Advertisement

Biological Invasions

, Volume 17, Issue 7, pp 2139–2146 | Cite as

Does removal of invasives restore ecological networks? An experimental approach

  • Amanda D. RodewaldEmail author
  • Rudolf P. Rohr
  • Miguel A. Fortuna
  • Jordi Bascompte
Original Paper

Abstract

Anthropogenic disturbance can alter the structure of ecological networks in ways that have population consequences. For example, bird-plant networks in forests surrounded by urban land were more likely to be dominated by strong interactions (i.e., less even in strength) than networks in rural landscapes, and these asymmetric interactions depressed avian nest survival. Based on this prior research, we hypothesized that invasion of urban habitats by exotic plants was the underlying mechanism driving changes in network structure. We tested this hypothesis using an in situ experiment where exotic Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii) was removed from replicated 2-ha forest plots and compared bird-plant networks among urban removal forests, urban control forests dominated by honeysuckle, and rural forests with little honeysuckle. From 2005 to 2011, we surveyed densities of understory-nesting birds and nest predators, recorded information about nest location, and monitored nest survival. For each year and site network, we calculated evenness of interaction strengths. Despite post-removal vegetation resembling that in rural forests, removal of exotic honeysuckle did not restore network structure. Evenness of interactions between birds and plants was greatest in rural forests and least in urban control plots. Nest survival increased with evenness across all sites, but the relationship was strongest within urban removal plots, which had the lowest overall nest survival rates. Even though invasion by honeysuckle was a plausible driver of urban-associated network shifts in previous studies, the experimental removal suggested that factors other than invasion were responsible for network changes or that our system experienced hysteresis or time lags. Our study suggests that restoration of ecological networks may be more challenging than anticipated.

Keywords

Birds Evenness Exotic plants Honeysuckle Invasive Nest survival Predation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Support for this research was provided by NSF DEB-0340879 and DEB- 0639429, Ohio Division of Wildlife, and US Fish and Wildlife Service (ADR), European Research Council through an Advanced Grant (JB), the FP7-REGPOT-2010-1 program project 264125 EcoGenes (RPR), and the Marie Curie International Outgoing Fellowship within the 7th European Community Framework Programme (MAF). The Ohio State University supported ADR’s contributions to this paper while on sabbatical, and Estación Biológica de Doñana (EBD– CSIC) provided office space and support. Our deep gratitude goes to the many graduate students, especially D. Shustack, L. Kearns, I. Ausprey, M. Bakermans, K. Borgmann, L. Leston, J. Malpass, D. Narango, B. Padilla, S. Rose, L. Rowse, J. Smith-Castro, and others who have spent countless hours collecting field data. We are grateful to Franklin County Metro Parks, Columbus Recreation and Parks, Ohio Division of Wildlife, The Nature Conservancy, City of Bexley, Gahanna Parks and Recreation and private landowners for access to study sites. All research was conducted in accordance with approved protocol by Ohio State University’s Institutional Animal Use and Care Committee (2010A0003, 2007A0015, 2004A0047, 00A0167) and banding was conducted under US Federal Bird Banding Permit 22272.

References

  1. Abella SR (2014) Effectiveness of exotic plant treatments on National Park Service lands in the United States. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 7:147–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aizen MA, Morales CL, Morales JM (2008) Invasive mutualists erode native pollination webs. PLoS Biol 6:396–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Albrecht M, Duelli P, Schmid B, Mueller CB (2007) Interaction diversity within quantified insect food webs in restored and adjacent intensively managed meadows. J Anim Ecol 76:1015–1025PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allan BF, Dutra HP, Goessling LS, Barnett K, Chase JM, Marquis RJ, Pang G, Storch GA, Thach RE, Orrock JL (2010) Invasive honeysuckle eradication reduces tick-borne disease risk by altering host dynamics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:18523–18527PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bakermans MH, Rodewald AD (2006) Habitat selection by the Acadian Flycatcher: a hierarchical approach. Auk 123:368–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bartomeus I, Vila M, Santamaria L (2008) Contrasting effects of invasive plants in plant-pollinator networks. Oecologia 155:761–770PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bascompte J (2009) Disentangling the web of life. Science 325:416–419PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bascompte J, Jordano P (2007) Plant-animal mutualistic networks: the architecture of biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 38:567–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bastolla U, Fortuna MA, Pascual-Garcia A, Ferrera A, Luque B, Bascompte J (2009) The architecture of mutualistic networks minimizes competition and increases biodiversity. Nature 458:1018-1020PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Borgmann KL, Rodewald AD (2004) Nest predation in an urbanizing landscape: the role of exotic shrubs. Ecol Appl 14:1757–1765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Borgmann KL, Rodewald AD (2005) Forest restoration in urbanizing landscapes: interactions between land uses and exotic shrubs. Restor Ecol 13:334–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Collier MH, Vankat JL, Hughes MR (2002) Diminished plant richness and abundance below Lonicera maackii, an invasive shrub. Am Midl Nat 147:60–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Devoto M, Bailey S, Craze P, Memmott J (2012) Understanding and planning ecological restoration of plant-pollinator networks. Ecol Lett 15:319–328PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ehrenfeld JG (2003) Effects of exotic plant invasions on soil nutrient cycling processes. Ecosystems 6:503–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ehrenfeld JG, Kourtev P, Huang W (2001) Changes in soil functions following invasions of exotic understory plants in deciduous forest. Ecol Appl 11:1230–1287Google Scholar
  16. Ferrero V, Castro S, Costa J, Acuna P, Navarro L, Loureiro J (2013) Effect of invader removal: pollinators stay but some native plants miss their new friend. Biol Invasions 15:2347–2358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fortuna MA, Bascompte J (2006) Habitat loss and the structure of plant-animal mutualistic networks. Ecol Lett 9:278–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gagic V, Tscharntke T, Dormann CF, Gruber B, Wilstermann A, Thies C (2011) Food web structure and biocontrol in a four-trophic level system across a landscape complexity gradient. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 278:2946–2953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gómez JM, Perfectti F, Jordano P (2011) The functional consequences of mutualistic network architecture. PLoS One 6:e16143PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gould AMA, Gorchov DL (2000) Effects of the exotic invasive shrub Lonicera maackii on the survival and fecundity of three species of native annuals. Am Midl Nat 144:36–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hutchinson TF, Vankat JL (1997) Invasibility and effects of Amur honeysuckle in southwestern Ohio forests. Conserv Biol 11:1117–1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Larson D, Royer R, Royer M (2006) Insect visitation and pollen deposition in an invaded prairie plant community. Biol Conserv 130:148–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leston LFV, Rodewald AD (2006) Are urban forests ecological traps for understory birds? An examination using Northern cardinals. Biol Conserv 131:566–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Levine J, Vila M, D’Antonio C, Dukes J, Grigulis K, Lavorel S (2003) Mechanisms underlying the impacts of exotic plant invasions. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 270:775–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mack RN, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM, Evans H, Clout M, Bazzaz FA (2000) Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol Appl 10:689–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Martin TE (1988) On the advantage of being different: nest predation and the coexistence of bird species. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 85:2196–2199PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McKinney AM, Goodell K (2010) Shading by invasive shrub reduces seed production and pollinator services in a native herb. Biol Invasions 12:2751–2763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Montero-Castano A, Vila M (2012) Impact of landscape alteration and invasions on pollinators: a meta-analysis. J Ecol 100:884–893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pimentel D, Lach I, Zuniga R, Morrison D (2000) Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous species in the United States. Bioscience 50:53–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Richardson D, Allsopp N, D’Antonio C, Milton S, Rejmanek M (2000) Plant invasions—the role of mutualisms. Biol Rev 75:65–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rodewald AD (2009) Urban-associated habitat alteration promotes brood parasitism of Acadian Flycatchers. J Field Ornithol 80:234–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rodewald AD (2012a) Spreading messages about invasives. Divers Distrib 18:97–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rodewald AD (2012b) Evaluating factors that guide avian community response to urbanization. In: CA Lepczyk, PS Warren (ed), Urban bird ecology and conservation. Studies in avian biology No. 45, pp 71–92Google Scholar
  34. Rodewald AD, Bakermans MH (2006) What is the appropriate paradigm for riparian forest conservation? Biol Conserv 128:193–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rodewald AD, Kearns LJ (2011) Shifts in dominant nest predators along a rural-to-urban landscape gradient. Condor 113:899–906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rodewald AD, Shustack DP (2008) Urban flight: understanding individual and population-level responses of Nearctic-Neotropical migratory birds to urbanization. J Anim Ecol 77:83–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rodewald AD, Shustack DP, Hitchcock LE (2010) Exotic shrubs as ephemeral ecological traps for nesting birds. Biol Invasions 12:33–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rodewald AD, Rohr RP, Fortuna MA, Bascompte J (2014) Community-level demographic consequences of anthropogenic disturbance: an ecological network approach. J Anim Ecol. doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.12224 Google Scholar
  39. Schmidt KA, Whelan CJ (1999) Effects of exotic Lonicera and Rhamnus on songbird nest predation. Conserv Biol 13:1502–1506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shaffer TL (2004) A unified approach to analyzing nest success. Auk 121:526–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Strauss SY, Irwin RE (2004) Ecological and evolutionary consequences of multispecies plant-animal interactions. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:435–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Traveset A, Richardson D (2006) Biological invasions as disruptors of plant reproductive mutualisms. Trends Ecol Evol 21:208–216PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tylianakis JM, Tscharntke T, Lewis OT (2007) Habitat modification alters the structure of tropical host-parasitoid food webs. Nature 445:202–205PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tylianakis JM, Laliberte E, Nielsen A, Bascompte J (2010) Conservation of species interaction networks. Biol Conserv 143:2270–2279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Watling JI, Hickman CR, Lee E, Wang K, Orrock JL (2011) Extracts of the invasive shrub Lonicera maackii increase mortality and alter behavior of amphibian larvae. Oecologia 165:153–159PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amanda D. Rodewald
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rudolf P. Rohr
    • 2
  • Miguel A. Fortuna
    • 2
  • Jordi Bascompte
    • 2
  1. 1.Cornell Lab of Ornithology and Department of Natural ResourcesCornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  2. 2.Integrative Ecology GroupEstación Biológica de Doñana (EBD– CSIC)SevilleSpain

Personalised recommendations