Growth, reproduction and weediness: testing four related species on a gradient of synanthropy

keywords: Melampodium, relative growth rate, resource allocation, time to flowering, weed


Background . The ability of weeds to thrive in the stressful environments created by human disturbance has been explained mainly by a set of life history traits, such as short life cycles, generalist habits, as well as early and sustained reproduction. However, the evidence that these traits are better represented in weeds than in related species of other environments is mixed. To explore the relationship between weeds and the life history traits, we used the fact that plants are weedy to different degrees because of the heterogeneous nature of environments produced by disturbance. In a group of four congeners, we studied some growth and reproduction parameters in relation to the degree of synanthropy of the species, determined previously.

Methods. In a common garden experiment, we compared relative growth rate, time to flowering, and biomass distribution between four species of the genus Melampodium (Asteraceae) that are weedy to different degrees.

Results. The most synanthropic species, M. divaricatum, stood out for its steady growth rate, but not for assigning more resources to reproduction, nor for early flowering. In general, we found no association between growth and reproductive parameters studied in the four Melampodium species and the degree to which they are weeds.

Conclusions. Results suggest that traits such as fast growth and early reproduction may not be essential for life as a weed. Rather, weedy species exhibit a complex pattern of growth traits that could be affected by conditions independent of anthropogenic disturbance.


Download data is not yet available.
Growth, reproduction and weediness: testing four related species on a gradient of synanthropy


Arendt JD. 1997. Adaptive intrinsic growth rates: An integration across taxa. The Quarterly Review of Biology 72:149–177. DOI: 10.1086/419764
Baker HG. 1965. Characteristics and modes of origin of weeds. In: Baker HG, Stebbins GL, eds. The genetics of colonizing species. New York, NY: Academic Press, 147-168.
Baker HG. 1967. The evolution of weedy taxa in the Eupatorium microstemon species aggregate. Taxon 16:293–300. DOI: 10.2307/1216377
Blöch C. 2010. Molecular phylogeny and chromosome evolution of the genus Melampodium L. (Millerieae, Asteraceae). PhD Thesis, Vienna University.
Chao WS, Horvath DP, Anderson JV, Foley ME. 2005. Potential model weeds to study genomics, ecology, and physiology in the 21st century. Weed Science 53:929–937. DOI: 10.1614/WS-04-213R.1
Cohen D. 1971. Maximizing final yield when growth is limited by time or by limiting resources. Journal of Theoretical Biology 33:299–307. DOI: 10.1016/0022-5193(71)90068-3
Cohen D. 1976. The optimal timing of reproduction. The American Naturalist 110:801-807. DOI: 10.1086/283103
Coleman JS, McConnaughay KDM, Ackerly DD. 1994. Interpreting phenotypic variation in plants. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9:187-191. DOI: 10.1016/0169-5347(94)90087-6
Crawley MJ. 2013. The R Book. London: John Wiley.
Daehler CC. 1998. The taxonomic distribution of invasive angiosperm plants: Ecological insights and comparison to agricultural weeds. Biological Conservation 84:167–180. DOI: 10.1016/S0006-3207(97)00096-7
Evans GC. 1972. The quantitative analysis of plant growth. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. ISBN: 0520094328
Gaba S, Perronne R, Fried G, Gardarin A, Bretagnolle F, Biju-Duval L, Cobach N, Cordeau S, Fernández-Aparicio M, Gauvrit C, Gibot-Leclerc S, Guillemin J-P, Moreau D, Munier-Jolain N, Strbik F, Rebaud X. 2017. Response and effect traits of arable weeds in agro-ecosystems: a review of current knowledge. Weed Research 57:123–147. DOI: 10.1111/wre.12245
Gadgil M, Solbrig OT. 1972. The concept of r- and K-selection: evidence from wild flowers and some theoretical considerations. The American Naturalist 106:14–31. DOI: 10.1086/282748
Gaines MS, Vogt KJ, Hamrick JL, Caldwell J. 1974. Reproductive strategies and growth patterns in sunflowers (Helianthus). The American Naturalist 108:889–894. DOI: 10.1086/282967
García E. 1983. Modificaciones al sistema de clasificación climática de Köppen. México, D.F.: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Godoy O, Richardson DM, Valladares F, Castro-Díez P. 2009. Flowering phenology of invasive alien plant species compared with native species in three Mediterranean-type ecosystems. Annals of Botany 103:485–494. DOI: 10.1093/aob/mcn232
Grime JP, Hunt R. 1975. Relative growth rate: its range and adaptive significance in a local flora. Journal of Ecology 63:393–422. DOI: 10.2307/2258728
Grime JP. 1977. Evidence for the existence of three primary strategies in plants and its relevance to ecological and evolutionary theory. The American Naturalist 111:1169–1194. DOI: 10.1086/283244
Hanan-A AM, Vibrans H, Cacho NI, Villaseñor JL, Ortiz E, Gómez-G VA. 2016. Use of herbarium data to evaluate weediness in five congeners. AoB PLANTS 8:plv144. DOI: 10.1093/aobpla/plv144
Harper JL, Ogden J. 1970. The reproductive strategy of higher plants: I. The concept of strategy with special reference to Senecio vulgaris L. Journal of Ecology 58:681–698. DOI: 10.2307/2258529
Hegazy AK, Fahmy GM, Ali MI, Gomaa NH. 2005. Growth and phenology of eight common weed species. Journal of Arid Environments 61:171–183. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2004.07.005
Hunt R. 2003. Growth analysis, individual plant. In: Thomas B, ed. Encyclopedia of applied plant sciences Vol 2. London: Academic Press, 579-588.
Karlsson PS, Méndez M. 2005. The resource economy of plant reproduction. In: Reekie EG, Bazzaz FA, eds. Reproductive allocation in plants. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1-49. ISBN: 0-12-088386-4
Keeler KH. 1989. Can genetically engineered crops become weeds? Biotechnology 7:1134–1138.
Kuester A, Conner JK, Culley T, Baucom RS. 2014. How weeds emerge: a taxonomic and trait-based examination using United States data. The New Phytologist 202:1055–68. DOI: 10.1111/nph.12698
MacKinnon ED, Pratt RB, Jacobsen AL. 2014. Functional trait differences between weedy and non-weedy plants in southern California. Madroño 61:328–338. DOI: 10.3120/0024-9637-61.4.328
Maguire JD. 1962. Speed of germination-aid selection and evaluation for seedling emergence and vigor. Crop Science 2:176–177.
Matthews ER, Mazer SJ. 2016. Historical changes in flowering phenology are governed by temperature × precipitation interactions in a widespread perennial herb in western North America. New Phytologist 210:157–167. DOI: 10.1111/nph.13751
McConnaughay KDM, Bazzaz FA. 1991. Is physical space a soil resource? Ecology 72:94-103. DOI: 10.2307/1938905
McConnaughay KDM, Coleman JS. 1999. Biomass allocation in plants: ontogeny or optimality? A test along three resource gradients. Ecology 80:2581-2593. DOI: 10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[2581:BAIPOO]2.0.CO;2
NeSmith DS, Duval JR. 1998. The effect of container size. HortTechnology 8:495-498. DOI: 10.21273/HORTTECH.8.4.495
Ortiz E, Villaseñor JL, Téllez O. 1998. La familia Asteraceae en el estado de Nayarit (México). Acta Botánica Mexicana 44:25–57. DOI: 10.21829/abm44.1998.805
Perrins J, Fitter A, Williamson M. 1993. Population biology and rates of invasion of three introduced Impatiens species in the British Isles. Journal of Biogeography 20:33–44. DOI: 10.2307/2845737
Pinheiro JC, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D. 2012. R Development Core Team. nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1-104.
Poorter H. 1989. Plant growth analysis: towards a synthesis of the classical and the functional approach. Physiologia Plantarum 75:237–244. DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-3054.1989.tb06175.x
Poorter H, Lewis C. 1986. Testing differences in relative growth rate?: A method avoiding curve fitting and pairing. Physiologia Plantarum 67:223–226. DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-3054.1986.tb02447.x
Poorter H, Sack L. 2012. Pitfalls and possibilities in the analysis of biomass allocation patterns in plants. Frontiers in Plant Science 3:259. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2012.00259
Poorter H, Niklas KJ, Reich PB, Oleksyn J, Poot P, Mommer L. 2012. Biomass allocation to leaves, stems and roots: meta-analyses of interspecific variation and environmental control. New Phytologist 193:30–50. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2011.03952.x
Poorter H, Jagodzinski AM, Ruiz-Peinado R, Kiyah S, Luo Y, Oleksyn J, Usoltsev VA, Buckley TN, Reich PB, Sack L. 2015. How does biomass distribution change with size and differ among species? An analysis for 1200 plant species from five continents. New Phytologist 208:736-749. DOI: 10.1111/nph.13571
R Development Core Team. 2012. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Viena: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Reich PB. 2002. Root–shoot relations: optimality in acclimation and adaptation or the ‘Emperor’s new clothes’. In: Waisel Y, Eshel A, Beeckman T, Kafkaki U, eds. Plant roots: the hidden half. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, 205-220. ISBN: 0824706315
Robinson BL. 1901. Synopsis of the genus Melampodium. Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 36:455-466.
Sans FX, Masalles RM. 1995. Phenological patterns in an arable land weed community related to disturbance. Weed Research 35:321–332. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3180.1995.tb01627.x
Šilc U. 2010. Synanthropic vegetation: pattern of various disturbances on life history traits. Acta Botanica Croatica 69:215–227.
Stuessy TF. 1971. Chromosome numbers and phylogeny in Melampodium (Compositae). American Journal of Botany 58:732–736. DOI: 10.1002/j.1537-2197.1971.tb10027.x
Stuessy TF. 1972. Revision of the genus Melampodium (Compositae: Heliantheae). Rhodora 74:1–70, 161–219.
Stuessy TF, Weiss-Schneeweiss H, Keil DJ. 2004. Diploid and polyploidy cytotype distribution in Melampodium cinereum and M. leucanthum (Asteraceae, Heliantheae). American Journal of Botany 91:889–898. DOI: 10.3732/ajb.91.6.889
Stuessy TF, Blöch C, Villaseñor JL, Rebernig CA, Weiss-Schneeweiss H. 2011. Phylogenetic analyses of DNA sequences with chromosomal and morphological data confirm and refine sectional and series classification within Melampodium (Asteraceae, Millerieae). Taxon 60:436–449. DOI: 10.1002/tax.602013
Sutherland S. 2004. What makes a weed a weed: life history traits of native and exotic plants in the USA. Oecologia 141:24–39. DOI: 10.1007/s00442-004-1628-x
Turnbull LA, Philipson CD, Purves DW, Atkinson RL, Cunniff J, Goodenough A, Hautier Y, Houghton J, Marthews TR, Osborne CP, Paul-Victor C, Rose KE, Saner P, Taylor SH, Woodward FI, Hector A, Rees M. 2012. Plant growth rates and seed size: a re-evaluation. Ecology 93:1283-1289. DOI: 10.1890/11-0261.1
Warnes GR, Bolker B, Lumley T, Johnson RC. 2015. R package version 2.16.2. Contributions from Randall C Johnson are copyright SAIC-Frederick, Inc., funded by the Intramural Research Program, of the NIH, National Cancer Institute and Center for Cancer Research under NCI Contract NO1-CO-12400. <> (accessed November, 2015).
Williamson M. 1993. Invaders, weeds and the risk from genetically manipulated organisms. Experientia 49:219–224.
Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Elphick CS. 2010. A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 1:3-14. DOI: 10.1111/j.2041-210X.2009.00001.x
How to Cite
Hanan-AlipiA. M., VibransH., Vega-FrutisR., Juárez-RoseteC. R., Valdivia-BernalR., & Velázquez-FernándezJ. (2020). Growth, reproduction and weediness: testing four related species on a gradient of synanthropy. Botanical Sciences, 99(1), 43-57.