Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T20:54:42.290Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Amur Honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii) Management Method Impacts Restoration of Understory Plants in the Presence of White-Tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginiana)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Kendra Cipollini ,
Elizabeth Ames  and
Don Cipollini
Kendra Cipollini*
Affiliation:
Wilmington College, Wilmington, OH 45177
Elizabeth Ames
Affiliation:
Wilmington College, Wilmington, OH 45177
Don Cipollini
Affiliation:
Wright State University, Department of Biological Sciences, Dayton, OH 45435
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: KAL143@alumni.psu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Management methods for invasive species vary in their restoration success in the presence or absence of herbivores. We investigated the performance of understory plants after management of the invasive shrub Amur honeysuckle using two herbicide-based methods (cut/paint and basal application) in fenced and unfenced plots. The cut/paint method resulted in the removal of above-ground stems, while the basal application method resulted in the dead stems remaining in place. Light level in the cut/paint treatment was higher than in the basal application treatment, which was higher than in the control (no management) treatment. Across fencing treatments, fruit production, height, and subsequent recruitment of transplanted jewelweed were greater in the cut/paint treatment. Across management treatments, jewelweed plants were taller in the fenced treatment. Native species richness was generally higher in the cut/paint and basal application treatments than in the control treatment. There were more jewelweed recruits, more jewelweed fruits, and greater native species richness in the cut/paint treatment than in the basal application treatment in fenced plots, but these measures were similar in both management treatments in unfenced plots. Thus standing dead stems of Amur honeysuckle offered protection from damage in the presence of herbivores, offsetting the advantage of the cut/paint method seen in the fenced plots. There was a trend for more leaves of transplanted wild ginger in the basal application treatment. There were more invasive garlic mustard and more Amur honeysuckle seedlings in the cut/paint treatment than in the control treatment. Our results illustrate the complexities involved in selecting appropriate restoration management techniques given herbivore pressure, differential species response, and presence of multiple invasive species. In our study, we demonstrated that the basal application honeysuckle management method (and therefore perhaps similar methods that leave the dead stems standing) led to increased understory plant restoration success when compared to the cut/paint method.

Keywords

triclopyrgarlic mustard, Alliaria petiolata (Bieb.) Cavara & Grandehoneysuckle, Lonicera maackii (Rupr.) Maxim.jewelweed, Impatiens capensis Meerb.wild ginger, Asarum canadense L.white-tailed deer, Odocoileus virginiana ZimmermannForest restorationherbivoreherbivorytouch-me-not
Type
Research
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , January 2009 , pp. 45 - 54
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

Alverson, W. S., Waller, D. M., and Solheim, S. L. 1988. Forests too deer: edge effects in northern Wisconsin. Conserv. Biol 2:348–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, R. C. 1994. Height of white-flowered trillium (Trillium grandiflorum) as an index of deer browsing intensity. Ecol. Appl 4:104–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asnani, K. M., Klips, R. A., and Curtis, P. S. 2006. Regeneration of woodland vegetation after deer browsing in Sharon Woods Metro Park, Franklin County, Ohio. Ohio J. Sci 106:86–92.Google Scholar
Bakker, E. S., Oliff, H., Vandenberghe, C., de Maeyer, K., Smit, R., Gleichman, J. M., and Vera, F. W. M. 2004. Ecological anachronisms in the recruitment of temperate light demanding tree species in wooded pastures. J. Appl. Ecol 41:571–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balgooyen, C. P. and Waller, D. M. 1995. The use of Lintonia borealis and other indicators to gauge impacts of white-tailed deer on plant communities in northern Wisconsin, USA. Nat. Areas J 15:308–318.Google Scholar
Bartuszevige, A. M. and Gorchov, D. L. 2006. Avian seed dispersal of an invasive shrub. Biol. Invasions 8:1013–1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, A. M. and Gorchov, D. L. 2004. Effects of herbicide on the invasive biennial Alliaria petiolata (garlic mustard) and initial responses of native plants in a southwestern Ohio forest. Restor. Ecol 12:559–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cipollini, D., Cipollini, K., and Stevenson, R. 2008a. Contrasting effects of allelochemicals from two invasive plants on the performance of a non-mycorrhizal plant. Int. J. Plant Sci 169:371–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cipollini, K. A., McClain, G. Y., and Cipollini, D. 2008b. Separating above- and belowground effects of Alliaria petiolata and Lonicera maackii on the performance of Impatiens capensis . Am. Midl. Nat 160:117–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cipollini, D., Stevenson, R., Enright, S., Eyles, A., and Bonello, P. 2008c. Phenolic metabolites in leaves of the invasive shrub, Lonicera maackii, and their potential phytotoxic and anti-herbivore effects. J. Chem. Ecol 34:144–152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conover, D. G. and Geiger, D. R. 1993. Glyphosate controls Amur honeysuckle in native woodland restoration (Ohio). Rest. Manage. Notes 11:168–169.Google Scholar
Cote, S. D., Rooney, T. P., Tremblay, J. P., Dussault, C., and Waller, D. M. 2004. Ecological impacts of deer overabundance. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst 35:113–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damman, H. and Cain, M. L. 1998. Population growth and viability analyses of the clonal woodland herb, Asarum canadense . J. Ecol 86:13–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorning, M. 2004. The Impact of Honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii) on Individual Plants and Plant Communities. M. S. Thesis. Dayton, OH Wright State University. 125.Google Scholar
Dorning, M. and Cipollini, D. 2006. Leaf and root extracts of the invasive shrub, Lonicera maackii, inhibit seed germination of three herbs with no autotoxic effects. Plant Ecol 184:287–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia, D. and Obeso, J. R. 2003. Facilitation by herbivore-mediated nurse plants in a threatened tree, Taxus baccata: local effects and landscape level consistency. Ecography 26:739–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorchov, D. L. 2005. Control of forest invasives and responses of native forest-floor plants: case studies of garlic mustard and Amur honeysuckle. Pages 30–42. in. Special Circular 196 - Proceedings of the Ohio Invasive Plant Research Conference. Wooster, OH Ohio State University/Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center (OARDC).Google Scholar
Gorchov, D. L. and Trisel, D. E. 2003. Competitive effects of the invasive shrub, Lonicera maackii (Rupr.) Herder (Caprifoliaceae), on the growth and survival of native tree seedlings. Plant Ecol 166:13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, A. M. A. and Gorchov, D. L. 2000. Effects of the exotic invasive shrub Lonicera maackii on the survival and fecundity of three species of native annuals. Am. Midl. Nat 144:36–50.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartman, K. M. and McCarthy, B. C. 2007. A dendro-ecological study of forest overstorey productivity following the invasion of the non-indigenous shrub Lonicera maackii . Appl. Veg. Sci 10:3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krueger-Mangold, J. M., Sheley, R. L., and Svejcar, T. J. 2006. Toward ecologically-based invasive plant management on rangeland. Weed Sci 54:597–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loh, R. K. and Daehler, C. C. 2007. Influence of invasive tree kill rates on native and invasive plant establishment in a Hawaiian forest. Restor. Ecol 15:199–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luken, J. O., Kuddes, L. M., and Tholemeir, T. C. 1997. Response of understory species to gap formation and soil disturbance in Lonicera maackii thickets. Restor. Ecol 5:229–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luken, J. O. and Thieret, J. W. 1995. Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii; Caprifoliaceae): its ascent, decline, and fall. SIDA 16:479–503.Google Scholar
McDonnell, A. L., Monteer, A. M., Owen, H. R., and Todd, B. L. 2005. Influence of stem cutting and glyphosate treatment on Lonicera maackii, an exotic and invasive species, on stem regrowth and native species richness. Trans. Ill. State Acad. Sci 98:1–17.Google Scholar
McEvoy, N. L. and Durtsche, R. D. 2004. Effect of the invasive shrub Lonicera maackii (Caprifoliaceae; Amur Honeysuckle) on autumn herpetofauna biodiversity. J. Ky. Acad. Sci 65:27–32.Google Scholar
Meiners, S. J. 2007. Apparent competition: an impact of exotic shrub invasion on tree regeneration. Biol. Invasions 9:849–855.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Milligan, A. L., Putwain, P. D., Cox, E. S., Ghorbani, J., Le Duc, M. G., and Marrs, R. H. 2004. Developing an integrated land management strategy for the restoration of moorland vegetation on Molinia caerulea-dominated vegetation for conservation purposes in upland Britain. Biol. Conserv 119:371–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mottl, L. M., Mabry, C. M., and Farrar, D. R. 2006. Seven-year survival of perennial herbaceous transplants in temperate woodland restoration. Restor. Ecol 3:330–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neter, J., Kutner, M. H., Wasserman, W., and Nachtsheim, C. J. 1996. Applied Linear Statistical Models. 4th ed. Burr Ridge, IL Richard D. Irwin. 1184.Google Scholar
Nyboer, R. 1992. Vegetation management guideline: bush honeysuckles – Tatarian, Morrow's, Belle and Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica L., L. morrowii Gray, L. x bella Zabel, and L. maackii [Rupr.] Maxim.). Nat. Areas J 12:218–219.Google Scholar
Pimentel, D., Zuniga, R., and Monison, D. 2005. Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecol. Econ. Environ 52:273–288.CrossRefGoogle 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. Proceedings of the 15th Central Hardwood Forest Conference. Asheville, NC U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service Southern Research Station.Google Scholar
Rooney, T. P. 2001. Deer impacts on forest ecosystems: a North American perspective. Forestry 74:201–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rooney, T. P. and Waller, D. M. 2003. Direct and indirect effects of white-tailed deer in forest ecosystems. For. Ecol. Manag 181:165–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruhren, S. and Handel, S. N. 2003. Herbivory constrains survival, reproduction and mutalisms when restoring nine temperate forest herbs. J. Torrey Bot. Soc 130:34–42.CrossRefGoogle 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
Sakai, A. K., Allendork, F. W., Holt, J. S., Lodge, D. M., Molofsky, J., With, K. A., Baughman, S., Cabin, R. J., Cohen, J. E., Ellstrand, N. C., McCauley, D. E., O'Neil, P., Parker, I. M., Thompson, J. N., and Weller, S. G. 2001. The population biology of invasive species. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst 32:305–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS 1999. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 8. Cary, NC SAS Institute. 1464.Google Scholar
Schmidt, K. A. and Whelan, C. J. 1999. Effects of exotic Lonicera and Rhamnus on songbird nest predation. Conserv. Biol 13:1502–1506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweeney, B. W. and Czapka, S. J. 2004. Riparian forest restoration: why each site needs an ecological prescription. For. Ecol. Manag 192:361–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trisel, D. E. 1997. The Invasive Shrub, Lonicera maackii (Rupr.) Herder (Caprifoliaceae): Factors Leading to Its Success and Its Effect on Native Species. PhD Dissertation. Oxford, OH Miami University. 200.Google Scholar
USDA/NRCS 2007. The PLANTS Database. http://plants.usda.gov. Accessed: August 10, 2008.Google Scholar
Vellend, M. 2002. A pest and an invader: white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus Zimm.) as a seed dispersal agent for honeysuckle shrubs (Lonicera L.). Nat. Areas. J 22:230–234.Google Scholar
von Ende, C. N. 1993. Repeated-measures analysis: growth and other time-dependent measures. Pages 113–135. in Scheiner, S. M. and Gurevitch, J. Design and Analysis of Ecological Experiments. New York Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
von Wettberg, E. J. and Schmitt, J. 2005. Physiological mechanism of population differentiation in shade-avoidance responses between woodland and clearing genotypes of Impatiens capensis . Am. J. Bot 92:868–874.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Webster, C. R., Jenkins, M. A., and Rock, J. H. 2005. Long-term response of spring flora to chronic herbivory and deer exclusion in Great Smoky Mountains National Park, USA. Biol. Conserv 125:297–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, C. E., Mosbacher, E. V., and Moriarity, W. J. 2000. Use of turtlehead (Chelone glabra L.) and other herbaceous plants to assess intensity of white-tailed deer browsing on Allegheny Plateau riparian forests, USA. Biol. Conserv 92:207–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar