Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:21:50.834Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quantifying Invasiveness of Plants: A Test Case with Yellow Toadflax (Linaria vulgaris)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Erik A. Lehnhoff ,
Lisa J. Rew ,
Bruce D. Maxwell  and
Mark L. Taper
Erik A. Lehnhoff
Affiliation:
Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717
Lisa J. Rew*
Affiliation:
Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717
Bruce D. Maxwell
Affiliation:
Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717
Mark L. Taper
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: lrew@montana.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Land managers commonly assume that nonindigenous plant species (NIS) are rapidly increasing in population size in all environments in which they occur. In fact, these plant species have differing levels of invasiveness depending on environment. A method was developed that quantifies invasiveness of a plant population based on annual changes in plant density and area occupied, within a series of permanently placed 1 m2 (10.76 ft2) monitoring plots. An invasiveness index (I) was calculated from the change in proportion of cells occupied and the proportions of cells that had growth rates > 1 and < 1; the possible value is restricted from −4 to +4. The method was tested on populations of yellow toadflax over 6 yr on a total of six populations within three distinct environments (Ridge, Valley, and Forest). Invasiveness values were different between environments. The Ridge populations had the highest mean level of invasiveness (I = 0.31), followed by the Valley (I = 0.26), and then the Forest (I = −0.90). Invasiveness also varied by year. The highest annual value of invasiveness was at the Ridge (I = 1.77) and the lowest was at the Forest (I = −1.90), both in 2005. Values of invasiveness were correlated (Pearson's correlation coefficient = 0.82) with the traditional calculations of population growth rate, but our method provides an enhanced measure of invasiveness because it includes information on both change in population area and density. This research shows that populations of yellow toadflax are not equally invasive in different environments or through time, although consistent patterns can be observed. The method presented and tested was implemented in approximately three person-days per year at less than $500 per year, and can be used to quantify the invasiveness of plant populations and thus allow land managers to prioritize the most invasive populations for management.

Keywords

Yellow toadflaxLinaria vulgaris Mill. LINVUEnvironmentmanagementprioritizationsite-specific
Type
Research Articles
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 1 , Issue 3 , July 2008 , pp. 319 - 325
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

Barlow, N. D. and Kean, J. M. 2004. Resource abundance and invasiveness: a simple model. Biol. Invasions 6:261–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barney, J. N., Di Tommaso, A., and Weston, L. A. 2005. Differences in invasibility of two contrasting habitats and invasiveness of two mugwort Artemisia vulgaris populations. J. Appl. Ecol 42:567–576.Google Scholar
Civeyrel, L. and Simberloff, D. 1996. A tale of two snails: Is the cure worse than the disease. Biodivers. Conserv 5:1231–1252.Google Scholar
Clements, D. R., DiTommaso, A., Jordan, N., Booth, B. D., Cardina, J., Doohan, D., Mohler, C. L., Murphy, S. D., and Swanton, C. J. 2004. Adaptability of plants invading North American cropland. Agric., Ecosyst. & Environ 104:379–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colautti, R. I., Grigorovich, I. A., and MacIsaac, H. J. 2006. Propagule pressure: a null model for biological invasions. Biol. Invasions 8:1023–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, M. A., Grime, P. J., and Thompson, K. 2000. Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invasibility. J. Ecol 88:528–534.Google Scholar
Despain, D. C. 1990. Yellowstone Vegetation. Boulder, CO Roberts Rinehart Publishers. 239.Google Scholar
Dukes, J. S. and Mooney, H. A. 2004. Disruption of ecosystem processes in western North America by invasive species. Rev. Chil. Hist. Nat 77:411–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gause, G. F. 1934. The Struggle for Existence. New York Hafner. 163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerhards, R. and Oebel, H. 2006. Practical experiences with a system for site-specific weed control in arable crops using real-time image analysis and GPS-controlled patch spraying. Weed Res 46:185–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grinnell, J. 1928. Presence and absence of animals. Univ. Calif. Chron 30:429–450.Google Scholar
Hansen, M. J. and Wilson, S. D. 2006. Is management of an invasive grass Agropyron cristatum contingent on environmental variation. J. Appl. Ecol 43:269–280.Google Scholar
Hubbell, S. P. 2001. The Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography. Princeton, NJ Princeton University Press. 375.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, G. E. 1957. Concluding remarks. Pages 415–427. in. Cold Springs Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology. Cold Springs Harbor, NY.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchinson, G. E. 1959. Homage to Santa Rosalia, or why are there so many kinds of animals. Am. Nat 93:145–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolar, C. S. and Lodge, D. M. 2001. Progress in invasions biology: predicting invaders. Trends Ecol. Evol 16:199–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lajeunesse, S. E. 1999. Dalmatian and Yellow Toadflax. Pages 202–216. in Sheley, R. L. and Petroff, J. K., editors. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis, OR Oregon State University Press.Google Scholar
Lajeunesse, S. E., Fay, P. K., Cooksey, D., Lacey, J. R., Nowierski, R. M., and Zamora, D. 2000. Dalmatian and Yellow Toadflax: Weeds of Pasture and Rangeland. Bozeman, MT Montana State University Extension Service. 13.Google Scholar
Le Corff, J. and Horvitz, C. C. 2005. Population growth versus population spread of an ant-dispersed neotropical herb with a mixed reproductive strategy. Ecol. Model 188:41–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lonsdale, W. M. 1999. Global patterns of plant invasions and the concept of invasibility. Ecology 80:1522–1536.Google Scholar
Matarczyk, J. A., Willis, A. J., Vranjic, J. A., and Ash, J. E. 2002. Herbicides, weeds and endangered species: management of bitou bush (Chrysanthemoides monilifera ssp. rotundata) with glyphosate and impacts on the endangered shrub, Pimelea spicata . Biol. Conserv 108:133–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MathSoft, Inc. 1999. S-PLUS 2000. Professional Release 1. Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
Maxwell, B. D. and Mortimer, A. M. 1994. Selection for herbicide resistance. Pages 353. in Powles, S. B. and Holtum, J. A. M., editors. Herbicide Resistance in Plants: Biology and Chemistry. Boca Raton, FL CRC.Google Scholar
Minasny, B., McBratney, A. B., and Whelan, B. M. 2005. VESPER, Australian Centre for Precision Agriculture, McMillan Building A05, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006. http://www.usyd.edu.au/su/agric/acpa. Accessed: April 5, 2007.Google Scholar
Nadeau, L. B. and King, J. R. 1991. Seed dispersal and seedling establishment of Linaria vulgaris Mill. Can. J. Plant Sci 71:771–782.Google Scholar
NRC 2000. The Future Role of Pesticides in US Agriculture. Washington, DC National Academy Press. 301.Google Scholar
Ogden, J. A. E. and Rejmanek, M. 2005. Recovery of native plant communities after the control of a dominant invasive plant species, Foeniculum vulgare: implications for management. Biol. Conserv 125:427–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, B. E. 1999. Grazing and Weeds. Pages 85–96. in Sheley, R. L. and Petroff, J. K., editors. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis, OR Oregon State University Press.Google Scholar
Parker, I. M. 2000. Invasion dynamics of Cytisus scoparius: a matrix model approach. Ecol. Appl 10:726–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pauchard, A., Alaback, P. B., and Edlund, E. G. 2003. Plant invasions in protected areas at multiple scales: Linaria vulgaris (Schrophulariaceae) in the West Yellowstone area. West. N. Am. Nat 63:416–428.Google Scholar
Pimentel, D., Zuniga, R., and Morrison, D. 2005. Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecol. Econ 52:273–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pysek, P. and Hulme, P. E. 2005. Spatio-temporal dynamics of plant invasions: linking pattern to process. Ecoscience 12:302–315.Google Scholar
Rew, L. J., Lehnhoff, E. A., and Maxwell, B. D. 2008. Non-indigenous species management using a population prioritization framework. Can. J. Plant Sci 87:1027–1036.Google Scholar
Rew, L. J., Maxwell, B. D., and Aspinall, R. 2005. Predicting the occurrence of nonindigenous species using environmental and remotely sensed data. Weed Sci 53:236–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, D. M., Pysek, P., Rejmánek, M., Barbour, M. G., Panetta, F. D., and West, C. J. 2000. Naturalization and invasion of alien plants: concepts and definitions. Divers. Distrib 6:93–107.Google Scholar
Saner, M. A., Clements, D. R., Hall, M. R., Doohan, D. J., and Crompton, C. W. 1995. The biology of Canadian weeds. 105. Linaria vulgaris Mill. Can. J. Plant Sci 75:525–537.Google Scholar
Sebert-Cuvillier, E., Paccaut, F., Chabrerie, O., Endels, P., Goubet, O., and Decocq, G. 2007. Local population dynamics of an invasive tree species with a complex life-history cycle: a stochastic matrix model. Ecol. Model 201:127–143.Google Scholar
Sutton, J. R., Stohlgren, T. J., and Beck, K. G. 2007. Predicting yellow toadflax infestations in the flat tops wilderness of Colorado. Biol. Invasions 9:783–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timmermann, C., Gerhards, R., and Kuhbauch, W. 2003. The economic impact of site specific weed control. Precis. Agric 4:249–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture 1996. Soil Survey of Gallatin National Forest, Montana. Bozeman, MT: USDA. 209.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture 2006. Overview of FY 2007 President's Budget, USDA Forest Service. Washington, DC USDA. 10.Google Scholar
Wilcove, D. S., Rothstein, D., Dubow, J., Phillips, A., and Losos, E. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. Bioscience 48:607–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, J. R. U., Richardson, D. M., Rouget, M., Proches, S., Amis, M. A., Henderson, L., and Thuiller, W. 2007. Residence time and potential range: crucial considerations in modelling plant invasions. Divers. Distrib 13:11–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar