4.4 Article

Plant Competitive Interactions and Invasiveness: Searching for the Effects of Phylogenetic Relatedness and Origin on Competition Intensity

期刊

AMERICAN NATURALIST
卷 177, 期 5, 页码 655-667

出版社

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/659060

关键词

competitive equivalence; invasive plants; phylogenetic similarity; resource and nonresource plant interactions; plant size

资金

  1. Grant Agency of the Czech Republic [P504/10/0132]
  2. Grant Agency of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic [AV0Z60050516]
  3. New Member State of the European Union [09.056]
  4. New Member State of the Switzerland [09.056]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The invasion success of introduced plants is frequently explained as a result of competitive interactions with native flora. Although previous theory and experiments have shown that plants are largely equivalent in their competitive effects on each other, competitive nonequivalence is hypothesized to occur in interactions between native and invasive species. Small overlap in resource use with unrelated native species, improved competitiveness, and production of novel allelochemicals are all believed to contribute to the invasiveness of introduced species. I tested all three assumptions in a common-garden experiment by examining the effect of plant origin and relatedness on competition intensity. Competitive interactions were explored within 12 triplets, each consisting of an invasive species, a native congeneric (or confamilial) species, and a native heterogeneric species that are likely to interact in the field. Plants were grown in pots alone or in pairs and in the absence or the presence of activated carbon to control for allelopathy. I found that competition intensity was not influenced by the relatedness or origin of competing neighbors. Although some exotic species may benefit from size advantages and species-specific effects in competitive interactions, none of the three mechanisms investigated is likely to be a principal driver of their invasiveness.

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

4.4
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