*significant at P<0.05, **significant at P<0.01
Dry weight (DW) of both the species was significantly affected in all
the treatments i.e. W, N, C and their interaction W × N × C (Table 2)
expect only W × C . DW of WC was low in all the
treatments under monoculture and mixed culture compared to the
WT. The growth rate of WC was much lower
than WT under the control treatment (CK) (Fig. 2b).
WT had significantly higher growth in all treatments,
but higher DW was found in flooding along with additional nitrogen
treatments (F.N and F.2N) under mixed culture. These higher DW values
indicated that aboveground and belowground biomass of WTwas increased under nutrient-rich environment and outcompeted the
competitor (Fig. 2b).
Leaf nitrogen (LN) of both the species varied significantly in all the
treatments, i.e. W, N, and their interaction W × N × C (Table 2). In the
mixed culture at CK, F and N treatments, LN of WC was
higher than WT, but under
flooding and additional nitrogen
treatments (F.N and F.2N), leaf nitrogen was higher in
WT than in WC indicated that nitrogen
addition along with water make WT more dominant
competitor then WC. In the single factor analysis like
flooding (F) and nitrogen (N, 2N) WC had significantly
higher leaf nitrogen than WT, but in combination of
nitrogen and flooding (F.N and
F.2N) WT was more successful than WC(Fig. 2c).
SLA of both the species were significantly affected by all treatment
factors i.e. W, N, C and their interaction W × N × C (Table 2).
WT had higher SLA than WC in all the
treatments due to higher leaf area and DW of WT. The SLA
of WT was much higher under mixed culture in flooding
along with additional nitrogen treatments (F.N and F.2N); this indicated
that resource richness makes invasive species more dominant than native
(Fig.2d).
Chlorophyll contents (CHI) were significant in all treatments i.e. W, N,
C and their interactions W × N × C, except W × N (Table 2). In
monoculture under all treatments chlorophyll content of
WT was lower than WC, but in mixed
culture WT had higher chlorophyll content than
WC (Fig. 2e). Chlorophyll contents of both the species
under flooding along with additional nitrogen treatments (F.N and F.2N)
were higher than CK that indicated high nitrogen and water made both the
species more successful under natural conditions.