Comparison of leaf construction costs between three invasive species and three native species in South China

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1003.2009.09077

Abstract

Abstract:

Construction cost is a quantifiable measure of energy demand for biomass production, and reflects specific growth strategies. Low construction cost is hypothesized to give plant invaders a growth advantage through efficient energy utilization. In this study, three invasive alien species (Mikania micrantha, Wedelia trilobata and Ipomoea cairica) and their co-occurring or phylogenetically related native species (Paederia scandens, Wedelia chinensis and Ipomoea pescaprae) in South China were used as materials for comparing leaf construction costs. These three invasive species exhibited lower mass- (CC_mass) and area- (CC_area) based leaf construction costs than the corresponding native species had. Taking the three invasive species as a group, the mean leaf CC_mass and CC_area of invasive species were 1.17 g glucose/g and 22.34 g glucose/m², respectively, which were significantly lower than those for the native species (CC_mass = 1.32 g glucose/g and CC_area= 36.93 g glucose/m²). The results testified the lower construction costs for invasive species compared with native ones, which might be a potential mechanism for the successful invasion of plants. Further, statistical analysis revealed significant correlations between leaf construction cost and leaf carbon content, nitrogen content and ash content (Ash) in invasive species. It suggested that the lower leaf construction costs of invasive species were partly due to their lower carbon and nitrogen content, and higher Ashrelative to their corresponding native species.

Key words: ash content, ash-free heat of combustion, biomass construction cost, carbon content, invasive species

Liying Song, Changlian Peng, Shaolin Peng. Comparison of leaf construction costs between three invasive species and three native species in South China[J]. Biodiv Sci, 2009, 17(4): 378-384.

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://www.biodiversity-science.net/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1003.2009.09077

https://www.biodiversity-science.net/EN/Y2009/V17/I4/378

Figures/Tables 4

References 29

[1]	Baruch Z, Goldstein G (1999) Leaf construction cost, nutrient concentration, and net CO₂ assimilation of native and invasive species in Hawaii. Oecologia, 121,183-192. DOI URL PMID
[2]	Baruch Z, Gómez JA (1996) Dynamics of energy and nutrient concentration and construction cost in a native and two alien C ₄ grasses from two neotropical savannas. Plant and Soil, 181,175-184.
[3]	Callaway RM, Aschehoug ET (2000) Invasive plants versus their new and old neighbors: a mechanism for exotic invasion. Science, 290,521-523. URL PMID
[4]	Daehler CC (1998) Variation in self-fertility and the reproductive advantage of self-fertility for an invading plant (Spartina alterniflora). Evolutionary Ecology, 12,553-568.
[5]	Daehler CC (2003) Performance comparisons of co-occurring native and alien invasive plants: implications for conservation and restoration. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 34,183-211.
[6]	Deng X, Ye WH, Feng HL, Yang QH, Cao HL, Xu KY, Zhang Y (2004) Gas exchange characteristics of the invasive species Mikania micrantha and its indigenous congener M. cordata (Asteraceae) in South China. Botanical Bulletin of Academia Sinica, 45,213-220.
[7]	Dukes JS, Mooney HA (1999) Does global change increase the success of biological invaders? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 14,135-139. DOI URL PMID
[8]	Ewe SML, Sternberg LSL (2005) Growth and gas exchange responses of Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) and native South Florida species to salinity. Trees (Berlin), 19,119-128.
[9]	Griffin KL (1994) Calorimetric estimates of CC and their use in ecological studies. Functional Ecology, 8,551-562.
[10]	Hertling UM, Lubke RA (2000) Assessing the potential for biological invasion—the case of Ammophila arenarian. South African Journal of Science, 96,520-527.
[11]	Lambers H, Poorter H (1992) Inherent variation in growth rate between higher plants: a search for physiological causes and ecological consequences. Advances in Ecological Research, 23,188-261.
[12]	Mack RN, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM, Evans H, Clout M, Bazzaz FA (2000) Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology global consequences and control. Ecological Applications, 10,689-710.
[13]	Martínez F, Lazo YO, Fernández-Galiano RM, Merino JA (2002) Chemical composition and construction cost for roots of Mediterranean trees, shrub species and grassland communities. Plant, Cell and Environment, 25,601-608.
[14]	McDowell SCL (2002) Photosynthetic characteristics of invasive and noninvasive species of Rubus (Rosaceae). American Journal of Botany, 89,1431-1438. URL PMID
[15]	Nagel JM, Griffin KL (2001) Construction cost and invasive potential: comparing Lythrum salcaria (Lythraceae) with co-occurring native species along pond banks. American Journal of Botany, 88,2252-2258. URL PMID
[16]	Nagel JM, Huxman TE, Griffin KL, Smith SD (2004) CO₂ enrichment reduces the energetic cost of biomass construction in an invasive desert grass. Ecology, 85,100-106.
[17]	Penning de Vries FWT, Brunsting AHM, Van Laar HH (1974) Products, requirements and efficiency of biosynthesis: a quantitative approach. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 45,339-377. URL PMID
[18]	Pimentel D, Lach L, Zuniga R, Morrison D (2000) Environmental and economic costs of non-indigenous species in the United States. BioScience, 50,53-65.
[19]	Poorter H, Pepin S, Rijkers T, de Jong Y, Evans JR, Körner C (2006) Construction costs, chemical composition and payback time of high and low-irradiance leaves. Journal of Experimental Botany, 57,355-371. URL PMID
[20]	Poorter H, Van Berkel Y, Baxter R, Den Hertog J, Dijkstra P, Gifford RM, Griffin KL, Roumet C, Roy J, Wong SC (1997) The effect of elevated CO₂ on the chemical composition and construction costs of leaves of 27 C₃ species. Plant, Cell and Environment, 20,472-482.
[21]	Poorter H, Villar R (1997) The fate of acquired carbon in plants:chemical composition and construction costs. In: Plant Resource Allocation (eds Bazzaz FA, Grace J),pp.39-72. Academic Press, New York.
[22]	Reich PB, Walters MB, Ellsworth DS (1997) From tropics to tundra: global convergence in plant functioning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 94,13730-13734.
[23]	Song LY, Ni GY, Chen BM, Peng SL (2007) Energetic cost of leaf construction in the invasive weed Mikania micrantha H.B.K. and its co-occurring species: implications for invasiveness. Botanical Studies, 48,331-338.
[24]	Tsialtas JT, Kassioumi M, Veresoglou DS (2002) Leaf construction cost of the most abundant species in an upland grassland area of northern Greece. Russian Journal of Plant Physiology, 3,360-363.
[25]	Villar R, Merino J (2001) Comparison of leaf construction costs in woody species with differing leaf life-spans in contrasting ecosystems. New Phytologist, 151,213-226.
[26]	Williams K, Percival F, Merino J, Mooney HA (1987) Estimation of tissue construction cost from heat of combustion and organic nitrogen content. Plant, Cell and Environment, 10,725-734.
[27]	Wu JR (吴锦容), Peng SL (彭少麟) (2005) Allelopathy: “novel weapons” of exotic invasive plants. Acta Ecologica Sinica (生态学报), 25,3093-3097. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[28]	Xu RM (徐汝梅), Ye WH (叶万辉) (2003) Biological Invasions: Theory and Practice (生物入侵:理论与实践). Science Press, Beijing. (in Chinese)
[29]	Zha TS, Wang KY, Ryyppo A, Kellomaki S (2002) Needle dark respiration in relation to within-crown position in Scots pine trees grown in long-term elevation of CO₂ concentration and temperature. New Phytologist, 156,33-41.

来源 Origin	物种 Species	比叶面积 SLA (m²/kg)	碳浓度 Carbon content (%)	氮浓度 Nitrogen content (%)	灰分含量 Ash (%)	去灰分热值 H_c(kJ/g)
入侵种 Invasive	薇甘菊 Mikania micrantha	65.98±0.64^b	33.23±0.51^e	4.49±0.15^a	22.29±0.15^b	18.97±0.04^b
	三裂叶蟛蜞菊 Wedelia trilobata	32.44±5.79^c	33.69±0.53^e	3.27±0.10^b	26.22±0.37^a	19.64±0.09^b
	五爪金龙 Ipomoea cairica	83.47±1.57^a	36.03±0.48^d	4.73±0.31^a	16.90±0.76^c	18.94±0.20^b
本地种 Native	鸡矢藤 Paederia scandens	40.22±0.81^c	41.73±0.39^a	4.13±0.39^a	13.66±0.09^d	20.22±0.09^ab
	蟛蜞菊 Wedelia chinensis	34.59±0.80^c	37.78±0.07^c	4.53±0.03^a	21.35±1.71^b	21.02±0.94^a
	厚藤 Ipomoea pescaprae	33.62±0.38^c	39.80±0.46^b	4.88±0.16^a	18.21±1.57^c	20.14±0.26^ab

来源 Origin	物种 Species	比叶面积 SLA (m²/kg)	碳浓度 Carbon content (%)	氮浓度 Nitrogen content (%)	灰分含量 Ash (%)	去灰分热值 H_c(kJ/g)
入侵种 Invasive	薇甘菊 Mikania micrantha	65.98±0.64^b	33.23±0.51^e	4.49±0.15^a	22.29±0.15^b	18.97±0.04^b
	三裂叶蟛蜞菊 Wedelia trilobata	32.44±5.79^c	33.69±0.53^e	3.27±0.10^b	26.22±0.37^a	19.64±0.09^b
	五爪金龙 Ipomoea cairica	83.47±1.57^a	36.03±0.48^d	4.73±0.31^a	16.90±0.76^c	18.94±0.20^b
本地种 Native	鸡矢藤 Paederia scandens	40.22±0.81^c	41.73±0.39^a	4.13±0.39^a	13.66±0.09^d	20.22±0.09^ab
	蟛蜞菊 Wedelia chinensis	34.59±0.80^c	37.78±0.07^c	4.53±0.03^a	21.35±1.71^b	21.02±0.94^a
	厚藤 Ipomoea pescaprae	33.62±0.38^c	39.80±0.46^b	4.88±0.16^a	18.21±1.57^c	20.14±0.26^ab

变量 Variable	入侵种 Invasive species	本地种 Native species	F值 F-value
叶片单位质量建成成本 CC_mass(g glucose/g)	1.17±0.02	1.32±0.01	47.604**
叶片单位面积建成成本 CC_area(g glucose/m²)	22.34±3.16	36.93±1.25	16.776**
比叶面积 SLA (m²/kg)	60.52±7.49	35.89±1.25	9.330**
碳浓度 Carbon content (%)	34.32±0.50	40.02±0.61	52.529**
氮浓度 Nitrogen content (%)	4.16±0.25	4.51±0.18	1.250^NS
灰分含量 Ash (%)	21.80±1.37	17.29±1.31	5.593*
去灰分热值 H_c (kJ/g)	19.18±0.13	20.39±0.24	20.432**

变量 Variable	入侵种 Invasive species	本地种 Native species	F值 F-value
叶片单位质量建成成本 CC_mass(g glucose/g)	1.17±0.02	1.32±0.01	47.604**
叶片单位面积建成成本 CC_area(g glucose/m²)	22.34±3.16	36.93±1.25	16.776**
比叶面积 SLA (m²/kg)	60.52±7.49	35.89±1.25	9.330**
碳浓度 Carbon content (%)	34.32±0.50	40.02±0.61	52.529**
氮浓度 Nitrogen content (%)	4.16±0.25	4.51±0.18	1.250^NS
灰分含量 Ash (%)	21.80±1.37	17.29±1.31	5.593*
去灰分热值 H_c (kJ/g)	19.18±0.13	20.39±0.24	20.432**