Search for: All records

Abstract Global invasive species introductions are rising, necessitating coordinated regulatory strategies within and across national borders. Although states and nations address their unique priorities using plant regulations, these regulations are most likely to reduce invasive plant introduction and spread if they are consistently enacted across political borders and proactively restrict spread early in the invasion process. Further, a unified regulatory landscape is particularly important given the imminent range infilling and large‐scale climate‐driven range shifts of invasive species.In the United States, federal and state regulations restrict the introduction and spread of several hundred invasive and noxious plant taxa in an effort to reduce their negative impacts. Using plant regulations for the lower 48 United States, we assessed consistency among regulated taxa based on similarities in adjacent states’ regulatory lists. We assessed proactivity by comparing regulatory lists to plants’ current and potential distributions given occurrence records and species distribution models under climate change.States regulate from 0 to 162 plant taxa, with an average of only 16.8% overlap of regulated taxa between adjacent states. Up to 137 plants may be present but unregulated in a state, and only 110 of 553 listed taxa were regulated in one or more states where they were not yet present. However, 36 states listed at least one taxon proactively (regulated but not present in the state). Of the 48 proactively listed taxa with species distribution models, we identified 41 cases (38 species in 21 states) where listing was ‘climate proactive’ (regulated, not present and where climate could be suitable for establishment by mid‐century).Policy implications. US plant regulatory lists were inconsistent across borders and reactive to climate change. However, most states regulate at least one plant taxa prior to its introduction, suggesting that a more proactive approach is possible under existing regulations. Coordination across borders is imperative given gaps in regional defences against invasion and projected invasive plant range shifts under climate change. We suggest that subnational, national and international governing bodies evaluate their plant regulatory lists for consistency and proactivity, as it is paramount for preventing the next wave of plant invasions. 

Abstract Non‐native, invasiveBromus tectorum(cheatgrass) is pervasive in sagebrush ecosystems in the Great Basin ecoregion of the western United States, competing with native plants and promoting more frequent fires. As a result, cheatgrass invasion likely alters carbon (C) storage in the region. Many studies have measured C pools in one or more common vegetation types: native sagebrush, invaded sagebrush and cheatgrass‐dominated (often burned) sites, but these results have yet to be synthesized.We performed a literature review to identify studies assessing the consequences of invasion on C storage in above‐ground biomass (AGB), below‐ground biomass (BGB), litter, organic soil and total soil. We identified 41 articles containing 386 unique studies and estimated C storage across pools and vegetation types. We used linear mixed models to identify the main predictors of C storage.We found consistent declines in biomass C with invasion: AGB C was 55% lower in cheatgrass (40 ± 4 g C/m²) than native sagebrush (89 ± 27 g C/m²) and BGB C was 62% lower in cheatgrass (90 ± 17 g C/m²) than native sagebrush (238 ± 60 g C/m²). In contrast, litter C was >4× higher in cheatgrass (154 ± 12 g C/m²) than native sagebrush (32 ± 12 g C/m²). Soil organic C (SOC) in the top 10 cm was significantly higher in cheatgrass than in native or invaded sagebrush. SOC below 20 cm was significantly related to the time since most recent fire and losses were observed in deep SOC in cheatgrass >5 years after a fire. There were no significant changes in total soil C across vegetation types.Synthesis and applications. Cheatgrass invasion decreases biodiversity and rangeland productivity and alters fire regimes. Our findings indicate cheatgrass invasion also results in persistent biomass carbon (C) losses that occur with sagebrush replacement. We estimate that conversion from native sagebrush to cheatgrass leads to a net reduction of C storage in biomass and litter of 76 g C/m², or 16 Tg C across the Great Basin without management practices like native sagebrush restoration or cheatgrass removal. 

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. 

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.