Brittonia

, Volume 67, Issue 4, pp 350–370 | Cite as

Distribution, diversity, and traits of native, exotic, and invasive climbing plants in Michigan

Article

Abstract

We compiled records of all the known climbing plant species both native and non-native in the state of Michigan, USA. County-level distributions and a broad suite of traits related to ecological and reproductive success were individually scored for each species. Non-native climbing species were subdivided and classified as either invasive or exotic. A total of 103 climbing species are present in the state, 50% of which are native. We classified only ten climbing species as currently invasive: of those 40% are woody, compared to 31% woody native and 33% woody exotic species. Our research asks whether latitude is correlated with either species richness or mode of dispersal among climbers. We also asked whether sexual system, dispersal mode, and unit of dispersal are different in native versus non-native climbers, and whether the dispersal mode of common trees is different from that of common climbers. We found latitudinally bimodal species richness for all classes of climbers, which we propose is due to collecting effort, growing season length, and human population density. We found surprisingly high numbers of climbing species at northern latitudes, in spite of harsh winter conditions, especially for climbing plants whose vascular tissues are compromised by freezing temperatures. Native species are significantly more often dioecious (27%) than non-natives (6%); however one of the woody invasive species, Celastrus orbiculatus, is functionally dioecious. Collectively, climbers include more abiotically dispersed species (62%) than biotically dispersed (38%). However, the 18 most common native species (found in more than 40 of 83 counties) are 61% biotically dispersed. Native woody climbers are 81% biotically dispersed, whereas native trees include 38–40% biotically dispersed species. Native climbing species are more often dispersed as fruits (52%) than are non-native climbers (37%), which are more often dispersed as seeds. Climbing mechanism is generally achieved by stem apical twining in both native and non-native species; however when tendrils are produced, native species produce similar proportions of leaf, petiole, and axillary tendrils, while non-native species largely produce leaf tendrils, a mechanism that is phylogenetically concentrated in the crop and crop-weed family, Fabaceae. Based on traits of the ten currently invasive climbing species in Michigan, we identify ten exotic species that are most likely to become invasive, most of which are perennials, hermaphroditic, with abiotically dispersed fruits, and modified climbing organs. Climbing species add significantly to biodiversity in Michigan, comprising 3.6% of the 2858 vascular plants. Climbing guilds in the temperate zone are more morphologically diverse and species rich than broadly recognized.

Key Words

Common species dispersal latitudinal diversity liana plant guild species richness vine 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to numerous undergraduate botanists, too many to be named here, who assisted with database compilation for Michigan Climbers. In particular we appreciate the dedication of Marko Melymuka and ReBecca Sonday in the early database stages, and Claire Malley for website design and construction. We also appreciate the support of Nicole Scholtz (U of M Clark Map Library) for advice on mapping. We thank two anonymous reviewers for very helpful commentary which substantially improved the manuscript. The research was supported in part by a grant to RJB from the University of Michigan School of Literature, Science, and the Arts.

Literature Cited

  1. Addo-Fordjour, P., P. El Duah & D.K.K. Agbesi. 2013. Factors influencing liana species richness and structure following anthropogenic disturbance in a tropical forest, Ghana. International Scholarly Research Notices Forestry 2013, Article ID 920370, 11 pages.Google Scholar
  2. Ahern, R. G., D. A. Landis, A. A. Reznicek & D. W. Schemske. 2010. Spread of exotic plants in the landscape: the growth habit and history of invasiveness. Biological Invasions 12: 3157–3169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Austin, D. F. 2000. Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis, Convolvulaceae) in North America, from medicine to menace. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 127(2): 172–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker, H. G. 1955. Self-compatibility and establishment after ‘long-distance’ dispersal. Evolution 9(3): 347–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. ———. 1967. Support for Baker's law — as a rule. Evolution 21(4): 853–856.Google Scholar
  6. ———. 1974. The evolution of weeds. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 5: 1–24.Google Scholar
  7. Banasiak S. E. & S. J. Meiners. 2009. Long term dynamics of Rosa multiflora in a successional system. Biological Invasions 11: 215–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barnes, B. V. & W. H. Wagner. 1992. Michigan Trees: A guide to the trees of Michigan and the Great Lakes Region. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  9. Bawa, K. 1980. Evolution of dioecy in flowering plants. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 11: 15–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Billington, C. 1943. Shrubs of Michigan. Cranbrook Institute of Science, Bloomfield Hills.Google Scholar
  11. Burnham, R.J. & C. Revilla-Minaya. 2011. Phylogenetic influence on twining chirality in lianas from Amazonian Peru. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 98(2): 196–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bush, M. B., R. J. Whittaker & T. Partomihardjo. 1995. Colonization and succession on Krakatau: analysis of the guild of vining plants. Biotropica 27(3): 355–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Canham, C. D. & R. Q. Thomas. 2010. Frequency, not relative abundance, of temperate tree species varies along climate gradients in eastern North America. Ecology 91: 3433–3440.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Carrasco-Urra, F. & E. Gianoli. 2009. Abundance of climbing plants in a southern temperate rain forest: host tree characteristics or light availability? Journal of Vegetation Science 20: 1155-1162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chittibabu, C. V. & N. Parthasarathy. 2001. Liana diversity and host relationships in a tropical evergreen forest in the Indian Eastern Ghats. Ecological Research 16: 519–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cushman, J. H. & K. A. Gaffney. 2010. Community-level consequences of invasion: impacts of exotic clonal plants on riparian vegetation. Biological Invasions 12(8): 2765–2776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. DeFelice, M. S. 2002. Catchweed bedstraw or cleavers, Galium aparine L.—a very “sticky” subject. Weed Technology 16(2): 467–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Del Tredici, P. 2014. Untangling the twisted tale of oriental bittersweet. Arnoldia (Jamaica Plain) 71(3): 2–18.Google Scholar
  19. DeWalt, S. J., S. A. Schnitzer & J. S. Denslow. 2000. Density and diversity of lianas along a chronosequence in a central Panamanian lowland forest. Journal of Tropical Ecology 16:1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dillenburg, L. R., D. F. Whigham, A. H. Teramura & I. N. Forseth.1993a. Effects of vine competition on availability of light, water, and nitrogen to a tree host (Liquidambar styraciflua). American Journal of Botany 80(3): 244-252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. ———, ———, ——— & ———.1993b. Effects of below- and aboveground competition from the vines Lonicera japonica and Parthenocissus quinquefolia on the growth of the tree host Liquidambar styraciflua. Oecologia 93: 48–54.Google Scholar
  22. ———, A. H. Teramura, I. N. Forseth & D. F. Whigham. 1995. Photosynthetic and biomass allocation responses of Liquidambar styraciflua (Hamamelidaceae) to vine competition. American Journal of Botany 82(4): 454–461.Google Scholar
  23. Duncan, W. H. 1975. Woody vines of the southeastern United States. University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA.Google Scholar
  24. Durigon, J., S. T. S. Miotto & E. Gianoli. 2014. Distribution and traits of climbing plants in subtropical and temperate South America. Journal of Vegetation Science 25: 1484–1492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eichenlaub, V. L., J. R. Harman, F. V. Nurnberger & H. J Stolle. 1990. The Climatic Atlas of Michigan. University of Notre Dame Press: Notre Dame, IN.Google Scholar
  26. Fan, Z. F., W. K. Moser, M. H. Hansen & M. D. Nelson. 2013. Regional patterns of major nonnative invasive plants and associated factors in Upper Midwest forest. Forest Science 59(1): 38–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Farah, A. F. & M. A. Al-Abdulsalam. 2004. Effect of field dodder (Cuscuta campestris Yuncker) on some legume crops. Scientific Journal of King Faisal University (Basic and Applied Sciences) 5(1): 103–112Google Scholar
  28. Forseth, I. N. & A.F. Innis. 2004. Kudzu (Pueraria montana): History, physiology, and ecology combine to make a major ecosystem threat. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 23(5): 401–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gallagher, R. V. & M. R. Leishman. 2012. A global analysis of trait variation and evolution in climbing plants. Journal of Biogeography 39: 1757–1771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. ———, ——— & A. T. Moles. 2011. Traits and ecological strategies of Australian tropical and temperate climbing plants. Journal of Biogeography 38: 828–839.Google Scholar
  31. Gentry, A. H. 1982. Patterns of neotropical plant species diversity. Evolutionary Biology 15: 1–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. ———. 1983. Dispersal ecology and diversity in Neotropical forest communities. In: K. Kubitzki (ed.) Dispersal and Distribution, Sonderbände das Naturwissenschaftlichen Vereins in Hamburg 7: 303–314.Google Scholar
  33. ———. 1991a. The distribution and evolution of climbing plants. Pp. 3–51 In: F.E. Putz & H. Mooney, (eds.) The Biology of Vines. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  34. ———. 1991b. Breeding and dispersal systems of lianas. Pp. 393–423 In: F.E. Putz & H. Mooney, (eds.) The Biology of Vines. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  35. Gerwing, J. & C. Uhl. 2002. Pre-logging liana cutting reduces liana regeneration in logging gaps in the eastern Brazilian Amazon. Ecological Applications 12: 1642–1651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gillespie, T. W. 1999. Life history characteristics and rarity of woody plants in tropical dry forest fragments of Central America. Journal of Tropical Ecology 15: 637–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Grauel, W. T. & F. E. Putz. 2004. Effects of lianas on growth and regeneration of Prioria copaifera in Darien, Panama. Forest Ecology and Management 190: 99–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gysel, L. W. 1951. Borders and openings of beech-maple woodlands in southern Michigan. Journal of Forestry 49(1): 13–19.Google Scholar
  39. Hannaway, D. B. & C. Larson. 2004. Hairy Vetch (Vicia villosa Roth). Oregon State University, Forage Information System.Google Scholar
  40. Harper, R. M. 1918. The plant population of northern lower Michigan and its environment. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 45(1): 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Harris, C. J. & R. Gallagher. 2010. Vines and lianas. p. 680-684 In: D. Simberloff & M. Rejmanek (eds.), Encyclopedia of biological invasions, University of California Press: Oakland.Google Scholar
  42. Hayes, K. R. & S. C. Barry. 2008. Are there any consistent predictors of invasion success? Biological Invasions 10(4): 483–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Herron, P. M., C. T. Martine, A. M. Latimer & S. A. Leicht-Young. 2007. Invasive plants and their ecological strategies: predictions and explanation of woody plant invasion in New England. Diversity and Distributions 13: 633–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Horton, J. L. & J. S. Francis. 2014. Using dendroecology to examine the effect of Oriental Bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus) invasion on Tulip Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) growth. The American Midland Naturalist 172(1): 25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Howe, H. F. & J. Smallwood. 1982. Ecology of seed dispersal. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 13: 201–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ingwell, L. L., S. J. Wright, K. K. Becklund, S. P. Hubbell & S. A. Schnitzer. 2010. The impact of lianas on 10 years of tree growth and mortality on Barro Colorado Island, Panama. Journal of Ecology 98: 879–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Jesse, L. C., J. D. Nason, J. J. Obrycki & K. A. Moloney. 2010. Quantifying the levels of sexual reproduction and clonal spread in the invasive plant, Rosa multiflora. Biological Invasions 12(6): 1847–1854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Jiménez-Castillo, M. & C. H. Lusk. 2013. Vascular performance of woody plants in a temperate rain forest: lianas suffer higher levels of freeze–thaw embolism than associated trees. Functional Ecology 27: 403–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Johnson, M. 2001. The genus Clematis. Magnus Johnson Planstkola AB, Södertälje.Google Scholar
  50. Ladwig, L. M. & S. J. Meiners. 2010a. Spatiotemporal dynamics of lianas during 50 years of succession to temperate forest. Ecology 91(3): 671–680.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. ———. 2010b. Liana host preference and implications for deciduous forest regeneration. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 137(1): 103–112.Google Scholar
  52. Landscape Change Research Group. 2014. Climate change atlas. Northern Research Station, U.S. Forest Service, Delaware, OH. http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/atlas.
  53. Lanini, W. T. & M. Kogan. 2005. Biology and management of Cuscuta in Crops. Ciencia E Investigacion Agraria 32(3): 127–141.Google Scholar
  54. Leicht-Young, S. A., N. B. Pavlovic, K. J. Frohnapple & R. Grundel. 2010. Liana habitat and host preferences in northern temperate forests. Forest Ecology and Management 260(9): 1467–1477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lord, J., M. Westoby & M. Leishman. 1995. Seed size and phylogeny in six temperate floras: constraints, niche conservatism, and adaptation. The American Naturalist 146(3): 349–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lutz, H. J. 1943. Injuries to trees caused by Celastrus and Vitis. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 70(4): 436–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Madden, M., R. Welch, T. Jordan, P. Jackson, R. Seavey & J. Seavey. 2004. Digital vegetation maps for the Great Smokey Mountains National Park. Final Report submitted to U.S. Department of Interior National Park Service. http://www1.usgs.gov/vip/grsm/grsmrpt.pdf
  58. Michigan Flora Online. A. A. Reznicek, E. G. Voss & B. S. Walters. February 2011 and onwards. University of Michigan. http://michiganflora.net/home.aspx.
  59. Miller, J. H., E. B. Chambliss & N. J. Loewenstein. 2010. Field guide for the identification of invasive plants in southern forests. Asheville, NC: U.S.D.A. Forest Service Southern Research Station. General Technical Report SRS-119.Google Scholar
  60. Molano-Flores, B. 2014. An invasive plant species decreases native plant reproductive success. Natural Areas Journal 34(4): 465–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Muthuramkumar, S. & N. Parthasarathy. 2001. Alpha diversity of lianas in a tropical evergreen forest in the Anamalais, Western Ghats, India. Diversity and Distributions 6(1): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Parker, G. R. & G. Schneider. 1975. Biomass and productivity of an alder swamp in northern Michigan. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 5(3): 403–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Patterson, D. T. 1976. The history and distribution of five exotic weeds in North Carolina. Castanea 41: 177–180.Google Scholar
  64. Pavlovic, N. B. & S. A. Leicht-Young. 2011. Are temperate mature forests buffered from invasive lianas? Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 138(1): 85–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Pérez-Salicrup, D. R. 2001. Effect of liana cutting on tree regeneration in a liana forest in Amazonian Bolivia. Ecology 82(2): 389–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rambuda, T. D. & S. D. Johnson. 2004. Breeding systems of invasive alien plants in South Africa: does Baker's rule apply? Diversity and Distributions 10(5-6): 409–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Renner, S. 2014. The relative and absolute frequencies of angiosperm sexual systems: dioecy, monoecy, gynodioecy, and an updated online database. American Journal of Botany 101(10): 1588–1596.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Richardson, D. M. & M. Rejmánek. 2011. Trees and shrubs as invasive alien species – a global review. Diversity and Distributions 17(5): 788–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Royer, F. & R. Dickinson. 1999. Weeds of the northern U.S. and Canada. University of Alberta Press, Edmonton.Google Scholar
  70. Schnitzer, S. A. 2005. A mechanistic explanation for global patterns of liana abundance and distribution. The American Naturalist 166: 262–276CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. ——— & F. Bongers. 2002. The ecology of lianas and their role in forests. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 17(5): 223–230.Google Scholar
  72. Siccama, T. G., G. Weir & K. Wallace. 1976. Ice damage in a mixed hardwood forest in Connecticut in relation to Vitis infestation. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 103: 180–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Solórzano, S., G. Ibarra-Manríquez & K. Oyama. 2002. Liana diversity and reproductive attributes in two tropical forests in Mexico. Biodiversity and Conservation 11: 197–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Stone, K. R. 2009. Cynanchum louiseae, C. rossicum. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/
  75. Thiers, B. 2015. Index Herbariorum: A global directory of public herbaria and associated staff. New York Botanical Garden's Virtual Herbarium. http://sweetgum.nybg.org/ih/
  76. Thompson, K., J. G. Hodgson & T. C. G. Rich. 1995. Native and alien invasive plants: more of the same? Ecography 18(4): 390–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Tibbetts, T. J. & F. W. Ewers. 2000. Root pressure and specific conductivity in temperate lianas: exotic Celastrus orbiculatus (Celastraceae) vs. native Vitis riparia (Vitaceae). American Journal of Botany 87(9): 1272–1278.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Vamosi, S. M., S. J. Mazer, & F. Cornejo. 2008. Breeding systems and seed size in a Neotropical flora: testing evolutionary hypotheses. Ecology 89(9): 2461–2472.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Vamosi, J. C., Y. Zhang, & W. G. Wilson. 2007. Animal dispersal dynamics promoting dioecy over hermaphroditism. The American Naturalist 170(3): 485–491.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Voss, E. G. 1972. Michigan Flora Part I: Gymnosperms and Monocots. Cranbrook Institute of Science, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  81. ———. 1985. Michigan Flora Part II: Dicots. Cranbrook Institute of Science, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  82. ———. 2004. Michigan Flora Part III: Dicots Concluded. Cranbrook Institute of Science, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  83. ——— & A. Reznicek. 2012. Field manual of Michigan flora. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  84. Waggy, M. A. 2009. Solanum dulcamara. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/
  85. Welch, R. W. 1972. County evolution in Michigan 1790 – 1897. Michigan Department of Education State Library Services Occasional Paper No 2, Lansing, MI.Google Scholar
  86. Wells, J. R. & P. W. Thompson. 1972. Field key to some common shrubs and vines of Michigan. The Michigan Botanist 11: 129–139.Google Scholar
  87. Wright, S. J., A. Hernandéz & R. Condit. 2007. The bushmeat harvest alters seedling banks by favoring lianas, large seeds, and seeds dispersed by bats, birds, and wind. Biotropica 39(3): 363–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Yanoviak, S. P. 2013. Shock value: are lianas natural lightning rods? Pp. 147–153 In: M. Lowman, S. Devy & T. Ganesh (eds.). Treetops at Risk: Challenges of Global Forest Canopies. Springer, New York, NY.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Zaroug, M. S., E. A. B. Zahran, A. A. Abbasher & E. A. A. Aliem. 2014. Host range of field dodder (Cuscuta campestris Yuncker) and its impact on onion (Allium cepa L.) cultivars grown in Gezira state Sudan. International Journal of AgriScience 4(7): 356–361.Google Scholar
  90. Zuloaga, F. O., O. N. Morrone, M. J. Belgrano, C. Marticorena & E. Marchesi (eds.). 2008. Catálogo de las plantas vasculares del Cono Sur. Monographs Systematic Botany Missouri Botanical Garden 107: 1–3348.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Botanical Garden 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations