Research Article
Research Article
Root hemiparasites suppress invasive alien clonal plants: evidence from a cultivation experiment
expand article infoTamara Těšitelová, Kateřina Knotková, Adam Knotek, Hana Cempírková, Jakub Těšitel
‡ Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
Open Access


Alien invasive plants threaten biodiversity by rapid spread and competitive exclusion of native plant species. Especially, tall clonal invasives can rapidly attain strong dominance in vegetation. Root-hemiparasitic plants are known to suppress the growth of clonal plants by the uptake of resources from their below-ground organs and reduce their abundance. However, root-hemiparasites’ ability to interact with alien clonal plants has not yet been tested.

We explored the interactions between native root-hemiparasitic species, Melampyrum arvense and Rhinanthus alectorolophus and invasive aliens, Solidago gigantea and Symphyotrichum lanceolatum. We investigated the haustorial connections and conducted a pot experiment. We used seeds from wild hemiparasite populations and those cultivated in monostands of the invasive plants to identify a possible selection of lineages with increased compatibility with these alien hosts. The hemiparasitic species significantly suppressed the growth of the invasive plants. Melampyrum inflicted the most substantial growth reduction on Solidago (78%), followed by Rhinanthus (49%). Both hemiparasitic species reduced Symphyotrichum biomass by one-third. Additionally, Melampyrum reduced the shoot density of both host species. We also observed some transgenerational effects possibly facilitating the growth of hemiparasites sourced from subpopulations experienced with the host.

Native root hemiparasites can effectively decrease alien clonal plants’ biomass production and shoot density. The outcomes of these interactions are species-specific and may be associated with the level of clonal integration of the hosts. The putative selection of lineages with higher performance when attached to the invasive novel hosts may increase hemiparasites’ efficiency in future biocontrol applications.


Asteraceae, biological invasion, biotic resistance, Orobanchaceae, physiological integration, pot experiment, restoration


Alien plant invasions represent a component of global change with profound effects on diversity, ecosystem functioning and services. Invasive species broadly vary in their specific impacts on the habitats they invade due to different abilities to spread and achieve dominance or mechanisms of interaction with native biota (Blackburn et al. 2014). Of particular concern are the so-called transformer invaders (Richardson et al. 2000), which can invade indigenous natural communities over large areas, attain high dominance and change ecosystem functioning. Alien tall clonal herbs with below-ground rhizomes are frequent examples of transformer invaders in grasslands due to their increased competitiveness leading to the exclusion of native plants from infested vegetation throughout temperate regions (Divíšek et al. 2018; Wang et al. 2019; Wan et al. 2021; Lanta et al. 2022). Although conventional control management, represented by mowing or grazing, can reduce the density of the invasive clonal herbs to some extent (e.g. Nagy et al. (2020); Szymura et al. (2022)), they are usually not eliminated and may spread rapidly from the rhizomes if the management measures are ceased. More drastic restoration measures (e.g. use of herbicides, long-term shading) may eradicate the invaders, but can also adversely affect native species, making their use problematic in areas with conservation value (e.g. Weber and Jakobs (2005); Szymura et al. (2022)).

Native parasitic plants have recently been suggested as potential biocontrol agents for a wide range of invasive plants globally (Těšitel et al. 2020). Following the biotic resistance hypothesis (Maron and Vilà 2001), generalist native adversaries, such as parasitic plants, may impede the success of invaders due to the lack of defence or tolerance mechanisms of the host plants against parasitism (Cameron and Seel 2007). Clonal hosts could be especially harmed by parasitism, as the parasitic uptake of resources targets the cornerstone of their growth strategy, that is, the spatial spread of vegetative ramets and clonal integration (e.g. Song et al. (2013); Roiloa (2019)), i.e. the transfer of resources amongst interconnected ramets via rhizome network, which facilitates efficient resource acquisition and sharing (Kavanová and Gloser 2005; Gao et al. 2021). However, parasitic plants may turn this advantage into a liability. A parasite that attaches to one ramet may access nutrients within the network, leading to its vigorous growth and potentially marked biomass decline of the clonal host, including the non-infected ramets (Lepš and Těšitel 2015; Gao et al. 2021). This could explain a substantial decrease in the clonal hosts’ abundance in the communities with parasitic plants observed in several studies (Decleer et al. 2013; Demey et al. 2015; Somodi et al. 2018). Moreover, field experiments have demonstrated the ability of root-hemiparasitic Rhinanthus species to significantly reduce harmful expansive clonal grass Calamagrostis epigejos from semi-natural grasslands (Těšitel et al. 2017, 2018), which was consequently introduced to ecological restoration practice (Lukavský 2020; SPPK D02 002 2021).

