Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Native-exotic richness relationships in second-growth forests differ along a gradient of land-use history

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Context

The relationship between native and non-native species richness is influenced by drivers including disturbance history and environmental character. Disturbance influences native-exotic richness relationships (NERRs) and results in positive or negative relationships, depending on its intensity. Land-use history can be used to understand how NERRs respond to disturbance and what mechanisms drive diversity.

Objectives

We test the hypotheses that (1) native and nonnative plant species richness differ between land-use histories; (2) diversity is more strongly linked to environmental gradients in older forests than young stands, reflecting environmental sorting; (3) Native and non-native richness are positively correlated in older forests and negatively correlated in young forests.

Methods

We surveyed forests at Powdermill Nature Reserve in Southwestern Pennsylvania. We selected four replicates each of 40 to 70 year old second-growth forests with histories of mining, agriculture, and logging, and 14 older second-growth sites (>100 years) without recent human disturbance and collected presence data in a modified Whittaker plot design that included 1000, 100, 10, and 1-m2 subplots.

Results

Native and non-native richness were positively correlated in older forests, but uncorrelated in young stands. Proportions of non-native species were higher in mined and post-agricultural sites than in logged and old forests. Diversity-environment relationships were strongest in younger forests.

Conclusions

Differences in native and non-native richness between histories were strong enough to shift the direction of richness relationships in young forests. We conclude that differing impacts of land use on native (positive) and non-native (neutral) richness drive contrasting NERRs in forests with different histories.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and material

Data will be available in the Dryad repository upon acceptance.

Code availability (software application or custom code): Not applicable.

References

  • Baeten L, Hermy M, Verheyen K (2009) Environmental limitation contributes to the differential colonization capacity of two forest herbs. J Veg Sci 20:209–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bart D, Davenport T, Carpenter Q (2015) Stress and land-use legacies alter the relationship between invasive‐and native‐plant richness. J Veg Sci 26:80–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barton K, Barton MK (2015) Package ‘mumin’. Version 1:18

    Google Scholar 

  • Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67:1–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belote RT, Jones RH, Hood SM, Wender BW (2008) Diversity–invasibility across an experimental disturbance gradient in Appalachian forests. Ecology 89:183–192

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bellemare J, Motzkin G, Foster DR (2002) Legacies of the agricultural past in the forested present: an assessment of historical land-use effects on rich mesic forests. J Biogeogr 29:1401–1420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertness MD, Callaway R (1994) Positive interactions in communities. Trends Ecol Evol 9:191–193

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Boughton EH, Quintana-Ascencio PF, Nickerson D, Bohlen PJ (2011) Management intensity affects the relationship between non‐native and native species in subtropical wetlands. Appl Veg Sci 14:210–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun EL (1951) Deciduous forests of eastern North America. The Blankiston Company, Philadelphia

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brown CD, Boutin C (2009) Linking past land use, recent disturbance, and dispersal mechanism to forest composition. Biol Conserv 142:1647–1656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke MJ, Grime JP (1996) An experimental study of plant community invasibility. Ecology 77:776–790

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton JI, Mladenoff DJ, Clayton MK, Forrester JA (2011) The roles of environmental filtering and colonization in the fine-scale spatial patterning of ground‐layer plant communities in north temperate deciduous forests. J Ecol 99:764–776

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calinger K, Calhoon E, Chang HC, Whitacre JV, Wenzel J, Comita L, Queenborough S (2015) Historic mining and agriculture as indicators of occurrence and abundance of widespread invasive plant species. PloS one 10:e0128161

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Carnegie Museum of Natural History (2018) Powdermill Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey. Retrieved from: https://carnegiemnh.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id= feef998f26cd41caae238bf64f8e3f4b

  • Carnegie Museum of Natural History (2020) Powdermill Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey. Retrieved from: https://carnegiemnh.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id= feef998f26cd41caae238bf64f8e3f4b

  • Chen H, Qian H, Spyreas G, Crossland M (2010) Native-exotic species richness relationships across spatial scales and biotic homogenization in wetland plant communities of Illinois, USA. Divers Distrib 16:737–743

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chytrý M, Jarošík V, Pyšek P, Hájek O, Knollová I, Tichý L, Danihelka J (2008) Separating habitat invasibility by alien plants from the actual level of invasion. Ecology 89:1541–1553

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Clark GF, Johnston EL (2011) Temporal change in the diversity–invasibility relationship in the presence of a disturbance regime. Ecol Letters 14:52–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cleland EE et al (2004) Invasion in space and time: non-native species richness and relative abundance respond to interannual variation in productivity and diversity. Ecol Letters 7:947–957

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies KF, Chesson P, Harrison S, Inouye BD, Melbourne BA, Rice JK (2005) Spatial heterogeneity explains the scale dependence of the native–exotic diversity relationship. Ecology 86:1602–1610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis MA, Grime JP, Thompson K (2000) Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invasibility. J Ecol 88:528–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis MA, Thompson K, Grime JP (2001) Charles S. Elton and the dissociation of invasion ecology from the rest of ecology. Divers Distrib 7:97–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis MA (2003) Biotic globalization: does competition from introduced species threaten biodiversity? Bioscience 53:481–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dupouey JL, Dambrine E, Laffite JD, Moares C (2002) Irreversible impact of past land use on forest soils and biodiversity. Ecology 83:2978–2984

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyderski MK, Gdula AK, Jagodziński AM (2015) “The rich get richer” concept in riparian woody species–A case study of the Warta River Valley (Poznań, Poland). Urban Forestry Urban Greening 14:107–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emsweller LN, Gorchov DL, Zhang Q, Driscoll AG, Hughes MR (2018) Seed rain and disturbance impact recruitment of invasive plants in upland forest. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 11:69–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flinn KM (2007) Microsite-limited recruitment controls fern colonization of post‐agricultural forests. Ecology 88:3103–3114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Flinn KM, Vellend M, Marks PL (2005) Environmental causes and consequences of forest clearance and agricultural abandonment in central New York, USA. J Biogeogr 32:439–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster D, Swanson F, Aber J, Burke I, Brokaw N, Tilman D, Knapp A (2003) The importance of land-use legacies to ecology and conservation. Bioscience 53:77–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraterrigo JM, Turner MG, Pearson SM, Dixon P (2005) Effects of past land use on spatial heterogeneity of soil nutrients in southern Appalachian forests. Ecol Monogr 75:215–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fridley JD et al (2007) The invasion paradox: reconciling pattern and process in species invasions. Ecology 88:3–17

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gilland KE, McCarthy BC (2014) Microtopography influences early successional plant communities on experimental coal surface mine land reclamation. Restor Ecol 22:232–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrelson SM, Matlack GR (2006) Influence of stand age and physical environment on the herb composition of second-growth forest, Strouds Run, Ohio, USA. J Biogeogr 33:1139–1149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hermy M, Verheyen K (2007) Legacies of the past in the present-day forest biodiversity: a review of past land-use effects on forest plant species composition and diversity. In: Nakashizuka T (ed) Sustainability and diversity of forest ecosystems. Springer, New York, pp 361–371

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs RJ (1989) The nature and effects of disturbance relative to invasions. In: Drake JA (ed) Biological invasions, a global perspective. Wiley, New York, pp 389–401

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes MA, Whitacre JV, Bennion LD, Poteet J, Kuebbing SE (2021) Land-use history and abiotic gradients drive abundance of non-native shrubs in Appalachian second-growth forests with histories of mining, agriculture, and logging. For Ecol Manag 494:119296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes MA, Matlack GR (2017) Forest micro-environment develops through time: Changes in physical and structural heterogeneity follow abandonment from two forms of agriculture. For Ecol Manag 404:55–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes MA, Matlack GR (2019) Non-native plant species show a legacy of agricultural history in second-growth forests of southeastern Ohio. Biol Invasions 21:3063–3076

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huebner CD, Morin RS, Zurbriggen A, White RL, Moore A, Twardus D (2009) Patterns of exotic plant invasions in Pennsylvania’s Allegheny National Forest using intensive Forest Inventory and Analysis plots. For Ecol Manag 257:258–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huebner CD (2021) Patterns of invasive plant abundance in disturbed versus undisturbed forests within three land types over 16 years. Divers Distrib 27:130–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huebner CD, Tobin PC (2006) Invasibility of mature and 15-year-old deciduous forests by exotic plants. Plant Ecol 186:57–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krishnadas M et al (2018) Environment and past land use together predict functional diversity in a temperate forest. Ecol Appl 28:2142–2152

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Legendre P, Legendre LF (2012) Numerical ecology. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemmon PE (1956) A spherical densiometer for estimating forest overstory density. For Sci 2:314–320

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine JM (2000) Species diversity and biological invasions: relating local process to community pattern. Science 288:852–854

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Levine JM, D’Antonio CM (1999) Elton revisited: a review of evidence linking diversity and invasibility. Oikos 87:15–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lilley PL, Vellend M (2009) Negative native–exotic diversity relationship in oak savannas explained by human influence and climate. Oikos 118:1373–1382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matlack GR, Schaub JR (2011) Long-term persistence and spatial assortment of nonnative plant species in second‐growth forests. Ecography 34:649–658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattingly WB, Orrock JL (2013) Historic land use influences contemporary establishment of invasive plant species. Oecologia 172:1147–1157

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McKinney ML (2006) Correlated non-native species richness of birds, mammals, herptiles and plants: scale effects of area, human population and native plants. Biol Invasions 8:415–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKinney ML, Lockwood JL (1999) Biotic homogenization: a few winners replacing many losers in the next mass extinction. Trends Ecol Evol 14:450–453

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy SJ, Audino LD, Whitacre J, Eck JL, Wenzel JW, Queenborough SA, Comita LS (2015) Species associations structured by environment and land-use history promote beta‐diversity in a temperate forest. Ecology 96:705–715

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Naeem S, Knops JM, Tilman D, Howe KM, Kennedy T, Gale S (2000) Plant diversity increases resistance to invasion in the absence of covarying extrinsic factors. Oikos 91:97–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Hara R, Kotze J (2010) Do not log-transform count data. Nat Preceed 1:1

    Google Scholar 

  • Peng S, Kinlock NL, Gurevitch J, Peng S (2019) Correlation of native and exotic species richness: a global meta-analysis finds no invasion paradox across scales. Ecology 100:e02552

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oksanen J et al (2013) Package ‘vegan’. Community ecology package, version, 2(9).  pp 1-295

  • Parker JD, Richie LJ, Lind EM, Maloney KO (2010) Land use history alters the relationship between native and exotic plants: the rich don’t always get richer. Biol Invasions 12:1557–1571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandel B, Corbin JD (2010) Scale, disturbance and productivity control the native-exotic richness relationship. Oikos 119:1281–1290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sax DF (2002) Native and naturalized plant diversity are positively correlated in scrub communities of California and Chile. Divers Distrib 8:193–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shea K, Chesson P (2002) Community ecology theory as a framework for biological invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 17:170–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Souza L, Bunn WA, Simberloff D, Lawton RM, Sanders NJ (2011) Biotic and abiotic influences on native and exotic richness relationship across spatial scales: favourable environments for native species are highly invasible. Funct Ecol 25:1106–1112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stohlgren TJ, Falkner MB, Schell LD (1995) A modified-Whittaker nested vegetation sampling method. Vegetatio 117:113–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stohlgren TJ, Barnett DT, Kartesz JT (2003) The rich get richer: patterns of plant invasions in the United States. Front Ecol Environ 1:11–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stohlgren TJ, Jarnevich C, Chong GW, Evangelista PH (2006) Scale and plant invasions: a theory of biotic acceptance. Preslia 78:405–426

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomasetto F, Duncan RP, Hulme PE (2013) Environmental gradients shift the direction of the relationship between native and alien plant species richness. Divers Distrib 19:49–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomasetto F, Duncan RP, Hulme PE, Wiser SK (2018) Segregation, nestedness and homogenisation in plant communities dominated by native and alien species. Plant Ecol Divers 11:479–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomasetto F, Duncan RP, Hulme PE (2019) Resolving the invasion paradox: pervasive scale and study dependence in the native-alien species richness relationship. Ecol Lett 22:1038–1046

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Uddin MB, Steinbauer MJ, Jentsch A, Mukul SA, Beierkuhnlein C (2013) Do environmental attributes, disturbances and protection regimes determine the distribution of exotic plant species in Bangladesh forest ecosystem? For Ecol Manag 303:72–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vellend M et al (2007) Homogenization of forest plant communities and weakening of species–environment relationships via agricultural land use. J Ecol 95:565–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verheyen K, Hermy M (2001) The relative importance of dispersal limitation of vascular plants in secondary forest succession in Muizen Forest, Belgium. J Ecol 89:829–840

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Holle B, Motzkin G (2007) Historical land use and environmental determinants of nonnative plant distribution in coastal southern New England. Biol Conserv 136:33–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge John Wenzel, Rose-Marie Muzika, and Cokie Lindsay at Powdermill Nature Reserve for site access and lodging, Naeem Aziz, Samantha Catella, Jennifer Andrews Holmes, Joseph Jaros, Alexander Johnson, and Ellen Oordt for help with soil collection and processing.

Declarations.

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Pittsburgh, 203 Clapp Hall, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Marion A. Holmes, Jessica Poteet & Sara E. Kuebbing

  2. Powdermill Nature Reserve, Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, USA

    James V. Whitacre

  3. Kent State University, Kent, USA

    Leland D. Bennion

Authors
  1. Marion A. Holmes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James V. Whitacre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Leland D. Bennion
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jessica Poteet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sara E. Kuebbing
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: MA Holmes, SE Kuebbing; Methodology: MA Holmes, SE Kuebbing, LD Bennion; Formal analysis and investigation: MA Holmes; Writing - original draft preparation: MA Holmes; Writing - review and editing: MA Holmes, SE Kuebbing, LD Bennion, J Poteet; Resources: SE Kuebbing, JV Whitacre; Supervision: SE Kuebbing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marion A. Holmes.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Ethics approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 211.0 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Holmes, M.A., Whitacre, J.V., Bennion, L.D. et al. Native-exotic richness relationships in second-growth forests differ along a gradient of land-use history. Landsc Ecol 37, 847–859 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-021-01355-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-021-01355-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation