Functional Response (FR) and Relative Growth Rate (RGR) Do Not Show the Known Invasiveness of Lemna minuta (Kunth)

• Published in: PloS one 2016-11, Vol.11 (11), p.e0166132
• Main Authors: Van Echelpoel, Wout, Boets, Pieter, Goethals, Peter L M
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Algorithms; Aquatic ecology; Aquatic plants; Araceae - growth & development; Biodiversity; Biology and Life Sciences; Biomarkers; Biomass; Competitive advantage; Dominance; Duckweed; Ecology and Environmental Sciences; Ecosystem; Forecasting; Growth rate; Indigenous species; Introduced Species; Invasions; Invasive species; Invasiveness; Laboratories; Lemna; Lemna minor; Lemna minuta; Models, Theoretical; Nitrogen; Nonnative species; Nutrient concentrations; Nutrient removal; Nutrients; Phragmites australis; Physical Sciences; Physiology; Research and Analysis Methods; Toxicology
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166132

Growing travel and trade threatens biodiversity as it increases the rate of biological invasions globally, either by accidental or intentional introduction. Therefore, avoiding these impacts by forecasting invasions and impeding further spread is of utmost importance. In this study, three forecasting approaches were tested and combined to predict the invasive behaviour of the alien macrophyte Lemna minuta in comparison with the native Lemna minor: the functional response (FR) and relative growth rate (RGR), supplemented with a combined biomass-based nutrient removal (BBNR). Based on the idea that widespread invasive species are more successful competitors than local, native species, a higher FR and RGR were expected for the invasive compared to the native species. Five different nutrient concentrations were tested, ranging from low (4 mgN.L-1 and 1 mgP.L-1) to high (70 mgN.L-1 and 21 mgP.L-1). After four days, a significant amount of nutrients was removed by both Lemna spp., though significant differences among L. minor and L. minuta were only observed at lower nutrient concentrations (lower than 17 mgN.L-1 and 6 mgP.L-1) with higher nutrient removal exerted by L. minor. The derived FR did not show a clear dominance of the invasive L. minuta, contradicting field observations. Similarly, the RGR ranged from 0.4 to 0.6 d-1, but did not show a biomass-based dominance of L. minuta (0.5 ± 0.1 d-1 versus 0.63 ± 0.09 d-1 for L. minor). BBNR showed similar results as the FR. Contrary to our expectations, all three approaches resulted in higher values for L. minor. Consequently, based on our results FR is sensitive to differences, though contradicted the expectations, while RGR and BBNR do not provide sufficient power to differentiate between a native and an invasive alien macrophyte and should be supplemented with additional ecosystem-based experiments to determine the invasion impact.