Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Selection strategies to reduce invasive potential in introduced plants

  • Published:
Euphytica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

The crop domestication process is examined from plant collection to product release for various junctures at which deliberate breeding, selection, and crop transformation may occur to prevent invasive potential. Four primary juncture opportunities for research on techniques and development of selection procedures for non-invasiveness include: The Plant Exploration Phase, Initial Trial Phase, Fast-Tracking Phase, Selection and Improvement Phase. Avoiding the collection of germplasm that appears weedy during plant exploration is an obvious, yet cost-effective way to reduce invasiveness in a selection program. During initial trials, comparing genotypic differences in traits related to invasiveness should allow plant breeders to identify cultivars that pose the least risk before undertaking comprehensive field trials. Genotypes with high commercial value, considered candidates for “fast-tracking”, should only advance quickly to product release if they exhibit a minimum level of invasive risk, i.e., species with low dispersal capacity and that have little potential to impact ecosystems. Fast-growing taxa, those with high seed production, ones likely to be rapidly dispersed by wind, animals, water or people, and others that can significantly alter nutrient or light levels are examples of species that should not be “fast-tracked”. Field trials that have typically been used to evaluate performance of genotypes across a broad range of cultivated environmental conditions need to be expanded to adequately evaluate invasive potential during the selection and improvement phase. Testing in environments that mimic conditions where introductions could naturalize is crucial, as are evaluations of competition with indigenous species. The time and resource investment needed to conduct adequate trials at this stage is potentially very high; more research is needed to ensure the trials conducted are targeting important information gaps for decision-making. Additional research is also needed to develop modeling approaches that effectively forecast long-term dynamics of introductions and to assist in developing field testing priorities. Minimizing invasive potential could significantly reduce introductions that cause inadvertent damage to landscapes and ecosystems. The strategy proposed here will require further development, especially in the context of understanding and assessing risks of pre- and post-release strategies for minimizing damage from invasive species.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allard, R.W., 1960. Principles of Plant Breeding. Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, N.O., 2001. New ornamental crops: A primary source of invasive species? Chicago Botanic Garden, New Ornamental Crops Research Symposium Program and Abstracts, Sept. 26–29, 2001, p. 13.

  • Anderson, N., 2004a. Invasive horticultural crops (part 1): Why be concerned? Minnesota Nursery and Landscape Association, MNLA News 28(3): 36–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, N., 2004b. Invasive horticultural crops (part 2): Where do they come from? Minnesota Nursery and Landscape Association, MNLA News 28(4): 28–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, N., 2004c. Invasive horticultural crops (part 3): Who's monitoring and controlling them? Minnesota Nursery and Landscape Association, MNLA News 28(6): 45–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, N., 2004d. Invasive horticultural crops (part 4): What can we do? Minnesota Nursery and Landscape Association, MNLA News 28(8): 36–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, N., 2004e. Breeding flower seed crops. In: M. McDonald & F. Kwong (Eds.), Flower seeds. pp. 53–86 CABI.

  • Anderson, N. & N. Gomez, 2004. Invasive horticultural crops (part 5): Will research offer solutions? Minnesota Nursery and Landscape Association, MNLA News 28(10): 34–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, N.O., P.D. Ascher & K. Haghighi, 1996. Congruity backcrossing as a means of creating genetic variability in self pollinated crops: Seed morphology of Phaseolus vulgaris L. and P. acutifolius A. Gray hybrids. Euphytica 87: 211–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archibold, O.W., D. Brooks & L. Delanoy, 1997. An investigation of the invasive shrub European Buckthorn, Rhamnus cathartica L., near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Can Field Nature 111: 617–621.

    Google Scholar 

  • Avishai, M., 2005. Plant introduction in a Mediterranean context: The review of a century in Israel. Part II: Landscape Plant News 16(1): 4–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, S.C.H. & B.J. Richardson, 1986. Genetic attributes of invading species. In Ecology of Biological Invasions: An Australian Perspective (R.H. Groves and J.J. Burdon, Eds.). Australia Academy of Science, Canberra, p. 21–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bascompte, J., H. Possingham & J. Roughgarden, 2002. Patchy populations in stochastic environments: Critical number of patches for persistence. Amer Natur 159: 128–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belovsky, G.E., C. Mellison, C. Larson & P.A. Van Zandt, 1999. Experimental studies of extinction dynamics. Science 286: 1175–1177.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Callaway, D.J. & M.B. Callaway (Eds.), 2000. Breeding ornamental plants. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callaway, R.M. & E.T. Aschehoug, 2000. Invasive plants versus their new and old neighbors: A mechanism for exotic invasion. Science 290: 521–523.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Conn, J., R. Gronquist & M. Mueller, 2003. Invasive plants in Alaska: Assessment of research priorities. Agroborealis 35(2): 13–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, R. & L. Laughner, 1985. Breeding new cultivars. In: J.W. Mastalerz and E.J. Holcomb (Eds.), Bedding Plants III: A manual on the culture of bedding plants as a greenhouse crop, Pennsylvania Flower Growers, pp. 526–539.

  • Davis, M. & K. Thompson, 2000. Eight ways to be a colonizer; two ways to be an invader: A proposed nomenclature scheme for invasion ecology. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 81: 226–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dozier, H., 1999. Plant introductions to invasion: History, public awareness, and the case of Ardisia crenata. PhD Dissertation, University of Florida.

  • Egolf, D.R., 1970. Hibiscus syriacus ‘Diana ’, a new cultivar [Malvaceae]. Baileya 17: 75–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egolf, D.R., 1988. ‘Aphrodite Rose of Sharon (Althea). HortScience 23: 223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellstrand, N.C. & K.A. Schierenbeck, 2000. Hybridization as a stimulus for the evolution of invasiveness in plants?. Proc Natl Acad Sci 97(13): 7043–7050.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Elton, C.S., 1958. The ecology of invasions by plants and animals. Chapman & Hall, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enserink, M., 1999. Biological invaders sweep in. Science 285(5435): 1834–1838.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Forsline, P.L. & H.S. Aldwinckle, 2004. Evaluation of Malus sieversii seedling populations for disease resistance and horticultural traits. EUCARPIA Symposium on Fruit Breeding and Genetics; 1st to 5th Sept. 2003, Angers, France. Acta Horticulturae 663: 529–534.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galatowitsch, S.M., N.O. Anderson & P.D. Ascher, 1999. Invasiveness in wetland plants in temperate North America. Wetlands 19(4): 733–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haghighi, K.R. & P.D. Ascher, 1988. Fertile, intermediate hybrids between Phaseolus vulgaris P. acutifoliusfrom congruity backcrossing. Sexual Plant Reproduction 1: 51–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harper, J., 1977. Population biology of plants. Academic Press, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann, J.T., D.E. Kester, F.T. Davies & R.L. Geneve, 1997. Plant propagation: Principles and practices, 6th Ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hector, A., K. Dobson, A. Minns, E. Bazeley-White & J.H. Lawton, 2001. Community diversity and invasion resistance: An experimental test in a grassland ecosystem and a review of comparable studies. Ecological Research 16(5): 819–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heger, T. & L. Trepl, 2003. Predicting biological invasions. Biological Invasions 5: 313–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heiser, C.B., 1988. Aspects of unconscious selection and the evolution of domesticated plants. Euphytica 37: 77–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogenboom, 1975. Incompatibility and incongruity: Two different mechanisms for the non-functioning of intimate partner relationships. Proc Royal Soc London, Series B 188: 361–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holzner, W. & M. Numata, 1982. Biology and Ecology of Weeds. W Junk Publ, The Hague.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janick, J. (Ed.), 1999. Perspectives on new crops and new uses. Proceedings of the Fourth National Symposium New Crops and New Uses: Biodiversity and agricultural sustainability. American Society for Horticultural Science Press, Alexandria, VA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janick, J. & J.E. Simon (Eds.), 1993. New crops. Wiley, N.Y.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, T.A., S. Naeem, K.M. Howe, J.M.H. Knops, D. Tilman & P. Reich, 2002. Biodiversity as a barrier to ecological invasion. Nature 417: 636–638.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Klironomos, J.N., 2002. Feedback with soil biota contributes to plant rarity and invasiveness in communities. Nature 417: 67–70.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kolar, C.S. & D.M. Lodge, 2001. Progress in invasion biology: Predicting invaders. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16: 199–204.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Knox, G.W., S.B. Wilson & L.K. Mecca, 2004. Evaluating eleven Nandina domestica taxa in north and south Florida. Proceedings of the Southern Nursery Association 49: 555–558.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krumfolz, L.A. & S.B. Wilson, 2002. Varying growth and sexual reproduction across cultivars of Ruellia brittoniana. Proceedings of the Southern Nursery Association 47: 99–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kühn, I., M. Brandenburg & S. Klötz, 2004. Why do alien plant species that reproduce in natural habitats occur more frequently? Diversity & Distributions 10: 417–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ladizinsky, G., 1979. Seed dispersal in relation to the domestication of Middle East legumes. Economic Botany 33(3): 284–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambrinos, J.G., 2000. The impact of the invasive alien grass Cortaderia jubata (Lemoine) Stapf on an endangered Mediterranean-type shrubland in California. Diversity & Distributions 6(5): 217–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C.E., 2002. Evolutionary genetics of invasive species. Trends in Ecol & Evol 17: 386–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liedl, B.E. & N.O. Anderson, 1993. Reproductive barriers: Identification, Uses, and Circumvention. Plant Breeding Reviews 11: 11–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindstrom, J.Y., G.T. Bujarski, M.J. Love & B.M. Burkett, 2002. Buddleja breeding at the University of Arkansas. Proceedings of the Southern Nursery Association 47: 630–633.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lonsdale, W.M., 1994. Inviting trouble: introduced pasture species in Northern Australia. Australian Journal of Ecology 19: 345–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lonsdale, W.M., 1999. Global patterns of plant invasions and the concept of invasibility. Ecology 80: 1522–1536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mack, R.N., 2005. Predicting the identity of plant invaders: Future contributions from horticulture. HortScience 40(5): 1168–1175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mecca, L.K., S.B. Wilson, M. Thetford, J.S. Raymer & E.L. Barnett, 2003. Assessing visual quality, growth, and seed production of 14 Buddlejataxa grown in west and south Florida. Proceedings of the Southern Nursery Association 48: 59–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, S.L. & J. Molofsky, 1999. Environmental and genetic effects on the early survival and growth of the invasive grass Phalaris arundinacea. Canadian Journal of Botany 77: 1447–1453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulvaney, M.J., 1991. Far from the garden path: An identikit picture of woody ornamental plants invading south-eastern Australia bushland. PhD dissertation. Austral Natl Univ, Canberra, Australia.

  • Musil, C.F., 1993. Effects of invasive Australian acacias on the regeneration, growth and nutrient chemistry of South African lowland fynbos. Jour. Applied Ecology 30: 361–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nathan, R., G. Perry, J.Y. Cronin, A.E. Strand & M.L. Cain, 2003. Methods for estimating long-distance dispersal. OIKOS 103: 261–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Invasive Species Council, 2001. Meeting the invasive species challenge. Management plan. Washington, D.C.http://www.invasivespecies.gov/.

  • Neubert, M.G. & H. Caswell, 2000. Demography and dispersal: Calculation and sensitivity analysis of invasion speed for structured populations. Ecol 81: 1613–1628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nijs, I., A. Milbau & L. Seidlova, 2004. New methodologies for analyzing and predicting alien plant invasions from species and ecosystem traits. Weed Technology 18: 1240–1245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, D.P.C., 2004. Selection of models of invasive species dynamics. Weed Technology 18: 1236–1239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichard, S.H. & C.W. Hamilton, 1997. Predicting Invasions of Woody Plants Introduced into North America. Conservation Biology 11(1): 193–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reichard S.H. & P. White, 2001. Horticulture as a pathway of invasive plant introductions in the United States. Bioscience 51(2): 103–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rejmanek, M. & D.M. Richardson, 1996. What attributes make some plant species more invasive? Ecology 77: 1655–1661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rouget, M. & D.M. Richardson, 2003. Inferring process from pattern in plant invasions: A semi-mechanistic model incorporating propagule pressure and environmental factors. Amer Natur 162: 713–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sakai, A.K., F.W. Allendorf, J.S. Holt, D.M. Lodge, J. Molofsky, K.A. With, S. Baughman, R.J. Cabin, J.E. Cohen, N.C. Ellstrand, D.E. McCauley, P. O'Neil, I.M. Parker, J.N. Thompson & S.G. Weller, 2001. The population biology of invasive species. Ann Rev Ecol & Systematics 32: 305–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solecki, M.K., 1989. The viability of cut-leaved teasel (Dipsacus laciniatus L.) seed harvested from flowering stems–management implications. Natural Areas Journal 9: 102–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, D.Q., R.L. Stuckey & E.B. Thompson, 1987. Spread, impact, and control of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) in North American wetlands. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Ser, Fish and Wildlife Research Report No. 2. Washington D.C.

  • van Riper, L., 2005. The role of exotic legume yellow sweet clover (Melilotus officinalis) in a low nitrogen system: A potential ecosystem transformer and facilitator of invasion. Ph.D. Dissertation. Univ. of Minnesota, St. Paul.

  • Virtue, J. D. Panetta, J. Randall & T. Parnell, 1999. Discussion Paper: International Workshop on Weed Risk Assessment for Quarantine and Coordinated Control.http://www.agric.wa.gov.au/ PROGSERV/PLANTS/WEEDS/risk/discuss.htm.

  • Volk, G.M., A. Reilley, A.D. Henk, P.L. Forsline, H.S. Aldwinckle & C.M. Richards, 2005. Ex situ conservation of vegetatively-propagated species: Development of a seed-based core collection for Malus sieversii. Journal of the American Society of Horticultural Science 130: 203–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, M., 1996. Biological invasions. Chapman & Hall, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, S.G. & L.A. Mecca, 2003. Seed production and germination of eight cultivars and the wild type of Ruellia tweediana: A potentially invasive ornamental. Jour Env Hort 21: 137–143.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Horticultural Science, University of Minnesota, 305 Alderman Hall, 1970 Folwell Avenue, St. Paul, MN, USA

    N. O. Anderson, S. M. Galatowitsch & N. Gomez

Authors
  1. N. O. Anderson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. M. Galatowitsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. N. Gomez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to N. O. Anderson.

Additional information

Scientific Paper No. 051210156 of the Department of Horticultural Science.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Anderson, N.O., Galatowitsch, S.M. & Gomez, N. Selection strategies to reduce invasive potential in introduced plants. Euphytica 148, 203–216 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-006-5951-7

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-006-5951-7

Key Words

Search

Navigation