4.5 Article Data Paper

Syndromes in suites of correlated traits suggest multiple mechanisms facilitating invasion in a plant range-expander

期刊

NEOBIOTA
卷 -, 期 37, 页码 1-22

出版社

PENSOFT PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.37.21470

关键词

Glucosinolates; herbivory; invasion mechanisms; intraspecific variation; pathogens; nitrate allocation

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [MU 1829/16-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Various mechanisms can facilitate the success of plant invasions simultaneously, but may be difficult to disentangle. In the present study, plants of the range-expanding species Bunias orientalis from native, invasive and naturalised, not yet invasive populations were compared in a field common garden over two years. Plants were grown under two nitrate-regimes and multiple traits regarding growth, defence, antagonist loads and reproduction were measured. A rank-based clustering approach was used to assign correlated traits to distinct suites. These suites were analysed for syndromes that are expressed as a function of population origin and/or fertilisation treatment and might represent different invasion mechanisms. Indeed, distinct suites of traits were differentially affected by these factors. The results suggest that several preadaptation properties, such as certain growth characteristics and intraspecific chemical variation, as well as post-introduction adaptations to antagonists and resource availability in novel habitats, are candidate mechanisms that facilitate the success of invasive B. orientalis in parallel. It was concluded that rank-based clustering is a robust and expedient approach to integrate multiple traits for elucidating invasion syndromes within individual species. Studying a multitude of traits at different life-history and establishment stages of plants grown under distinct resource treatments reveals species-specific trade-offs and resource sinks and simplifies the interpretation of trait functions for the potential invasive success of plants.

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