Differences in landscape drivers of garlic mustard invasion within and across ecoregions

Abstract

While landscape models of invasive plant distributions have potential for targeting management areas, we focus on two reasons such models may be limited in their application. First, models to date are biased towards explaining establishment in ruderal habitat but not spread of invasives into adjacent habitat, where they may most impact native plants. Second, models are usually developed across ecoregions or for a single ecoregion, and it is unclear how well models for different regions and spatial extents agree. Our aims were to (1) test how landscape variables explain garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) occurrence on forest edges and its incursion into forest understory habitat; (2) compare models constructed for two ecoregions, separately, and both ecoregions together. In 183 sites in two ecoregions in Massachusetts, we recorded whether garlic mustard occurred on the forest edge (edge occurrence) and in the understory (understory incursion). We used logistic regression to relate either edge occurrence or understory incursion to elevation and four variables describing land use surrounding each site: percent open land in 1830, percent developed and agricultural land in 2005, and forest-edge length in 2005. Elevation was negatively associated with edge occurrence within regions but positively associated across regions. Land use from 2005 explained edge occurrence and understory incursion in only one region. These results suggest that mechanisms driving garlic mustard distributions are scale- and region-dependent. Our findings also suggest that region-specific invasive distribution models are necessary, and we caution against implying probability of understory incursion from the probability of edge establishment.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Anderson RC, Dhillion SS, Kelley TM (1996) Aspects of the ecology of an invasive plant, garlic mustard (alliaria petiolata), in Central Illinois. Restor Ecol 4:181–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.1996.tb00118.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Angert AL, Sheth SN, Paul JR (2011) Incorporating population-level variation in thermal performance into predictions of geographic range shifts. Integr Comp Biol 51:733–750. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icr048

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Blossey B, Nuzzo V, Dávalos A (2017) Climate and rapid local adaptation as drivers of germination and seed bank dynamics of Alliaria petiolata (garlic mustard) in North America. J Ecol 105:1485–1495. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12854

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bradley BA (2013) Distribution models of invasive plants over-estimate potential impact. Biol Invasions 15:1417–1429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-012-0380-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Brewer JS (2011) Per capita community-level effects of an invasive grass, Microstegium vimineum on vegetation in mesic forests in Northern Mississippi (USA). Biol Invasions 13:701–715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-010-9861-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Broennimann O, Treier UA, Müller-Schärer H et al (2007) Evidence of climatic niche shift during biological invasion. Ecol Lett 10:701–709. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01060.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Brouwer NL, Hale AN, Kalisz S (2015) Mutualism-disrupting allelopathic invader drives carbon stress and vital rate decline in a forest perennial herb. AoB PLANTS. https://doi.org/10.1093/aobpla/plv014

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Cavers PB, Heagy MI, Kokron RF (1979) The biology of Canadian Weeds: 35. Alliaria petiolata (M. Bieb.) Cavara and Grande. Can J Plant Sci 59:217–229. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjps79-029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Christen D, Matlack G (2006) The role of roadsides in plant invasions: a demographic approach. Conserv Biol 20:385–391. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00315.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chytrý M, Jarošík V, Pyšek P et al (2008) Separating habitat invasibility by alien plants from the actual level of invasion. Ecology 89:1541–1553. https://doi.org/10.1890/07-0682.1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Compton JE, Boone RD (2000) Long-term impacts of agriculture on soil carbon and nitrogen in New England forests. Ecology 81:2314–2330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Daly C, Gibson WP, Taylor GH et al (2002) A knowledge-based approach to the statistical mapping of climate. Clim Res 22:99–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Davis MA, Grime JP, Thompson K (2000) Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invasibility. J Ecol 88:528–534. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2745.2000.00473.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Davis MA, Anderson MD, Bock-Brownstein L et al (2015) Little evidence of native and non-native species influencing one another’s abundance and distribution in the herb layer of an oak woodland. J Veg Sci 26:1005–1012. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvs.12302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dickens SJM, Gerhardt F, Collinge SK (2005) Recreational portage trails as corridors facilitating non-native plant invasions of the boundary waters canoe area wilderness (U.S.A.). Conserv Biol 19:1653–1657. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.004285.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ervin GN, Holly DC (2011) Examining local transferability of predictive species distribution models for invasive plants: an example with cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica). Invasive Plant Sci Manag 4:390–401. https://doi.org/10.1614/IPSM-D-10-00077.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Foster D, Motzkin G (2009) 1830 Map of land cover and cultural features in Massachusetts. Harvard Forest Data Archive: HF122

  18. Foster DR, Motzkin G, Slater B (1998) Land-use history as long-term broad-scale disturbance: regional forest dynamics in Central New England. Ecosystems 1:96–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s100219900008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gallagher RV, Beaumont LJ, Hughes L, Leishman MR (2010) Evidence for climatic niche and biome shifts between native and novel ranges in plant species introduced to Australia. J Ecol 98:790–799. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2010.01677.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. González-Moreno P, Diez JM, Richardson DM, Vilà M (2015) Beyond climate: disturbance niche shifts in invasive species. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 24:360–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Grieve M (2013) A modern herbal. Courier Corporation, Chelmsford

    Google Scholar 

  22. Griffith G, Omernik J, Bryce S, et al (2009) Map: ecoregions of New England, United States Geological Survey, Reston

  23. Hall B, Motzkin G, Foster DR et al (2002) Three hundred years of forest and land-use change in Massachusetts, USA. J Biogeogr 29:1319–1335. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2699.2002.00790.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hällfors MH, Liao J, Dzurisin J et al (2016) Addressing potential local adaptation in species distribution models: implications for conservation under climate change. Ecol Appl 26:1154–1169. https://doi.org/10.1890/15-0926

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Heikkinen RK, Marmion M, Luoto M (2012) Does the interpolation accuracy of species distribution models come at the expense of transferability? Ecography 35:276–288. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2011.06999.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Heinze, G, Ploner, M, Dunkler, D, Southworth, H (2016) Logistf: Firth’s bias-reduced logistic regression. R package version 1.22, < URL: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/logistf/logistf.pdf>

  27. Higgins SI, Richardson DM, Cowling RM, Trinder-Smith TH (1999) Predicting the landscape-scale distribution of Alien plants and their threat to plant diversity. Conserv Biol 13:303–313. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.013002303.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kalisz S, Spigler RB, Horvitz CC (2014) In a long-term experimental demography study, excluding ungulates reversed invader’s explosive population growth rate and restored natives. PNAS 111:4501–4506. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1310121111

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kittredge DB, Finley AO, Foster DR (2003) Timber harvesting as ongoing disturbance in a landscape of diverse ownership. For Ecol Manag 180:425–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(02)00561-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Knight TM, Dunn JL, Smith LA et al (2009) Deer facilitate invasive plant success in a Pennsylvania forest understory. Nat Areas J 29:110–116. https://doi.org/10.3375/043.029.0202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lankau RA, Nuzzo V, Spyreas G, Davis AS (2009) Evolutionary limits ameliorate the negative impact of an invasive plant. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:15362–15367. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0905446106

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Malavasi M, Carboni M, Cutini M et al (2014) Landscape fragmentation, land-use legacy and propagule pressure promote plant invasion on coastal dunes: a patch-based approach. Landsc Ecol 29:1541–1550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0074-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Martin PH, Canham CD, Marks PL (2009) Why forests appear resistant to exotic plant invasions: intentional introductions, stand dynamics, and the role of shade tolerance. Front Ecol Environ 7:142–149. https://doi.org/10.1890/070096

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. MassGIS (2017a) Land use 1951-19999. Bureau of Geographic Information, MA

    Google Scholar 

  35. MassGIS (2017b) Elevation (topographic) data 2005. Bureau of Geographic Information, MA

    Google Scholar 

  36. MassGIS (2017c) Land use 2005. Bureau of Geographic Information, MA

    Google Scholar 

  37. McDonald RI, Motzkin G, Bank MS et al (2006) Forest harvesting and land-use conversion over two decades in Massachusetts. For Ecol Manag 227:31–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2006.02.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. McDonald RI, Motzkin G, Foster DR (2008) Assessing the influence of historical factors, contemporary processes, and environmental conditions on the distribution of invasive species. J Torrey Bot Soc 135:260–271. https://doi.org/10.3159/08-RA-012.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Merow C, Bois ST, Allen JM et al (2017) Climate change both facilitates and inhibits invasive plant ranges in New England. Proc Natl Acad Sci 114:E3276–E3284. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1609633114

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Munger GT (2001) Alliaria petiolata. In: Fire effects information system. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/. Accessed 18 January 2018

  41. Nuzzo V (1999) Invasion pattern of herb garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) in high quality forests. Biol Invasions 1:169–179. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010009514048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Oduor AMO, Leimu R, van Kleunen M (2016) Invasive plant species are locally adapted just as frequently and at least as strongly as native plant species. J Ecol 104:957–968. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Pavao-Zuckerman MA (2008) The nature of urban soils and their role in ecological restoration in cities. Restor Ecol 16:642–649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Pyle LL (1995) Effects of disturbance on herbaceous exotic plant species on the floodplain of the Potomac River. Am Midl Nat 134:244–253. https://doi.org/10.2307/2426295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Randin CF, Dirnböck T, Dullinger S et al (2006) Are niche-based species distribution models transferable in space? J Biogeogr 33:1689–1703. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2006.01466.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Riitters K, Potter K, Iannone BV et al (2018) Landscape correlates of forest plant invasions: a high-resolution analysis across the eastern United States. Divers Distrib 24:274–284. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Rodgers VL, Stinson KA, Finzi AC (2008) Ready or not, garlic mustard is moving in: alliaria petiolata as a member of Eastern North American forests. Bioscience 58:426–436. https://doi.org/10.1641/B580510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Stinson KA, Seidler TG (2014) Physiological constraints on the spread of Alliaria petiolata populations in Massachusetts. Ecosphere 5:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1890/ES14-00164.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Stinson K, Kaufman S, Durbin L, Lowenstein F (2007) Impacts of garlic mustard invasion on a forest understory community. Northeast Nat 14:73–88. https://doi.org/10.1656/1092-6194(2007)14%5b73:IOGMIO%5d2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Susko DJ, Lovett-Doust L (1998) Variable patterns of seed maturation and abortion in Alliaria petiolata (Brassicaceae). Can J Bot 76:1677–1686. https://doi.org/10.1139/b98-139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Theoharides KA, Dukes JS (2007) Plant invasion across space and time: factors affecting nonindigenous species success during four stages of invasion. New Phytol 176:256–273. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02207.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Thomas SM, Moloney KA (2015) Combining the effects of surrounding land-use and propagule pressure to predict the distribution of an invasive plant. Biol Invasions 17:477–495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-014-0745-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. U.S. Bureau of the Census (2008) TIGER/Line Shapefiles 2007. Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Vilà M, Ibáñez I (2011) Plant invasions in the landscape. Landsc Ecol 26:461–472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-011-9585-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Warren RJ, Wright JP, Bradford MA (2011) The putative niche requirements and landscape dynamics of Microstegium vimineum: an invasive Asian grass. Biol Invasions 13:471–483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-010-9842-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. With KA (2002) The landscape ecology of invasive spread. Conserv Biol 16:1192–1203. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.01064.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Walters BF, Woodall, C, Russell M (2016) White-tailed deer density estimates across the eastern United States, 2008. Retrieved from the Data Repository for the University of Minnesota, http://dx.doi.org/10.13020/D6G014

  58. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Elphick CS (2010) A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods Ecol Evol 1:3–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2009.00001.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Dunbar Carpenter, Brian DeGasperis, Kevin Burls, and Alexandra Mushegian for assistance in collecting field data. We thank Bethany Bradley for valuable feedback on this manuscript. This work was funded by a U.S. Department of Defense Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) Grant (NRC2326) to KS. Views, opinions, and/or findings contained in this report are those of the authors and should not be construed as an official Department of Defense position or decision unless so designated by other official documentation.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristina A. Stinson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Urbanowicz, C., Pasquarella, V.J. & Stinson, K.A. Differences in landscape drivers of garlic mustard invasion within and across ecoregions. Biol Invasions 21, 1249–1258 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-018-1896-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Garlic mustard
  • Invasive, understory
  • Alliaria petiolata
  • Land use
  • Distribution