Next Article in Journal
Post-Mating Responses in Insects Induced by Seminal Fluid Proteins and Octopamine
Next Article in Special Issue
Spatial Patterns of Frangula alnus (Rosales: Rhamnaceae): Implications for Invasive Plant Management
Previous Article in Journal
A Global Assessment of Coagulation Profile and a Novel Insight into Adamts-13 Implication in Neonatal Sepsis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Biology
Volume 12
Issue 10
10.3390/biology12101282
biology-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effects of Clipping an Invasive Plant Species on the Growth of Planted Plants of Two Co-Occurring Species in a Greenhouse Study

by
Xiaoqi Ye
,
Jinliu Meng
,
Ruixiang Ma
and
Ming Wu
*
Research Station of Hangzhou Bay Wetland Ecosystems, Institute of Subtropical Forestry, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Hangzhou 311400, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Biology 2023, 12(10), 1282; https://doi.org/10.3390/biology12101282
Submission received: 22 August 2023 / Revised: 20 September 2023 / Accepted: 22 September 2023 / Published: 26 September 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biology, Ecology and Management of Invasive Alien Plants)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Invasive exotic plant species are threats to native flora and other taxa. No effective and environmentally friendly approaches are available for controlling Solidago canadensis, an aggressively invasive plant species in China and Europe. We determined that in addition to the traditional measure of clipping, planting plants of two co-occurring and competitive species can further suppress regrowth of clipped S. canadensis plants and both the aboveground and belowground part of S. canadensis contributed to its suppression effects on planted co-occurring species. These results suggest that incorporation of utilizing biotic resistance from some highly competitive plant species and overcoming belowground priority effects of invasive species into a comprehensive management plan will substantially increase the efficiency of invasive plant control.

Abstract

The restoration of native plants in invaded habitats is constrained with the presence of highly competitive exotic species. Aboveground removal, such as clipping or mowing, of invasive plants is required for successful restoration. The effects of clipping an invasive plant species, Solidago canadensis, grown at five densities (1–5 plants per pot), and planting two co-occurring and competitive species, Sesbania cannabina and Imperata cylindrica, on the growth of both the invasive species and the co-occurring species were investigated in a greenhouse experiment. The established S. canadensis suppressed the growth of planted seedlings with 47.8–94.4% reduction in biomass, with stronger effects at higher densities; clipping significantly reduced 97.5–97.4% of biomass of S. canadensis and ameliorated the suppression effects (with only 8.7–52.7% reduction in biomass of the co-occurring plants), irrespective of density. Both the aboveground and belowground part of S. canadensis contributed to its suppression effects on planted co-occurring species. Seed sowing of co-occurring species reduced the belowground growth, but not the underground growth of S. canadensis. S. cannabina appeared to be more effective at reducing the growth of S. canadensis than I. cylindrica. Therefore, clipping together with planting competitive species that can overcome the belowground priority effects of S. canadensis could be a promising strategy for controlling S. canadensis invasion and restoring native plant communities.

1. Introduction

Invasive exotic species are non-native species introduced outside their native range either naturally or anthropogenically, perform luxuriant growth [1], and pose serious impacts on the native species and ecosystems [2,3,4]. The global spread and increasing abundance of some invasive alien species outside their natural range have caused biodiversity declines, agricultural yield reductions, and ecosystem service impairments [5,6,7]. These invasive exotics perform better in comparison with co-occurring native species, which is considered a reason behind the successful establishment of these invaders [8,9]. In the invaded sites, these invaders cause severe impacts on the biodiversity and harm the flora and have become a major concern in natural conservation [10,11,12]. A meta-analysis indicated that invasive alien plant species caused 50.7% reduction of native plant species diversity [6]. Efficient approaches are urgently required to reduce the negative effects of these species and restore native ecosystems [7,13]. The suppression effects of established invasive exotics on native plants are a major constraint to successful restoration, owing to their stronger priority effects, higher competitive abilities, and asymmetric plant size differences [13,14,15]. Therefore, reducing the priority effects of the invasive exotics and enhancing growth and competitive capacity of natives are the key steps of a successful management [13,16,17].
Intervention of growth of invasive exotics (mostly that of the aboveground part) with mowing or clipping, prescribed fire, and spraying herbicides are common approaches to control invasive exotics [18,19,20]. Aboveground clipping or mowing can weaken priority effects by reducing their growth vigor and competitive strength with native species [21,22,23,24,25]. For example, harvesting can reduce the dominance of invasive Typha species and promote native species diversity [26]; long-term repeated mowing converted a site dominated with invasive Arrhenatherum elatius to a prairie dominated with native grasses [21]; turf stripping together with native seed addition can achieve a 75% reduction of the invasive Solidago cover [25]. However, priority effects of some established invasive exotic species can persist if they are exposed to short-term aboveground disturbance due to the earlier belowground biomass formation and soil space occupancy [27]. For instance, Li et al. (2015) found that successful replacement of invasive Ipomoea cairica with native species could only occur when both the aboveground and belowground parts of the invasive plants were removed [24]. Furthermore, some invasive exotics have a high and fast regeneration capacity after aboveground disturbance; consequently, they may re-establish a highly competitive capacity against native species [28,29]. Van Kleunen et al. (2004) showed that the partial removal of plant tissues led to temporary growth reductions in invasive Solidago canadensis; however, this was compensated with increased growth [30]. Huang et al. (2018) found that some invasive exotics have a higher regrowth capacity and maintain their performance advantages over native species after clipping [29]. These studies indicate that there are uncertainties regarding whether invasive plant species can be controlled successfully using only aboveground disturbances.
In the last decade, applying ecological principles to management of invasive species and restoration of native plant communities has drawn increasing attention [13,16,17], as physical removal or herbicide application failed to economically and effectively control re-invasion and caused secondary environmental problems [31,32,33]. Biotic resistance from native vegetation is one of the key determinants of invasion success [16,17,34,35]. Establishing communities with competitive native species can support further suppression of invasive exotics in addition to traditional approaches [16,17,31]. Some greenhouse experiments have found that native species may help suppress exotic plants and favor the growth of desired native perennials [36,37,38]; however, these studies did not consider the priority effects of invasive exotic species [13,39,40]. Due to the presence of established invasive plants, native grass seeding alone could not inhibit the growth of invasive Cirsium arvense [41]. This suggests that whether planting native plants can significantly suppress the growth of invasive exotics may depend on the priority effects of the latter. Furthermore, competition between plants can be significantly altered using density, and higher densities intensify competition for resources between invasive and native species [42,43]. Invasive plant species gain increasing density as invasion proceeds, and the successful establishment of planted native plants may highly depend on the density of the invasive exotic species [44]. However, it remains unclear how clipping alters the density effects of invasive plants on native plants.
Deepening understanding of the interactions between established invasive exotics and planted natives and combining these ecological principles with traditional approaches can be very promising in successfully controlling invasive exotics [13,16,17]. Although the effects of clipping invasive plants or planting native plants on restoration performance have been investigated in different systems [25,45], it remains unclear whether these two measures can work together to a better control efficiency. In this study, we explored the possibility of inhibiting the growth of an aggressively expanding exotic plant species, Solidago canadensis (Asteraceae), which is native to North America but now widespread in China, Europe, and other parts of the world [46,47,48,49]. This species is characterized with a large number of seed production (ca. 20,000 seeds produced per plant) and fast expansion with clonally rhizomatous growth, which lead to a very fast population increase rate [46]. Furthermore, this species possesses highly competitive capacities, repels natives, and forms large monocultural patches and causes substantial biodiversity loss [46,47,48,49]. Eradicating the aggressive Solidago plants is extremely difficult, often resulting in frequent re-invasion [32]. A study indicated that long-term herbicide spraying and mowing together with native seed addition can reduce Solidago coverage significantly [25]. However, the efficiency of this measure has to be examined in more studies. We asked the following questions: (1) Does clipping effectively inhibit the growth of invasive plants and promote the growth of competitive co-occurring species at different invasive plant densities? (2) Does planting the plants of the co-occurring species inhibit the growth of invasive plants in addition to clipping?

2. Materials and Methods

We examined the effects of aboveground clipping and sowing seeds of the two co-occurring and competitive plant species on biomass accumulation in invasive S. canadensis plants at five different densities using a randomized block design. The experiment was designed in a way simulating the circumstances in restoration of invaded habitats with two stages. In Stage I, the S. canadensis seedlings were cultivated at different densities, to simulate established S. canadensis populations with different densities in the field and to establish priority effects of S. canadensis against the planted co-occurring species in Stage II. In Stage II, the S. canadensis seedlings were subjected to different clipping treatments (clipping or non-clipping, setting up different priority effects) and treatments of competition with planted plants of co-occurring species (seed sowing of two co-occurring species, setting up different biotic resistance), to simulate the competition between established S. canadensis and planted plants in restoration projects.

2.1. Stage I: Culture of S. canadensis Seedlings at Different Densities

In November 2021, S. canadensis seeds were collected from eight populations in an old field (30°16′ N, 121°10′ E) in Ningbo City, an area where the invasion of S. canadensis is frequently observed. These seeds were stored at 4 °C until germinated in Petri dishes with moistened filter paper in a growth chamber (PPFD of 180 µmol·m−2·s−1, 24 °C during the day (12 h) and 18 °C at night (12 h)) on 7 April 2022. One week after germination, healthy and uniform seedlings with two cotyledons were transplanted into plastic pots in a partially climate-controlled greenhouse in the experimental garden of the Subtropical Forestry Institute at the Chinese Academy of Forestry. The seedlings were planted at five densities: one, two, three, four, and five seedlings per pot, with 36 pots for each density. The seedlings in each pot were planted at equal distances from each other using a circular design. Each pot was planted with at least two additional plants to protect against transplant mortality. After 1 week, appropriate test densities were established with thinning or the addition of new seedlings of the same age. These plants were cultivated until they were exposed to different treatments of clipping and sowing seeds of co-occurring species. Plastic pots (18 cm in diameter and 18 cm in height) were filled with approximately 4 L of a growth substrate. The substrates consisted of a completely mixed field-collected soil and organic matter (v/v = 4:1). Soil was collected from the upper 15 cm of the profile from an abandoned field near where S. canadensis seeds were collected. The pots were rearranged once per week to minimize the effects of environmental heterogeneity within the greenhouse. During the experiment period, light intensity inside the greenhouse was about 80% of the ambient light outside, with a daily maximum of 800–1200 µmol·m−2·s−1. Inside the greenhouse, the daily maximum air temperature fluctuated in the range of 25–38 °C during the day and the minimum value fluctuated in the range of 18–28 °C at night. The day length was 11–14 h. Soil moisture was monitored, and the plants were watered once or twice a day, depending on the air temperature. The soil contained 10.36 g kg−1 of organic matter (completely decomposed plant litters), 0.53 g kg−1 of total nitrogen, and 0.63 g kg−1 of total phosphorus and had a pH of 8.20.

2.2. Stage II: Clipping and Sowing Seeds of Co-Occurring Plant Species

An additive design competition experiment [50] was conducted to examine the effects of clipping and adding seeds of the co-occurring species to S. canadensis. Two common co-occurring plant species, Imperata cylindrica (Poaceae), a grass with dense ramets and rhizomes, and Sesbania cannabina (Leguminosae), an annual legume without clonal growth, were selected as the target species. These species were selected because they are the dominant plant species that typically form monocultural stands in abandoned fields and have application potentials in restoring S. canadensis-invaded habitats. Although I. cylindrica stands are often invaded by S. canadensis, S. canadensis can hardly invade the stands of S. cannabina, indicating the higher competitive ability of this species. The seeds of I. cylindrica were collected in June 2021 and the seeds of S. cannabina in November 2021 with the same methods described for collecting the seeds of S. canadensis.
Stage I S. canadensis seedlings were exposed to a combination of three factors: (1) S. canadensis density (described in Stage I), (2) clipping or no clipping, and (3) sowing of I. cylindrica or S. cannabina seeds or no sowing. On 25–27 June 2022, half of the S. canadensis plants from each density treatment were clipped, and the other half were kept intact. For each half of these plants, five seeds of I. cylindrica, S. cannabina, or no seeds were sown in the center of the pots, with six replicates for each sowing treatment. Additionally, another five seeds were sown in each of the ten pots for each species without the presence of S. canadensis plants as a control. After 5 days, three to five seeds germinated, and the seedlings were thinned to one seedling after 1 week of growth. During the S. canadensis regrowth period, air temperature fluctuated between 24 and 38 °C/20 and 30 °C day/night conditions, and the plants were watered as described in Section 2.1.
On 15 September, 3 months after clipping and planting the plants from the two co-occurring species, all plants were harvested, the roots were carefully rinsed to remove the soil, and the roots of the two species grown in the same pot were separated. The leaves, stems, roots, and rhizomes from each plant were separated and dried at 80 °C for 6 days to constant mass and weighed.

2.3. Data Analysis

The effects of density, clipping, and planting the plants from the two co-occurring species and their interactive effects on belowground biomass, aboveground biomass, and total biomass of S. canadensis were analyzed using a three-way ANOVA. Different S. canadensis density and clipping treatments were combined as a fixed factor, and a one-way ANOVA was conducted to determine their effect on the biomass of I. cylindrica and S. cannabina. All analyses were performed using fitting general linear models (GLM). Furthermore, the biomass of S. canadensis regressed against that of the paired I. cylindrica and S. cannabina grown in the same pot. When necessary, the data were transformed to meet the assumptions of normality and equal variance. The Fisher’s least significant difference (LSD) test was used to examine the differences among treatments at a 5% significance level. All analyses were performed using Statistical Product and Service Solution (SPSS) software (version 16.0; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

3. Results

3.1. The Effects of S. canadensis Density, Clipping, and Co-Occurring Species Planting on Biomass Accumulation of S. canadensis

The treatments of clipping, sowing seeds of co-occurring species, and S. canadensis density had significant effects on the aboveground, belowground, and total biomass of S. canadensis (p < 0.05, Table 1). Clipping and seed sowing had significant interactive effects on belowground and total biomass (p < 0.05), but not on the aboveground biomass of S. canadensis (p > 0.05). There were significant interactive effects of clipping and density on the biomass of S. canadensis (p < 0.05). Significant interactive effects of S. canadensis density and seed sowing were observed only for belowground biomass (p < 0.05). No significant interactive effects of S. canadensis density, clipping, and seed sowing were observed (p > 0.05). The total biomass of S. canadensis per pot increased with S. canadensis density (Figure 1). Clipping decreased S. canadensis biomass significantly (p < 0.05), independent of S. canadensis density or seed sowing treatments. Planting the plants of the two co-occurring species significantly decreased the belowground and total biomass of S. canadensis in the non-clipping treatments (p < 0.05), but not in the clipping treatments, and S. cannabina seed sowing had greater effects than I. cylindrica seeds (Figure 1). The biomass of S. canadensis seedlings was reduced to a greater extent by clipping at higher densities than at lower densities compared with the corresponding non-clipped plants.

3.2. The Effects of Clipping and Seedling Density on the Biomass of I. cylindrica and S. cannabina

The combination of clipping and S. canadensis density significantly affected the biomass of I. cylindrica (D.f.10, 56, F = 23.746, p < 0.001) and S. cannabina (D.f.10, 53, F = 17.646, p < 0.001). S. canadensis suppressed the biomass accumulation of I. cylindrica and S. cannabina under all density treatments. The biomass of I. cylindrica and S. cannabina decreased significantly with increasing biomass of S. canadensis in the mixed culture treatments (p < 0.001; Figure 2 and Figure 3). The presence of non-clipped S. canadensis sharply decreased the biomass of I. cylindrica and S. cannabina (p < 0.05). In the non-clipping treatments, the biomass of I. cylindrica and S. cannabina decreased with the increasing density of S. canadensis, but this was only significant for S. cannabina (p < 0.05). Clipping significantly mitigated the suppression of S. canadensis biomass accumulation on I. cylindrica and S. cannabina in all S. canadensis density treatments (p < 0.05). In the clipping treatments, the biomass of I. cylindrica and S. cannabina growing with one or two S. canadensis seedlings was close to that of the corresponding monocultures (Figure 3).

4. Discussion

The major purpose of this study is to investigate whether biotic resistance from planted plants of co-occurring species may further increase suppression effects on invasive exotics in addition to clipping. The experiment did find that planting the plants of co-occurring species suppressed the belowground growth of S. canadensis, although the effects were not significant when the plants were clipped. It suggested that combined treatments of clipping invasive exotic plants and plants of co-occurring species with high competitive abilities are promising in effectively controlling these aggressively expanding species.

4.1. The Effects of Clipping and Planting Plants of the Co-Occurring Species on Biomass Accumulation of S. canadensis

Aboveground removal has long been commonly applied as the primary control measure of invasive exotic species [18,19,20]. In our experiment, the biomass of S. canadensis could be reduced by up to 90% by clipping, indicating the high effectiveness. These results are consistent with those of Knudson et al. (2012) and He et al. (2018), who observed that clipping effectively inhibited the growth of some invasive exotic species [41,45]. The efficiency of clipping in reducing plant growth highly depends on the regrowth potential, which may be affected by plant size and the pool size of nutrient reserves stored in belowground parts [51,52,53]. Larger plants have more nutrients stored underground that are ready to be remobilized to support a higher regrowth capacity [54]. In our experiment, S. canadensis seedlings were relatively small (two months old, in contrast to their long-lived perennial growth habit), which may explain their relatively high sensitivity to clipping and limited regrowth potential.
The low efficiency, high cost, or environmental problems limit application of traditional measures, such as clipping, mowing, or fire and herbicide application, to control invasive exotic species [18,19,20]. Evidence indicates that restoring native cover can enhance invasion resistance [16,17,31,37]. We also observed significant effects of planting the co-occurring species on the growth of S. canadensis. Generally, the negative correlation between the biomass of S. canadensis and that of planted seedlings (Figure 2) indicated that there was strong competition between the planted seedlings of co-occurring species and the established S. canadensis plants. The seed sowing interfered with belowground growth but not aboveground growth of S. canadensis, suggesting intensive competition for root growth spaces, nutrients, or water. The findings comply with Szymura (2016), Ni (2018), and Ren (2019) [48,55,56], who found that roots play important roles in competition between native and invasive exotic species. The growth reduction regarding S. canadensis was significant in the non-clipping treatments but not in the clipping treatments. One explanation for the insignificant differences in the growth of clipped S. canadensis among the different sowing treatments is that the growth of these clipped plants is highly dependent on the number of dormant buds resprouting at the stem bases and the capacity to mobilize nutrient reserves in the rhizomes and coarse roots [46]. In contrast, in the non-clipping treatment, the major constraint for growth of S. canadensis may be the interference of planted seedlings of the co-occurring species. Despite the nonsignificant effects observed in the clipping treatments (Figure 1), regrowth of S. canadensis can be further reduced by planting seedlings of the co-occurring species, in addition to clipping. S. canadensis seemed to be more suppressed by S. cannabina than I. cylindrica, which was probably due to the larger plant size and faster biomass accumulation (Figure 3) of the former species, as competitive intensity is supposed to be dependent on neighbor biomass [57]. Interspecific variations in the suppression of exotic species using different native species have been observed [38,48], and selecting species with faster growth rates may enhance success in the initial stages of invaded ecosystem restoration [43,58]. Although S. cannabina is listed as an invasive species in China [59], it is a typical leguminous nitrogen-fixing species [60] and there is a long history of cultivation of S. cannabina as green manure to improve soil quality, especially that of saline or alkaline soil, by increasing soil organic matter and decreasing soil salinity and alkalinity [61,62], as forage for domesticated animals, and as a herbal medicine and a source of a food additive [63,64]. As S. cannabina serves as a multipurpose species in China currently, it can potentially be used in controlling S. canadensis.

4.2. The Effects of S. canadensis on Biomass Accumulation of the Co-Occurring Species

Our experiment indicated that there were strong priority effects of S. canadensis over the co-occurring species, which have been observed in many other invasive exotics [39,65]. The two co-occurring species responded to the treatments of clipping and the density of S. canadensis similarly. However, the growth of I. cylindrica seemed to be more affected, probably because of the lower competitive capacity of this species [66]. These results suggest that there are variations in competitive tolerance between different co-occurring species and that screening co-occurring species with high competition tolerance may promote initial restoration success [58]. The mechanisms for the suppression effects of early established plants on later arriving plants may include shading from invasive plants [67,68], early pre-emption of essential resources in soil [69,70], suppression of native plants using allelopathic effects [71,72], and an altered soil biota community [73,74]. S. canadensis exhibited significant inhibiting effects on the growth of the two co-occurring species when they were not clipped or when clipped at a higher density, which offers an explanation for their dominance in the field [66,75]. Clipping significantly ameliorated the suppression effects, suggesting shading played an important role. But belowground parts of the invasive plants may also contribute to the suppression effects [27,35]. There were few significant differences between the aboveground biomass of clipped S. canadensis plants in the different density treatments (Figure 1), but biomass accumulation of S. cannabina and I. cylindrica was indeed lower in the higher S. canadensis density treatments, suggesting that there were stronger priority effects of the roots or rhizomes [27]. Denser roots and rhizome clumps may inhibit root growth and nutrient uptake in newly grown seedlings due to limited root growth space [27,35]. The results suggested that clipping alone may have very limited effects on the belowground priority effects. This may explain frequently observed fast regrowth of some invasive exotics and suppression of growth of planted natives in fields.
The findings from this study offer some implications for future studies and invaded habitat restoration. The results highlighted the importance of applying competitive native species and overcoming belowground priority effects of invasive exotic plants in restoration of native cover. Therefore, different components of the priority effects (belowground vs. aboveground; belowground components, such as nutrient competition, allelopathy, soil biota, etc.) and their contributions need to be identified, dissected, and quantified (13, 71) in future studies. Furthermore, interspecific variations in response to these components in different native plant species need to be clarified for optimized species selection. For restoration projects, spraying systemic herbicides with stronger effects on belowground parts, selecting native species with less sensitivity to the belowground priority effects of invasive exotics, and optimizing timing of control can be the most important components in future management plans [13,16,17,31].

