Next Article in Journal
Xylem Sap Bleeding as a Physiological Indicator in Grapevine: Genotype and Climate Influence
Previous Article in Journal
Genome-Wide Analysis of the Rice PcG Gene Family and Its Involvement in Salt Response and Development
Previous Article in Special Issue
Assessment of Habitat Suitability for the Invasive Vine Sicyos angulatus Under Current and Future Climate Change Scenarios
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 14
Issue 17
10.3390/plants14172806
plants-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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Functional Traits of Native Plant Species That Inhibit the Seedling Growth of the Exotic Invader Solidago canadensis

by
Ruixiang Ma
1,2,3,
Jili Liang
1,2,4,
Keyi Zuo
1,2,
Ming Wu
1,2 and
Xiaoqi Ye
1,2,*
1
Research Institute of Subtropical Forestry, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Hangzhou 311400, China
2
State Key Laboratory of Wetland Conservation and Restoration, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Beijing 100091, China
3
College of Ecology and Environment, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing 210037, China
4
College of Forestry and Biotechnology, Zhejiang Agriculture and Forestry University, Hangzhou 311300, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2025, 14(17), 2806; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14172806
Submission received: 2 June 2025 / Revised: 16 July 2025 / Accepted: 27 August 2025 / Published: 8 September 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Plant Invasions and Their Interactions with the Environment)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Rising biological invasions continue to threaten biodiversity conservation worldwide. To protect native ecosystems and biodiversity, improve resilience against invasions, and lower ecological management costs, it is crucial to identify native plant species that can endure the competitive pressures from invasive plants. This greenhouse study examined the competition between Solidago canadensis and 32 native plant species to identify key functional traits of these native plant species that influence their competitive effects on and responses to S. canadensis. The results indicated that S. canadensis seedlings were unable to suppress the growth of most of the native species studied, while most native species could significantly suppress growth of S. canadensis, reducing its biomass by 12–92%. The suppression effects by native plants were closely related to their root functional traits. Specifically, annuals with higher root–shoot ratio, specific root lengths, stem biomass, plant height by day 10, and smaller number of root tips showed stronger inhibition of S. canadensis. On the other hand, perennials with smaller average root diameter, or greater root biomass and plant heights by day 60, were also more inhibitory towards S. canadensis. This study concluded that the competitive effect of seedlings of S. canadensis have weaker competitive impacts compared to most the studied native plants. Root traits are essential in the competition between native plants and S. canadensis, potentially aiding in the identification of native plant species with high resistance to invasion.

1. Introduction

As globalization accelerates process, biological invasions have become a global environmental issue [1,2,3,4]. Invasive plants, with their strong competitive abilities, often form monocultural communities that restrict the living space of native plants, disrupt biodiversity [5,6], alter soil properties [7,8] and modify ecosystem functions [9]. This poses a significant threat to native ecosystems. Therefore, it is crucial to prevent further invasions, eliminate invasive plants, and restore native vegetation. The successful invasion of plants is determined by the ability to overcome local environmental conditions, including both biotic and abiotic factors [10,11]. In order to colonize and reproduce in a new environment, invasive plants must adapt to abiotic environmental conditions (e.g., climate, soil, moisture, light, etc.) [11]. In addition, the interactions between native organisms and invasive species have a significant impact on successful invasion. Invaders must overcome native community resistance mechanisms, including interspecific competition [12], consumer predation pressure [13], and pathogen attack [14]. Nevertheless, anthropogenic manipulation of abiotic filters to prevent invasive species colonization is both economically prohibitive and ecologically unsustainable [15]. Moreover, biological control through natural enemy introduction carries significant unpredictability risks [16]. Therefore, utilizing native plants to compete with invasive plants to defend against plant invasions is more feasible. Currently, besides traditional physical and chemical methods, replacing invasive plants with native plants and developing native vegetations that can resist invasion are essential parts of the integrated management of invasion [17,18]. Therefore, identifying native plant species that are highly resistant to competition or have high abilities to suppress invasive plant species is crucial.
Competitive ability is one of the major components of biological resistance to invasions [19]. High competitive abilities of native plant species may facilitate replacing invasive plants. The strength of plant competitive ability can be assessed by competitive effects (i.e., the ability to inhibit the growth of other species) and competitive responses (i.e., the ability to resist being inhibited by other plants) [20,21,22,23]. Competitive effect and response abilities are often closely related, and plants with strong competitive effect and well response perform have advantage in competition [24,25]. The competitive ability is closely associated with resource utilization efficiency [26]. For example, plants with larger leaf areas and greater plant heights are more advantageous in competing for light resources [27], and a larger proportion of root systems is more conducive to competing for underground resources [28,29,30]. Competitive effect is often related to plant functional traits [31], but competition responses are not significantly correlated with their own functional traits [25], suggesting that the functional traits driving variation in competition responses are not as well defined than competition effects [32]. Mechanisms by which plant functional traits explain competitive interactions between native and invasive species have received increasing attention [33,34]. A multitude of functional traits are associated with plant invasiveness [35,36]. A meta-analysis reported the correlations between functional traits and invasiveness, but the analysis of functional traits did not include root functional traits [35]. Studies on the correlation between functional traits and invasion resistance have focused primarily on above-ground functional traits [37,38]. A study showed that aboveground functional traits could not definitively explain invasiveness and resistance to invasion [39], suggesting the potential roles of belowgound traits. Dawson proposed a new hypothesis that altered root traits can enhance alien plant growth performance and competitive ability [40], and a recent study have demonstrated that invasive plants have significantly different root traits compared to native plants [41]. However, the effects of root traits on the outcome of competition between invasive and native species have not been clearly explained [42,43], perhaps due to the difficulty of obtaining data on root traits and the interference of destructive sampling with experimental results [44], root traits have often been neglected in most studies.
Solidago canadensis is native to the temperate regions of North America. Due to its high reproductive and expansion abilities [45], S. canadensis has invaded Europe, Asia, and Oceania [46,47]. Studies have found that the invasion of S. canadensis has caused changes to the soil properties and microorganisms of the local ecosystem [48] and species diversity [49,50]. Studies on prevention and control of S. canadensis have been conducted, however, with limited efficiency [51,52,53]. Using suitable native plants to replace invader can avoid the ecological damage caused by herbicides and physical control, thus contributing to ecosystem health, biodiversity conservation, and sustainable economic and social development. Many studies have been conducted to explain the possible mechanisms of invasiveness of S. canadensis, including smaller and lighter seeds for easier dispersal and faster seed germination, as well as the development of extensive underground rhizomes that enhance clonal propagation and the release of allelopathic compounds that negatively affect neighbors [54,55,56]. In addition, larger root biomass is more favorable for S. canadensis to compete for underground resources [57], suggesting that roots play an important role in the resource competition process of S. canadensis. But the key functional traits for native plant resistance to S. canadensis invasiveness remain unclear, making it difficult to screen suitable native plants to replace S. canadensis. Based on the limitations of above research, this study aims to elucidate native plants functional traits, that are closely associated with their competitive effects on and responses to S. canadensis. We predict that the root traits of native plants play important roles in suppressing growth.

2. Results

2.1. Changes in Biomass of Native Plants and S. canadensis Before and After Competition

The biomass of S. canadensis was lower than that of those planted alone after competition with different native plants (Figure 1), and the biomass reduction in S. canadensis ranged from 12–92% (Table S1). Trifolium repens and Rudbeckia hirta did not significantly inhibit the growth of S. canadensis (df = 32, F = 12.377, p < 0.05). The CRCI for S. canadensis varied among the competing native species (Figure 2), but were all positive, indicating a general inhibiting effects from the native species on growth of S. canadensis during the seedling stage (df = 31, F = 8.197, p < 0.05). Specifically, the most pronounced inhibitory effects on the growth of S. canadensis were observed in three annual plants: Brassica juncea, Lactuca indica, and Physalis angulata, followed by the perennial plants Cynanchum hemsleyanum and Achyranthes bidentata. Biomass of native species except R. hirta and Ludwigia prostrata was not significantly suppressed by S. canadensis (Figure 3) and some native plants exhibit a negative CRCI (Figure 2, df = 31, p < 0.05), indicating that during the competition, the growth of these native plants is not only uninhibited but also enhanced, leading to an increase in biomass. The biomass of A. lactiflora increased significantly (Figure 3). Among the native plant species, only R. hirta has an CRCI greater than that of S. canadensis, while the CRCI of the remaining native plants during the competition is lower than that of S. canadensis.

2.2. Correlation Analysis of CRCI with Different Functional Traits in Native Plants and S. canadensis

The CRCI of S. canadensis is significantly correlated with multiple functional traits of native plants (Table 1). Specifically, the CRCI of S. canadensis is significantly positively correlated with the leaf area (LA), root length (RL), root surface area (RSA), root diameter (RD), root tips number (RT), biomass, and plant height of annual native plants measured from 30 to 70 days after sowing. Additionally, it is significantly positively correlated with the leaf area (LA), RT, biomass, and plant height from 20 to 70 days after sowing of perennial native plants measured (p < 0.05). However, the CRCI of perennial native plants was only significantly associated with SLA of S. canadensis, and the CRCI of annual native plants was more relevant to root traits such as RL, RSA, and RT (Table 1, p < 0.05).

2.3. Stepwise Regression Modeling of CRCI and Functional Traits in Native Plants and S. canadensis

The stepwise regression models with the CRCI of S. canadensis had good performance (Table 2). Among the functional traits of annual native plants, RSR, Mstem, plant height at 10 days (H10), SRL, and RT are significantly correlated with the CRCI of S. canadensis. These functional traits of annual native plants account for 38% of the variation in the CRCI of S. canadensis, specifically, the CRCI of S. canadensis is positively correlated with Mstem, RSR, H10, and SRL, but negatively correlated with RT (p < 0.05). 38.7% of the variation in the CRCI of S. canadensis can be explained by the functional traits of perennial native plants, which include RD, Mroot, and plant height at 60 days (H60). Among these variables, root biomass (Mroot) and plant height at 10 days (H60) are significantly positively correlated with the CRCI of S. canadensis, while RD is significantly negatively correlated with the CRCI of S. canadensis (p < 0.05). However, the adjusted R2 of the CRCI of annual and perennial native plants modeled with the functional traits of S. canadensis was 0.056 and 0.062 (p < 0.05), indicating that the functional traits of S. canadensis can be explained 5.6% and 6.2% of the variation in CRCI of annual and perennial native plants (Table S9).

3. Discussion

This study showed that during seedling competition between S. canadensis and 32 native plants, most of the native plants significantly inhibited the growth of S. canadensis, while S. canadensis did not significantly inhibit the native plants. In addition, the ability of native plants to suppress the growth of S. canadensis at the seedling stage were strongly influenced by their functional characteristics, the functional traits of S. canadensis contributed less to its capacity to suppress native plants.

3.1. Variation of Competitive Effects Between S. canadensis and Native Plants

The results indicated that native plant species have stronger competitive ability than S. canadensis during seeding stages, which is contrasted to the general findings that invasive alien species tend to have greater competitive abilities than native plants species [58]. Some studies have shown that some invasive species grow slowly in the seedling stage and are less competitive than native species [59,60]. Invasive plants exhibit weaker competitive ability at the seedling stage compared to the adult stage, and the seedling stages of invasion were mostly neglected in other research [26]. The weaker competitive ability of S. canadensis at the seedling stage may be due to the smaller seed size and therefore less storage of nutrients [56,61], whereas most of the native plant seeds are larger and have a faster growth rate at the seedling stage (Figure S1). However, among the native plants, T. repens and R. hirta did not significantly inhibit the growth of S. canadensis. This may be due to the small biomass and plant height of these two plants (Tables S1–S3), and plants with smaller biomass and plant height usually have weaker competitive ability [62].
Native plants in this study were able to inhibit the growth of S. canadensis at the seedling stage, however, S. canadensis often competes successfully in the wild [63]. This suggests that there are other potential functional traits that can have an impact on the outcome of long-term competition between native plants and S. canadensis. The hypothesis that extended leaf phenology is a key trait for species invasion has been proposed [64] and studies have further confirmed that invasive plants usually have longer growing seasons than native plants [65,66], such as the invasive plants Lonicera maackii, Lonicera japonica, Frangula alnus, and Berberis vulgaris, obtain more resources by extending the growing season [65,67]. S. canadensis leaf withered significantly later and new leaf grew significantly earlier than native plants, and S. canadensis exhibited a higher leaf photosynthetic capacity in fall and winter [68]. Therefore, the phenological differences between S. canadensis and native plants during fall and winter probably play a crucial role in the competitive success of S. canadensis. However, some native plants that facing competition from S. canadensis can coexist with it by completing their life cycle earlier, thereby avoiding direct competition for light resources and soil nutrients [69]. For example, the three native annual plants (B. juncea, L. indica, and P. angulata) that most effectively inhibited the growth of S. canadensis in our study grow rapidly and utilize resources efficiently. This trait enables them to complete their life cycle quickly [70], they can leverage phenological differences to quickly establish a competitive advantage in the early stages of the competition, and ultimately exert strong competitive pressure on S. canadensis. Therefore, further attention to the effects of phenology on competition between S. canadensis and native plants in field conditions is important for suppressing invader and promoting the recovery of native species.

3.2. Differences in Functional Traits Associated with Competitive Effects of Native Plants on S. canadensis

Differences in competitive effects between native species and S. canadensis can be explained by changes in functional traits associated with competition. Roots likely play a key role in the competition between invasive and native species, and the allocation of root biomass may be positively correlated with the invasiveness of the species [71]. S. canadensis competitive effects showed positive correlations with SLA against perennials and with RT against annuals (Table S9). This reflects that higher RT enhanced resource uptake and suppression, whereas similar growth rates between S. canadensis and perennials (Tables S2 and S7) intensified light competition. Nevertheless, low model explanatory power (5.3% annuals; 6.2% perennials) is likely due to the slow seedling growth of S. canadensis and limited root biomass during early stages (Tables S1 and S4–S7), which likely diminished inhibition of native plants during competition [62]. However, root traits of native plants were significantly correlated with the competitive effects of native plants, where RSR and SRL of annual native plants were positively correlated with the ability to inhibit S. canadensis (Table 1 and Tables S9). RSR and SRL are correlated with belowground resource acquisition, when plants have higher RSR and SRL, the root of plants develop more finely and widely distributed in the soil [44,72,73], which allows plants to explore a larger soil volume to obtain more water and nutrient resources, and ultimately has a strong competitive effect on S. canadensis. Different from annual native plants, the ability of perennial native plants to suppress S. canadensis was significantly negatively correlated with RD and positively correlated with root biomass. Root diameter correlates positively with plant longevity [74], consequently, perennial plants develop larger root diameters for resource storage and defense [75,76,77,78]. Smaller root diameters and greater root biomass enhance soil resource acquisition efficiency [72]. Thus, perennial native plants with these traits can more effectively suppress S. canadensis. This supports our hypothesis that native plant root traits play a key role in competition with S. canadensis. Beyond belowground traits, plant height also had a significant effect on the ability to suppress S. canadensis. Plants with taller heights have greater access to aboveground resources [79]. Annual native species with greater plant height at 10 d after sowing effectively inhibited S. canadensis due to rapid growth. In contrast, perennials grew slower than annuals [80]; consequently, those with greater height at 60 d exerted stronger competitive ability on S. canadensis. In conclusion, functional traits conferring stronger suppression of S. canadensis encompass both aboveground and belowground attributes. This framework facilitates selecting native plants for invasion control by synergistically integrating root and shoot traits.

3.3. Optimizing Invasion Control Through Native Plant Traits Suppressing S. canadensis Growth

Research on using native plants to control invader remains limited. A meta-analysis showed that only one-third of the studies actively seeded natives after initial control methods [81]. Moreover, among these studies, few assessed native plant responses holistically, often focusing solely on aboveground effects [82]. Current control methods for S. canadensis demonstrate limited efficiency, while integrated approaches combining biological controls with traditional methods (e.g., chemical herbicides and mowing) can temporarily inhibit the growth of the aboveground parts of S. canadensis [51,52,83,84,85], without sustained disturbance, S. canadensis will quickly regain its competitive advantage through belowground root growth [84]. This further validates the importance of root traits in competition between native plants and S. canadensis [86].
Given that the native plants in this study were sown at the same time as S. canadensis, our results enable screening native species to suppress S. canadensis invasions in newly colonized areas devoid of vegetation. Ecosystems lacking vegetation cover (e.g., bare soil) are particularly vulnerable to plant invasion [87], as observed in abandoned farmland and disaster-disturbed terrestrial ecosystems [88,89]. In such scenarios, sowing native plants with specific functional traits effectively inhibits seed dispersal and colonization of S. canadensis. Competition during the seedling stage is different from that of adult plants. Moreover, the increase in aboveground competition during plant development likely coincides with heightened belowground resources competition [90]. Intense belowground competition may trigger biomass reallocation to shoots to compete for more aboveground resources [91]. Therefore, to achieve stage-targeted control of S. canadensis, further studies must identify functional traits that confer suppression of the invader across its ontogenetic stages.
As biotic environmental filters, native plant functional traits directly determine the invasion resistance capacity of native ecosystems [11,92]. When native plants exhibit poor resource acquisition capacity (e.g., lower RSR, SRL, and plant height), resulting in underutilized environmental resources, vacant ecological niches become available for invasive species [93]. Global environmental change enhances environmental fluctuations, thereby creating more opportunities for plant invasions [94]. In resource-rich environments (e.g., agricultural fields and riparian zones), native plants with conservative traits (lower RSR or SRL) exhibit weak competitive ability. Concurrently, global nitrogen deposition favors fast-growing invasive species [95], while extended growing seasons under climate warming further amplify the competitive advantage of invasive plants phenologically similar to S. canadensis [96]. Invasive plants are more likely to successfully invade these native communities with weak competitive ability. Under global change scenarios, enhancing biotic resistance through trait-based selection and sowing of invasion-suppressing native plants can effectively restore environmental filtering capacity to constrain invader establishment.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Plant Material

Seeds of native plants and S. canadensis were collected from the wetland ecosystem of Hangzhou Bay in China (121°09′58″ E, 30°19′29″ N), where the invasion of S. canadensis is particularly severe. All collected native plant were tested for germination, and the species capable of germinating and growing normally at 25 °C were selected for further study (sprouting rate not less than 30%). The 32 selected species are listed in Table 3.

4.2. Experimental Design

The seeds collected from various plant species were decontaminated. Thirty seeds of each plant species were placed in culture dishes lined with filter paper and soaked in water. The germination rate of the seeds was tested in an environment maintained at 25 ± 1 °C, with the number of germinated seeds observed and recorded daily. Species with a germination rate exceeding 70% were chosen for pot experiments in a greenhouse (with flowerpots having a volume of 1 L). The experimental used an additive design [97] encompassing two treatment groups: a no-competition group and a competition group. Seeds were sown uniformly at the center of the flowerpots, followed by a regimen of scheduled daily irrigation. The seedlings in the flowerpots were gradually removed to ensure that each flowerpot in the no-competition group contained only one seedling after germination within 7 to 10 d, while each flowerpot in the competition group accommodated one native plant and one S. canadensis seedling. Each treatment was subjected to five replications. The study was conducted from March to June 2023 (the experiment lasted 70 days) at the experimental base of the Subtropical Forestry Research Institute of the Chinese Academy of Forestry (Hangzhou City, 119°57′10″ E, 30°3′35″ N). Hangzhou has a subtropical monsoon climate with red soil, an annual average temperature of 23 °C, a maximum temperature of 39 °C, a minimum temperature of −7 °C, and an annual average precipitation of 1299 mm. The soil type is red soil and test site was flat, with relatively uniform temperature and light conditions, and good air circulation.

4.3. Measurements

The plant height was measured once every 10 days after sowing using measuring tape (with an accuracy of 1 cm). At the end of the experiment, a root analysis system (Regent Instruments Inc., Sainte-Foy, Quebec, Canada) was employed to scan and analyze the root length, root tip number (RT), average root diameter and root surface area of different native plant species competing with S. canadensis. Additionally, leaf area (LA) was measured by WinFOLIA Pro 2015a software (Regent Instruments Inc., Sainte-Foy, Quebec, Canada), and the plants were dried to constant weight to determine the biomass of roots, stems (Mstem), and leaves (Mleaf). The root–shoot ratio, specific root length, and specific leaf area (SLA) were calculated. The corrected index of relative competitive intensity (CRCI) [98] was utilized to assess the competitive effects and responses between species:
CRCIij = arcsin[(M0i − Mij)/max(M0i, Mij)]
Note: M0i is the dry weight of species i when planted alone, and Mi is the dry weight of plant i when species i is planted in mixture with species j; max(M0i, Mij) represents the larger value between M0i and Mij. A higher value of CRCIij indicates that species j has a stronger inhibitory ability on species i, species j has a stronger competitive effect, and species i incurs a higher cost of competing against species j, and species i is more sensitive to competition.
The relative growth rate (RGR) of native plants and S. canadensis was calculated using plant height [99]:
RGR ij   =   ( lnH 70   −   lnH 0 ) / Δ t
Note: H0 and H70 are the plant heights at the beginning and end of the experiment, respectively, and Δt is the time between measurements. In order to avoid the issue of zero values in logarithmic transformations, all plant height data were standardized by adding 1 before applying the logarithmic transformation.

4.4. Statistical Analyses

The One-way ANOVA of IBM SPSS Statistics 20 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) was used to conduct a comparative analysis of the CRCI and functional traits (total biomass, root biomass, leaf area, plant height, RGR and RSR), where CRCI was analyzed with 0 to refer to no competitive effect. Multiple comparisons were performed using the Tukey method, and a significant difference between groups was considered when p < 0.05. The significant difference in CRCI and Functional traits between native plant control and mixed treatments was tested by independent samples T-test, and the difference was significant when p < 0.05. The native plants were categorized into two types: annuals and perennials. The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to perform correlation analysis between the CRCI of S. canadensis and the functional traits of native plants, as well as the correlation between the CRCI of different types of native plants and the functional traits of S. canadensis. The results were visualized using Origin 2024b (OriginLab Corp., Northampton, MA, USA). The CRCI of S. canadensis or native plants was used as the independent variable, and the functional traits of native plants or S. canadensis were used as the dependent variable for stepwise regression analysis (regression mode: stepwise selection), and the independent variables were considered to have a significant impact on the dependent variable when p < 0.05.

5. Conclusions

Most of the native species studied vary in their competitive abilities and are more competitive than S. canadensis in the seedling stage. The interspecific variation in competitive effects of native plants on S. canadensis can be explained by variation in root traits and plant height. Higher root–shoot ratio of annual plant species and smaller root diameter of perennial plant species may be the key functional traits responsible for higher competitive abilities. This provides a basis for selecting highly competitive native plant to suppress S. canadensis. Restoration of S. canadensis invaded habitats in its seedling stage may achieve high efficacy with highly competitive native species. This study is limited to the seedling stage, and it remains unclear whether these competitive effects can persist in the later stage of restoration. Further studies with prolonged duration under different environmental conditions are indispensable and more instructive for realistic control of S. canadensis.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/plants14172806/s1. Figure S1: RGR of native plants and S. canadensis, Native-alone and Native-with S.canadensis represent the RGR of native plants grown alone and competing with S. canadensis, and S. canadensis-with native represents the RGR of S. canadensis competing with native. Red * indicates a significant difference between Native-alone and Native-with S. canadensis, black * represents a significant difference between Native-with S. canadensis and S. canadensis-with native, p < 0.05. Table S1: Percentage reduction in biomass of S. canadensis and native plants after competition. Lowercase letters following the values represent significant difference between the percent reduction in biomass of S. canadensis mixed with different native plants, uppercase letters represent significant difference between the percent reduction in biomass of native plants mixed with S. canadensis, and * represents the significant difference between the the percent reduction in biomass of native plants and S. canadensis when they are mixed. Table S2: Plant height of S. canadensis and native plants after competition. Lowercase letters indicate significant differences between plant heights of S. canadensis, and uppercase letters indicate significant differences between plant heights of native plants in the same treatment (mixed with S. canadensis or control). Table S3: Leaf area of S. canadensis and native plants. Lowercase letters indicate significant differences between leaf area of S. canadensis, and uppercase letters indicate significant differences between leaf area of native plants in the same treatment (mixed with S. canadensis or control). Table S4: Total biomass of S. canadensis and native plants. Lowercase letters indicate significant differences between total biomass of S. canadensis, and uppercase letters indicate significant differences between total biomass of native plants in the same treatment (mixed with S. canadensis or control). Table S5: Root biomass of S. canadensis and native plants. Lowercase letters indicate significant differences between root biomass of S. canadensis, and uppercase letters indicate significant differences between root biomass of native plants in the same treatment (mixed with S. canadensis or control). Table S6: RSR of S. canadensis and native plants. Lowercase letters indicate significant differences between RSR of S. canadensis, and uppercase letters indicate significant differences between RSR of native plants in the same treatment (mixed with S. canadensis or control). Table S7: Functional traits of S. canadensis-alone. Table S8: ANOVA table for functional traits. Table S9: Parameters of stepwise regression model for RCI and functional traits.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, methodology, X.Y. and R.M.; Data curation, R.M.; Writing—original draft preparation, R.M.; Writing—review and editing, M.W., X.Y., R.M., J.L. and K.Z.; Visualization, R.M.; Supervision, project administration, M.W. and X.Y.; Funding acquisition, X.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

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

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article/Supplementary Material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
CRCICorrected index of relative competitive intensity
RLRoot length
RTRoot tip
RDRoot diameter
RSARoot surface area
RSRRoot–shoot ratio
SRLSpecific root length
LALeaf area
MrootBiomass of root
MstemBiomass of stem
MleafBiomass of leaf
H10–70Plant height of 10–70 days
MTotal biomass

References

  1. Seebens, H.; Blackburn, T.M.; Dyer, E.E.; Genovesi, P.; Hulme, P.E.; Jeschke, J.M.; Pagad, S.; Pyšek, P.; van Kleunen, M.; Winter, M.; et al. Global rise in emerging alien species results from increased accessibility of new source pools. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, E2264–E2273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Culliney, T.W. benefits of classical biological control for managing invasive plants. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2005, 24, 131–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Seebens, H.; Blackburn, T.M.; Dyer, E.E.; Genovesi, P.; Hulme, P.E.; Jeschke, J.M.; Pagad, S.; Pyšek, P.; Winter, M.; Arianoutsou, M.; et al. No saturation in the accumulation of alien species worldwide. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 14435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Hulme, P.E.; Bacher, S.; Kenis, M.; Klotz, S.; Kühn, I.; Minchin, D.; Nentwig, W.; Olenin, S.; Panov, V.; Pergl, J.; et al. Grasping at the routes of biological invasions: A framework for integrating pathways into policy. J. Appl. Ecol. 2008, 45, 403–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Oduor, A.M.O. Native plant species show evolutionary responses to invasion by Parthenium hysterophorus in an African savanna. New Phytol. 2021, 233, 983–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Pearson, D.E.; Ortega, Y.K.; Eren, Ö.; Hierro, J.L. Community assembly theory as a framework for biological invasions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2018, 33, 313–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Duda, J.J.; Freeman, D.C.; Emlen, J.M.; Belnap, J.; Kitchen, S.G.; Zak, J.C.; Sobek, E.; Tracy, M.; Montante, J. Differences in native soil ecology associated with invasion of the exotic annual chenopod, Halogeton glomeratus. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2003, 38, 72–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Xu, S.; Li, K.; Li, G.; Hu, Z.; Zhang, J.; Iqbal, B.; Du, D. Canada goldenrod invasion regulates the effects of soil moisture on soil respiration. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 15446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. D’Antonio, C.; Meyerson, L.A. Exotic Plant Species as Problems and Solutions in Ecological Restoration: A Synthesis. Restor. Ecol. 2002, 10, 703–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Johnstone, I.M. Plant invasion windows: A time-based classification of invasion potential. Biol. Rev. 1986, 61, 369–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Theoharides, K.A.; Dukes, J.S. Plant invasion across space and time: Factors affecting nonindigenous species success during four stages of invasion. New Phytol. 2007, 176, 256–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Ren, G.; Du, Y.; Yang, B.; Wang, J.; Cui, M.; Dai, Z.; Adomako, M.O.; Rutherford, S.; Du, D. Influence of precipitation dynamics on plant invasions: Response of alligator weed (Alternanthera philoxeroides) and co-occurring native species to varying water availability across plant communities. Biol. Invasions 2022, 25, 519–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Wang, L.W.; Li, W.R.; Ding, J.Q.; Siemann, E. Dual drivers of plant invasions: Enemy release and enhanced mutualisms. J. Ecol. 2025, 113, 1997–2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Atkinson, M.S.; Savage, A.E. Invasive amphibians alter host-pathogen interactions with primarily negative outcomes for native species. Biol. Conserv. 2023, 286, 110310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Green, J.L.; Waller, L.P.; Allen, W.J.; Orwin, K.H.; Pelser, P.B.; Smaill, S.; Dickie, I.A. Plant-soil feedback from non-native communities increases pine invasion and re-invasion potential. Plant Soil 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wang, Q.; He, J.Q.; Chen, Q.; Xiao, L.; Dong, Z.G. Biological characteristics and feeding habit of Argyrogramma albostriata feeding on Solidago canadensis. Chin. Agric. Sci. Bull. 2011, 27, 60–65. [Google Scholar]
  17. Schuster, M.J.; Wragg, P.D.; Reich, P.B.; Pauchard, A. Using revegetation to suppress invasive plants in grasslands and forests. J. Appl. Ecol. 2018, 55, 2362–2373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Cutting, K.J.; Hough-Goldstein, J. Integration of biological control and native seeding to restore invaded plant communities. Restor. Ecol. 2013, 21, 648–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Price, J.N.; Pärtel, M. Can limiting similarity increase invasion resistance? A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Oikos 2012, 122, 649–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Austin, M.P.; Groves, R.H.; Fresco, L.M.F.; Kaye, P.E. Relative growth of six thistle species along a nutrient gradient with multispecies competition. J. Ecol. 1985, 73, 667–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Goldberg, D.E.; Grace, J.; Tilman, D. Components of resource competition in plant communities. Perspect. Plant Compet. 1990, 27–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Goldberg, D.E. Competitive Ability: Definitions, Contingency and correlated traits. R. Soc. 1996, 351, 1377–1385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Goldberg, D.E.; Landa, K. Competitive effect and response: Hierarchies and correlated traits in the early stages of competition. J. Ecol. 1991, 79, 1013–1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Thomsen, M.A.; Corbin, J.D.; D’Antonio, C.M. The effect of soil nitrogen on competition between native and exotic perennial grasses from northern coastal California. J. Plant Ecol. 2006, 186, 23–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Wang, P.; Stieglitz, T.; Zhou, D.W.; Cahill Jr, J.F. Are competitive effect and response two sides of the same coin, or fundamentally different? Funct. Ecol. 2010, 24, 196–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Gioria, M.; Osborne, B.A. Resource competition in plant invasions: Emerging patterns and research needs. Front. Plant Sci. 2014, 5, 501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Rolhauser, A.G.; Nordenstahl, M.; Aguiar, M.R.; Pucheta, E.; Schwinning, S. Community-level natural selection modes: A quadratic framework to link multiple functional traits with competitive ability. J. Ecol. 2018, 107, 1457–1468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Mokany, K.; Raison, R.J.; Prokushkin, A.S. Critical analysis of root: shoot ratios in terrestrial biomes. Glob. Change Biol. 2005, 12, 84–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Poorter, H.; Nagel, O. The role of biomass allocation in the growth response of plants to different levels of light, CO2, nutrients and water: A quantitative review. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 2000, 27, 595–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Comas, L.H.; Becker, S.R.; Cruz, V.M.V.; Byrne, P.F.; Dierig, D.A. Root traits contributing to plant productivity under drought. Front. Plant Sci. 2013, 4, 442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Keddy, P.; Nielsen, K.; Weiher, E.; Lawson, R. Relative competitive performance of 63 species of terrestrial herbaceous plants. J. Veg. Sci. 2002, 13, 5–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kunstler, G.; Falster, D.; Coomes, D.A.; Hui, F.; Kooyman, R.M.; Laughlin, D.C.; Poorter, L.; Vanderwel, M.; Vieilledent, G.; Wright, S.J.; et al. Plant functional traits have globally consistent effects on competition. Nature 2015, 529, 204–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Nuñez, M.A.; Chiuffo, M.C.; Torres, A.; Paul, T.; Dimarco, R.D.; Raal, P.; Policelli, N.; Moyano, J.; García, R.A.; van Wilgen, B.W.; et al. Ecology and management of invasive Pinaceae around the world: Progress and challenges. Biol. Invasions 2017, 19, 3099–3120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. 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]
  35. van Kleunen, M.; Weber, E.; Fischer, M. A meta-analysis of trait differences between invasive and non-invasive plant species. Ecol. Lett. 2010, 13, 235–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Muth, N.Z.; Pigliucci, M. Traits of invasives reconsidered: Phenotypic comparisons of introduced invasive and introduced noninvasive plant species within two closely related clades. Am. J. Bot. 2006, 93, 188–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kaur, A.; Sharma, A.; Kaur, S.; Siddiqui, M.H.; Alamri, S.; Ahmad, M.; Kohli, R.K.; Singh, H.P.; Batish, D.R. Role of plant functional traits in the invasion success: Analysis of nine species of Asteraceae. BMC Plant Biol. 2024, 24, 784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Zhang, B.; Hastings, A.; Grosholz, E.D.; Zhai, L. The comparison of dispersal rate between invasive and native species varied by plant life form and functional traits. Mov. Ecol. 2023, 11, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Hibit, J.; Daehler, C.C. Plant functional, biogeographical and phylogenetic diversity are related to native and non-native plant abundance in invaded Hawaiian forests. Biol. Invasions 2024, 26, 705–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Dawson, W. Release from belowground enemies and shifts in root traits as interrelated drivers of alien plant invasion success: A hypothesis. Ecol. Evol. 2015, 5, 4505–4516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Nunez-Mir, G.C.; McCary, M.A. Invasive plants and their root traits are linked to the homogenization of soil microbial communities across the United States. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2024, 121, e2418632121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Eldridge, D.J.; Ding, J. Remove or retain: Ecosystem effects of woody encroachment and removal are linked to plant structural and functional traits. New Phytol. 2020, 229, 2637–2646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Li, G.; Zhao, X.; Iqbal, B.; Zhao, X.; Liu, J.; Javed, Q.; Du, D. The effect of soil microplastics on Oryza sativa L. root growth traits under alien plant invasion. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2023, 11, 1172093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Fort, F. Grounding trait-based root functional ecology. Funct. Ecol. 2023, 37, 2159–2169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Weber, E. Morphological variation of the introduced perennial Solidago canadensis L. sensu lato (Asteraceae) in Europe. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 1997, 123, 197–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lu, J.Z. Potential distribution of Solidago canadensis in China. Acta Phytotaxon. Sin. 2007, 45, 670–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Karpavičienė, B.; Radušienė, J.; Viltrakytė, J. Distribution of two invasive goldenrod species Solidago canadensis and S. gigantea in lithuania. Bot. Lith. 2015, 21, 125–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  48. Liao, M.; Xie, X.M.; Peng, Y.; Chai, J.J.; Chen, N. Characteristics of soil microbial community functional and structure diversity with coverage of Solidago canadensis L. J. Cent. S. Univ. 2013, 20, 749–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ye, X.Q.; Wu, M.; Shao, X.X.; Jiang, Y.P.; Wang, M. Capabilities of native herbosa inhibiting Solidago canadensis at Early stage of its invasion. J. Ecol. Rural Environ. 2014, 30, 608–613. [Google Scholar]
  50. 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]
  51. Zhang, Y.; Yang, X.; Zhu, Y.; Li, L.; Zhang, Y.; Li, J.; Song, X.; Qiang, S. Biological control of Solidago canadensis using a bioherbicide isolate of Sclerotium rolfsii SC64 increased the biodiversity in invaded habitats. Biol. Control 2019, 139, 104093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Li, Y.; Long, Y.; Liu, T.; Zhang, D.; He, M.; Xie, Q.; Zhang, Z. The role of soil microorganisms and physicochemical properties in determining the germinate of invasive Solidago canadensis L. Plant Soil 2024, 507, 897–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Możdżeń, K.; Barabasz-Krasny, B.; Zandi, P.; Kliszcz, A.; Puła, J. Effect of aqueous extracts from Solidago canadensis L. leaves on germination and early growth stages of three cultivars of Raphanus sativus L. Var. Radicula Pers. Plants 2020, 9, 1549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Baranová, B.; Troščáková-Kerpčárová, E.; Gruľová, D. Survey of the Solidago canadensis L. morphological traits and essential oil production: Aboveground biomass growth and abundance of the invasive goldenrod appears to be reciprocally enhanced within the invaded stands. Plants 2022, 11, 535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Huang, H.; Guo, S.L. Study on reproductive biology of the invasive plant Solidago canadensis. ACTA Ecol. Sin. 2005, 25, 3–11. [Google Scholar]
  57. Czortek, P.; Królak, E.; Borkowska, L.; Bielecka, A. Impacts of soil properties and functional diversity on the performance of invasive plant species Solidago canadensis L. on post-agricultural wastelands. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 729, 139077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Schultheis, E.H.; MacGuigan, D.J. Competitive ability, not tolerance, may explain success of invasive plants over natives. Biol. Invasions 2018, 20, 2793–2806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Zhang, J.; Ning, Y.; Li, J.; Shi, Z.; Zhang, Q.; Li, L.; Kang, B.; Du, Z.; Luo, J.; He, M.; et al. Invasion stage and competition intensity co-drive reproductive strategies of native and invasive saltmarsh plants: Evidence from field data. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 954, 176383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Gong, W.; Wang, Y.; Chen, C.; Xiong, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Xiao, F.; Li, B.; Wang, Y. The rapid evolution of an invasive plant due to increased selection pressures throughout its invasive history. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2022, 233, 113322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Moles, A.T.; Ackerly, D.D.; Webb, C.O.; Tweddle, J.C.; Dickie, J.B.; Westoby, M. A brief history of seed size. Science 2005, 307, 576–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Schwinning, S.; Weiner, J. Mechanisms determining the degree of size asymmetry in competition among plants. Oecologia 1998, 113, 447–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Zhu, X.; Li, W.; Shao, H.; Tang, S. Selected Aspects of Invasive Solidago canadensis with an Emphasis on Its Allelopathic Abilities: A Review. Chem. Biodivers. 2022, 19, e202200728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Harrington, R.A.; Brown, B.J.; Reich, P.B. Ecophysiology of exotic and native shrubs in Southern Wisconsin. Oecologia 1989, 80, 356–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Fridley, J.D. Extended leaf phenology and the autumn niche in deciduous forest invasions. Nature 2012, 485, 359–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Wilsey, B.J.; Martin, L.M.; Kaul, A.D.; Firn, J. Phenology differences between native and novel exotic-dominated grasslands rival the effects of climate change. J. Appl. Ecol. 2017, 55, 863–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. McEwan, R.W.; Birchfield, M.K.; Schoergendorfer, A.; Arthur, M.A. Leaf phenology and freeze tolerance of the invasive shrub Amur honeysuckle and potential native competitors. J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 2009, 136, 212–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ye, X.; Meng, J.; Ma, R.; Liang, J.; Wu, M.; Man, R.; Yu, F. Winter leaf phenology differences facilitate selective control of an invasive plant species by herbicide. NeoBiota 2024, 96, 67–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Grange, M.C.; Munoz, F.; Moretti, M.; Varona-Y. -Varona, S.; Renaud, J.; Colace, M.-P.; Gueguen, M.; Arnoldi, C.; Bernard, L.; Gallien, L. Avoid, tolerate, or escape? Native vegetation responses to invasion vary between functional groups. Biol. Invasions 2022, 25, 1387–1401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Friedman, J. The evolution of annual and perennial plant life histories: Ecological correlates and genetic mechanisms. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2020, 51, 461–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Liu, J.; Xia, T.; Wang, Y.; He, Y.; Wu, C.; Shen, K.; Tan, Q.; Kang, L.; Guo, Y.; Wu, B.; et al. An invasive plant experiences greater benefits of root morphology from enhancing nutrient competition associated with arbuscular mycorrhizae in karst soil than a native plant. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0234410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Erktan, A.; Roumet, C.; Munoz, F. Dissecting fine root diameter distribution at the community level captures root morphological diversity. Oikos 2022, 2023, e08907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Freschet, G.T.; Pagès, L.; Iversen, C.M.; Comas, L.H.; Rewald, B.; Roumet, C.; Klimešová, J.; Zadworny, M.; Poorter, H.; Postma, J.A.; et al. A starting guide to root ecology: Strengthening ecological concepts and standardising root classification, sampling, processing and trait measurements. New Phytol. 2021, 232, 973–1122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Shao, X.; Wang, L.; Zhang, Q.; Liu, Y.; Yang, X. Future direction of searching for root economics spectrum: Focusing on the fibrous roots “absorptive unit”. Ecosphere 2019, 10, e02716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Bukovsky-Reyes, S.; Isaac, M.E.; Blesh, J. Effects of intercropping and soil properties on root functional traits of cover crops. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 2019, 285, 106614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Comas, L.H.; Eissenstat, D.M. Linking fine root traits to maximum potential growth rate among 11 mature temperate tree species. Funct. Ecol. 2004, 18, 388–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Weemstra, M.; Mommer, L.; Visser, E.J.W.; van Ruijven, J.; Kuyper, T.W.; Mohren, G.M.J.; Sterck, F.J. Towards a multidimensional root trait framework: A tree root review. New Phytol. 2016, 211, 1159–1169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Isaac, M.E.; Martin, A.R.; de Melo Virginio Filho, E.; Rapidel, B.; Roupsard, O.; Van den Meersche, K. Intraspecific trait variation and coordination: Root and leaf economics spectra in coffee across environmental gradients. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Gaudet, C.L.; Keddy, P.A. A comparative approach to predicting competitive ability from plant traits. Nature 1988, 334, 242–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Ye, Z.-L.; Zang, Q.-L.; Cheng, D.-X.; Li, X.-Y.; Qi, L.W.; Li, W.F. Over-expression of larch DAL1 accelerates life-cycle progression in Arabidopsis. Forests 2022, 13, 953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Kettenring, K.M.; Adams, C.R. Lessons learned from invasive plant control experiments: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Appl. Ecol. 2011, 48, 970–979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Li, W.; Luo, J.; Tian, X.; Soon Chow, W.; Sun, Z.; Zhang, T.; Peng, S.; Peng, C. A new strategy for controlling invasive weeds: Selecting valuable native plants to defeat them. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 11004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Tang, W.; Kuang, J.; Qiang, S. Biological control of the invasive alien weed Solidago canadensis: Combining an indigenous fungal isolate of Sclerotium rolfsii SC64 with mechanical control. Biocontrol. Sci. Technol. 2013, 23, 1123–1136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Guo, S.L.; Jiang, H.W.; Fang, F.; Chen, G.Q. Influences of herbicides, uprooting and use as cut flowers on sexual reproduction of Solidago canadensis. Weed Res. 2009, 49, 291–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. van Kleunen, M.; 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]
  86. Xu, M.Q.; Gao, Y.J.; Zhang, Z.H.; Zeng, F.J. Adaptation of the main functional trait of Alhagi sparsifolia leaves and roots to soil water stress. Pratacultural Sci. 2021, 38, 1559–1569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Vila, M.; Espinar, J.L.; Hejda, M.; Hulme, P.E.; Jarosik, V.; Maron, J.L.; Pergl, J.; Schaffner, U.; Sun, Y.; Pysek, 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] [PubMed]
  88. Moyo, B.; Ravhuhali, K.E. Abandoned croplands: Drivers and secondary succession trajectories under livestock grazing in communal areas of south africa. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Guillerme, S.; Barcet, H.; de Munnik, N.; Maire, E.; Marais-Sicre, C. Evolution of traditional agroforestry landscapes and development of invasive species: Lessons from the Pyrenees (France). Sustain. Sci. 2020, 15, 1285–1299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Kopp, E.B.; Anten, N.P.R.; Niklaus, P.A.; Wuest, S.E. Belowground competition increases root allocation in agreement with game-theoretical predictions, but only when plants simultaneously compete aboveground. bioRxiv 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Pugnaire, F.I.; Luque, M.T. Changes in plant interactions along a gradient of environmental stress. Oikos 2001, 93, 42–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Petruzzella, A.; Manschot, J.; van Leeuwen, C.H.A.; Grutters, B.M.C.; Bakker, E.S. Mechanisms of Invasion Resistance of Aquatic Plant Communities. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Zheng, Y.L.; Burns, J.H.; Liao, Z.Y.; Li, Y.P.; Yang, J.; Chen, Y.J.; Zhang, J.L.; Zheng, Y.G. Species composition, functional and phylogenetic distances correlate with success of invasive Chromolaena odorata in an experimental test. Ecol. Lett. 2018, 21, 1211–1220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Liu, Y.J.; Huang, W.; Yang, Q.; Zheng, Y.L.; Li, S.P.; Wu, H.; Ju, R.T.; Sun, Y.; Ding, J.Q. Research advances of plant invasion ecology over the past 10 years. Biodivers. Sci. 2022, 30, 276–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Ren, G.Q.; Yang, B.; Cui, M.M.; Yu, H.C.; Fan, X.; Dai, Z.C.; Sun, J.F.; Li, G.L.; Zhang, H.Y.; Du, D.L. Additive effects of warming and nitrogen addition on the performance and competitiveness of invasive Solidago canadensis L. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 1017554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Haeuser, E.; Dawson, W.; van Kleunen, M. Introduced garden plants are strong competitors of native and alien residents under simulated climate change. Ecology 2019, 107, 1328–1342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Snaydon, R.W. Replacement or additive designs for competition studies? J. Appl. Ecol. 1991, 28, 930–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Grace, J.B. On the Measurement of Plant Competition Intensity. Ecology 1995, 76, 305–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. King, J.S.; Albaugh, T.J.; Allen, H.L.; Buford, M.; Strain, B.R.; Dougherty, P. Below-ground carbon input to soil is controlled by nutrient availability and fine root dynamics in loblolly pine. New Phytol. 2002, 154, 389–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Plants 14 02806 g001
Figure 1. Biomass of S. canadensis exposed to competition from different native plants when grown 70 days. The dashed line indicates the mean biomass of S. canadensis when grown alone, bars are mean values of S. canadensis biomass in competition with different native plants (±s.e., n = 5). * indicates statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) in biomass between S. canadensis grown alone and after competition with native plants.
Figure 1. Biomass of S. canadensis exposed to competition from different native plants when grown 70 days. The dashed line indicates the mean biomass of S. canadensis when grown alone, bars are mean values of S. canadensis biomass in competition with different native plants (±s.e., n = 5). * indicates statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) in biomass between S. canadensis grown alone and after competition with native plants.
Plants 14 02806 g001
Plants 14 02806 g002
Figure 2. CRCI of S. canadensis and native plants. Lowercase letters on the error bars represent significant difference between the CRCI of S. canadensis mixed with different native plants, uppercase letters represent significant difference between the CRCI of native plants mixed with S. canadensis, and * represents the significant difference between the CRCIs of native plants and S. canadensis when they are mixed (p < 0.05). Bars are mean values (±s.e., n = 5).
Figure 2. CRCI of S. canadensis and native plants. Lowercase letters on the error bars represent significant difference between the CRCI of S. canadensis mixed with different native plants, uppercase letters represent significant difference between the CRCI of native plants mixed with S. canadensis, and * represents the significant difference between the CRCIs of native plants and S. canadensis when they are mixed (p < 0.05). Bars are mean values (±s.e., n = 5).
Plants 14 02806 g002
Plants 14 02806 g003
Figure 3. Biomass of native plants grown for 70 days under both competition (with S. canadensis) and control treatments. * indicates significant difference (* p < 0.05) in biomass between native plants grown alone and after competition with S. canadensis. Bars are mean values (±s.e., n = 5).
Figure 3. Biomass of native plants grown for 70 days under both competition (with S. canadensis) and control treatments. * indicates significant difference (* p < 0.05) in biomass between native plants grown alone and after competition with S. canadensis. Bars are mean values (±s.e., n = 5).
Plants 14 02806 g003
Table 1. Correlation between CRCI and functional traits.
Table 1. Correlation between CRCI and functional traits.
Functional TraitsCRCI-sCRCI-n
Correlation with Functional Traits of Native Plants SpeciesCorrelation with Functional Traits of S. canadensis
AnnualPerennialAnnualPerennial
LA0.320 *0.298 *0.1430.184
RL0.468 *0.2280.233 *0.018
RSA0.479 *0.1840.220 *−0.024
RD0.296 *−0.1680.032−0.085
RT0.435 *0.297 *0.272 *0.007
Mroot0.498 *0.2550.1440.032
Mstem0.474 *0.397 *0.1050.104
Mleaf0.355 *0.314 *0.1410.089
M0.492 *0.387 *0.1440.088
Mag0.487 *0.397 *0.1390.105
H100.177−0.0940.028−0.019
H200.1470.494 *0.0340.028
H300.274 *0.460 *−0.041−0.023
H400.365 *0.510 *0.123−0.085
H500.420 *0.389 *0.115−0.084
H600.397 *0.546 *0.070.155
H700.436 *0.539 *0.0950.17
RSR0.139−0.0270.088−0.136
SLA−0.048−0.199−0.0280.305 *
SRL0.015−0.1980.091−0.053
* represents the significant difference between the CRCIs and functional traits (p < 0.05).
Table 2. Summary of stepwise regression analysis of CRCI with the functional traits.
Table 2. Summary of stepwise regression analysis of CRCI with the functional traits.
Dependent VariableNative Plant TypeAdjusted R2Fp
CRCI of
S. canadensis		Annual0.3813.142p < 0.05
Perennial0.38710.521p < 0.05
CRCI of
native plants		Annual0.0566.886p < 0.05
Perennial0.0624.582p < 0.05
Table 3. Native plant species used in this experiment, as well as their life form and family affiliation.
Table 3. Native plant species used in this experiment, as well as their life form and family affiliation.
Latin NameFamilyLife Form (Annual/Perennial)
Achyranthes bidentataAmaranthaceaePerennial
Ageratum houstonianumAsteraceaeAnnual
Artemisia lactifloraAsteraceaePerennial
Artemisia lavandulifoliaAsteraceaePerennial
Astragalus sinicusFabaceaePerennial
Brassica junceaBrassicaceaeAnnual
Carpesium abrotanoidesAsteraceaePerennial
Crotalaria pallidaFabaceaePerennial
Cynanchum hemsleyanumApocynaceaePerennial
Festuca elataPoaceaePerennial
Glycine sojaFabaceaePerennial
Hemisteptia lyrataAsteraceaeAnnual
Imperata cylindricaPoaceaePerennial
Ipomoea nilConvolvulaceaeAnnual
Kummerowia striataFabaceaePerennial
Lactuca indicaAsteraceaeAnnual
Ludwigia prostrataOnagraceaePerennial
Melilotus albusFabaceaePerennial
Miscanthus sacchariflorusPoaceaePerennial
Persicaria lapathifoliaPolygonaceaeAnnual
Persicaria maculosaPolygonaceaeAnnual
Phragmites australisPoaceaePerennial
Physalis angulataSolanaceaeAnnual
Rottboellia cochinchinensisPoaceaeAnnual
Rudbeckia hirtaAsteraceaeAnnual
Rumex japonicusPolygonaceaePerennial
Sesbania cannabinaFabaceaeAnnual
Setaria pumilaPoaceaeAnnual
Setaria viridisPoaceaeAnnual
Trifolium repensFabaceaePerennial
Vicia hirsutaFabaceaePerennial
Youngia japonicaAsteraceaeAnnual
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

Ma, R.; Liang, J.; Zuo, K.; Wu, M.; Ye, X. Functional Traits of Native Plant Species That Inhibit the Seedling Growth of the Exotic Invader Solidago canadensis. Plants 2025, 14, 2806. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14172806

AMA Style

Ma R, Liang J, Zuo K, Wu M, Ye X. Functional Traits of Native Plant Species That Inhibit the Seedling Growth of the Exotic Invader Solidago canadensis. Plants. 2025; 14(17):2806. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14172806

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ma, Ruixiang, Jili Liang, Keyi Zuo, Ming Wu, and Xiaoqi Ye. 2025. "Functional Traits of Native Plant Species That Inhibit the Seedling Growth of the Exotic Invader Solidago canadensis" Plants 14, no. 17: 2806. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14172806

APA Style

Ma, R., Liang, J., Zuo, K., Wu, M., & Ye, X. (2025). Functional Traits of Native Plant Species That Inhibit the Seedling Growth of the Exotic Invader Solidago canadensis. Plants, 14(17), 2806. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14172806

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