Advertisement

Biological Invasions

, Volume 20, Issue 10, pp 2997–3007 | Cite as

Amur maple (Acer ginnala): an emerging invasive plant in North America

  • Michael J. SchusterEmail author
  • Peter B. Reich
Original Paper

Abstract

Acer ginnala Maxim. (Amur maple) is a growing threat to woodland systems in North America. Despite this, Amur maple has been largely ignored by ecologists, and scientific understanding of the species is mostly limited to anecdotal evidence from land managers. We evaluated the cover and richness of native and exotic understory plant communities under Amur maple canopies, native tree canopies, and nearby open areas near St. Paul, Minnesota, USA. Overall, Amur maple created dense canopies that only allowed 2% canopy light penetration, strongly reducing cover of all plants except Amur maple. With this critical first step in understanding the impacts of Amur maple complete, we suggest key research priorities related to the distribution of Amur maple, its mechanisms and impacts of invasion, and how best to control its spread in order to encourage future research into Amur maple and mitigate the species’ potential for ecological and economic harm.

Keywords

Acer ginnala Acer tartaricum Forest Grassland Invasion North America Woody Exotic Understory Native Competition Light Management 

Supplementary material

10530_2018_1754_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1.1 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 1123 kb)
10530_2018_1754_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (1.3 mb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 1299 kb)
10530_2018_1754_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (2.9 mb)
Supplementary material 3 (PDF 2938 kb)
10530_2018_1754_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (26 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (PDF 26 kb)

References

  1. Amur maple (Acer ginnala) - EDDMapS Southeast Distribution. In: EDDMapS. http://www.eddmaps.org/distribution/uscounty.cfm?sub=3965. Accessed 15 Sept 2016
  2. Amur maple (Not recommended)|The Morton Arboretum. http://www.mortonarb.org/trees-plants/tree-plant-descriptions/amur-maple-not-recommended. Accessed 19 Sept 2016
  3. Amur maple - Invasive species. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/terrestrialplants/woody/amurmaple.html. Accessed 15 Sep 2016
  4. An H, Shangguan Z (2010) Leaf stoichiometric trait and specific leaf area of dominant species in the secondary succession of the loess plateau. Pol J Ecol 58:103–113Google Scholar
  5. Anderson RC, Loucks OL, Swain AM (1969) Herbaceous response to canopy cover, light intensity, and throughfall precipitation in coniferous forests. Ecology 50:255–263.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1934853 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bailey LH (1924) Manual of cultivated plants. Macmillan Co., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Bauer J (2012) Invasive species: “back-seat drivers” of ecosystem change? Biol Invasions 14:1295–1304.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-011-0165-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bonner FT, Karrfalt RP (2008) The woody plant seed manual. USDA Forest Service, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  9. Canham CD, Denslow JS, Platt WJ et al (1990) Light regimes beneath closed canopies and tree-fall gaps in temperate and tropical forests. Can J For Res 20:620–631.  https://doi.org/10.1139/x90-084 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cawly J, Newton S, Bolyard M (2005) Allelopathic activity of a testa-derived solution from Siberian maple (Acer ginnala Maxim.) seeds. Allelopath J 16:227–238Google Scholar
  11. Clinton BD, Boring LR, Swank WT (1994) Regeneration patterns in canopy gaps of mixed-oak forests of the southern appalachians: influences of topographic position and evergreen understory. Am Midl Nat 132:308–319.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2426587 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crooks JA (2005) Lag times and exotic species: the ecology and management of biological invasions in slow-motion. Ecoscience 12:316–329.  https://doi.org/10.2980/i1195-6860-12-3-316.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diez JM, Williams PA, Randall RP et al (2009) Learning from failures: testing broad taxonomic hypotheses about plant naturalization. Ecol Lett 12:1174–1183.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01376.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Dirr M (1997) Dirr’s hardy trees and shrubs: an illustrated encyclopedia. Timber Press, IncorporatedGoogle Scholar
  15. Drenovsky RE, Grewell BJ, D’Antonio CM et al (2012) A functional trait perspective on plant invasion. Ann Bot.  https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcs100 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Ehrenfeld JG (2010) Ecosystem consequences of biological invasions. In: Futuyma D, Shafer H, Simberloff D (eds) Annual review of ecology, evolution, and systematics, vol 41. Annual Reviews, Palo Alto, pp 59–80Google Scholar
  17. Ellsworth DS, Reich PB (1992) Leaf mass per area, nitrogen content and photosynthetic carbon gain in Acer saccharum seedlings in contrasting forest light environments. Funct Ecol 6:423–435.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2389280 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fang W, Wang X (2011) Impact of invasion of Acer platanoides on canopy structure and understory seedling growth in a hardwood forest in North America. Trees 25:455–464.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-010-0520-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Forrester JA, Lorimer CG, Dyer JH et al (2014) Response of tree regeneration to experimental gap creation and deer herbivory in north temperate forests. For Ecol Manag 329:137–147.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2014.06.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fridley JD (2012) Extended leaf phenology and the autumn niche in deciduous forest invasions. Nature 485:359–362.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11056 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Galbraith-Kent SL, Handel SN (2008) Invasive Acer platanoides inhibits native sapling growth in forest understorey communities. J Ecol 96:293–302.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2007.01337.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gilman E, Watson D (1993) Acer ginnala. USDA Forest Service, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  23. Grotkopp E, Rejmanek M (2007) High seedling relative growth rate and specific leaf area are traits of invasive species: phylogenetically independent contrasts of woody angiospernis. Am J Bot 94:526–532.  https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.94.4.526 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Grotkopp E, Erskine-Ogden J, Rejmanek M (2010) Assessing potential invasiveness of woody horticultural plant species using seedling growth rate traits. J Appl Ecol 47:1320–1328.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01878.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Guo H, Zhao H, Wang S et al (2015) Determining the recruitment limitation of three native woody species in the Chinese pine (Pinus tabuliformis Carr.) plantations on the Loess Plateau, China. Scand J For Res 30:538–546.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2015.1035671 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hartman KM, McCarthy BC (2004) Restoration of a forest understory after the removal of an invasive shrub, Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii). Restor Ecol 12:154–165.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1061-2971.2004.00368.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Knight KS, Kurylo JS, Endress AG et al (2007) Ecology and ecosystem impacts of common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica): a review. Biol Invasions 9:925–937.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-007-9091-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kostel-Hughes F, Young T, Wehr J (2005) Effects of leaf litter depth on the emergence and seedling growth of deciduous forest tree species in relation to seed size. J Torrey Bot Soc 132:50–61.  https://doi.org/10.3159/1095-5674(2005)132[50:EOLLDO]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lei TT, Lechowicz MJ (1997) The photosynthetic response of eight species of Acer to simulated light regimes from the centre and edges of gaps. Funct Ecol 11:16–23.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2435.1997.00048.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Levine J, Adler P, Yelenik S (2004) A meta-analysis of biotic resistance to exotic plant invasions. Ecol Lett 7:975–989.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00657.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Liao C, Peng R, Luo Y et al (2008) Altered ecosystem carbon and nitrogen cycles by plant invasion: a meta-analysis. New Phytol 177:706–714.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02290.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Macdonald SE, Fenniak TE (2007) Understory plant communities of boreal mixedwood forests in western Canada: natural patterns and response to variable-retention harvesting. For Ecol Manag 242:34–48.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.01.029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Machado J-L, Reich PB (1999) Evaluation of several measures of canopy openness as predictors of photosynthetic photon flux density in deeply shaded conifer-dominated forest understory. Can J For Res 29:1438–1444.  https://doi.org/10.1139/x99-102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Marosz A (2009) Effect of fulvic and humic organic acids and calcium on growth and chlorophyll content of tree species grown under salt stress. Dendrobiology 62:47–53Google Scholar
  35. Matson E (2011) Acer tataricum. http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Invasives/fact/AmurMaple.html. Accessed 15 Sep 2016
  36. McLachlan SM, Bazely DR (2001) Recovery patterns of understory herbs and their use as indicators of deciduous forest regeneration. Conserv Biol 15:98–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Messier C, Parent S, Bergeron Y (1998) Effects of overstory and understory vegetation on the understory light environment in mixed boreal forests. J Veg Sci 9:511–520.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3237266 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Paquette A, Fontaine B, Berninger F et al (2012) Norway maple displays greater seasonal growth and phenotypic plasticity to light than native sugar maple. Tree Physiol 32:1339–1347.  https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tps092 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Pearcy RW (1983) The light environment and growth of C3 and C4 tree species in the understory of a Hawaiian forest. Oecologia 58:19–25.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00384537 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Reich PB, Wright IJ, Cavender-Bares J et al (2003) The evolution of plant functional variation: traits, spectra, and strategies. Int J Plant Sci 164:S143–S164.  https://doi.org/10.1086/374368 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Reinhart KO, Gurnee J, Tirado R, Callaway RM (2006) Invasion through quantitative effects: intense shade drives native decline and invasive success. Ecol Appl 16:1821–1831.  https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016[1821:ITQEIS]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Rejmanek M, Richardson DM (1996) What attributes make some plant species more invasive? Ecology 77:1655–1661.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2265768 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rejmánek M, Richardson DM, Pysek P (2013) Trees and shrubs as invasive alien species—2013 update of the global database. Divers Distrib 19:1093–1094.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12075 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Roth AM, Whitfeld TJS, Lodge AG et al (2015) Invasive earthworms interact with abiotic conditions to influence the invasion of common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica). Oecologia 178:219–230.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-014-3175-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Sakai AK, Allendorf FW, Holt JS et al (2001) The population biology of invasive species. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 32:305–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schmidt JP, Drake JM (2011) Why are some plant genera more invasive than others? PLoS ONE.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0018654 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Schuster MJ, Dukes JS (2014) Non-additive effects of invasive tree litter shift seasonal N release: a potential invasion feedback. Oikos 123:1101–1111.  https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.01078 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Simberloff D (2009) The role of propagule pressure in biological invasions. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 40:81–102.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.110308.120304 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. USDA (2017) The PLANTS database (http://plants.usda.gov). National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401-4901 USA. Accessed 30 June 2017
  50. Vila M, Espinar JL, Hejda M et al (2011) Ecological impacts of invasive alien plants: a meta-analysis of their effects on species, communities and ecosystems RID F-7454-2011 RID A-2783-2012 RID B-1957-2012. Ecol Lett 14:702–708.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01628.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Zhu J, Cheng H-M, Zhu Y-P et al (2015) Geographic variations in leaf shape of Acer ginnala (Aceraceae). Plant Syst Evol 301:1017–1028.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00606-014-1132-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Forest ResourcesUniversity of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA
  2. 2.Hawkesbury Institute for the EnvironmentUniversity of Western SydneyPenrithAustralia

Personalised recommendations