Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T12:28:35.715Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Use of a Native Matrix Species to Facilitate Understory Restoration in an Overbrowsed, Invaded Woodland

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Joshua A. Martinez  and
Mathew E. Dornbush
Joshua A. Martinez
Affiliation:
Environmental Science and Policy Graduate Program, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, 2420 Nicolet Drive, Green Bay, WI 54311
Mathew E. Dornbush*
Affiliation:
Environmental Science and Policy Graduate Program, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, 2420 Nicolet Drive, Green Bay, WI 54311
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: dornbusm@uwgb.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The interactive effects of herbivory, exotic species, and other human-mediated changes to the biosphere are reducing species diversity and altering ecosystem services globally. In this study, we tested whether facilitation could be used as a management technique to restore a degraded northeast Wisconsin forest understory facing high white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) browse pressure and high abundance of the exotic herb garlic mustard [Alliaria petiolata (Bieb.) Cavara & Grande]. Specifically, we attempted to facilitate native understory restoration by planting or seeding native herbs into three different matrix densities of the native, browse-tolerant grass Virginia wildrye (Elymus virginicus L.), which were either protected from (fenced), or accessible to, deer browsing. Deer had minimal impacts on E. virginicus but significantly reduced the cover, survival, and flower production of white snakeroot [Ageratina altissima (L.) King & H.E. Robins.] transplants, largely independent of the density of E. virginicus plantings in open-access plots. In contrast, the richness and abundance of native-seeded species were not affected by deer access but were reduced by increasing E. virginicus densities. Alliaria petiolata cover was significantly higher in plots accessible to deer but declined significantly with increasing E. virginicus planting density in both open-access and fenced plots. These results were largely corroborated by results from an associated observational study, with the exception that natural E. virginicus stands supported slightly higher native-species richness than did adjacent areas lacking E. virginicus. Thus, although we found little support that establishing E. virginicus facilitated browse-susceptible native understory herbs during our short-term experimental study, restored E. virginicus successfully established, thereby increasing native species cover and significantly reducing the cover of the exotic A. petiolata. We suggest the planting of browse-tolerant native species, such as E. virginicus, as a viable restoration technique in heavily browsed, A. petiolata–invaded woodlands.

Keywords

Garlic mustard, Alliaria petiolata (Bieb.) Cavara & GrandeVirginia wildrye, Elymus virginicus L.white snakeroot, Ageratina altissima (L.) King & H.E. RobinsHerbivoryinterspecific competitioninvasive plantsseed additionWisconsin
Type
Research
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , June 2013 , pp. 219 - 230
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.)

Footnotes

Current address: Cofrin Center for Biodiversity, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, Green Bay, WI 54311

References

Literature Cited

Anderson, R. C. 1994. Height of white-flowered trillium (Trillium grandiflorum) as an index of deer browsing intensity. Ecol. Appl. 4:104–109.Google Scholar
Augustine, D. J., Frelich, L. E., and Jordan, P. A. 1998. Evidence for two alternate stable states in an ungulate grazing system. Ecol. Appl. 8:1260–1269.Google Scholar
Bagousse-Pinguet, Y. L., Gross, E. M., and Straile, D. 2012. Release from competition and protection determine the outcome of plant interactions along a grazing gradient. Oikos 121:95–101.Google Scholar
Balgooyen, C. P. and Waller, D. M. 1995. The use of Clintonia borealis and other indicators to gauge impacts of white-tailed deer on plant communities in northern Wisconsin, USA. Nat. Area J. 15:308–318.Google Scholar
Brook, B. W., Sodhi, N. S., and Bradshaw, C. J. A. 2008. Synergies among extinction drivers under global change. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23:453–460.Google Scholar
Brooker, R. W., Maestre, F. T., Callaway, R. M., Lortie, C. L., Cavieres, L. A., Kunstler, G., Liancourt, P., Tielborger, K., Travis, J. M., Anthelme, F., Armas, C., Coll, L., Corcket, E., Delzon, S., Forey, E., Kikvidze, Z., Olofsson, J., Pugnaire, F., Quiroz, C. L., Saccone, P., Schiffers, K., Seifan, M., Touzard, B., and Michalet, R. 2007. Facilitation in plant communities: the past, the present, and the future. J. Ecol. 96:18–34.Google Scholar
Callaway, R. M. 1995. Positive interactions among plants. Bot. Rev. 61:306–349.Google Scholar
Callaway, R. M., Kikodze, D., Chiboshvili, M., and Khetsuriani, L. 2005. Unpalatable plants protect neighbors from grazing and increase plant community diversity. Ecology 86:1856–1862.Google Scholar
Callaway, R. M., Kikvidze, Z., and Kikodze, D. 2000. Facilitation by unpalatable weeds may conserve plant diversity in overgrazed meadows in the Caucasus Mountains. Oikos 89:275–282.Google Scholar
Cardinal, E., Martin, J. L., Tremblay, J. P., and Côté, S. D. 2012. An experimental study of how variation in deer density affects vegetation and songbird assemblages of recently harvested boreal forests. Can. J. Zool. 90:704–713.Google Scholar
Chase, J. M., Abrams, P. A., Grover, J. P., Diehl, S., Chesson, P., Holt, R. D., Richards, S. A., Nisbet, R. M., and Case, T. J. 2002. The interaction between predation and competition: a review and synthesis. Ecol. Lett. 5:302–315.Google Scholar
Chesson, P. and Huntley, N. 1997. The roles of harsh and fluctuating conditions in the dynamics of ecological communities. Am. Nat. 150:519–553.Google Scholar
Cobo, A. D., Crawford, J. C., and Bolen, R. H. 2008. Estimation of deer density and the impact of deer browsing on forest regeneration at Strawberry Hill Nature Preserve. J. Pa. Acad. Sci. 81:66–73.Google Scholar
Côté, S. D., Rooney, T. P., Tremblay, J. P., Dussault, C., and Waller, D. M. 2004. Ecological impacts of deer overabundance. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 35:113–147.Google Scholar
Curtis, J. T. 1959. The Vegetation of Wisconsin. Madison, WI The University of Wisconsin Press. Pp. 156–168.Google Scholar
Daehler, C. C. 2003. Performance comparisons of co-occurring native and alien invasive plants: implications for conservation and restoration. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 34:183–211.Google Scholar
Ehrenfeld, J. G. 2003. Effect of exotic plant invasions on soil nutrient cycling processes. Ecosystems 6:503–523.Google Scholar
Englund, J. and Meyer, W. 1986. The impact of deer on 24 species of prairie forbs. Proc. N. Am. Prairie Conf. 9:210–212.Google Scholar
Eschtruth, A. K. and Battles, J. J. 2008. Acceleration of exotic plant invasion in a forested ecosystem by a generalist herbivore. Conserv. Biol. 23:388–399.Google Scholar
Eschtruth, A. K. and Battles, J. J. 2009. Assessing the relative importance of disturbance, herbivory, diversity, and propagule pressure in exotic plant invasion. Ecol. Monogr. 79:265–280.Google Scholar
Flinn, K. M. and Vellend, M. 2005. Recovery of forest plant communities in post-agricultural landscapes. Front. Ecol. Environ. 3:243–250.Google Scholar
Gilliam, F. S. 2007. The ecological significance of the herbaceous layer in temperate forest ecosystems. Bioscience 57:845–858.Google Scholar
Gómez-Aparicio, L., Zamora, R., Gomes, J. M., Hodar, J. A., Castro, J., and Baraza, E. 2004. Applying plant facilitation to forest reforestation: a meta-analysis of the use of shrubs as nurse plants. Ecol. Appl. 14:1128–1138.Google Scholar
Gonzales, E. K. and Arcese, P. 2008. Herbivory more limiting than competition on early and established native plants in an invaded meadow. Ecology 89:3282–3289.Google Scholar
Grime, J. P. 1977. Evidence for the existence of three primary strategies in plants and its relevance to ecological and evolutionary theory. Am. Nat. 111:1169–1194.Google Scholar
Hahn, P. G., Draney, M. L., and Dornbush, M. E. 2011. Exotic slugs pose a previously unrecognized threat to the herbaceous layer in a midwestern woodland. Restor. Ecol. 6:786–794.Google Scholar
Holmgren, M., Aviles, R., Sierralta, L., Segura, A. M., and Fuentes, E. R. 2000. Why have European herbs so successfully invaded the Chilean matorral? Effects of herbivory, soil nutrients, and fire. J. Arid Environ. 44:197–211.Google Scholar
Horsley, S. B., Stout, S. L., and DeCalesta, D. S. 2003. White-tailed deer impact on the vegetation dynamics of a northern hardwood forest. Ecol. Appl. 13:98–118.Google Scholar
Jonasson, S. 1988. Evaluation of the point intercept method for the estimation of plant biomass. Oikos. 52:101–106.Google Scholar
Keddy, P. A., Twolan, S. L., and Wisheu, I. C. 1994. Competitive effect and response rankings in 20 wetland plants: are they consistent across three environments? J. Ecol. 82:635–643.Google Scholar
Kettenring, K. M. and Adams, C. R. 2011. Lessons learned from invasive plant control experiments: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Appl. Ecol. 48:970–979.Google Scholar
Knight, T. M., Dunn, J. L., Smith, L. A., Davis, J., and Kalisz, S. 2009. Deer facilitate invasive plant success in a Pennsylvania forest understory. Nat. Area J. 29:110–116.Google Scholar
Kuussaari, M., Bommarco, R., Heikkinen, R. K., Helm, A., Krauss, J., Lindborg, R., Öckinger, E., Pärtel, M., Pino, J., Rodà, F., Stefanescu, C., Teder, T., Zobel, M., and Steffan-Dewenter, I. 2009. Extinction debt: a challenge for biodiversity conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24:564–571.3.Google Scholar
Lankau, R. A., Nuzzo, V., Spyreas, G., and Davis, A. S. 2009. Evolutionary limits ameliorate the negative impact of an invasive plant. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 106:15362–15367.Google Scholar
MacDougall, A. S. and Turkington, R. 2005. Are invasive species the drivers or passengers of change in degraded ecosystems? Ecology 86:42–55.Google Scholar
Maestre, F. T., Bautista, S., Cortina, J., and Bellot, J. 2001. Potential for using facilitation by grasses to establish shrubs on a semiarid degraded steppe. Ecol. Appl. 11:1641–1655.Google Scholar
Mason, R. A., Cooke, J., Moles, A. T., and Leishman, M. R. 2008. Reproductive outputs of invasive verses native plants. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 17:633–640.Google Scholar
McKinney, M. L. 2006. Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biol. Conserv. 127:247–260.Google Scholar
McKinney, M. L. and Lockwood, J. L. 1999. Biotic homogenization: a few winners replacing many losers in the next mass extinction. Trends Ecol. Evol. 14:450–453.Google Scholar
Rogers, L. L. 1987. Seasonal changes in defecation rates of free-ranging white-tailed deer. J. Wildl. Manag. 51:330–333.Google Scholar
Rodgers, V. L., Stinson, K. A., and Finzi, A. C. 2008. Ready or not, garlic mustard is moving in: Alliaria petiolata as a member of eastern North American forests. Bioscience 58:426–436.Google Scholar
Rooney, T. P. 2001. Deer impacts on forest ecosystems: a North American perspective. Forestry (Oxf.) 74:201–208.Google Scholar
Rooney, T. P. and Waller, D. M. 2003. Direct and indirect effect of white-tailed deer in forest ecosystems. Forest Ecol. Manag. 181:165–176.Google Scholar
Rooney, T. P., Wiegmann, S. M., Rodgers, D. A., and Waller, D. M. 2004. Biotic impoverishment and homogenization in unfragmented forest understory communities. Conserv. Biol. 18:787–798.Google Scholar
Ruhren, S. and Handel, S. L. 2003. Herbivory constrains survival, reproductions and mutualisms when restoring nine temperate forest herbs. J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 130:34–42.Google Scholar
Russell, F. L., Zippin, D. B., and Fowler, N. L. 2001. Effects of White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) on plants, plant populations and communities: a review. Am. Midl. Nat. 146:1–26.Google Scholar
Simberloff, D. 2006. Invasional meltdown 6 years later: important phenomenon, unfortunate metaphor, or both? Ecol. Lett. 9:912–919.Google Scholar
Smit, C., Vandenberghe, C., Ouden, J., and Muller-Scharer, H. 2007. Nurse plants, tree saplings and grazing pressure: changes in facilitation along a biotic environmental gradient. Oecologia 152:265–273.Google Scholar
Thomas, C. D., Cameron, A., Green, R. E., Bakkenes, M., Beaumont, L. J., Collingham, Y. C., Erasumus, B. F. N., Siqueria, M. F., Grainger, A., Hannah, L., Hughes, L., Huntley, B., van Jaarsveld, A. S., Midgley, G. F., Miles, L., Oretega-Huerta, M. A., Peterson, A. T., Phillips, O. L., and Williams, S. E. 2004. Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427:145–148.Google Scholar
Vernes, K. 1999. Pellet counts to estimate density of a rainforest kangaroo. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 27:991–996.Google Scholar
Wiegmann, S. M. and Waller, D. M. 2006. Fifty years of change in northern upland forest understories: Identity and traits of “winner” and “loser” plant species. Biol. Conserv. 129:109–123.Google Scholar
Wilcove, D. S., Rothstein, D., Dubow, J., Phillips, A., and Losos, E. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. Bioscience 48:607–615.Google Scholar