Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T14:59:19.736Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Restoration for Resistance to Invasion by Giant Reed (Arundo donax)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Lauren D. Quinn  and
Jodie S. Holt
Lauren D. Quinn*
Affiliation:
Energy Biosciences Institute, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
Jodie S. Holt
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521
*
Corresponding author's E-mail address: ldquinn@illinois.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The relationship between plant community composition and invasibility has been studied extensively but seldom in the context of ecosystem restoration. Experimental riparian restoration plots differing in species composition and density were established and evaluated for susceptibility to invasion by giant reed, a common riparian invader in California, and natural recruitment by riparian species over time. Plots were planted in 2002 with cuttings of common threesquare (a sedge), seepwillow (a shrub), and Goodding's willow (a tree) at two densities in monoculture and all possible mixture combinations. Giant reed rhizomes were introduced into half of the plots in the spring of 2003, while the remaining plots were allowed to undergo natural recruitment for an additional year. In late winter 2004, giant reed rhizomes were planted in the remaining plots. Both planting groups were followed for one growing season to evaluate giant reed establishment, survival, and growth. Community composition affected giant reed performance, particularly in 2003 before natural recruitment occurred. In that year, plots containing seepwillow + willow had the lowest giant reed shoot production, growth, and survival. All plots containing seepwillow were resistant to colonization by natural recruitment in 2004, but none of the planting treatments affected giant reed success in that year. Giant reed was more successful overall in 2004 despite deeper shade and drier soils. This pattern could be attributed to larger initial rhizome size in 2004, which allowed giant reed to overcome environmental stress during establishment. Planting density did not impact giant reed or natural recruitment independently, but may affect environmental parameters and warrants further study as a potential contributor to restoration success. Our results indicate that choice of species composition in restoration might impact giant reed invasion success initially, but community resistance might not be sustainable and maintenance-free over time.

Keywords

Common threesquare, Schoenoplectus americanus (Pers) Volk. ex Schinz & R. Kellergiant reed, Arundo donax L. ABKDOGoodding's black willow, Salix gooddingii C. Ballseepwillow (mulefat), Baccharis salicifolia (Ruiz & Pavón) Pers.Invasion resistanceniche complementarityplant species richnessplant community invasibilityplanting densityriparian restoration
Type
Research
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 2 , Issue 4 , October 2009 , pp. 279 - 291
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

Annapurna, C. and Singh, J. S. 2003. Phenotypic plasticity and plant invasiveness: case study of congress grass. Curr. Sci 85:197–201.Google Scholar
Bakker, J. D. and Wilson, S. D. 2004. Using ecological restoration to constrain biological invasion. J. Appl. Ecol 41:1058–1064.Google Scholar
Bell, G. 1997. Ecology and management of Arundo donax, and approaches to riparian habitat restoration in southern California. Pages 103–113. in. Plant Invasions: Studies from North America and Europe. Leiden, The Netherlands Blackhuys.Google Scholar
Blumenthal, D. M., Jordan, N. R., and Svenson, E. L. 2003. Weed control as a rationale for restoration: the example of tallgrass prairie. Conserv. Ecol 7 (1):6.Google Scholar
Boose, A. B. and Holt, J. S. 1999. Environmental effects on asexual reproduction in Arundo donax . Weed Res 39:117–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chatterjee, S., Hadi, A. S., and Price, B. 2000. Regression Analysis by Example. New York John Wiley and Sons. 359 p.Google Scholar
Crawley, M. J. 2003. The structure of plant communities. Pages 475–531. In Crawley, M. J. Plant Ecology. Malden, MA Blackwell.Google Scholar
D'Antonio, C. M. and Thomsen, M. 2004. Ecological resistance in theory and practice. Weed Technol 18:1572–1577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Decruyenaere, J. G. and Holt, J. S. 2001. Seasonality of clonal propagation in giant reed. Weed Sci 49:760–767.Google Scholar
Decruyenaere, J. G. and Holt, J. S. 2005. Ramet demography of a clonal invader, Arundo donax (Poaceae), in Southern California. Plant Soil 277:41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodd, M. B., Barker, D. J., and Wedderburn, M. E. 2004. Plant diversity effects on herbage production and compositional changes in New Zealand hill country pastures. Grass Forage Sci 59:29–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dudley, T. 2000. Arundo donax . Pages 53–58. In Bossard, C. C., Randall, J. M., and Hoshovsky, M. C. Invasive Plants of California's Wildlands. Berkeley, CA University of California Press.Google Scholar
Else, J. A. 1996. Post-flood establishment of woody species and an exotic, Arundo donax, in a southern California riparian system. Master's thesis. San Diego, CA San Diego State University. 74 p.Google Scholar
Elton, C. S. 1958. The Ecology of Invasions by Animals and Plants. London, England Methuen. 181 p.Google Scholar
Fargione, J. E. and Tilman, D. 2005. Diversity decreases invasion via both sampling and complementarity effects. Ecol. Lett 8:604–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandez, O. N. 2003. Establishment of Cynodon dactylon from stolon and rhizome fragments. Weed Res 43:130–138.Google Scholar
Forbes, B. C. 1993. Small-scale wetland restoration in the high arctic: a long-term perspective. Restor. Ecol 1:59–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, J. 1997. Applied regression analysis, linear models, and related methods. Thousand Oaks, CA Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Funk, J. L., Cleland, E. E., Suding, K. N., and Zavaleta, E. S. 2008. Restoration through reassembly: plant traits and invasion resistance. Trends Ecol. Evol 23:695–703.Google Scholar
Gordon, D. R. and Rice, K. J. 1992. Partitioning of space and water between two California annual grassland species. Am. J. Bot 79:967–976.Google Scholar
Hood, W. G. and Naiman, R. J. 2000. Vulnerability of riparian zones to invasion by exotic vascular plants. Plant Ecology 148:105–114.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. T. and Young, T. P. 2004. Spacing and competition between planted grass plugs and preexisting perennial grasses in a restoration site in Oregon. Restor. Ecol 12:546–551.Google Scholar
Huston, M. A. 1997. Hidden treatments in ecological experiments: re-evaluating the ecosystem function of biodiversity. Oecologia 110:449–460.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kennedy, T. A., Naeem, S., Howe, K. M., Knops, J. M. H., Tilman, D., and Reich, P. 2002. Biodiversity as a barrier to ecological invasion. Nature 417:636–638.Google Scholar
Khudamrongsawat, J., Tayyar, R., and Holt, J. S. 2004. Genetic diversity of giant reed (Arundo donax) in the Santa Ana River, California. Weed Science 52:395–405.Google Scholar
Kim, K. D., Ewing, K., and Giblin, D. E. 2006. Controlling Phalaris arundinacea (reed canarygrass) with live willow stakes: a density-dependent response. Ecol. Eng 27:219–227.Google Scholar
Kolar, C. S. and Lodge, D. M. 2001. Progress in invasion biology: predicting invaders. Trends Ecol. Evol 16:199–204.Google Scholar
Levine, J. M. and D'Antonio, C. M. 1999. Elton revisited: a review of evidence linking diversity and invasibility. Oikos 87:15–26.Google Scholar
Lloret, F., Medail, F., Brundu, G., Camarda, I., Moragues, E., Rita, J., Lambdon, P., and Hulme, P. E. 2005. Species attributes and invasion success by alien plants on Mediterranean islands. J. Ecol 93:512–520.Google Scholar
Loreau, M. 2000. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: recent theoretical advances. Oikos 91:3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loreau, M. and Hector, A. 2001. Partitioning selection and complementarity in biodiversity experiments. Nature 412:72–76.Google Scholar
Maron, J. L. 2006. The relative importance of latitude matching and propagule pressure in the colonization success of an invasive forb. Ecography 29:819–826.Google Scholar
Miller, D. L., Smeins, F. E., Webb, J. W., and Longnecker, M. T. 1997. Regeneration of Scirpus americanus in a Texas coastal marsh following lesser snow goose herbivory. Wetlands 17:31–42.Google Scholar
Myers, R. H. 1986. Classical and modern regression with applications. Boston Duxbury.Google Scholar
Naeem, S., Knops, J. M. H., Tilman, D., Howe, K. M., Kennedy, T., and Gale, S. 2000. Plant diversity increases resistance to invasion in the absence of covarying extrinsic factors. Oikos 91:97–108.Google Scholar
Pan, X. Y., Geng, Y. P., Zhang, W. J., Li, B., and Chen, J. K. 2006. The influence of abiotic stress and phenotypic plasticity on the distribution of invasive Alternanthera philoxeroides along a riparian zone. Acta Oecol 30:333–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prieur-Richard, A. H., Lavorel, S., Dos Santos, A., and Grigulis, K. 2002. Mechanisms of resistance of Mediterranean annual communities to invasion by Conyza bonariensis: effects of native functional composition. Oikos 99:338–346.Google Scholar
Quinn, L. D. 2006. Ecological correlates of invasion by Arundo donax. Dissertation. Riverside, CA University of California. 126 p.Google Scholar
Quinn, L. D. and Holt, J. S. 2008. Ecological correlates of invasion by Arundo donax in three Southern California riparian habitats. Biol. Invasions 10:591–601.Google Scholar
Quinn, L. D., Rauterkus, M. A., and Holt, J. S. 2007. Effects of nitrogen enrichment and competition on growth and spread of giant reed (Arundo donax). Weed Sci 55:319–326.Google Scholar
Richardson, D. M., Holmes, P. M., Esler, K. J., Galatowitsch, S. M., Stromberg, J. C., Kirkman, S. P., Pysek, P., and Hobbs, R. J. 2007. Riparian vegetation: degradation, alien plant invasions, and restoration prospects. Divers. Distrib 13:126–139.Google Scholar
Richardson, D. M. and Pysek, P. 2006. Plant invasions: merging the concepts of species invasiveness and community invasibility. Prog. Phys. Geogr 30:409–431.Google Scholar
Rodgers, H. L., Day, F. P., and Atkinson, R. 2004. Root dynamics in restored and naturally regenerated Atlantic white cedar wetlands. Restor. Ecol 12:401–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheley, R. L. and Carpinelli, M. F. 2005. Creating weed-resistant plant communities using niche-differentiated nonnative species. Rangeland Ecol. Manage 58:480–488.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L. and Krueger-Mangold, J. 2003. Principles for restoring invasive plant-infested rangeland. Weed Sci 51:260–265.Google Scholar
Sher, A. A., Marshall, D. L., and Taylor, J. P. 2002. Establishment patterns of native Populus and Salix in the presence of invasive nonnative Tamarix . Ecol. Appl 12:760–772.Google Scholar
Smith, M. D., Wilcox, J. C., Kelly, T., and Knapp, A. K. 2004. Dominance not richness determines invasibility of tallgrass prairie. Oikos 106:253–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, D. F., Ksander, G. G., and Liow, P. S. 2005. Response of giant reed (Arundo donax L.) to intermittent shading. in. 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society. San Antonio, TX Aquatic Plant Management Society.Google Scholar
Spencer, D. F. and Ksander, G. G. 2006. Estimating Arundo donax ramet recruitment using degree-day based equations. Aquatic Botany 85:282–288.Google Scholar
Spencer, D. F., Stocker, R. K., Liow, P. S., Whitehand, L. C., Ksander, G. G., Fox, A. M., Everitt, J. H., and Quinn, L. D. 2008. Comparative growth of giant reed (Arundo donax L.) from Florida, Texas, and California. J. Aquat. Plant Manage 46:89–96.Google Scholar
Stromberg, J. C., Richter, B. D., Patten, D. T., and Wolden, L. G. 1993. Response of a Sonoran riparian forest to a 10-year return flood. Great Basin Nat 53:118–130.Google Scholar
Sweeney, B. W., Bott, T. L., Jackson, J. K., Kaplan, L. A., Newbold, J. D., Standley, L. J., Hession, W. C., and Horwitz, R. J. 2004. Riparian deforestation, stream narrowing, and loss of stream ecosystem services. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 101:14,132–14,137.Google Scholar
Systat, , 2000. Systat Statistical Software, Version 10.0. Chicago, IL SPSS Inc.Google Scholar
Thomsen, M. A., D'Antonio, C. M., Suttle, K. B., and Sousa, W. P. 2006. Ecological resistance, seed density and their interactions determine patterns of invasion in a California coastal grassland. Ecol. Lett 9:160–170.Google Scholar
Twedt, D. J. 2006. Small Clusters of fast-growing trees enhance forest structure on restored bottomland sites. Restor. Ecol 14:316–320.Google Scholar
Von Holle, B. and Simberloff, D. 2005. Ecological resistance to biological invasion overwhelmed by propagule pressure. Ecology 86:3212–3218.Google Scholar
Wilsey, B. and Stirling, G. 2007. Species richness and evenness respond in a different manner to propagule density in developing prairie microcosm communities. Plant Ecol 190:259–273.Google Scholar