ArticleEcology and evolution2024
Responses of non-native and native plant species to fluctuations of water availability in a greenhouse experiment.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The dual role of native plant diversity in shaping plant invasions: scale and habitat dependence in urban-rural ecotones.Frontiers in plant science · 2026Article
- Have you ever seen the rain? The life cycle of Crotalaria retusa (Fabaceae) reveals reproductive resilience under drought conditions.Journal of plant research · 2025Article
- Responses of non-native and native plant species to fluctuations of water availability in a greenhouse experiment.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Water availability strongly influences the survival, growth, and reproduction of most terrestrial plant species. Experimental evidence has well documented the effect of changes in total amount of water availability on non-native vs. native plants. However, little is known about how fluctuations in water availability affect these two groups, although more extreme fluctuations in water availability increasingly occur with prolonged drought and extreme precipitation events. Here, we grew seven non-native and seven native plant species individually in the greenhouse. Then, we exposed them to four watering treatments, each treatment with the same total amount of water, but with different divisions: W1 (added water 16 times with 125 mL per time), W2 (8 times, 250 mL per time), W3 (4 times, 500 mL per time), and W4 (2 times, 1000 mL per time). We found that both non-native and native plants produced the most biomass under medium frequency/magnitude watering treatments (W2 and W3). Interestingly, non-native plants produced 34% more biomass with the infrequent, substantial watering treatment (W4) than with frequent, minor watering treatment (W1), whereas native plants showed opposite patterns, producing 26% more biomass with W1 than with W4. Differences in the ratio of root to shoot under few/large and many/small watering treatments of non-native vs. native species probably contributed to their different responses in biomass production. Our results advance the current understanding of the effect of water availability on non-native plants, which are affected not only by changes in amount of water availability but also by fluctuations in water availability. Furthermore, our results indicate that an increased few/large precipitation pattern expected under climate change conditions might further promote non-native plant invasions. Future field experiments with multiple phylogenetically controlled pairs of non-native and native species will be required to enhance our understanding of how water availability fluctuations impact on non-native invasions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.