Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:56:22.405Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Competitive Interactions of Garlic Mustard (Alliaria petiolata) and Damesrocket (Hesperis matronalis)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Stacey A. Leicht-Young ,
Noel B. Pavlovic  and
Jean V. Adams
Stacey A. Leicht-Young
Affiliation:
U.S. Geological Survey, Great Lakes Science Center, Lake Michigan Ecological Research Station, 1100 N. Mineral Springs Rd., Porter, IN 46304
Noel B. Pavlovic*
Affiliation:
U.S. Geological Survey, Great Lakes Science Center, Lake Michigan Ecological Research Station, 1100 N. Mineral Springs Rd., Porter, IN 46304
Jean V. Adams
Affiliation:
U.S. Geological Survey, Great Lakes Science Center, 1451 Green Rd., Ann Arbor, MI 48105
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Competitive interactions between native plants and nonnative, invasive plant species have been extensively studied; however, within degraded landscapes, the effect of interspecific interactions among invasive plants is less explored. We investigated a competitive interaction between two sympatric, invasive mustard species that have similar life history strategies and growth forms: garlic mustard and damesrocket. Greenhouse experiments using a full range of reciprocal density ratios were conducted to investigate interspecific competition. Garlic mustard had a negative effect on the final biomass, number of leaves, and relative growth rate in height of damesrocket. Survival of damesrocket was not negatively affected by interspecific competition with garlic mustard; however, garlic mustard showed higher mortality because of intraspecific competition. These results indicated that although garlic mustard has been observed to be the dominant species in this landscape, it may not completely outcompete damesrocket in all situations. Studies of invasive species in competition are important in degraded landscapes because this is the common situation in many natural areas.

Keywords

Damesrocket, Hesperis matronalis L.garlic mustard, Alliaria petiolata (Bieb.) Cavara & GrandeCompetitioninvasive speciesreplacement series
Type
Research
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , March 2012 , pp. 27 - 36
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

Adams, D. W. 2004. Restoring American Gardens: An Encyclopedia of Heirloom Ornamental Plants, 1640–1940. Portland, OR Timber. 420 p.Google Scholar
Anderson, R. C., Dhillion, S. S., and Kelley, T. M. 1996. Aspects of the ecology of an invasive plant, garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata), in central Illinois. Restor. Ecol. 4:181–191.Google Scholar
Bauer, J. T., Anderson, R. C., and Anderson, M. R. 2010. Competitive Interactions among first-year and second-year plants of the invasive, biennial garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) and native ground layer vegetation. Restor. Ecol. 18:720–728.Google Scholar
Belote, R. T. and Weltzin, J. F. 2006. Interactions between two co-dominant, invasive plants in the understory of a temperate deciduous forest. Biol. Invasions 8:1629–1641.Google Scholar
Byers, D. L. and Quinn, J. A. 1998. Demographic variation in Alliaria petiolata (Brassicaceae) in four contrasting habitats. J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 125:138–149.Google Scholar
Call, L. J. and Nilsen, E. T. 2005. Analysis of interactions between the invasive tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima) and the native black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia). Plant Ecol. 176:275–285.Google Scholar
Erskine Ogden, J. A. and Rejmánek, M. 2005. Recovery of native plant communities after the control of a dominant invasive plant species, Foeniculum vulgare: implications for management. Biol. Conserv. 125:427–439.Google Scholar
Firbank, L. G. and Watkinson, A. R. 1985. On the analysis of competition within two-species mixtures of plants. J. Appl. Ecol. 22:503–517.Google Scholar
Flory, S. L. and Clay, K. 2006. Invasive shrub distribution varies with distance to roads and stand age in eastern deciduous forests in Indiana, USA. Plant Ecol. 184:131–141.Google Scholar
Flory, S. L. and Clay, K. 2010. Non-native grass invasion suppresses forest succession. Oecologia 164:1029–1038.Google Scholar
Francis, A., Cavers, P. B., and Warwick, S. I. 2009. The biology of Canadian weeds, 140: Hesperis matronalis L. Can. J. Plant Sci. 89:189–204.Google Scholar
Gibson, D. J., Connolly, J., Hartnett, D. C., and Weidenhamer, J. D. 1999. Designs for greenhouse studies of interactions between plants. J Ecol. 87:1–16.Google Scholar
Gleason, H. A. and Cronquist, A. 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada. 2nd ed. Bronx, NY New York Botanical Garden. 910 p.Google Scholar
Harper, J. L. 1977. Population Biology of Plants. London, UK Academic Press. 892 p.Google Scholar
Hausman, C. E., Jaeger, J. F., and Rocha, O. J. 2010. Impacts of the emerald ash borer (EAB) eradication and tree mortality: potential for a secondary spread of invasive plant species. Biol. Invasions 12:2013–2023.Google Scholar
Huenneke, L. F. and Thomson, J. K. 1995. Potential interference between a threatened endemic thistle and an invasive nonnative plant. Conserv. Biol. 9:416–425.Google Scholar
Hwang, B. C. and Lauenroth, W. K. 2008. Effect of nitrogen, water and neighbor density on the growth of Hesperis matronalis and two native perennials. Biol. Invasions 10:771–779.Google Scholar
Hwang, B. C. and Lauenroth, W. K. 2010. Effect of nitrogen, water and neighbors on the growth of Hesperis matronalis in a natural community. Am. Midl. Nat. 163:212–219.Google Scholar
Kira, T., Ogawa, H., and Shinozaki, K. 1953. Intraspecific competition among higher plants, 1: competition–density–yield inter-relationships in regularly dispersed populations. J. Inst. Polytech. Osaka City Univ. D4:1–16.Google Scholar
Lankau, R. 2010. Soil microbial communities alter allelopathic competition between Alliaria petiolata and a native species. Biol. Invasions 12:2059–2068.Google Scholar
Larson, D. L. and Larson, J. L. 2010. Control of one invasive plant species allows exotic grasses to become dominant in northern Great Plains grasslands. Biol. Conserv. 143:1901–1910.Google Scholar
Leicht, S. A., Silander, J. A., and Greenwood, K. 2005. Assessing the competitive ability of Japanese stilt grass, Microstegium vimineum (Trin.) A. Camus. J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 132:573–580.Google Scholar
Mack, R. N., Simberloff, D., Lonsdale, W. M., Evans, H., Clout, M., and Bazzaz, F. A. 2000. Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol. Appl. 10:689–710.Google Scholar
McCarthy, B. C. 1997. Response of a forest understory community to experimental removal of an invasive nonindigenous plant (Alliaria petiolata, Brassicaceae). Pages 117–130 in Luken, J. O. and Thieret, J. W., eds. Assessment and Management of Plant Invasions. New York Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Meekins, J. F. and McCarthy, B. C. 1999. Competitive ability of Alliaria petiolata (garlic mustard, Brassicaceae), an invasive, nonindigenous forest herb. Int. J. Plant Sci. 160:743–752.Google Scholar
Meekins, J. F. and McCarthy, B. C. 2001. The effect of environmental variation on the invasive success of an indigenous forest herb. Ecol. Appl. 11:1336–1348.Google Scholar
Meekins, J. F. and McCarthy, B. C. 2002. Effect of population density on the demography of an invasive plant (Alliaria petiolata, Brassicaceae) population in a Southeastern Ohio forest. Am. Midl. Nat. 147:256–278.Google Scholar
Mehrhoff, L. J., Silander, J. A., Leicht, S. A., Mosher, E. S., and Tabak, N. M. 2003. IPANE: Invasive Plant Atlas of New England (http://ipane.org). Storrs, CT Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. J. and Ankeny, D. P. 2001. Effects of local conspecific density on reproductive success in Penstemon digitalis and Hesperis matronalis . Ohio J. Sci. 101:22–27.Google Scholar
Morrison, J. A., Lubchansky, H. A., Mauck, K. E., McCartney, K-M., and Dunn, B. 2007. Ecological comparison of two co-invasive species in eastern deciduous forests: Alliaria petiolata and Microstegium vimineum . J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 134:1–17.Google Scholar
Murphy, S. D., Flanagan, J., Noll, K., Wilson, D., and Duncan, B. 2007. How incomplete exotic species management can make matters worse: experiments in forest restoration in Ontario, Canada. Ecol. Restor. 25:85–93.Google Scholar
Nuzzo, V. A. 1993. Distribution and spread of the invasive biennial Alliaria petiolata (garlic mustard) in North America. Pages 137–146 in McNight, B., ed. Biological Pollution: The Control and Impact of Invasive Exotic Species. Indianapolis, IN Indiana Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Nuzzo, V. A. 1999. Invasion pattern of the herb garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) in high quality forests. Biol. Invasions 1:169–179.Google Scholar
Pavlovic, N. B., Leicht-Young, S. A., Frohnapple, K. J., and Grundel, R. 2009. Effect of removal of Hesperis matronalis (Dame′s Rocket) on species cover of forest understory vegetation in NW Indiana. Am. Midl. Nat. 161:165–176.Google Scholar
Prati, D. and Bossdorf, O. 2004. Allelopathic inhibition of germination by Alliaria petiolata (Brassicaceae). Am. J. Bot. 91:285–288.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2009. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Rothfels, C. J., Beaton, L. L., and Dudley, S. A. 2002. The effects of salt, manganese, and density on life history traits in Hesperis matronalis L. from oilfield and roadside populations. Can. J. Bot. 80:131–139.Google Scholar
Simberloff, D. and Von Holle, B. 1999. Positive interactions of nonindigenous species: invasional meltdown? Biol. Invasions 1:21–32.Google Scholar
Stinson, K. A., Campbell, S. A., Powell, J. R., Wolfe, B. E., Callaway, R. M., Thelen, G. C., Hallett, S. G., Prati, D., and Klironomos, J. N. 2006. Invasive plant suppresses the growth of native tree seedlings by disrupting belowground mutualisms. PLoS Biol. 4:727–731.Google Scholar
Stinson, K., Kaufman, S., Durbin, L., and Lowenstein, F. 2007. Impacts of garlic mustard invasion on a forest understory community. Northeast. Nat. 14:73–88.Google Scholar
[USDA–NRCS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2011. The PLANTS Database. http://plants.usda.gov. Accessed January 14, 2011.Google Scholar
Watkinson, A. R. 1980. Density-dependence in single species populations of plants. J. Theor. Biol. 83:345–357.Google Scholar
Watkinson, A. R. 1984. Yield-density relationships: the influence of resource availability on growth and self-thinning in populations of Vulpia fasciculata . Ann. Bot. (Lond.) 53:469–482.Google Scholar
Wixted, K. L. and McGraw, J. B. 2010. Competitive and allelopathic effects of garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) on American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius). Plant Ecol. 208:347–357.Google Scholar