Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:00:54.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Community Structure Affects Annual Grass Weed Invasion During Restoration of a Shrub–Steppe Ecosystem

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Phil S. Allen  and
Susan E. Meyer
Phil S. Allen*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Wildlife Science, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, 84602
Susan E. Meyer
Affiliation:
US Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, Shrub Sciences Laboratory, 735 North 500 East, Provo UT 84606
*
Corresponding author's email address: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ecological restoration of shrub–steppe communities in the western United States is often hampered by invasion of exotic annual grasses during the process. An important question is how to create restored communities that can better resist reinvasion by these weeds. One hypothesis is that communities comprised of species that are functionally similar to the invader will best resist invasion, while an alternative hypothesis is that structurally more complex and diverse communities will result in more effective competitive exclusion. In this field experiment, we examined the effects of restored community structure on the invasion success of three annual grass weeds (downy brome, jointed goatgrass, and cereal rye). We created replicated community plots that varied in species composition, structural complexity and density, then seeded in annual grass weeds and measured their biomass and seed production the following year, and their cover after 1 and 3 yr. Annual grass weeds were not strongly suppressed by any of the restored communities, indicating that it was difficult for native species to completely capture available resources and exclude annual grass weeds in the first years after planting. Perennial grass monocultures, particularly of the early seral grass bottlebrush squirreltail, were the most highly invaded communities, while structurally complex and diverse mixtures of shrubs (big sagebrush, rubber rabbitbrush), perennial grasses (bluebunch wheatgrass and bottlebrush squirreltail) and forbs (Lewis flax, Utah sweetvetch, hairy golden aster, gooseberryleaf globemallow) were more resistant to invasion. These results suggest that restoration of sagebrush steppe communities resistant to annual grass invasion benefits from higher species diversity; significant reduction of weed propagule pressure prior to restoration may be required.

Keywords

Cereal rye, Secale cereale L.downy brome, Bromus tectorum L.jointed goatgrass, Aegilops cylindrica Hostbig sagebrush, Artemisia tridentata Nutt.bluebunch wheatgrass, Pseudoroegneria spicata (Pursh) Á. Lövebottlebrush squirreltail, Elymus elymoides (Raf.) Swezeygooseberryleaf globemallow, Sphaeralcea grossulariifolia (Hook. and Arn.) Rydb.hairy golden aster, Heterotheca villosa (Pursh) ShinnersLewis flax, Linum lewisii Purshrubber rabbitbrush, Ericameria nauseosa (Pall. ex Pursh) G.L. Nesom & BairdUtah sweetvetch, Hedysarum boreale Nutt.Ecological restorationinvasive plantsplant competition
Type
Research Article
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , March 2014 , pp. 1 - 13
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.)

References

Literature Cited

Booth, MS, Caldwell, MM, Stark, JM (2003) Overlapping resource use in three Great Basin species: implications for community invasibility and vegetation dynamics. J Ecol 91:36–48 Google Scholar
Chambers, JC, Roundy, BA, Blank, RR, Meyer, SE, Whittaker, A (2007) What makes Great Basin sagebrush ecosystems invasible by Bromus tectorum? Ecol Monogr 77:117–145 Google Scholar
Cox, RD, Anderson, VJ (2004) Increasing native diversity of cheatgrass-dominated rangeland through assisted succession. Rangeland Eco l Manag 57:203–210 Google Scholar
D'Antonio, CM, Chambers, JC, Loh, R, Tunison, JT (2009) Applying ecological concepts to the management of widespread grass invasions. Pages 123–149 in Inderjit, , ed. Management of Invasive Weeds. Houten, Netherlands Springer Google Scholar
D'Antonio, CM, Myerson, LA (2002) Exotic plant species as problems and solutions in ecological restoration: a synthesis. Restor Ecol 10:703–713 Google Scholar
D'Antonio, CM, Vitousek, PM (1992) Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, and global change. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 23:63–87 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, MA, Grime, JP, Thompson, K (2000) Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invasibility. J Ecol 88:528–534 Google Scholar
Davis, MA, Thompson, K, Grime, JP (2005) Invasibility: the local mechanism driving community assembly and species diversity. Ecography 28:696–704 Google Scholar
DiTomaso, JM (2000) Invasive weeds in rangelands: Species, impacts, and management. Weed Sci 48:255–265 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elton, CS (1958) The ecology of invasions by plants and animals. London Methuen. 181 p.Google Scholar
Elzinga, CL, Salzar, DW, Willoughby, JW (1998) Measuring and monitoring plant populations. Bureau of Land Management Technical Reference Publication 1730-1Google Scholar
Evans, RD, Rimer, R, Sperry, L, Belnap, J (2001) Exotic plant invasion alters nitrogen dynamics in an arid grassland. Ecol Appl 5:1301–1310 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fargione, JE, Tilman, D (2005) Diversity decreases invasion via both sampling and complementarity effects. Ecol Lett 8:604–611 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grime, JP (1977) Evidence for the existence of three primary strategies in plants and its relevance to ecological and evolutionary theory. Am Nat 111:1169–1194 Google Scholar
Griffith, AB (2010) Positive effects of native shrubs on Bromus tectorum demography. Ecology 91:141–154 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huston, MA (2004) Management strategies for plant invasions: manipulating productivity, disturbance, and competition. Divers Distrib 10:167–178 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kardol, P, Cornips, NJ, van Kempen, MML, Bakx-Schotman, JMT, van der Putten, WH (2007) Microbe-mediated plant-soil feedback causes historical contingency effects in plant community assembly. Ecol Monogr. 77:147–162 Google Scholar
Kozłowski, J (1992) Optimal allocation of resources to growth and reproduction: implications for age and size at maturity. Trends Ecol Evol 7:15–19 Google Scholar
Levine, JM, D'Antonio, CM (1999) Elton revisited: a review of evidence linking diversity and invasibility. Oikos 87:15–26 Google Scholar
Lonsdale, WM (1999) Global patterns of plant invasions and the concept of invasibility. Ecology 80:1522–1536 Google Scholar
Mack, RN, Simberloff, D, Lonsdale, WM, Evans, H, Clout, M, Bazzaz, FA (2000) Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences and control. Ecol Appl 10:689–710 Google Scholar
McClendon, T, Redente, EF (1992) Effects of nitrogen limitation on species replacement dynamics during early secondary succession on a semiarid sagebrush site. Oecologia 91:312–317 Google Scholar
Meyer, SE, Garvin, SC, Beckstead, J (2001) Factors mediating cheatgrass invasion of intact salt desert shrubland. Pages 224–232 in McArthur, ED, Fairbanks, DJ, Compilers. Shrubland ecosystem genetics and biodiversity: Proceedings. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-21Google Scholar
Naeem, S, Knops, JMH, Tilman, D, Howe, KM, Kennedy, T, Gale, S (2003) Plant diversity increases resistance to invasion in the absence of covarying extrinsic factors. Oikos 91:97–108 Google Scholar
Peterson, BW, Allen, PS, Meyer, S, Castle, E (2004) Lessons learned in the restoration of a foothill community in Rock Canyon (Utah). Ecol Restor 22:143–144 Google Scholar
Pokorny, ML, Sheley, RL, Zabinski, CA, Engel, RE, Svejcar, TJ, Borkowski, JJ (2005) Plant functional group diversity as a mechanism for invasion resistance. Restor Ecol 13:448–459 Google Scholar
Prevéy, JS, Germino, MJ, Huntly, NJ, Inouye, RS (2010) Exotic plants increase and native plants decrease with loss of foundation species in sagebrush steppe. Plant Ecol 207:39–51 Google Scholar
Radford, IJ (2013) Fluctuating resources, disturbance and plant strategies: diverse mechanisms underlying plant invasions. J Arid Land 5:284–297 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reisner, MD, Grace, JB, Pyke, DA, Doescher, PS (2013) Conditions favouring Bromus tectorum dominance of endangered sagebrush steppe ecosystems. J Appl Ecol. DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.12097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, DM, Pyšek, P (2006) Plant invasions: merging the concepts of species invasiveness and community invasibility. Prog Phys Geog. 30:409–431 Google Scholar
Smith, DC, Meyer, SE, Anderson, VJ (2008) Factors affecting Bromus tectorum seed bank carryover in western Utah. Rangeland Ecol Manag 61:430–436 Google Scholar
Smith, MD, Wilcox, JC, Kelly, T, Knapp, AK (2004) Dominance not richness determines invasibility of tallgrass prairie. Oikos 106:253–262 Google Scholar
Stevens, AR (1997) Squirreltail (Elymus elymoides) establishment and competition with cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum). PhD dissertation. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University. 57 p.Google Scholar
Stohlgren, TJ, Binkley, D, Chong, GW, Kalkhan, MA, Schell, LD, Bull, KA, Otsuki, Y, Newman, G, Bashkin, M, Son, Y (1999) Exotic plant species invade hot spots of native plant diversity. Ecol Monogr 69:25–46 Google Scholar
Symstad, AJ (2000) A test of the effects of functional group richness and composition on grassland invasibility. Ecology 81:99–109 Google Scholar
van Ruijven, J, De Deyn, GB, Berendse, F (2003) Diversity reduces invasibility in experimental plant communities: the role of plant species. Ecol Lett 6:910–918 Google Scholar
von Holle, B, Simberloff, D (2005) Ecological resistance to biological invasion overwhelmed by propagule pressure. Ecology 86:3212–3218 Google Scholar
Western Region Climate Center (2005) URL http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/climsmut.html Accessed on 22 March 2013Google Scholar