Determining the growth responses of Phyla canescens to shoot and root damage as a platform to better-informed weed-management decisions

Article

<< Previous

Next >>

Contents Vol 60(4)

doi:10.1071/BT11205

Southern Hemisphere Botanical Ecosystems

	Search




	Advanced Search



	Journal Home

	About the Journal

	Editorial Board

	Contacts



	Content

	Online Early

	Current Issue

	Just Accepted

	All Issues

	Special Issues

	Turner Review Series

	Sample Issue



	For Authors

	General Information

	Notice to Authors

	Submit Article

	Open Access



	For Referees

	Referee Guidelines

	Review Article

	Annual Referee Index



	For Subscribers

	Subscription Prices

	Customer Service

	Print Publication Dates

e-Alerts

Subscribe to our Email Alert or

feeds for the latest journal papers.

Connect with us

PrometheusWiki

Protocols in ecological and environmental plant physiology

Determining the growth responses of Phyla canescens to shoot and root damage as a platform to better-informed weed-management decisions

M. H. Julien ^A ^E, C.-Y. Xu ^A ^B, A. Bourne ^A, M. Gellender ^C and R. De Clerck-Floate ^D

^A CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, GPO Box 2583, Brisbane, Qld 4001, Australia.
^B Department of Biological and Physical Sciences, University of Southern Queensland, West Street, Toowoomba, Qld 4350, Australia.
^C Beetle Creative, 59-61 Emu Bay Road, Deloraine, Tas. 7304, Australia.
^D Agriculture and Agri-food Canada, Lethbridge Research Centre, PO Box 3000, Lethbridge, Alberta, T1J 4B1 Canada.
^E Corresponding author. Email: mic.julien@csiro.au

Australian Journal of Botany 60(4) 310-318 http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/BT11205
Submitted: 11 August 2011 Accepted: 22 February 2012 Published: 4 May 2012





	PDF (217 KB) $25



	Export Citation

Print

Abstract

Understanding the responses of invasive plants to control methods is important in developing effective management strategies. Lippia (Phyla canescens (Kunth) Greene : Verbenaceae) is an invasive, perennial, clonal forb for which few control options exist for use in the Australian natural and agro-ecosystems it threatens. To help inform management decisions, lippia’s growth responses to damage it may experience during proposed control measures, i.e. cutting, crushing, twisting, were assessed in three glasshouse experiments using either whole plants or plant pieces. Plants quickly recovered from severe damage through growth from shoot and root buds at stem nodes. After shoot and root removal, the relative growth rate of the remaining plant was twice that of controls, suggesting tolerance to damage. Lacking buds, root pieces and isolated stem internodes were incapable of responding. Crushing and cutting individual ramets and plant pieces induced the largest responses, including release of axillary buds on damage or removal of apical buds, but full recovery was not achieved. Lippia will be difficult to control because of its ability to rapidly propagate from stem fragments possessing undamaged or damaged nodes; thus, the full impact of control methods that increase fragmentation (e.g. grazing) should be assessed before implementation. Our results also suggest that the most effective biological agents will be those that limit lippia’s vegetative growth and spread, such as shoot- or crown-feeding insects.

References

Bhowmik PC (1997) Weed biology: importance to weed management. Weed Science 45, 349–356.
| CAS |

Chaneton EJ, Facelli JM, Leon RJC (1988) Floristic changes induced by flooding on grazed and ungrazed lowland grasslands in Argentina. Journal of Range Management 41, 495–499.
| CrossRef |

Crawford P (2008) ‘Lippia Phyla canescens management. Challenges, opportunities and strategies.’ The National Lippia Working Group. (Greenbridge Press Pty Ltd: Queensland)

Dong B, Alpert P, Guo W, Yu F (2011) Effects of fragmentation on the survival and growth of the invasive, clonal plant Alternanthera philoxeroides. Biological Invasions in press
| CrossRef |

Earl J (2003) The distribution and impacts of lippia (Phyla canescens) in the Murray Daring system. Final report to the Lippia Working Group, October 2003. Agriculture Information & Monitoring Services, Guyra, NSW.

Edwards GR, Bourdôt GW, Crawley MJ (2000) Influence of herbivory, competition and soil fertility on the abundance of Cirsium arvense in acid grassland. Journal of Applied Ecology 37, 321–334.
| CrossRef |

Gross CL, Gorrell L, Macdonald MJ, Fatema M (2010) Honey bees facilitate the invasion of Phyla canescens (Verbenaceae) in Australia – no bees, no seed! Weed Research 50, 364–372.

Julien MH, Griffiths MW (1998) ‘Biological control of weeds. A world catalogue of agents and their target weeds.’ 4th edn. (CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UK)

Julien MH, Bourne AS, Chan RR (1987) Effects of adult and larval Cyrtobagous salviniae on the floating weed Salvinia molesta. Journal of Applied Ecology 24, 935–944.
| CrossRef |

Leigh C, Walton CS (2004) Lippia (Phyla canescens) in Queensland. Pest status review series – land protection. Queensland Government, Natural Resources and Mines, Brisbane.

Lenssen JPM, Menting FBJ, Van Der Putten WH, Blom CWPM (2000) Vegetative reproduction by species with different adaptations to shallow-flooded habitats. New Phytologist 145, 61–70.
| CrossRef |

Lucy M, Powell E, McCosker RO, Inglis G, Richardson R (1995) ‘Lippia (Phyla canescens). A review of its economic and environmental impact on floodplain ecosystems in the Murray–Darling Basin’. Agdex 642/040. (Pittsworth Sentenial Print: Pittsworth, Qld)

MacDonald MJ (2008) Ecology of Phyla canescens (Verbenaceae) in Australia. PhD Thesis, Botany, University of New England, Armidale, NSW.

MacDonald MJ, Whalley RDB, Sindel BM, Julien MH, Duggin JA (2006) Flood induced recruitment of lippia (Phyla canescens). In ‘Waging war on weeds: battle plans and winning strategies’. Proceedings of the 21st annual conference of the Grassland Society of New South Wales. (Eds B Hackney, K Bailes, J Plitz, H Burns) pp. 135–136. (The Grassland Society of New South Wales: Orange, NSW)

McCosker RO (1994) Lippia (Phyla nodiflora) an invasive plant of floodplain ecosystems in the Murray–Darling Basin. A report prepared for the Gingham Watercourse Landcare Group. University of New England, Armidale, NSW.

Morin L, Reid AM, Sims-Chilton NM, Buckley YM, Dhileepan K, Hastwell GT, Nordblom TL, Raghu S (2009) Review of approaches to evaluate the effectiveness of weed biological control agents. Biological Control 51, 1–15.
| CrossRef |

Price J, Gross CL, Whalley W (2010) Prolonged summer flooding switched dominance from the invasive weed lippia (Phyla canescens) to native species in one small ephemeral wetland. Ecological Management & Restoration 11, 61–63.
| CrossRef |

Price JN, Berney P, Ryder D, Whalley RDB, Gross CL (2011a) Disturbance governs dominance of an invasive forb in a temporary wetland. Oecologia 167, 759–769.
| CrossRef | CAS |

Price JN, Macdonald MJ, Gross CL, Whalley RDB, Simpson IH (2011b) Vegetative reproduction facilitates early expansion of Phyla canescens in a semi-arid floodplain. Biological Invasions 13, 285–289.
| CrossRef |

Price JN, Whalley RDB, van Klinken RD, Duggin JA, Gross CL (2011c) Periodic rest from grazing provided no control of an invasive perennial forb. The Rangeland Journal 33, 287–298.
| CrossRef |

Radosevich SR, Holt JS, Ghersa C (1997) ‘Weed ecology: implications for management.’ 2nd edn. (John Wiley and Sons, Inc: New York)

Raghu S, Dhileepan K, Treviňo M (2006) Response of an invasive liana to simulated herbivory: implications for its biological control. Acta Oecologica 29, 335–345.
| CrossRef |

Sanyal D, Bhowmik PC, Anderson RL, Shresthra A (2008) Revisiting the perspective and progress of integrated weed management. Weed Science 56, 161–167.
| CrossRef | CAS |

Shimizu-Sato S, Mori H (2001) Control of outgrowth and dormancy in axillary buds. Plant Physiology 127, 1405–1413.
| CrossRef | CAS |

Sosa AJ, Traversa MG, Delhey R, Kiehr M, Cardo MV, Julien MH (2008) Biological control of lippia (Phyla canescens): surveys for the plant and its natural enemies in Argentina. In ‘Proceedings of the XII international symposium on biological control of weeds’. (Eds MH Julien, R Sforza, MC Bon, HC Evans, PE Hatcher, HL Hinz, BG Rector) pp. 211–215. (CAB International: Wallingford, UK)

Strauss SY, Agrawal AA (1999) The ecology and evolution of plant tolerance to herbivory. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 14, 179–185.
| CrossRef |

Taylor B, Ganf GG (2005) Comparative ecology of two co-occurring floodplain plants: the native Sporobolus mitchellii and the exotic Phyla canescens. Marine and Freshwater Research 56, 431–440.
| CrossRef |

Truscott AM, Soulsby C, Palmer SCF, Newell L, Hulme PE (2006) The dispersal characteristics of the invasive plant Mimulus guttatus and the ecological significance of increased occurrence of high-flow events. Journal of Ecology 94, 1080–1091.
| CrossRef |

Van Groenendael JM, Klimes L, Klimesova J, Hendriks RJJ (1996) Comparative ecology of clonal plants. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 351, 1331–1339.
| CrossRef |

Vesk PA, Westoby M (2004) Funding the bud bank: a review of the costs of buds. Oikos 106, 200–208.
| CrossRef |

Whalley RDB, Price JN, Macdonald MJ, Berney PJ (2011) Drivers of change in the social-ecological systems of the Gwydir Wetlands and Macquarie Marshes in northern New South Wales, Australia. The Rangeland Journal 33, 109–119.
| CrossRef |

Wise MJ, Abrahamson WG (2007) Effects of resource availability on tolerance of herbivory: a review and assessment of three opposing models. American Naturalist 169, 443–454.
| CrossRef |

Wright JP, Jones CG (2006) The concept of organisms as ecosystem engineers ten years on: progress, limitations and challenges. Bioscience 56, 203–209.
| CrossRef |

Xu C-Y, Schooler SS, Van Klinken RD (2010) Effects of clonal integration and light availability on the growth and physiology of two invasive herbs. Journal of Ecology 98, 833–844.
| CrossRef |

Zimdahl RL (2007) ‘Fundamentals of weed science.’ 3rd edn. (Elsevier Inc.: Oxford, UK)

Subscriber Login

	Username: Password:

Legal & Privacy | Contact Us | Help