4.5 Article

Why only tetraploid Solidago gigantea (Asteraceae) became invasive: a common garden comparison of ploidy levels

期刊

OECOLOGIA
卷 163, 期 3, 页码 661-673

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00442-010-1595-3

关键词

Clonal growth; Invasive alien species; Polyploidy; Rhizome system; Vegetative reproduction

类别

资金

  1. ETH Zurich, Switzerland [0-20259-05]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Many studies have compared the growth of plants from native and invasive populations, but few have considered the role of ploidy. In its native range in North America, Solidago gigantea Aiton (Asteraceae) occurs as a diploid, tetraploid and hexaploid, with considerable habitat differentiation and geographic separation amongst these ploidy levels. In the introduced range in Europe, however, only tetraploid populations are known. We investigated the growth performance and life history characteristics of plants from 12 European and 24 North American (12 diploid, 12 tetraploid) populations in a common garden experiment involving two nutrient and two calcium treatments. Twelve plants per population were grown in pots for two seasons. We measured 24 traits related to leaf nutrients, plant size, biomass production and phenology as well as sexual and vegetative reproduction. Native diploid plants had a higher specific leaf area and higher leaf nutrient concentrations than native tetraploids, but tetraploids produced many more shoots and rhizomes. Diploids grown with additional calcium produced less biomass, whereas tetraploids were not affected. European plants were less likely to flower and produced smaller capitulescences than North American tetraploids, but biomass production and shoot and rhizome number did not differ. We conclude that a knowledge of ploidy level is essential in comparative studies of invasive and native populations. While clonal growth is important for the invasion success of tetraploid S. gigantea, its potential was not acquired by adaptation after introduction but by evolutionary processes in the native range.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据