Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T16:13:19.911Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparing Effectiveness and Impacts of Japanese Barberry (Berberis thunbergii) Control Treatments and Herbivory on Plant Communities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jeffrey S. Ward ,
Scott C. Williams  and
Thomas E. Worthley
Jeffrey S. Ward*
Affiliation:
Department of Forestry and Horticulture, The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, New Haven, CT 06511
Scott C. Williams
Affiliation:
Department of Forestry and Horticulture, The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, New Haven, CT 06511
Thomas E. Worthley
Affiliation:
Department of Extension, University of Connecticut, Haddam, CT 06438
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: jeffrey.ward@ct.gov
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two factors that can degrade native plant community composition and structure, and hinder restoration efforts, are invasive species and chronic overbrowsing by ungulates such as white-tailed deer. Beginning in 2007, the effectiveness, costs, and impacts of Japanese barberry control treatments and herbivory on nonnative and native plant communities was examined at eight study areas over 4 to 5 yr. Prescribed burning and mechanical mowing by wood shredder or brush saw were utilized as initial treatments to reduce the aboveground portion of established barberry and were equally effective. Without a follow-up treatment, barberry had recovered to 56 to 81% of pretreatment levels 50 to 62 mo after initial treatment. Follow-up treatments in mid-summer to kill new sprouts included directed heating and foliar herbicide applications. Relative to untreated controls, follow-up treatments lowered barberry cover 50 to 62 mo after initial treatment by at least 72%. Although all follow-up treatments were equally effective, the labor cost of directed heating was four times higher than for herbicide applications. Follow-up treatment type (directed heating vs. herbicide) had minimal impact on species other than barberry. White-tailed deer herbivory had a larger impact on other species than did barberry control treatments. Native grass and fern cover was higher outside of exclosures. Areas inside exclosures had higher cover of Oriental bittersweet and multiflora rose, but not Japanese barberry. Thus, recovery of native communities will require more than simply removing the dominant invasive species where deer densities are high. Excellent reduction of Japanese barberry cover can be achieved using either directed heating or herbicides as follow-up treatments in a two-step process, but other invasive plants may become a problem when barberry is removed if deer populations are low.

Keywords

Glyphosatetriclopyr2,4-DJapanese barberry, Berberis thunbergii DC. BEBTHOriental bittersweet Celastrus orbiculatus Thunb. CELORmultiflora rose, Rosa multiflora Thunb. ex Murr. ROSMUBerberis thunbergiiherbicideherbivoryinvasive speciesmowingpropane torchRosa multiflorawhite-tailed deer
Type
Research
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , December 2013 , pp. 459 - 469
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

Allan, B. F., Dutra, H. P., Goessling, L. S., Barnett, K., Chase, J. M., Marquis, R. J., Pang, G., Storch, G. A., Thach, R. E., and Orrock, J. L. 2010. Invasive honeysuckle eradication reduces tick-borne disease risk by altering host dynamics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 107:18523–18527.Google Scholar
Aronson, M. F. J. and Handel, S. N. 2011. Deer and invasive plant species suppress herbaceous communities and canopy tree regeneration. Nat. Areas J. 31:400–407.Google Scholar
Ashton, I. W. and Lerdau, M. T. 2008. Tolerance to herbivory, and not resistance, may explain differential success of invasive, naturalized, and native North American temperate vines. Divers. Distrib. 14:169–178.Google Scholar
Behrend, D. F., Mattfeld, G. F., Tierson, W. C., and Wiley, J. E. III. 1970. Deer density control for comprehensive forest management. J. For. 68:695–700.Google Scholar
Carson, W. P., Banta, J. A., Royo, A. A., and Kirschbaum, C. 2005. Plant communities growing on boulders in the Allegheny National Forest: evidence for boulders as refugia from deer and as a bioassay of overbrowsing. Nat. Areas J. 25:10–18.Google Scholar
Cheng-Yuan, X., Griffin, K. L., and Schuster, W. S. F. 2007. Leaf phenology and seasonal variation of photosynthesis of invasive Berberis thunbergii (Japanese barberry) and two co-occurring native understory shrubs in a northeastern United States deciduous forest. Oecologia 154:11–21.Google Scholar
Cipollini, K., Ames, E., and Cipollini, D. 2009. Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii) management method impacts restoration of understory plants in the presence of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginiana) Invasive Plant Sci. Manag. 2:45–54.Google Scholar
Collier, M. H., Vankat, J. L., and Hughes, M. R. 2002. Diminished plant richness and abundance below Lonicera maackii, an invasive shrub. Am. Midl. Nat. 147:60–71.Google Scholar
Côté, S. D., Rooney, T. P., Tremblay, J-P., Dussault, C., and Waller, D. M. 2004. Ecological impacts of deer overabundance. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 35:113–147.Google Scholar
deCalesta, D. S. and Stout, S. L. 1997. Relative deer density and sustainability: a conceptual framework for integrating deer management with ecosystem management. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 25:252–258.Google Scholar
DeGasperis, B. G. and Motzkin, G. 2007. Windows of opportunity: historical and ecological controls on Berberis thunbergii invasions. Ecology 88:3115–3125.Google Scholar
Duguay, J. P. and Farfaras, C. 2011. Overabundant suburban deer, invertebrates, and the spread of an invasive exotic plant. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 35:243–251.Google Scholar
Ehrenfeld, J. G. 1997. Invasion of deciduous forest preserves in the New York metropolitan region by Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii DC.). J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 124:210–215.Google Scholar
Ehrenfeld, J. G. 1999. Structure and dynamics of populations of Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii DC.) in deciduous forests of New Jersey. Biol. Invasions 1:203–213.Google Scholar
Elias, S. P., Lubelczyk, C. B., Rand, P. W., Lacombe, E. H., Holman, M. S., and Smith, R. P. 2006. Deer browse resistant exotic-invasive understory: an indicator of elevated human risk of exposure to Ixodes scapularis (Acari: Ixodidae) in southern coastal Maine woodlands. J. Med. Entomol. 43:1142–1152.Google Scholar
Eschtruth, A. K. and Battles, J. J. 2009. Acceleration of exotic plant invasion in a forested ecosystem by a generalist herbivore. Conserv. Biol. 23:388–399.Google Scholar
Fagan, M. E. and Peart, D. R. 2004. Impact of the invasive shrub glossy buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula L.) on juvenile recruitment by canopy trees. For. Ecol. Manag. 194:95–107.Google Scholar
Fischer, A. P. and Charnley, S. 2012. Private forest owners and invasive plants: risk perception and management. Invasive Plant Sci. Manag. 5:375–389.Google Scholar
Flory, S. L. and Clay, K. 2009. Invasive plant removal method determines native plant community responses. J. Appl. Ecol. 46:434–442.Google Scholar
Galbraith-Kent, S. L. and Handel, S. N. 2008. Invasive Acer platanoides inhibits native sapling growth in forest understorey communities. J. Ecol. 96:293–302.Google Scholar
Gorchov, D. L. and Trisel, D. E. 2003. Competitive effects of the invasive shrub, Lonicera maackii, on the growth and survival of native tree seedlings. Plant Ecol. 166:13–24.Google Scholar
Gregonis, M. 2007. 2006/2007 aerial deer survey indicates stable population. Connecticut Wildlife 27(3):3.Google Scholar
Griggs, J. A., Rock, J. H., Webster, C. R., and Jenkins, M. A. 2006. Vegetative legacy of a protected deer herd in Cades Cove, Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Nat. Areas J. 26:126–136.Google 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. Manag. 2:292–300.Google Scholar
Harrington, R. A., Fownes, J. H., and Cassidy, T. M. 2004. Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii) in forest understory: leaf and whole plant responses to nitrogen availability. Am. Midl. Nat. 151:206–216.Google Scholar
Hartman, K. M. and McCarthy, B. C. 2004. Restoration of a forest understory after the removal of an invasive shrub, Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii). Restor. Ecol. 12:154–165.Google Scholar
Horsley, S. B., Stout, S. L., and DeCalesta, D. S. 2003. White-tailed deer impact on the vegetation dynamics of a northern hardwood forest. Ecol. Appl. 13:98–118.Google Scholar
Knight, T. M., Dunn, J. L., Smith, L. A., Davis, J., and Kalisz, S. 2009. Deer facilitate invasive plant success in a Pennsylvania forest understory. Nat. Areas J. 29:110–116.Google Scholar
Leege, L. M., Thompson, J. S., and Parris, D. J. 2010. The responses of rare and common trilliums (Trillium reliquum, T. cuneatum, and T. maculatum) to deer herbivory and invasive honeysuckle removal. Castanea 75:433–443.Google Scholar
Loeb, R. E., Germeraad, J., Treece, T., Wakefield, D., and Ward, S. 2010. Effects of 1-year vs. annual treatment of Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii) in forests. Invasive Plant Sci. Manag. 3:334–339.Google Scholar
Luken, J. O., Kuddes, L. M., and Tholemeier, T. C. 1997. Response of understory species to gap formation and soil disturbance in Lonicera maackii thickets. Restor. Ecol. 5:229–235.Google Scholar
Mandle, L., Bufford, J. L., Schmidt, I. B., and Daehler, C. C. 2011. Woody exotic plant invasions and fire: reciprocal impacts and consequences for native ecosystems. Biol. Invasions 13:1815–1827.Google Scholar
Miller, J. H., Manning, S. T., and Enloe, S. F. 2010. A Management Guide for Invasive Plants in Southern Forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS–131. Ashville, NC U. S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 120 p.Google Scholar
Miller, K. E. and Gorchov, D. L. 2004. The invasive shrub, Lonicera maackii, reduces growth and fecundity of perennial forest herbs. Oecologia 139:359–375.Google Scholar
Nixon, C. J., McClain, M. W., and Russell, K. R. 1970. Deer food habits and range characteristics in Ohio. J. Wildl. Manag. 34:870–886.Google Scholar
Ohwi, J. 1965. Flora of Japan. Washington, DC Smithsonian Institution. 1068 p.Google Scholar
Richburg, J. A. 2005. Timing Treatments to the Phenology of Root Carbohydrate Reserves to Control Woody Invasive Plants. Ph.D. dissertation. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusettes. 162 p.Google Scholar
Rooney, T. P. 2009. High white-tailed deer densities benefit graminoids and contribute to biotic homogenization of forest ground-layer vegetation. Plant Ecol. 202:103–111.Google 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.Google Scholar
Royo, A. A., Collins, R., Adams, M. B., Kirschbaum, C., and Carson, W. P. 2010. Pervasive interactions between ungulate browsers and disturbance regimes promote temperate forest herbaceous diversity. Ecology 91:93–105.Google Scholar
Runkle, J. R., DiSalvo, A., Graham-Gibson, Y., and Dorning, M. 2007. Vegetation release eight years after removal of Lonicera maackii in west-central Ohio. Ohio J. Sci. 107:125–129.Google Scholar
Searcy, K. B., Pucko, C., and McClelland, D. 2006. The distribution and habitat preference of introduced species in the Mount Holyoke Range, Hampshire Co., Massachusetts. Rhodora 108:43–61.Google Scholar
Silander, J. A. and Klepeis, D. M. 1999. The invasion ecology of Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii) in the New England landscape. Biol. Invasions 1:189–201.Google Scholar
Tanentzap, A. J., Bazely, D. R., Williams, P. A., and Hoogensen, G. 2009. A human security framework for the management of invasive nonindigenous plants. Invasive Plant Sci. Manag. 2:99–109.Google Scholar
[USDA NRCS] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2012. The PLANTS Database. National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA. http://plants.usda.gov. Accessed 10 December 2012.Google Scholar
Waller, D. M. and Alverson, W. S. 1997. The white-tailed deer: a keystone herbivore. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 25:217–226.Google Scholar
Ward, J. S. and Williams, S. C. 2011. Controlling an invasive shrub, Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii DC.), using directed heating with propane torches. Nat. Areas J. 31:156–162.Google Scholar
Ward, J. S., Williams, S. C., and Worthley, T. E. 2010. Effectiveness of two-stage control strategies for Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii) varies by initial clump size. Invasive Plant Sci. Manag. 3:60–69.Google Scholar
Ward, J. S., Worthley, T. E., and Williams, S. C. 2009. Controlling Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii DC.) in southern New England, USA. For. Ecol. Manag. 257:561–566.Google Scholar
Webster, C. R., Rock, J. H., Froese, R. F., and Jenkins, M. A. 2008. Drought–herbivory interaction disrupts competitive displacement of native plants by Microstegium vimineum, 10-year results. Oecologia 157:497–508.Google Scholar
Williams, S. C. and Ward, J. S. 2006. Exotic seed dispersal by white-tailed deer in southern Connecticut. Nat. Areas J. 26:383–390.Google Scholar
Williams, S. C. and Ward, J. S. 2010. Effects of Japanese Barberry (Ranunculales: Berberidaceae) removal and resulting microclimatic changes on Ixodes scapularis (Acari: Ixodidae) abundances in Connecticut, USA. Environ. Entomol. 39:1911–1921.Google Scholar
Williams, S. C., Ward, J. S., and Ramakrishnan, U. 2008. Endozoochory by white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) across a suburban/woodland interface. For. Ecol. Manag. 255:940–947.Google Scholar
Wixted, K. and McGraw, J. B. 2009. A Panex-centric view of invasive species. Biol. Invasions 11:883–893.Google Scholar
Zar, J. H. 1974. Biostatistical analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice-Hall, Inc. 620 p.Google Scholar