Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T07:19:20.617Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of 1-Year vs. Annual Treatment of Amur Honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii) in Forests

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Robert E. Loeb ,
Jesse Germeraad ,
Travis Treece ,
Daniel Wakefield  and
Steve Ward
Robert E. Loeb*
Affiliation:
Department of Biology and Forestry, The Pennsylvania State University–DuBois Campus, DuBois, PA 15801
Jesse Germeraad
Affiliation:
Radnor Lake State Natural Area, Nashville, TN 37220
Travis Treece
Affiliation:
Lipscomb University, Nashville, TN 37204
Daniel Wakefield
Affiliation:
Lipscomb University, Nashville, TN 37204
Steve Ward
Affiliation:
Radnor Lake State Natural Area, Nashville, TN 37220
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: rxl5@psu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Amur honeysuckle recovery following treatments annually and only in 1-year, during 2002 to 2009, was compared in the forests of Radnor Lake State Natural Area in Nashville, TN. Annual treatment areas had significantly lower mean Amur honeysuckle plant counts than 1-yr treatment areas for both ≤ 1 m (3.3 ft) and > 1 m plant heights and on both sloped and level areas, except for plants ≤ 1 m tall on level areas, which most likely indicated more soil moisture increasing seedling establishment and root sprouting in the first year after treatment. The significant, positive Pearson's product moment correlations for Amur honeysuckle counts of plants ≤ 1 m tall, with arboreal basal area and with canopy species diversity in the level areas of the annual treatment plots, were also most likely evidence for the importance of greater soil moisture during the first year after treatment for greater Amur honeysuckle recovery. For land managers interested in native vegetation restoration, guidance is provided to plan for long-term, invasive plant species treatment and recovery monitoring.

Keywords

GlyphosateAmur honeysuckle, Lonicera maackii (Rupr.) HerderLong-term invasive treatmentinvasive plant recoverysoil moistureforest canopyurban forestsRadnor Lake State Natural AreaNashvilleTennessee
Type
Case Study
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , November 2010 , pp. 334 - 339
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

Braun, E. L. 1950. Deciduous Forests of the Eastern North America. New York Hafner. 596 p.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 virginianus). Invasive Plant Sci. Manag 2:45–54.Google Scholar
D'Antonio, C. and Meyerson, L. A. 2002. Exotic plant species as problems and solutions in ecological restoration: a synthesis. Restor. Ecol 10:703–713.Google Scholar
Deering, R. H. and Vankat, J. L. 1999. Forest colonization and developmental growth of the invasive shrub Lonicera maackii . Am. Midl. Nat 141:43–50.Google Scholar
Gayek, A. and Quigley, M. F. 2001. Does topography affect the colonization of Lonicera maackii and Ligustrum vulgare in a forested glen in southwestern Ohio? Ohio J. Sci 101:95–100.Google Scholar
Hartman, K. M. 2005. The Impacts, Invasibility, and Restoration Ecology of an Invasive Shrub, Amur Honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii). Ph.D dissertation, Athens, OH: Ohio University. 150 p.Google Scholar
Hartman, K. M. and McCarthy, B. C. 2008. Changes in forest structure and species composition following invasion by a non-indigenous shrub, Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii). J. Torrey Bot. Soc 135:245–259.Google Scholar
Ingman, E. M. 2009. Effectiveness of Amur Honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii) Removal Treatments in Ravine Forests of Central Ohio. MS Thesis, Columbus, OH: Ohio State University. 73 p.Google Scholar
Love, J. P. 2006. Effects of Morrow's Honeysuckle Control and the Impact of the Shrub on Invertebrates at Fort Necessity National Battlefield, Pennsylvania. MS Thesis, Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University. 257 p.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
Luken, J. O. and Mattimiro, D. T. 1991. Habitat-specific resilience of the invasive shrub Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii) during repeated clipping. Ecol. Appl 1:104–109.Google Scholar
Mandryk, A. M. and Wein, R. W. 2006. Exotic vascular plant invasiveness and forest invasibility in urban boreal forest types. Biol. Invasions 8:1651–1662.Google Scholar
McDonnell, A. L., Mounteer, A. M., Owen, H. R., and Todd, B. L. 2005. Influence of stem cutting and glyphosate treatment of Lonicera maackii, an exotic and invasive species, on stem regrowth and native species. Trans. Ill. State Acad. Sci 98:1–17.Google Scholar
Meiners, S. J. 2007. Apparent competition: an impact of exotic shrub invasion on tree regeneration. Biol. Invasions 9:849–855.Google Scholar
Musson, J. and Mitsch, W. J. 2003. The effects of the invasive shrub Lonicera maackii on species richness and soil moisture in the bottomland hardwood forest at the ORWRP. Pages 121–126. In Mitsch, W. J. and Zhang, L. eds. Annual Report for Olentangy River Wetland Research Park at the Ohio State University, Annual Report 2002. Columbus, OH Wilma H. Schiermeier Olentangy River Wetland Research Park.Google Scholar
North, O. L. 1981. Soil survey of Davidson County, Tennessee. Knoxville, TN U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, and University of Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station.Google Scholar
Rathfon, R. and Ruble, K. 2007. Herbicide treatments for controlling invasive bush honeysuckle in a mature hardwood forest in west-central Indiana. Pages 187–197. In Buckley, D. S. and Clatterbuck, W. K. eds. Proceedings of the 15th Central Hardwood Forest conference. Ashville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS 101.Google Scholar
Rice, P. M. 2004. Fire as a Tool for Controlling Nonnative Invasive Plants. Missoula, MT Center for Invasive Plant Management, University of Montana.Google Scholar
Richburg, J. A. 2005. Timing Treatments to the Phenology of Root Carbohydrate Reserves to Control Woody Invasive Species. Ph.D dissertation, Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts–Amherst. 146 p.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 105:125–129.Google Scholar
Schibig, J. 1996. Twenty years of forest change at Radnor Lake Natural Area, Davidson County, Middle Tennessee. J. Tenn. Acad. Sci 71:57–72.Google Scholar
Swab, R., Zhang, M. L., and Mitsch, W. J. 2008. Effect of hydrologic restoration and Lonicera maackii removal on herbaceous understory vegetation in a bottomland hardwood forest. Restor. Ecol 16:453–463.Google Scholar
Vidra, R. L., Shear, T. H., and Stucky, J. M. 2007. Effects of vegetation removal on native understory recovery in an exotic-rich urban forest. J. Torrey Bot. Soc 134:410–419.Google Scholar