Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:19:22.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Light Response of Native and Introduced Miscanthus sinensis Seedlings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

David P. Matlaga ,
Lauren D. Quinn ,
Adam S. Davis  and
J. Ryan Stewart
David P. Matlaga*
Affiliation:
Global Change and Photosynthesis Research Unit, USDA Agricultural Research Service, N-319 Turner Hall, 1102 S Goodwin Avenue, Urbana IL, 61801
Lauren D. Quinn
Affiliation:
Energy Biosciences Institute, University of Illinois, 1206 W Gregory Drive, Urbana, IL 61801
Adam S. Davis
Affiliation:
Global Change and Photosynthesis Research Unit, USDA Agricultural Research Service, N-319 Turner Hall, 1102 S Goodwin Avenue, Urbana IL, 61801
J. Ryan Stewart
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, 1201 S Dorner Drive, Urbana, IL 61801
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Asian grass Miscanthus sinensis (Poaceae) is being considered for use as a bioenergy crop in the U.S. Corn Belt. Originally introduced to the United States for ornamental plantings, it escaped, forming invasive populations. The concern is that naturalized M. sinensis populations have evolved shade tolerance. We tested the hypothesis that seedlings from within the invasive U.S. range of M. sinensis would display traits associated with shade tolerance, namely increased area for light capture and phenotypic plasticity, compared with seedlings from the native Japanese populations. In a common garden experiment, seedlings of 80 half-sib maternal lines were grown from the native range (Japan) and 60 half-sib maternal lines from the invasive range (U.S.) under four light levels. Seedling leaf area, leaf size, growth, and biomass allocation were measured on the resulting seedlings after 12 wk. Seedlings from both regions responded strongly to the light gradient. High light conditions resulted in seedlings with greater leaf area, larger leaves, and a shift to greater belowground biomass investment, compared with shaded seedlings. Japanese seedlings produced more biomass and total leaf area than U.S. seedlings across all light levels. Generally, U.S. and Japanese seedlings allocated a similar amount of biomass to foliage and equal leaf area per leaf mass. Subtle differences in light response by region were observed for total leaf area, mass, growth, and leaf size. U.S. seedlings had slightly higher plasticity for total mass and leaf area but lower plasticity for measures of biomass allocation and leaf traits compared with Japanese seedlings. Our results do not provide general support for the hypothesis of increased M. sinensis shade tolerance within its introduced U.S. range compared with native Japanese populations.

Keywords

EulaliagrassMiscanthus sinensis AnderssBiomass allocationlight responseMiscanthus sinensisphenotypic plasticity
Type
Research
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 5 , Issue 3 , September 2012 , pp. 363 - 374
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Baker, H. G., ed. 1965. Characteristics and Modes of Origin of Weeds. New York Academic Press. Pp. 147–169.Google Scholar
Barney, J. N. and DiTomaso, J. M. 2008. Nonnative species and bioenergy: are we cultivating the next invader? Bioscience 58:64–70.Google Scholar
Blossey, B. and Notzold, R. 1995. Evolution of increased competitive ability in invasive nonindigenous plants: a hypothesis. J. Ecol. 83:887–889.Google Scholar
Bossdorf, O., Auge, H., Lafuma, L., Rogers, W. E., Siemann, E., and Prati, D. 2005. Phenotypic and genetic differentiation between native and introduced plant populations. Oecologia 144:1–11.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, A. D. 1965. Evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity in plants. Adv. Genet. 13:115–155.Google Scholar
Britton, N. and Brown, A. 1913. An Illustrated Flora of the Northern United States, Canada and the British Possessions: From Newfoundland to the Parallel of the Southern Boundary of Virginia, and from the Atlantic Ocean Westward to the 102d Meridian. New York Charles Scribner's Son.Google Scholar
Caño, L., Escarré, J., Fleck, I., Blanco-Moreno, J. M., and Sans, F. X. 2008. Increased fitness and plasticity of an invasive species in its introduced range: a study using Senecio pterophorus . J. Ecol. 96:468–476.Google Scholar
Chimera, C. G., Buddenhagen, C. E., and Clifford, P. M. 2010. Biofuels: the risks and dangers of introducing invasive species. Biofuels 1:785–796.Google Scholar
Clifton-Brown, J. C., Lewandowski, I., Andersson, B., Basch, G., Christian, D. G., Kjeldsen, J. B., Jorgensen, U., Mortensen, J. V., Riche, A. B., Schwarz, K. U., Tayebi, K., and Teixeira, F. 2001. Performance of 15 Miscanthus genotypes at five sites in Europe. Agron. J. 93:1013–1019.Google Scholar
D'Antonio, C. M. and Vitousek, P. M. 1992. Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass fire cycle, and global change. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 23:63–87.Google Scholar
DeWalt, S. J., Denslow, J. S., and Hamrick, J. L. 2004. Biomass allocation, growth, and photosynthesis of genotypes from native and introduced ranges of the tropical shrub Clidemia hirta . Oecologia 138:521–531.Google Scholar
Ellstrand, N. C. and Elam, D. R. 1993. Population genetic consequences of small population size: implications for plant conservation. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 24:217–242.Google Scholar
Favretti, R. J. and Favretti, J. P. 1997. Landscapes and Gardens for Historic Buildings: A Handbook for Reproducing and Creating Authentic Landscape Settings. Walnut Creek, CA AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
Evans, G. C. 1972. The quantitative analysis of plant growth. Oxford, UK Blackwell.Google Scholar
Givnish, T. J. 1988. Adaptation to sun and shade—a whole-plant perspective. Aust. J Plant Physiol. 15:63–92.Google Scholar
Grounds, R. 1998. The plantfinders guide to ornamental grasses. Portalnd, OR Timber Press.Google Scholar
Heaton, E., Voigt, T., and Long, S. P. 2004. A quantitative review comparing the yields of two candidate C-4 perennial biomass crops in relation to nitrogen, temperature and water. Biomass Bioenerg. 27:21–30.Google Scholar
Hitchcock, A. S. 1950. Manual of the Grasses of the United States. 2nd rev. by A. Chase, ed. Washington, DC Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Horton, J. L., Fortner, R., and Goklany, M. 2010. Photosynthetic characteristics of the C4 invasive exotic grass Miscanthus sinensis Andersson growing along gradients of light intensity in the southeastern USA. Castanea 75:52–66.Google Scholar
Hua, Q., Yao, Y., Xiao, Y., Hu, F., Sun, Y., Zhou, C., and An, S. 2011. Invasive and native tall forms of Spartina alterniflora respond differently to nitrogen availability. Acta Oecol. 37:23–30.Google Scholar
[IPANE] Invasive Plant Atlas of New England. 2010. Invasive Plant Atlas of New England, http://www.eddmaps.org/ipane/. Accessed: September 17, 2010.Google Scholar
Kaufman, S. R. and Smouse, P. E. 2001. Comparing indigenous and introduced populations of Melaleuca quinquenervia (Cav.) Blake: response of seedlings to water and pH levels. Oecologia 127:487–494.Google Scholar
Khanna, M., Dhungana, B., and Clifton-Brown, J. 2008. Costs of producing miscanthus and switchgrass for bioenergy in Illinois. Biomass Bioenerg. 32:482–493.Google Scholar
Kitajima, K., Fox, A., Sato, T., and Nagamatsu, D. 2006. Cultivar selection prior to introduction may increase invasiveness: evidence from Ardisia crenata. Biol. Invasions 8:1471–1482.Google Scholar
Koyama, T. 1987. Grasses of Japan and Its Neighboring Regions: An Identification Manual. Tokyo Kodansha Ltd.Google Scholar
Lavergne, S. and Molofsky, J. 2007. Increased genetic variation and evolutionary potential drive the success of an invasive grass. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 104:3883–3888.Google Scholar
Lugo, A. E. 2004. The outcome of alien tree invasions in Puerto Rico. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2:265–273.Google Scholar
Martin, P. H., Canham, C. D., and Marks, P. L. 2009. Why forests appear resistant to exotic plant invasions: intentional introductions, stand dynamics, and the role of shade tolerance. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7:142–149.Google Scholar
Meyer, M. H. 2004. Miscanthus: Ornamental and Invasive Grass. http://www.horticulture.umn.edu/miscanthus/default.htm. Accessed: September 17, 2010.Google Scholar
Miller, J. H. 2003. Non-Native Invasive Plants of Southeastern Forests: A Field Guide to Identification and Control. Asheville, NC U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-62. 93 p.Google Scholar
Ogren, E. and Sundin, U. 1996. Photosynthetic responses to variable light: a comparison of species from contrasting habitats. Oecologia 106:18–27.Google Scholar
Ohwi, J. 1964. Flora of Japan. Washington, DC Smithsonian Institution.Google Scholar
Parker, I. M., Rodriguez, J., and Loik, M. E. 2003. An evolutionary approach to understanding the biology of invasions: local adaptation and general-purpose genotypes in the weed Verbascum thapsus . Conserv. Biol. 17:59–72.Google Scholar
Pritchard, T., ed. 1960. Race formation in weedy species with special reference to Euphorbia cyparissias L. and Hypericum perforatum L. Oxford, April 2–4, 1959. Oxford Blackwell. Pp. 61–66.Google Scholar
Quinn, L. D., Allen, D. J., and Stewart, J. R. 2010. Invasiveness potential of Miscanthus sinensis: implications for bioenergy production in the United States. Glob. Change Biol. Bioenergy 2:310–320.Google Scholar
Quinn, L. D., Culley, T. M., and Stewart, J. R. 2012. Genetic comparison of introduced and native populations of Miscanthus sinensis (Poaceae), a potential bioenergy crop. Grassland Science 58:101–111.Google Scholar
Raghu, S., Anderson, R. C., Daehler, C. C., Davis, A. S., Wiedenmann, R. N., Simberloff, D., and Mack, R. N. 2006. Adding biofuels to the invasive species fire? Science 313:1742–1742.Google Scholar
Reich, P. B., Tjoelker, M. G., Walters, M. B., Vanderklein, D. W., and Bushena, C. 1998. Close association of RGR, leaf and root morphology, seed mass and shade tolerance in seedlings of nine boreal tree species grown in high and low light. Funct. Ecol. 12:327–338.Google Scholar
Reich, P. B., Wright, I. J., Cavender-Bares, J., Craine, M., Oleksyn, J., Westoby, M., and Walters, M. B. 2003. The evolution of plant functional variation: traits, spectra and strategies. Int. J. Plant Sci. 164:143–164.Google Scholar
Richards, C. L., Bossdorf, O., Muth, N. Z., Gurevitch, J., and Pigliucci, M. 2006. Jack of all trades, master of some? On the role of phenotypic plasticity in plant invasions. Ecol. Lett. 9:981–993.Google Scholar
[SE-EPPC] Southeast Exotic Pest Plant Council. 2010. Invasive Plants of the Southeast. http://www.se-eppc.org/. Accessed: September 17, 2010.Google Scholar
Siemann, E. and Rogers, W. E. 2001. Genetic differences in growth of an invasive tree. Ecol. Lett. 4:514–518.Google Scholar
Stewart, J. R., Toma, Y., Fernandez, F. G., Nishiwaki, A., Yamada, T., and Bollero, G. 2009. The ecology and agronomy of Miscanthus sinensis, a species important to bioenergy crop development, in its native range in Japan: a review. Glob. Change Biol. Bioenergy 1:126–153.Google Scholar
Sultan, S. E. 2000. Phenotypic plasticity for plant development, function and life history. Trends Plant Sci. 5:537–542.Google Scholar
Takenaka, A., Takahashi, K. and Kohyama, T. 2001. Optimal leaf display and biomass partitioning for efficient light capture in an understory palm, Licuala arbuscula . Funct. Ecol. 15:660–668.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2006. Weed of the Week: Chinese Silvergrass (Miscanthus sinensis Anderss.). Fact Sheet. http://na.fs.fed.us/fhp/invasive_plants/weeds/chinese-silvergrass.pdf. Accessed: September 17, 2010.Google Scholar
USDA [NRCS] Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2010. The PLANTS Database. http://plants.usda.gov/index.html. Accessed: September 17, 2010.Google Scholar
Valladares, F., Allen, M. T., and Pearcy, R. W. 1997. Photosynthetic responses to dynamic light under field conditions in six tropical rainforest shrubs occurring along a light gradient. Oecologia 111:505–514.Google Scholar
Valladares, F. and Niinemets, U. 2008. Shade tolerance, a key plant feature of complex nature and consequences. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 39:237–257.Google Scholar
Valladares, F., Sanchez-Gomez, D., and Zavala, M. A. 2006. Quantitative estimation of phenotypic plasticity: bridging the gap between the evolutionary concept and its ecological application. J. Ecol. 94:1103–1116.Google Scholar
van Kleunen, M., Schlaepfer, D. R., Glaettli, M., and Fischer, M. 2011. Preadapted for invasiveness: do species traits or their plastic response to shading differ between invasive and non-invasive plant species in their native range? J. Biogeogr. 7:1–11.Google Scholar
Williams, J. L., Auge, H., and Maron, J. L. 2008. Different gardens, different results: native and introduced populations exhibit contrasting phenotypes across common gardens. Oecologia 157:239–248.Google Scholar
Wilson, S. B. and Knox, G. W. 2006. Landscape performance, fowering, and seed viability of 15 Japanese silver grass cultivars grown in northern and southern Florida. HortTechnology 16:1–8.Google Scholar