Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T17:34:38.489Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phenotypic Plasticity in the Invasion of Crofton Weed (Eupatorium adenophorum) in China

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Yujie Zhao ,
Xuejun Yang ,
Xinqiang Xi ,
Xianming Gao  and
Shucun Sun
Yujie Zhao
Affiliation:
Graduate University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China State Key Laboratory of Vegetation and Environmental Change, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100093, China
Xuejun Yang
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Vegetation and Environmental Change, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100093, China
Xinqiang Xi
Affiliation:
Graduate University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China State Key Laboratory of Vegetation and Environmental Change, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100093, China
Xianming Gao*
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Vegetation and Environmental Change, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100093, China
Shucun Sun
Affiliation:
ECORES lab, Chengdu Institute of Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chengdu 610041, China
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Phenotypic plasticity and rapid evolution are two important strategies by which invasive species adapt to a wide range of environments and consequently are closely associated with plant invasion. To test their importance in invasion success of Crofton weed, we examined the phenotypic response and genetic variation of the weed by conducting a field investigation, common garden experiments, and intersimple sequence repeat (ISSR) marker analysis on 16 populations in China. Molecular markers revealed low genetic variation among and within the sampled populations. There were significant differences in leaf area (LA), specific leaf area (SLA), and seed number (SN) among field populations, and plasticity index (PIv) for LA, SLA, and SN were 0.62, 0.46 and 0.85, respectively. Regression analyses revealed a significant quadratic effect of latitude of population origin on LA, SLA, and SN based on field data but not on traits in the common garden experiments (greenhouse and open air). Plants from different populations showed similar reaction norms across the two common gardens for functional traits. LA, SLA, aboveground biomass, plant height at harvest, first flowering day, and life span were higher in the greenhouse than in the open-air garden, whereas SN was lower. Growth conditions (greenhouse vs. open air) and the interactions between growth condition and population origin significantly affect plant traits. The combined evidence suggests high phenotypic plasticity but low genetically based variation for functional traits of Crofton weed in the invaded range. Therefore, we suggest that phenotypic plasticity is the primary strategy for Crofton weed as an aggressive invader that can adapt to diverse environments in China.

Keywords

Crofton weed, Eupatorium adenophorum Spreng EUPADAdaptationAgeratina adenophora (Spreng.)functional traitinvasive speciesISSRphenotypic plasticityrapid evolution
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 60 , Issue 3 , September 2012 , pp. 431 - 439
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

Ackerly, D. D., Knight, C. A., Weiss, S. B., Barton, K., and Starmer, K. P. 2002. Leaf size, specific leaf area and microhabitat distribution of chaparral woody plants: contrasting patterns in species level and community level analyses. Oecologia. 130:449–457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Agarwal, M., Shrivastava, N., and Padh, H. 2008. Advances in molecular marker techniques and their applications in plant sciences. Plant Cell Rep. 27:617–631.Google Scholar
Agrawal, A. A. 2001. Phenotypic plasticity in the interactions and evolution of species. Science. 294:321–326.Google Scholar
Auld, B. A. and Martin, P. M. 1975. Autecology of Eupatorium-Adenophorum Spreng in Australia. Weed Res. 15:27–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, H. G. 1974. The evolution of weeds. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. 5:1–24.Google Scholar
Bossdorf, O., Richards, C. L., and Pigliucci, M. 2008. Epigenetics for ecologists. Ecol. Lett. 11:106–115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cadotte, M. W. 2007. Competition–colonization trade-offs and disturbance effects at multiple scales. Ecology. 88:823–829.Google Scholar
Calcagno, V., Mouquet, N., Jarne, P., and David, P. 2006. Coexistence in a metacommunity: the competition–colonization trade-off is not dead. Ecol. Lett. 9:897–907.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ Erlbaum. 567 p.Google Scholar
Colautti, R. I., Maron, J. L., and Barrett, S. C. H. 2009. Common garden comparisons of native and introduced plant populations: latitudinal clines can obscure evolutionary inferences. Evol. Appl. 2:187–199.Google Scholar
Davidson, A. M., Jennions, M., and Nicotra, A. B. 2011. Do invasive species show higher phenotypic plasticity than native species and, if so, is it adaptive? A meta-analysis. Ecol. Lett. 14:419–431.Google Scholar
Dlugosch, K. M. and Parker, I. M. 2008. Founding events in species invasions: genetic variation, adaptive evolution, and the role of multiple introductions. Mol. Ecol. 17:431–449.Google Scholar
Endler, J. 1986. Natural Selection in the Wild. Princeton, NJ Princeton University Press. 336 p.Google Scholar
Fitter, A. H. and Fitter, R.S.R. 2002. Rapid changes in flowering time in British plants. Science. 296:1689–1691.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Funk, J. L. 2008. Differences in plasticity between invasive and native plants from a low resource environment. J. Ecol. 96:1162–1173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galloway, L. F. and Etterson, J. R. 2007. Transgenerational plasticity is adaptive in the wild. Science. 318:1134–1136.Google Scholar
Graham, M. H. and Edwards, M. S. 2001. Statistical significance versus fit: estimating the importance of individual factors in ecological analysis of variance. Oikos. 93:505–513.Google Scholar
Grotkopp, E., Rejmanek, 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
Hairston, N. G., Ellner, S. P., Geber, M. A., Yoshida, T., and Fox, J. A. 2005. Rapid evolution and the convergence of ecological and evolutionary time. Ecol. Lett. 8:1114–1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollingsworth, M. L. and Bailey, J. P. 2000. Evidence for massive clonal growth in the invasive weed Fallopia japonica (Japanese Knotweed). Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 133:463–472.Google Scholar
Hollingsworth, M. L., Hollingsworth, P. M., Jenkins, G. I., Bailey, J. P., and Ferris, C. 1998. The use of molecular markers to study patterns of genotypic diversity in some invasive alien Fallopia spp. (Polygonaceae). Mol. Ecol. 7:1681–1691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howe, H. F. and Smallwood, J. 1982. Ecology of seed dispersal. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 13:201–228.Google Scholar
Khonglam, A. and Singh, A. 1980. Cytogenetic studies on the weed species of Eupatorium found in Meghalaya, India. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. Plant Sci. 89:237–241.Google Scholar
King, R. M., Kyhos, D. W., Powell, A. M., Raven, P. H., and Robinson, H. 1976. Chromosome numbers in Compositae, XIII. Eupatorieae. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 63:862–888.Google Scholar
Lachmuth, S., Durka, W., and Schurr, F. M. 2011. Differentiation of reproductive and competitive ability in the invaded range of Senecio inaequidens: the role of genetic Allee effects, adaptive and nonadaptive evolution. New Phytol. 192:529–541.Google Scholar
Lee, C. E. 2002. Evolutionary genetics of invasive species. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17:386–391.Google Scholar
Leger, E. A. and Rice, K. J. 2007. Assessing the speed and predictability of local adaptation in invasive California poppies (Eschscholzia californica). J. Evol. Biol. 20:1090–1103.Google Scholar
Li, W. G., Wang, B. R., and Wang, J. B. 2006. Lack of genetic variation of an invasive clonal plant Eichhornia crassipes in China revealed by RAPD and ISSR markers. Aquat. Bot. 84:176–180.Google Scholar
Li, Y. P. and Feng, Y. L. 2009. Differences in seed morphometric and germination traits of Crofton weed (Eupatorium adenophorum) from different elevations. Weed Sci. 57:26–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loomis, E. 2007. Sex and Diversity in the Invasive Plant Hieracium aurantiacum . . Missoula, MT The University of Montana. 49 p.Google Scholar
Lu, H. F., Shen, J. B., Sang, W. G., Zhang, X. Y., and Lin, J. X. 2008. Pollen viability, pollination, seed set, and seed germination of croftonweed (Eupatorium adenophorum) in China. Weed Sci. 56:42–51.Google Scholar
Maron, J. L., Vila, M., Bommarco, R., Elmendorf, S., and Beardsley, P. 2004. Rapid evolution of an invasive plant. Ecol. Monogr. 74:261–280.Google Scholar
Mengistu, L. W. and Messersmith, C. G. 2002. Genetic diversity of kochia. Weed Sci. 50:498–503.Google Scholar
Montague, J. L., Barrett, S. C. H., and Eckert, C. G. 2008. Re-establishment of clinal variation in flowering time among introduced populations of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria, Lythraceae). J. Evol. Biol. 21:234–245.Google Scholar
Monty, A. and Mahy, G. 2010. Evolution of dispersal traits along an invasion route in the wind-dispersed Senecio inaequidens (Asteraceae). Oikos. 119:1563–1570.Google Scholar
Narain Rai, J. P. 1987. Effect of temperature, inhibition and light on achene germination of two weedy species of Eupatorium . Proc. Plant Sci. 97:325–332.Google Scholar
Olejnik, S. and Algina, J. 2003. Generalized eta and omega squared statistics: measures of effect size for some common research designs. Psychol. Methods. 8:434–447.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
Parker, P. G., Snow, A. A., Schug, M. D., Booton, G. C., and Fuerst, P. A. 1998. What molecules can tell us about populations: choosing and using a molecular marker. Ecology. 79:361–382.Google Scholar
Pigliucci, M. 1997. Ontogenetic phenotypic plasticity during the reproductive phase in Arabidopsis thaliana (Brassicaceae). Am. J. Bot. 84:887–895.Google Scholar
Poulin, J., Weller, S. G., and Sakai, A. K. 2005. Genetic diversity does not affect the invasiveness of fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum) in Arizona, California and Hawaii. Divers Distrib. 11:241–247.Google Scholar
Quinn, J. A. and Wetherington, J. D. 2002. Genetic variability and phenotypic plasticity in flowering phenology in populations of two grasses. J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 129:96–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rambuda, T. D. and Johnson, S. D. 2004. Breeding systems of invasive aline plants in South Africa: Does Baker′s rule apply? Diversity Distrib. 10:409–416.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
Richards, C. L., Bossdorf, O., and Pigliucci, M. 2010. What role does heritable epigenetic variation play in phenotypic evolution? Bioscience. 60:232–237.Google Scholar
Richards, C. L., Walls, R. L., Bailey, J. P., Parameswaran, R., George, T., and Pigliucci, M. 2008. Plasticity in salt tolerance traits allows for invasion of novel habitat by Japanese knotweed s. l. (Fallopia japonica and F. xbohemica, Polygonaceae). Am. J. Bot. 95:931–942.Google Scholar
Salmon, A., Ainouche, M. L., and Wendel, J. F. 2005. Genetic and epigenetic consequences of recent hybridization and polyploidy in Spartina (Poaceae). Mol. Ecol. 14:1163–1175.Google Scholar
Schlichting, C. D. and Pigliucci, M. 1998. Phenotypic Evolution: A Reaction Norm Perspective. Sunderland, MA Sinauer Associates. 387 p.Google Scholar
Sultan, S. E. 2000. Phenotypic plasticity for plant development, function and life history. Trends Plant Sci. 5:537–542.Google Scholar
Sun, X. Y., Lu, H. Z., Li, P. H., Jiang, Q. S., and Lang, Z. 2006. Ecological adaptation of Eupatorium adenophorum populations to light intensity. J. For. Res. (Harbin, China). 17:116–120.Google Scholar
Sun, X. Y., Lu, H. Z., and Sang, W. G. 2004. Review on studies of Eupatorium adenophorum—an important invasive species in China. J. For. Res. (Harbin, China) 15:319–322.Google Scholar
Tackenberg, O., Poschlod, P., and Bonn, S. 2003. Assessment of wind dispersal potential in plant species. Ecol. Monogr. 73:191–205.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 applications. J. Ecol. 94:1103–1116.Google Scholar
Valladares, F., Wright, S. J., Lasso, E., Kitajima, K., and Pearcy, R. W. 2000. Plastic phenotypic response to light of 16 congeneric shrubs from a Panamanian rainforest. Ecology. 81:1925–1936.Google Scholar
Ward, S. M., Reid, S. D., Harrington, J., Sutton, J., and Beck, K. G. 2008. Genetic variation in invasive populations of yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris) in the western United States. Weed Sci. 56:394–399.Google Scholar
Westoby, M., Falster, D. S., Moles, A. T., Vesk, P. A., and Wright, I. J. 2002. Plant ecological strategies: Some leading dimensions of variation between species. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 33:125–159.Google Scholar
Yadav, A. S. and Tripathi, R. S. 1985. Effect of soil-moisture and sowing density on population-growth of Eupatorium adenophorum and Eupatorium riparium . Plant Soil. 88:441–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhu, L., Sun, O. J., Sang, W. G., Li, Z. Y., and Ma, K. P. 2007. Predicting the spatial distribution of an invasive plant species (Eupatorium adenophorum) in China. Landscape Ecol. 22:1143–1154.Google Scholar