Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-gs9qr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T20:40:17.499Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Principles for Ecologically Based Invasive Plant Management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jeremy J. James ,
Brenda S. Smith ,
Edward A. Vasquez  and
Roger L. Sheley
Jeremy J. James*
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service, Burns, OR 97720
Brenda S. Smith
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service, Burns, OR 97720
Edward A. Vasquez
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service, Burns, OR 97720
Roger L. Sheley
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service, Burns, OR 97720
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: jeremy.james@oregonstate.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Land managers have long identified a critical need for a practical and effective framework for designing restoration strategies, especially where invasive plants dominate. A holistic, ecologically based, invasive plant management (EBIPM) framework that integrates ecosystem health assessment, knowledge of ecological processes, and adaptive management into a successional management model has recently been proposed. However, well-defined principles that link ecological processes that need to be repaired to tools and strategies available to managers have been slow to emerge, thus greatly limiting the ability of managers to easily apply EBIPM across a range of restoration scenarios. The broad objective of this article is to synthesize current knowledge of the mechanisms and processes that drive plant community succession into ecological principles for EBIPM. Using the core concepts of successional management that identify site availability, species availability, and species performance as three general drivers of plant community change, we detail key principles that link management tools used in EBIPM to the ecological processes predicted to influence the three general causes of succession. Although we acknowledge that identification of principles in ecology has greatly lagged behind other fields and recognize that identification of ecological principles and the conditions in which they hold are still being developed, we demonstrate how current knowledge and future advances can be used to structure a holistic EBIPM framework that can be applied across a range of restoration scenarios.

Keywords

Ecosystem repairland managementplanningrestorationsuccession

Information

Type
Research
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , November 2010 , pp. 229 - 239
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Aarssen, L. W. 1997. High productivity in grassland ecosystems: effected by species diversity or productive species? Oikos 80:183–184.Google Scholar
Aronson, J. and LeFloch, E. 1996. Vital landscape attributes: missing tools for restoration ecology. Restor. Ecol 4:377–387.Google Scholar
Barney, J. N. and Whitlow, T. H. 2008. A unifying framework for biological invasions: the state factor model. Biol. Invasions 10:259–272.Google Scholar
Baskin, C. C. and Baskin, J. M. 2001. Seeds: Ecology, Biogeography, and Evolution of Dormancy and Germination. London Academic. 666 p.Google Scholar
Benefield, C. B., DiTomaso, J. M., Kyser, G. B., and Tschohl, A. 2001. Reproductive biology of yellow starthistle: maximizing late-season control. Weed Sci 49:83–90.Google Scholar
Berendse, F. 1994. Competition between plant populations at low and high nutrient supplies. Oikos 71:253–260.Google Scholar
Berendse, F. and Aerts, R. 1987. Nitrogen-use-efficiency: a biologically meaningful definition? Funct. Ecol 1:293–296.Google Scholar
Berendse, F., Elberse, W. T., and Geerts, R. 1992. Competition and nitrogen loss from plants in grassland ecosystems. Ecology 73:46–53.Google Scholar
Berryman, A. A. 2003. On principles, laws and theory in population ecology. Oikos 103:695–701.Google Scholar
Bloom, A. J., Chapin, F. S., and Mooney, H. A. 1985. Resource limitation in plants—an economic analogy. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst 16:363–392.Google Scholar
Botkin, D. B. 1975. Functional groups of organisms in model systems. Pages 98–102. In Levin, S. A. ed. Ecosystem Analysis and Predictions. Philadelphia Society for Industrial and applied Mathematics.Google Scholar
Burke, M. J. W. and Grime, J. P. 1996. An experimental study of plant community invasibility. Ecology 77:776–790.Google Scholar
Cairns, J. 1993. Is restoration ecology practical. Restor. Ecol 1:3–7.Google Scholar
Caldwell, M. M., Richards, J. H., Johnson, D. A., Nowak, R. S., and Dzurec, R. S. 1981. Coping with herbivory-photosynthetic capacity and resource allocation in two semi-arid Agropyron bunchgrasses. Oecologia 50:14–24.Google Scholar
Catford, J. A., Jansson, R., and Nilsson, C. 2009. Reducing redundancy in invasion ecology by integrating hypotheses into a single theoretical framework. Divers. Distrib 15:22–40.Google Scholar
Chapin, F. S. 1980. The mineral nutrition of wild plants. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst 11:233–260.Google Scholar
Charnov, E. L. and Schaffer, W. M. 1973. Life history consequence of natural selection: Cole's result revisited. Am. Nat 107:791–793.Google Scholar
Chesson, P. and Huntly, N. 1997. The roles of harsh and fluctuating conditions in the dynamics of ecological communities. Am. Nat 150:519–553.Google Scholar
Clark, C. J., Poulsen, J. R., Levey, D. J., and Osenberg, C. W. 2007. Are plant populations seed limited? a critique and meta-analysis of seed addition experiments. Am. Nat 170:128–142.Google Scholar
Clewell, A. and Rieger, J. P. 1997. What practitioners need from restoration ecologists. Restor. Ecol 5:350–354.Google Scholar
Coley, P. D., Bryant, J. P., and Chapin, F. S. 1985. Resource availability and plant antiherbivore defense. Science 230:895–899.Google Scholar
Daehler, C. C. 2003. Performance comparisons of co-occurring native and alien invasive plants: Implications for conservation and restoration. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst 34:183–211.Google Scholar
Dale, V. H., Brown, S., Haeuber, R. A., Hobbs, N. T., Huntly, N., Naiman, R. J., Riebsame, W. E., Turner, M. G., and Valone, T. J. 2000. Ecological principles and guidelines for managing the use of land. Ecol. Appl 10:639–670.Google Scholar
Davis, M. A., Grime, J. P., and Thompson, K. 2000. Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invasibility. J. Ecol 88:528–534.Google Scholar
Diaz, S., Hodgson, J. G., Thompson, K., et al. 2004. The plant traits that drive ecosystems: evidence from three continents. J. Veg. Sci 15:295–304.Google Scholar
DiVittorio, C. T., Corbin, J. D., and D'Antonio, C. M. 2007. Spatial and temporal patterns of seed dispersal: an important determinant of grassland invasion. Ecol. Appl 17:311–316.Google Scholar
Drake, J. A. 1991. Community–assembly mechanisms and the structure of an experimental species ensemble. Am. Nat 137:1–26.Google Scholar
Dukes, J. S. 2002. Species composition and diversity affect grassland susceptibility and response to invasion. Ecol. Appl 12:602–617.Google Scholar
Egler, F. E. 1952. Vegetation science concepts, I: initial floristic composition, a factor in old-field vegetation development. Vegetatio 4:412–417.Google Scholar
Fargione, J. E. and Tilman, D. 2005. Diversity decreases invasion via both the sampling and complementarity effects. Ecol. Lett 8:604–611.Google Scholar
Fraser, L. H. and Grime, J. P. 1999. Interacting effects of herbivory and fertility on a synthesized plant community. J. Ecol 87:514–525.Google Scholar
