Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T20:26:46.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Competitive Effect of Two Nonnative Grasses on a Native Grass in Southern Arizona

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jason M. Stevens  and
Jeffrey S. Fehmi
Jason M. Stevens*
Affiliation:
Rangeland and Forest Resources Group, School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, 85721-0043
Jeffrey S. Fehmi
Affiliation:
Rangeland and Forest Resources Group, School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, 85721-0043
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: jasonstevens@fs.fed.us
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Invasive buffelgrass, potentially invasive natalgrass, and the native grass Arizona cottontop were evaluated for their competitive response to one another in southern Arizona. Targets and neighbors were transplanted in a full-factorial randomized complete-block design consisting of nine pairwise combinations and each species alone (n = 120). Plant pairs were separated by 5 cm and allowed to grow during the 2007 monsoon season (101 d). Aboveground biomass, reproduction, and Arizona cottontop water-potential data were collected. Buffelgrass neighbors reduced aboveground biomass production and reproductive output significantly more than did intraspecific neighbors (P < 0.05), whereas natalgrass neighbors did not significantly affect Arizona cottontop biomass production or reproductive output (P > 0.05). Cottontop and buffelgrass had no significant effect on natalgrass biomass. Similarly, cottontop and natalgrass neighbors had no neighbor effect on the biomass of buffelgrass. Arizona cottontop plants that neighbored buffelgrass averaged a significantly lower water-potential value of −3.18 MPa (P < 0.05), compared with −1.17, −0.93, and −1.32 MPa for control plants (i.e., those with no neighbor), intraspecific neighbors, and natalgrass neighbors, respectively. Although buffelgrass competitive ability is consistent with its invasiveness when grown with native Arizona cottontop, natalgrass was an intermediate competitor. This suggests that natalgrass is less of a competitive threat to native perennial grasses than buffelgrass, but that it may be more tolerant to resource depletion (i.e., the presence of buffelgrass) relative to Arizona cottontop.

