Advertisement

Journal of Coastal Conservation

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 49–58 | Cite as

Short-term soil nutrient and plant community responses to the eradication of a nitrogen fixing tree, Lupinus arboreus

  • Jillian K. HetheringtonEmail author
  • J. Bastow Wilson
Article

Abstract

Invasive plant eradication aims to restore an original state by eliminating the plant and its alteration of ecosystem structure and function. The method by which an invasive plant is eradicated is known to influence restoration success; however, success may be impeded by a legacy effect. We sought to examine how the soil nutrient pool and plant community assembly responded to the eradication of an invasive nitrogen-fixing legume, Lupinus arboreus, using three different techniques. We applied herbicide to six mature plants and with a handsaw removed the above ground biomass of 12 mature plants; six of these were left in situ to decompose and six were removed from site. Soil nutrient concentrations were measured, and plant community composition was monitored, in the treatment and reference plots over the following 13 months. Eradication resulted in a significant increase in extractable ammonium-N and potassium, in contrast nitrate-N declined. The plant community changed as a result of felling L. arboreus, and the removal of all biomass initially resulted in an increase in native plant cover. By the end of the experimental period, however, L. arboreus seedlings were increasing in abundance and native cover was declining. The application of herbicide resulted in the slow decay of the mature plant and as such delayed an increase in exotic species cover and inhibited L. arboreus germination. Nutrient concentrations in the eradication plots were not significantly different from the reference plots at the end of the experimental period. The impact of L. arboreus on the soil nutrient pool remains after eradication, a legacy effect which will hinder restoration of the original structure and function in the long term.

Keywords

Lupinus arboreus Invasive plant Plant available nutrients Eradication Legacy 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Simon Fowler for his support, Ian Hankin from the Canterbury Conservancy for applying Clopyralid to the L. arboreus trees and Peter Holland and John Steel for reading drafts of this manuscript. Research was funded by the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology (Beating Weeds, contract C09X0504).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The living author has no conflict of interests.

References

  1. Alpert P, Maron J (2000) Carbon addition as a countermeasure against biological invasion by plants. Biol Invasions 2:33–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashton I, Hyatt L, Howe K, Gurevitch J, Lerdau M (2005) Invasive species accelerate decomposition and litter nitrogen loss in a mixed deciduous forest. Ecol Appl 15:1263–1272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blakemore L, Searle P, Daly B (1972) Methods for chemical analysis of soils. NZ Soil Bureau Scientific Report 10A, New Zealand, NZ DSIRGoogle Scholar
  4. Blanchard R, Holmes PM (2008) Riparian vegetation recovery after invasive alien tree clearance in the fynbos biome. S Afr J Bot 74:421–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brickell C (2002) The Royal Horticultural Society, Encyclopaedia of gardening (revised and expanded edition). Dorling Kindersley Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Cockayne L (1911) Report on the dune-areas of New Zealand: their geology, botany and reclamation. Parliamentary Paper C.13. Department of Lands and Survey, Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  7. Corbin J, D’Antonio C (2004) Effects of exotic species on soil nitrogen cycling: implications for restoration. Weed Technol 18:1464–1467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Corbin J, D’Antonio C (2012) Gone but not forgotten? Invasive plants’ legacies on community and ecosystem properties. Invas Plant Sci Mana 5:117–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Costall J, Death R (2010) Population monitoring of the endangered New Zealand spider, Latrodectus katipo, with artificial cover objects. N Z J Ecol 34:253–258Google Scholar
  10. Cuddington K (2011) Legacy effects: the persistent impact of ecological interactions. Biol Theory 6:203–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cuevas Y, Zalba S (2010) Recovery of native grasslands after removing invasive pines. Restor Ecol 18:711–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davison E, Barbour M (1977) Germination, establishment and demography of coastal bush lupine (Lupinus arboreus) at bodega head, California. Ecology 58:592–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Donihue C, Porensky L, Foufopoulos J, Riginos C, Pringle R (2013) Glade cascades: indirect legacy effects of pastoralism enhance the abundance and spatial structuring of arboreal fauna. Ecology 94:827–837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ehrenfeld J (2003) Effects of exotic plant invasions on soil nutrient cycling processes. Ecosystems 6:503–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gadgil R (1976) Nitrogen distribution in stands of Pinus radiata with and without Lupin in the understory. N Z J For Sci 6:33–39Google Scholar
  16. Griffiths J (2001) Web site characteristics, dispersal and species status of New Zealand’s katipo spiders, Latrodectus katipo and L. atritus. PhD thesis, Lincoln University, Lincoln, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  17. Hartman K, McCarthy B (2004) Restoration of a forest understory after the removal of an invasive shrub, Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii). Restor Ecol 12:154–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heleno R, Lacerda I, Ramos A, Memmot J (2010) Evaluation of restoration effectiveness: community response to the removal of alien plants. Ecol Appl 20:1191–1203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hetherington J (2006) Seed ecology of Lupinus arboreus. Dissertation. University of Otago, DunedinGoogle Scholar
  20. Hetherington J (2012) Ecological rehabilitation, an approach to assisting ecosystems modified by invasive plants. PhD thesis, University of Otago, Dunedin, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  21. Hetherington J, Wilson JB (2014) Spatial associations between invasive tree lupin and populations of two katipo spiders at Kaitorete spit, New Zealand. N Z J Ecol 38:279–287Google Scholar
  22. Hilton M, Hetherington J, Morris K (2006) A survey of Lupinus arboreus (tree lupin) and other exotic species, Kaitorete spit dunes, Canterbury. Report to the Department of Conservation (Canterbury). Department of geography, University of Otago, Dunedin, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  23. Hooper D, Vitousek P (1998) Effects of plant composition and diversity on nutrient cycling. Ecol Monogr 68:121–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jobbagy E, Jackson R (2001) The distribution of soil nutrients with depth: global patterns and the imprint of plants. Biogeochemistry 53:57–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnson P (1992) The sand dune and beach vegetation inventory of New Zealand II South Island and Stewart Island. DSIR Land Resources Scientific Report 16. DSIR Land Resources, Christchurch, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  26. Keeney D, Nelson D (1982) Nitrogen – inorganic Forms. In: A Norman (ed) Methods of soil analysis, part 2: chemical and microbiological properties. Agronomy Monography no. 9, second edition.. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WisconsinGoogle Scholar
  27. Kettenring K, Reinhardt Adams C (2011) Lessons learned from invasive plant control experiments: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Appl Ecol 48:970–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kirk R (1980) Mixed sand and gravel beaches: morphology, processes and sediments. Prog Phys Geogr 4:189–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lawrence M (2016) ez: Easy analysis and visualization of factorial experiments. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ez/index.html. Accessed 26 June 2016
  30. Marchante E, Kjøller A, Struwe S, Freitas H (2009) Soil recovery after removal of the N2-fixing invasive Acacia longifolia: consequences for ecosystem restoration. Biol Invasions 11:813–823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marchante H, Freitas H, Hoffman J (2011) Post-clearing recovery of coastal dunes invaded by Acacia longifolia: is duration of invasion relevant for management success? J Appl Ecol 48:1295–1304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Måren I, Vandvik V, Ekelund K (2008) Restoration of bracken invaded Calluna vulgaris heathlands: effects on vegetation dynamics and non-target species. Biol Conserv 141:1032–1042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Maron J, Jefferies R (1999) Bush lupine mortality, altered resource availability and alternative vegetation states. Ecology 80:443–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Maron J, Sims E (1997) Effect of seed predation on the seed bank size and seedling recruitment of bush lupine (Lupinus arboreus). Oecologia 111:76–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Molina-Montenegro M, Badano E, Cavieres L (2008) Positive interactions among plant species for pollination service: assessing the ‘magnet species’ concept with invasive species. Oikos 117:1833–1839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Molloy B, Partridge T, Thomas W (1991) Decline of tree lupin (Lupinus arboreus) on Kaitorete spit, Canterbury, New Zealand, 1984-1990. New Zeal J Bot 29:349–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Oksanen J, Blanchet F, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin P, O'Hara R, Simpson G, Solymos P, Henry M, Stevens H, Wagner H (2015) Vegan: community ecology package. R package version 2.3–0. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan. Accessed 2 June 2016
  38. Olsen S, Cole C, Watanabe F, Dean L (1954) Estimation of available phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium bicarbonate. USDA Circular 939. United States of AmericaGoogle Scholar
  39. Palmer J (1980) The Kaitorete dunes. Department of Lands and Survey, Christchurch, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  40. Pejchar L, Mooney H (2009) Invasive species, ecosystem services and human well-being. TREE 24:497–504Google Scholar
  41. Pickart A, Miller L, Duebendorfer T (1998) Yellow bush lupine invasion in northern California coastal dunes: I. Ecology and manual restoration techniques. Restor Ecol 6:59–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pitelka L (1977) Energy allocation in annual and perennial lupines (Lupinus: Leguminosae). Ecology 58:1055–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pysek P, Jarosik V, Hulme P, Pergl J, Hejda M, Schaffner U, Vila M (2012) A global assessment of invasive plant impacts on resident species, communities and ecosystems: the interaction of impact measures, invading species’ traits and environment. Glob Chang Biol 18:1725–1737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rodgers V, Wolfe B, Werden L, Finzi A (2008) The invasive species Alliaria petiolata (garlic mustard) increases soil nutrient availability in northern hardwood-conifer forests. Oecologia 157:459–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Royo A, Stout S, deCalesta D, Pierson T (2010) Restoring forest herb communities through landscape-level deer herd reductions: is recovery limited by legacy effects? Biol Conserv 143:2425–2434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stout J, Kells A, Goulson D (2002) Pollination of the invasive exotic shrub Lupinus arboreus (Fabaceae) by introduced bees in Tasmania. Biol Conserv 106:425–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Timmins S (1983) Weeds in national parks and reserves: summary of responses to a questionnaire. Department of Lands and Survey. Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  48. Vila M, Basnou C, Pyšek P, Josefsson M, Genovesi P, Gollasch S, Nentwig W, Olenin S, Roques A, Roy D, Hulme P, partners DAISIE (2010) How well do we understand the impacts of alien species on ecosystem services? A pan-European, cross-taxa assessment. Front Ecol Environ 8:135–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vitousek P, Walker L (1989) Biological invasions by Myrica Faya in Hawai’i: plant demography, nitrogen fixation, ecosystem effects. Ecol Monogr 59:247–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Williams P, Timmins S (1990) Weeds in New Zealand Protected Natural Areas: a review for the Department of Conservation. Science and Research Series No 14. Department of Conservation, Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  51. Wilson S, Gerry A (1995) Strategies for mixed-grass prairie restoration: herbicide, tilling and nitrogen manipulation. Restor Ecol 3:290–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wurst S, Ohgushi T (2015) Do plant- and soil-mediated legacy effects impact future biotic interactions? Funct Ecol 29:1373–1382.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12456 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeographyUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand
  2. 2.Department of BotanyUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations