Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:37:17.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Invasive Earthworms and Plants in Indiana Old- and Second-Growth Forests

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Kevin D. Gibson ,
Patricia M. Quackenbush ,
Nancy C. Emery ,
Michael A. Jenkins  and
Eileen J. Kladivko
Kevin D. Gibson*
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, 915 West State Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907
Patricia M. Quackenbush
Affiliation:
Department of Forestry, University of Missouri, 203 Anheuser-Busch Natural Resources Building, Columbia, MO, 65211
Nancy C. Emery
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology and Department of Biology, Purdue University, 915 West State Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907
Michael A. Jenkins
Affiliation:
Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue University, 715 West State Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907
Eileen J. Kladivko
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Purdue University, 915 West State Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Hardwood forests in eastern North America are being colonized by multiple nonnative plant and animal species. Colonization rates can be affected by stand structure and distance from edge. We sampled earthworm densities and understory plant species cover in transects located in paired old- and second-growth forests in Indiana. Two 100-m transects were established within each forest stand during late April to early May in each year. One transect was placed parallel to and within 5 m of a south- or west-facing edge. The second transect was placed parallel to the first. but at no less than 100 m from any edge. Nonnative earthworms and plants were found in forest edge and interior regardless of structural stage (second-growth vs. old-growth). The number of native plant species decreased linearly as the densities of adult Lumbricus and Aporrectodea earthworms and the percent cover of multiflora rose (an invasive plant species) increased. Densities of L. terrestris and Aporrectodea earthworms and percent cover of multiflora rose cumulatively explained 39% of the variation in the number of native plant species found in transects across the state. However, multivariate analyses suggested that the species composition of Indiana understory plant communities was affected more by geography than by earthworm densities. Our results suggest that nonnative earthworms and plants are ubiquitous in Indiana hardwood forests and that they may reduce the number of native plant species.

Keywords

Multiflora rose, Rosa multiflora Thunb. ex Murr. ROSMUnightcrawler, Lumbricus terrestris L.Edge effectshardwood forestinvasionLumbricus rubellusplant communityRosa multiflora
Type
Research
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 161 - 174
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

Addison, J. 2009. Distribution and impacts of invasive earthworms in Canadian forest ecosystems. Biol. Invasions 11 :59–79.Google Scholar
Ashton, I. W., Hyatt, L. A., Howe, K. M., Gurevitch, J., and Lerdau, M. T. 2005. Invasive species accelerate decomposition and litter nitrogen loss in a mixed deciduous forest. Ecological Applications 15 :1263–1272.Google Scholar
Banasiak, S. E. and Meiners, S. J. 2009. Long term dynamics of Rosa multiflora in a successional system. Biol. Invasions 11 :215–224.Google Scholar
Bohlen, P. J., Groffman, P. M., Fahey, T. J., Fisk, M. C., Suarez, E., Pelletier, D. M., and Fahey, R. T. 2004a. Ecosystem consequences of exotic earthworm invasion of north temperate forests. Ecosystems 7 :1–12.Google Scholar
Bohlen, P. J., Pelletier, D. M., Groffman, P. M., Fahey, T. J., and Fisk, M. C. 2004b. Influence of earthworm invasion on redistribution and retention of soil carbon and nitrogen in northern temperate forests. Ecosystems 7 :13–27.Google Scholar
Borgmann, K. L. and Rodenwald, A. D. 2005. Forest restoration in urbanizing landscapes: interactions between land-uses and exotic shrubs. Restor. Ecol. 13 :334–340.Google Scholar
Bouché, M. B. 1977. Strategies lombriciennes. Pages 122–132 in Proceedings of the VI International Soil Zoology Colloquium of the International Society of Soil Science (ISSS). Uppsala, Sweden : Swedish National Science Research Council, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
Brothers, T. S. and Spingarn, A. R. 1992. Forest fragmentation and alien plant invasion of central Indiana old-growth forests. Conserv. Biol. 6 :91–100.Google Scholar
Brown, G. G., Barois, I., and Lavelle, P. 2000. Regulation of soil organic matter dynamics and microbial activity in the drilosphere and the role of interactions with other edaphic functional domains. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 36 :177–198.Google Scholar
Brundrett, M. C. 2002. Coevolution of roots and mycorrhizas of land plants. New Phytol. 154 :275–304.Google Scholar
Bryson, C. T. and DeFelice, M. S. 2010. Weeds of the Midwestern United States and Central Canada. Athens, GA : University of Georgia Press. 427 p.Google Scholar
Chytrý, M., Maskel, L. C., Pino, J., Pyšek, P., Vilà, M., Font, X., and Smart, S. M. 2008. Habitat invasions by alien plants: a quantitative comparison between Mediterranean, subcontinental and oceanic regions of Europe. J. Appl. Ecol. 42 :448–458.Google 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.Google Scholar
Duguay, S., Eigenbrod, F., and Fahrig, L. 2007. Effects of surrounding urbanization on non-native flora in small forest patches. Landsc. Ecol. 22 :589–599.Google Scholar
Dymond, P., Scheu, S., and Parkinson, D. 1997. Density and distribution of Dendrobaena octaedra (Lumbricidae) in aspen and pine forests in the Canadian Rocky Mountains (Alberta). Soil Biol. Biochem. 29 :265–273.Google Scholar
Eisenhauer, N., Marhan, S., and Scheu, S. 2008. Assessment of anecic behavior in selected earthworm species: effects on wheat seed burial, seedling establishment, wheat growth and litter incorporation. Appl. Soil Ecol. 38 :79–82.Google Scholar
Eisenhauer, N., Partsch, S., Parkinson, D., and Scheu, S. 2007. Invasion of a deciduous forest by earthworms: changes in soil chemistry, microflora, microarthropods and vegetation. Soil Biol. Biochem. 39 :1099–1110.Google Scholar
Eschtruth, A. K., Cleavitt, N. L., Battles, J. J., Evans, R. A., and Fahey, T. J. 2006. Vegetation dynamics in declining eastern hemlock stands: 9 years of forest response to hemlock woolly adelgid infestation. Can. J. For. Res. 36 :1435–1450.Google Scholar
Filley, T. R., McCormick, M. K., Crow, S. E., Szlavecz, K., Whigham, D. F., Johnston, C. T., and van den Heuvel, R. N. 2008. Comparison of the chemical alteration trajectory of Liriodendron tulipifera L. leaf litter among forests with different earthworm abundance. J. Geophy. Res., Biogeosciences 113 DOI: 10.1029/2007JG000542.Google Scholar
Flory, S. L. and Clay, K. 2006. Invasive shrub distribution varies with distance to roads and stand age in eastern deciduous forests in Indiana, USA. Plant Ecol. 184 :131–141.Google Scholar
Fraver, S. 1994. Vegetation responses along edge-to-interior gradients in the mixed hardwood forests of the Roanoke River basin, North Carolina. Conserv. Biol. 8 :822–832.Google Scholar
Frelich, L. E., Hale, C. M., Scheu, S., Holdsworth, A. R., Heneghan, L., Bohlen, P. J., and Reich, P. B. 2006. Earthworm invasion into previously earthworm-free temperate and boreal forests. Biol. Invasions 8 :1235–1245.Google Scholar
Freund, R. J. and Littell, R. C. 2000. SAS System for Regression. Third Edition. Cary, NC : SAS Institute. 256 p.Google Scholar
Gandhi, K. J. K. and Herms, D. A. 2010. Direct and indirect effects of alien insect herbivores on ecological processes and interactions in forests of eastern North America. Biol. Invasions 12 :389–405.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, F. B., Harrison, C. M., and Morton, A. J. 1986. Description and analysis of vegetation. Pages 437–524 in Moore, P. D. and Chapman, S. B. eds. Methods in Plant Ecology. Oxford, U.K. : Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
Guirado, M., Pino, J., and Rodà, F. 2006. Understory plant species richness and composition in metropolitan forest archipelagos: effects of forests size, adjacent land-use and distance to the edge. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 15 :50–62.Google Scholar
Gundale, M. J. 2002. The influence of exotic earthworms on soil organic horizon and the rare fern Botrychium momo. Conserv. Biol. 16 :1555–1573.Google Scholar
Hale, C. M. 2007. Earthworms of the Great Lakes. Duluth, MN : Kollath+Stensaas Publishing. 36 p.Google Scholar
Hale, C. M. 2008. Evidence for human-mediated dispersal. of exotic earthworms: support for exploring strategies to limit further spread. Mol. Ecol. 17 :1165–1167.Google Scholar
Hale, C. M., Frelich, L. E., and Reich, P. B. 2005. Exotic European earthworm invasion dynamics in northern hardwood forests of Minnesota, USA. Ecol. Appl. 15 :848–860.Google Scholar
Hale, C. M., Frelich, L. E., and Reich, P. B. 2006. Changes in hardwood forest understory plant communities in response to European earthworm invasions. Ecology 87 :1637–1649.Google Scholar
Hale, C. M., Frelich, L. E., Reich, P. B., and Pastor, J. 2008. Exotic earthworm effects on hardwood forest floor, nutrient availability and native plants: a mesocosm study. Oecologia 155 :509–518.Google Scholar
Hale, C. M., Pastor, J., and Rusterholz, K. A. 1999. Comparison of structural and compositional characteristics in old-growth and mature, managed hardwood forests of Minnesota, USA. Can. J. For. Res. 29 :1479–1489.Google Scholar
Heimpel, G. E., Frelich, L. E., Landis, D. A., Hopper, K. R., Hoelmer, K. A., Sezen, Z., Asplen, M. K., and Wu, K. 2010. European buckthorn and Asian soybean aphid as components of an extensive invasional meltdown in North America. Biol. Invasions 12 :2913–2931.Google Scholar
Heneghan, L., Steffen, J., and Fagen, K. 2007. Interactions of an introduced shrub and introduced earthworms in an Illinois urban woodland: impact on leaf litter decomposition. Pedobiologia 50 :543–551.Google Scholar
Holdsworth, A. R., Frelich, L. E., and Reich, P. B. 2007. Effects of earthworm invasion on plant species richness in northern hardwood forests. Conserv. Biol. 21 :997–1008.Google Scholar
Howard, T. G., Gurevitch, J., Hyatt, L., Carreiro, M., and Lerdau, M. 2004. Forest invasibility in communities in southeastern New York. Biol. Invasions 6 :393–410.Google Scholar
[IDNR] Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Indiana's old-growth forests. Stewardship Notes, Indiana Division of Forestry. http://www.in.gov/dnr/forestry/files/indianaoldgrowthforests.pdf. Accessed April 23, 2012.Google Scholar
[INPAWS] Indiana Native Plant and Wildflower Society. 2003. Invasive Plants in Indiana: Their Threat and What You Can Do. http://www.inpaws.org/InvasivePlants.pdf. Accessed September 1, 2011.Google Scholar
Jenkins, M. A. and Parker, G. R. 1999. Composition and diversity of ground-layer vegetation in silvicultural openings of southern Indiana forests. Am. Midl. Nat. 142 :1–16.Google Scholar
Kalisz, P. J. and Dotson, D. B. 1989. Land-use history and the occurrence of exotic earthworms in the mountains of eastern Kentucky. Am. Midl. Nat. 122 :288–297.Google Scholar
Kladivko, E. J., Akhouri, N. M., and Weesies, G. 1997. Earthworm populations and species distributions under no-till and conventional tillage in Indiana and Illinois. Soil Biol. Biochem. 29 :613–615.Google Scholar
Kourtev, P. S., Ehrenfeld, J. G., and Haggblom, M. 2002. Exotic plant species alter the microbial community structure and function in the soil. Ecology 83 :3152–3166.Google Scholar
Kourtev, P. S., Ehrenfeld, J. G., and Huang, W. Z. 1998. Effects of exotic plant species on soil properties in hardwood forests of New Jersey. Water Air Soil Pollut. 105 :493–501.Google Scholar
Lawrence, B., Fisk, M. C., Fahey, T. J., and Suarez, E. R. 2003. Influence of nonnative earthworms on mycorrhizal colonization of sugar maple (Acer saccharum). New Phytol. 157 :145–153.Google Scholar
Lovett, G. M., Canham, C. D., Arthur, M. A., Weathers, K. C., and Fitzhugh, R. D. 2006. Forest ecosystem responses to exotic pests and pathogens in eastern North America. Bioscience 56 :395–405.Google Scholar
McCarthy, B. C., Small, C. J., and Rubino, D. L. 2001. Composition, structure, and dynamics of Dysart Woods, an old-growth mixed mesophytic forests of southeastern Ohio. For. Ecol. Manag. 140 :193–213.Google Scholar
McCune, B. and Grace, J. B. 2002. Analysis of Ecological Communities. Gleneden Beach, OR : MjM Software. 304 p.Google Scholar
McDonald, R. I., Motzkin, G., and Foster, D. R. 2008. Assessing the influence of historical factors, contemporary processes, and environmental conditions on the distribution of invasive species. J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 135 :260–271.Google Scholar
McDonald, R. I. and Urban, D. L. 2006. Edge effects on species composition and exotic species abundance in the North Carolina Piedmont. Biol. Invasions 8 :1049–1060.Google Scholar
McKinney, M. L. 2006. Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biol. Conserv. 127 :247–260.Google Scholar
Mosher, E. S., Silander, J. A., and Latimer, A. M. 2009. The role of land-use history in major invasions by woody plant species in northeastern North American landscape. Biol. Invasions 11 :2317–2328.Google Scholar
Neter, J., Wasserman, W., and Kuner, M. H. 1990. Applied Linear Statistical Models. Third Edition. Homewood, IL : Irwin Press. 1184 p.Google Scholar
Nuzzo, V. A., Maerz, J. C., and Blossey, B. 2009. Earthworm invasion as the driving force behind plant invasion and community change in northeastern North American forests. Conserv. Biol. 23 :966–974.Google Scholar
Parker, G. R. 1989. Old-growth forests of the Central Hardwood Region. Nat. Areas J. 9 :5–11.Google Scholar
Peck, J. E. 2010. Multivariate Analysis for Community Ecologists: Step-by-Step using PC-ORD. Gleneden Beach, OR : MjM Software Design. 162 p.Google Scholar
Pyšek, P., Bacher, S., Chytrý, M., Jarošik, V., Wild, J., Celesti-Grapow, L., Gassó, N., Kenis, M., Lambdon, P. W., Nentwig, W., Pergl, J., Roques, A., Sádlo, J., Solarz, W., Vilà, M., and Hulme, P. E. 2010. Contrasting patterns in the invasions of European terrestrial and freshwater habitats by alien plants, insects, and vertebrates. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 19 :319–331.Google Scholar
Scheller, R. M. and Mladenoff, D. J. 2002. Understory species patterns and diversity in old-growth and managed northern hardwood forests. Ecol. Appl. 12 :1329–1343.Google Scholar
Shea, K. and Chesson, P. 2002. Community ecology theory as a framework for biological change. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17 :170–176.Google Scholar
Spetich, M. A., Parker, G. R., and Gustafson, E. J. 1997. Spatial and temporal relationships of old-growth and secondary forests in Indiana, USA. Natural Areas J. 17 :118–130.Google Scholar
Suarez, E. R., Tierney, G. L., Fahey, T. J., and Fahey, R. 2006. Exploring patterns of exotic earthworm distribution in a temperate hardwood forest in south-central New York, USA. Landsc. Ecol. 21 :297–306.Google Scholar
Szlavecz, K., McCormick, M., Xia, L. J., Saunders, J., Morcol, T., Whigham, D., Filley, T., and Csuzdi, C. 2011. Ecosystem effects of non-native earthworms in Mid-Atlantic deciduous forests. Biol. Invasions 13 :1165–1182.Google Scholar
Tanentzap, A. J., Bazely, D. R., and Lafortezza, R. 2010. Diversity-invasibility relationships across multiple scales in disturbed forest understoreys. Biol. Invasions 12 :2105–2116.Google Scholar
Vilà, M. and Ibáñez, I. 2011. Plant invasions in the landscape. Landsc. Ecol. 26 :461–472.Google Scholar
Weber, J. S. and Gibson, K. D. 2007. Exotic plant species in old-growth forest in Indiana. Weed Sci. 55 :299–304.Google Scholar
Yurkonis, K. A., Weiners, S. J., and Wachholder, B. E. 2005. Invasion impacts diversity through altered community dynamics. J. Ecol. 93 :1053–1061.Google Scholar