Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T15:15:54.120Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Managing Spread from Rhizome Fragments is Key to Reducing Invasiveness in Miscanthus × giganteus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Natalie M. West ,
David P. Matlaga  and
Adam S. Davis
Natalie M. West*
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service Global Change and Photosynthesis Research Unit, Urbana, IL 61801
David P. Matlaga
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Susquehanna University, Selinsgrove, PA 17870
Adam S. Davis
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service Global Change and Photosynthesis Research Unit, Urbana, IL 61801
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: nmwest@illinois.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Miscanthus × giganteus, a widely planted biofeedstock, is generally regarded as a relatively low invasion concern. As a seed-infertile species, it lacks a consistent mechanism of long-distance dispersal, a key contributor to invasion rate, and constitutes a low risk for cultivation escape. However, agricultural production shelters plants from stochasticity and increases propagule pressure, enhancing the potential for low-risk species to take advantage of rare dispersal opportunities. Weed risk assessments of M. × giganteus assume the rarity of events such as scouring and flooding that would facilitate secondary dispersal of vegetative rhizome fragments and the long-term sexual inviability of escapes. Combining data from small-scale rhizome fragmentation and movement experiments, and estimates from the literature, we parameterized an individual-based model to examine M. × giganteus spread given three dispersal scenarios. We further evaluated our estimates in response to different field edge buffer widths and monitoring intensities, two key strategies advised for containing biofuel crops. We found that clonal expansion from the field edge alone was sufficient to allow the crop to outgrow buffers of 3 m or less within 11 to 15 yr with low monitoring intensities. Further, models that included the possibility of rhizome dispersal from fields and scouring at field edges demonstrate the potential for long-distance dispersal and establishment with inadequate management. Our study highlights the importance of considering minimum enforced management guidelines for growers to maintain the ecological integrity of the agricultural landscape.

Keywords

Giant Miscanthus, Miscanthus × giganteus J. M. Greef and Deuter ex Hodk. and RenvoizeBioenergybiofuel cropsinvisibilityMiscanthusrhizome dispersal
Type
Research Article
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , September 2014 , pp. 517 - 525
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

Anderson, E, Arundale, R, Maughan, M, Oladeinde, A, Wycislo, A, Voight, T (2011) Growth and agronomy of Miscanthus × giganteus for biomass production. Biofuels 2:167–183.Google Scholar
Anderson, E, Lee, DK, Allen, DJ, Voight, TB (2014) Agronomic factors in the establishment of tetraploid seeded Miscanthus × giganteus . Global Change Biol Bioenerg. DOI: 10.1111/gcbb.12192Google Scholar
Arundale, R, Dohleman, FG, Heaton, EA, McGrath, JM, Voigt, TB, Long, SP (2014) Yields of Miscanthus × giganteus and Panicum virgatum decline with stand age in the midwestern USA. Global Change Biol Bioenerg 6:1–13.Google Scholar
Baattrup-Pedersen, A, Riis, T, Larsen, SE (2012) Catchment characteristics and plant recruitment from sediment in stream and meadow habitats. River Res Appl 29:855–863.Google Scholar
Barney, JN, Mann, JJ, Kyser, GB, DiTomaso, JM (2012) Assessing habitat susceptibility and resistance to invasion by the bioenergy crops switchgrass and Miscanthus × giganteus in California. Biomass Bioenerg 40:143–154.Google Scholar
Boedeltje, G, Bakker, JP, Bekker, RM, van Groenendael, JM, Soesbergen, M (2003) Plant dispersal in a lowland stream in relation to occurrence and three specific life-history traits of the species in the species pool. J Ecol 91:855–866.Google Scholar
Bolker, BM (2008) Ecological Models and Data in R. Princeton, NJ Princeton University Press. 408 pGoogle Scholar
Bullock, JM, Moy, IL, Pywell, RF, Coulson, SJ, Nolan, AM, Caswell, H (2002) Plant dispersal and colonization processes at local and landscape scales. Pages 279–302 in Bullock, JM, Kenward, R, Hails, R, eds. Dispersal Ecology. Malden, MA Blackwell Google Scholar
Byrne, M, Stone, L (2011) The need for ‘duty of care’ when introducing new crops for sustainable agriculture. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 3:50–54.Google Scholar
Christian, DG, Yates, NE, Riche, AB (2009) Estimation of ramet production from Miscanthus × giganteus rhizome of different ages. Ind Crops Prod 30:176–178.Google Scholar
Cousens, RD (2008) Dispersal in Plants: A Population Perspective. Oxford, UK Oxford University Press. 221 pGoogle Scholar
Davis, AS, Cousens, RD, Hill, J, Mack, RN, Simberloff, D, Raghu, S (2010) Screening bioenergy feedstock crops to mitigate invasion risk. Front Ecol Environ 8:533–539.Google Scholar
DiTomaso, JM, Reaser, JK, Dionigi, CP, Doering, OC, Chilton, E, Schardt, JD, Barney, JN (2010) Biofuel versus bioinvasion: seeding policy priorities. Environ Sci Technol 44:6906–6910.Google Scholar
Dodet, M, Collet, C (2012) When should exotic forest plantation tree species be considered as an invasive threat and how should we treat them? Biol Invasions 14:1765–1778.Google Scholar
Frid, L, Hanna, D, Korb, N, Bauer, B, Bryan, K, Martin, B, Holzer, B (2013a) Evaluating alternative weed management strategies for three Montana landscapes. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 6:48–59.Google Scholar
Frid, L, Holcombe, T, Morisette, JT, Olsson, AD, Brigham, L, Bean, TM, Betancourt, JL, Bryan, K (2013b) Using state-and-transition modeling to account for imperfect detection in invasive species management. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 6:36–47.Google Scholar
Fryirs, KA, Brierley, GJ (2013) Geomorphic analysis of river systems: an approach to reading the landscape. Hoboken, NJ Wiley. 345 pGoogle Scholar
Gordon, DR, Tancig, KJ, Onderdonk, DA, Gantz, CA (2011) Assessing the invasive potential of biofuel species proposed for Florida and the United States using the Australian Weed Risk Assessment. Biomass Bioenerg 35:74–79.Google Scholar
Hager, HA, Stewart, FEC (2013) Suspected selective herbivory of bioenergy grasses by meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus). Can Field-Nat 127:44–49.Google Scholar
Harris, CM, Park, KJ, Atkinson, R, Edwards, C, Travis, JMJ (2009) Invasive species control: incorporating demographic data and seed dispersal into a management model for Rhododendron ponticum . Ecol Inf 4:226–233.Google Scholar
Heaton, EA, Dohleman, FG, Long, SP (2008) Meeting US biofuel goals with less land: the potential of Miscanthus. Global Change Biol 14:2000–2014.Google Scholar
Hodkinson, TR, Chase, MW, Takahasi, C, Leitch, IJ, Bennett, MD, Renvoize, SA (2002) The use of DNA sequencing (ITS and trnL-F), AFLP, and fluorescent in situ hybridization to study allopolyploid Miscanthus (Poaceae). Am J Bot 89:279–286.Google Scholar
Jørgensen, U (2011) Benefits versus risks of growing biofuel crops: the case of Miscanthus . Curr Opin Environ Sustain 3:24–30.Google Scholar
Kueffer, C, Pysek, P, Richardson, DM (2013) Integrative invasion science: model systems, multi-site studies, focused meta-analysis and invasion syndromes. New Phytol 200:615–633.Google Scholar
Leopold, LB, Wolman, MG, Miller, JB (1964) Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology. San Fransisco W. H. Freeman. 522 pGoogle Scholar
Mann, JJ, Kyser, GB, Barney, JN, DiTomaso, JM (2013) Assessment of aboveground and belowground vegetative fragments as propagules in the bioenergy crops Arundo donax and Miscanthus × giganteus . Bioenerg Res 6:688–698.Google Scholar
Matlaga, D, Davis, AS (2013) Minimizing invasive potential of Miscanthus × giganteus grown for bioenergy: identifying demographic thresholds for population growth and spread. J Appl Ecol 50:479–487.Google Scholar
Matlaga, DP, Schutte, BJ, Davis, AS (2012) Age-dependent demographic rates of the bioenergy crop Miscanthus × giganteus in Illinois. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 5:238–248.Google Scholar
Merritt, DM, Wohl, EE (2002) Processes governing hydrochory along rivers: hydraulics, hydrology, and dispersal phenology. Ecol Appl 12:1071–1087.Google Scholar
Nathan, R (2006) Long-distance dispersal of plants. Science 313:786–788.Google Scholar
Quinn, LD, Barney, JN, McCubbins, JSN, Endres, AB (2013) Navigating the “noxious” and “invasive” regulatory landscape: suggestions for improved regulation. Bioscience 63:124–131.Google Scholar
Randall, RP (2012) A Global Compendium of Weeds. Department of Agriculture and Food, Perth, Western Australia. 1125 pGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2013) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria R Foundation for Statistical Computing. URL http://www.r-project.org/.Google Scholar
Richardson, DM (2013) Lessons learned: how can we manage the invasion risk from biofuels? Biofuels 4:455–457.Google Scholar
Säumel, I, Kowarik, I (2013) Propagule morphology and river characteristics shape secondary water dispersal in tree species. Plant Ecol 214:1257–1272.Google Scholar
Smith, LL, Barney, JN (2014) The relative risk of invasion: evaluation of Miscanthus × giganteus seed establishment. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 7:93–106.Google Scholar
[U.S. EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2013) Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Additional Qualifying Renewable Fuel Pathways under the Renewable Fuel Standard Program; Final Rule Approving Renewable Fuel Pathways for Giant Reed (Arundo donax) and Napier Grass (Pennisetum purpureum). Federal Register 78(No. 133: July 11):41704–41716.Google Scholar
U.S. Geological Survey (2014) National Water Information System. http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis. Accessed January 6, 2014Google Scholar
von der Lippe, M, Kowarik, I (2012) Interactions between propagule pressure and seed traits shape human-mediated seed dispersal along roads. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 14:123–130.Google Scholar
West, NM, Matlaga, DP, Davis, AS (2014) Quantifying targets to manags invasion risk: light gradients dominate the early regeneration niche of naturalized and pre-commercial Miscanthus populations. Biol Inv. DOI 10.1007/s10530-014-0643-zGoogle Scholar
Williams, MJ, Douglas, J (2011) Planting and managing giant Miscanthus as a biomass energy crop. USDA-NRCS Plant Materials Program, Washington, D.C. Technical Note No. 4. 30 pGoogle Scholar
Zenni, RD, Nuñez, MA (2013) The elephant in the room: the role of failed invasions in understanding invasion biology. Oikos 122:801–815.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

West supplementary material

Appendix 1

Download West supplementary material(File)
File 56.2 KB
Supplementary material: File

West supplementary material

Appendix 2

Download West supplementary material(File)
File 13.8 KB