Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-65dc7cd545-54nbv Total loading time: 0.204 Render date: 2021-07-24T00:54:54.671Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Predicting Biofuel Invasiveness: A Relative Comparison to Crops and Weeds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Larissa L. Smith
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology and Weed Science, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA
Daniel R. Tekiela
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology and Weed Science, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA
Jacob N. Barney
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology and Weed Science, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA
Corresponding
E-mail address:
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Concern raised against using highly competitive, exotic, large-statured, perennial grasses with fast growth rates as bioenergy crops has led to calls for risk assessment before widespread cultivation. Weed risk assessments (WRAs) are decision support tools commonly used throughout the world to determine the invasion risk of new plant taxa—primarily used as a pre-entry screen. Here, we compare the common Australian (A-WRA) and newer U.S. (US-WRA) models to evaluate the invasion risk of 16 candidate bioenergy crops and to compare their WRA scores to 14 important agronomic crops and 10 invasive species with an agronomic origin. Of the 40 species assessed, the A-WRA and US-WRA ranked 34 and 28 species, respectively, as high risk, including the major crops alfalfa, rice, canola, and barley. Surprisingly, in several cases, both models failed to effectively parse weeds from crops. For example, cereal rye received scores above (US-WRA) or comparable to (A-WRA) kudzu, a widespread damaging invader of the Southeastern United States introduced as forage. Our results indicate that these models are unable to accurately address broad, intraspecific variation and that species introduced for agronomic purposes pose special limitations to WRAs. This further supports other calls for postborder evaluation (e.g., field testing) following WRA screening. We should be cautious of the role of WRAs in setting policy, as illustrated by this relative evaluation of novel crops.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

References

Barney, JN (2014) Bioenergy and invasive plants: quantifying and mitigating future risks. Invasive Plant Sci Manage 7:199209 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barney, JN, DiTomaso, JM (2008) Non-native species and bioenergy: are we cultivating the next invader? Bioscience 58:6470 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barney, JN, Smith, LL, Tekiela, DR (2015) Using weed risk assessments to separate the weeds from the crops. Pages 6784 in Quinn, LD, Matlaga, DP, Barney, JN, eds. Bioenergy and Biological Invasions: Ecological, Agronomic and Policy Perspectives on Minimising Risk. Oxford, U.K.: CABI Google Scholar
Barney, JN, Tekiela, D, Dollete, E, Tomasek, B (2013) What is the “real” impact of invasive plant species? Front Ecol Environ 11:322329 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barney, JN, Whitlow, TH (2008) A unifying framework for biological invasions: the state factor model. Biol Invasions 10:259272 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, GP (1997) Ecology and management of Arundo donax, and approaches to riparian habitat restoration in Southern California. Pages 103113 in Brock, JH, Wade, M, Pysek, P, Green, D, eds. Plant Invasions: Studies from North America and Europe. Leiden, The Netherlands Blackhuys Google Scholar
Buckley, YM, Brockerhoff, E, Langer, L, Ledgard, N, North, H, Rees, M (2005) Slowing down a pine invasion despite uncertainty in demography and dispersal. J Appl Ecol 42:10201030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buddenhagen, CE, Chimera, C, Clifford, P (2009) Assessing biofuel crop invasiveness: a case study. PLoS One 4:e5261. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005261CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[CAST] Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (2013) Impact of the precautionary principle on feeding current and future generations. Ames, Iowa CAST Issue Paper 52Google Scholar
Cousens, R (2008) Risk assessment of potential biofuel species: an application for trait-based models for predicting weediness. Weed Sci 56:873–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daehler, CC, Denslow, JS, Ansari, S, Kuo, H (2004) A risk-assessment system for screening out invasive pest plants from Hawaii and other Pacific Islands. Conserv Biol 18:360368 CrossRefGoogle 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 8:533539 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, MA, Chew, M, Hobbs, R, Lugo, A, Ewel, J, Vermeij, G, Brown, J, Rosenzweig, M, Gardner, M, Carroll, S, Thompson, K, Pickett, S, Stromberg, J, Del Tredici, P, Suding, KN, Ehrenfeld, JG, Grime, J, Mascaro, J, Briggs, J (2011) Don't judge species on their origins. Nature 474:153154 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawson, W, Keser, LH, Winter, M, Pysek, P, Kartesz, J, Nishino, M, Fuentes, N, Chytry, M, Celesti-Grapow, L, Van Kleunen, M (2013) Correlations between global and regional measures of invasiveness vary with region size. Neobiota 16:5980 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dostál, P, Müllerová, J, Pyšek, P, Pergl, J, Klinerová, T, Vila, M (2013) The impact of an invasive plant changes over time. Ecol Lett 16:12771284 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dougherty, RF, Quinn, L, Endres, A, Voigt, T, Barney, JN (2014) Natural history survey of the ornamental grass Miscanthus sinensis in the invaded range. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 7:113120 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driscoll, DA, Catford, JA, Barney, JN, Hulme, PE, Inderjit, , Martin, TG, Pauchard, A, Pyšek, P, Richardson, DM, Riley, S, Visser, V (2014) New pasture plants intensify invasive species risk. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111:1662216627 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eiswerth, ME, Van Kooten, GC (2000) Uncertainty, economics and the spread of an invasive species plant. Am J Agric Econ 84:13171322 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fellows, GM, Roeth, FW (1992) Factors influencing shattercane (Sorghum bicolor) seed survival. Weed Sci 40:434440 Google Scholar
Glaser, A, Glick, P (2012) Growing Risk: Addressing the Invasive Potential of Bioenergy Feedstocks. Washington, DC National Wildlife Federation Google Scholar
Gordon, DR, Mitterdorfer, B, Pheloung, PC, Ansari, S, Buddenhagen, C, Chimera, C, Daehler, CC, Dawson, W, Denslow, JS, Larosa, A, Nishida, T, Onderdonk, DA, Panetta, FD, Pysek, P, Randall, RP, Richardson, DM, Tshidada, NJ, Virtue, JG, Williams, PA (2010) Guidance for addressing the Australian weed risk assessment questions. Plant Prot Q 25:5674 Google Scholar
Gordon, DR, Onderdonk, DA, Fox, AM, Stocker, RK (2008) Consistent accuracy of the Australian weed risk assessment system across varied geographies. Divers Distrib 14:234242 CrossRefGoogle 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 35:7479 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holm, LG, Plucknett, DL, Juan, PV, Herberger, JP (1977) The World's Worst Weeds: Distribution and Biology. Honolulu University Press of Hawaii Google Scholar
Hulme, PE (2012) Weed risk assessment: a way forward or a waste of time? J Appl Ecol 49:1019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulme, PE, Pysek, P, Jaroaìk, VC, Pergl, J, Schaffner, U, Villa, M (2013) Bias and error in understanding plant invasion impacts. Trends Ecol Evol 28:212218 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keller, RP, Lodge, DM, Finnoff, DC (2007) Risk assessment for invasive species produces net bioeconomic benefits. Proc Nat Acad Sci U S A 104:203207 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koop, A, Fowler, L, Newton, L, Caton, B (2012) Development and validation of a weed screening tool for the United States. Biol Invasions 14:273294 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewandowski, I, Scurlock, JMO, Lindvall, E, Christou, M (2003) The development and current status of perennial rhizomatous grasses as energy crops in the US and Europe. Biomass Bioenerg 25:335361 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, KC, Porter, RD (2014) Global approaches to addressing biofuel-related invasive species risks and incorporation into U.S. laws and policies. Ecol Monogr 84:171201 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lonsdale, WM (2011) Risk assessment and prioritization. Pages 604609 in Simberloff, D, Rejmanek, M, eds. Encyclopedia of Biological Invasions. Berkeley University of California Press Google Scholar
Mack, RN (2005) Predicting the identity of plant invaders: future contributions from horticulture. Hortscience 40:11681174 Google Scholar
Martin, J, Waldren, R, Stamp, D (2006) Principles of Field Crop Production. Upper Saddle River, NJ Prentice Hall Google Scholar
Mcneely, JA, Neville, LE, , M. R. (2003) When is eradication a sound investment? Conserv Pract 4:3041 Google Scholar
Meyer, MH, Tchida, CL (1999) Miscanthus Andress. produces viable seed in four USDA hardiness zones. J Environ Hortic 17:137140 Google Scholar
Molina-Montenegro, MA, Carrasco-Urra, F, Rodrigo, C, Valladares, F, Gianoli, E (2012) Occurrence of the non-native annual bluegrass on the Antarctic mainland and its negative effects on native plants. Conserv Biol 26:717723 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nishida, T, Yamashita, N, Asia, M, Kurokawa, S, Enomoto, T, Pheloung, PC, Groves, RH (2009) Developing a pre-entry weed risk assessment system for use in Japan. Biol Invasions 11:13191333 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panetta, FD (2009) Weed eradication—an economic perspective. Invasive Plant Sci Manage 2:360368 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peel, MC, Finlayson, BL, Mcmahon, TA (2007) Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 11:16331644 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pekrun, C, Lane, P, Lutman, P (2005) Modelling seedbank dynamics of volunteer oilseed rape (Brassica napus). Agric Syst 84:120 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlack, RD, Wright, LL, Turhollow, AF, Graham, RL, Stokes, BJ, Erbach, DC (2005) Biomass as feedstock for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry: the technical feasibility of a billion-ton annual supply. Oak Ridge, TN Oak Ridge National Laboratory Tech Rep ORNL/TM-2006/66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pheloung, PC, Williams, PA, Halloy, SR (1999) A weed risk assessment model for use as a biosecurity tool evaluating plant introductions. J Environ Manage 57:239251 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pimentel, D, Lach, L, Zuniga, R, Morrison, D (2000) Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous species in the United States. Bioscience 50:5365 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinn, L, Allen, DJ, Stewart, R (2010) Invasiveness potential of Miscanthus sinensis: implications for bioenergy production in the United States. Glob Change Biol Bioenergy 2:310320 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinn, L, Barney, J, Mccubbins, J, Endres, A (2013) Navigating the “noxious” and “invasive” regulatory landscape: suggestions for improved regulation. Bioscience 63:124131 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinn, LD, Gordon, DR, Glaser, A, Lieurance, D, Flory, SL (2015) Bioenergy feedstocks at low risk for invasion in the USA: a “white list” approach. Bioenerg Res 8:471481. DOI: 10.1007/s12155-014-9503-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinn, LD, Holt, JS (2008) Ecological correlates of invasion by Arundo donax in three southern California riparian habitats. Biol Invasions 10:591601 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raghu, S, Anderson, RC, Daehler, CC, Davis, AS, Wiedenmann, RN, Simberloff, D, Mack, RN (2006) Adding biofuels to the invasive species fire? Science 313:1742 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rejmanek, M, Richardson, DM (1996) What attributes make some plant species more invasive? Ecology 77:16551660 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, GP, Dale, VH, Doering, OC, Hamburg, SP, Melillo, JM, Wander, MM, Parton, WJ, Adler, PR, Barney, JN, Cruse, RM, Duke, CS, Fearnside, PM, Follett, RF, Gibbs, HK, Goldemberg, J, Mladenoff, DJ, Ojima, D, Palmer, MW, Sharpley, A, Wallace, L, Weathers, KC, Wiens, JA, Wilhelm, WW (2008) Sustainable biofuels redux. Science 322:4950 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sax, DF, Stachowicz, JJ, Gaines, SD, eds, (2005) Species Invasions: Insights into Ecology, Evolution, and Biogeography. Sunderland, MA Sinauer Google Scholar
Seawright, EK, Rister, ME, Lacewell, RD, Mccorkle, DA, Sturdivant, AW, Yang, C, Goolsby, JA (2009) Economic implications for the biological control of Arundo donax: Rio Grande Basin. Southwest Entomol 34:377394 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simberloff, D (2005) The politics of assessing risk for biological invasions: the USA as a case study. Trends Ecol Evol 20:216222 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simberloff, D (2008) Invasion biologists and the biofuels boom: Cassandras or colleagues? Weed Sci 56:867872 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, LL, Allen, DJ, Barney, JN (2015) The thin green line: sustainable bioenergy feedstocks or invaders in waiting? Neobiota 25:4771 Google Scholar
Smith, LL, Barney, JN (2014) The relative risk of invasion: evaluation of Miscanthus × giganteus seed establishment. Invasive Plant Sci Manage 7:93106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, LM, Byrne, M, Virtue, JG (2008) An environmental weed risk assessment model for Australian forage improvement programs. Aust J Exp Agric 48:568574 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Kleunen, M, Weber, E, Fischer, M (2010) A meta-analysis of trait differences between invasive and non-invasive plant species. Ecol Lett 13:235245 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vilà, M, Espinar, JL, Hejda, M, Hulme, PE, Jarošík, V, Maron, JL, Pergl, J, Schaffner, U, Sun, Y, Pyšek, P (2011) Ecological impacts of invasive alien plants: a meta-analysis of their effects on species, communities and ecosystems. Ecol Lett 14:702708 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Virtue, JG, Bennett, SJ, Randall, RP (2004) of Conference. Plant introductions in Australia: how can we resolve weedy conflicts of interest? Pages 4248 in Sindel, BM, Johnson, SB, eds. Proceedings of Weed Management: Balancing People, Planet, Profit—the 14th Australian Weeds Conference. Sydney, Australia Weed Society of New South Wales Google Scholar
Warwick, SI, Black, LD (1983) The biology of Canadian weeds. 61. Sorghum halepense (L.) PERS. Can J Plant Sci 63:9971014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, M, Fitter, A (1996) The varying success of invaders. Ecology 77:16611666 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yokomizo, H, Possingham, HP, Hulme, PE, Grice, AC, Buckley, YM (2012) Cost–benefit analysis for intentional plant introductions under uncertainty. Biol Invasions 14:839849 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
You have Access
10
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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 sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent 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.

Predicting Biofuel Invasiveness: A Relative Comparison to Crops and Weeds
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send 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 use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Predicting Biofuel Invasiveness: A Relative Comparison to Crops and Weeds
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send 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 use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Predicting Biofuel Invasiveness: A Relative Comparison to Crops and Weeds
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? *