Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-swqlm Total loading time: 0.442 Render date: 2021-12-09T11:38:11.513Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Native Plant Recovery following Three Years of Common Reed (Phragmites australis) Control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 November 2018

Christopher L. Zimmerman*
Affiliation:
Conservation Ecologist, The Nature Conservancy, New York Division, Albany, NY, USA
Rebecca R. Shirer
Affiliation:
Lead Scientist for Analysis/Planning, The Nature Conservancy, New York Division, Albany, NY, USA
Jeffrey D. Corbin
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, Union College, Schenectady, NY, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Christopher L. Zimmerman, The Nature Conservancy, New York Division, 195 New Karner Road, Suite 201, Albany, NY 12205. (Email: czimmerman@tnc.org)
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Projects that aim to control invasive species often assume that a reduction of the target species will increase native species abundance. However, reports of the responses of native species following exotic species control are relatively rare. We assessed the recovery of the native community in five tidal wetland locations in which we attempted to eradicate the invasive common reed [Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud.]. We tested whether 3 yr of treatment were able to eradicate Phragmites and promote recovery of the native plant community. After 3 yr of treatment, Phragmites density declined sharply in all treated stands, though it was not eradicated in any of them. Native plant cover increased significantly in treated areas, and community composition, particularly in smaller stands, converged toward that of uninvaded habitat. Thus, even within the relatively short timescale of the treatments and monitoring, significant progress was made toward achieving the goals of controlling Phragmites infestations and promoting native biodiversity. There was a trend toward greater promise for success in smaller stands than larger stands, as has been observed in other studies. A greater emphasis on monitoring whole-community responses to exotic plant control, across a range of conditions, would enhance our ability to plan and design successful management strategies.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2018 

Introduction

Invasive plant control is often undertaken with the explicit goal of conserving native biodiversity. Unfortunately, the two goals—eradication of exotic species and promotion of native species—are not necessarily coupled (Ogden and Rejmánek Reference Ogden and Rejmánek2005). For example, control methods including herbicide application and biological control can cause damage to native species that the project is supposed to conserve (e.g., Denslow and D’Antonio Reference Denslow and D’Antonio2005; Rinella et al. Reference Rinella, Maxwell, Fay, Weaver and Sheley2009; Simberloff Reference Simberloff2012; Thomas and Reid Reference Thomas and Reid2007). Furthermore, open niches created by the removal of the target species may be colonized by other exotic species rather than the intended native species (Abella Reference Abella2014; Case et al. Reference Case, Harrison and Cornell2016; DeMeester and Richter Reference DeMeester and Richter2010; Luken et al. Reference Luken, Kuddes and Tholemeier1997; Turner et al. Reference Turner, Scott and Spafford2008; Zavaleta et al. Reference Zavaleta, Hobbs and Mooney2001).

Management Implications

The ability of habitat managers to design invasive plant control strategies that will promote the recovery of native biodiversity is hampered by a paucity of data monitoring plant community responses. Our study demonstrated that relatively short-term herbicide treatments reduced abundance of, but did not eradicate, Phragmites and also increased native plant cover. Future studies should expand on our findings to test the whole-community response to a wider range of treatments, in various environmental conditions, and for longer timescales. Such information will aid in the design of exotic plant strategies that facilitate ecosystem recovery including native species composition and abundance. In the meantime, our study demonstrates multiple positive outcomes of Phragmites control, including recovery of native plant community composition.

Unfortunately, data regarding community responses to invasive species control are scarce (Abella Reference Abella2014; Denslow and D’Antonio Reference Denslow and D’Antonio2005; Hazelton et al. Reference Hazelton, Mozdzer, Burdick, Kettenring and Whigham2014; Kettenring and Adams Reference Kettenring and Adams2011; Reid et al. Reference Reid, Morin, Downey, French and Virtue2009). For example, of the 95 papers describing control of “weeds of national concern” in Australia examined by Reid et al. (Reference Reid, Morin, Downey, French and Virtue2009), only 18 assessed the response of the plants besides the target species. Kettenring and Adams (Reference Kettenring and Adams2011) found that only 84 of the 355 studies of exotic species control included any monitoring of postcontrol vegetation; of those, 49 reported exotic species response only, 10 reported native species response only, and 25 reported both. Treatment area was also typically small, as 46% of the reported studies applied exotic species control to areas smaller than 30 m2. Hazelton et al. (Reference Hazelton, Mozdzer, Burdick, Kettenring and Whigham2014) highlighted the paucity of studies assessing community response to common reed [Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud.] control as a critical knowledge gap. Where native response to invasive species control has been examined, it often falls short of stated goals (Abella Reference Abella2014; González et al. Reference González, Sher, Anderson, Bay, Bean, Bissonnete, Bourgeois, Cooper, Dohrenwend, Eichhorst, El Waer, Kennard, Harms-Weissinger, Henry, Makarick, Ostoja, Reynolds, Robinson and Shafroth2017; Martin and Blossey Reference Martin and Blossey2013; Reid et al. Reference Reid, Morin, Downey, French and Virtue2009).

Habitat managers’ ability to design successful strategies to promote native biodiversity is hampered by this lack of quantitative information. A variety of authors have called for greater emphasis on monitoring in conservation and management projects, both for the benefit of the project itself (e.g., “adaptive management”) and as a guide for future projects (e.g., Lyons et al. Reference Lyons, Runge, Laskowski and Kendall2008; Nichols and Williams Reference Nichols and Williams2006). Such data, including the responses of the plant community and the target species to treatments, can provide objective evidence of what techniques, across a range of conditions, are best employed to achieve specific management goals.

We monitored the response of the plant community to repeated herbicide treatments designed to eradicate P. australis (hereafter Phragmites) from a tidal marsh complex. We assessed Phragmites abundance, vegetation cover, and community composition starting before treatments began and for 3 yr following treatments in five Phragmites stands that ranged from 0.04 to 0.8 ha in size. We tested whether 3 yr of treatment were able to eradicate Phragmites and increase the cover of native species. We also compared species composition in treated and uninvaded reference areas to assess plant community recovery following treatment. By comparing the responses across a range of infestation sizes, we can suggest conditions in which management goals are most likely to succeed and whether those conditions align with already established expectations regarding exotic species control (e.g., Quirion et al. Reference Quirion, Simek, Dávalos and Blossey2018; Rejmánek and Pitcairn Reference Rejmánek and Pitcairn2002).

Materials and Methods

Phragmites is capable of forming dense stands that decrease plant species richness and cover (Ailstock et al. Reference Ailstock, Norman and Bushmann2001; Warren et al. Reference Warren, Fell, Grimsby, Buck, Rilling and Fertik2001). Retrospective studies using historical aerial photographs have documented the replacement of plant communities dominated by cattail (Typha spp.) and saltmeadow cordgrass [Spartina patens (Aiton) Muhl.] by Phragmites (Wilcox et al. Reference Wilcox, Petrie, Maynard and Meyer2003; Winogrond and Kiviat Reference Winogrond and Kiviat1997). Attempts to remove established stands of Phragmites or control its spread employ a wide array of cultural, mechanical, and chemical methods (Hazelton et al. Reference Hazelton, Mozdzer, Burdick, Kettenring and Whigham2014; Marks et al. Reference Marks, Lapin and Randall1994). Herbicide application is the predominant technique used by managers (Hazelton et al. Reference Hazelton, Mozdzer, Burdick, Kettenring and Whigham2014; Martin and Blossey Reference Martin and Blossey2013) and is considered to be the most effective (Marks et al. Reference Marks, Lapin and Randall1994; Warren et al. Reference Warren, Fell, Grimsby, Buck, Rilling and Fertik2001).

Study Site

We conducted our experiment in Ramshorn Marsh, an approximately 308-ha freshwater tidal wetland located on the west shore of the Hudson River, New York, USA (42° 12′ N; 73° 51′ W; Figure 1) (Alldred et al. Reference Alldred, Baines and Findlay2016). This marsh contained five wetland plant communities: mudflat, Typha marsh, mixed marsh, Phragmites, and wooded swamp. The Typha and mixed marsh communities constituted 45 ha of the site and were dominated by narrowleaf cattail (Typha angustifolia L.), green arrow-arum [Peltandra virginica (L.) Raf. ex Schott], spotted touch-me-not (Impatiens capensis Meerb.), and single-veined sweetflag (Acorus calamus L.). They also contained several statewide and regionally rare plant species, including northern beggarticks (Bidens hyperborea Greene) and swamp lousewort (Pedicularis lanceolata Michx.). Five Phragmites stands were present in the wetland before treatment and were surrounded by Typha and mixed marsh. They ranged in size from 0.04 to 0.8 ha, totaled 1.5 ha, and comprised ~3% of the emergent marsh area (Figure 1). The age of each infestation was not known, though the larger ones were visible in 1998 aerial photos, meaning they were established at least 12 yr before the start of treatment.

Figure 1 Locations of five Phragmites stands in Ramshorn Marsh along the Hudson River, NY. Community types—Phragmites, emergent marsh (e.g., Typha and mixed marsh), and wooded swamp—found at the site are indicated by shading. All treatments were done in the five Phragmites stands, and sampling was done in the Phragmites and emergent marsh habitats. Inset map depicts the location of the site within New York State.

Phragmites Treatments and Sampling Design

The five Phragmites treatment stands were sprayed with a solution of glyphosate-based herbicide (AquaPro®, SePRO Corporation, Carmel, IN) plus an aquatic-approved surfactant (LI 700®, Loveland Products, Loveland, CO) in September 2010. Four of the five Phragmites stands (1 to 4) were treated from a vehicle-mounted spray system (Marsh Master, Coast Machinery, Baton Rouge, LA); the remaining stand was treated with a low-volume backpack sprayer due to access issues. The dead Phragmites stems were knocked down in the three largest stands (1 to 3) in spring 2011. Follow-up herbicide treatments were applied in all stands in September 2011 and 2012 via backpack sprayer using a 1% solution of AquaPro with surfactant. In 2012, all Phragmites stems were flagged and mapped before treatment in an attempt to treat 100% of the stems.

We assessed treatment efficacy and vegetation recovery by surveying in and adjacent to each Phragmites infestation. Pretreatment surveying was performed in August 2009 and for 3 yr posttreatment in August in 2011 to 2013. Each year, we estimated percent cover of all plant species to the nearest 5% and counted the number of Phragmites stems in 10 to 12 randomly located 1-m2 plots within the interior of each stand. The plot locations within each stand and year were chosen spatially using a generalized random tessellation stratified survey design (Kincaid and Olsen Reference Kincaid and Olsen2013). We did not distinguish between nodding beggarticks (Bidens cernua L.) and burmarigold [Bidens laevis (L.) Britton, Sterns & Poggenb.], as specimens from this marsh often had characteristics of both species. In 2013, we completed a Phragmites stem census covering the entirety of each stand.

Each year, we sampled outside the area of the initial Phragmites infestation to characterize a reference plant community for each stand. We located 10 equidistant points along the perimeter of each stand using Xtools Pro (v. 8.2; Data East, Novosibirsk, Russia) in ArcGIS (v. 10.0; Esri, Redlands, CA) and then established a 1-m2 reference plot a random distance between 6 to 10 m away from that point in the nearest cardinal direction. This distance was chosen so as to reduce the possibility of non-target impacts to the vegetation from the herbicide application; evidence from community composition in plots 1 to 5 m away from treated patches (unpublished data) confirmed this assumption. Plots that fell within mudflat habitat were not sampled, as they were not representative of marsh habitat.

Plot locations and sampling data are available from the Dryad Digital Repository (Reference Zimmerman, Shirer and CorbinZimmerman et al. 2018).

Statistical Analysis

We calculated the mean number of live Phragmites stems, mean percent cover of native species, and mean percent cover of non-Phragmites exotic species for each stand in each year. We tested for changes in each log-transformed dependent variable over time using separate repeated-measures analyses.

We assessed the recovery of native vegetation by comparing community composition in treated Phragmites stands with uninvaded neighboring reference plots before and after herbicide treatment. We calculated Euclidian distances for treated and reference plots in each stand in years 2009 and 2013, using percent of all species in each plot (‘vegan’ package of R). Euclidian distance was found to be the most effective of several distance methods in separating plots along a gradient of stand (RANKINDEX command in ‘vegan’), and results using other methods did not yield qualitatively different results. These distances were plotted using nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS). The final stress values of the 2009 and 2012 analyses were 0.146 and 0.139, respectively.

All analyses were performed using R (v. 3.4.2).

Results and Discussion

Conditions before Treatment Application

Before herbicide treatments began, Phragmites stem density ranged from 9.3 to 40.1 stems m−2, while percent cover of native species ranged from 40.9 to 94.4 (Figure 2A and B). These two variables were strongly negatively correlated (Pearson’s correlation coefficient = −0.91, t 3 = 4.0, P = 0.028). Specifically, the three largest stands, 1, 2, and 3, had the highest Phragmites density and the lowest percent native cover. Pretreatment cover of exotic species besides Phragmites was below 8% in all stands (Figure 2C).

Figure 2 Responses of (A) Phragmites density (stems m−2), (B) total native plant cover, and (C) total non-Phragmites exotic plant cover in each stand in 2009 (pretreatment) and 2011 to 2013. Each symbol is the mean (±1 SE) of 10 to 12 plots (1-m2) per stand.

NMDS analysis revealed sharply distinct communities in Phragmites stands versus reference stands in 2009, as invaded stands clustered to the left of the ordination space, while reference stands clustered to the right (Figure 3A). There was a further breaking out of stands within the ordination space, as invaded areas of Stands 4 and 5 plotted more closely to reference stands than did invaded areas of Stands 1, 2, and 3. There were three distinct community types: one, dominated by T. angustifolia and P. virginica, was found mostly in reference areas of Stand 5; a second, dominated by Phragmites, was found exclusively in invaded areas of Stands 1, 2, and 3; and a third community type was dominated by I. capensis, P. virginica, and the nonnative A. calamus. Within this third community type, there was a further separation between invaded (to the left side of the ordination space in Figure 3A) and uninvaded reference areas (to the right in ordination space in Figure 3A) driven by the presence/absence of Phragmites.

Figure 3 Nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) of Euclidian dissimilarity indices of (A) 2009 (pretreatment) and (B) 2013 vegetation composition in treatment (red) and reference (blue) areas. Stand number is indicated with the appropriate symbol. Dominant species in the analysis are shown by their six-letter code: ACOCAL, Acorus calamus; BIDCER, Bidens cernua/laevis; IMPCAP, Impatiens capensis; LEEORY, Leersia oryzoides; PELVIR, Peltandra virginica; PERARI, Persicaria arifolia; PHRAUS, Phragmites australis; SAGLAT, Sagittaria latifolia; TYPANG, Typha angustifolia.

Response of Phragmites to Treatments

Herbicide treatment had a dramatic negative effect on the density of live Phragmites stems (Figure 2A; repeated-measures ANOVA F(3, 12) = 94.2; P < 0.0001). Stand-wide stem census counts revealed that overall stem density in 2013 was <1.5 stems m−2 in all stands and was particularly low in Stands 4 and 5, with <50 total stems detected per stand.

Effective Phragmites control to the point of eradication frequently requires at least several more years of treatment beyond the 3 yr we applied treatment (e.g., Lombard et al. Reference Lombard, Tomassi and Ebersole2012). Phragmites abundance was very low following treatment in all stands, but the prospects for successful eradication were lower for larger stands, where some small but dense Phragmites patches persisted even after 3 yr of control. Our results suggest that smaller stands (<0.1 ha) that begin with lower stem density are easier to eliminate. Previous assessments of Phragmites control have reported successful reduction in Phragmites abundance, particularly in smaller stands (Martin and Blossey Reference Martin and Blossey2013; Quirion et al. Reference Quirion, Simek, Dávalos and Blossey2018). However, the likelihood of eradication is strongly dependent on infestation size: Quirion et al. (Reference Quirion, Simek, Dávalos and Blossey2018) reported that the probability of eradication within 7 yr was 0.83 for stands of 0.34 m2, 0.26 for 45 m2, and only 0.02 for stands of more than 3,000 m2. The challenge in eradicating large stands has been reported elsewhere for Phragmites (Myers et al. Reference Myers, Heffernan, Clarke and Field2009) and other exotic plants (Rejmánek and Pitcairn Reference Rejmánek and Pitcairn2002; Taylor and Hastings Reference Taylor and Hastings2004).

Community Response to Treatments

The total percent cover of native species in the treated marsh increased from pretreatment (2009) through the following 3 yr that Phragmites was removed (Figure 2B; repeated-measures ANOVA F(3, 12) = 7.3; P = 0.005). In 2013, total native cover per plot ranged from 65.5 to 109.5. The increase in native cover from 2009 to 2013 was particularly great in Stands 1, 2, and 3, which were larger and had the highest Phragmites density and lowest native cover before treatments began; their native cover doubled during the course of the study (Figure 2B). Cover of exotic species besides Phragmites increased significantly from 2009 to 2013 (Figure 2C, repeated measures ANOVA F(3,12) = 5.0; P = 0.018). This effect was driven by changes in Stands 1 to 3, where non-Phragmites exotic cover more than tripled; their cover remained largely unchanged in Stands 4 and 5. Exotic species that increased in cover included A. calamus, yellow iris (Iris pseudacorus L.), and purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria L.).

After 3 yr of herbicide treatment, the sharp differences in community composition that were evident in 2009 had mostly disappeared. Treated and reference stands occupied similar ordination space, except for a cluster of treated plots in the larger Stands 1, 2, and 3 that were dominated by rice cutgrass [Leersia oryzoides (L.) Sw.] and common arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia Willd.) plus the B. cernua/laevis complex (left side of Figure 3B). These species are primarily early-successional species that respond quickly to disturbed habitat. Both treatment and reference plots in Stand 5 were strongly associated with the Typha–Peltandra community identified in 2009 and plotted to the right of Figure 3B. The center of the NMDS ordination included a mixture of treatment and reference plots of mostly Stands 3 and 4, characterized by such species as I. capensis, A. calamus, and halberd-leaved tearthumb [Persicaria arifolia (L.) Haroldson].

Relatively few studies have previously documented the influence of Phragmites control on native species composition (Hazelton et al. Reference Hazelton, Mozdzer, Burdick, Kettenring and Whigham2014), but those that did reported outcomes resembling the responses we observed in the larger stands. Martin and Blossey (Reference Martin and Blossey2013) surveyed managers with respect to their restoration goals and outcomes and found that although some believed that management had increased the frequency or number of native species, few reported that management successfully restored preinvasion plant communities similar to what we saw in smaller stands. Farnsworth and Meyerson (Reference Farnsworth and Meyerson1999) reported that L. oryzoides and purple-stemmed beggarticks (Bidens connata Muhl. ex Willd.) were dominant 1 and 2 yr after Phragmites control treatments in a freshwater tidal wetland along the Connecticut River. Carlson et al. (Reference Carlson, Kowalski and Wilcox2009) found that B. cernua increased after Phragmites control in a nontidal wetland, as we did.

Synthesis: Effect of Herbicide Treatments on Community Composition

Three years of herbicide treatment led to a substantial decrease in Phragmites abundance and a recovery of the native plant community in all stands. In small stands, the community composition converged to resemble uninvaded reference ecosystems during the 3 yr of treatment. Meanwhile, native species cover in the large stands more than doubled as early-successional species colonized openings created by the loss of Phragmites. Other nonnative species also increased in cover following Phragmites removal in the larger stands, but they likely had less of an impact on community structure—for example, productivity and plant height—than would dense stands of Phragmites (Gagnon et al. Reference Gagnon, Gauthier and Lavoie2015; Lavoie Reference Lavoie2010). Though there are concerns in the literature about the environmental fate of glyphosate and surfactants used in this study (e.g., Battaglin et al. Reference Battaglin, Meyer, Kuivila and Dietze2014), chemical treatment was able to achieve the broad management goals set out at the start of the project.

Our results suggest that successful management and recovery of native biodiversity was more likely in smaller stands than larger stands. A number of Phragmites stems persisted in the larger stands even after 3 yr of treatment, to a much greater degree than in the smaller stands. Meanwhile, when we compared community composition of restored versus reference ecosystems, a common metric for assessing restoration success (e.g., Holl Reference Holl2002; Matthews and Spyreas Reference Matthews and Spyreas2010; McDonald et al. Reference McDonald, Gann, Jonson and Dixon2016; Ruiz-Jaen and Mitchell Aide Reference Ruiz-Jaen and Mitchell Aide2005), we saw more evidence of successful community recovery in smaller stands than larger ones. The larger Stands 1, 2, and 3 were mostly missing species characteristic of uninvaded habitat, while the species composition of the smaller Stands 4 and 5 converged toward that of reference ecosystems. Our findings are largely consistent with other studies that have found that exotic species control is more feasible in smaller stands than larger ones (Quirion et al. Reference Quirion, Simek, Dávalos and Blossey2018; Rejmánek and Pitcairn Reference Rejmánek and Pitcairn2002).

We caution, however, that this study reports responses within a relatively short time period relative to the longevity of the plant species and dynamics of tidal marsh ecosystems. We acknowledge that community composition in treated stands will likely continue to change beyond the initial responses we document here. Over time, the community in the larger stands could more closely resemble uninvaded tidal marsh habitat found in the reference areas (e.g., Matthews and Endress Reference Matthews and Endress2010). We hope that future studies will advance our understanding of marshlands’ responses to exotic species removal even further.

Given that exotic plant control is often undertaken with the specific goal of improving native plant biodiversity (Denslow and D’Antonio Reference Denslow and D’Antonio2005; Martin and Blossey Reference Martin and Blossey2013), more effort should be given to assessing the responses of the plant community and ecosystem processes (Hazelton et al. Reference Hazelton, Mozdzer, Burdick, Kettenring and Whigham2014). Such responses are likely to be highly context dependent, even within a single habitat or target species. Habitat managers’ ability to plan and design successful control strategies would greatly benefit from a wider foundation of studies that quantify the whole-community effects of exotic plant control.

Author ORCID

Jeffrey D. Corbin, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3377-5916.

Acknowledgments

This project was funded by the Hess Corporation and is an Environmental Benefits Project. It would not have been possible without the collaboration of Audubon New York and Scenic Hudson and without the assistance of their preserve managers: Larry Federman and Dan Sorenson. Roger Hoerl provided statistical guidance. Stuart Findlay, Troy Weldy, Jason Bried, Claude Lavoie, and two anonymous reviewers offered thoughtful comments on this article. Finally, we would especially like to thank all the interns and staff who assisted with the field data collection. No conflicts of interest have been declared.

References

Abella, SR (2014) Effectiveness of exotic plant treatments on National Park Service lands in the United States. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 7:147163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ailstock, MS, Norman, CM, Bushmann, PJ (2001) Common reed Phragmites australis: control and effects upon biodiversity in freshwater nontidal wetlands. Restor Ecol 9:4959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alldred, M, Baines, SB, Findlay, S (2016) Effects of invasive-plant management on nitrogen-removal services in freshwater tidal marshes. PLoS ONE 11:e0149813CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Battaglin, WA, Meyer, MT, Kuivila, KM, Dietze, JE (2014) Glyphosate and its degradation product AMPA occur frequently and widely in U.S. soils, surface water, groundwater, and precipitation. J Am Water Resourc Assoc 50:275290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, ML, Kowalski, KP, Wilcox, DA (2009) Promoting species establishment in a Phragmites-dominated Great Lakes coastal wetland. Nat Areas J 29:263280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Case, EJ, Harrison, S, Cornell, HV (2016) After an invasion: understanding variation in grassland community recovery following removal of a high-impact invader. Biol Invasions 18:371380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeMeester, JE, Richter, DD (2010) Restoring restoration: removal of the invasive plant Microstegium vimineum from a North Carolina wetland. Biol Invasions 12:781793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denslow, JS, D’Antonio, CM (2005) After biocontrol: assessing indirect effects of insect releases. Biol Control 35:307318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farnsworth, EJ, Meyerson, LA (1999) Species composition and inter-annual dynamics of a freshwater tidal plant community following removal of the invasive grass, Phragmites australis. Biol Invasions 1:115127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gagnon, LN, Gauthier, G, Lavoie, C (2015) Effect of the invasive common reed on the abundance, richness and diversity of birds in freshwater marshes. Anim Conserv 18:3243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González, E, Sher, AA, Anderson, RM, Bay, RF, Bean, DW, Bissonnete, GJ, Bourgeois, B, Cooper, DJ, Dohrenwend, K, Eichhorst, KD, El Waer, H, Kennard, DK, Harms-Weissinger, R, Henry, AL, Makarick, LJ, Ostoja, SM, Reynolds, LV, Robinson, WW, Shafroth, PB (2017) Vegetation response to invasive Tamarix control in southwestern U.S. rivers: a collaborative study including 416 sites. Ecol Appl 27:17891804CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hazelton, ELG, Mozdzer, TJ, Burdick, DM, Kettenring, KM, Whigham, DF (2014) Phragmites australis management in the United States: 40 years of methods and outcomes. AoB Plants 6:plu001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holl, KD (2002) Long-term vegetation recovery on reclaimed coal surface mines in the eastern USA. J Appl Ecol 39:960970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kettenring, KM, Adams, CR (2011) Lessons learned from invasive plant control experiments: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Appl Ecol 48:970979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kincaid, TM, Olsen, AR (2013) spsurvey: Spatial Survey Design and Analysis. R Package v. 2.6. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/spsurvey/index.html. Accessed: May 1, 2013Google Scholar
Lavoie, C (2010) Should we care about purple loosestrife? The history of an invasive plant in North America. Biol Invasions 12:19671999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lombard, KB, Tomassi, D, Ebersole, J (2012) Long-term management of an invasive plant: lessons from seven years of Phragmites australis control. Northeast Nat 19:181193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luken, JO, Kuddes, LM, Tholemeier, TC (1997) Response of understory species to gap formation and soil disturbance in Lonicera maackii thickets. Restor Ecol 5:229235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, JE, Runge, MC, Laskowski, HP, Kendall, WL (2008) Monitoring in the context of structured decision-making and adaptive management. J Wildl Manage 72:16831692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marks, M, Lapin, B, Randall, J (1994) Phragmites australis (P. communis): threats, management and monitoring. Nat Areas J 14:285294Google Scholar
Martin, LJ, Blossey, B (2013) The runaway weed: costs and failures of Phragmites australis management in the USA. Estuaries Coast 36:626632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, JW, Endress, AG (2010) Rate of succession in restored wetlands and the role of site context. Appl Veg Sci 13:346355Google Scholar
Matthews, JW, Spyreas, G (2010) Convergence and divergence in plant community trajectories as a framework for monitoring wetland restoration progress. J Appl Ecol 47:11281136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, T, Gann, G, Jonson, J, Dixon, K (2016) International Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration—Including Principles and Key Concepts. Washington, DC: Society for Ecological RestorationGoogle Scholar
Myers, R, Heffernan, K, Clarke, P, Field, D (2009) Management and education to control Phragmites on the seaside of Virginia’s Eastern Shore. Final Report for Year Six of the Seaside Heritage Program Submitted to USDC National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Richmond, VA: Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage Technical Report no. 09-05Google Scholar
Nichols, JD, Williams, BK (2006) Monitoring for conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 21:668673CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ogden, JAE, Rejmánek, M (2005) Recovery of native plant communities after the control of a dominant invasive plant species, Foeniculum vulgare: implications for management. Biol Conserv 125:427439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirion, B, Simek, Z, Dávalos, A, Blossey, B (2018) Management of invasive Phragmites australis in the Adirondacks: a cautionary tale about prospects of eradication. Biol Invasions 20:5973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, AM, Morin, L, Downey, PO, French, K, Virtue, JG (2009) Does invasive plant management aid the restoration of natural ecosystems? Biol Conserv 142:23422349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rejmánek, M, Pitcairn, M (2002) When is eradication of exotic pest plants a realistic goal? Pages 249253 in Veitch CR, Clout MN, eds. Turning the Tide: The Eradication of Invasive Species. Gland, Switzerland: IUCNGoogle Scholar
Rinella, MJ, Maxwell, BD, Fay, PK, Weaver, T, Sheley, RL (2009) Control effort exacerbates invasive-species problem. Ecol Appl 19:155162CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruiz-Jaen, MC, Mitchell Aide, T (2005) Restoration success: how is it being measured? Restor Ecol 13:569577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simberloff, D (2012) Risks of biological control for conservation purposes. BioControl 57:263276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, CM, Hastings, A (2004) Finding optimal control strategies for invasive species: a density-structured model for Spartina alterniflora. J Appl Ecol 41:10491057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, MB, Reid, AM (2007) Are exotic natural enemies an effective way of controlling invasive plants? Trends Ecol Evol 22:447453CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turner, PJ, Scott, JK, Spafford, H (2008) The ecological barriers to the recovery of bridal creeper (Asparagus asparagoides (L.) Druce) infested sites: impacts on vegetation and the potential increase in other exotic species. Austral Ecol 33:713722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, RS, Fell, PE, Grimsby, JL, Buck, EL, Rilling, GC, Fertik, RA (2001) Rates, patterns, and impacts of Phragmites australis expansion and effects of experimental Phragmites control on vegetation, macroinvertebrates, and fish within tidelands of the lower Connecticut River. Estuaries 24:90107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, KL, Petrie, SA, Maynard, LA, Meyer, SW (2003) Historical distribution and abundance of Phragmites australis at Long Point, Lake Erie, Ontario. J Great Lakes Res 29:664680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winogrond, HG, Kiviat, E (1997) Invasion of Phragmites australis in the tidal marshes of the Hudson River. Section VI in Nieder WC and Waldman JR, eds. Final Reports of the Tibor T. Polgar Fellowship Program, 1996. Hudson Valley, NY: Hudson River FoundationGoogle Scholar
Zavaleta, ES, Hobbs, RJ, Mooney, HA (2001) Viewing invasive species removal in a whole-ecosystem context. Trends Ecol Evol 16:454459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, CL, Shirer, R, Corbin, JD (2018) Native plant recovery following three years of common reed (Phragmites australis) control. Dryad Digital Repository. doi: 10.5061/dryad.63227hg. Accessed: September 28, 2018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1 Locations of five Phragmites stands in Ramshorn Marsh along the Hudson River, NY. Community types—Phragmites, emergent marsh (e.g., Typha and mixed marsh), and wooded swamp—found at the site are indicated by shading. All treatments were done in the five Phragmites stands, and sampling was done in the Phragmites and emergent marsh habitats. Inset map depicts the location of the site within New York State.

Figure 1

Figure 2 Responses of (A) Phragmites density (stems m−2), (B) total native plant cover, and (C) total non-Phragmites exotic plant cover in each stand in 2009 (pretreatment) and 2011 to 2013. Each symbol is the mean (±1 SE) of 10 to 12 plots (1-m2) per stand.

Figure 2

Figure 3 Nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) of Euclidian dissimilarity indices of (A) 2009 (pretreatment) and (B) 2013 vegetation composition in treatment (red) and reference (blue) areas. Stand number is indicated with the appropriate symbol. Dominant species in the analysis are shown by their six-letter code: ACOCAL, Acorus calamus; BIDCER, Bidens cernua/laevis; IMPCAP, Impatiens capensis; LEEORY, Leersia oryzoides; PELVIR, Peltandra virginica; PERARI, Persicaria arifolia; PHRAUS, Phragmites australis; SAGLAT, Sagittaria latifolia; TYPANG, Typha angustifolia.

You have Access
7
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Native Plant Recovery following Three Years of Common Reed (Phragmites australis) Control
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Native Plant Recovery following Three Years of Common Reed (Phragmites australis) Control
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Native Plant Recovery following Three Years of Common Reed (Phragmites australis) Control
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *