NO EVIDENCE FOR TRADE‐OFFS: CENTAUREA PLANTS FROM AMERICA ARE BETTER COMPETITORS AND DEFENDERS

By Wendy M. Ridenour, Jorge M. Vivanco, Yu-Long Feng, Jun-ichiro Horiuchi, R. Callaway. 2008

167 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Insect Science, Plant Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/64eda0ff23082b4e663586c9232367b70d8476b0

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

In Insect Science

In Plant Science

Citations in the corpus

Enhanced allelopathy and competitive ability of invasive plant Solidago canadensis in its introduced range (2013, background): “Why invasive plants are often more competitive in their introduced range than in their native range has been a central question in understanding plant invasive biology (Blossey and Nötzold 1995; Siemann and Rogers 2001; Siemann and Rogers 2003a; Wendy et al. 2008).”
Evidence for a combination of pre‐adapted traits and rapid adaptive change in the invasive plant Centaurea stoebe (2010, background): “Therefore, it is possible that the trend towards greater seed production per plant by North American tetraploids would be greater over a longer time frame if, particularly in the absence of natural enemies, NorthAmerican genotypes are better competitors (Ridenour et al. 2008), survive longer and con”
The more the better? The role of polyploidy in facilitating plant invasions. (2012, background): “…ecem ber 6, 2012 http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/ D ow nloaded from in the absence of specialist herbivores, may have provided tetraploids with a competitive advantage over diploids during the invasion process (Ridenour et al., 2008; Treier et al., 2009; Henery et al., 2010; Thébault et al., 2011).”
Comparison of phenolic compounds and the effects of invasive and native species in East Asia: support for the novel weapons hypothesis (2010, background): “…andRidenour 2004) or resist (Weidenhamer and Romeo 2005; Verhoeven et al. 2008) invasions, and it is reasonable to expect selection on novel secondary compounds to either increase or decrease their concentrations in tissues, leachates, or exudates (Callaway and Ridenour 2004; Ridenour et al. 2008).”
Resource allocation to defence and growth are driven by different responses to generalist and specialist herbivory in an invasive plant (2010, background): “2004), or increased resistance to generalists and specialists (Ridenour et al. 2008).”
Divergence from the growth–survival trade‐off and extreme high growth rates drive patterns of exotic tree invasions in closed‐canopy forests (2010, unknown): “2006) and other exotic invasive plants (Ridenour et al. 2006).”
Invasive species grows faster, competes better, and shows greater evolution toward increased seed size and growth than exotic non-invasive congeners (2012, background): “2011; Kim and Lee 2010), or through selection for stronger competitive ability in non-native ranges (Ridenour et al. 2008).”
Identifying the role of soil microbes in plant invasions (2016, background): “Some studies have found evidence for post-introduction evolution of increased competitive ability in response to soil biota in the exotic range (Maron et al. 2004; Ridenour et al. 2008; Barney, Whitlow & DiTommaso 2009).”