Please wait a minute...
Soil Ecology Letters

ISSN 2662-2289

ISSN 2662-2297(Online)

Soil Ecology Letters    2024, Vol. 6 Issue (1) : 230187    https://doi.org/10.1007/s42832-023-0187-1
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Invasive weed disrupts facilitation of nutrient uptake in grass-clover assemblage
Wei Zhang, Rick Muir, Nicholas Dickinson()
Faculty of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Lincoln University, Lincoln 7647, New Zealand
 Download: PDF(1684 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

● Nutrient constraints in low-fertility soil were modified by different species combinations.

● Grass-clover assemblages benefited both species in terms of nutrient procurement.

● Interplay of competition and facilitation is demonstrated.

● An invasive weed removed essential nutrients from the grazing cycle.

To investigate the interplay of competition and facilitation between plants in low-fertility pasture grasslands of New Zealand, we compared nutrient uptake and acquisition of key nutrients of three species from different functional groups. Combinations of Pilosella officinarum (mouse-eared hawkweed, an invasive weed), Trifolium repens (white clover, a nitrogen fixer) and Dactylis glomerata (cocksfoot, a pasture grass) were planted into a soil with low-to-deficient concentrations of key nutrients. Highest yields were achieved by the grass growing alone but, when the clover and grass had grown together, there were complementary benefits in terms of procurement of a wide range of nutrients from soil despite lower root biomass. The invasive weed negated these benefits, and soil nutrients were exploited less efficiently when Pilosella had grown alone or in a mixture with the other species. Competition from the weed removed the benefits of grass-legume coexistence. These findings are interpreted to suggest that requirements for legumes to be the main source of nitrogen in pasture grasslands may be compromised unless competitive weeds are controlled to avoid disrupted procurement of key nutrients. It is likely these constraints to nutrient procurement would similarly impact conservation grasslands.

Keywords soil fertility      facilitation      species coexistence      weed invasion      legumes     
Corresponding Author(s): Nicholas Dickinson   
Issue Date: 10 December 2023
 Cite this article:   
Wei Zhang,Rick Muir,Nicholas Dickinson. Invasive weed disrupts facilitation of nutrient uptake in grass-clover assemblage[J]. Soil Ecology Letters, 2024, 6(1): 230187.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/sel/EN/10.1007/s42832-023-0187-1
https://academic.hep.com.cn/sel/EN/Y2024/V6/I1/230187
Analysis Units Concentration Typical range*
pH [1] pH Units 6 5.2−6.5
Electrical Conductivity (EC) [2] mS cm−1 0.3 0.5−1.8
Nitrate-N [3] mg L−1 5 20−80
Ammonium-N [4] mg L−1 2 1−20
Phosphorus [5] mg L−1 6 5−20
Sulphur [5] mg L−1 10 10−20
Potassium [5] mg L−1 35 20−80
Calcium [5] mg L−1 13 30−70
Magnesium [5] mg L−1 12 7−25
Sodium [5] mg L−1 14 5−40
Iron [6] mg L−1 27.6 20−50
Manganese [6] mg L−1 15.6 1−15
Zinc [6] mg L−1 1.88 0.3−10.0
Copper [6] mg L−1 0.48 0.4−10.0
Boron [6] mg L−1 0.11 0.1−0.65
Tab.1  Significant determinants of fertility in the soil used in the pot experiment, with typical ranges in agricultural soils in New Zealand.
Fig.1  Individual plant species yields when each species was growing alone or in a mixture with other species. Symbols are means ± s.d. Letters indicate significant differences (p<0.05) within each block.
Fig.2  Total pot biomass (aboveground and underground, n = 5). Histogram bars are means + standard deviations. Values are means ± s.d. Letters showing significant differences (p < 0.05) refer to shoots and roots separately.
Species/combinations N (%) P K Ca Mg S Fe Mn Zn Cu B Mo Ni
(A)
Pilosella 2.06ab 4040a 32800ab 7300b 2840b 3560ab 307a 80.8a 46.7a 5.29a 71.1a 0.90ab 0.95a
With Trifolium 2.40a 4150a 37200a 8650a 3340a 4170a 290a 102a 52.8a 4.62a 70.5a 1.22a 0.78a
With Dactylis 1.60c 3150b 29700b 7230b 2790b 3020b 349a 74.1a 51.5a 5.47a 54.6ab 0.64b 0.81a
With 2 spp. 1.84bc 2950b 34900ab 7070b 2800b 3450ab 304a 90.2a 48.3a 4.92a 48.5b 0.76b 0.79a
(B)
Trifolium 3.38ab 2770a 28600b 12800a 3720a 3490b 415a 60.3a 25.5b 4.84ab 27.7a 2.66a 0.85a
With Dactylis 3.88a 4280a 37700b 13100a 3670a 4650a 150a 43.6a 32.9a 4.96a 28.2a 3.58a 0.43b
With Pilosella 3.05ab 3910a 48300a 9450b 3660a 5020a 142a 43.8a 30.1ab 3.61b 28.1a 4.84a 0.49ab
With 2 spp. 2.59b 4000a 38400ab 12100a 3350a 5170a 191a 62.3a 29.3ab 4.58ab 28.7a 2.98a 0.66ab
(C)
Dactylis 0.88b 1660ab 25700ab 2380a 1530ab 3260ab 95.3a 78.5a 22.9ab 3.13b 4.17a 0.89b 0.81a
With Trifolium 1.30a 2010a 31300a 2350a 1850ab 4760a 99.9a 90.1a 30.9a 4.68a 4.41a 2.40a 0.87a
With Pilosella 1.01ab 1910ab 28800ab 2630a 1910a 4430ab 83.9a 77.5a 27.5ab 4.04ab 4.96a 1.77ab 1.14a
With 2 spp. 0.97ab 1390b 21100b 2050a 1360b 3010b 77.8a 65.5a 19.7b 2.83b 10.0a 1.20b 1.17a
Tab.2  Foliar nutrient concentrations (mg kg−1) in Pilosella (A), Trifolium (B) and Dactylis (C) when each of these species had grown as single species or together with the other species (n = 5).
Species/combinations N (g) P (mg) K (mg) Ca (mg) Mg (mg) S (mg) Fe (µg) Mn (µg) Zn (µg) Cu (µg) B (µg) Mo (µg) Ni (µg)
Pilosella 0.07b 13.0ab 108abc 24.2bc 9.38a 11.8bc 1000a 266bc 152ab 17.3a 242a 3.02b 3.15bc
Trifolium 0.11ab 8.41b 90.0c 43.7ab 12.8a 11.1c 1790a 203c 83.2b 16.1a 90.1bc 9.33ab 3.19bc
Dactylis 0.06b 11.7ab 180ab 16.1c 10.7a 23.3abc 601a 529a 156ab 22.1a 28.7c 6.53b 5.55ab
Pilosella & Trifolium 0.06b 10.1ab 106bc 24.2bc 9.33a 11.0c 892a 195c 137ab 15.0a 144b 5.49b 2.20c
Pilosella & Dactylis 0.07b 13.6ab 165abc 25.1bc 12.8a 22.0abc 1080a 443ab 207a 25.9a 136b 7.49ab 5.92a
Trifolium & Dactylis 0.15a 16.3a 195a 49.1a 16.4a 25.0a 684a 371abc 182a 27.3a 102b 15.6a 3.20bc
All 3 spp. 0.10ab 15.0ab 181ab 36.3abc 14.4a 24.0ab 1010a 473ab 196a 25.9a 138b 9.31ab 5.85a
Tab.3  Total pot nutrient uptake (units shown below) into foliage of Trifolium, Dactylis and Pilosella when they were growing either alone or in mixtures with other species (n = 5).
Fig.3  Facilitation and competition in acquisiton of soil nutrients by the three species, based on changes in foliar nutrient concentration when the species grown either alone or combination with the other species (see Table 2).
N P K Ca Mg S Fe Mn Zn Cu B Mo Ni
25% 28% 26% 29% 29% 20% 45% 27% 41% 29% 51% 12% 18%
Tab.4  The proportion accounted for by each nutrient of total foliar uptake from the soil that was captured by Pilosella in pots containing all three species. Pilosella accounted for 22% of biomass yield.
1 P.B., Adler, D., Smull, K.H., Beard, R.T., Choi, T., Furniss, A., Kulmatiski, J.M., Meiners, A.T., Tredennick, K.E., Veblen, 2018. Competition and coexistence in plant communities: intraspecific competition is stronger than interspecific competition. Ecology Letters11, 1319–1329.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13098
2 P., Annicchiarico, B., Barrett, E.C., Brummer, B., Julier, A.H., Marshall, 2015. Achievements and challenges in improving temperate perennial forage legumes. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences34, 327–380.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07352689.2014.898462
3 P., Annicchiarico, R.P., Collins, A.M., De Ron, C., Firmat, I., Litrico, H., Hauggaard-Nielsen, 2019. Chapter three—Do we need specific breeding for legume-based mixtures?. Advances in Agronomy157, 141–215.
https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.agron.2019.04.001
4 L., Ba, J.M., Facelli, 2022. Invasive success of exotic wild oat depends on nutrient availability and competition in temperate grasslands of southern Australia. Plant and Soil472, 465–478.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-021-05262-8
5 E.W., Bork, D.T., Gabruck, E.M., McLeod, L.M., Hall, 2017. Five-year forage dynamics arising from four legume-grass seed mixes. Agronomy Journal109, 2789–2799.
https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2017.02.0069
6 C.E., Buddenhagen, G., Bourdȏt, M., Cripps, N., Bell, P., Champion, M., Dodd, H., Eerens, H., Ghanizadeh, A., Griffiths, K., Harrington, P., Heenan, P.E., Hulme, T., James, J., Kean, S., Lamoureaux, J., Neal, Z., Ngow, I., Obadovic, S., Orre-Gordon, H., Percy, P., Rolston, K., Tozer, B., Wynne-Jones, S., Zydenbos, 2022. A horizon scan for temperate pastoral weed science–a New Zealand perspective. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research. DOI: 10.1080/00288233.2022.2107026
7 C.J., Burrows, 1990. Processes of Vegetation Change. Unwin Hyman, Boston
8 J.R., Caradus, S.L., Goldson, D.J., Moot, J.S., Rowarth, A.V., Stewart, 2021. Pastoral agriculture, a significant driver of New Zealand’s economy, based on an introduced grassland ecology and technological advances. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand53, 259–303.
9 J.M., Craine, 2006. Competition for nutrients and optimal root allocation. Plant and Soil285, 171–185.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-006-9002-x
10 P., Dostál, 2021. The temporal development of plant-soil feedback is contingent on competition and nutrient availability contexts. Oecologia196, 185–194.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-021-04919-6
11 R.P., Duncan, R.J., Webster, C.A., Jensen, 2001. Declining plant species richness in the tussock grasslands of Canterbury and Otago, South Island, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Ecology25, 35–47.
12 L., Gaëtan, B., Romain, C., Didier, E.G., Abraham, 2018. Assessing key traits to promote overyielding in mixtures of legumes and non-legumes: A case study using the Virtual Grassland model. In 2018 6th International Symposium on Plant Growth Modeling, Simulation, Visualization and Applications, 77–84
13 S.L., Harris, D.A., Clark, C.D., Waugh, F.H., Clarkson, 1996. Nitrogen fertilizer effects on white clover in dairy pastures. Agronomy Society of New Zealand Special Publication No. 11, Grassland Research and Practice Series 6, 119–124
14 D.L., Hendrie, J.L., Moir, G., Boitt, Z.P., Simpson, L.M., Condron, 2021. Investigating the relationships between soil acidity and phosphorus fractions in high country farmland of New Zealand’s South Island. Soil Research (Collingwood, Vic.)59, 463–471.
https://doi.org/10.1071/SR20187
15 S., Hockendorff, M., Peintinger, F., Fiedler, M., Stift, M., van Kleunen, 2021. Declines in occurrence of plants characteristic for a nutrient-poor meadow habitat are partly explained by their responses to nutrient addition and competition. Ecology and Evolution11, 4058–4070.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7306
16 K., Kajzrová, T., Kassahun, L., Pavlů, V.V., Pavlů, M.D., Fraser, 2022. The effect of 19 years of restoration managements on forage quality and herbage-soil relationships within improved upland grassland. Grass and Forage Science77, 167–174.
https://doi.org/10.1111/gfs.12576
17 N.Q., Kang, Y.Y., Hu, Y.H., Guo, Z.W., Zhang, J.X., Yin, X.T., Lü, 2022. High Ca and P homeostasis ensure stable forage Ca:P following historical nitrogen inputs in a temperate steppe. Grass and Forage Science78, 129–136.
18 T., Klinerova, P., Dostal, 2020. Nutrient-demanding species face less negative competition and plant-soil feedback effects in a nutrient-rich environment. New Phytologist225, 1343–1354.
https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.16227
19 S., Laidlaw, 2014. Guest Editorial: Forage legumes in grassland systems. Grass and Forage Science69, 205–383.
https://doi.org/10.1111/gfs.12127
20 L., Li, D., Tilman, H., Lambers, F.S., Zhang, 2014. Plant diversity and overyielding: insights from belowground facilitation of intercropping in agriculture. New Phytologist203, 63–69.
https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12778
21 A., Lüscher, C.I., Mueller-Harvey, J.F., Soussana, R.M., Rees, J.L., Peyraud, 2014. Potential of legume-based grassland–livestock systems in Europe: a review. Grass and Forage Science69, 206–228.
https://doi.org/10.1111/gfs.12124
22 A.P., Mamolos, D.S., Veresoglou, N., Barbayiannis, 1995. Plant-species abundance and tissue concentrations of limiting nutrients in low-nutrient grasslands—A test of competition theory. Journal of Ecology83, 485–495.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2261601
23 T.M.R., Maxwell, J.L., Moir, G.R., Edwards, 2016. Grazing and soil fertility effect on naturalized annual clover species in new zealand high country. Rangeland Ecology and Management69, 444–448.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rama.2016.07.009
24 D., Nyfeler, O., Huguenin-Elie, M., Suter, E., Frossard, A., Lüscher, 2011. Grass–legume mixtures can yield more nitrogen than legume pure stands due to mutual stimulation of nitrogen uptake from symbiotic and non-symbiotic sources. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment140, 155–163.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2010.11.022
25 F., Rebele, 2000. Competition and coexistence of rhizomatous perennial plants along a nutrient gradient. Plant Ecology147, 77–94.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009808810378
26 M., Rinella, R., Sheley, 2002. Orange and meadow hawkweed. Montana State University Extension Service, Bozeman MT
27 A.R., Rissman, M.C., Daniels, P., Tait, X., Xing, A.L., Brower, 2021. Conservation and privatization decisions in land reform of New Zealand’s high country. Environmental Conservation48, 165–173.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892921000126
28 D., Rubiales, P., Annicchiarico, M.C., Vaz Patto, B., Julier, 2021. Legume breeding for the agroecological transition of global agri-food systems: A European perspective. Frontiers in Plant Science12, 782574.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.782574
29 D.J.M., Sage, D.A., Norton, P.R., Espie, 2009. Effect of grazing exclusion on the woody weed Rosa rubiginosa in high country short tussock grasslands. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research52, 123–128.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00288230909510496
30 P., Schippers, I., Snoeijing, M.J., Kropff, 1999. Competition under high and low nutrient levels among three grassland species occupying different positions in a successional sequence. New Phytologist143, 547–559.
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-8137.1999.00481.x
31 N.A., Scott, S., Saggar, P.D., McIntosh, 2001. Biogeochemical impact of Hieracium invasion in New Zealand’s grazed tussock grasslands: sustainability implications. Ecological Applications11, 1311–1322.
https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2001)011[1311:BIOHII]2.0.CO;2
32 StatsNZ., 2021. Agricultural and Horticultural Land Use. The Stats NZ website
33 StatsNZ., 2021. Fertilisers – nitrogen and phosphorus. The Stats NZ website
34 E., Sturludóttir, C., Brophy, G., Belanger, A.M., Gustavsson, M., Jørgensen, T., Lunnan, Á., Helgadóttir, 2014. Benefits of mixing grasses and legumes for herbage yield and nutritive value in Northern Europe and Canada. Grass and Forage Science69, 229–240.
https://doi.org/10.1111/gfs.12037
35 E.R., Thom, 2016. Hill Country Symposium Grassland Research and Practice Series No. 16 (New Zealand Grassland Association)
36 P.M., Tognetti, S.M., Prober, S., Báez, E.J., Chaneton, J., Firn, A.C., Risch, M., Schuetz, A.K., Simonsen, L., Yahdjian, E.T., Borer, E.W., Seabloom, C.A., Arnillas, J.D., Bakker, C.S., Brown, M.W., Cadotte, M.C., Caldeira, P., Daleo, J.M., Dwyer, P.A., Fay, L.A., Gherardi, N., Hagenah, Y., Hautier, K.J., Komatsu, R.L., McCulley, J.N., Price, R.J., Standish, C.J., Stevens, P.D., Wragg, M., Sankaran, 2021. Negative effects of nitrogen override positive effects of phosphorus on grassland legumes worldwide. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America118, e2023718118.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023718118
37 K., Tozer, G., Douglas, M., Dodd, K., Muller, 2021. Vegetation options for increasing resilience in pastoral hill country. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems5, 550334.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.550334
38 P., Wardle, 1991. Vegetation of New Zealand. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
39 N.S.G., Williams, K.D., Holland, 2007. The ecology and invasion history of hawkweeds (Hieracium species) in Australia. Plant Protection Quarterly22, 76.
40 L.J., Yao, Z.G., Wang, C.P., Wu, W.G., Yuan, J.R., Zhu, J.J., Jiao, B., Jiang, 2022. Competition and facilitation co-regulate spatial patterns and coexistence in a coniferous and broad-leaved mixed forest community in Zhejiang, China. Forests13, 1356.
https://doi.org/10.3390/f13091356
41 W., Zhang, T., Maxwell, B., Robinson, N., Dickinson, 2022a. Legume nutrition is improved by neighbouring grasses. Plant and Soil475, 443–455.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-022-05379-4
42 W., Zhang, T., Maxwell, B., Robinson, N., Dickinson, 2022b. Grasses procure key soil nutrients for clovers. Nature Plants8, 923–929.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-022-01210-1
43 W., Zhang, T., Maxwell, B., Robinson, N., Dickinson, 2022c. Plant species complementarity in low-fertility degraded soil. Plants11, 1370.
https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11101370
[1] Khoa Phuc Nguyen, Tan Trong Tran, Huy Dinh Le, Phuong Thuy Nguyen, Hien Thao Thi Pham, Dien Thanh Nguyen, Ngu Huu Nguyen. Influence of different land-use types on selected soil properties related to soil fertility in A Luoi District, Thua Thien Hue, Vietnam[J]. Soil Ecology Letters, 2024, 6(1): 230181-.
[2] Minghui Li, Junli Hu, Xiangui Lin. The roles and performance of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in intercropping systems[J]. Soil Ecology Letters, 2022, 4(4): 319-327.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed