Advertisement

Wetlands

, Volume 30, Issue 4, pp 685–692 | Cite as

Landscape Context Predicts Reed Canarygrass Invasion: Implications for Management

  • Andrew R. JakubowskiEmail author
  • Michael D. Casler
  • Randall D. Jackson
Article

Abstract

Understanding the landscape distribution of invasive species has become an important tool to help land managers focus their efforts. We used land cover data to predict the proportion of wetlands in a watershed dominated by reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea L.), one of the most dominant wetland invaders in North America over the past century. Our results indicated that the landscape configuration of a watershed was a better predictor than the landscape composition of a watershed, with the adjacency of wetlands to agriculture and open water identified as the best predictors of the proportion of wetlands in a watershed dominated by reed canarygrass. In contrast, proportion of agriculture and open water were identified as the next best predictors in our regression tree, but explained significantly less variability. These results suggest that the risk of invasion by reed canarygrass varies among watersheds, and further that the potential for restoration success may similarly vary across the landscape. We argue that it is essential to understand the landscape context of a wetland before attempting a restoration project because success may be mediated by factors outside the local site.

Keywords

Habitat models Invasive species Nutrient management Phalaris arundinacea Restoration Wetlands 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Monica Turner, whose landscape ecology class inspired this project. Thanks to Tom Bernthal, Kevin Willis, and the Wisconsin DNR for the use of their data. Finally, thanks to several anonymous reviewers whose suggestions greatly improved the manuscript.

References

  1. Anselin L, Syabri I, Kho Y (2006) GeoDa: an introduction to spatial data analysis. Geographical Analysis 38:5–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Babbitt B (1998) Statement by Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt on invasive alien species. ‘Science in Wildlife Weed Management’ Symposium, Denver, CO, April 8, 1998. U.S. Dept. of the Interior News Release. (http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/pubs/bbstat.htm)
  3. Bernthal TW, Willis KG (2004) Using LANDSAT 7 Imagery to map invasive Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea) A landscape level wetland monitoring methodology. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources PUB-SS-992Google Scholar
  4. Bourg NA, McShea WJ, Gill DE (2005) Putting a CART before the search: successful habitat predicton for a rare forest herb. Ecology 86:2793–2804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Breiman L, Friedman JH, Olshen RA, Stone CG (1984) Classification and regression trees. Wadsworth, BelmontGoogle Scholar
  6. Carpenter SR, Caraco NF, Correll DL, Howarth RW, Sharpley AN, Smith VH (1998) Nonpoint pollution of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen. Ecological Applications 8:559–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis MA, Grime JP, Thompson K (2000) Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invasibility. Journal of Ecology 88:528–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De’ath G, Fabricius KE (2000) Classification and regression trees: a powerful yet simple technique for ecological data analysis. Ecology 81:3178–3192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Franklin J (1998) Predicting the distribution of shrub species in Southern California from climate and terrain-derived variables. Journal of Vegetation Science 9:733–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Green EK, Galatowitsch SM (2001) Differences in wetland plant community establishment with additions of nitrate-N and invasive species (Phalaris arundinacea and Typha X glauca). Canadian Journal of Botany 79:170–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Higgins SI, Richardson DM (1999) Predicting plant migration rates in a changing world: the role of long-distance dispersal. The American Naturalist 153:464–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Higgins SI, Richardson DM, Cowling RM (2000) Using a dynamic landscape model for planning the management of alien plant invasions. Ecological Applications 10:1833–1848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Higgins SI, Richardson DM, Cowling RM (2001) Validation of a spatial simulation model of a spreading alien plant population. Journal of Applied Ecology 38:571–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hobbs RJ et al (2006) Novel ecosystems: theoretical and management aspects of the new ecological world order. Global Ecology and Biogeography 15:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hobbs RJ, Humphries SE (1995) An integrated approach to the ecology and management of plant invasions. Conservation Biology 9:761–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Katterer T, Andren O (1999) Growth dynamics of reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) and its allocation of biomass and nitrogen belowground in a field receiving daily irrigation and fertilization. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 54:21–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kercher SM, Herr-Turoff A, Zedler JB (2007) Understanding invasion as a process: the case of Phalaris arundinacea in wet prairies. Biological Invasions 9:657–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kercher SM, Zedler JB (2004) Multiple disturbances accelerate invasion of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) in a mesocosm study. Oecologia 138:455–464CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Lass LW, Prather TS, Glenn NF, Weber KT, Mundt JT, Pettingill J (2005) A review of remote sensing of invasive weeds and example of the early detection of spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) and babysbreath (Gypsophila paniculata) with a hyperspectral sensor. Weed Science 53:242–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lavergne S, Molofsky J (2004) Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) as a biological model in the study of plant invasions. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 23:415–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lindenmayer D et al (2008) A checklist for ecological management of landscapes for conservation. Ecology Letters 11:78–91PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Lindig-Cisneros R, Zedler JB (2002) Relationships between canopy complexity and germination microsites for Phalaris arundinacea L. Oecologia 133:159–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. MacDougall AS, Turkington R (2005) Are invasive species the drivers or passengers of change in degraded ecosystems? Ecology 86:42–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Maurer DA, Lindig-Cisneros R, Werner KJ, Kercher S, Miller R, Zedler JB (2003) The replacement of Wetland vegetation by reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). Ecological Restoration 21:116–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maurer DA, Zedler JB (2002) Differential invasion of a wetland grass explained by tests of nutrients and light availability on establishment and clonal growth. Oecologia 131:279–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mayo Foundation (2002) RPART3 for S-PLUS 6 for Windows. Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, Rochester, MinnesotaGoogle Scholar
  27. McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Neel MC, Ene E (2002) Fragstats: spatial analysis program for categorical mapsGoogle Scholar
  28. Merigliano MF, Lesica P (1998) The native status of reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) in the Inland Northwest, USA. Natural Areas Journal 18:223–230Google Scholar
  29. Miller RC, Zedler JB (2003) Responses of native and invasive wetland plants to hydroperiod and water depth. Plant Ecology 167:57–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mooney HA, Hobbs RJ (eds) (2000) Invasive species in a changing world. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  31. O’Neill RV et al (1997) Monitoring environmental quality at the landscape scale. Bioscience 47:513–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Perry LG, Galatowitsch SM, Rosen CJ (2004) Competitive control of invasive vegetation: a native wetland sedge suppresses Phalaris arundinacea in carbon-enriched soil. Journal of Applied Ecology 41:151–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pimentel D et al (1995) Environmental and economic costs of soil erosion and conservation benefits. Science 267:1117–1123CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Reinhardt Adams C, Galatowitsch SM (2006) Increasing the effectiveness of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) control in wet meadow restorations. Restoration Ecology 14:441–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Reinhardt Adams C, Galatowitsch SM (2005) Phalaris arundinacea (reed canary grass): rapid growth and growth pattern in conditions approximating newly restored wetlands. Ecoscience 12:569–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rice JS, Pinkerton BW (1993) Reed canarygrass survival under cyclic inundation. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 48:132–132Google Scholar
  37. Sebert-Cuvillier E, Simon-Goyheneche V, Paccaut F, Chabrerie O, Goubet O, Decocq G (2008) Spatial spread of an alien tree species in a heterogeneous forest landscape: a spatially realistic simulation model. Landscape Ecology 23:787–801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Skaggs RW, Breve M (1994) Hydrologic and water quality impacts of agricultural drainage. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 24:1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stohlgren T, Otsuki Y, Villa C, Lee M, Belnap J (2001) Patterns of plant invasions: a case example in native species hotspots and rare habitats. Biological Invasions 3:37–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Usio N, Nakajima H, Kamiyama R, Wakana I, Hiruta S, Takamura N (2006) Predicting the distribution of invasive crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus) in a Kusiro Moor marsh (Japan) using classification and regression trees. Ecological Research 21:271–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vayssieres MP, Plant RE, Allen-Diaz BH (2000) Classification trees: an alternative non-parametric approach for predicting species distributions. Journal of Vegetation Science 11:679–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Werner KJ, Zedler JB (2002) How sedge meadow soils, microtopography, and vegetation respond to sedimentation. Wetlands 22:451–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Westerberg L, Wennergren U (2003) Predicting the spatial distribution of a population in a heterogeneous landscape. Ecological Modeling 166:53–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wickham JD, O’Neill RV, Riitters KH, Smith ER, Wade TG, Jones KB (2002) Geographic targeting of increases in nutrient export due to future urbanization. Ecological Applications 12:93–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (1984–1996) Wisconsin Wetlands Inventory. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WIGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew R. Jakubowski
    • 1
    Email author
  • Michael D. Casler
    • 2
  • Randall D. Jackson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of AgronomyUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  2. 2.USDA-ARSU.S. Dairy Forage Research CenterMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations