4.5 Article

TRAIT CONVERGENCE AND PLASTICITY AMONG NATIVE AND INVASIVE SPECIES IN RESOURCE-POOR ENVIRONMENTS

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY
卷 99, 期 4, 页码 629-639

出版社

BOTANICAL SOC AMER INC
DOI: 10.3732/ajb.1100417

关键词

forbs; gas exchange; Great Basin; knapweed; nitrogen; resorption proficiency

资金

  1. John Carroll University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Premise of study: Functional trait comparisons provide a framework with which to assess invasion and invasion resistance. However, recent studies have found evidence for both trait convergence and divergence among coexisting dominant native and invasive species. Few studies have assessed how multiple stresses constrain trait values and plasticity, and no study has included direct measurements of nutrient conservation traits, which are critical to plants growing in low-resource environments. Methods: We evaluated how nutrient and water stresses affect growth and allocation, water potential and gas exchange, and nitrogen (N) allocation and use traits among a suite of six codominant species from the Intermountain West to determine trait values and plasticity. In the greenhouse, we grew our species under a full factorial combination of high and low N and water availability. We measured relative growth rate (RGR) and its components, total biomass, biomass allocation, midday water potential, photosynthetic rate, water-use efficiency (WUE), green leaf N, senesced leaf N, total N pools, N productivity, and photosynthetic N use efficiency. Key results: Overall, soil water availability constrained plant responses to N availability and was the major driver of plant trait variation in our analysis. Drought decreased plant biomass and RGR, limited N conservation, and led to increased WUE. For most traits, native and nonnative species were similarly plastic. Conclusions: Our data suggest native and invasive biomass dominants may converge on functionally similar traits and demonstrate comparable ability to respond to changes in resource availability.

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