Amongst parasitic plants, species of root hemiparasites (or, more precisely, Euphytoid parasites in the new parasitic plant classification of Teixeira-Costa and Davis (2021)) appear to be particularly suitable candidates for suppressing clonal invasive species due to their low host specificity (e.g. Matthies (2017, 2021)), capacity to substantially suppress host growth (e.g. Press et al. (2005); Těšitel et al. (2015b); Matthies (2021)) and ability to form dense populations (van Hulst et al. 1987; Mudrák and Lepš 2010; Heer et al. 2018). Despite available evidence on the negative effects of root hemiparasites on expansive species (reviewed by Těšitel et al. (2020)), only one study has investigated the effect of a root-hemiparasitic species on an alien invader (Walder et al. 2019), which, however, did not show any adverse impact of the parasite on the host species. Two reasons may explain this lack of empirical research on interactions between root hemiparasites and alien invaders. First, hemiparasites and alien invaders may not share the same habitats. For instance, in Central Europe, an analysis of habitats of hemiparasitic species identified natural and semi-natural communities as their principal habitats (Těšitel et al. 2015a). These habitats are simultaneously characterised by low levels of alien invasions (Pyšek et al. 2012). Second, establishing a parasitic association with alien invaders may be difficult. Although hemiparasites are mostly host generalists, host quality (i.e. the extent of support of parasite growth) varies between species (e.g. Rowntree et al. (2014); Matthies (2017, 2021)). Native hemiparasitic species lack a common evolutionary history with non-indigenous plants. The lack of experience with an alien host may limit a hemiparasite’s efficiency of resource withdrawal on the one hand, but also the host’s resistance or tolerance to parasitism on the other, as predicted by the biotic resistance hypothesis. Compatibility with a host may also be affected by high intra- and interpopulation genotypic variability of the annual hemiparasites (Mutikainen et al. 2000; Rowntree et al. 2011; Unachukwu et al. 2017; Rowntree and Craig 2019; Moncalvillo and Matthies 2023). The recognised ability to rapidly evolve ecotypes adapted to various environmental conditions (Zopfi 1993; Pleines et al. 2013) may further facilitate the interaction with novel host species.

In this paper, we investigated the interactions between root-hemiparasitic Rhinanthus alectorolophus and Melampyrum arvense (Orobanchaceae) and the alien invasive clonal species Solidago gigantea and Symphyotrichum lanceolatum (Asteraceae). First, we examined the anatomy of haustoria to determine whether the hemiparasites can form functional parasitic connections with the novel hosts. Second, we set up a comprehensive pot experiment to study the effect of host identity on hemiparasite performance and the impact of hemiparasite infection on the two hosts. We expected to identify differences in vitality (measured by biomass production) of the two hemiparasite species (hypothesis 1), which should be reflected by a difference in host suppression (hypothesis 2). Specifically, we expected lower host suppression by Rhinanthus, given its general preference for grass or legume hosts (Matthies 2021), than in Melampyrum, which has been shown to flourish when attached to various forbs, including many Asteraceae (Matthies 2017). Furthermore, we investigated the potential selection of hemiparasite lineages and their effect on host–hemiparasite interactions. To do so, we used seeds from hemiparasites that had grown for two years in monoculture stands of the two host species and compared their performance to plants from the original population from a species-rich grassland (‘naïve’ plants), i.e. all tested seed sources per hemiparasite species originated from a single hemiparasite population. We hypothesised that growth in a host monoculture might lead to a selection of lineages better adapted to the given host, reflected by improved hemiparasite growth and possibly a more deleterious effect on that host (hypothesis 3).

Materials and methods

Study species

Melampyrum arvense L. and Rhinanthus alectorolophus (Scop.) Pollich are annual xylem-feeding root-hemiparasitic species native to Europe. Melampyrum typically grows in dry grasslands and steppes, while Rhinanthus alectorolophus (Scop.) Pollich favours dry to mesic grasslands. Solidago gigantea Aiton and Symphyotrichum lanceolatum (Willd.) G. L. Nesom are perennial rhizomatous species from the Asteraceae family, originating from North America (Pyšek et al. 2012). They began spreading across Europe in the 19th century and have become serious invaders (Weber and Jakobs 2005; Jedlička and Prach 2006; Axmanová et al. 2021). Solidago and Symphyotrichum are considered typical wetland species, but they also occur in disturbed anthropogenic habitats, poorly-managed fields, pastures and meadows within their native range (Chmielewski and Semple 2001; Weber and Jakobs 2005). Solidago has a broader ecological niche in the invaded areas, also occupying drier and nutrient-poorer soils (Weber and Jakobs 2005). Both species have a perennial rhizome, which, in the spring, produces a cohort of shoots that start to flower in late summer (Solidago) or early autumn (Symphyotrichum) and yield numerous tiny wind-dispersed seeds. Jedlička and Prach (2006) noted the high viability of Symphyotrichum lanceolatum seeds, which, combined with the effective ability to penetrate established vegetation, triggers the high invasive potential of this species.

Haustorial connection

We initiated a pilot cultivation trial to examine the anatomy of haustorial connections between the hemiparasites and the two invasive hosts. The cultivation was set up in the experimental garden of the Department of Botany and Zoology at Masaryk University in Brno, Czech Republic. The hemiparasites’ seeds were collected from species-rich vegetation in the summer of 2019 (see Suppl. material 1: appendix S1 for localisations). In the autumn of 2019, we transplanted rhizomes of host species into 15 × 15 × 20 cm pots (narrower at the bottom, corresponding to 3.6 litres), filled with a mixture of peat and garden soil (ratio 1:3). In October, we sowed 20 hemiparasite seeds on each pot. We established five replicates for each hemiparasite-host combination.

In June 2020, we rinsed the hosts’ roots, harvested the haustoria and preserved them in 70% ethanol. Following the method of Soukup and Tylová (2014), we dehydrated the samples, transferred them to anhydrous butanol, infiltrated and then embedded them in paraffin. We prepared 12 µm sections using a sliding microtome (Reichert, Wien, Austria) and de-waxed and stained them with phloroglucinol-HCl (Wiesner solution) (Liljegren 2010) to colour the lignified cell walls.

Cultivation experiment

We established the main pot experiment in autumn 2021 to investigate and quantify the outcome of the novel interactions for the hemiparasites and the extent of host suppression. For each hemiparasitic species, we used three seed sources: (i) seeds from a wild population growing in a species-rich grassland and (ii) seeds from plants originally obtained from the same populations as in (i), but which had been growing since 2019 in monostands of the two invasive host species. The aim was to investigate the potential selection of genotypes more adapted to the specific hosts. More specifically, the monostands were mown in the autumn of 2019, after which we sowed the hemiparasites’ seeds. In 2020, the monostands with hemiparasites were mown in July and October. We collected ripe hemiparasite seeds from all populations from June to July 2021. The seeds were stored at room temperature before use. As both host species produce a dense rhizome network in the topsoil layer, we collected soil blocks with rhizomes from monostands of each host species to establish host cultivation in September 2021. First, we removed the above-ground biomass and then cut approx. 12 × 12 cm rhizome blocks with a spade. The rhizomes were then inserted into the same pots and soil substrate described in the chapter ‘Haustorial connection’. See Suppl. material 1: appendix S1 for GPS coordinates of the sites of hemiparasites’ seed and host plants’ origin.

The experimental design comprised: (i) an uninfected control treatment (host species without hemiparasite seed addition) and three types of ‘infected’ treatments (with hemiparasite seeds addition), i.e. treatments (ii) ‘naïve’ (seeds of hemiparasites originating from a wild population), (iii) ‘home’ (seeds from hemiparasites growing for two years in a monostand of a host species and then sown with the same host species in the pot) and (iv) ‘cross’ (seeds from hemiparasites growing for two years in a monostand of one host species and then sown into the pot with the other host species) (see the scheme of the origin of hemiparasites’ seeds in Fig. 1). Both hemiparasites were sown with both invasive species, resulting in 14 treatments. Each treatment consisted of 10 replicates of the pots, totalling 140 pots. Each pot in the ‘infected’ treatments (treatments ii–iv) received 40 seeds of one of the hemiparasitic species. Seeds were spread on the surface and gently mixed with the topsoil layer. The pots were then placed in the experimental garden in Brno, following a completely randomised design and irrigated. During spring 2022, the pots were irrigated as necessary. In April 2022, seedlings of non-target species were removed from the pots. The pots were spaced 30 cm apart and their position within the experimental matrix was changed three times before harvest at the beginning of June 2022.

Figure 1.

Scheme of origin of the hemiparasites’ seeds used in the cultivation experiment. In October 2019, seeds of Melampyrum arvense and Rhinanthus alectorolophus from a single population per species, originating from a species-rich grassland, were sown in monostands of the host species Solidago gigantea and Symphyotrichum lanceolatum. By 2021, hemiparasite seeds collected from the host species’ monostands and the original hemiparasite population were used in the cultivation experiment resulting in three types of hemiparasite seed sources: ‘naïve’, ‘home’ and ‘cross’.

The experiment was harvested during hemiparasite flowering. We cut the above-ground biomass and counted the number of host shoots and hemiparasitic plants that survived in each pot. The hemiparasite and host biomass from each pot were dried separately at 80 °C and weighed. Schmid et al. (1995) revealed a strong dependency of sexual reproduction and clonal growth on plant size as well as a threshold size for sexual reproduction in Symphyotrichum lanceolatum and Solidago canadensis, a species closely related to Solidago gigantea. We thus expected the vegetative biomass to reflect host fitness and reproductive potential sufficiently.

Statistical analyses

Initially, we conducted an exploratory analysis of patterns in counts of hemiparasite individuals, host ramets and above-ground biomass production to identify pots that were not representative due to insufficient host or hemiparasite recruitment. Only pots with at least six host shoots and three hemiparasite individuals (in infected treatments) were subsequently included in the analysis (n = 132 out of 140 pots). Scatterplots of biomass vs. individual or shoot counts (Suppl. material 1: appendices S2, S3) demonstrated low correlations, indicating compensatory growth in pots retained for the analysis.

We used linear models to analyse the following parameters: hemiparasite above-ground biomass, the number of individuals, mean biomass per individual and host above-ground biomass, the number of shoots and mean biomass per shoot. All variables were log-transformed before analysis to improve the normality of residuals and homogeneity of variances. The analysis of each parameter, used as response variables, was conducted at two levels: (i) the species-level model included hemiparasite, host species and their interaction as predictors. Seed-source treatments were disregarded in this analysis; (ii) seed-source analysis consisted of a series of linear models, one for each host–hemiparasite combination, with seed-source treatment as a single predictor. In this analysis, we set treatment contrasts with the ‘naïve’ treatment as the baseline level, to which the two other treatments were compared. Only biomass data were tested in the seed-source level analysis.

We first built a saturated model for each analysis with all candidate predictors and interactions. Individual terms of the saturated models were tested by an F-test, the results of which are reported in ANOVA tables as in a classical two-way ANOVA with interactions. Non-significant (P > 0.05) terms were subsequently removed from the models in the backward predictor selection procedure. Non-significant main effects were retained if a predictor was involved in a significant interaction. The resulting minimal adequate models were then used to extract regression coefficients and their associated tests of significance. This approach was allowed by the nature of our data coming from a manipulative experiment with a balanced design, which implies the orthogonality of the predictors. We acknowledge that the orthogonality was not perfect because we removed a few pots with low establishment of hosts or parasites. Still, the collinearity between the tested effects (host and parasite predictors) was minimal as measured by the phi-coefficient (φ = 0.026; χ1 = 0.0084; P = 0.927), which justifies the validity of the interaction-term testing and supports backward selection as a suitable model-selection approach. All analyses were performed in R, version 4.2.2 (R Core Team 2022).


Functional haustorial connection

Both hemiparasitic species formed fully developed haustoria on the roots and rhizomes of both host species. In all cases, the xylem bridge from hemiparasite haustoria reached the xylem vessels of the hosts. No signs of a defensive reaction by the hosts were observed (Fig. 2).

Figure 2.

Cross sections of haustorial connections between two root-hemiparasitic species and their hosts. In the hemiparasite haustoria (ha), there is a hyaline body (hb), the vascular core of the haustorium (vc) and a xylem bridge (xb) leading to host xylem vessels (xv) in the host root (hr); xx – xylem–xylem contact.

Host–Hemiparasite interaction on the species level

Hosts successfully resprouted from rhizomes in the transferred soil blocks; only four pots had to be omitted because of insufficient sprouting (Fig. 3, Suppl. material 1: appendix S4). The number of hemiparasite plants varied in the pots, but their establishment was generally successful, with only four pots omitted from the experiment due to poor hemiparasite establishment. On average, 10.9 Melampyrum plants were harvested in pots with both host species (max. 20 individuals). In contrast, significantly higher average numbers of Rhinanthus plants, 16.2 and 13.2, were harvested in pots with Solidago and Symphyotrichum (max. 23 individuals), respectively (Table 1, Fig. 4, Suppl. material 2 for the primary data). Hemiparasite biomass production differed between the two species and was also significantly affected by the host identity (Table 1). Specifically, Melampyrum grew larger than Rhinanthus (t110 = 11.25, P < 10-6) and Solidago supported a more vigorous hemiparasite growth than Symphyotrichum (t110 = 10.12, P < 10-6). These effects were additive, i.e. the difference in the host quality had a similar impact on both hemiparasitic species (Fig. 4). Similar trends and significant interactions were also found concerning the average biomass of hemiparasite individuals (Table 1). Melampyrum individuals were consistently larger than Rhinanthus and both hemiparasitic species produced larger specimens on Solidago than on Symphyotrichum. However, this trend was less pronounced in Rhinanthus, i.e. Rhinanthus individuals growing with Symphyotrichum were larger than expected by additive effects (t109 = 2.57, P = 0.012; Fig. 4).

Figure 3.

Representative pots for each hemiparasite seed-source treatment (‘cross’, ‘home’, ‘naïve’) and the uninfected control. Solidago gigantea (left) and Symphyotrichum lanceolatum (right) are infected by Melampyrum arvense (top) or Rhinanthus alectorolophus (bottom). The bottom photo is flipped vertically for clarity of the experiment presentation. Photographic documentation of all experimental pots is provided in Suppl. material 1: appendix S4. Scale bars: 50 cm.

Figure 4.

Effects of host species on the total biomass, number of individuals per pot and average biomass of the individuals of the two hemiparasitic species. Boxplots represent median, quartiles and ranges. See Table 1 for the ANOVA tables summarising significance tests. Note the logarithmic scale of the y-axes.

Table 1.

Analysis of variance tables summarising the effects of hemiparasite and host species identity on the growth of hemiparasites and hosts.

Response Effect df Sum Sq. F P
Hemiparasite biomass Hemiparasite 1 13.72 121.95 < 10-6
Host 1 11.65 103.48 < 10-6
Hemiparasite × Host 1 0.24 2.10 0.15
Residuals 109 12.28
Hemiparasite count per pot Hemiparasite 1 3.89 19.64 < 10-4
Host 1 0.35 1.75 0.19
Hemiparasite × Host 1 0.29 1.46 0.23
Residuals 109 21.60
Hemiparasite average biomass Hemiparasite 1 32.23 203.10 < 10-6
Host 1 7.97 50.22 < 10-6
Hemiparasite × Host 1 1.05 6.61 0.011
Residuals 109 17.30
Host biomass Hemiparasite* 2 16.11 46.12 < 10-6
Host 1 0.02 0.13 0.72
Hemiparasite × Host 2 7.69 22.00 < 10-6
Residuals 126 22.00
Host shoot count per pot Hemiparasite* 2 2.53 13.09 < 10-5
Host 1 5.07 52.42 < 10-6
Hemiparasite × Host 2 0.31 1.59 0.21
Residuals 126 12.18
Host shoot average biomass Hemiparasite* 2 7.28 18.35 < 10-6
Host 1 5.77 29.10 < 10-6
Hemiparasite × Host 2 5.04 12.71 < 10-5
Residuals 126 24.99

Regarding host suppression, we identified strong interactive effects of host and hemiparasite species identities on the host biomass (Table 1). The hemiparasitic species significantly reduced host biomass relative to uninfected controls (Melampyrum: t126 = -10.1, P < 10-6, Rhinanthus: t126 = -4.53, P < 10-4), but the suppression was significantly more pronounced in Solidago infected by Melampyrum (t126 = 4.50, P < 10-5; Fig. 5). Overall, Solidago biomass was reduced by 77.6% and 49.1% on average when infected by Melampyrum and Rhinanthus, respectively. Symphyotrichum biomass was reduced by 31.6% and 35.2% on average by Melampyrum and Rhinanthus, respectively. Host biomass was reduced by decreasing the number of host shoots or reducing the average biomass of host shoots. While Melampyrum acted in both ways, Rhinanthus mainly decreased the average host shoot biomass (Fig. 5). In detail, Melampyrum reduced the number of host shoots per pot (t128 = -4.05, P < 10-4) by 33% in Solidago and 21% in Symphyotrichum. The effect of Rhinanthus on the host shoot number was not significant (t128 = -0.76, P = 0.45). Both Melampyrum (t126 = -7.07, P < 10-6) and Rhinanthus (t126 = -4.00, P < 0.001) reduced the average biomass of host shoots. While Rhinanthus reduced the average shoot biomass of both hosts to a similar extent, Melampyrum was significantly less deleterious to Symphyotrichum than to Solidago (t126 = 3.98, P < 0.001).

Figure 5.

Effect of hemiparasite infection on total biomass, number of shoots per pot and average shoot biomass of the two host species. Boxplots represent median, quartiles and non-outlier ranges, with outliers displayed as points outside the non-outlier ranges. Note the logarithmic scale of the y-axes. See Table 1 for the ANOVA tables summarising significance tests.

Effect of the hemiparasite seed origin on the interaction

We identified the significant effects of the hemiparasite seed-source treatments on some interactions. Total hemiparasite biomass was affected in the case of Melampyrum growing on Solidago (R2 = 0.29, F2,24 = 4.98, P = 0.016) and Rhinanthus growing on Symphyotrichum (R2 = 0.32, F2,25 = 5.81, P = 0.008). Specifically, Melampyrum plants in the ‘cross’ treatment (seeds from plants previously grown with the alternative invasive host) produced significantly less biomass (t24 = -2.80, P = 0.010) compared to the ‘naïve’ treatment (seeds from species-rich vegetation), while the biomass of Melampyrum on Solidago from the ‘home’ (seeds from plants previously grown with the same host species) and ‘naïve’ treatment did not significantly differ (Fig. 6). Conversely, the biomass of Rhinanthus on Symphyotrichum was significantly higher in the ‘home’ treatment compared to the ‘naïve’ treatment (t25 = 3.09, P = 0.005) and the hemiparasite biomass in the ‘cross’ and ‘naïve’ treatment did not differ (Fig. 6).

Figure 6.

Effect of seed-source treatments on hemiparasite biomass production categorised by the individual host–hemiparasite combinations. Boxplots represent median, quartiles and non-outlier ranges, with outliers displayed as points outside the non-outlier ranges. P-values indicate significant effects of seed-source treatments. Note the logarithmic scale of the y-axes.

Host biomass was significantly affected only in the case of Solidago infected by Rhinanthus (R2 = 0.27, F2,27 = 5.09, P = 0.013) (Fig. 7). Here, Rhinanthus of ‘home’ and ‘cross’ treatments suppressed Solidago biomass more than ‘naïve’ Rhinanthus plants (t27 = -2.73, P = 0.011 and t27 = -2.80, P = 0.009 for ‘home’ and ‘cross’ treatments, respectively).

Figure 7.

Effect of seed-source treatments on host biomass production in infected pots categorised by the individual host–hemiparasite combinations. Boxplots represent median, quartiles and non-outlier ranges, with outliers displayed as points outside the non-outlier ranges. P-values indicate significant effects of seed-source treatments. Note the logarithmic scale of the y-axes.


The authors thank Pavel Dřevojan, Zuzana Plesková, Zdenka Preislerová, Terezie Chamrátová, Maroš Šlachtič for help with the experiment setting and harvesting and David Watson and Ramiro Bustamante for their insightful comments on the manuscript. This work was supported by the Czech Science Foundation (project 21-22488S).


  • Anastasiadi D, Venney CJ, Bernatchez L, Wellenreuther M (2021) Epigenetic inheritance and reproductive mode in plants and animals. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 36(12): 1124–1140.
  • Axmanová I, Kalusová V, Danihelka J, Dengler J, Pergl J, Pyšek P, Večeřa M, Attorre F, Biurrun I, Boch S, Conradi T, Gavilán RG, Jiménez-Alfaro B, Knollová I, Kuzemko A, Lenoir J, Leostrin A, Medvecká J, Moeslund JE, Obratov-Petkovic D, Svenning J-C, Tsiripidis I, Vassilev K, Chytrý M (2021) Neophyte invasions in European grasslands. Journal of Vegetation Science 32(2): e12994.
  • Blackburn TM, Essl F, Evans T, Hulme PE, Jeschke JM, Kühn I, Kumschick S, Marková Z, Mrugała A, Nentwig W, Pergl J, Pyšek P, Rabitsch W, Ricciardi A, Richardson DM, Sendek A, Vilà M, Wilson JRU, Winter M, Genovesi P, Bacher S (2014) A unified classification of alien species based on the magnitude of their environmental impacts. PLoS Biology 12(5): e1001850.
  • Çetinsoy S (1980) Studies on the Determination of Effective Chemicals Against Melampyrum arvense L., Harmful in Cereals Fields in Central Anatolia. Bölge Zirai Mücadele Arastima Enstitüsu, Ankara.
  • Chmielewski JG, Semple JC (2001) The biology of Canadian weeds. 113. Symphyotrichum lanceolatum (Willd.) Nesom [Aster lanceolatus Willd.] and S. lateriflorum (L.) Löve & Löve. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 81(4): 829–849. [Aster lateriflorus (L.) Britt.]
  • Decleer K, Bonte D, Van Diggelen R (2013) The hemiparasite Pedicularis palustris: ‘Ecosystem engineer’ for fen-meadow restoration. Journal for Nature Conservation 21(2): 65–71.
  • Demey A, De Frenne P, Baeten L, Verstraeten G, Hermy M, Boeckx P, Verheyen K (2015) The effects of hemiparasitic plant removal on community structure and seedling establishment in semi-natural grasslands. Journal of Vegetation Science 26(3): 409–420.
  • Divíšek J, Chytrý M, Beckage B, Gotelli NJ, Lososová Z, Pyšek P, Richardson DM, Molofsky J (2018) Similarity of introduced plant species to native ones facilitates naturalization, but differences enhance invasion success. Nature Communications 9(1): e4631.
  • Fenesi A, Botta‐Dukát Z, Miholcsa Z, Szigeti V, Molnár C, Sándor D, Szabó A, Kuhn T, Kovács‐Hostyánszki A (2023) No consistencies in abundance–impact relationships across herbaceous invasive species and ecological impact metrics. Journal of Ecology 111(5): 1120–1138.
  • Fontes EMG, Habeck DH, Slansky F (1994) Phytophagous insects associated with goldenrods (Solidago spp.) in Gainesville, Florida. The Florida Entomologist 77(2): 209–209.
  • Gao F-L, Alpert P, Yu F (2021) Parasitism induces negative effects of physiological integration in a clonal plant. The New Phytologist 229(1): 585–592.
  • Heer N, Klimmek F, Zwahlen C, Fischer M, Hölzel N, Klaus VH, Kleinebecker T, Prati D, Boch S (2018) Hemiparasite-density effects on grassland plant diversity, composition and biomass. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 32: 22–29.
  • Hejda M, Sádlo J, Kutlvašr J, Petřík P, Vítková M, Vojík M, Pyšek P, Pergl J (2021) Impact of invasive and native dominants on species richness and diversity of plant communities. Preslia 93(3): 181–201.
  • Hejduk S, Bitomský M, Pornaro C, Macolino S (2020) Establishment of a hemiparasite Rhinanthus alectorolophus and its density-dependent suppressing effect on a grass: A case study from golf roughs. Agronomy Journal 112(5): 3619–3628.
  • Kavanová M, Gloser V (2005) The use of internal nitrogen stores in the rhizomatous grass Calamagrostis epigejos during regrowth after defoliation. Annals of Botany 95: 457–463.
  • Lanta V, Liancourt P, Altman J, Černý T, Dvorský M, Fibich P, Götzenberger L, Hornych O, Miklín J, Petřík P, Pyšek P, Čížek L, Doležal J (2022) Determinants of invasion by single versus multiple plant species in temperate lowland forests. Biological Invasions 24(8): 2513–2528.
  • Lepš J, Těšitel J (2015) Root hemiparasites in productive communities should attack competitive host, and harm them to make regeneration gaps. Journal of Vegetation Science 26(3): 407–408.
  • Matthies D (2017) Interactions between a root hemiparasite and 27 different hosts: Growth, biomass allocation and plant architecture. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 24: 118–137.
  • Matthies D (2021) Closely related parasitic plants have similar host requirements and related effects on hosts. Ecology and Evolution 11(17): 12011–12024.
  • Moncalvillo B, Matthies D (2023) Performance of a parasitic plant and its effects on hosts depends on the interactions between parasite seed family and host species. AoB Plants 15(2): 1–11.
  • Mudrák O, Lepš J (2010) Interactions of the hemiparasitic species Rhinanthus minor with its host plant community at two nutrient levels. Folia Geobotanica 45(4): 407–424.
  • Mutikainen P, Salonen V, Pustinen S, Koskela T (2000) Local adaptation, resistance, and virulence in a hemiparasitic plant-host plant interaction. Evolution; International Journal of Organic Evolution 54(2): 433–440.
  • Nagy DU, Rauschert ESJ, Henn T, Cianfaglione K, Stranczinger S, Pal RW (2020) The more we do, the less we gain? Balancing effort and efficacy in managing the Solidago gigantea invasion. Weed Research 60(3): 232–240.
  • Pergl J, Sádlo J, Petrusek A, Laštuvka Z, Musil J, Perglová I, Šanda R, Šefrová H, Šíma J, Vohralík V, Pyšek P (2016) Black, Grey and Watch Lists of alien species in the Czech Republic based on environmental impacts and management strategy. NeoBiota 28: 1–37.
  • Pergl J, Vítková M, Hejda M, Kutlvašr J, Petřík P, Sádlo J, Vojík M, Dvořáčková Š, Fleischhans R, Lučanová A, Pyšek P (2023) Plant-soil interactions in the communities dominated by alien and native plants. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 59: e125721.
  • Pleines T, Esfeld K, Blattner FR, Thiv M (2013) Ecotypes and genetic structure of Rhinanthus alectorolophus (Orobanchaceae) in southwestern Germany. Plant Systematics and Evolution 299(8): 1523–1535.
  • Pyšek P, Chytrý M, Pergl J, Sádlo J, Wild J (2012) Plant invasions in the Czech Republic: Current state, introduction dynamics, invasive species and invaded habitats. Preslia 84: 575–629.
  • R Core Team (2022) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna.
  • Rau E (1970) Changes in the species spectrum of the noxious plant flora. Gesunde Pflanzen 22: 164–165.
  • Richardson DM, Pyšek P, Rejmánek M, Barbour MG, Dane Panetta F, West CJ (2000) Naturalization and invasion of alien plants: Concepts and definitions. Diversity & Distributions 6(2): 93–107.
  • Roiloa SR (2019) Clonal traits and plant invasiveness: The case of Carpobrotus N. E. Br. (Aizoaceae). Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 40: e125479.
  • Rowntree JK, Craig H (2019) The contrasting roles of host species diversity and parasite population genetic diversity in the infection dynamics of a keystone parasitic plant. Journal of Ecology 107(1): 23–33.
  • Rowntree JK, Cameron DD, Preziosi RF (2011) Genetic variation changes the interactions between the parasitic plant-ecosystem engineer Rhinanthus and its hosts. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Biological Sciences 366(1569): 1380–1388.
  • Rowntree JK, Fisher Barham D, Stewart AJA, Hartley SE (2014) The effect of multiple host species on a keystone parasitic plant and its aphid herbivores. Functional Ecology 28(4): 829–836.
  • Scharfy D, Güsewell S, Gessner MO, Venterink HO (2010) Invasion of Solidago gigantea in contrasting experimental plant communities: Effects on soil microbes, nutrients and plant – soil feedbacks. Journal of Ecology 98(6): 1379–1388.
  • Schmid B, Bazzaz FA (1987) Clonal integration and population structure in perennials: Effects of severing rhizome connections. Ecology 68(6): 2016–2022.
  • Schmid B, Bazzaz FA, Weiner J (1995) Size dependency of sexual reproduction and of clonal growth in two perennial plants. Canadian Journal of Botany 73(11): 1831–1837.
  • Schmid MW, Heichinger C, Schmid DC, Guthörl D, Gagliardini V, Bruggmann R, Aluri S, Aquino C, Schmid B, Turnbull LA, Grossniklaus U (2018) Contribution of epigenetic variation to adaptation in Arabidopsis. Nature Communications 9(1): e4446.
  • Sheppard AW, Shaw RH, Sforza R (2006) Top 20 environmental weeds for classical biological control in Europe: A review of opportunities, regulations and other barriers to adoption. Weed Research 46(2): 93–117.
  • Somodi I, Vadkerti Á, Těšitel J (2018) Thesium linophyllon parasitizes and suppresses expansive Calamagrostis epigejos. Plant Biology 20(4): 759–764.
  • Song Y, Yu F, Keser LH, Dawson W, Fischer M, Dong M, van Kleunen M (2013) United we stand, divided we fall: A meta-analysis of experiments on clonal integration and its relationship to invasiveness. Oecologia 171(2): 317–327.
  • Szymura M, Świerszcz S, Szymura TH (2022) Restoration of ecologically valuable grassland on sites degraded by invasive Solidago: Lessons from a 6-year experiment. Land Degradation & Development 33(12): 1985–1998.
  • Tang W, Zhu YZ, He HQ, Qiang S (2010) First report of Southern blight on Canadian goldenrod (Solidago canadensis) caused by Sclerotium rolfsii in China. Plant Disease 94(9): 1172–1172.
  • Těšitel J, Fibich P, De Bello F, Chytrý M, Lepš J (2015a) Habitats and ecological niches of root-hemiparasitic plants: An assessment based on a large database of vegetation plots. Preslia 87: 87–108.
  • Těšitel J, Těšitelová T, Fisher JP, Lepš J, Cameron DD (2015b) Integrating ecology and physiology of root-hemiparasitic interaction: Interactive effects of abiotic resources shape the interplay between parasitism and autotrophy. The New Phytologist 205(1): 350–360.
  • Těšitel J, Mládek J, Horník J, Těšitelová T, Adamec V, Tichý L (2017) Suppressing competitive dominants and community restoration with native parasitic plants using the hemiparasitic Rhinanthus alectorolophus and the dominant grass Calamagrostis epigejos. Journal of Applied Ecology 54(5): 1487–1495.
  • Těšitel J, Mládek J, Fajmon K, Blažek P, Mudrák O (2018) Reversing expansion of Calamagrostis epigejos in a grassland biodiversity hotspot: Hemiparasitic Rhinanthus major does a better job than increased mowing intensity. Applied Vegetation Science 21(1): 104–112.
  • Těšitel J, Cirocco RM, Facelli JM, Watling JR (2020) Native parasitic plants: Biological control for plant invasions? Applied Vegetation Science 23(3): 464–469.
  • Unachukwu NN, Menkir A, Rabbi IY, Oluoch M, Muranaka A, Elzein A, Odhiambo G, Farombi EO, Gedil M (2017) Genetic diversity and population structure of Striga hermonthica populations from Kenya and Nigeria. Weed Research 57(5): 293–302.
  • van Hulst R, Shipley B, Thériault A (1987) Why is Rhinanthus minor (Scrophulariaceae) such a good invader? Canadian Journal of Botany 65(11): 2373–2379.
  • Walder M, Armstrong JE, Borowicz VA (2019) Limiting similarity, biotic resistance, nutrient supply, or enemies? What accounts for the invasion success of an exotic legume? Biological Invasions 21(2): 435–449.
  • Wan J-Z, Wang C-J, Zimmermann NE, Li M-H, Pouteau R, Yu F-H (2021) Current and future plant invasions in protected areas: Does clonality matter? Diversity & Distributions 27(12): 2465–2478.
  • Wang Y, Chen D, Yan R, Yu F, van Kleunen M (2019) Invasive alien clonal plants are competitively superior over co-occurring native clonal plants. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 40: 125484.
  • Zhang Y, Yang X, Zhu Y, Li L, Zhang Y, Li J, Song X, Qiang S (2019) Biological control of Solidago canadensis using a bioherbicide isolate of Sclerotium rolfsii SC64 increased the biodiversity in invaded habitats. Biological Control 139: e104093.
  • Zopfi H (1993) Ecotypic variation in Rhinanthus alectorolophus (Scopoli) Pollich (Scrophulariaceae) in relation to grassland management II. The genotypic basis of seasonal ecotypes. Flora 188: 153–173.

Supplementary materials

Supplementary material 1 

Supplementary information

Tamara Těšitelová, Kateřina Knotková, Adam Knotek, Hana Cempírková, Jakub Těšitel

Data type: docx

Explanation note: appendix S1: Location of source localities of hemiparasite seeds and invasive host plants. appendix S2: Overview of the number of hemiparasite specimens and their biomass in the experimental treatments. appendix S3: Overview of host shoot counts and host biomass in the experimental treatments. appendix S4: Photographic documentation of all pots representing the experimental treatments.

This dataset is made available under the Open Database License ( The Open Database License (ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this Dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the original source and author(s) are credited.
Download file (5.56 MB)
Supplementary material 2 

Primary data table

Tamara Těšitelová, Kateřina Knotková, Adam Knotek, Hana Cempírková, Jakub Těšitel

Data type: xlsx

This dataset is made available under the Open Database License ( The Open Database License (ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this Dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the original source and author(s) are credited.
Download file (21.15 kb)
login to comment