Funk, J. L. and Vitousek, P. M. 2007. Resource-use efficiency and plant invasion in low-resource systems. Nature 446:1079–1081.Google Scholar
Grime, J. P. 1977. Evidence for existence of three primary strategies in plants and its relevance to ecological and evolutionary theory. Am. Nat 111:1169–1194.Google Scholar
Grime, J. P. 1987. Dominant and subordinate components of plant communities—implications for succession, stability and diversity. Pages 413–428. In Gray, A. J., Edwards, P. J., and Crawley, M. J. eds. Colonization, Succession and Stability. Oxford, UK Blackwell.Google Scholar
Grime, J. P. 1998. Benefits of plant diversity to ecosystems: immediate, filter and founder effects. J. Ecol 86:902–910.Google Scholar
Grotkopp, E. and Rejmanek, M. 2007. High seedling relative growth rate and specific leaf area are traits of invasive species: phylogenetically independent contrasts of woody angiosperms. Am. J. Bot 94:526–532.Google Scholar
Gurevitch, J., Scheiner, S. M., and Fox, G. A. 2002. The Ecology of Plants. Sunderland, MA Sinauer.Google Scholar
Harper, J. L. 1970. The shapes and size of seeds. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst 1:327–356.Google Scholar
Harper, J. L. 1977. Population Biology of Plants. London Academic. 892 p.Google Scholar
Harper, J. L., Williams, J. T., and Sagar, G. R. 1965. The behavior of seeds in soil, I: the heterogeneity of soil surfaces and its role in determining the establishment of plants from seed. J. Ecol 53:273–286.Google Scholar
Harris, G. A. and Wilson, A. M. 1970. Competition for moisture among seedlings of annual and perennial grasses as influenced by root elongation at low temperatures. Ecology 51:529–534.Google Scholar
Hastings, A., Cuddington, K., Davies, K. F., et al. 2005. The spatial spread of invasions: new developments in theory and evidence. Ecol. Lett 8:91–101.Google Scholar
Hempy-Mayer, K. and Pyke, D. A. 2008. Defoliation effects on Bromus tectorum seed production: Implications for grazing. Range. Ecol. Manag 61:116–123.Google Scholar
Hobbs, R. J. and Harris, J. A. 2001. Restoration ecology: repairing the Earth's ecosystems in the new millennium. Restor. Ecol 9:239–246.Google Scholar
Hobbs, R. J. and Huenneke, L. F. 1992. Disturbance, diversity, and invasion: implications for conservation. Conserv. Biol 6:324–337.Google Scholar
Hobbs, R. J. and Norton, D. A. 1996. Towards a conceptual framework for restoration ecology. Restor. Ecol 4:93–110.Google Scholar
Hooper, D. U. and Vitousek, P. M. 1997. The effects of plant composition and diversity on ecosystem processes. Science 277:1302–1305.Google Scholar
James, J. J. 2008. Leaf nitrogen productivity as a mechanism driving the success of invasive annual grasses under low and high nitrogen supply. J. Arid Environ 72:1775–1784.Google Scholar
James, J. J. and Drenovsky, R. E. 2007. A basis for relative growth rate differences between native and invasive forb seedlings. Range. Ecol. Manag 60:395–400.Google Scholar
King, E. G. and Hobbs, R. J. 2006. Identifying linkages among conceptual models of ecosystem degradation and restoration: towards an integrative framework. Restor. Ecol 14:369–378.Google Scholar
Korner, C., Stocklin, J., Reuther-Thiebaud, L., and Pelaez-Riedl, S. 2008. Small differences in arrival time influence composition and productivity of plant communities. New Phytol 177:698–705.Google Scholar
Krueger-Mangold, J. M., Sheley, R. L., and Svejcar, T. J. 2006. Toward ecologically-based invasive plant management on rangeland. Weed Sci 54:597–605.Google Scholar
Lambers, H., Chapin, F. S., and Pons, T. L. 1998. Plant Physiological Ecology. New York Springer-Verlag. xxvii, 540.Google Scholar
Lambers, H. and Poorter, H. 1992. Inherent variation in growth rate between higher plants: a search for physiological causes and ecological consequences. Adv. Ecol. Res 23:187–261.Google Scholar
Leishman, M. R., Haslehurst, T., Ares, A., and Baruch, Z. 2007. Leaf trait relationships of native and invasive plants: community- and global-scale comparisons. New Phytol 176:635–643.Google Scholar
Leps, J., Osbornovakosinova, J., and Rejmanek, M. 1982. Community stability, complexity and species life-history strategies. Vegetatio 50:53–63.Google Scholar
Luken, J. O. 1990. Directing Ecological Succession. New York Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
MacArthur, R. H. and Wilson, E. O. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton, NJ Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
MacGillivray, C. W., Grime, J. P., Band, S. R., et al. 1995. Testing predictions of the resistance and resilience of vegetation subjected to extreme events. Funct. Ecol 9:640–649.Google Scholar
Mack, R. N., Simberloff, D., Lonsdale, W. M., Evans, H., Clout, M., and Bazzaz, F. A. 2000. Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol. Appl 10:689–710.Google Scholar
Mangold, J. M. and Sheley, R. L. 2008. Controlling performance of bluebunch wheatgrass and spotted knapweed using nitrogen and sucrose amendments. West. N. Am. Nat 68:129–137.Google Scholar
Meyer, S. E., Quinney, D., Nelson, D. L., and Weaver, J. 2007. Impact of the pathogen Pyrenophora semeniperda on Bromus tectorum seedbank dynamics in North American cold deserts. Weed Res 47:54–62.Google Scholar
Morghan, K. J. R., Sheley, R. L., and Svejcar, T. J. 2006. Successful adaptive management: the integration of research and management. Range. Ecol. Manag 59:216–219.Google Scholar
Navie, S. C., Panetta, F. D., McFadyen, R. E., and Adkins, S. W. 2004. Germinable soil seedbanks of central Queensland rangelands invaded by the exotic weed Parthenium hysterophorus L. Weed Biol. Manag 4:154–167.Google Scholar
Niinemets, U., Valladares, F., and Ceulemans, R. 2003. Leaf-level phenotypic variability and plasticity of invasive Rhododendron ponticum and non-invasive Ilex aquifolium co-occurring at two contrasting European sites. Plant Cell Environ 26:941–956.Google Scholar
Noble, I. R. and Slatyer, R. O. 1980. The use of vital attributes to predict successional changes in plant communities subject to recurrent disturbances. Vegetatio 43:5–21.Google Scholar
Osone, Y., Ishida, A., and Tateno, M. 2008. Correlation between relative growth rate and specific leaf area requires associations of specific leaf area with nitrogen absorption rate of roots. New Phytol 179:417–427.Google Scholar
Pickett, S. T. A., Collins, S. L., and Armesto, J. J. 1987. A hierarchical consideration of causes and mechanisms of succession. Vegetatio 69:109–114.Google Scholar
Pokorny, M. L., Sheley, R. L., Zabinski, C. A., Engel, R. E., Svejcar, T. J., and Borkowski, J. J. 2005. Plant functional group diversity as a mechanism for invasion resistance. Restor. Ecol 13:448–459.Google Scholar
Pyke, D. A., Pellant, M., Shaver, P., and Herrick, J. E. 2002. Rangeland health attributes and indicators for qualitative assessment J. Range Manage 55:584–597.Google Scholar
Rejmanek, M. and Richardson, D. M. 1996. What attributes make some plant species more invasive? Ecology 77:1655–1661.Google Scholar
Rogers, W. E. and Siemann, E. 2005. Herbivory tolerance and compensatory differences in native and invasive ecotypes of Chinese tallow tree (Sapium sebiferum). Plant Ecol 181:57–68.Google Scholar
Ryser, P. and Lambers, H. 1995. Root and leaf attributes accounting for the performance of fast- and slow-growing grasses at different nutrient supply. Plant Soil 170:251–265.Google Scholar
Sale, P. F. 1977. Maintenance of high diversity in coral reef fish communities. Am. Nat 111:337–359.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L., James, J. J., and Bard, E. C. 2009. Augmentative restoration: repairing damaged ecological processes during restoration of heterogeneous environments. Invasive Plant Sci. Manag 2:10–21.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Mangold, J. M., and Anderson, J. L. 2006. Potential for successional theory to guide restoration of invasive-plant-dominated rangeland. Ecol. Monogr 76:365–379.Google Scholar
Smith, C. C. and Fretwell, S. D. 1974. The optimal balance between size and number of offspring. Am. Nat 108:499–506.Google Scholar
Smithwick, E. A. H., Turner, M. G., Mack, M. C., and Chapin, F. S. 2005. Postfire soil N cycling in northern conifer forests affected by severe, stand-replacing wildfires. Ecosystems 8:163–181.Google Scholar
Stohlgren, T. J., Binkley, D., Chong, G. W., et al. 1999. Exotic species invade hot spots of native plant diversity. Ecol. Monogr 69:25–46.Google Scholar
Symstad, A. J. 2000. A test of the effects of functional group richness and composition on grassland invasibility. Ecology 81:99–109.Google Scholar
Tilman, D. 1994. Competition and biodiversity in spatially structured habitats. Ecology 75:2–16.Google Scholar
Tilman, D. and Wedin, D. 1991. Plant traits and resource reduction for five grasses growing on a nitrogen gradient. Ecology 72:685–700.Google Scholar
Turnbull, L. A., Crawley, M. J., and Rees, M. 2000. Are plant populations seed-limited? A review of seed sowing experiments. Oikos 88:225–238.Google Scholar
Turnbull, L. A., Rahm, S., Baudois, O., Eichenberger-Glinz, S., Wacker, L., and Schmid, B. 2005. Experimental invasion by legumes reveals non-random assembly rules in grassland communities. J. Ecol 93:1062–1070.Google Scholar
Turnbull, L. A., Rees, M., and Crawley, M. J. 1999. Seed mass and the competition/colonization trade-off: a sowing experiment. J. Ecol 87:899–912.Google Scholar
van Arendonk, J. J. C. M., Niemann, G. J., Boon, J. J., and Lambers, H. 1997. Effects of nitrogen supply on the anatomy and chemical composition of leaves of four grass species belonging to the genus Poa, as determined by image-processing analysis and pyrolysis–mass spectrometry. Plant Cell Environ 20:881–897.Google Scholar
van der Werf, A., Visser, A. J., Schieving, F., and Lambers, H. 1993. Evidence for optimal partitioning of biomass and nitrogen at a range of nitrogen availabilities for a fast- and slow-growing species. Funct. Ecol 7:63–74.Google Scholar
Vitousek, P. M. and Howarth, R. W. 1991. Nitrogen limitation on land and in the sea: how can it occur? Biogeochemistry 13:87–115.Google Scholar
von Holle, B. and Simberloff, D. 2005. Ecological resistance to biological invasion overwhelmed by propagule pressure. Ecology 86:3212–3218.Google Scholar
Werner, P. 1999. Reflections on “mechanistic” experiments in ecological restoration. In Jordan, W. R. I., Gilpin, M. E., and Aber, J. D. eds. Restoration Ecology: A Synthetic Approach to Ecological Research. Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Westoby, M., Walker, B., and Noymeir, I. 1989. Opportunistic management for rangelands not at equilibrium. J. Range Manage 42:266–274.Google Scholar
Whisenant, S. G. 1999. Repairing damaged wildlands: a process-orientated, landscape-scale approach. New York Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Williamson, M. and Fitter, A. 1996. The varying success of invaders. Ecology 77:1661–1666.Google Scholar
Wright, I. J., Reich, P. B., Westoby, M., et al. 2004. The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Nature 428:821–827.Google Scholar
Young, T. P., Petersen, D. A., and Clary, J. J. 2005. The ecology of restoration: historical links, emerging issues and unexplored realms. Ecol. Lett 8:662–673.Google Scholar
Zavaleta, E. S. and Hulvey, K. B. 2006. Realistic variation in species composition affects grassland production, resource use and invasion resistance. Plant Ecol 188:39–51.Google Scholar