4.2 Article

Influence of drought and shade on seedling growth of native and invasive trees in the Seychelles

Journal

BIOTROPICA
Volume 40, Issue 5, Pages 543-549

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2008.00407.x

Keywords

biomass allocation; drought stress; invasiveness; light availability; oceanic islands; RGR; tropical tree seedlings

Categories

Funding

  1. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zurich)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We studied the growth of seedlings of native and invasive tree species from secondary tropical forests on Mahe (Seychelles). We were interested in whether native or invasive species are more drought-tolerant, and therefore conducted a garden (pot) experiment comparing the growth of seedlings of five native and five invasive tree species under different light (7% and 60% transmittance) and water (natural and repeated drought stress) conditions. Differences in the responses of native and invasive species to these treatments were small. In both groups, mean relative growth rates were reduced only slightly by intermittent drought that caused wilting of leaves. However, invasive species produced clearly thinner leaves (high specific leaf area, SLA) and more root biomass than native species under high light, while these differences were small under low light. Native species performed better than invasive species under low light with low water availability. It appears that high phenotypic plasticity allows some fast-growing invasive species to cope with water stress by adjusting the relative allocation of resources to aboveground and belowground structures under high light, while this strategy is not effective when both light and water resources are limiting. We conclude that water stress may reduce the invasibility of shaded habitats by fast-growing invasive species, while water stress in unshaded habitats may have less effect on invasive species than previously recognized.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available