4.4 Article

Understanding invasion as a process:: the case of Phalaris arundinacea in wet prairies

期刊

BIOLOGICAL INVASIONS
卷 9, 期 6, 页码 657-665

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10530-006-9066-9

关键词

invasive species; Phalaris arundinacea; reed canarygrass; runoff; wetlands; Wisconsin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Invasive plants that most threaten biodiversity are those that rapidly form a monospecific stand, like the clonal grass, Phalaris arundinacea. Understanding complex and potentially interacting factors that are common in urban and agricultural landscapes and underlie rapid invasions requires an experimental, factorial approach. We tested the effects of flooding and nutrient and sediment additions (3 x 3 x 3 = 27 treatments, plus a control with no additions) on invasion of Phalaris into mesocosms containing wet prairie vegetation. We discovered a three-step invasion and degradation process: (1) initially, resident native species declined with prolonged flooding and sediment additions, and (2) prolonged flooding, sedimentation, and nutrients accelerated Phalaris aboveground growth; biomass rose to 430 times that of the control within just two growing seasons. The dramatic expansion of Phalaris in the second year resulted in the formation of monospecific stands in over one-third of the treatments, as (3) native species continued their decline in year 2. Disturbances acted alone and in combination to make the resident wetland community more invasible and Phalaris more aggressive, leading to monospecific stands. Yet, Phalaris did not always win: under the least disturbed conditions, the resident plant canopy remained dense and vigorous and Phalaris remained small. When anthropogenic disturbances coincide with increases in the gross supply of resources, more tolerant, fast-growing, and morphologically plastic plants like Phalaris can invade very rapidly. The fluctuating resource hypothesis should thus be refined to consider the role of interacting disturbances in facilitating invasions.

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