Keywords

Arizona cottontop, Digitaria californica (Benth.) Henr.Buffelgrass, Pennisetum ciliare (L.) LinkNatalgrass, Melinis repens (Wild.) ZizkaCompetitioninvasivenessgrass invasion
Type
Research
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 2 , Issue 4 , October 2009 , pp. 379 - 385
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Aguiar, M. R., Lauenroth, W. K., and Peters, D. P. 2001. Intensity of intra- and interspecific competition in coexisting shortgrass species. J. Ecol 89:40–47.Google Scholar
[AZMET] Arizona Meteorological Network 2007. Tucson Station. http://ag.arizona.edu/azmet/. Accessed: January 20, 2008.Google Scholar
Bean, T. M., Smith, S. E., and Karpiscak, M. M. 2004. Intensive revegetation in Arizona's hot desert: the advantages of container stock. Native Plants J 5:173–180.Google Scholar
Biedenbender, S. H., McClaran, M. P., and Roundy, B. A. 2003. Effects of neighbor species and distance on 2- and 4-year survival of Lehmann lovegrass and native grasses. Pages 149–153. In McClaran, M. P., Ffolliott, P. F., and Edminster, C. B., tech. coord. Santa Rita Experimental Range: 100 Years (1903 to 2003) of Accomplishments and Contributions; conference proceedings. Tucson, AZ USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station RMRS-P-30.Google Scholar
Búrquez-Montijo, A., Miller, M. E., and Martínez-Yrízar, A. 2002. Mexican grasslands, thornscrub, and the transformation of the Sonoran Desert by invasive non-native buffelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare). Pages 126–146. In Tellman, B. Invasive Non-native Species in the Sonoran Region. and Arizona–Sonora Desert Museum. Tucson, AZ University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
Cable, D. R. 1969. Competition in the semidesert grass–shrub type as influenced by root systems, growth habits, and soil moisture extraction. Ecology 50:27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canfield, R. H. 1948. Perennial grass composition as an indicator of condition of Southwestern mixed grass ranges. Ecology 29:190–204.Google Scholar
Clarke, P. J., Latz, P. K., and Albrecht, D. E. 2005. Long-term changes in semi-arid vegetation: invasion of a non-native perennial grass has larger effects than rainfall variability. J. Veg. Sci 16:237–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbin, J. and D'Antonio, C. M. 2004. Effects of invasive species on soil nitrogen cycling: implications for restoration. Weed Technol 18:1464–1467.Google Scholar
Cox, J. R., Martin, M. H. M. H., Ibarra, F. A., Fourie, J. H., Rethman, N. F. G., and Wilcox, D. G. 1988. The influence of soils on the distribution of four African grasses. J. Range Manag 41:127–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daehler, C. C. 2003. Performance comparisons of co-occurring native and alien plants: Implications for conservation and restoration. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst 34:183–211.Google Scholar
D'Antonio, C. M. and Chambers, J. 2006. Using ecological theory to manage or restore ecosystems affected by invasive plant species. Pages 260–279. In Falk, D., Palmer, M., and Zedler, J. Foundations of Restoration Ecology. Covelo, CA Island.Google Scholar
D'Antonio, C. M. and Vitousek, P. M. 1992. Biological invasions by non-native grasses, the grass fire cycle, and global change. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst 23:63–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, M. A., Grime, J. P., and Thompson, K. 2000. Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invisibility. J. Ecol 88:528–534.Google Scholar
Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E. and Smith, S. E. 2004. Nitrogen effects on Arizona cottontop and Lehmann lovegrass seedlings. J. Range Manag 57:76–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, D. E. 1990. Components of resource competition in plant communities. Pages 27–65. In Grace, J. B. and Tillman, D. Perspectives on Plant Competition. San Diego, CA Academic.Google Scholar
Goldberg, D. E. and Landa, K. 1991. Competitive effect and response: hierarchies and correlated traits in the early stages of competition. J. Ecol 79:1013–1030.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. T. and Young, T. P. 2004. Spacing and competition between planted grass plugs and preexisting perennial grasses in a restoration site in Oregon. Restor. Ecol 12:546–551.Google Scholar
Humphreys, L. R. 1967. Buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris) in Australia. Trop. Grassl 1:123–34.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. 2005. Is there a relationship between herbaceous species richness and buffelgrass (Cenchrus ciliaris)? Austral Ecol 30:505–17.Google Scholar
Lonsdale, W. M. 1999. Global patterns of plant invasions and the concept of invisibility. Ecology 80:1522–1536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mack, R. N., Simberloff, D., Lonsdale, W. M., Evans, H., Clout, M., and Bazzaz, F. A. 2000. Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol. Appl 10:689–710.Google Scholar
McClaran, M. P. 2003. A century of vegetation change on the Santa Rita Experimental Range. Pages 16–33. In McClaran, M. P., Ffolliott, P. F., and Edminster, C. B., tech. coord. Santa Rita Experimental Range: 100 Years (1903 to 2003) of Accomplishments and Contributions; conference proceedings. Tucson, AZ USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station RMRS-P-30.Google Scholar
McIvor, J. G. 2003. Competition affects survival and growth of buffel grass seedlings—is buffel grass a colonizer or an invader? Trop. Grassl 37:176–181.Google Scholar
Rossiter, N. A., Setterfield, S. A., Douglas, M. M., and Hutley, L. B. 2003. Testing the grass-fire cycle: Alien grass invasion in the tropical savannas of northern Australia. Divers. Distrib 9:169–76.Google Scholar
Scholander, P. F., Hammel, H. T., Hemmingsen, E. A., and Bradstreet, E. D. 1964. Hydrostatic pressure and osmotic potential in leaves of mangroves and some other plants. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 52:119–125.Google Scholar
Shea, K. and Chesson, P. 2002. Community ecology theory as a framework for biological invasions. Trends Ecol. Evol 17:170–176.Google Scholar
[SRER] Santa Rita Experimental Range 2008. Southwest precipitation data, 1922 to 2006. Santa Rita Experimental Range precipitation records. Tucson, AZ University of Arizona. http://ag.arizona.edu/SRER/index.html. Accessed: February 2, 2008.Google Scholar
Stevens, J. M. and Fehmi, J. S. 2009. Early establishment of a native grass reduces the competitive effect of a non-native grass [published online ahead of print August 6, 2009]. Rest. Ecol. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2009.00565.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoleson, S. H., Felger, R. S., Ceballos, G., Raish, C., Wilson, M. F., and Burquez, A. 1998. Recent history of natural resource use and population growth in northern Mexico. Pages 52–86. In Jean-Luc, E., Gerardo-Ceballos, C., and Felger, R. S. Biodiversity, Ecosystems, and Conservation in Northern Mexico. New York Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
[USDA] United States Department of Agriculture 2008. Web Soil Survey. Pima County, AZ. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed: June 16, 2008.Google Scholar
Vitousek, P. M. 1990. Biological invasions and ecosystem processes—toward an integration of population biology and ecosystem studies. Oikos 57:7–13.Google Scholar
[WRCC] Western Regional Climate Center 2008. Tucson University of Arizona Precipitation Data, 1894 to 2006. Western Regional Climate Center Precipitation Records. Reno, NV Desert Research Institute. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?az8815 Accessed: February 2, 2008.Google Scholar