Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Removal of invasive Scotch broom increases its negative effects on soil chemistry and plant communities

  • Ecosystem ecology – original research
  • Published:
Oecologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recovery of ecosystem properties following removal of invasive plants likely varies with characteristics of the plant and the relative soil quality at a given site. These factors may influence the occurrence of soil legacies and secondary invasions, hindering the effectiveness of restoration strategies. We assessed the potential for ecosystem recovery following removal of N-fixing Scotch broom for 4 years at two sites that contrasted strongly in soil quality in western Washington and Oregon, USA. Comparisons were made among plots, where Scotch broom was never present (uninvaded), retained, or removed. Scotch broom removal increased PAR and soil temperature but had limited effects on soil moisture. Concentrations of soil Ca, Mg, K, and P were significantly lower with Scotch broom removal, with the effect being most pronounced at the low-quality site. NMS ordinations indicated that the treatments differed in vegetation composition, with limited recovery following broom removal. Non-native and native species varied inversely in their abundance responses, where non-native species abundance was greatest in the removal treatment, intermediate in the retained treatment, and lowest in the uninvaded treatment, indicating occurrence of a secondary invasion following removal. As with the soil response, effects were more pronounced at the low-quality site. Our findings indicate that Scotch broom removal exacerbates negative effects on soil chemistry and plant communities, with little evidence of recovery over our study period. These findings highlight the importance of controlling Scotch broom invasions immediately after the species establishes, especially on low-quality sites that are more susceptible to Scotch broom invasion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and materials

All data associated with this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  • Bateman JB, Vitousek PM (2018) Soil fertility response to Ulex europaeus invasion and restoration efforts. Biol Invasions 20:2777–2791. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-018-1729-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bossard CC, Rejmánek M (1994) Herbivory, growth, seed production, and resprouting of an exotic invasive shrub Cytisus scoparius. Biol Conserv 67:193–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caldwell BA (2006) Effects of invasive scotch broom on soil properties in a Pacific coastal prairie soil. Appl Soil Ecol 32:149–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter DR, Slesak RA, Harrington TB, D’Amato AW (2019a) Effects of irrigation and phosphorus fertilization on physiology, growth, and nitrogen-fixation of Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius). Plant Physiol Rep. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40502-019-00459-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter DR, Slesak RA, Harrington TB, D’Amato AW (2019b) Comparative effects of soil resource availability on physiology and growth of Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) seedlings. For Ecol Manage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2019.117580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter DR, Slesak RA, Harrington TB, Peter DH, D’Amato AW (2019c) Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) modifies microenvironment to promote a non-native community structure. Biol Invasions. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-018-1885-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter DR, Slesak RA, Harrington TB, D’Amato AW (2021) Soil texture and other site-level factors differentially affect growth of Scotch broom and Douglas-fir seedlings in the western Pacific Northwest. Can J for Res. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2021-0011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbin JD, D’Antonio CM (2012) Gone but not forgotten? Invasive plants legacies on community and ecosystem properties. Invasive Plant Sci Manage 5:117–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czortek P, Królak E, Borkowska L, Bielecka A (2020) Impacts of soil properties and functional diversity on the performance of invasive plant species Solidago canadensis L. on post-agricultural wastelands. Sci Total Environ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139077

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • D’Antonio CM, Ostertag R, Cordell S, Yelenik S (2017) Interactions among invasive plants: lessons from Hawaii. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 48:521–541. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110316-022620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dassonwille N, Vanderhoven S, Vanparys V, Hayez M, Gruber W, Meerts P (2008) Impacts of alien invasive plants on soil nutrients are correlated with initial site conditions in NW Europe. Oecologia 133:206–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Egunjobi J (1971) Ecosystem Processes in a Stand of Ulex Europaeus L.: I. Dry matter production, litter fall and efficiency of solar energy utilization. J Ecol 59(1):31–38. https://doi.org/10.2307/2258449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fogarty G, Facelli JM (1999) Growth and competition of Cytisus scoparius, an invasive shrub, and Australian native shrubs. Plant Ecol 144:27–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grove S, Parker IM, Haubensak KA (2015) Persistence of a soil legacy following removal of a nitrogen-fixing invader. Biol Invasions 17:2621–2631

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halverson NM, Topik C, Van Vickle R (1986) Plant association and management guide for the western hemlock zone. Mount Hood National Forest. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, pp 62–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrington TB, Schoenholtz SH (2010) Effects of logging debris treatments on five-year development of competing vegetation and planted Douglas-fir. Can J for Res 40:500–510

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Harrington TB, Peter DH, Slesak RA (2018) Logging debris and herbicide treatments improve growing conditions for planted Douglas-fir on a droughty forest site invaded by Scotch broom. For Ecol Manage 417:31–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrington TB, Slesak RA, Dollins J, Schoenholtz SH, Peter D (2020) Logging- debris configuration and vegetation control influence 15-year changes in soil C and N and stand characteristics of planted coast Douglas-fir in western Washington and Oregon. For Ecol Manage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haubensak KA, Parker IM (2004) Soil changes accompanying invasion of the non-native shrub Cytisus scoparius in glacial outwash prairies of western Washington [USA]. Plant Ecol 175:71–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson JA, Peter DH, Lesher RD, Shaw DC (1989) Forested plant associations of the Olympic national forest. USDA Forest Service Report No. R6-ECOL-TP 001–88, pp 350–353

    Google Scholar 

  • Kettenring KM, Adams CR (2011) Lessons learned from invasive plant control experiments: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Appl Ecol 48:970–979

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuebbing SE, Nunez MA (2015) Negative, neutral, and positive interactions among non-native plants: patterns, processes, and management implications. Glob Change Biol 21:926–934

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lázaro-Lobo A, Ramirez-Reyes C, Lucardi RD, Ervin GN (2021) Multivariate analysis of invasive plant species distributions in southern US forests. Landscape Ecol 36:3539–3555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-021-01326-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maron JL, Jefferies RL (1999) Bush lupine mortality, altered resource availability, and alternative vegetation states. Ecology 80(2):443–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCune B, Mefford MJ (2018) PC-ORD. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data. Version 7.08

  • McCune B, Grace JB, Urban DL (2002) Analysis of Ecological Communities. MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach

    Google Scholar 

  • McGeoch MA, Genovesi P, Bellingham PJ, Costello MJ, McGrannachan C, Sheppard A (2016) Prioritizing species, pathways, and sites to achieve conservation targets for biological invasion. Biol Invasions 18:299–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-015-1013-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montagnini F, Haines B, Swank WT (1991) Soil solution chemistry in black locust, pine/mixed-hardwoods and oak/hickory forest stands in the southern Appalachians, USA. For Ecol Manage 40:199–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nisikani MM, van Wilgen BW, Gaertner M (2018) Barriers to ecosystem restoration presented by soil legacy effects of invasive alien N2-fixing woody species: implications for ecological restoration. Restor Ecol 26:235–244. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker IM, Harpole W, Dionne D (1997) Plant community diversity and invasion of the exotic shrub Cytisus scoparius: testing hypotheses on invasibility and impact. In: Dunn PV, Ewing K (eds) Ecology and conservation of the Southern Puget Sound Prairie Landscape The Land Conservancy. Seattle, Washington, pp 149–161

    Google Scholar 

  • Potter KJB, Kritcos DJ, Watt MS, Leriche A (2009) The current and future potential distribution of Cytisus scoparius: a weed of pastoral systems, natural ecosystems and plantation forestry. Weed Res 49:271–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prior KM, Adams DC, Klepzig KD, Huler J (2018) When does invasive species removal lead to ecological recovery? Implications for management success. Biol Invasions 20:267–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PRISM Climate Group (2012) PRISM (Parameter-elevation regressions on independent slopes model) climate mapping system. Oregon State University. http://prism.oregonstate.edu

  • Reid AM, Morin L, Downey PO, French K, Virtue JG (2009) Does invasive plant management aid the restoration of natural ecosystems? Biol Conserv 142(10):2342–2349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson B, Whitehead D, McCracken IJ (2002) Root-zone water storage and growth of Pinus radiata in the presence of a broom understorey. N Z J for Sci 32(2):2008–2220

    Google Scholar 

  • SAS Institute Inc. (2013) The SAS System for Windows, version 9.4. Cary, North Carolina

  • Shaben J, Myers JH (2010) Relationships between Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), soil nutrients, and plant diversity in the Garry oak savannah ecosystem. Plant Ecol 207:81–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-009-9655-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff D, Parker IM, Windle PN (2005) Introduced species policy, management, and future research needs. Front Ecol Environ 3(1):12–20. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2005)003[0012:ISPMAF]2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slesak RA, Scheonholtz SH, Harrington TB, Strahm BD (2009) Dissolved carbon and nitrogen leaching following variable logging-debris retention and competing vegetation control in Douglas-fir plantations of western Oregon and Washington. Can J for Res 39:1484–1497

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Slesak RA, Harrington TB, D’Amato AW (2016) Invasive Scotch broom alters soil chemical properties in Douglas-fir forests of the Pacific Northwest, USA. Plant Soil 398:281–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-015-2662-7

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Slesak RA, Harrington TB, D’Amato AW, Carter DR (2021) Legacy effects of non-native Cytisus scoparius in glacial outwash soils: Potential impacts to forest soil productivity in western Washington. For Ecol Manage 481(2):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118733

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soil Survey Staff, USDA-NRCS. 2021. Official soil series descriptions. Available from https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/survey/geo/?cid=nrcs142p2_053587 [accessed March 3, 2021].

  • The PLANTS database, 2018. USDA Nat. Resour. Conserv. Serv. <http://plants.usda.gov>

  • Van Miegrot H, Cole DW (1984) The impact of nitrification on soil acidification and cation leaching in a red alder ecosystem. J Environ Qual 13:586–590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker LR, Vitousek PM (1991) An invader alters germination and growth of a native dominant tree in Hawai’i. Ecology 72:1449–1455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waterhouse BM (1988) Broom (Cytisus scoparius) at Barrington Tops, New South Wales. Aust Geogr Stud 26:239–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watt MS, Whitehead D, Mason EG, Richardson B, Kimberly MO (2003a) The influence of weed competition for light and water on growth and dry matter partitioning of young Pinus radiata, at a dryland site. For Ecol Manage 183:363–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watt MS, Clinton PW, Whitehead D, Richardson B, Mason EG, Leckie AC (2003b) Above-ground biomass accumulation and nitrogen fixation of broom (Cytisus scoparius L.) growing with juvenile Pinus radiata on a dryland site. For Ecol Manage 184:93–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wearne LJ, Morgan JW (2004) Community-level changes in Australian subalpine vegetation following invasion by the non-native shrub Cytisus scoparius. J Veg Sci 15:595–604

    Google Scholar 

  • Weidenhamer JD, Callaway RM (2010) Direct and indirect effects of invasive plants on soil chemistry and ecosystem function. J Chem Ecol 36:59–69

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson J, Harrison S (2002) Biotic and abiotic limits to the spread of exotic revegetation species. Ecol Appl 12:40–51. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2002)012[0040:BAALTT]2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yelenik SG, Stock WD, Richardson M (2004) Ecosystem level impacts of invasive Acacia saligna in the South African Fynbos. Restor Ecol 12(1):44–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1061-2971.2004.00289.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Financial support for this research was provided by the USDA National Institute for Food and Agriculture (Grants.gov number: GRANT11325729) and by the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. We thank Port Blakely and Green Diamond Resource Company for use of their land and logistical support. Thanks also to James Dollins for assistance with the field work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 3625 93rd Avenue Southwest, Olympia, WA, 98512, USA

    Robert A. Slesak, Timothy B. Harrington & David H. Peter

  2. Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, 05405, USA

    Anthony W. D’Amato

Authors
  1. Robert A. Slesak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Timothy B. Harrington
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anthony W. D’Amato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David H. Peter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

RAS, TBH, and AWD conceived and designed the experiment. TBH and DHP collected the data. RAS and TBH analyzed the data. RAS wrote the manuscript, and all other authors reviewed the paper and provided editorial comment. All authors approved of the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert A. Slesak.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Additional information

Communicated by Jennifer Funk.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 353 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Slesak, R.A., Harrington, T.B., D’Amato, A.W. et al. Removal of invasive Scotch broom increases its negative effects on soil chemistry and plant communities. Oecologia 198, 243–254 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-021-05099-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-021-05099-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation