Meta-analytic evidence that allelopathy may increase the success and impact of invasive grasses.

Background: In the grass family, a disproportionate number of species have been designated as being invasive. Various growth traits have been proposed to explain the invasiveness of grasses; however, the possibility that allelopathy gives invasive grasses a competitive advantage has attracted relatively little attention. Recent research has isolated plant allelochemicals that are mostly specific to the grass family that can breakdown into relatively stable, toxic byproducts. Methods: We conducted a meta-analysis of studies on grass allelopathy to test three prominent hypotheses from invasion biology and competition theory: (1) on native recipients, non-native grasses will have a significantly more negative effect compared to native grasses (Novel Weapons Hypothesis); (2) among native grasses, their effect on non-native recipients will be significantly more negative compared to their effect on native recipients (Biotic Resistance Hypothesis); and (3) allelopathic impacts will increase with phylogenetic distance (Phylogenetic Distance Hypothesis). From 23 studies, we gathered a dataset of 524 observed effect sizes (delta log response ratios) measuring the allelopathic impact of grasses on growth and germination of recipient species, and we used non-linear mixed-effects Bayesian modeling to test the hypotheses. Results: We found support for the Novel Weapons Hypothesis: on native recipients, non-native grasses were twice as suppressive as native grasses (22%