Functional trait differences between native bunchgrasses and the invasive grass <i>Bromus tectorum</i>

doi:10.15302/J-FASE-2017175

Front. Agr. Sci. Eng.

2018, Vol. 5

Issue (1) : 139-147 https://doi.org/10.15302/J-FASE-2017175

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Functional trait differences between native bunchgrasses and the invasive grass Bromus tectorum

Huiqin HE¹, Thomas A. MONACO²(

), Thomas A. JONES²

¹. College of Resources and Environmental Engineering, Yibin University, Yibin 644000, China
². U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Forage and Range Research Laboratory, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322-6300, USA

Download: PDF(421 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

We conducted 30- and 60-d greenhouse experiments to compare functional traits of Bromus tectorum (invasive annual grass) and four perennial bunchgrasses under well-watered or drought conditions. Even under drought, B. tectorum experienced significantly less stress (i.e., higher xylem pressure potential and greater shoot water content, water use per day and water-use efficiency) and biomass production than the perennial grasses after 30 d. However, after 60 d, its superiority was reduced under infrequent watering. Differences among perennial grasses were more pronounced for physiological traits under infrequent watering and for morphological traits under frequent watering. Elymus multisetus (fast-growing species) had a higher transpiration rate, lower leaf temperature, and lower water-use efficiency than the other grasses after 30 d. In contrast, Pseudoroegneria spicata (slow-growing) had lower xylem pressure potential and higher leaf temperature than all other grasses under infrequent watering. Under frequent watering, shoot dry mass and specific leaf area of B. tectorum was matched by Elymus wawawaiensis (moderate-growing species). Our results indicate that multiple-species plantings or seedings are necessary to foster greater weed resistance against B. tectorum. We also emphasize that when choosing plant material for restoration, performance during both pulse (resource-rich) and inter-pulse (resource-poor) periods should be considered.

Keywords annual grass comparative growth drought response invasive plant native grass specific leaf area soil-water use

Corresponding Author(s): Thomas A. MONACO

Just Accepted Date: 08 November 2017 Online First Date: 28 December 2017 Issue Date: 21 March 2018

Cite this article:

Huiqin HE,Thomas A. MONACO,Thomas A. JONES. Functional trait differences between native bunchgrasses and the invasive grass Bromus tectorum[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2018, 5(1): 139-147.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fase/EN/10.15302/J-FASE-2017175
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fase/EN/Y2018/V5/I1/139

Fig.1 Mean ( + 1 SE) xylem pressure potential, shoot water content, leaf temperature and transpiration rate of five grasses (Bromus tectorum, Elymus multisetus, Pseudoegneria spicata, Elymus wawawaiensis cv. Secar and Elymus wawawaiensis selection E-45) grown with infrequent (open bars) and frequent watering (closed bars) in 30- and 60-d greenhouse experiments. Means for entries (n = 28) or entry by treatment (n = 14) with the same lowercase letter are not significantly different (P>0.05). ANOVA significance for entry main-effect or entry by treatment interaction is indicated.

Fig.2 Mean ( + 1 SE) shoot dry mass, leaf area, specific leaf area, and root dry mass of five grasses (Bromus tectorum, Elymus multisetus, Pseudoegneria spicata, Elymus wawawaiensis cv. Secar and Elymus wawawaiensis selection E-45) grown with infrequent (open bars) and frequent watering (closed bars) in 30- and 60-d greenhouse experiments. Means for entries (n = 28) or entry by treatment (n = 14) with the same lowercase letter are not significantly different (P>0.05). ANOVA significance for entry main-effect or entry by treatment interaction is indicated.

Fig.3 Mean ( + 1 SE) water use per day and shoot growth water-use efficiency (WUE) of five grasses (Bromus tectorum, Elymus multisetus, Pseudoegneria spicata, Elymus wawawaiensis cv. Secar and Elymus wawawaiensis selection E-45) grown with infrequent (open bars) and frequent watering (closed bars) in 30- and 60-d greenhouse experiments. Means for entries (n = 28) or entry by treatment (n = 14) with the same lowercase letter are not significantly different (P>0.05). ANOVA significance for entry main-effect or entry by treatment interaction is indicated

1	Passey H B, Hugie V K. Variation in bluebunch wheatgrass in relation to environment and geographic location. Ecology, 1963, 44(1): 158–161 https://doi.org/10.2307/1933280
2	Daubenmire R F. Plant succession due to overgrazing in the Agropyron bunchgrass prairie of southeastern Washington. Ecology, 1940, 21(1): 55–64 https://doi.org/10.2307/1930618
3	West N E. Western intermountain sagebrush steppe. In: West N E. ed. Temperate deserts and semi-deserts. Amersterdam: Elsevier, 1983
4	Pickford G D. The influence of continued heavy grazing and of promiscuous burning on spring-fall ranges in Utah. Ecology, 1932, 13(2): 159–171 https://doi.org/10.2307/1931066
5	Hironaka M, Tisdale E W. Secondary succession in annual vegetation in southern Idaho. Ecology, 1963, 44(4): 810–812 https://doi.org/10.2307/1933038
6	Rogler G A, Lorenz R. Crested wheatgrass: early history in the United States. Journal of Range Management, 1983, 36(1): 91–93 https://doi.org/10.2307/3897991
7	Asay K H, Horton W H, Jensen K B, Palazzo A J. Merits of native and introduced triticeae grasses on semiarid rangelands. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 2001, 81(1): 45–52 https://doi.org/10.4141/P99-131
8	Roundy B A. Lessons from historical rangeland revegetation for today's restoration. In: Holzworth L K, Brown R W. eds. Proceedings: 1997 Society for Ecological Restoration annual meeting. RMRS-P-8. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 1999
9	Melgoza G, Nowak R S, Tausch R J. Soil water exploitation after fire: competition between Bromus tectorum (cheatgrass) and two native species. Oecologia, 1990, 83(1): 7–13 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00324626 pmid: 28313235
10	Monaco T A, Johnson D A, Norton J M, Jones T A, Connors K J, Norton J B, Redinbaugh M B. Contrasting responses of Intermountain West grasses to soil nitrogen. Journal of Range Management, 2003, 56(3): 282–290 https://doi.org/10.2307/4003820
11	Leffler A J, Monaco T A, James J J. Nitrogen acquisition by annual and perennial grass seedlings: testing the roles of performance and plasticity to explain plant invasion. Plant Ecology, 2011, 212(10): 1601–1611 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-011-9933-z
12	Mukherjee J R, Jones T A, Adler P B, Monaco T A. Drought tolerance in two perennial bunchgrasses used for restoration in the Intermountain West, USA. Plant Ecology, 2011, 212(3): 461–470 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-010-9837-3
13	Leffler A J, James J J, Monaco T A. Temperature and functional traits influence differences in nitrogen uptake capacity between native and invasive grasses. Oecologia, 2013, 171(1): 51–60 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-012-2399-4 pmid: 22744743
14	Sheley R L, James J J. Simultaneous intraspecific facilitation and interspecific competition between native and annual grasses. Journal of Arid Environments, 2014, 104(1): 80–87 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2014.01.019
15	Goldberg D, Novoplansky A. On the relative importance of competition in unproductive environments. Journal of Ecology, 1997, 85(4): 409–418 https://doi.org/10.2307/2960565
16	Kujawski J, Ogle D. Not your grandpa’s cultivars: the new conservation releases. Native Plants Journal, 2005, 6(1): 49–51
17	Sack L, Holbrook N M. Leaf hydraulics. Annual Review of Plant Biology, 2006, 57(1): 361–381 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.arplant.56.032604.144141 pmid: 16669766
18	Boyer J S. Pressure chamber. In: Boyer J S. ed. Measuring the water status of plants and soils. Lewes, Delaware, USA: Academic Press, 1995
19	Fernández R J, Reynolds J F. Potential growth and drought tolerance of eight desert grasses: lack of a trade-off? Oecologia, 2000, 123(1): 90–98 https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050993 pmid: 28308749
20	Ries R E, Svejcar T J. The grass seedling: when is it established. Journal of Range Management, 1991, 44(6): 574–576 https://doi.org/10.2307/4003038
21	Hardegree S P, Van Vactor S S. Microclimatic constraints and revegetation planning in a variable environment. Weed Technology, 2004, 18(S1): 1213–1215 https://doi.org/10.1614/0890-037X(2004)018[1213:MCARPI]2.0.CO;2
22	Jones T A, Nielson D C, Carlson J R. Developing a grazing-tolerant native grass for bluebunch wheatgrass sites. Rangelands, 1991, 13(3): 147–150
23	Pechanec J F. The identification of grasses on the upper Snake River Plains by their vegetative characters. Ecology, 1936, 17(3): 479–490 https://doi.org/10.2307/1931847
24	Ehleringer J R, Mooney H A. Leaf hairs: Effects on physiological activity and adaptive value to a desert shrub. Oecologia, 1978, 37(2): 183–200 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00344990 pmid: 28309649
25	Raschke K. Heat transfer between the plant and the environment. Annual Review of Plant Physiology, 1960, 11(1): 111–126 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.pp.11.060160.000551
26	Hironaka M, Sindelar B W. Growth characteristics of squirreltail seedliings in competition with medusahead. Journal of Range Management, 1975, 28(4): 283–285 https://doi.org/10.2307/3897777
27	Arredondo J T, Jones T A, Johnson D A. Seedling growth of Intermountain perennial and weedy annual grasses. Journal of Range Management, 1998, 51(5): 584–589 https://doi.org/10.2307/4003380
28	Clausnitzer D W, Borman M M, Johnson D E. Competition between Elymus elymoides and Taeniatherum caput-medusae. Weed Science, 1999, 47(6): 720–728
29	Jones T A. Viewpoint: the present status and future prospects of squirreltail research. Journal of Range Management, 1998, 51(3): 326–331 https://doi.org/10.2307/4003419
30	Kulmatiski A, Beard K H, Stark J M. Exotic plant communities shift water-use timing in a shrub-steppe ecosystem. Plant and Soil, 2006, 288(1–2): 271–284 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-006-9115-2
31	Gibbs J L, Young G, Carlson J R. Registration of ‘Goldar’ bluebunch wheatgrass. Crop Science, 1991, 31(6): 1708 https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1991.0011183X003100060083x
32	Zhao D L, Atlin G N, Bastiaans L, Spiertz J H J. Developing selection protocols for weed competitiveness in aerobic rice. Field Crops Research, 2006, 97(2–3): 272–285 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2005.10.008
33	Atwater D Z, James J J, Leger E A. Seedling root traits strongly influence field survival and performance of a common bunchgrass. Basic and Applied Ecology, 2015, 16(2): 128–140 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2014.12.004
34	Larson J E, Sheley R L, Hardegree S P, Doescher P S, James J J. Do key dimensions of seed and seedling functional trait variation capture variation in recruitment probability? Oecologia, 2016, 181(1): 39–53 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-015-3430-3 pmid: 26337610
35	Tilman D. Constraints and tradeoffs: toward a predictive theory of competition and succession. Oikos, 1990, 58(1): 3–15 https://doi.org/10.2307/3565355
36	Jannink J L, Jordan N R, Orf J H. Feasibility of selection for high weed suppressive ability in soybean: absence of tradeoffs between rapid initial growth and sustained later growth. Euphytica, 2001, 120(2): 291–300 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017540800854
37	Chapin F S III. The mineral nutrition of wild plants. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 1980, 11(1): 233–260 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.11.110180.001313
38	Aerts R, Chapin F S III. The mineral nutrition of wild plants revisited: a re-evaluation of processes and patterns. Advances in Ecological Research, 2000, 30(1): 1–67
39	Svejcar T. Root length, leaf area, and biomass of crested wheatgrass and cheatgrass seedlings. Journal of Range Management, 1990, 43(5): 446–448 https://doi.org/10.2307/3899010
40	Cui M, Caldwell M M. A large ephemeral release of nitrogen upon wetting of dry soil and corresponding root responses in the field. Plant and Soil, 1997, 191(2): 291–299 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004290705961
41	Bilbrough C J, Caldwell M M. Exploitation of springtime ephemeral N pulses by six Great Basin plant species. Ecology, 1997, 78(1): 231–243
42	Booth M S, Caldwell M M, Stark J M. Overlapping resource use in three Great Basin species: implications for community invasibility and vegetation dynamics. Journal of Ecology, 2003, 91(1): 36–48 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2745.2003.00739.x
43	van der Werf A, van Nuenen M, Visser A J, Lambers H. Contribution of physiological and morphological plant traits to a species’ competitive ability at high and low nitrogen supply: a hypothesis for inherently fast- and slow-growing monocotyledonous species. Oecologia, 1993, 94(3): 434–440 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00317120 pmid: 28313682
44	Poorter H, Evans J R. Photosynthetic nitrogen-use efficiency of species that differ inherently in specific leaf area. Oecologia, 1998, 116(1-2): 26–37 https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050560 pmid: 28308535
45	Elberse W T, Berendse F. A comparative study of the growth and morphology of eight grass species from habitats with different nutrient availabilities. Functional Ecology, 1993, 7(2): 223–229 https://doi.org/10.2307/2389891
46	Reich P B, Ellsworth D S, Walters M B, Bose J M, Gresham C, Bolim J C, Bowman W D. Generality of leaf trait relationships: a test across six biomes. Ecology, 1999, 80(6): 1955–1969 https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[1955:GOLTRA]2.0.CO;2
47	Aanderud Z T, Bledsoe C S, Richards J H. Contribution of relative growth rate to root foraging by annual and perennial grasses from California oak woodlands. Oecologia, 2003, 136(3): 424–430 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-003-1275-7 pmid: 12750991
48	Hodge A. The plastic plant: root responses to heterogeneous supplies of nutrients. New Phytologist, 2003, 162(1): 9–24 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01015.x
49	Blank R R, Chambers J C, Roundy B A, Whittaker A. Nutrient availability in rangeland soils: Influence of prescribed burning, herbaceous vegetation removal, overseeding with Bromus tectorum, season, and elevation. Rangeland Ecology and Management, 2007, 60(6): 644–655 https://doi.org/10.2111/06-120R2.1
50	Aguirre L, Johnson D A. Influence of temperature and cheatgrass competition on seedling development of two bunchgrasses. Journal of Range Management, 1991, 44(4): 347–354 https://doi.org/10.2307/4002397
51	Monaco T A, Monsen S B, Smith B N, Hansen L D. Temperature-dependent physiology of Poa secunda, a cool season grass native to the Great Basin, United States. Russian Journal of Plant Physiology: a Comprehensive Russian Journal on Modern Phytophysiology, 2005, 52(5): 653–658 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11183-005-0096-4
52	Davis M A, Grime J P, Thompson K. Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invasibility. Journal of Ecology, 2000, 88(3): 528–534 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2745.2000.00473.x
53	Davies K W, Pokorny M L, Sheley R L, James J J. Influence of plant functional group removal on inorganic soil nitrogen concentrations in native grasslands. Rangeland Ecology and Management, 2007, 60(3): 304–310 https://doi.org/10.2111/1551-5028(2007)60[304:IOPFGR]2.0.CO;2
54	Waldron B L, Monaco T A, Jensen K B, Harrison R D, Palazzo A J, Kulbeth J D. Coexistence of native and introduced perennial grasses following simultaneous seeding. Agronomy Journal, 2005, 97(3): 990–996 https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2004.0265
55	Ralphs M H, Monaco T A, Valdez J R, Graham D. Seeding cool-season grasses to suppress white locoweed (Oxytropis sericea) reestablishment and increase forage production. Weed Technology, 2007, 21(3): 661–669 https://doi.org/10.1614/WT-06-162.1
56	Mangold J M, Poulsen C L, Carpinelli M F. Revegetating Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens) infestations using morphologically diverse species and seedbed preparation. Rangeland Ecology and Management, 2007, 60(4): 378–385 https://doi.org/10.2111/1551-5028(2007)60[378:RRKARI]2.0.CO;2
57	Leffler A J, Leonard E D, James J J, Monaco T A. Invasion is contingent on species assemblage and invasive species identity in experimental rehabilitation plots. Rangeland Ecology and Management, 2014, 67(6): 657–666 https://doi.org/10.2111/REM-D-13-00140.1

[1]	Yue LI, Liqiang WAN, Yufei WANG, Xianglin LI. *Growth and abscisic acid responses of Medicago sativa* to water stress at different growth stages**[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2018, 5(1): 80-86.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed