Hostname: page-component-6dbcb7884d-vqfl6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-14T03:15:08.963Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Porcelain Berry (Ampelopsis brevipedunculata), Bushkiller (Cayratia japonica), and Virginia-Creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia) in Interspecific Competition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Sherrie E. Emerine ,
Robert J. Richardson  and
Consuelo Arellano
Sherrie E. Emerine
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
Robert J. Richardson*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
Consuelo Arellano
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: rob_richardson@ncsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Porcelain berry and bushkiller are confamilial, exotic, perennial vines in the Vitaceae family that are considered nuisance/invasive weeds of natural and riparian areas in the eastern United States. To better understand the competitive abilities of these aggressive weeds, greenhouse competition experiments were conducted on cuttings of porcelain berry, bushkiller, and Virginia-creeper, a native member of the Vitaceae family. Plants grown singly or in combination were monitored for stem growth and biomass production. In this research, porcelain berry and Virginia-creeper exhibited similar rates of stem growth, whereas bushkiller grew taller and faster than either of the other species. Porcelain berry stem growth was reduced in competition with bushkiller. All three species exhibited reduced stem biomass when grown with both other species. Root biomass of porcelain berry and Virginia-creeper were not affected by competition, but bushkiller, which produced the heaviest roots, exhibited reduced root biomass when grown with both other species. Porcelain berry root length was reduced by competition with both other species, but neither Virginia-creeper nor bushkiller root lengths were affected by competition. These results indicate that bushkiller is likely the strongest competitor of the three species studied. In these experiments, porcelain berry was less aggressive and vigorous than bushkiller but was similar to Virginia-creeper.

Keywords

Bushkiller,Cayratia japonica (Thunb.) Gagnep.porcelain berry, Ampelopsis brevipedunculata (Maxim.) Trautv.Virginia-creeper, Parthenocissus quinquefolia (L.) Planch.Additive designinvasive plantinvasive vine
Type
Research
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 99 - 104
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Current address: Center for Integrated Pest Management, 1730 Varsity Drive, Ste. 300, Raleigh NC, 27606

References

Literature Cited

Aerts, R. 1999. Interspecific competition in natural plant communities: mechanisms, trade-offs, and plant-soil feedbacks. Exp. Bot. 50 :29–37.Google Scholar
Anonymous, . 1993. Flora of Taiwan, National Taiwan University Herbarium Digital Archives Project. 1st ed., Volume 3. http://tai2.ntu.edu.tw/fotdv/fotmain.htm. Accessed February 20, 2012.Google Scholar
Bush, T. 2002. Virginia-creeper plant fact sheet Baton Rouge, LA. National Plant Data Center, United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service.Google Scholar
Carmer, S. G., Nyquist, W. E., and Walker, W. M. 1989. Least significant differences for combined analyses of experiments with two- or three-factor treatment designs. Agron. J. 81 :665–672.Google Scholar
Carter, G. A. and Teramura, A. H. 1988. Vine photosynthesis and relationships to climbing mechanics in a forest understory. Am. J. Bot. 75 :1011–1018.Google Scholar
Connolly, J. and Wayne, P. 1996. Asymmetric competition between plant species. Oecologia 108 :311–320.Google Scholar
Connolly, J., Wayne, P., and Bazzazz, F. A. 2001. Interspecific competition in plants: how well do current methods answer fundamental questions? Am. Nat. 157 :107–125.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 2000. Greenhouse studies of interactions between plants: the flaws are in interpretation rather than design. J. Ecol. 88 :352–353.Google Scholar
Dillenburg, L. R., Whigham, D. F., Teramura, A. H., and Forseth, I. N. 1993. Effects of vine competition on availability of light, water, and nitrogen to a tree host (Liquidambar styraciflua). Am. J. Bot. 80 :244–252.Google Scholar
Fraser, L. H. and Keddy, P. A. 2005. Can competitive ability predict structure in experimental plant communities? J. Veg. Sci. 16 :571–578.Google Scholar
Gibson, D. J., Connolly, J., Hartnett, D. C., and Weidenhamer, J. D. 1999. Designs for greenhouse studies of interactions between plants. J. Ecol. 87 :1–16.Google Scholar
Goldberg, D. E. and Werner, P. A. 1983. Equivalence of competitors in plant communities: a null hypothesis and a field experimental approach. Am. J. Bot. 70 :1098–1104.Google Scholar
Hansen, C. J. and Goertzen, L. R. 2006. Cayratia japonica (Vitaceae) naturalized in Alabama. Castanea 71 :248–251.Google Scholar
HARC. 2010. The quiet invasion: A guide to invasive species of the Galveston Bay Area. Houston Advanced Research Center (HARC). http://www.galvbayinvasives.org/guides.org. Accessed February 20, 2012.Google Scholar
Hsu, T. W. and Kuoh, C-S. 1999. Cayratia maritima B. R. Jackes (Vitaceae), a new addition to the flora of Taiwan. Bot. Bull. Acad. Sin. (Taipei) 40 :329–332.Google Scholar
Leicht-Young, S. A., Latimer, A. M., and Silander, J. A. Jr. 2011. Lianas escape self-thinning: experimental evidence of positive density dependence in temperate lianas Celastrus orbiculatus and C. scandens. Perspect. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst. 13 :163–172.Google Scholar
Lutz, H. J. 1943. Injuries to trees caused by Celastrus and Vitis . Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 70 :436–439.Google Scholar
Mehrhoff, L. J., Silander, J. A. Jr, Leicht, S. A., Mosher, E. S., and Tabak, N. M. 2003. IPANE: Invasive Plant Atlas of New England. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut. http://nbii-nin.ciesin.columbia.edu/ipane/icat/browse.do?specieId=38. Accessed February 20, 2012.Google Scholar
Schnitzer, S. A., Dalling, J. W., and Carson, W. P. 2001. The impact of lianas on tree regeneration in tropical forest canopy gaps: evidence for an alternative pathway of gap-phase regeneration. J. Ecol. 88 :655–666.Google Scholar
Siccama, T. G., Weir, G., and Wallace, K. 1976. Ice damage in a mixed hardwood forest in Connecticut in relation to Vitis infestation. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 103 :180–183.Google Scholar
Smith, C. 2008. Invasive exotic plants of North Carolina. Raleigh, NC : North Carolina Department of Transportation. Pp. 84–85.Google Scholar
Teramura, A. H., Forseth, I. N., and Gold, W. G. 1991. Physiological ecology of mesic, temperate vines. Pages 245–286 in Putz, F. E. and Mooney, H. A., eds. The Biology of Vines. New York : Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
[USDA, ARS] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 2011. National Genetic Resources Program, Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN) Online Database. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Agricultural Research Service (ARS). http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/paper.pl. Accessed February 20, 2012.Google Scholar
[USDA, NRCS] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2011. The PLANTS Database. National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA. http://plants.usda.gov/. Accessed February 20, 2012.Google Scholar
Vilá, M. and Weiner, J. 2004. Are invasive plant species better competitors than native plant species? Evidence from pair-wise experiments. Oikos 105 :229–238.Google Scholar
Vitousek, P. M., Walker, L. R., Whiteaker, L. D., Mueller-Dombois, D., and Matson, P. A. 1987. Biological invasion by Myrica faya alters ecosystem development in Hawaii. Science 238 :802–804.Google Scholar
West, A. M., Richardson, R. J., Arellano, C., and Burton, M. G. 2010. Bushkiller (Cayratia japonica) growth in interspecific and intraspecific competition. Weed Sci. 58 :195–198.Google Scholar
Yurkonis, K. A. and Meiners, S. J. 2004. Invasion impacts local species turnover in a successional system. Ecol. Lett. 7 :764–769.Google Scholar
Zhiduan, C. and Wen, J. 2007. Flora of China 12. http://www.foc.org/china/. Accessed November 15, 2012.Google Scholar