Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T23:43:00.026Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Temporal and Spatial Pattern of a Privet (Ligustrum vulgare) Invasion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Wanying Zhao ,
Charles Goebel  and
John Cardina
Wanying Zhao
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, The Ohio State University, OARDC, Wooster, OH 44691
Charles Goebel
Affiliation:
School of Environment and Natural Resources, The Ohio State University, Wooster, OH 44691
John Cardina*
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, The Ohio State University, OARDC, Wooster, OH 44691
*
Corresponding author's Email: cardina.2@osu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Privet has escaped from cultivation and is invading natural areas throughout eastern North America. Understanding the pattern of invasion over time could help us develop more efficient management strategies. We studied the invasion history and spatial distribution pattern of privet by mapping age and spatial data for established patches in a 132-ha (326 ac) forested natural area in northeast Ohio. We determined the age of 331 geo-referenced patches by counting annual rings, and mapped them with corresponding land habitat. Age distribution and cumulative number of privet patches over about 40 yr showed three phases of invasion. The initial 19-yr lag phase was characterized as a dispersed spatial pattern (based on nearest neighbor analysis), with patches located mostly at edges of different habitats and open places. In a second phase of about 15 yr, an average of 19 patches were initiated yearly, in a pattern that trended towards clustered. The final phase began around 2007, as the rate of new patch establishment declined, possibly because of saturation of the suitable habitat. Establishment of new patches was not associated with specific habitats. Aggregation of patches with similar ages increased after 1998 and became significantly clustered. Mapping of clusters of old and young patches identified invasion hot spots and barriers. Results affirmed that the best time for invasive control is during the lag phase. By monitoring edge habitats associated with early establishment, managers might detect and control early invaders and delay the onset of the expansion phase.

Keywords

Privet, Ligustrum vulgare L.Age distributioninvasion historyspatial pattern
Type
Case Study
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , June 2013 , pp. 310 - 319
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

Bailey, L. H. 1922. The Standard Cyclopedia of Horticulture. New York, NY Macmillan. 1859 p.Google Scholar
Brown, J. R. and Carter, J. 1998. Spatial and temporal patterns of exotic shrub invasion in an Australian tropical grassland. Landscape Ecol. 13:93–102.Google Scholar
Cothran, J. R. 2003. Gardens and Historic Plants of the Antebellum South. The University of South Carolina Press. 217 p.Google Scholar
Crooks, J. A. 2005. Lag times and exotic species: the ecology and management of biological invasions in slow-motion. Ecoscience 12:316–329.Google Scholar
Deerling, R. H. and Vankat, J. L. 1999. Forest colonization and developmental growth of the invasive shrub Lonicera maackii . Am. Midl. Nat. 141:43–50.Google Scholar
Dietz, H. 2002. Plant invasion patches-reconstructing pattern and process by means of herb-chronology. Bio. Invasions 4:211–222.Google Scholar
Dirr, M. A. 2009. Manual of Woody Landscape Plants: Their Identification, Ornamental Characteristics, Culture, Propagation and Uses. 6th ed. Champaign, IL Stipes. 641 p.Google Scholar
Emry, D. J., Alexander, H. M., and Tourtellot, M. K. 2011. Modelling the local spread of invasive plants: importance of including spatial distribution and detectability in management plans. J. Appl. Ecol. 48:1391–1400.Google Scholar
Fei, S., Kong, N., Stringer, J., and Bowker, D. 2009. Invasion pattern of exotic plants in forest ecosystems. Chapter 4, Pages 59–70 in Kohli, B. K., Jose, S., Singh, H. P., and Batish, D. R., eds. Invasive Plants and Forest Ecosystems. CRC.Google Scholar
Flory, S. L. and Clay, K. 2006. Invasive shrub distribution varies with distance to roads and stand age in eastern deciduous forests in Indiana, USA. Plant Ecol. 184:131–141.Google Scholar
Fortin, M-J., Dale, M. R., and ver Horf, J. 2006. Spatial analysis in ecology. Pages 2051–2058 in El-Shaarawi, A. and Piegorsch, W. W., eds. Encyclopedia of Environmetrics. Chichester Wiley.Google Scholar
Frappier, B., Lee, T. D., Olson, K. F., and Eckert, R. T. 2003. Small-scale invasion pattern, spread rate, and lag-phase behavior of Rhamnus frangula L. Forest Ecol. Manag. 186:1–6.Google Scholar
Gates, J. E. 1991. Powerline corridors, edge effects, and wildlife in forested landscapes of the central Appalachians. Pages 15–32 in Rodick, J. E. and Bolen, E. G., edis. Wildlife and Habitats in Managed Landscapes. Washington, DC Island.Google Scholar
Ghersa, C. M., Benech-Arnold, R. L., Satorre, E. H., and Martinez- Ghersa, M. A. 2000. Advances in weed management strategies. Field Crops Res. 67:95–105.Google Scholar
Gratani, L. and Foti, I. 1998. Estimating forest structure and shade tolerance of the species in a mixed deciduous broad-leaved forest in Abruzzo, Italy. Ann. Bot. Fenn. 35:75–83.Google Scholar
Higgins, S. I. and Richardson, D. M. 1996. A review of models of alien plant spread. Ecol. Model. 87:249–265.Google Scholar
Lundgren, M. R., Small, C. J., and Dreyer, G. D. 2004. Influence of land use and site characteristics on invasive plant abundance in the Quinebaug Highlands of southern New England. Northeast. Nat. 11(3):313–332.Google Scholar
Mack, R. N. and Foster, S. K. 2009. Eradicating plant invaders: combining ecologically-based tactics and broad-sense strategy. Pages 35–60 in Inderjit, , ed. Management of Invasive Weeds. Netherlands Springer.Google Scholar
Minor, E. S. and Gardner, R. H. 2011. Landscape connectivity and seed dispersal characteristics inform the best management strategy for exotic plants. Ecol. Appl. 21(3):739–749.Google Scholar
Moody, M. E. and Mack, R. N. 1988. Controlling the spread of plant invasions: the importance of nascent foci. J. Appl. Ecol. 25:1009–1021.Google Scholar
Mueller-Warrant, G. W., Whittaker, G. W., and Young, W. C. III. 2008. GIS analysis of spatial clustering and temporal change in weeds of grass seed crops. Weed Sci. 56:647–669.Google Scholar
Obeso, J. R. and Grubb, P. J. 1993. Fruit maturation the shrub Ligustrum vulgare (Oleaceae): lack of defoliation effects. Oikos 68:309–316.Google Scholar
Olson, C. and Cholewa, A. F. 2009. A guide to nonnative invasive plants inventoried in the north by forest inventory and analysis. Pages 67–69 in Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-52. Newtown Square, PA. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station.Google Scholar
Ord, J. K. and Getis, A. 1995. Local spatial autocorrelation statistics: distributional issues and an application. Geogr. Anal. 27(4):287–306.Google Scholar
Peacock, E., Rodgers, J., Bruce, K., and Gray, J. 2008. Assessing the pre-modern tree cover of the Ackerman unit, Tombigbee National Forest, North Central Hills, MS, using GLO survey notes and archaeological data. Southeast. Nat. 7(2):245–266.Google Scholar
Petit, R. J., Bialozyt, R., Garnier-Gere, P., and Hampe, A. 2004. Ecology and genetics of tree invasions: from recent introductions to Quaternay migrations. Forest Ecol. Manag. 197:117–137.Google Scholar
Pimentel, D., Zuniga, R., and Morrison, D. 2005. Pimentel, D., R., Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 2005. Ecological Economics. 52:273–288.Google Scholar
Radosevich, S. R., Stubbs, M. M., and Ghersa, C. M. 2003. Plant invasions-process and patterns. Weed Sci. 51:254–259.Google Scholar
Rodewald, A. D. 2012. Spreading messages about invasives. Divers. Distrib. 18:97–99.Google Scholar
Tecco, P. A., Diaz, S., Gurvich, D. E., Perez-Harguindguy, N., Cabido, M., and Bertone, G. A. 2007. Facilitation and interference underlying the association between the woody invaders Pyracantha angustifolia and Ligustrum lucidum . Appl. Veg. Sci. 10:211–218.Google Scholar
USDA, NRCS. 2013. The PLANTS Database (http://plants.usda.gov, 7 February 2013). National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401-4901 USA.Google Scholar
Wangen, S. R. and Webster, C. R. 2006 Potential for multiple lag phases during biotic invasions: reconstructing and invasion of the exotic tree Acer platanoides . J. Appl. Ecol. 43:258–268.Google Scholar
Weber, E. 2003. Invasive Plant Species of the World: A Reference Guide to Environmental Weeds. Cambridge, MA CBI. 239 p.Google Scholar
Webster, C. R., Jenkins, M. A., and Jose, S. 2006. Woody invaders and the challenges they pose to forest ecosystems in the eastern United States. J. Forest. 104:366–374.Google Scholar
Yates, E. D., Levia, D. F., and Williams, C. L. 2004. Recruitment of three non-native invasive plants into a fragmented forest in southern Illinois. Forest Ecol. Manag. 190:119–130.Google Scholar
Zhao, W. 2012. Genetic, age, and spatial structure to improve management of common privet (Ligustrum vulgare). M.S. thesis. Columbus, OH Ohio State University. 85 p.Google Scholar