Kew Bulletin

, Volume 65, Issue 4, pp 583–594 | Cite as

Aliens or natives: who are the ‘thugs’ in British woods?

  • R. H. Marrs
  • M. G. Le Duc
  • S. M. Smart
  • K. J. Kirby
  • R. G. H. Bunce
  • P. M. Corney
Article

Summary

The invasion of native habitats by exotic, or alien, plant species has received considerable attention recently from policy, research, and practical conservation management perspectives. However, a new hypothesis for species dynamics in Britain suggests that a small number of aggressive native plant species (termed ‘thugs’) may have an equal, or greater, impact on native species and habitats than exotic species. Here, we examine this hypothesis using multivariate techniques with field-layer cover data collected during a country-wide survey of British woodlands. Multivariate analysis of these data identified a north-south gradient on the first axis, and that 20 of the 25 National Vegetation Classification woodland types were sampled within the study. The most abundant field-layer species included three of the proposed native ‘thugs’, i.e. Rubus fruticosus, Pteridium aquilinum and Hedera helix in addition to the native woodland indicator species Mercurialis perennis. Variation partitioning was used to compare the relative importance of native field-layer ‘thug’ species with invading alien shrub and tree species relative to other environmental drivers. The variation in the field-layer data-set explained by the three native ‘thug’ species was significant, but they explained a relatively small proportion of the variation relative to other environmental variables (climate, soil, management factors etc.). They did, however, explain almost four times as much variation as the three alien species that were significantly correlated with field-layer species composition (Acer pseudoplatanus, Impatiens glandulifera, Rhododendron ponticum). The results of this analysis suggest that the field-layer of British woodlands is impacted as much by native ‘thug’ species, as it is from ‘aliens’. Concern about the impact of these native ‘thug’ species has been reported previously, but their impact has not previously been compared to the impact of invading aliens. It is hoped that this analysis will do two things, first to act as a sound baseline for assessing any changing balance that should occur in the future, and second, to prompt both ecologists and conservationists to develop woodland management policies based on sound science.

Key Words

Detrended correspondence analysis National Woodland Survey native species resource assessment variation partitioning woodland field-layer species woodland herb 

References

  1. Bobbink, R. & Willems, J. H. (1987). Increasing dominance of Brachypodium pinnatum (L.) Beauv. in chalk grasslands: a threat to a species-rich ecosystem. Biol. Conserv. 40: 301 – 314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Borcard, D., Legendre, P. & Drapeau, P. (1992). Partialling out the spatial component of ecological variation. Ecology 73: 1045 – 1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bunce, R. G. H. & Shaw, M. W. (1973). A standardized procedure for ecological survey. J. Environm. Managem. 1: 239 – 258.Google Scholar
  4. CBD (2002). VI/23. Alien species that threaten ecosystems, habitats or species In: Annex I. Decisions adopted by the conference of the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its sixth meeting, pp. 249 – 262. UNEP, The Hague, Netherlands.URL: http://www.biodiv.org/doc/decisions/COP-06-dec-en.pdf.
  5. Corney, P. M. (2006). Assessment of the factors influencing woodland field-layer vegetation composition across Britain. PhD thesis, University of Liverpool, Liverpool.Google Scholar
  6. ____, Le Duc, M. G., Smart, S. M., Kirby, K. J., Bunce, R. G. H. & Marrs, R. H. (2004). The effect of landscape-scale environmental drivers on the vegetation composition of British woodlands. Biol. Conserv. 124: 491 – 505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. ____, ____, ____, ____, ____ & ____ (2006). Relationships between the species composition of forest field-layer vegetation and environmental drivers, assessed using a national scale survey. J. Ecol. 94: 383 – 401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crawley, M. J. (2007). The R book. Wiley, Chichester.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DEFRA (2003). Review of non-native species policy; Report of the working group. DEFRA, London. http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/resprog/findings/non-native/report.pdf.
  10. Dehnen-Schmutz, K., Perrings, C. & Williamson, M. (2004). Controlling Rhododendron ponticum in the British Isles: an economic analysis. J. Environm. Managem. 70: 323 – 332.Google Scholar
  11. EDINA (2002). Digimap online mapping service (http://edina.ac.uk/digimap). © Crown Copyright. An EDINA Digimap/JISC supplied service.
  12. Edwards, C., Clay, D. V. & Dixon, F. L. (2000). Stem treatment to control Rhododendron ponticum under woodland canopies. Aspects Appl. Biol. 58: 1 – 8.Google Scholar
  13. ERDAS (2001). ERDAS IMAGINE, version 8.5. ERDAS, inc., Atlanta, Georgia,Google Scholar
  14. ESRI (2000). ArcView GIS, version 3.2a. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, California.Google Scholar
  15. ____ (2001). Map Manager version 6.2. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, California.Google Scholar
  16. Grime, J. P., Hodgson, J. D. & Hunt, R. (1988). Comparative plant ecology: a functional approach to common British species. Unwin Hyman, London.Google Scholar
  17. Hill, M. O. (1996). TABLEFIT version 1.0, for identification of vegetation types. Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Huntingdon.Google Scholar
  18. IUCN (2000). Guidelines for the prevention of biodiversity loss caused by alien invasive species. Prepared by the SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group; Approved by the 51st Meeting of the IUCN Council, Gland, Switzerland. http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/pubs/policy/invasivesEng.htm.
  19. Kirby, K. J. & Woodell, S. R. J. (1998). The distribution and growth of bramble (Rubus fruticosus L. agg.) in British semi-natural woodland and their implications for nature conservation. J. Practical Ecol. & Conserv. 2: 31 – 41.Google Scholar
  20. ____, Smart, S. M., Black, H. I. J., Bunce, R. G. H., Corney, P. M. & Smithers, R. J. (2005). Long-term ecological changes in British broadleaved woodland 1971 –2001. Research Report. 653. English Nature, Peterborough. http://naturalengland.etraderstores.com/NaturalEnglandShop/R653.
  21. Le Duc, M. G., Pakeman, R. J. & Marrs, R. H. (2000). Vegetation development on upland and marginal land treated with herbicide, for bracken (Pteridium aquilinum) control, in Great Britain. J. Environm. Managem. 58: 147 – 160.Google Scholar
  22. Legendre, P. & Gallagher, E. D. (2001). Ecologically meaningful transformations for ordination of species data. Oecologia 129: 271 – 280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Liu, J., Liang, S. C., Liu, F. H., Wang, R. Q. & Dong, M. (2005). Invasive alien plant species in China: regional distribution patterns. Diversity Distrib. 11: 341 – 347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marrs, R. H. & Watt, A. S. (2006). Biological Flora of the British Isles: Pteridium aquilinum (L.) Kuhn. J. Ecol. 94: 1272 – 1321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McAllister, H. A. & Rutherford, A. (1990). Hedera helix L. and H. hibernica (Kirchner) Bean (Araliaceae) in the British Isles. Watsonia 18: 7 – 15.Google Scholar
  26. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/About.aspx.
  27. Oksanen, J. (2003). Gradient Analysis of Vegetation (Gravy) software, version 0.0-21. http://cc.oulu.fi/~jarioksa/softhelp/softalist.html.
  28. Pakeman, R. J. & Marrs, R. H. (1992). The conservation of bracken Pteridium aquilinum (L.) Kuhn-dominated communities in the UK, and an assessment of the ecological impact of bracken expansion or its removal. Biol. Conserv. 62: 101 – 114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pearman, D. (2004a). Invading aliens — or invading natives? BSBI News 96: 41 – 42.Google Scholar
  30. ____ (2004b). The native plants are restless. Radio 4; Nature (25th October). URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/nature_20041025.shtml.
  31. ____ & Lockton, A. (2004). Aliens and introductions: A discussion paper. URL: http://www.bsbi.org.uk/html/alien_invaders_.html.
  32. Peres-Neto P. R., Legendre, P., Dray, S. & Borcard, D. (2006). Variation partitioning of species data matrices: estimation and comparison of fractions. Ecology 87: 2614 – 2625.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Peterken, G. F. & Game, M. (1981). Historical factors affecting the distribution of Mercurialis perennis in central Lincolnshire. J. Ecol. 69: 781 – 796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Peterson, A. T., Papes, M. & Kluza, D. A. (2003). Predicting the potential invasive distributions of four alien plant species in North America. Weed Sci. 51: 863 – 868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pigott, C. D. (1977). The scientific basis of practical nature conservation: aims and methods of conservation. Proc. Roy. Soc., London, Ser. B, Biol. Sci. 197: 59 – 68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pullin, A. S., Knight, T. M., Stone, D. A. & Charman, K. (2004). Do conservation managers use scientific evidence to support their decision-making? Biol. Conserv. 119: 245 – 252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pysek, P., Jarosik, V. & Kucera, T. (2003). Inclusion of native and alien species in temperate nature reserves: An historical study from Central Europe. Conserv. Biol. 17: 1414 – 1424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. R Development Core Team (2004). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. http://www.R-project.org.
  39. Rackham, O. (2006). Woodlands. HarperCollins, London.Google Scholar
  40. Ratcliffe, D. A. (1977). A nature conservation review: the selection of biological sites of national importance to nature conservation in Britain. CUP, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  41. Ray, D. (2001). Ecological Site Classification, version 1.7. A PC-based Decision Support System for British Forests. Forestry Commission, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  42. Richardson, D. M., Rouget, M., Ralston, S. J., Cowling, R. M., Van Rensburg, B. J. & Thuiller, W. (2005). Species richness of alien plants in South Africa: Environmental correlates and the relationship with indigenous plant species richness. Ecosci. 12: 391 – 402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rodwell, J. (ed.) (1991). Woodlands and scrub. CUP, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  44. Smart, S. M., Bunce, R. G. H., Marrs, R., Le Duc, M., Firbank, L. G., Maskell, L. C., Scott, W. A., Thompson, K. & Walker, K. J. (2005). Large-scale changes in the abundance of common higher plant species across Britain between 1978, 1990 and 1998 as a consequence of human activity: Tests of hypothesised changes in trait presentation. Biol. Conserv. 124: 355 – 371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. ____, Thompson, K., Marrs, R. H., Le Duc, M. G., Maskell, L. C. & Firbank, L. G. (2006). Biodiversity loss and biotic homogenization across human-modified ecosystems. Proc. Roy. Soc. London, Ser. B, Biol. Sci. 273: 2659 – 2665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sokal, R. R. & Rohlf, F. J. (1995) Biometry. 3rd edition. W. H. Freeman and Co., New York.Google Scholar
  47. Stewart, G. B., Coles, C. F. & Pullin, A. S. (2005). Applying evidence-based practice in conservation management: Lessons from the first systematic review and dissemination projects. Biol. Conserv. 126: 270 – 278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sutherland, W. J., Pullin, A. S., Dolman, P. M. & Knight, T. M. (2004). The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19: 305 – 308.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. ter Braak, C. J. F. & Šmilauer, P. (2002). CANOCO Reference manual and CANODRAW for Windows User's guide: Software for Canonical Community Ordination (version 4.5). Microcomputer Power, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. H. Marrs
    • 1
  • M. G. Le Duc
    • 1
  • S. M. Smart
    • 2
  • K. J. Kirby
    • 3
  • R. G. H. Bunce
    • 4
  • P. M. Corney
    • 1
    • 5
  1. 1.School of Environmental SciencesUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK
  2. 2.Centre for Ecology & HydrologyUniversity of LancasterLancasterUK
  3. 3.Natural England, Northminster HousePeterboroughUK
  4. 4.AlterraWageningenThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Hyder Consulting UK Ltd, The MillStroudUK

Personalised recommendations