Biological Invasions

, Volume 12, Issue 5, pp 1285–1294 | Cite as

Non-native grass invasion alters native plant composition in experimental communities

Original Paper


Invasions of non-native species are considered to have significant impacts on native species, but few studies have quantified the direct effects of invasions on native community structure and composition. Many studies on the effects of invasions fail to distinguish between (1) differential responses of native and non-native species to environmental conditions, and (2) direct impacts of invasions on native communities. In particular, invasions may alter community assembly following disturbance and prevent recolonization of native species. To determine if invasions directly impact native communities, we established 32 experimental plots (27.5 m2) and seeded them with 12 native species. Then, we added seed of a non-native invasive grass (Microstegium vimineum) to half of the plots and compared native plant community responses between control and invaded plots. Invasion reduced native biomass by 46, 64, and 58%, respectively, over three growing seasons. After the second year of the experiment, invaded plots had 43% lower species richness and 38% lower diversity as calculated from the Shannon index. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling ordination showed a significant divergence in composition between invaded and control plots. Further, there was a strong negative relationship between invader and native plant biomass, signifying that native plants are more strongly suppressed in densely invaded areas. Our results show that a non-native invasive plant inhibits native species establishment and growth following disturbance and that native species do not gain competitive dominance after multiple growing seasons. Thus, plant invaders can alter the structure of native plant communities and reduce the success of restoration efforts.


Biomass Diversity Microstegium vimineum Japanese stiltgrass Species richness Species evenness Species-accumulation curve Ordination 


  1. Aarssen LW, Epp GA (1990) Neighbor manipulations in natural vegetation—a review. J Veg Sci 1:13–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barden LS (1987) Invasion of Microstegium vimineum (Poaceae), an exotic, annual, shade-tolerant, C-4 grass, into a North-Carolina floodplain. Am Midl Nat 118:40–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Biggerstaff MS, Beck CW (2007) Effects of method of English ivy removal and seed addition on regeneration of vegetation in a southeastern piedmont forest. Am Midl Nat 158:206–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bunge J, Fitzpatrick M (1993) Estimating the number of species—a review. J Am Stat Assoc 88:364–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Byers JE, Reichard S, Randall JM et al (2002) Directing research to reduce the impacts of nonindigenous species. Conserv Biol 16:630–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Callaway RM, DeLuca TH, Belliveau WM (1999) Biological-control herbivores may increase competitive ability of the noxious weed Centaurea maculosa. Ecology 80:1196–1201Google Scholar
  7. Cole PG, Weltzin JF (2004) Environmental correlates of the distribution and abundance of Microstegium vimineum, in east Tennessee. Southeast Nat 3:545–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Colwell RK (2005) EstimateS: statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples. Version 7.5. User's Guide and application published at:
  9. Colwell RK, Mao CX, Chang J (2004) Interpolating, extrapolating, and comparing incidence-based species accumulation curves. Ecology 85:2717–2727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Corbin JD, D’Antonio CM (2004) Competition between native perennial and exotic annual grasses: implications for an historical invasion. Ecology 85:1273–1283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davis MA, Bier L, Bushelle E et al (2005) Non-indigenous grasses impede woody succession. Plant Ecol 178:249–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dukes JS (2001) Biodiversity and invasibility in grassland microcosms. Oecologia 126:563–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ehrenfeld JG, Kourtev P, Huang WZ (2001) Changes in soil functions following invasions of exotic understory plants in deciduous forests. Ecol Appl 11:1287–1300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fairbrothers DE, Gray JR (1972) Microstegium vimineum (Trin.) A. Camus (Gramineae) in the United States. J Torrey Bot Soc 99(9):7–100Google Scholar
  15. Flory SL (2009) Management of Microstegium vimineum invasions and recovery of resident plant communities. Restoration Ecology, Online earlyGoogle Scholar
  16. Flory SL, Clay K (2009) Invasive plant removal method determines native plant community responses. J Appl Ecol 46:434–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Flory SL, Rudgers JA, Clay K (2007) Experimental light treatments affect invasion success and the impact of Microstegium vimineum on the resident community. Nat Areas J 27:124–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Glasgow LS, Matlack GR (2007) The effects of prescribed burning and canopy openness on establishment of two non-native plant species in a deciduous forest, southeast Ohio, USA. For Ecol Manag 238:319–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gorchov DL, Trisel DE (2003) Competitive effects of the invasive shrub, Lonicera maackii (Rupr.) Herder (Caprifoliaceae), on the growth and survival of native tree seedlings. Plant Ecol 166:13–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gotelli NJ, Colwell RK (2001) Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecol Lett 4:379–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hamilton JG, Holzapfel C, Mahall BE (1999) Coexistence and interference between a native perennial grass and non-native annual grasses in California. Oecologia 121:518–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hill MO (1973) Diversity and evenness—unifying notation and its consequences. Ecology 54:427–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hobbs RJ, Huenneke LF (1992) Disturbance, diversity, and invasion—implications for conservation. Conserv Biol 6:324–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Holmes PM, Cowling RM (1997) The effects of invasion by Acacia saligna on the guild structure and regeneration capabilities of South African fynbos shrublands. J Appl Ecol 34:317–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jost L (2006) Entropy and diversity. Oikos 113:363–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Krebs CJ (1989) Ecological methodology. Harper Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Leicht SA, Silander JA, Greenwood K (2005) Assessing the competitive ability of Japanese stilt grass, Microstegium vimineum (Trin.) A. Camus. J Torrey Bot Soc 132:573–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lenz TI, Moyle-Croft JL, Facelli JM (2003) Direct and indirect effects of exotic annual grasses on species composition of a South Australian grassland. Austral Ecol 28:23–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Levine JM, Vila M, D’Antonio CM et al (2003) Mechanisms underlying the impacts of exotic plant invasions. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 270:775–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lonsdale WM (1999) Global patterns of plant invasions and the concept of invasibility. Ecology 80:1522–1536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. MacArthur RH (1965) Patterns of species diversity. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 40:510–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. MacDougall AS, Turkington R (2005) Are invasive species the drivers or passengers of change in degraded ecosystems? Ecology 86:42–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mack RN, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM et al (2000) Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol Appl 10:689–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Magurran AE (1988) Ecological diversity and its measurement. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  35. Maron JL, Marler M (2008) Field-based competitive impacts between invaders and natives at varying resource supply. J Ecol 96:1187–1197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Marshall JM, Buckley DS (2008) Influence of litter removal and mineral soil disturbance on the spread of an invasive grass in a Central Hardwood forest. Biol Invasions 10:531–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McCune B, Grace JB (2002) Analysis of ecological communities. MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, ORUSAGoogle Scholar
  38. McCune B, Mefford MJ (1999) PC-ORD. Multivariate analysis of ecological data. Version 4. MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, ORGoogle Scholar
  39. McLellan AJ, Fitter AH, Law R (1995) On decaying roots, mycorrhizal colonization and the design of removal experiments. J Ecol 83:225–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. NOAA and NCDC (2008) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climate Data CenterGoogle Scholar
  41. Oswalt CM, Oswalt SN (2007) Winter litter disturbance facilitates the spread of the nonnative invasive grass Microstegium vimineum (Trin.) A. Camus. For Ecol Manag 249(19):9–203Google Scholar
  42. Oswalt CM, Oswalt SN, Clatterbuck WK (2007) Effects of Microstegium vimineum (Trin.) A. Camus on native woody species density and diversity in a productive mixed-hardwood forest in Tennessee. For Ecol Manag 242(72):7–732Google Scholar
  43. Overlease W, Overlease E (2007) 100 Years of change in the distribution of common Indiana weeds. Purdue University Press, West LafayetteGoogle Scholar
  44. Parker IM, Reichard S (1998) Critical issues in invasion biology for conservation science. In: Fiedler PL, Kareiva P (eds) Conservation biology: for the coming decade. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 283–305Google Scholar
  45. Parker IM, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM et al (1999) Impact: toward a framework for understanding the ecological effects of invaders. Biol Invasions 1:3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pielou EC (1975) Ecological diversity. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Pimentel D, Lach L, Zuniga R et al (2000) Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous species in the United States. Bioscience 50:53–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Redman DE (1995) Distribution and habitat types for Nepal Microstegium [(Microstegium vimineum (Trin.) Camus] in Maryland and the District of Columbia. Castenea 60:270–275Google Scholar
  49. SAS Institute Inc (2002) Cary, NC, USAGoogle Scholar
  50. Seabloom EW, Harpole WS, Reichman OJ et al (2003) Invasion, competitive dominance, and resource use by exotic and native California grassland species. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:13384–13389CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. USDA and NRCS (2005) The PLANTS database. Data compiled from various sources by Mark W. Skinner. Version 3.5. National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USAGoogle Scholar
  52. Zimmerman GM, Goetz H, Mielke PW (1985) Use of an improved statistical method for group comparisons to study effects of prairie fire. Ecology 66:606–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations