請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/32116完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 高文媛 | |
| dc.contributor.author | Hsiao-Mei Hsu | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 徐曉玫 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-13T03:32:26Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2006-07-31 | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2006-07-31 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2006 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2006-07-26 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | Baker, H. G. 1965. Characteristics and modes of origin of weeds. Academic Press, New York, USA.
Baker, H. G. 1947. The evolution of weeds. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 5:1-24. Ballard, R. 1986. Bidens pilosa complex (Asteraceae) in North and Central America. Amer. J. Bot. 73: 1452-1465. Baruch, Z. and G. Goldstein. 1999. Leaf construction cost, nutrient concentration, and net CO2 assimilation of native and invasive species in Hawaii. Oecologia 121: 183-192. Blossey, B. and R. Nötzold. 1995. Evolution of increased competitive ability in invasive nonindigenous plants: A hypothesis. J. Ecol. 83: 887-889. Bossdorf, O., S. Schröder, D. Prati and H. Auge. 2004. Palatability and tolerance to simulated herbivory in native and introduced populations of Alliaria petiolata (Brassicaceae). Amer. J. Bot. 91: 856-862. Böhle, U.-R., H. H. Hilger and W. F. Martin. 1996. Island colonization and evolution of insular habit in Echium L. (Boraginaceae). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 93: 11740-11745. Caldwell , M. M., J. H. Richard, D. A. Jhonson, R. S. Nowak and R. S. Dzurec. 1981. Coping with herbivory: Photosynthetic capacity and resource allocation in two semiarid Agropyron bunchgrass. Oecologia 50: 14-24. Callaway, R. M. and A. T. Aschehong. 2002. Invasive plants versus their new and old neighbors: A mechanism for exotic invasion. Science 290: 521-523. Cousens, R. and Mortimer. M. 1995. The dynamics of geographical range expansion. In: Dynamics of weed populations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. pp.21. Daehler, C. C. 2003. Performance comparison of co-occurring native and alien invasive plants: Implication for conservation and restoration. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 34: 183-211. D’Antonio, C. M. and P. M. Vitousek. 1992. Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, and global change. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 23: 63-87. Deng, X., W.-H. Ye, H.-L. Feng, Q.-H. Yang, H.-L. Cao, K.-Y. Xu and Y. Zhang. 2004. Gas exchange characteristics of the invasive species Mikania micrantha and its indigenous congener M. cordata (Asteraceae) in South China. Bot. Bull. Acad. Sin. 45: 213-220. DeWalt, S. J., J. S. Denslow and J. L. Hamrick. 2004. Biomass allocation, growth, and photosynthesis of genotypes from native and introduced ranges of the tropical shrub Clidemia hirta. Oecologia 138: 521-531. Durand, L. Z. and G. Goldstein. 2001. Photosynthesis, photoinhibition, and nitrogen use efficiency in native and invasive tree ferns in Hawaii. Oecologia 126: 345-354. El-Khatib, A. A., A. K. Hegazy and H. K. Galal. 2004. Allelopathy in the rhizosphere and amended soil of Chenopodium murale L. Weed Biol. Manag. 4: 35-42. Kercher, S. M. and J. B. Zedler. 2004. Multiple disturbances accelerate invasion of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) in a mesocosm study. Oecologia 138: 455-464. Kimball, S. and P. M. Schiffman. 2003. Differing effects of cattle grazing on native and alien plants. Conserv. Bio. 17: 1681-1693. Kitajima, K. 1994. Relative importance of photosynthetic traits and allocation patterns as correlates of seedling shade tolerance of 13 tropical trees. Oecologia 98: 419-428. Luken, J. O., L. M. Kuddes, T. C. Tholemeier and D. M. Haller. 1997. Comparative responses of Loicera maackii (Amur honeysuckle) and Lindera benzoin (Spicebush) to increased light. Amer. Mid. Nat. 138: 331-343. Mack, R. N. 1996. Predicting the identity and fate of plant invaders: Emergent and emerging approaches. Biol. Conserv. 78: 107-121. Mack, R. N., D. Simberloff, L. M. Lonsdale, H. Evans, M. Clout and F. A. Bazzaz. 2000. Biotic invasions: Causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol. Applic. 10: 689-710. Mal, T. K. and Lovett-Doust J. 2005. Phenotypic plasticity in vegetative and reproductive traits in an invasive weed, Lythrum Salicaria (Lythraceae), in response to soil moisture. Amer. J. Bot. 92: 819-825. McDowell, S. C. L. 2002. Photosynthetic characteristics of invasive and noninvasive species of Rubus (Rosaceae). Amer. J. Bot. 89: 1431-1438. McDowell, S. C. L. and D. P. Turner. 2002. Reproductive effort in invasive and non-invasive Rubus. Oecologia 133: 102-111. Meissner, R., P. C. Nel and E. A. Beyers. 1986. Allelopathic influence of Tagetes - and Bidens -infested soils on seedling growth of certain crop species. S. Afr. J. 3: 176-180. Melinda, D. S. and A. K. Knapp. 2001. Physiological and morphological traits of exotic, invasive exotic, and native plant species in tallgrass prairie. Int. J. Plant Sci. 162: 785-792. Müller- Schärer, H., U. Schaffner and T. Steinger. 2004. Evolution in invasive plants: Implications for biological control. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19: 417-422. Myers J. H. and Bazely D. R. 2003. Predicting invasiveness from life history characteristics. In: Ecology and Control of introduced plants. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. pp. 89-119. Nagel, J. M. and K. L. Griffin. 2001. Construction cost and invasive potential: Comparing Lythrum salicaria (Lythraceae) with co-occurring native species along pond banks. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 2252-2258. Parker, I. M., J. Rodriguez and M. E. Loik. 2003. An evolutionary approach to understanding the biology of invasion: Local adaptation and general-purpose genotypes in the weed Verbascum thapsus. Conserv. Bio. 17: 59-72. Pattison, R. R., G. Goldstein and A. Ares. 1998. Growth, biomass allocation and photosynthesis of invasive and native Hawaiian rainforest species. Oecologia 117: 449-459. Peng, C.-I., K.-F. Chung and H.-L. Li. 1998. Compositae. In: Huang, T.-C. and Editorial Committee of the Flora of Taiwan. (eds.), Flora of Taiwan Vol. 4. 2nd ed. Editorial Committee of the Flora of Taiwan, Department of Botany, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan. pp. 868-870. Peperkorn, R., C. Werner and W. Beyschlag. 2005. Phenotypic plasticity of an invasive acacia versus two native Mediterranean species. Funct. Plant Bio. 32: 933-944. Pimentel, D., L. Lach, R. Zuniga and D. Morrison. 2000. Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous species in the United States. BioSci. 50: 53-65. Reddy, K. N. and M. Singh. 1992. Germination and emergence of hairy beggarticks (Bidens pilosa). Weed Sci. 40: 195-199. Rejmánek, M. 1996. A theory of seed plant invasiveness: the first sketch. Biol. Conserv. 78: 171-181. Richardson, D. M., P. Pyšek, M. Rejmánek, M. G. Barbour, F. D. Panetta and C. J. West. 2000. Naturalization and invasion of alien plants: Concepts and definitions. Diversity Distrib. 6: 93-107. Ridenour, W. M. and R. M. Callaway. 2001. The relative importance of allelopathy in interference: The effects of an invasive weed on a native bunchgrass. Oecologia 126: 444-450. San Emeterio, L., A. Arroyo and R. M. Canals. 2004. Allelopathic potential of Lolium rigidum Gand. on the early growth of three associated pasture species. Grass Forage Sci. 59: 107-112. Schierenbeck, K. A., R. N. Mack and R. R. Sharitz. 1994. Effects of herbivory on growth and biomass allocation in native and introduced species of Lonicera. Ecology 75: 1661-1672. Simoes, M. and Z. Baruch. 1991. Responses to simulated herbivory and water stress in two tropical C4 grasses. Oecologia 88: 173-180. Singh, H. P., D. R. Batish, S. Kaur and R. K. Kohli. 2003. Phytotoxic interference of Ageratum conyzoides with wheat (Triticum aestivum). J. Agro. Crop Sci. 189: 341-346. Stearns, S. C. 1992. The evolution of life-histories. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. Stevens Jr, G. A. and C.-S. Tang. 1985. Inhibition of seedling growth of crop species by recirculating root exudates of Bidens pilosa L. J. Chem. Ecol. 11: 1411-1425 Sutherland S. 2004. What makes a weed a weed: Life history traits of native and exotic plants in the USA. Oecologia 141: 24-39. Vivanco, J. M., H. P. Bais, F. R. Stermitz, G. C. Thelen and R. M. Callaway. 2004. Biogeographical variation in community response to root allelochemistry: Novel weapons and exotic invasion. Ecol. Lett. 7: 285-292. Williams, D.G. and R.A. Black. 1994. Drought response of a native and introduced Hawaiian grass. Oecologia 97: 512-519. Wu, S.-H., C.-F. Hsieh and M. Rejmánek. 2004a. Catalogue of the naturalized flora of Taiwna. Taiwania 49: 16-31. Wu, S.-H., C.-F. Hsieh, S.-M. Chaw and M. Rejmánek. 2004b. Plant invasion in Taiwan: Insights from the flora of casual and naturalized alien species. Diversity Distrib. 10: 349-362. Yamashita, N., A. Ishida, H. Kushima and N. Tanaka. 2000. Acclimation to sudden increase in light favoring an invasive over native trees in subtropical islands, Japan. Oceologia 125: 412-419. 郭耀綸、陳志遠、林杰昌。2002。藉連續切蔓法及相剋作用防制外來入侵的小花蔓澤蘭。台灣林業科學17卷，171-181頁。 蔡淑華。1975。植物切片技術綱要，初版，茂昌圖書股份有限公司，21-23頁。 鄧書麟。2003。台灣鬼針屬 (菊科) 植物分類與遺傳變異之研究。 蔣慕琰、徐玲明、袁秋英、陳永富、蔣永正。2003。台灣外來植物之危害與生態。小花蔓澤蘭危害與管理研討會專刊，97-109頁。 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/32116 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 外來植物的入侵是全球性的現象，且對入侵地的環境及經濟都帶來衝擊。大花咸豐草 (Bidens pilosa L. var. radiata Sch. Bip.) 是目前台灣平地常見野草，被列入台灣危害力最高的二十種入侵植物之一。本研究嘗試初步探討其成功入侵的原因。在台南縣麻豆鎮一處廢耕的柚園中，比鄰生長著大花咸豐草及其同屬的歸化植物鬼針 (Bidens bipinnata L.)；在該地大花咸豐草數量遠超過鬼針，且威脅著鬼針的生存。本研究比較大花咸豐草和鬼針在生理、形態和生活史上的差異，探討在該廢耕柚園中，大花咸豐草爲何具有優勢，以期進ㄧ步了解其入侵成功的可能原因。根據前人對入侵植物的研究，本研究檢驗以下假設：一、大花咸豐草之生活史及生長策略異於鬼針，導致其比鬼針更適應環境；二、大花咸豐草對環境及生物因子展現的外表型可塑性比鬼針高；三、大花咸豐草具有相剋作用的潛力且抑制鬼針的生長。經測量實驗地植株及溫室土壤水分環境控制實驗中的植株葉片，發現大花咸豐草的光飽和淨光合作用速率和第二光合作用系統光使用效率並沒有高於鬼針。然而在模擬冬天的18 ℃環境下，大花咸豐草的種子發芽率、植株光合作用表現均優於鬼針，可能有助其在冬天繼續生長，進而取代鬼針。與鬼針相較，大花咸豐草開花時間較鬼針晚，葉部生物量、葉部面積及側枝比例都較鬼針多，如此可累積較多能量以供持續生長。莖部切片顯示其可能為多年生植物。又其植株倒伏後可行營養繁殖，應有利於族群的擴大。此外大花咸豐草具有相剋作用的潛力，並抑制鬼針種子的發芽，影響小苗的生長。推測以上各點特徵，使得大花咸豐草在該台南廢耕柚園中較鬼針具有競爭優勢，而這些特徵也可能是大花咸豐草成功入侵台灣的部分原因。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | Invasion of exotic plants is a global phenomenon which often has highly impact on the environment and economics. Bidens pilosa L. var. radiata Sch. Bip., a common weed in lowland Taiwan, is listed as one of the twenty most noxious invasive plants in Taiwan. Thus, it is important to study the invasiveness of this weed. Bidens. pilosa var. radiata is found growing closely with Bidens bipinnata L., a naturalized species, and dominates an abandoned farm in Madou Town, Tainan County, Taiwan. Taking the advantage, I compared physiological, morphological and life history traits of these two species aiming to understand possible traits contributing to the invasiveness of B. pilosa var. radiata. I tested the current hypotheses regarding the superiority of invasive plants. Accordingly, B. pilosa var. radiata is expected to have (1) life history traits and growth strategies better adapted to the local environment than B. bipinnata, (2) higher phenotypic plasticity than B. bipinnata and (3) allelopathic potential that inhibits growth of B. bipinnata. Photosynthetic measurements of field plants and plants subjected to different water treatments in greenhouse reveal that the two species had similar photosaturated photosynthetic rate and potential quantum yield of PSII. However, under the winter temperature condition of 18 ℃, B. pilosa var. radiata perfomed better in germination and photosynthesis than B. bipinnata. Thus, B. pilosa var. radiata could have advantage over B. bipinnata in winter. Compared to B. bipinnata, B. pilosa var. radiata has a later onset of flowering and better ability for vegetative reproduction, allocates more resource to leaf, and has higher lateral branch ratio, thus could accumulate more energy for longer growth period. Stem anatomy reveals that B. pilosa var. radiata could have a life span of more than one year. It appears that the two species use different life history strategies. In addition, B. pilosa var. radiata has allelopathic potential that inhibits germination and growth of B. bipinnata. The differences in these traits between the two may explain why B. pilosa var. radiata outcompetes B. bipinnata in the experimental farm and may also account for its invasive success in Taiwan. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-13T03:32:26Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-95-R93b44014-1.pdf: 703564 bytes, checksum: 356ffc885aaaa250efdfea631081dd1a (MD5) Previous issue date: 2006 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 目錄．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．Ⅰ
圖表目錄．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．Ⅳ 中文摘要．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．Ⅴ 英文摘要．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．Ⅵ 一、前言．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．1 二、材料與方法．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．8 (一) 實驗地測量 ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．8 (二) 溫室操作實驗 ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．9 1. 生活史及生長策略比較 ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．10 1.1 開花時間比較 ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．10 1.2 開花後生長及光合作用生理比較 ．．．．．．．．．．10 1.3 不定根及側枝生長能力之比較 ．．．．．．．．．．．11 1.4 莖部解剖．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．12 2. 環境及生物因子對生長及生理影響之比較．．．．．．．．．12 2.1 土壤水分．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．12 2.2 溫度．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．14 2.3 人工修剪．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．15 3. 大花咸豐草植株異他作用潛力．．．．．．．．．．．．．15 4. 統計分析．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．17 三、結果．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．18 (一) 實驗地測量．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．18 (二) 溫室操作實驗．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．20 1. 生活史及生長策略比較 ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．20 1.1開花時間、開花後生長及光合作用生理比較 ．．．．．．20 1.2 不定根及側枝生長能力之比較 ．．．．．．．．．．．25 1.3 莖部解剖．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．25 2. 環境及生物因子對生長及生理影響之比較．．．．．．．．．28 2.1 土壤水分．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．28 2.2 溫度．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．35 2.3 人工修剪．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．38 3. 大花咸豐草植株異他作用潛力．．．．．．．．．．．．．41 四、討論．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．44 (一) 實驗地測量．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．44 (二) 溫室操作實驗．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．45 1. 生活史及生長策略比較 ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．45 2. 開花後生長及光合作用生理比較．．．．．．．．．．．．46 3. 環境及生物因子對生長及生理影響之比較．．．．．．．．．47 3.1土壤水分影響外表型可塑性探討．．．．．．．．．．．47 3.2溫度對發芽率及植株葉片光合作用的影響 ．．．．．．．48 3.3人工修剪的影響．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．48 4. 大花咸豐草植株異他作用潛力．．．．．．．．．．．．．49 (三) 綜合討論．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．51 (四) 未來研究方向．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．53 五、結論．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．55 六、參考文獻．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．56 附錄．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．61 表一、實驗地大花咸豐草及鬼針成熟葉葉綠素螢光．．．．．．．．．．．．19 表二、實驗地大花咸豐草及鬼針成熟葉之氣體交換及單位乾重葉面積．．．．19 表三、大花咸豐草及鬼針短日照下開花時間．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．21 表四、大花咸豐草及鬼針開花後成熟葉之氣體交換．．．．．．．．．．．．23 表五、大花咸豐草及鬼針開花後生長及生物量．．．．．．．．．．．．．．24 表六、大花咸豐草及鬼針水分處理下成熟葉之氣體交換．．．．．．．．．．30 表七、大花咸豐草及鬼針水分處理下生長及生物量．．．．．．．．．．．．31 表八、大花咸豐草及鬼針人工修剪下成熟葉之氣體交換、生長及生物量．．．39 圖一、大花咸豐草及鬼針植株高度隨生長天數變化情形．．．．．．．．．．22 圖二、大花咸豐草及鬼針開花後成熟葉光合作用速率隨光度變化曲線．．．．22 圖三、大花咸豐草及鬼針其生長不定根及側枝能力之比較．．．．．．．．．26 圖四、實驗地大花咸豐草莖部解剖．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．27 圖五、水分處理對土壤含水量之影響．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．32 圖六、大花咸豐草及鬼針不同水分處理下其成熟葉葉綠素螢光．．．．．．．33 圖七、大花咸豐草及鬼針不同水分處理下植株高度變化．．．．．．．．．．34 圖八、溫度對大花咸豐草及鬼針種子發芽率的影響．．．．．．．．．．．．36 圖九、溫度對大花咸豐草及鬼針其成熟葉氣體交換的影響．．．．．．．．．37 圖十、大花咸豐草及鬼針人工修剪下植株高度變化．．．．．．．．．．．．40 圖十一、大花咸豐草水溶液萃取液對三物種種子發芽率的影響．．．．．．．42 圖十二、大花咸豐草水溶液萃取液對三物種小苗長度的影響．．．．．．．．43 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.title | 大花咸豐草對鬼針的競爭優勢及入侵性探討 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Implications of the invasiveness of Bidens pilosa L. var. radiata Sch. Bip. by studying its superiority over Bidens bipinnata L. | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 94-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 林讚標,郭耀綸,張育森,黃玲瓏 | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 大花咸豐草,鬼針,入侵植物,生活史,外表型可塑性,相剋作用, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Bidens pilosa var. radiata,Bidens bipinnata,invasive plant,life history,phenotypic plasticity,allelopathy potential, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 61 | |
| dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2006-07-28 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 生命科學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 生態學與演化生物學研究所 | zh_TW |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 生態學與演化生物學研究所 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-95-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 687.07 kB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件，除了特別指名其著作權條款之外，均受到著作權保護，並且保留所有的權利。