TY - JOUR
T1 - An experimental test of resistance to cheatgrass invasion
T2 - Limiting resources at different life stages
AU - Beckstead, Julie
AU - Augspurger, Carol K.
N1 - Funding Information:
We thank the Bureau of Land Management and Gary Kidd for their cooperation, Greg Abbot and Tim Graham for grasshopper identification, and Susanne Aref for statistical advice. The manuscript was improved by insightful comments from George Batzli, Evan DeLucia, Ken Paige, Ingrid Parker, and Susan Meyer. Logistic support and field assistance was provided by USDA, Forest Service, Shrub Sciences Laboratory in Provo, Utah. The study was financially supported by research grants from the Graduate College and the Program in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Illinois, Karling Graduate Student Award from BSA, and the Vessa Notchev Fellowship from GWIS.
PY - 2004
Y1 - 2004
N2 - Variable densities of an invasive species may represent variation in invasion resistance, due to variation in resource availability. This study determined whether low- and high-density cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.) patches within a shadscale-bunchgrass community of western Utah, USA, can be explained by variation in resource availability. It also explored the possible role of seed limitation and enemy pressure on invasion patterns. Two parallel field experiments were conducted: (1) increasing resources within low-density cheatgrass patches and, conversely (2) reducing resources within high-density cheatgrass patches. Treatments were applied at three life stages separately and across all stages. In low-density cheatgrass patches (assumed to represent high resistance), a disturbance that reduced soil compaction had the strongest positive effect, significantly increasing biomass by 250% and density by 104% in comparison to the control. The second strongest effect was reducing neighbors (native grasses), which significantly increased cheatgrass biomass and density. These results indicate that resources are present in low-density cheatgrass patches, but they are unavailable without disturbance and/or are exploited by competitors, and hence represent resistance to invasion. In high-density cheatgrass patches (assumed to represent low resistance), nitrogen availability was important in maintaining cheatgrass densities. Reducing nitrogen (via sucrose addition) significantly decreased density (by 37%) but not biomass. Life stages of cheatgrass were differentially affected by these resource manipulations. In addition, herbivore (primarily grasshoppers) and pathogen (head smut) pressures were documented to affect cheatgrass density, but did not explain resistance patterns. Instead, we found that differential resource availability explains the observed variation in cheatgrass density, and variation in natural resistance.
AB - Variable densities of an invasive species may represent variation in invasion resistance, due to variation in resource availability. This study determined whether low- and high-density cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.) patches within a shadscale-bunchgrass community of western Utah, USA, can be explained by variation in resource availability. It also explored the possible role of seed limitation and enemy pressure on invasion patterns. Two parallel field experiments were conducted: (1) increasing resources within low-density cheatgrass patches and, conversely (2) reducing resources within high-density cheatgrass patches. Treatments were applied at three life stages separately and across all stages. In low-density cheatgrass patches (assumed to represent high resistance), a disturbance that reduced soil compaction had the strongest positive effect, significantly increasing biomass by 250% and density by 104% in comparison to the control. The second strongest effect was reducing neighbors (native grasses), which significantly increased cheatgrass biomass and density. These results indicate that resources are present in low-density cheatgrass patches, but they are unavailable without disturbance and/or are exploited by competitors, and hence represent resistance to invasion. In high-density cheatgrass patches (assumed to represent low resistance), nitrogen availability was important in maintaining cheatgrass densities. Reducing nitrogen (via sucrose addition) significantly decreased density (by 37%) but not biomass. Life stages of cheatgrass were differentially affected by these resource manipulations. In addition, herbivore (primarily grasshoppers) and pathogen (head smut) pressures were documented to affect cheatgrass density, but did not explain resistance patterns. Instead, we found that differential resource availability explains the observed variation in cheatgrass density, and variation in natural resistance.
KW - Bromus tectorum
KW - Great Basin
KW - community susceptibility
KW - disturbance
KW - grasshopper herbivory
KW - head smut
KW - invasion biology
KW - plant competition
KW - resource availability
KW - soil compaction
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=4544236026&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=4544236026&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1023/B:BINV.0000041557.92285.43
DO - 10.1023/B:BINV.0000041557.92285.43
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:4544236026
SN - 1387-3547
VL - 6
SP - 417
EP - 432
JO - Biological Invasions
JF - Biological Invasions
IS - 4
ER -