Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-768ffcd9cc-2bgxn Total loading time: 0.534 Render date: 2022-12-03T02:05:46.675Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Chinese Privet (Ligustrum sinense) Removal and its Effect on Native Plant Communities of Riparian Forests

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

James L. Hanula*
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station, 320 Green Street, Athens, GA 30602
Scott Horn
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station, 320 Green Street, Athens, GA 30602
John W. Taylor
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Forest Health Protection, Southern Region, 1720 Peachtree Road N.W., Atlanta, GA 30309
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: jhanula@fs.fed.us

Abstract

Chinese privet is a major invasive shrub within riparian zones throughout the southeastern United States. We removed privet shrubs from four riparian forests in October 2005 with a Gyrotrac® mulching machine or by hand-felling with chainsaws and machetes to determine how well these treatments controlled privet and how they affected plant community recovery. One year after shrub removal a foliar application of 2% glyphosate was applied to privet remaining in the herbaceous layer. Three “desired-future-condition” plots were also measured to assess how well treatments shifted plant communities toward a desirable outcome. Both methods completely removed privet from the shrub layer without reducing nonprivet shrub cover and diversity below levels on the untreated control plots. Nonprivet plant cover on the mulched plots was > 60% by 2007, similar to the desired-future-condition plots and higher than the hand-felling plots. Both treatments resulted in higher nonprivet plant cover than the untreated controls. Ordination showed that after 2 yr privet removal plots were tightly grouped, suggesting that the two removal techniques resulted in the same plant communities, which were distinctly different from both the untreated controls and the desired-future-condition. Both treatments created open streamside forests usable for recreation and other human activities. However, much longer periods of time or active management of the understory plant communities, or both, will be required to change the forests to typical mature forest plant communities.

Type
Research
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

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. Ecol. Appl 15:12631272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chao, A. 1984. Nonparametric estimation of the number of classes in a population. Scand. J. Stat 11:265270.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 147:6071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colwell, C. M. 1998. Historical change in vegetation and disturbance on the Georgia Piedmont. Am. Midl. Nat 140:7889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, R. W. and Quinn, G. P. 1989. Comparison of treatments after an analysis of variance in ecology. Ecol. Monogr 59:433463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrenfeld, J. G., Kourtev, P., and Huang, W. 2001. Changes in soil functions following invasions of exotic understory plants in deciduous forests. Ecol. Appl 11:12871300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, C. A. 1990. Diversity indices. Pages 297302. In Hunter, M. L. Jr Wildlife, Forests and Forestry: Principles of Managing for Biological Diversity. Engelwood, NJ Regents/Prentice Hall.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. Manage 194:95107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godinez-Alvarez, H., Herrick, J. E., Mattocks, M., Toledo, D., and Van Zee, J. 2009. Comparison of three vegetation monitoring methods: their relative utility for ecological assessment and monitoring. Ecol. Indicators 9:10011008.CrossRefGoogle 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 166:1324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, D. R. 1998. Effects of invasive, non-indigenous plant species on ecosystem processes: lessons from Florida. Ecol. Appl 8:975989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammer, Ø, Harper, D. A. T., and Ryan, P. D. 2001. PAST: Paleontological Statistics Software Package for education and data analysis. http://palaeo-electronica.org/2001_1/past/issue1_01.htm, January 29, 2009.Google Scholar
Harrington, T. B. and Miller, J. H. 2005. Effects of application rate, timing, and formulation of glyphosate and triclopyr on control of Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense). Weed Technol 19:4754.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 12:154165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heneghan, L., Rauschberg, C., Fatemi, F., and Workman, M. 2004. European buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) and its effects on some ecosystem properties in an urban woodland. Ecol. Restor 22:275280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hood, W. G. and Naiman, R. J. 2000. Vulnerability of riparian zones to invasion by exotic woody plants. Plant Ecol 148:105114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulme, P. E. and Bremner, E. T. 2006. Assessing the impact of Impatiens glandulifera on riparian habitats: partitioning diversity components following species removal. J. Appl. Ecol 43:4350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacquemyn, H. and Brys, R. 2008. Effects of stand age on the demography of a temperate forest herb in post-agricultural forests. Ecology 89:34803489.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kasmer, J. and Shefferson, R. 2002. Effects of removing an invasive understory shrub on growth of canopy trees in northeastern Illinois. Ecol. Restor 20:209210.Google Scholar
Kittell, M. M. 2001. Relationship among invasive Chinese privet, plant diversity, and small mammal captures in southeastern deciduous forests. M.S. thesis. Clemson, SC Clemson University. 35 p.Google Scholar
Klepac, J., Rummer, R. B., Hanula, J. L., and Horn, S. 2007. Mechanical removal of Chinese privet. Asheville, NC U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Southern Research Station Res. Paper SRS-43. 5 p.Google Scholar
Levine, J. M. and D'Antonio, C. M. 1999. Elton revisited: a review of evidence linking diversity and invasibility. Oikos 87:1526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Love, J. P. and Anderson, J. T. 2009. Seasonal effects of four control methods on the invasive Morrow's honeysuckle (Lonicera morrowii) and initial responses of understory plants in a southwestern Pennsylvania old field. Restor. Ecol 17:549559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luken, J. O. 1997. Management of plant invasions: implicating ecological succession. Pages 133144. In Luken, J. O. and Thieret, J. W. Assessment and Management of Plant Invasion. New York Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, C. C. 2005. 1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus. New York Vintage Books. 480 p.Google Scholar
McCune, B. and Mefford, M. J. 1999. PC-ORD. Multivariate analysis of ecological data, version 4. Gleneden Beach, OR MjM Software Design. 237 p.Google Scholar
Merriam, R. W. and Feil, E. 2003. The potential impact of an introduced shrub on native plant diversity and forest regeneration. Biol. Invasion 4:369373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, K. E. and Gorchov, D. L. 2004. The invasive shrub, Lonicera maackii, reduces growth and fecundity of perennial forest herbs. Oecologia 139:359375.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oswalt, C. M. and Oswalt, S. N. 2007. Winter litter disturbance facilities the spread of the nonnative grass Microstegium vimineum (Trin.) A. Camus. For. Ecol. Manag 249:199203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pattison, R. R., Goldstein, G., and Ares, A. 1998. Growth, biomass allocation and photosynthesis of invasive and native Hawaiian rainforest species. Oecologia 117:449459.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pimentel, D., Lach, L., Zuniga, R., and Morrison, D. 2000. Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous species in the United States. BioScience 50:5365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Planty-Tabacchi, A-M., Tabacci, E., Naiman, J., Deferrari, C., and Décamps, H. 1996. Invasibility of species-rich communities in riparian zones. Cons. Biol 10:598607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pyšek, P. and Prach, P. 1993. Plant invasions and the role of riparian habitats: a comparison of four species alien to central Europe. J. Biogeogr 20:412420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rinella, M. J., Maxwell, B. D., Fay, P. K., Weaver, T., and Shelley, R. L. 2009. Control effort exacerbates invasive-species problem. Ecol. Appl 19:155162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS Institute 1982. SAS User's Guide: Statistics. Cary, NC SAS Institute. 584 p.Google Scholar
Ward, R. W. 2002. Extent and dispersal rates of Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) invasion on the upper Oconee River floodplain, North Georgia. Southeast. Geogr 1:2948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, J. and Beck, C. W. 2007. Effects of Ligustrum sinense Lour. (Chinese privet) on abundance and diversity of songbirds and native plants in a southeastern nature preserve. Southeast. Nat 6:535550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woods, K. D. 1993. Effects of invasion by Lonicera tatarica L., on herbs and tree seedlings in four New England forests. Am. Midl. Nat 130:6274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woods, K. D. 1997. Community response to plant invasion. Pages 5668. In Luken, J. O. and Thieret, J. W. Assessment and Management of Plant Invasion. New York Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Chinese Privet (Ligustrum sinense) Removal and its Effect on Native Plant Communities of Riparian Forests
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Chinese Privet (Ligustrum sinense) Removal and its Effect on Native Plant Communities of Riparian Forests
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Chinese Privet (Ligustrum sinense) Removal and its Effect on Native Plant Communities of Riparian Forests
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *