title: Chinese tallow trees (Triadica sebifera) from the invasive range outperform those from the native range with an active soil community or phosphorus fertilization.
abstract: Two mechanisms that have been proposed to explain success of invasive plants are unusual biotic interactions, such as enemy release or enhanced mutualisms, and increased resource availability. However, while these mechanisms are usually considered separately, both may be involved in successful invasions. Biotic interactions may be positive or negative and may interact with nutritional resources in determining invasion success. In addition, the effects of different nutrients on invasions may vary. Finally, genetic variation in traits between populations located in introduced versus native ranges may be important for biotic interactions and/or resource use. Here, we investigated the roles of soil biota, resource availability, and plant genetic variation using seedlings of Triadica sebifera in an experiment in the native range (China). We manipulated nitrogen (control or 4 g/m(2)), phosphorus (control or 0.5 g/m(2)), soil biota (untreated or sterilized field soil), and plant origin (4 populations from the invasive range, 4 populations from the native range) in a full factorial experiment. Phosphorus addition increased root, stem, and leaf masses. Leaf mass and height growth depended on population origin and soil sterilization. Invasive populations had higher leaf mass and growth rates than native populations did in fresh soil but they had lower, comparable leaf mass and growth rates in sterilized soil. Invasive populations had higher growth rates with phosphorus addition but native ones did not. Soil sterilization decreased specific leaf area in both native and exotic populations. Negative effects of soil sterilization suggest that soil pathogens may not be as important as soil mutualists for T. sebifera performance. Moreover, interactive effects of sterilization and origin suggest that invasive T. sebifera may have evolved more beneficial relationships with the soil biota. Overall, seedlings from the invasive range outperformed those from the native range, however, an absence of soil biota or low phosphorus removed this advantage.
authors.affiliation: College of Resources & Environmental Sciences, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, China ; Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, Rice University, Houston, Texas, United States of America.
authors.forename: Ling
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Zhang
authors.forename: Yaojun
authors.initials: Y
authors.lastname: Zhang
authors.forename: Hong
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Wang
authors.forename: Jianwen
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Zou
authors.forename: Evan
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Siemann
mesh_terms: D018533:Biomass; D019665:Euphorbiaceae / Q000254:growth & development*; D005308:Fertilizers / Q000032:analysis*; D058865:Introduced Species / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D009584:Nitrogen / Q000032:analysis; D010758:Phosphorus / Q000032:analysis*; D018515:Plant Leaves / Q000254:growth & development; D012987:Soil / Q000737:chemistry*; D012988:Soil Microbiology
chemical_list: D005308:Fertilizers; D012987:Soil; D010758:Phosphorus; D009584:Nitrogen
references.citation: Oecologia. 2005 Jun;144(1):1-11
references.pmid: 15891837
references.citation: Oecologia. 1999 Nov;121(2):183-192
references.pmid: 28308558
references.citation: PLoS One. 2012;7(7):e40680
references.pmid: 22808231
references.citation: PLoS One. 2012;7(3):e33877
references.pmid: 22442731
references.citation: Science. 2012 May 18;336(6083):904-7
references.pmid: 22605774
references.citation: Annu Rev Entomol. 2010;55:439-59
references.pmid: 19737084
references.citation: Oecologia. 2006 Nov;150(2):272-81
references.pmid: 16917777
references.citation: PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e49114
references.pmid: 23145089
references.citation: Planta. 2008 Aug;228(3):383-90
references.pmid: 18392694
references.citation: Am J Bot. 2011 Jul;98(7):1128-38
references.pmid: 21730337
references.citation: New Phytol. 2012 Jan;193(1):30-50
references.pmid: 22085245
references.citation: Science. 2004 Jun 11;304(5677):1629-33
references.pmid: 15192218
references.citation: Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2000 Feb;75(1):65-93
references.pmid: 10740893
references.citation: Am J Bot. 2007 Apr;94(4):526-32
references.pmid: 21636422
references.citation: Nature. 2013 Feb 28;494(7438):459-62
references.pmid: 23426264
references.citation: Ecology. 2011 May;92(5):1027-35
references.pmid: 21661564
references.citation: New Phytol. 2006;170(3):445-57
references.pmid: 16626467
references.citation: ISME J. 2007 May;1(1):28-37
references.pmid: 18043611
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2007 Oct 22;274(1625):2621-7
references.pmid: 17711837
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 2010 Sep;25(9):512-9
references.pmid: 20638747
references.citation: Oecologia. 2004 Nov;141(3):526-35
references.pmid: 15375692
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 May 12;106(19):7899-904
references.pmid: 19416888
references.citation: Am Nat. 1993 Jan;141(1):51-70
references.pmid: 19426022
references.citation: Ecol Lett. 2005 Sep;8(9):976-985
references.pmid: 34517683