Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:47:02.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Determinants of Chinese and European Privet (Ligustrum sinense and Ligustrum vulgare) Invasion and Likelihood of Further Invasion in Southern U.S. Forestlands

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Hsiao-Hsuan Wang  and
William E. Grant
Hsiao-Hsuan Wang*
Affiliation:
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843
William E. Grant
Affiliation:
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Chinese and European privets are among the most aggressive invasive shrubs in forestlands of the southern United States. We analyzed extensive field data collected by the U.S. Forest Service covering 12 states to identify potential determinants of invasion and to predict likelihood of further invasion under a variety of possible management strategies. Results of multiple logistic regression, which classified 75% of the field plots correctly with regard to species presence and absence, indicated probability of invasion is correlated positively with elevation, adjacency (within 300 m) to waterbodies, mean extreme maximum temperature, site productivity, species diversity, natural regeneration, wind disturbance, animal disturbance, and private land ownership and is correlated negatively with slope, stand age, site preparation, artificial regeneration, distance to the nearest road, fire disturbance, and public land ownership. Habitats most at risk to further invasion (likelihood of invasion > 10%) under current conditions occur throughout Mississippi, with a band stretching eastward across south-central Alabama, and in eastern Texas and western Louisiana. Invasion likelihoods could be reduced most by conversion to public land ownership, followed by site preparation, fire disturbance, artificial regeneration, and elimination of animal disturbance. While conversion of land ownership may be neither feasible nor desirable, this result emphasizes the opportunity for reducing the likelihood of invasions on private lands via increased use of selected management practices.

Keywords

Chinese privet, Ligustrum sinense Lour, European privet, Ligustrum vulgare L.Biodiversitybiological invasionshabitat qualityinvasive speciesmultiple logistic regression model
Type
Research
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 5 , Issue 4 , December 2012 , pp. 454 - 463
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

Agresti, A. 2007. An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ : John Wiley and Sons Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akaike, H. 1973. Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. Pages 267–281 in Kotz, S. and Johnson, N. L., eds. Second International Symposium on Information Theory. Budapest : Academia Kiado.Google Scholar
Benson, E. and Hartnett, D. 2006. The role of seed and vegetative reproduction in plant recruitment and demography in tallgrass prairie. Plant Ecol. 187:163–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, B. A. 2010. Assessing ecosystem threats from global and regional change: hierarchical modeling of risk to sagebrush ecosystems from climate change, land use and invasive species in Nevada, USA. Ecography 33:198–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burns, J. H. and Miller, T. E. 2004. Invasion of Chinese tallow (Sapium sebiferum) in the Lake Jackson area, northern Florida. Am. Midl. Nat. 152:410–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cain, M. D. 1992. Japanese honeysuckle in uneven-aged pine stands: problems with natural pine regeneration. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 45:264–269.Google Scholar
Chick, J. H., Cosgriff, R. J., and Gittinger, L. S. 2003. Fish as potential dispersal agents for floodplain plants: first evidence in North America. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 60:1437–1439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christopher, C. C. and Barrett, G. W. 2006. Coexistence of white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus) and golden mice (Ochrotomys nuttalli) in a southeastern forest. J. Mammal. 87:102–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, K. F., Harrison, S., Safford, H. D., and Viers, J. H. 2007. Productivity alters the scale dependence of the diversity–invasibility relationship. Ecology 88:1940–1947.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Delgado, J. D., Arévalo, J. R., and Fernández-Palacios, J. M. 2001. Road and topography effects on invasion: edge effects in rat foraging patterns in two oceanic island forests (Tenerife, Canary Islands). Ecography 24:539–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dibble, A. C., Zouhar, K., and Smith, J. K. 2008. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Fire and Nonnative Invasive Plants. Ogden, UT : USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station General Technical Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 6. Pp. 61–90.Google Scholar
Dirr, M. A. 1998. Manual of Woody Landscape Plants: Their Identification, Ornamental Characteristics, Culture, Propagation and Uses. 5th ed. Champaign, IL : Stipes Publishing. 1250 p.Google Scholar
Elton, C. S. 1958. The ecology of invasions by animals and plants. London : Methuen & Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faulkner, J. L., Clebsch, E. E. C., and Sanders, W. L. 1989. Use of prescribed burning for managing natural and historic resources in Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park, USA. Environ. Manage. 13:603–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filipescu, C. N. and Comeau, P. G. 2007. Competitive interactions between aspen and white spruce vary with stand age in boreal mixedwoods. For. Ecol. Manage. 247:175–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flory, S. L. and Clay, K. 2009. Effects of roads and forest successional age on experimental plant invasions. Biol. Conserv. 142:2531–2537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galíndez, G., Biganzoli, F., Ortega-Baes, P., and Scopel, A. 2009. Fire responses of three co-occurring Asteraceae shrubs in a temperate savanna in South America. Plant Ecol. 202:149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gan, J., Miller, J. H., Wang, H.-H., and Taylor, J. W. 2009. Invasion of tallow tree into southern US forests: influencing factors and implications for mitigation. Can. J. For. Res. 39:1346–1356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grace, J. B., Smith, M., Grace, S. L., Collins, S., and Stohlgren, T. J. 2001. Interactions between fire and invasive plants in temperate grasslands in North America. Pages 40–65 in Galley, K. and Wilson, T., eds. Fire Conference 2000: The First National Congress on Fire, Ecology, Prevention and Management. Invasive Species Workshop: The Role of Fire in the Control and Spread of Invasive Species. Tallahassee, FL : Tall Timbers Research Station.Google Scholar
Greene, D. F., Canham, C. D., Coates, K. D., and Lepage, P. T. 2004. An evaluation of alternative dispersal functions for trees. J. Ecol. 92:758–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanula, J. L., Horn, S., and Taylor, J. W. 2009. Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) removal and its effect on native plant communities of riparian forests. Invasive Plant Sci. Manage. 2:292–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haragan, P. D. 1996. Privet (Ligustrum vulgare, L. sinense, L. japonicum). Pages 58–59 in Randall, J. M. and Marinelli, J., eds. Invasive Plants: Weeds of the Global Garden. Brooklyn, NY : Brooklyn Botanic Garden.Google Scholar
Harrington, T. B. and Miller, J. H. 2005. Effects of application rate, timing, and formulation of glyphosate and triclopyr on control of Chinese Privet (Ligustrum sinense). Weed Technol. 19:47–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hector, A., Dobson, K., Minns, A., Bazeley-White, E., and Hartley Lawton, J. 2001. Community diversity and invasion resistance: an experimental test in a grassland ecosystem and a review of comparable studies. Ecol. Res. 16:819–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hosmer, D. W. and Lemeshow, S. 2000. Applied Logistic Regression. New York : John Wiley and Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, J. M. 2000. Species diversity and biological invasions: relating local process to community pattern. Science 288:852–854.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liang, J., Buongiorno, J., Monserud, R. A., Kruger, E. L., and Zhou, M. 2007. Effects of diversity of tree species and size on forest basal area growth, recruitment, and mortality. For. Ecol. Manage. 243:116–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lombardo, K., Fehmi, J. S., Rice, K. J., and Laca, E. A. 2007. Nassella pulchra survival and water relations depend more on site productivity than on small-scale disturbance. Restor. Ecol. 15:177–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lonsdale, W. M. 1999. Global patterns of plant invasions and the concept of invasibility. Ecology 80:1522–1536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, K. G. and Schwartz, M. W. 2001. Rare species loss alters ecosystem function—invasion resistance. Ecol. Lett. 4:358–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, T. G., Wintle, B. A., Rhodes, J. R., Kuhnert, P. M., Field, S. A., Low-Choy, S. J., Tyre, A. J., and Possingham, H. P. 2005. Zero tolerance ecology: improving ecological inference by modelling the source of zero observations. Ecol. Lett. 8:1235–1246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Merriam, R. W. 2003. The abundance, distribution and edge associations of six non-indigenous, harmful plants across North Carolina. J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 130:283–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merriam, R. W. and Feil, E. 2002. The potential impact of an introduced shrub on native plant diversity and forest regeneration. Biol. Invasions 4:369–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, J. H. 2003. Nonnative invasive plants of southern forests: a field guide for identification and control. Asheville, NC : USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station.Google Scholar
Naeem, S., Knops, J. M. H., Tilman, D., Howe, K. M., Kennedy, T., and Gale, S. 2000. Plant diversity increases resistance to invasion in the absence of covarying extrinsic factors. Oikos 91:97–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[NOAA] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2008. Climate Maps of the United States. Temperature Maps. http://cdo.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/climaps/climaps.pl. Accessed: June 15, 2010.Google Scholar
Overmars, K. P., de Koning, G. H. J., and Veldkamp, A. 2003. Spatial autocorrelation in multi-scale land use models. Ecol. Model. 164:257–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parendes, L. A. and Jones, J. A. 2000. Role of light availability and dispersal in exotic plant invasion along roads and streams in the H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest, Oregon. Conserv. Biol. 14:64–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rossell, C. R., Patch, S., and Salmons, S. 2007. Effects of deer browsing on native and non-native vegetation in a mixed oak-beech forest on the Atlantic coastal plain. Northeast. Nat. 14:61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudis, V. A., Gray, A., McWilliams, W., O'Brien, R., Olson, C., Oswalt, S., and Schulz, B. 2006. Regional monitoring of nonnative plant invasions with the Forest Inventory and Analysis program. Pages 49–64 in Proceedings of the Sixth Annual FIA Symposium. Denver, CO : USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-70.Google Scholar
Russo, S. E., Portnoy, S., and Augspurger, C. K. 2006. Incorporating animal behavior into seed dispersal models: implications for seed shadows. Ecology 87:3160–3174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simberloff, D. 2000. Global climate change and introduced species in United States forests. Sci. Total Environ. 262:253–261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, W. B. and Darr, D. 2004. US Forest Resource Facts and Historical Trends. Washington, DC : U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service FS-801.Google Scholar
Spittlehouse, D. L. and Stathers, R. J. 1990. Seedling Microclimate. Victoria, BC : Ministry of Forests, British Columbia, Land Management Rep. 65. Pp. 28–36.Google Scholar
Stohlgren, T. J., Barnett, D. T., and Kartesz, J. T. 2003. The rich get richer: patterns of plant invasions in the United States. Front. Ecol. Environ. 1:11–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. 2009. Agricultural Productivity in the United States. http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/agricultural-productivity-in-the-us.aspx. Accessed January 13, 2011.Google Scholar
USDA Forest Service. 2009a. FIA Data and Tools. http://fia.fs.fed.us/tools-data. Accessed November 4, 2010Google Scholar
USDA Forest Service. 2009b. Nonnative Invasive Plant Data Tool. http://srsfia2.fs.fed.us/data_center/index.shtml. Accessed August 10, 2011.Google Scholar
USDA Forest Service. 2011. The Forest Inventory and Analysis Database: Database Description and Users Manual Version 5.1. Arlington, VA : U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service.Google Scholar
Wang, H.-H. 2009. Occupation, Dispersal, and Economic Impact of Major Invasive Plant Species in Southern U.S. Forests. Ph.D Dissertation. College Station, TX : Texas A&M University. 191 p.Google Scholar
Wilcox, J. and Beck, C. W. 2007. Effects of Ligustrum sinense Lour. (Chinese privet) on abundance and diversity of songbirds and native plants in a southeastern nature preserve. Southeast. Nat. 6:535–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, R. and Minogue, P. 2008. Biology and Management of Chinese Privet. Milton, FL : School of Forest Resources and Conservation Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wills, C., Condit, R., Foster, R. B., and Hubbell, S. P. 1997. Strong density- and diversity-related effects help to maintain tree species diversity in a neotropical forest. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 94:1252–1257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiser, S. K., Allen, R. B., Clinton, P. W., and Platt, K. H. 1998. Community structure and forest invasion by an exotic herb over 23 years. Ecology 79:2071–2081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, J. A. and Young, C. G. 1992. Seeds of Woody Plants in North America. Portland, OR : Dioscorides.Google Scholar