Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
International Journal of Ecology
Volume 2011, Article ID 737298, 6 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2011/737298
Research Article

Variation in Specificity of Soil-Borne Pathogens from a Plant's Native Range versus Its Nonnative Range

1United States Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service, Fort Keogh Livestock & Range Research Laboratory, 243 Fort Keogh Road, Miles City, MT, 59301-4016, USA
2Netherlands Institute of Ecology, Centre for Terrestrial Ecology, Department of Multitrophic Interactions, Boterhoeksestraat 48, 6666 GA Heteren, The Netherlands
3Laboratory of Nematology, Wageningen University, Binnenhaven 5, 6709 PD Wageningen, The Netherlands
4Department of Ecogenomics, Institute for Water and Wetland Research Radboud, University Nijmegen Huygens, building Heyendaalseweg 135, 6525 AJ Nijmegen, The Netherlands
5Department of Biology, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, 47405-3700, USA

Received 1 November 2010; Accepted 1 February 2011

Academic Editor: Bradford Hawkins

Copyright © 2011 Kurt O. Reinhart et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. K. Clay, K. Reinhart, J. Rudgers, T. Tintjer, J. Koslow, and S. L. Flory, “Red queen communities,” in Ecology of Infectious Diseases: Interactions between Diseases and Ecosystems, V. Eviner, F. Keesing, and R. Ostfeld, Eds., pp. 148–178, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA, 2008. View at Google Scholar
  2. J. B. S. Haldane, “Disease and evolution,” Current Science, vol. 63, no. 9, pp. 599–604, 1992. View at Google Scholar
  3. R. M. Keane and M. J. Crawley, “Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 164–170, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. L. M. Wolfe, “Why alien invaders succeed: support for the escape-from-enemy hypothesis,” American Naturalist, vol. 160, no. 6, pp. 705–711, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. E. Siemann and W. E. Rogers, “Increased competitive ability of an invasive tree may be limited by an invasive beetle,” Ecological Applications, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 1503–1507, 2003. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. D. Garcia-Rossi, N. Rank, and D. R. Strong, “Potential for self-defeating biological control? Variation in herbivore vulnerability among invasive Spartina genotypes,” Ecological Applications, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 1640–1649, 2003. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. G. S. Gilbert and I. M. Parker, “Rapid evolution in a plant-pathogen interaction and the consequences for introduced host species,” Evolutionary Applications, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 144–156, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. R. Charudattan and A. Dinoor, “Biological control of weeds using plant pathogens: accomplishments and limitations,” Crop Protection, vol. 19, no. 8–10, pp. 691–695, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. J. W. Busch, M. Neiman, and J. M. Koslow, “Evidence for maintenance of sex by pathogens in plants,” Evolution, vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 2584–2590, 2004. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. J. J. Burdon and D. R. Marshall, “Biological control and the reproductive mode of weeds,” Journal of Applied Ecology, vol. 18, pp. 649–658, 1981. View at Google Scholar
  11. C. E. Mitchell and A. O. Power, “Release of invasive plants from fungal and viral pathogens,” Nature, vol. 421, no. 6923, pp. 625–627, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. K. O. Reinhart, T. Tytgat, W. H. Van der Putten, and K. Clay, “Virulence of soil-borne pathogens and invasion by Prunus serotina,” New Phytologist, vol. 186, no. 2, pp. 484–495, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  13. B. Petitpierre, Ecological and phylogeographical approach of a biological invasion: Prunus serotina, a case study, M.S. thesis, Université de Lausanne, 2008.
  14. C. K. Augspurger and H. T. Wilkinson, “Host specificity of pathogenic Pythium species: implications for tree species diversity,” Biotropica, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 702–708, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. P. J. Hudson, A. P. Dobson, and D. Newborn, “Prevention of population cycles by parasite removal,” Science, vol. 282, no. 5397, pp. 2256–2258, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. K. O. Reinhart, A. Packer, W. H. Van Der Putten, and K. Clay, “Plant-soil biota interactions and spatial distribution of black cherry in its native and invasive ranges,” Ecology Letters, vol. 6, no. 12, pp. 1046–1050, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. K. O. Reinhart and K. Clay, “Spatial variation in soil-borne disease dynamics of a temperate tree, Prunus serotina,” Ecology, vol. 90, no. 11, pp. 2984–2993, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. J. B. Gillett, “Pest pressure, an underestimated factor in evolution,” Systematics Association Publication Number, vol. 4, pp. 37–46, 1962. View at Google Scholar
  19. I. M. Parker and G. S. Gilbert, “The evolutionary ecology of novel plant-pathogen interactions,” Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, vol. 35, pp. 675–700, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. B. J. Genton, J. A. Shykoff, and T. Giraud, “High genetic diversity in French invasive populations of common ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia, as a result of multiple sources of introduction,” Molecular Ecology, vol. 14, no. 14, pp. 4275–4285, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. G. S. Gilbert and C. O. Webb, “Phylogenetic signal in plant pathogen-host range,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 104, no. 12, pp. 4979–4983, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. I. M. Parker and G. S. Gilbert, “When there is no escape: the effects of natural enemies on native, invasive, and noninvasive plants,” Ecology, vol. 88, no. 5, pp. 1210–1224, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. J. D. Parker and M. E. Hay, “Biotic resistance to plant invasions? Native herbivores prefer non-native plants,” Ecology Letters, vol. 8, no. 9, pp. 959–967, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. J. D. Parker, D. E. Burkepile, and M. E. Hayt, “Opposing effects of native and exotic herbivores on plant invasions,” Science, vol. 311, no. 5766, pp. 1459–1461, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. A. J. Kwiatkowska, K. Spalik, E. Michalak, A. Palińska, and D. Panufnik, “Influence of the size and density of Carpinus betulus on the spatial distribution and rate of deletion of forest-floor species in thermophilous oak forest,” Plant Ecology, vol. 129, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. N. M. Kleczewski and S. L. Flory, “Leaf blight disease on the invasive grass microstegium vimineum caused by a Bipolaris sp.,” Plant Disease, vol. 94, no. 7, pp. 807–811, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  27. C. V. Hawkes, “Are invaders moving targets? The generality and persistence of advantages in size, reproduction, and enemy release in invasive plant species with time since introduction,” American Naturalist, vol. 170, no. 6, pp. 832–843, 2007. View at Google Scholar