5. Conclusions

The study indicated that in addition to clipping, planting co-occurring and competitive plant species can increase biotic resistance to further invasion of S. canadensis and both the aboveground part and belowground part of S. canadensis contributed to its suppression effects on planted co-occurring species. In the future, studies identifying the key components contributing to the priority effects of the established invasive exotic species over planted natives to optimize precise timing and selecting native species with high competitive capacities are extremely important for designing a successful restoration management.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, X.Y. and M.W.; methodology, X.Y.; data curation, X.Y., J.M. and R.M.; writing—original draft preparation, X.Y., J.M. and R.M.; writing—review and editing, X.Y. and M.W.; visualization, J.M. and R.M.; supervision, M.W.; project administration, X.Y. and M.W.; funding acquisition, X.Y. and M.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was financially supported by the Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (LTGS23C030002) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (32171516).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Khatri, K.; Negi, B.; Bargali, K.; Bargali, S.S. Spatial variation in allelopathic inhibition by Ageratina adenophora on growth and yield of two traditional millet crops. Vegetos 2022, 35, 663–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Powell, K.I.; Chase, J.M.; Knight, T.M. Invasive plants have scale-dependent effects on diversity by altering species-area relationships. Science 2013, 339, 316–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Khatri, K.; Negi, B.; Bargali, K.; Bargali, S.S. Trait plasticity: A key attribute in the invasion success of Ageratina adenophora in different forest types of Kumaun Himalaya, India. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2023, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Khatri, K.; Negi, B.; Bargali, K.; Bargali, S.S. Phenotypic variation in morphology and associated functional traits in Ageratina adenophora along an altitudinal gradient in Kumaun Himalaya, India. Biologia 2023, 78, 1333–1347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Pyšek, P.; Richardson, D.M. Invasive species, environmental change and management, and health. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2010, 35, 25–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Vilà, M.; Espinar, J.L.; Hejda, M.; Hulme, P.E.; Jarošík, V.; Maron, J.L.; Pergl, J.; Schaffner, U.; Sun, Y.; Pyšek, P. Ecological impacts of invasive alien plants: A meta-analysis of their effects on species, communities and ecosystems. Ecol. Lett. 2011, 14, 702–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Eschen, R.; Kadzamira, M.; Stutz, S.; Ogunmodede, A.; Djeddour, D.; Shaw, R.; Pratt, C.; Varia, S.; Constantine, K.; Williams, F. An updated assessment of the direct costs of invasive non-native species to the United Kingdom. Biol. Invasions 2023, 25, 3265–3276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hulme, P.E.; Bernard-Verdier, M. Comparing traits of native and alien plants: Can we do better? Funct. Ecol. 2018, 32, 117–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Khatri, K.; Negi, B.; Bargali, K.; Bargali, S.S. Trait variability in co-occurring invasive and native plant species in road side population of Kumaun Himalaya. Braz. J. Bot. 2022, 45, 1099–1110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zedler, J.B.; Kercher, S. Causes and consequences of invasive plants in wetlands: Opportunities, opportunists, and outcomes. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2004, 23, 431–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Seabloom, E.W.; Borer, E.T.; Buckley, Y.; Cleland, E.E.; Davies, K.; Firn, J.; Harpole, W.S.; Hautier, Y.; Lind, E.; MacDougall, A.; et al. Predicting invasion in grassland ecosystems: Is exotic dominance the real embarrassment of richness? Glob. Chang. Biol. 2013, 19, 3677–3687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Iannone, B.V., III; Heneghan, L.; Rijal, D.; Wise, D.H. Below-ground causes and consequences of woodland shrub invasions: A novel paired-point framework reveals new insights. J. Appl. Ecol. 2015, 52, 78–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hess, M.C.M.; Mesléard, F.; Buisson, E. Priority effects: Emerging principles for invasive plant species management. Ecol. Eng. 2019, 127, 48–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Vilà, M.; Weiner, J. Are invasive plant species better competitors than native plant species?–Evidence from pair-wise experiments. Oikos 2004, 105, 229–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Golivets, M.; Wallin, K.F. Neighbour tolerance, not suppression, provides competitive advantage to non-native plants. Ecol. Lett. 2018, 21, 745–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Byun, C.; Kettenring, K.M.; Tarsa, E.E.; de Blois, S. Applying ecological principles to maximize resistance to invasion in restored plant communities. Ecol. Eng. 2023, 190, 106926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Byun, C.; de Blois, S.; Brisson, J. Management of invasive plants through ecological resistance. Biol. Invasions 2018, 20, 13–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Weidlich, E.W.A.; Flórido, F.G.; Sorrini, T.B.; Brancalion, P.H.S. Controlling invasive plant species in ecological restoration: A global review. J. Appl. Ecol. 2020, 57, 1806–1817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Li, Y.M.; Munson, S.M.; Lin, Y.C.; Grissom, P. Effectiveness of a decade oftreatments to reduce invasive buffelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare). Invasive Plant Sci. Manag. 2023, 16, 27–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wang, S.; Martin, P.A.; Hao, Y.; Sutherland, W.J.; Shackelford, G.E.; Wu, J.H.; Ju, R.T.; Zhou, W.N.; Li, B. A global synthesis of the effectiveness and ecological impacts of management interventions for Spartina species. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2023, 17, 141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wilson, M.V.; Clark, D.L. Controlling invasive Arrhenatherum elatius and promoting native prairie grasses through mowing. Appl. Veg. Sci. 2001, 4, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Tang, L.; Yang, G.; Wang, J.Q.; Wang, C.H.; Li, B.; Chen, J.K.; Zhao, B. Designing an effective clipping regime for controlling the invasive plant Spartina alterniflora in an estuarine salt marsh. Ecol. Eng. 2009, 35, 874–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Renz, M.; Heflin, R. Impact of clipping timing on Japanese hedgeparsley (Torilis japonica) seed production and viability. Invasive Plant Sci. Manag. 2014, 7, 511–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Li, W.H.; Luo, J.N.; Tian, X.S.; Chow, W.S.; Sun, Z.Y.; Zhang, T.J.; Peng, S.L.; Peng, C.L. A new strategy for controlling invasive weeds: Selecting valuable native plants to defeat them. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 11004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Szymura, M.; Świerszcz, S.; Szymura, T.H. Restoration of ecologically valuable grassland on sites degraded by invasive Solidago: Lessons from a 6-year experiment. Land Degrad. Dev. 2022, 33, 1985–1998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Lishawa, S.C.; Lawrence, B.A.; Albert, D.A.; Tuchman, N.C. Biomass harvest of invasive Typha promotes plant diversity in a Great Lakes coastal wetland. Restor. Ecol. 2015, 23, 228–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Körner, C.; Stöcklin, J.; Reuther-Thiébaud, L.; Pelaez-Riedl, S. Small differences in arrival time influence composition and productivity of plant communities. New Phytol. 2008, 177, 698–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Gao, Y.; Yan, W.L.; Li, B.; Zhao, B.; Li, P.; Li, Z.B.; Tang, L. The substantial influences of non-resource conditions on recovery of plants: A case study of clipped Spartina alterniflora asphyxiated by submergence. Ecol. Eng. 2014, 73, 345–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Huang, Q.Q.; Fan, Z.W.; Li, X.X.; Wang, Y.; Liu, Y.; Shen, Y.D. Effects of nutrient addition and clipping on biomass production of invasive and native annual Asteraceae plants. Weed Res. 2018, 58, 318–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. van Kleunen, M.V.; Ramponi, G.; Schmid, B. Effects of herbivory simulated by clipping and jasmonic acid on Solidago canadensis. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2004, 5, 173–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Schuster, M.J.; Wragg, P.D.; Reich, P.B. Using revegetation to suppress invasive plants in grasslands and forests. J. Appl. Ecol. 2018, 55, 2362–2373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Perera, P.C.D.; Szymura, T.H.; Zając, A.; Chmolowska, D.; Szymura, M. Drivers of Solidago species invasion in Central Europe—Case study in the landscape of the Carpathian Mountains and their foreground. Ecol. Evol. 2021, 11, 12429–12444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mantoani, M.C.; Osborne, B.A. Post-invasion recovery of plant communities colonised by Gunnera tinctoria after mechanical removal or herbicide application and its interaction with an extreme weather event. Plants 2022, 11, 1224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Blank, R.R.; Morgan, T. Suppression of Bromus tectorum L. by established perennial grasses: Potential mechanisms—Part one. Appl. Environ. Soil Sci. 2012, 2012, 632172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Blank, R.R.; Morgan, T.; Allen, F. Suppression of annual Bromus tectorum by perennial Agropyron cristatum: Roles of soil nitrogen availability and biological soil space. AoB Plants 2015, 7, plv006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Perry, L.G.; Cronin, S.A.; Paschke, M.W. Native cover crops suppress exotic annuals and favor native perennials in a greenhouse competition experiment. Plant Ecol. 2009, 204, 247–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Möhrle, K.; Reyes-Aldana, H.E.; Kollmann, J.; Teixeira, L.H. Suppression of an invasive native plant species by designed grassland communities. Plants 2021, 10, 775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Puliafico, K.; Schwarzländer, M.; Price, W.; Harmon, B.; Hinz, H. Native and exotic grass competition with invasive hoary cress (Cardaria draba). Invasive Plant Sci. Manag. 2011, 4, 38–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wilsey, B.J.; Barber, K.; Martin, L.M. Exotic grassland species have stronger priority effects than natives regardless of whether they are cultivated or wild genotypes. New Phytol. 2015, 205, 928–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Young, T.P.; Stuble, K.L.; Balachowski, J.A.; Werner, C.M. Using priority effects to manipulate competitive relationships in restoration. Restor. Ecol. 2017, 25, S114–S123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Knudson, J. Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) response to clipping and seeding of competitive grasses. Am. J. Plant Sci. 2012, 3, 1252–1259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Abraham, J.K.; Corbin, J.D.; D’Antonio, C.M. California native and exotic perennial grasses differ in their response to soil nitrogen, exotic annual grass density, and order of emergence. Plant Ecol. 2009, 201, 445–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Yannelli, F.A.; Karrer, G.; Hall, R.; Kollmann, J.; Heger, T. Seed density is more effective than multi-trait limiting similarity in controlling grassland resistance against plant invasions in mesocosms. Appl. Veg. Sci. 2018, 21, 411–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Goldberg, D.E. Neighborhood competition in an old-field plant community. Ecology 1987, 68, 1211–1223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. He, L.; Bakker, E.S.; Nunez, M.M.A.; Hilt, S. Combined effects of shading and clipping on the invasive alien macrophyte Elodea nuttallii. Aquat. Bot. 2019, 154, 24–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Huang, H.; Guo, S.; Chen, G. Reproductive biology in an invasive plant Solidago canadensis. Front. Biol. China 2007, 2, 196–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Chen, G.Q.; Zhang, C.B.; Ma, L.; Qiang, S.; Silander, J.A.; Qi, L.L. Biotic homogenization caused by the invasion of Solidago canadensis in China. J. Integr. Agric. 2013, 12, 835–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Szymura, M.; Szymura, T. Interactions between alien goldenrods (Solidago and Euthamia species) and comparison with native species in Central Europe. Flora 2015, 218, 51–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Zubek, S.; Majewska, M.L.; Kapusta, P.; Stefanowicz, A.M.; Błaszkowski, J.; Rożek, K.; Stanek, M.; Karpowicz, F.; Zalewska-Gałosz, J. Solidago canadensis invasion in abandoned arable fields induces minor changes in soil properties and does not affect the performance of subsequent crops. Land Degrad. Dev. 2020, 31, 334–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Goldberg, D.E.; Scheiner, S.M. ANOVA and ANCOVA: Field competition experiments. In Design and Analysis of Ecological Experiments, 2nd ed.; Scheiner, S.M., Gurevitch, J., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2001; pp. 77–98. ISBN 9780195131888. [Google Scholar]
  51. Poorter, L.; Kitajima, K.; Mercado, P.; Chubiña, J.; Melgar, I.; Prins, H.H.T. Resprouting as a persistence strategy of tropical forest trees: Relations with carbohydrate storage and shade tolerance. Ecology 2010, 91, 2613–2627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Shibata, R.; Shibata, M.; Tanaka, H.; Iida, S.; Masaki, T.; Hatta, F.; Kurokawa, H.; Nakashizuka, T. Interspecific variation in the size-dependent resprouting ability of temperate woody species and its adaptive significance. J. Ecol. 2014, 102, 209–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Konlechner, T.M.; Orlovich, D.A.; Hilton, M.J. Restrictions in the sprouting ability of an invasive coastal plant, Ammophila arenaria, from fragmented rhizomes. Plant Ecol. 2016, 217, 521–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Smith, M.G.; Arndt, S.K.; Miller, R.E.; Kasel, S.; Bennett, L.T. Trees use more non-structural carbohydrate reserves during epicormic than basal resprouting. Tree Physiol. 2018, 38, 1779–1791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Ni, M.; Liu, Y.; Chu, C.J.; Xu, H.; Fang, S.Q. Fast seedling root growth leads to competitive superiority of invasive plants. Biol. Invasions 2018, 20, 1821–1832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ren, G.Q.; Li, Q.; Li, Y.; Li, J.; Adomako, M.; Dai, Z.C.; Li, G.L.; Wan, L.Y.; Zhang, B.; Zou, C.; et al. The enhancement of root biomass increases the competitiveness of an invasive plant against a co-occurring native plant under elevated nitrogen deposition. Flora 2019, 261, 151486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Reader, R.J.; Wilson, S.D.; Belcher, J.W.; Wisheu, I.; Keddy, P.A.; Tilman, D.; Morris, E.C.; Grace, J.B.; McGraw, J.B.; Olff, H.; et al. Plant competition in relation to neighbor biomass: An intercontinental study with Poa pratensis. Ecology 1994, 75, 1753–1760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Drenovsky, R.E.; Grewell, B.J.; D’Antonio, C.M.; Funk, J.L.; James, J.J.; Molinari, N.; Parker, I.M.; Richards, C.L. A functional trait perspective on plant invasion, Ann. Bot. 2012, 110, 141–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Hao, Q.; Ma, J.S. Invasive alien plants in China: An update. Plant Divers. 2023, 45, 117–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Becker, M.; George, T. Nitrogen fixation response of stem and root-nodulating Sesbania species to flooding and mineral nitrogen. Plant Soil 1995, 175, 189–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Li, Y.; Li, X.Y.; Liu, Y.J.; Wang, E.T.; Ren, C.G.; Liu, W.; Xu, H.L.; Wu, H.L.; Jiang, N.; Li, Y.Z.; et al. Genetic diversity and community structure of rhizobia nodulating Sesbania cannabina in saline-alkaline soils. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 2016, 39, 195–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. An, X.; Sun, M.; Ren, K.; Xu, M.; Wang, Z.; Li, Y.; Liu, H.; Lian, B. Effect and mechanism of the improvement of coastal silt soil by application of organic fertilizer and gravel combined with Sesbania cannabina cultivation. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 1092089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Li, R.; Tang, N.; Jia, X.; Xu, Y.J.; Cheng, Y.Q. Antidiabetic activity of galactomannan from Chinese Sesbania cannabina and its correlation of regulating intestinal microbiota. J. Funct. Foods 2021, 83, 104530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Tao, Y.; Ma, J.; Huang, C.; Lai, C.; Ling, Z.; Yong, Q. Rheological properties of Sesbania cannabina galactomannan as a new source of thickening agent. J. Food Sci. 2022, 87, 1527–1539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Ploughe, L.W.; Carlyle, C.N.; Fraser, L.H. Priority effects: How the order of arrival of an invasive grass, Bromus tectorum, alters productivity and plant community structure when grown with native grass species. Ecol. Evol. 2020, 10, 13173–13181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ye, X.Q.; Ma, R.X.; Lei, S.T.; Wu, M.; Yu, F.H. Maintained nutrient accumulation in invasive Solidago canadensis in response to competition. Flora 2022, 295, 152136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Meira-Neto, J.A.A.; da Silva, M.C.N.A.; Tolentino, G.S.; Gastauer, M.; Buttschardt, T.; Ulm, F.; Máguas, C. Early Acacia invasion in a sandy ecosystem enables shading mediated by soil, leaf nitrogen and facilitation. Biol. Invasions 2018, 20, 1567–1575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Mckinney, A.M.; Goodell, K. Shading by invasive shrub reduces seed production and pollinator services in a native shrub. Biol. Invasions 2010, 12, 2751–2763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Schenk, H.J. Root competition: Beyond resource depletion. J. Ecol. 2006, 94, 725–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Phillips, M.L.; Mcnellis, B.E.; Allen, M.F.; Allen, E.B. Differences in root phenology and water depletion by an invasive grass explains persistence in a Mediterranean ecosystem. Am. J. Bot. 2019, 106, 1210–1218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Grman, E.; Suding, K.N. Within-year soil legacies contribute to strong priority effects of exotics on native California grassland communities. Restor. Ecol. 2010, 18, 664–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Bais, H.P.; Vepachedu, R.; Gilroy, S.; Callaway, R.M.; Vivanco, J.M. Allelopathy and exotic plant invasion: From molecules and genes to species interactions. Science 2003, 301, 1377–1380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Levine, J.M.; Pachepsky, E.; Kendall, B.E.; Yelenik, S.G.; Lambers, J.H.R. Plant-soil feedbacks and invasive spread. Ecol. Lett. 2006, 9, 1005–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Zhang, G.L.; Bai, J.H.; Wang, W.; Jia, J.; Huang, L.B.; Kong, F.L.; Xi, M. Plant invasion reshapes the latitudinal pattern of soil microbial necromass and its contribution to soil organic carbon in coastal wetlands. Catena 2023, 222, 106859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Ye, X.Q.; Yan, Y.N.; Wu, M.; Yu, F.H. High capacity of nutrient accumulation by invasive Solidago canadensis in a coastal grassland. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Biology 12 01282 g001
Figure 1. Biomass of the invasive Solidago canadensis seedlings exposed to different treatment of densities, clipping, and sowing seeds of the two co-occurring species. (A) Aboveground biomass; (B) belowground biomass; (C) total biomass. NC-CK, without clipping and seed sowing; NC-IC, without clipping and with Imperata cylindrica seed sowing; NC-IC, without clipping and with Sesbania annabina seed sowing; C-CK, clipping, without seed sowing; C-IC, with clipping and I. cylindrica seed sowing; C-SC, with clipping and S. cannabina seed sowing. The data are the means ± standard error and different letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between the different treatments within each S. canadensis seedling density.
Figure 1. Biomass of the invasive Solidago canadensis seedlings exposed to different treatment of densities, clipping, and sowing seeds of the two co-occurring species. (A) Aboveground biomass; (B) belowground biomass; (C) total biomass. NC-CK, without clipping and seed sowing; NC-IC, without clipping and with Imperata cylindrica seed sowing; NC-IC, without clipping and with Sesbania annabina seed sowing; C-CK, clipping, without seed sowing; C-IC, with clipping and I. cylindrica seed sowing; C-SC, with clipping and S. cannabina seed sowing. The data are the means ± standard error and different letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between the different treatments within each S. canadensis seedling density.
Biology 12 01282 g001
Biology 12 01282 g002
Figure 2. Regression of biomass of the plants of the co-occurring species with biomass of the Solidago canadensis seedlings. (A) Imperata cylindrica and (B) Sesbania annabina. The data were pooled from all the treatments in which S. canadensis was grown together with planted I. cylindrica or S. cannabina.
Figure 2. Regression of biomass of the plants of the co-occurring species with biomass of the Solidago canadensis seedlings. (A) Imperata cylindrica and (B) Sesbania annabina. The data were pooled from all the treatments in which S. canadensis was grown together with planted I. cylindrica or S. cannabina.
Biology 12 01282 g002
Biology 12 01282 g003
Figure 3. Total biomass of the seedlings of the co-occurring species exposed to different density and clipping treatments of the Solidago canadensis seedlings. (A) Imperata cylindrica and (B) Sesbania cannabina. CK, the I. cylindrica and S. cannabina seedlings were grown alone as a control (one seedling per pot). NC-1, NC-2, NC-3, NC-4, NC-5, and the I. cylindrica or S. cannabina seedlings were sown into the pots with 1–5 non-clipped seedlings of S. canadensis per pot, respectively. C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, and the I. cylindrica or S. cannabina seedlings were sown into the pots with 1–5 clipped seedlings of S. canadensis per pot, respectively. The data are the means ± standard errors and different letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between the different treatments within each S. canadensis seedling density for I. cylindrica and S. cannabina, respectively.
Figure 3. Total biomass of the seedlings of the co-occurring species exposed to different density and clipping treatments of the Solidago canadensis seedlings. (A) Imperata cylindrica and (B) Sesbania cannabina. CK, the I. cylindrica and S. cannabina seedlings were grown alone as a control (one seedling per pot). NC-1, NC-2, NC-3, NC-4, NC-5, and the I. cylindrica or S. cannabina seedlings were sown into the pots with 1–5 non-clipped seedlings of S. canadensis per pot, respectively. C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, and the I. cylindrica or S. cannabina seedlings were sown into the pots with 1–5 clipped seedlings of S. canadensis per pot, respectively. The data are the means ± standard errors and different letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between the different treatments within each S. canadensis seedling density for I. cylindrica and S. cannabina, respectively.
Biology 12 01282 g003
Table 1. The effects of clipping (C), sowing seeds of the two co-occurring species (S), and density of S. canadensis seedlings (D) on the biomass of S. canadensis seedling.
Table 1. The effects of clipping (C), sowing seeds of the two co-occurring species (S), and density of S. canadensis seedlings (D) on the biomass of S. canadensis seedling.
Total
Biomass		Aboveground
Biomass		Belowground
Biomass
D.f.FpFpFp
C12094.9750.0002180.5230.0001134.1130.000
S225.1440.0005.6780.00472.5070.000
D431.0180.00026.5450.00025.2480.000
C × S25.2240.0071.8730.15834.0100.000
C × D420.7530.00017.6010.00016.2710.000
S × D80.8400.5690.4190.9082.6610.010
C × S × D80.4780.8700.4130.9121.9910.052
C—Solidago canadensis clipping (clipping or non-clipping), S—seed sowing (without seed sowing, Imperata cylindrica seed sowing, or Sesbania cannabina seed sowing), D—density of S. canadensis seedlings (1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 plants per pot). The bold p value indicate significant effects.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ye, X.; Meng, J.; Ma, R.; Wu, M. Effects of Clipping an Invasive Plant Species on the Growth of Planted Plants of Two Co-Occurring Species in a Greenhouse Study. Biology 2023, 12, 1282. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology12101282

AMA Style

Ye X, Meng J, Ma R, Wu M. Effects of Clipping an Invasive Plant Species on the Growth of Planted Plants of Two Co-Occurring Species in a Greenhouse Study. Biology. 2023; 12(10):1282. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology12101282

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ye, Xiaoqi, Jinliu Meng, Ruixiang Ma, and Ming Wu. 2023. "Effects of Clipping an Invasive Plant Species on the Growth of Planted Plants of Two Co-Occurring Species in a Greenhouse Study" Biology 12, no. 10: 1282. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology12101282

APA Style

Ye, X., Meng, J., Ma, R., & Wu, M. (2023). Effects of Clipping an Invasive Plant Species on the Growth of Planted Plants of Two Co-Occurring Species in a Greenhouse Study. Biology, 12(10), 1282. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology12101282

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop