Biological Invasions

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 577–586 | Cite as

Is patience a virtue? Succession, light, and the death of invasive glossy buckthorn (Frangula alnus)

  • Chelsea Cunard
  • Thomas D. LeeEmail author
Original Paper


Non-native, invasive glossy buckthorn (Frangula alnus P. Mill.) threatens North American forests by inhibiting tree regeneration. While glossy buckthorn commonly invades younger, developing forests, we hypothesized that this species is competitively excluded as secondary succession proceeds. Specifically, we tested the hypothesis that glossy buckthorn mortality in New Hampshire forests is associated with low levels of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), low levels of nutrients in the soil, and greater abundance of shade tolerant tree species. Twenty-six living and 26 dead glossy buckthorn individuals were randomly selected on three, mid-successional study sites in southeastern New Hampshire, USA. Shrub ages, indicated by wood ring counts, showed that both living and dead shrubs were members of the same cohort, roughly 16–18 years of age. Living and dead shrubs were compared as to (1) tree basal area in the surrounding forest (estimated by plot sampling), (2) light intensity in the vicinity of the buckthorn crowns (measured by Sunfleck Ceptometer), (3) canopy openness and % total transmitted PAR (estimated by hemispheric photography), and (4) concentrations of available Ca, P, Mg, and K in the B horizon. Relative to live buckthorn shrubs, dead individuals were associated with greater basal area of shade tolerant species, decreased PAR in the vicinity of shrub crown, and decreased soil concentrations of Ca, P, and Mg. The results are consistent with the hypothesis that competition for light and perhaps nutrients limits the ability of glossy buckthorn to persist in late successional stands. If these relationships are causal, active removal of glossy buckthorn might not be required to reduce its abundance in late successional stands.


Invasive species Frangula alnus Succession Shade tolerance Competition Soil nutrients Stand dynamics Photosynthetically active radiation 



Photosynthetically active radiation


Diameter at breast height



We thank Russell Orzechowski and Rachel Johnson for their indefatigable assistance in both the field and laboratory, Dr. James Taylor for his advice on statistics, and Dr. Robert Eckert for the loan of his digital photographic equipment. Dr. Antoinette Hartgerink, Kristina Vagos, and Rachel Johnson read and commented on an earlier version of the manuscript. The research was funded by a Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship (to C. C.) from the University of New Hampshire Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program and by the New Hampshire Agricultural Experiment Station (MS–52).


  1. Borman FH, Likens GE (1981) Patterns and process in a forested ecosystem. Springer-Verlag, New York, p 253Google Scholar
  2. Converse CK (1984) Rhamnus cathartica and Rhamnus frangula. Element Stewardship abstract, The Nature Conservancy, p 17Google Scholar
  3. Crawley MJ (1987) What makes a community invasible? In: Gray AJ, Crawley MJ, Edwards PJ (eds) Colonization, succession, and stability. Blackwell Scientific Publications, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Dorning M, Cipollini D (2006) Leaf and root extracts of the invasive shrub, Lonicera maackii, inhibit seed germination of three herbs with no autotoxic effects. Plant Ecol 184:287–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fagan ME, Peart DR (2004) Impact of the invasive shrub glossy buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula L.) on juvenile recruitment by canopy trees. For Ecol Manage 194(1–3):95–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fine PVA (2002) The invasibility of tropical forests by exotic plants. J Trop Ecol 18:687–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Frappier B, Eckert RT, Lee TD (2003a) Potential impacts of the invasive exotic shrub Rhamnus frangula L. (glossy buckthorn) on forests of southern New Hampshire. Northeast Nat 10:277–296Google Scholar
  8. Frappier B, Lee TD, Olson K, Eckert RT (2003b) Small-scale invasion pattern, spread rate, and lag phase behavior of Rhamnus frangula L. For Ecol Manage 186:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Frappier B, Eckert RT, Lee TD (2004) Experimental removal of the non-indigenous shrub Rhamnus frangula (Glossy Buckthorn): effects on native herbs and woody seedlings. Northeast Nat 11(3):333–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frazer GW, Canham CD, Lertzman KP (1999) Gap light analyzer (GLA), version 2.0: imaging software to extract canopy structure and gap light transmission indices from true-colour fisheye photographs, users manual and program documentation. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia and the Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, NYGoogle Scholar
  11. Gorchov DL, Trisel DE (2003) Competitive effects of the invasive shrub, Lonicera maackii (Rupr.) Herder (Caprifoliaceae), on the growth and survival of native tree species. Plant Ecol 166:13–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Howard LF (1999) Temporal patterns of vascular plant diversity in southern New Hampshire woodlands. Master of Science thesis, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NHGoogle Scholar
  13. Howard LF, Lee TD (2002) Upland old field succession in southeastern New Hampshire. J Torrey Bot Soc 129(1):60–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hunter JC, Mattice JA (2002) The spread of woody exotics into the forests of a northeastern landscape, 1938–1999. J Torrey Bot Soc 129:220–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnson VS, Litvaitis JA, Lee TD, Frey S (2006) The role of spatial and temporal scale in colonization and spread of invasive shrubs in early successional habitats. For Ecol Manage 228(1–3):124–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Martin PH, Marks PL (2006) Intact forests provide only weak resistance to a shade-tolerant invasive Norway maple (Acer platanoides L.). J Ecol 94:1070–1079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McNab HW, Meeker M (1987) Oriental bittersweet: a growing threat to hardwood silviculture in the Appalachians. North J Appl For 4:174–177Google Scholar
  18. Meiners SJ, Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML (2002) Exotic plant invasions over 40 years of old field succesions: community patterns and associations. Ecography 25:215–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Miller KE, Gorchov DL (2004) The invasive shrub, Lonicera maackii, reduces growth and fecundity of perennial forest herbs. Oecologia 139:359–375PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pacala SW, Canham CD, Saponara J, Silander JA, Kobe RK, Ribbens E (1996) Forest models defined by field measurements: estimation, error analysis and dynamics. Ecol Monogr 66(1):1–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rejmánek M (1989) Invasibility of plant communities. In: Drake JA, Mooney HA, di Castri F, Groves RH, Kruger FJ, Rejmánek M, Williamson M (eds) Biological invasions: a global perspective. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  22. Riegel GM, Miller RF, Kruger WC (1995) The effects of aboveground and belowground competition on understory species composition in a Pinus ponderosa forest. Forest Sci 41(4):864–889Google Scholar
  23. Sanford NL, Harrington RA, Fownes JH (2003) Survival and growth of native and alien woody seedlings in open and understory environments. For Ecol Manage 183:377–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Searcy KB, Pucko C, McClelland D (2006) The distribution and habitat preferences of introduced species in the Mount Holyoke Range, Mapshire Co., Massachusetts. Rhodora 108:43–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Simberloff D, Relva MA, Nunez M (2002) Gingos en el bosque: introduced tree invasion in a native Nothofagus/Austrocedrus forest. Biol Invasions 4:35–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sinclair A, Catling PM (1999) The value of cutting in the management of glossy buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula L.). Wetlands 11(2):25–27Google Scholar
  27. Taft JB, Solecki MK (1990) Vascular flora on the wetland and prairie communities of Gavin Bog and Prairie Nature Preserve, Lake County, Illinois. Rhodora 92(871):142–165Google Scholar
  28. Tilman D (1988) Dynamics and the structure of plant communities. Princeton University Press, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  29. Vieira FJ, Bond RW (1973) Soil survey of Strafford County, New Hampshire. USDA Soil Conservation Service, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  30. Von Holle B, Motzkin G (2007) Historical land use and environmental determinants of nonnative plant distribution in coastal southern New England. Biol Conserv 136:33–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Von Holle B, Delcourt HR, Simberloff D (2003) The importance of biological inertia in plant community resistance to invasion. J Veg Sci 14:425–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Walters MB, Reich PB (1996) Are shade tolerance, survival, and growth linked? Low light and nitrogen effects on hardwood seedlings. Ecology 77(3):841–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Webb SL, Dwyer M, Kaunzinger CK, Wyckoff PH (2000) The myth of the resilient forest: case study of the invasive Norway maple (Acer platanoides). Rhodora 102(911):332–354Google Scholar
  34. Webster CR, Jenkins MA, Jose S (2006) Woody invaders and the challenges they pose to forest ecosystems in the eastern United States. J Forest 104(7):366–374Google Scholar
  35. Wingard HS (2007) Invasion of transition hardwood forests by exotic Rhamnus frangula: Chronology and site requirements. Master of Science thesis, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NHGoogle Scholar
  36. Woods KD (1993) Effects of invasion of Lonicera tatarica L. on herbs and trees seedlings in four New England forests. Am Midl Nat 130:62–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Natural ResourcesUniversity of New HampshireDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations