Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T06:13:11.578Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Enhanced Growth and Seed Properties in Introduced vs. Native Populations of Yellow Starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Timothy L. Widmer ,
Fatiha Guermache ,
Margarita Yu Dolgovskaia  and
Sergey Ya. Reznik
Timothy L. Widmer*
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Campus International de Baillarguet, CS 90013 Montferrier sur Lez, 34988 St. Gely du Fesc CEDEX, France
Fatiha Guermache
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Campus International de Baillarguet, CS 90013 Montferrier sur Lez, 34988 St. Gely du Fesc CEDEX, France
Margarita Yu Dolgovskaia
Affiliation:
Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, 199034 St. Petersburg, Russia
Sergey Ya. Reznik
Affiliation:
Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, 199034 St. Petersburg, Russia
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is much discussion as to why a plant becomes invasive in a new location but is not problematic in its native range. One example is yellow starthistle, which originates in Eurasia and is considered a noxious weed in the United States. We grew yellow starthistle originating from native and introduced regions in a common environment to test whether differences in growth would be observed. In growth chamber studies, seedlings originating from the invasive range were larger than seedlings from the native range after 2 wk. Seed starch content is an important component of initial seedling growth. The starch content of seeds from introduced populations was higher than that of seeds from native populations. Regression analysis showed a relationship between the amount of starch in the seeds and the weight of yellow starthistle seedlings after 2 wk growth. There was no difference in chromosome number, except in accessions originating from Sicily and Sardinia. Field studies conducted in France and Russia revealed that rosettes and mature plants grown under natural conditions were larger when grown from seeds originating from the invasive range than from seeds originating from the native range. The number of capitula per plant and stem diameters were not significant among all populations, but differences were noted. The F1 progeny of plants originating from U.S. seed, but grown and pollinated in France, showed no differences in seedling growth, mature plant characteristics, and seed starch content from the plants grown from field-collected U.S. seed. The changes in seed starch resource allocation and its relation to plant growth is useful in understanding factors that contribute to yellow starthistle's invasibility.

Keywords

Yellow starthistleCentaurea solstitialis L. CENSOCompetitive ability hypothesisinvasivenessinvasive speciesseedsstarch content
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 55 , Issue 5 , October 2007 , pp. 465 - 473
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

Agrawal, A. A. 2001. Transgenerational consequences of plant responses to herbivory: an adaptive maternal effect? Am. Nat. 157:555–569.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Agrawal, A. A. 2002. Herbivory and maternal effects: mechanisms and consequences of transgenerational induced plant resistance. Ecology. 83:3408–3415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berner, D. K. and Paxson, L. K. 2003. Use of digital images to differentiate reactions of collections of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) to infection by Puccinia jaceae . Biol. Control. 28:171–179.Google Scholar
Blossey, B. and Notzold, R. 1995. Evolution of increased competitive ability in invasive nonindigenous plants: a hypothesis. J. Ecol. 83:887–889.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bozsa, R. C. and Oliver, L. R. 1990. Competitive mechanisms of common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) and soybean (Glycine max) during seedling growth. Weed Sci. 38:344–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckley, Y. M., Downey, P., Fowler, S. V., Hill, R., Memmott, J., Norambuena, H., Pitcairn, M., Shaw, R., Sheppard, A. W., Winks, C., Wittenberg, R., and Rees, M. 2003. Global patterns of seed size variation in invasive plants. Ecology. 84:1434–1440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burns, J. H. 2004. A comparison of invasive and noninvasive dayflowers (Commelinaceae) across experimental nutrient and water gradients. Divers. Distrib. 10:387–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryant, J. P., Tuomi, J., and Niemela, P. 1988. Environmental constraint of constitutive and long-term inducible defenses in woody plants. Pages 367–389. in Spencer, K.C. ed. Chemical Mediation of Coevolution. San Diego, CA Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colautti, R. I., Ricciardi, A., Grigorovich, I. A., and MacIsaac, H. J. 2004. Is invasion success explained by the enemy release hypothesis? Ecol. Lett. 7:721–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawley, M. J. 1987. What makes a community invasible? 429–453. in Gray, A.J., Crawley, M.J., Edwards, P.J. eds. Colonization, Succession and Stability. Oxford Blackwell Scientific.Google Scholar
Daehler, C. C. 2003. Performance comparisons of co-occurring native and alien invasive plants: implications for conservation and restoration. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 34:183–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'Hont, A., Paget-Goy, A., Escoute, J., and Carreel, F. 2000. The interspecific genome of cultivated banana, Musa spp. revealed by DNA in situ hybridisation. Theor. Appl. Genet. 100:177–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiTomaso, J. M. 1996. Yellow starthistle: biology and life history. Pages 61–64. in Lovich, J., Randall, J., Kelly, M. eds. Proceedings of the California Exotic Pest Plant Council Symposium, Volume 2. Sacramento, CA California Exotic Pest Plant Council.Google Scholar
DiTomaso, J. M., Kyser, G. B., and Pirosko, C. B. 2003. Effect of light and density on yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) root growth and moisture use. Weed Sci. 51:334–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dostál, J. 1976. Centaurea L. Pages 254–301. in Tutin, T.G., Heywood, V.H., Burges, N.A., Moore, D.M., Valentine, D.H., Walters, S.M., Webb, D.A. eds. Flora Europea, Volume 4. Cambridge Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Edwards, K. R., Adams, M. S., and Kvet, J. 1998. Differences between European native and American invasive populations of Lythrum salicaria . J. Veg. Sci. 9:267–280.Google Scholar
Enloe, S. F., DiTomaso, J. M., Orloff, S. B., and Drake, D. J. 2004. Soil water dynamics differ among rangeland plant communities dominated by yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), annual grasses, or perennial grasses. Weed Sci. 52:929–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faggioli, F., Pasquini, G., Lumia, V., Campobasso, G., Widmer, T. L., and Quimby, P. C. Jr. 2004. Molecular identification of a new member of the clover proliferation phytoplasma group (16SrVI) associated with Centaurea solstitialis virescence in Italy. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 110:353–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farr, D. F., Rossman, A. Y., Palm, M. E., and McRay, E. B. 2006. Fungal Databases: Systemic Botany and Mycology Laboratory. http://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/. Accessed: January 21, 2006.Google Scholar
Galatowitsch, S. M., Anderson, N. O., and Ascher, P. D. 1999. Invasiveness in wetland plants in temperate North America. Wetlands. 19:733–755.Google Scholar
Galloway, L. F. 2005. Maternal effects provide phenotypic adaptation to local environmental conditions. New Phytol. 166:93–100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerlach, J. D., Dyer, A., and Rice, K. J. 1998. Grassland and foothill woodland ecosystems of the Central Valley. Fremontia. 26:39–43.Google Scholar
Gerlach, J. D. Jr. and Rice, K. J. 2003. Testing life history correlates of invasiveness using congeneric plant species. Ecol. Appl. 13:167–179.Google Scholar
Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A. A. 1984. Test for homogeneity of variance. Pages 467–471. in Gomez, K.A., Gomez, A.A. eds. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. 2nd ed. New York J. Wiley.Google Scholar
Gonzalez Ponce, R., Zancada, C., Verdugo, M., and Salas, L. 1996. Plant height as a factor in competition between black nightshade and two horticultural crops (tomato and pepper). J. Hortic. Sci. 71:453–460.Google Scholar
Grotkopp, E., Rejmánek, M., and Rost, T. L. 2002. Toward a causal explanation of plant invasiveness: seedling growth and life-history strategies of 29 pine (Pinus) species. Am. Nat. 159:396–419.Google Scholar
Hanfling, B. and Kollman, J. 2002. An evolutionary perspective on invasions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17:545–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heppell, K. B., Shumway, D. L., and Koide, R. T. 1998. The effect of mycorrhizal infection Abutilon theophrasti on competitiveness of offspring. Funct. Ecol. 12:171–175.Google Scholar
Hierro, J. L., Maron, J. L., and Callaway, R. M. 2005. A biogeographical approach to plant invasions: the importance of studying exotics in their introduced and native range. J. Ecol. 93:5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobs, G., Weber, E., and Edwards, P. J. 2004. Introduced plants of the invasive Solidago gigantean (Asteraceae) are larger and grow denser than conspecifics in the native range. Divers. Distrib. 10:11–19.Google Scholar
Joshi, J. and Vrieling, K. 2005. The enemy release and EICA hypothesis revisited: incorporating the fundamental difference between specialist and generalist herbivores. Ecol. Lett. 8:704–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keane, R. M. and Crawley, M. J. 2002. Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17:164–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klisiewicz, J. M. 1986. Susceptibility of yellow starthistle to selected plant pathogens. Plant Dis. 70:295–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, C. E. 2002. Evolutionary genetics of invasive species. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17:386–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Love, A. 1981. Chromosome number reports LXXIII. Taxon. 30:829–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddox, D. M., Joley, D. B., Supkoff, D. M., and Mayfield, A. 1996. Pollination biology of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) in California. Can. J. Bot. 74:262–267.Google Scholar
Maillet, J. and Lopez-Garcia, C. 2000. What criteria are relevant for predicting the invasive capacity of a new agricultural weed? The case of invasive American species in France. Weed Res. 40:11–26.Google Scholar
Miao, S. L., Bazzaz, F. A., and Primack, R. B. 1991. Persistence of maternal nutrient effects in Plantago major: the third generation. Ecology. 72:1634–1642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murata, T., Akazawa, T., and Fukuchi, S. 1968. Enzymatic mechanism of starch breakdown in germinating rice seeds, I: an analytical study. Plant Physiol. 43:1899–1905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, J. R., Harris, G. A., and Goebel, C. J. 1970. Genetic vs environmentally induced variation in medusahead [Taeniatherum asperum (Simonkai) Nevski]. Ecology. 51:526–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piper, G. L. 2001. The biological control of yellow starthistle in the western United States: four decades of progress. Pages 48–55. in Smith, L. ed. Proceedings of the First International Knapweed Symposium of the Twenty-First Century. Albany, CA U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service.Google Scholar
Pitcairn, M. J., Woods, D. M., Joley, D. B., Fogle, D. G., and Popescu, V. 2000. Impact of seedling pathogens on yellow starthistle in California. Pages 52–54. in Woods, D.M. ed. Biological Control Program Annual Summary, 1999. Sacramento, CA California Department of Food and Agriculture, Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services.Google Scholar
Prather, T. S. 1994. Biology of yellow starthistle. Pages 219–223. in. Proceedings of the California Weed Conference. Volume 46. Fremont, CA California Weed Science Society.Google Scholar
Rejmánek, M. 1995. What makes a species invasive? 3–13. in Pysek, P., Prach, K., Rejmánek, M., Wade, M. eds. Plant Invasions: General Aspects and Special Problems. Amsterdam SPB Academic.Google Scholar
Rickey, M. A. and Anderson, R. C. 2004. Effects of nitrogen addition on the invasive grass Phragmites australis and a native competitor Spartina pectinata . J. Appl. Ecol. 41:888–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roché, B. F. Jr., Roché, C. T., and Chapman, R. C. 1994. Impacts of grassland habitat on yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) invasion. Northwest Sci. 68:86–96.Google Scholar
Roché, B. F. Jr. and Talbott, C. J. 1986. The collection history of Centaurea's found in Washington state. Pullman, WA Washington State University Cooperative Extension, Washington State University, Agricultural Research Center Bulletin XB0978. 36.Google Scholar
Roché, C. T. and Thill, D. C. 2001. Biology of common crupina and yellow starthistle, two Mediterranean winter annual invaders in western North America. Weed Sci. 49:439–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roché, C. T. and White, G. R. 2002. Managing yellow starthistle in southwestern Oregon. Bulletin EM 8750. Corvallis, OR Oregon State University Extension, Oregon State University. 8.Google Scholar
Sakai, A. K., Allendorf, F. W., and Holt, J. S. et al. 2001. The population biology of invasive species. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 32:305–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Larson, L. L., and Jacobs, J. S. 1999. Yellow starthistle. Pages 408–416. in Sheley, R.L., Petroff, J.K. eds. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangelands Weeds. Corvallis, OR Oregon State University Press.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Larson, L. L., and Johnson, D. E. 1993. Germination and root dynamics of range weeds and forage species. Weed Technol. 7:234–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siemann, E. and Rogers, W. E. 2001. Genetic differences in growth of an invasive tree species. Ecol. Lett. 4:514–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanton, M. L. 1984. Seed variation in wild radish: effects of seed size on components of seedling and adult fitness. Ecology. 65:1105–1112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, M. 1997. Population genetic structure of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), a colonizing weed in the western United States. Can. J. Botany. 75:1470–1478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thébaud, C. A. and Simberloff, D. 2001. Are plants really larger in their introduced ranges? Am. Nat. 157:231–236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Uygur, S., Smith, L., Uygur, F. N., Cristofaro, M., and Balciunas, J. 2004. Population densities of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) in Turkey. Weed Sci. 52:746–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Meijden, E. 1996. Plant defense, an evolutionary dilemma: contrasting effects of (specialist and generalist) herbivores and natural enemies. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 80:307–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagenitz, G. 1975. Centaurea L. Pages 465–585. in Davis, P.H. ed. Flora of Turkey, Volume 5. Edinburgh Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Williamson, M. 1993. Invaders, weeds, and the risk from genetically manipulated organisms. Experientia. 49:219–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis, A. J. and Blossey, B. 1999. Benign climates don't explain the increased vigor of non-indigenous plants: a cross continental transplant experiment. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 9:567–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis, A. J., Memmott, J., and Forrester, R. I. 2000. Is there evidence for the post-invasion evolution of increased size among invasive plant species? Ecol. Lett. 3:275–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wulff, R. 1986. Seed size variation in Desmodium paniculatum, III: effects on reproductive yield and competitive ability. J. Ecol. 74:115–121.Google Scholar
Wulff, R. D., Causin, H. F., Benitez, O., O. and Bacalini, P. A. 1999. Intraspecific variability and maternal effects in the response to nutrient addition in Chenopodium album . Can. J. Botany. 77:1150–1158.Google Scholar