*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.