5 results
Geospatial Assessment of Invasive Plants on Reclaimed Mines in Alabama
- Dawn Lemke, Callie J. Schweitzer, Wubishet Tadesse, Yong Wang, Jennifer A. Brown
-
- Journal:
- Invasive Plant Science and Management / Volume 6 / Issue 3 / September 2013
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 20 January 2017, pp. 401-410
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Throughout the world, the invasion of nonnative plants is an increasing threat to native biodiversity and ecosystem sustainability. Invasion is especially prevalent in areas affected by land transformation and disturbance. Surface mines are a major land transformation, and thus may promote the establishment and persistence of invasive plant communities. Using the Shale Hills region of Alabama as a case study, we assessed the use of landscape characteristics in predicting the probability of occurrence of six invasive plant species: sericea lespedeza, Japanese honeysuckle, Chinese privet, autumn-olive, royal paulownia, and sawtooth oak. Models were generated for invasive species occurrence using logistic regression and maximum entropy methods. The predicted probabilities of species occurrence were applied to the mined landscape to assess the probable prevalence of each species across the landscape. Japanese honeysuckle had the highest probable prevalence on the landscape (48% of the area), with royal paulownia having the lowest (less than 1%). Overall, 67% of the landscape was predicted to have at least one invasive plant species, with 20% of the landscape predicted to have two or more species, and 3% of the landscape predicted to have three or more species. Japanese honeysuckle, sericea lespedeza, privet, and autumn-olive showed higher occurrence on the reclaimed sites than across the broader region. We found that geospatial modeling of these invasive plants at this scale offered potential for management, both for identifying habitat types at risk and areas that need management attention. However, the most immediate action for reducing the prevalence of invasive plants on reclaimed mines is to remove invasive plants from the reclamation planting list. Three (sericea lespedeza, autumn-olive, and sawtooth oak) out of the six most common invasive plants in this study were planted as part of reclamation activities.
Chapter Nineteen - Functional and heritable consequences of plant genotype on community composition and ecosystem processes
-
- By Jennifer A. Schweitzer, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Joseph K. Bailey, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Dylan G. Fischer, Environmental Studies Program, The Evergreen State College, Carri J. LeRoy, Environmental Studies Program, The Evergreen State College, Thomas G. Whitham, Department of Biological Sciences, Northern Arizona University, Stephen C. Hart, School of Natural Sciences and Sierra Nevada Research Institute, University of California – Merced
- Edited by Takayuki Ohgushi, Kyoto University, Japan, Oswald Schmitz, Yale University, Connecticut, Robert D. Holt, University of Florida
-
- Book:
- Trait-Mediated Indirect Interactions
- Published online:
- 05 February 2013
- Print publication:
- 06 December 2012, pp 371-390
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
Foundation species represent excellent model systems for understanding the broad consequences of variation on community and ecosystem processes as they provide a focal resource upon which associated interacting species depend. As foundation species (Dayton 1972; Ellison et al. 2005), trees and other dominant plants often create stable conditions via plant traits that allow dependent communities to assemble regularly and influence ecosystem processes such as net primary productivity (NPP) and soil fertility (i.e., nutrient cycling, via accumulations of leaf or root organic matter or root exudates; Zinke 1962; Zak et al. 1986; Binkley and Giardina 1998; Bartelt-Ryser et al. 2005; Wardle 2006). Recent studies in both terrestrial and aquatic habitats have shown that intraspecific genetic variation (defined at multiple genetic scales, including introgression [movement of genes from one species to another], genotypic diversity [studies manipulating the number of genotypes in a population] and genotypic variation [variation among genotypes]) in foundation plants can have community-wide consequences. Intraspecific variation affects associated vertebrate, arthropod and microbial community composition or activity and ecosystem level processes (recently reviewed in Johnson and Stinchcombe 2007; Hughes et al. 2008; Whitham et al. 2008; Bailey et al. 2009). For example, genetic variation resulting from the introgression of genes from one species to another through the process of hybridization has been shown to have important consequences for associated species, communities and ecosystem processes in multiple hybridizing plant species, including Salix spp., Eucalyptus spp., Quercus spp. and Populus spp. (Fritz et al. 1994; Dungey et al. 2000; Hochwender and Fritz 2004; Ito and Ozaki 2005; Wimp et al. 2005; Tovar-Sanchez and Oyama 2006; Bangert et al. 2008). In the Populus system specifically, recent field and common garden studies have shown that genetic variation across a hybridizing system (P. fremontii, P. angustifolia and their natural F1 and backcross hybrids) results in shifts in plant traits, including secondary chemistry, plant water use and above- and belowground productivity (Fischer et al. 2004; Rehill et al. 2006; Schweitzer et al. 2008a; Lojewski et al. 2009). Whether due directly or indirectly to these plant traits, rates of leaf litter decomposition, total belowground carbon (C) allocation and pools of soil nitrogen (N) and rates of net N mineralization also shift along this genetic gradient (Schweitzer et al. 2004, 2008, b; LeRoy et al. 2006; Whitham et al. 2006; Lojewski et al. 2009; Fischer et al. 2007, 2010).
Chapter Fourteen - From genes to ecosystems
-
- By Joseph K. Bailey, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Jennifer A. Schweitzer, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Francisco Úbeda, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Benjamin M. Fitzpatrick, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Mark A. Genung, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Clara C. Pregitzer, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Matthew Zinkgraf, Department of Biological Sciences, Northern Arizona University, Thomas G. Whitham, Department of Biological Sciences, Northern Arizona University, Arthur Keith, Department of Biological Sciences, Northern Arizona University, Julianne M. O’Reilly-Wapstra, Bradley M. Potts, School of Plant Science, University of Tasmania, Brian J. Rehill, Department of Chemistry, US Naval Academy, Carri J. LeRoy, Environmental Studies Program, The Evergreen State College, Dylan G. Fischer, Environmental Studies Program, The Evergreen State College
- Edited by Glenn R. Iason, Marcel Dicke, Wageningen Universiteit, The Netherlands, Susan E. Hartley, University of York
-
- Book:
- The Ecology of Plant Secondary Metabolites
- Published online:
- 05 August 2012
- Print publication:
- 19 April 2012, pp 269-286
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
Relatively little is understood about the extent to which evolution in one species can result in changes to associated communities and ecosystems, the potential mechanisms responsible for those changes (genetic drift, gene flow or natural selection), the phenotypes or candidate genes that may link ecological and evolutionary dynamics, or the role of rapid evolution and feedbacks. However, linking genes and ecosystems in this manner is fundamental to placing community structure and ecosystem function in an evolutionary framework. This is not an easy endeavour as the field of community genetics is multi-disciplinary (Whitham et al., 2006), and ecological and evolutionary dynamics occur at different spatial and temporal scales. Recent reviews show that plant genetic variation can have extended consequences at the community and ecosystem level (extended phenotype; Whitham et al., 2003) affecting arthropod diversity, soil microbial communities, trophic interactions, carbon dynamics and soil nitrogen availability (Whitham et al., 2006; Johnson & Stinchcombe, 2007; Hughes et al., 2008; Bailey et al., 2009a). Its effects are not limited to single systems or even foundation species, but are common across broadly distributed plant and animal systems, and can have effects at the community and ecosystem level of similar magnitude to traditional ecological factors, such as differences among species (Bailey et al., 2009a, b).
Theory in the fields of community genetics (Shuster et al., 2006; Whitham et al., 2006) and co-evolution (Thompson, 2005) also supports the connection between evolutionary and ecological dynamics (Johnson et al., 2009). Multiple investigators argue that community and ecosystem phenotypes represent complex traits related to variation in the fitness consequences of inter-specific indirect genetic effects (IIGEs) (Thompson, 2005; Shuster et al., 2006; Whitham et al., 2006; Tetard-Jones et al., 2007). In their most basic form, IIGEs occur when the genotype of one individual affects the phenotype and fitness of an associated individual of a different species (Moore et al.,1997; Agrawal et al., 2001; Shuster et al., 2006; Wade, 2007). Such interactions are important in the geographic mosaic theory of co-evolution (Thompson, 2005), the development of community heritability (Shuster et al., 2006) and non-additive responses of community structure, biodiversity and ecosystem function (Bailey et al., 2009a). Empirical evidence for the effects of plant genetic variation on communities and ecosystems, paired with growing theoretical models explaining evolutionary mechanisms for these results, provides a solid foundation for understanding how evolutionary processes, such as drift and selection, may affect community structure and ecosystem function.
Contributors
-
- By Brian Abaluck, Imran M. Ahmed, Torbjörn Åkerstedt, Sonia Ancoli-Israel, Anna Anund, Donna L. Arand, Isabelle Arnulf, Fiona C. Baker, Thomas J. Balkin, Christian R. Baumann, Michel Billiard, Michael H. Bonnet, Meredith Broderick, Christian Cajochen, Scott S. Campbell, Sarah Laxhmi Chellappa, Fabio Cirignotta, Yves Dauvilliers, David F. Dinges, Christopher L. Drake, Neil T. Feldman, Catherine S. Fichten, Charles F. P. George, Namni Goel, Christian Guilleminault, Shelby F. Harris, Melinda L. Jackson, Joseph Kaleyias, Göran Kecklund, William D. S. Killgore, Sanjeev V. Kothare, Andrew D. Krystal, Clete A. Kushida, Luc Laberge, Gert Jan Lammers, Christopher P. Landrigan, Sandrine H. Launois, Patrick Levy, Eva Libman, Yinghui Low, Jennifer L. Martin, Una D. McCann, Renee Monderer, Patricia J. Murphy, Sona Nevsimalova, Seiji Nishino, Eric A. Nofzinger, Maurice M. Ohayon, Masashi Okuro, Jean-Louis Pepin, Fabio Pizza, Anil N. Rama, David B. Rye, Paula K. Schweitzer, Hideto Shinno, Renaud Tamsier, Michael J. Thorpy, Astrid van der Heide, Hans P. A. Van Dongen, Mari Viola-Saltzman, Jim Waterhouse, Nathaniel F. Watson, Rajive Zachariah
- Edited by Michael J. Thorpy, Michel Billiard
-
- Book:
- Sleepiness
- Published online:
- 04 February 2011
- Print publication:
- 27 January 2011, pp vii-x
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
3 - A community and ecosystem genetics approach to conservation biology and management
-
- By Thomas G. Whitham, Northern Arizona University, Catherine A. Gehring, Northern Arizona University, Luke M. Evans, Northern Arizona University, Carri J. LeRoy, The Evergreen State College, Randy K. Bangert, Idaho State University, Jennifer A. Schweitzer, University of Tennessee, Gerard J. Allan, Northern Arizona University, Robert C. Barbour, University of Tasmania, Dylan G. Fischer, The Evergreen State College, Bradley M. Potts, University of Tasmania, Joseph K. Bailey, Northern Arizona University
- Edited by J. Andrew DeWoody, Purdue University, Indiana, John W. Bickham, Purdue University, Indiana, Charles H. Michler, Purdue University, Indiana, Krista M. Nichols, Purdue University, Indiana, Gene E. Rhodes, Purdue University, Indiana, Keith E. Woeste, Purdue University, Indiana
-
- Book:
- Molecular Approaches in Natural Resource Conservation and Management
- Published online:
- 05 July 2014
- Print publication:
- 14 June 2010, pp 50-73
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
INTRODUCTION
The emerging field of community and ecosystem genetics has so far focused on how the genetic variation in one species can influence the composition of associated communities and ecosystem processes such as decomposition (see definitions in Table 3–1; reviews by Whitham et al. 2003, 2006; Johnson & Stinchcombe 2007; Hughes et al. 2008). A key component of this approach has been an emphasis on understanding how the genetics of foundation plant species influence a much larger community. It is reasoned that because foundation species structure their ecosystems by creating locally stable conditions and provide specific resources for diverse organisms (Dayton 1972; Ellison et al. 2005), the genetics of these species as “community drivers” are most important to understand and most likely to have cascading ecological and evolutionary effects throughout an ecosystem (Whitham et al. 2006). For example, when a foundation species’ genotype influences the relative fitness of other species, it constitutes an indirect genetic interaction (Shuster et al. 2006), and when these interactions change species composition and abundance among individual tree genotypes, they result in individual genotypes having distinct community and ecosystem phenotypes. Thus, in addition to an individual genotype having the “traditional” phenotype that population geneticists typically consider as the expression of a trait at the individual and population level, community geneticists must also consider higher-level phenotypes at the community and ecosystem level. The predictability of phenotypes at levels higher than the population can be quantified as community heritability (i.e., the tendency for related individuals to support similar communities of organisms and ecosystem processes; Whitham et al. 2003, 2006; Shuster et al. 2006).