Plant Ecology

, Volume 187, Issue 2, pp 261–275 | Cite as

Exotic plants establish persistent communities



Many exotic plants utilize early successional traits to invade disturbed sites, but in some cases these same species appear able to prevent re-establishment of late-successional and native species. Between 2002 and 2004, I studied 25 fields that represent a 52-year chronosequence of agricultural abandonment in a shrub-steppe ecosystem in Washington State, USA, to determine if exotic plants behaved as early successional species (i.e., became less abundant over time) or if they established persistent communities. Exotics maintained dominance in tilled (73% of total cover) relative to never-tilled (6% of total cover) fields throughout the chronosequence. Exotic community composition, however, changed on annual and decadal timescales. Changes in exotic community composition did not reflect typical successional patterns. For example, some exotic perennial species (e.g., Centaurea diffusa and Medicago sativa) were less common and some exotic annual species (e.g., Sissymbrium loeselii and S. altissimum) were more common in older relative to younger fields. Exotics in the study area appeared to establish communities that are resistant to re-invasion by natives, resilient to losses of individual exotic species, and as a result, maintain total exotic cover over both the short- and long-term: exotics replaced exotics. Exotics did not invade native communities and natives did not invade exotic communities across the chronosequence. These results suggest that, in disturbed sites, exotic plants establish an alternative community type that while widely variable in composition, maintains total cover over annual and decadal timescales. Identifying alternative state exotic communities and the mechanisms that explain their growth is likely to be essential for native plant restoration.


Chronosequence Facilitation nMDS Old-field Shrub-steppe Stable state 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



This research was funded by USDA-NRI (# 35320-13473), the Utah State Agricultural Experimental Station, and the Switzer Foundation. I thank J. Mountjoy, C. Miller, and C. McCorkel for providing management histories; the Washington Department of Wildlife, the Methow Conservancy, and Rainier Seeds Inc. for help in the field; and K.H. Beard, G.P. Kyle, and J.M. Stark for reviewing earlier versions of this manuscript.


  1. Bais HP, Vepachedu R, Gilroy S, Callaway RM, Vivanco JM (2003) Allelopathy and exotic plant invasion: from molecules and genes to species interactions. Science 301:1377–1380PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bonet A, Pausas JG (2004) Species richness and cover along a 60-year chronosequence in old-fields of southeastern Spain. Plant Ecol 174:257–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Callaway RM, Thelen GC, Rodriguez A, Holben WE (2004) Soil biota and exotic plant invasion. Nature 427:731–733PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Callaway RM, Walker LR (1997) Competition and facilitation: a synthetic approach to interactions in plant communities. Ecology 78:1958–1965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Corbin JD, Dȁ9Antonio CM (2004) Competition between native perennial and exotic annual grasses: implications for an historical invasion. Ecology 85:1273–1283Google Scholar
  6. Deȁ9ath G (1999) Extended dissimilarity: a method of robust estimation of ecological distances from high beta diversity data. Plant Ecol 144:191–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Denslow JS, Hughes RF (2004) Exotic plants as ecosystem dominants. Weed Technol 18:1283–1287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Foster BL, Tilman D (2000) Dynamic and static views of succession: testing the descriptive power of the chronosequence approach. Plant Ecol 146:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hansen MJ, Clevenger AP (2005) The influence of disturbance and habitat on the presence of non-native plant species along transport corridors. Biol Conserv 125:249–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Klironomos JN (2002) Feedback with soil biota contributes to plant rarity and invasiveness in communities. Nature 417:67–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kyser GB, DiTomaso JM (2002). Instability in a grassland community after the control of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) with prescribed burning. Weed Sci 50:648–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lenfesty CD (1980). Soil survey of Okanogan County Area, Washington. National Cooperative Soil SurveyGoogle Scholar
  13. Lortie CJ, Brooker RW, Choler P, Kikvidze Z, Michalet R, Pugnaire FI, Callaway RM (2004) Rethinking plant community theory. Oikos 107:433–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mack MC, Dȁ9Antonio CM (1998) Impacts of biological invasions on disturbance regimes. Trend Ecol Evol 13:195–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mack RN, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM, Evans H, Clout M, Bazzaz FA (2000) Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol Appl 10:689–710Google Scholar
  16. Maron JL, Connors PG (1996) A native nitrogen-fixing shrub facilitates weed invasion. Oecologia 105:302–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Meiners SJ, Cadenasso ML, Pickett STA (2004) Beyond biodiversity: individualistic controls of invasion in a self-assembled community. Ecol Lett 7:121–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Meiners SJ, Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML (2001) Effects of plant invasions on the species richness of abandoned agricultural land. Ecography 24:633–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Middleton B (2002) Nonequilibrium dynamics of sedge meadows grazed by cattle in southern Wisconsin. Plant Ecol 161:89–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rejmanek M (1996) A theory of seed plant invasiveness: The first sketch. Biol Conserv 78:171–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rejmanek M, Richardson DM (1996) What attributes make some plant species more invasive? Ecology 77:1655–1661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Seabloom EW, Borer ET, Boucher VL, Burton RS, Cottingham KL, Goldwasser L, Gram WK, Kendall BE, Micheli F (2003) Competition, seed limitation, disturbance, and reestablishment of California native annual forbs. Ecol Appl 13:575–592Google Scholar
  23. Sheley RL, Petroff JK (1998) Biology and management of noxious rangeland weeds. Oregon State University Press, CorvallisGoogle Scholar
  24. Sheley RL, Petroff JK (1999) Biology and management of noxious rangeland weeds. Oregon State University Press, CorvallisGoogle Scholar
  25. Simberloff D, Von Holle B (2000) Positive interactions of non-indigenous species:invasional meltdown? Biol Invasions 1:21–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stylinski CD, Allen EB (1999) Lack of native species recovery following severe exotic disturbance in southern Californian shrublands. J Appl Ecol 36:544–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. R Research Core Team (2004) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. In: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  28. Tilman D (1985) The resource-ratio hypothesis of plant succession. Am Nat 125:827–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vivanco JM, Bais HP, Stermitz FR, Thelen GC, Callaway RM (2004) Biogeographical variation in community response to root allelochemistry: novel weapons and exotic invasion. Ecol Lett 7:285–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Forest, Range, and Wildlife Sciences and the Ecology CenterUtah State UniversityLoganUSA

Personalised recommendations