Search for: All records

Summary Are non‐native plants abundant because they are non‐native, and have advantages over native plants, or because they possess ‘fast’ resource strategies, and have advantages in disturbed environments? This question is central to invasion biology but remains unanswered.We quantified the relative importance of resource strategy and biogeographic origin in 69 441 plots across the conterminous United States containing 11 280 plant species.Non‐native species had faster economic traits than native species in most plant communities (77%, 86% and 82% of plots for leaf nitrogen concentration, specific leaf area, and leaf dry matter content). Non‐native species also had distinct patterns of abundance, but these were not explained by their fast traits. Compared with functionally similar native species, non‐native species were (1) more abundant in plains and deserts, indicating the importance of biogeographic origin, and less abundant in forested ecoregions, (2) were more abundant where co‐occurring species had fast traits, for example due to disturbance, and (3) showed weaker signals of local environmental filtering.These results clarify the nature of plant invasion: Although non‐native plants have consistently fast economic traits, other novel characteristics and processes likely explain their abundance and, therefore, impacts. 

ABSTRACT AimNon‐native plants have the potential to harm ecosystems. Harm is classically related to their distribution and abundance, but this geographical information is often unknown. Here, we assess geographical commonness as a potential indicator of invasive status for non‐native flora in the United States. Geographical commonness could inform invasion risk assessments across species and ecoregions. LocationConterminous United States. Time PeriodThrough 2022. Major Taxa StudiedPlants. MethodsWe compiled and standardised occurrence and abundance data from 14 spatial datasets and used this information to categorise non‐native species as uncommon or common based on three dimensions of commonness: area of occupancy, habitat breadth and local abundance. To assess consistency in existing categorizations, we compared commonness to invasive status in the United States. We identified species with higher‐than‐expected abundance relative to their occupancy, habitat breadth or residence time. We calculated non‐native plant richness within United States ecoregions and estimated unreported species based on rarefaction/extrapolation curves. ResultsThis comprehensive database identified 1874 non‐native plant species recorded in 4,844,963 locations. Of these, 1221 species were locally abundant (> 10% cover) in 797,759 unique locations. One thousand one hundred one non‐native species (59%) achieved at least one dimension of commonness, including 565 species that achieved all three. Species with longer residence times tended to meet more dimensions of commonness. We identified 132 species with higher‐than‐expected abundance. Ecoregions in the central United States have the largest estimated numbers of unreported, abundant non‐native plants. Main ConclusionsA high proportion of non‐native species have become common in the United States. However, existing categorizations of invasive species are not always consistent with species' abundance and distribution, even after considering residence time. Considering geographical commonness and higher‐than‐expected abundance revealed in this new dataset could support more consistent and proactive identification of invasive plants and lead to more efficient management practices. 

ABSTRACT AimBeta diversity quantifies the similarity of ecological assemblages. Its increase, known as biotic homogenisation, can be a consequence of biological invasions. However, species occurrence (presence/absence) and abundance‐based analyses can produce contradictory assessments of the magnitude and direction of changes in beta diversity. Previous work indicates these contradictions should be less frequent in nature than in theory, but a growing number of empirical studies report discrepancies between occurrence‐ and abundance‐based approaches. Understanding if these discrepancies represent a few isolated cases or are systematic across a diversity of ecosystems would allow us to better understand the general patterns, mechanisms and impacts of biotic homogenisation. LocationUnited States. Time Period1963–2020. Major Taxa StudiedVascular plants. MethodsWe used a dataset of more than 70,000 vegetation survey plots to assess differences in biotic homogenisation with and without invasion using both occurrence‐ and abundance‐based metrics of beta diversity. We estimated taxonomic biotic homogenisation by comparing beta diversity of invaded and uninvaded plots with both classes of metrics and investigated the characteristics of the non‐native species pool that influenced the likelihood that these metrics disagree. ResultsIn 78% of plot comparisons, occurrence‐ and abundance‐based calculations agreed in direction, and the two metrics were generally well correlated. Our empirical results are consistent with previous theory. Discrepancies between the metrics were more likely when the same non‐native species was at high cover at both plots compared for beta diversity, and when these plots were spatially distant. Main ConclusionsIn about 20% of cases, our calculations revealed differences in direction (homogenisation vs. differentiation) when comparing occurrence‐ and abundance‐based metrics, indicating that the metrics are not interchangeable, especially when distances between plots are high and invader diversity is low. When data permit, combining the two approaches can offer insights into the role of invasions and extirpations in driving biotic homogenisation/differentiation. 

Abstract Invasive plants are expanding their ranges due to climate change, creating new challenges for invasive species management. Early detection and rapid response could address some nascent invasions, but limited resources make it impossible to monitor for every range-shifting species. Here, we aimed to create a more focused watch list by evaluating the impacts of 87 plant species projected to shift into northern New England (the states of Maine, New Hampshire, and/or Vermont). We used the Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT) protocol to evaluate all ecological impacts reported in the scientific literature, scoring ecological impacts from 1 (minimal concern) to 4 (major) depending on the level of reported impact. For each species, we also recorded any reported impacts on socioeconomic systems (agriculture, human health, or economics) as “present.” We found 24 range-shifting species with impacts on ecological communities, of which 22 have reported impacts in ecosystems common to northern New England. Almost all of these species also had impacts on socioeconomic systems and were available for purchase at ornamental plant retailers or online. Thus, these species can be considered high risk to northern New England with climate change based on their large negative impacts and potential to arrive quickly with deliberate human introduction. Our study demonstrates the use of impact assessments for creating targeted priority lists for invasive species monitoring and management. 

Fire-prone invasive grasses create novel ecosystem threats by increasing fine-fuel loads and continuity, which can alter fire regimes. While the existence of an invasive grass-fire cycle is well known, evidence of altered fire regimes is typically based on local-scale studies or expert knowledge. Here, we quantify the effects of 12 nonnative, invasive grasses on fire occurrence, size, and frequency across 29 US ecoregions encompassing more than one third of the conterminous United States. These 12 grass species promote fire locally and have extensive spatial records of abundant infestations. We combined agency and satellite fire data with records of abundant grass invasion to test for differences in fire regimes between invaded and nearby “uninvaded” habitat. Additionally, we assessed whether invasive grass presence is a significant predictor of altered fire by modeling fire occurrence, size, and frequency as a function of grass invasion, in addition to anthropogenic and ecological covariates relevant to fire. Eight species showed significantly higher fire-occurrence rates, which more than tripled for Schismus barbatus and Pennisetum ciliare. Six species demonstrated significantly higher mean fire frequency, which more than doubled for Neyraudia reynaudiana and Pennisetum ciliare . Grass invasion was significant in fire occurrence and frequency models, but not in fire-size models. The significant differences in fire regimes, coupled with the importance of grass invasion in modeling these differences, suggest that invasive grasses alter US fire regimes at regional scales. As concern about US wildfires grows, accounting for fire-promoting invasive grasses will be imperative for effectively managing ecosystems. 

Effective natural resource management and policy is contingent on information generated by research. Conversely, the applicability of research depends on whether it is responsive to the needs and constraints of resource managers and policy makers. However, many scientific fields including invasion ecology suffer from a disconnect between research and practice. Despite strong socio-political imperatives, evidenced by extensive funding dedicated to addressing invasive species, the pairing of invasion ecology with stakeholder needs to support effective management and policy is lacking. As a potential solution, we propose translational invasion ecology (TIE). As an extension of translational ecology, as a framework to increase collaboration among scientists, practitioners, and policy makers to reduce negative impacts of invasive species. As an extension of translational ecology, TIE is an approach that embodies an intentional and inclusive process in which researchers, stakeholders, and decision makers collaborate to develop and implement ecological research via joint consideration of the ecological, sociological, economic, and/or political contexts in order to improve invasive species management. TIE ideally results in improved outcomes as well as shared benefits between researchers and managers. We delineate the steps of our proposed TIE approach and describe successful examples of ongoing TIE projects from the US and internationally. We suggest practical ways to begin incorporating TIE into research and management practices, including supporting boundary-spanning organizations and activities, expanding networks, sharing translational experiences, and measuring outcomes. We find that there is a need for strengthened boundary spanning, as well as funding and recognition for advancing translational approaches. As climate change and globalization exacerbate invasive species impacts, TIE provides a promising approach to generate actionable ecological research while improving outcomes of invasive species management and policy decisions.