YL, Feng YL. Biomass reallocation and increased plasticity might contribute to successful invasion of Chromolaena odorata[J]. Flora, 2019, 256:79-84.
[36] Birouste M, Zamora-Ledezma E, Bossard C, Perez-Ramos IM, Roumet C. Measurement of fine root tissue density:a comparison of three methods reveals the potential of root dry matter content[J]. Plant Soil, 2014, 374(1-2):299-313.
[37] Ridenour WM, Vivanco JM, Feng YL, Horiuchi J, Callaway RM. No evidence for trade-offs:Centaurea plants from American are better competitors and defenders[J]. Ecol Monogr, 2008, 78(3):369-386.
[38] Li YP, Feng YL, Chen YJ, Tian YH. Soil microbes alleviate allelopathy of invasive plants[J]. Sci Bull, 2015, 60(12):1083-1091.
[39] Qin RM, Zheng YL, Valiente-Banuet A, Callaway RM, Barclay GF, et al. The evolution of increased competitive ability, innate competitive advantages, and novel biochemical weapons act in concert for a tropical invader[J]. New Phytol, 2013, 197(3):979-988.
2021, Vol. 39 
