Biological Invasions

, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 147–165

Climate change and biotic invasions: a case history of a tropical woody vine

  • D.J. Kriticos
  • R.W. Sutherst
  • J.R. Brown
  • S.W. Adkins
  • G.F. Maywald
Article
  • 339 Downloads

Abstract

The impacts of climate change in the potential distribution and relative abundance of a C3 shrubby vine, Cryptostegia grandiflora, were investigated using the CLIMEX modelling package. Based upon its current naturalised distribution, C. grandiflora appears to occupy only a small fraction of its potential distribution in Australia under current climatic conditions; mostly in apparently sub-optimal habitat. The potential distribution of C. grandiflora is sensitive towards changes in climate and atmospheric chemistry in the expected range of this century, particularly those that result in increased temperature and water use efficiency. Climate change is likely to increase the potential distribution and abundance of the plant, further increasing the area at risk of invasion, and threatening the viability of current control strategies markedly. By identifying areas at risk of invasion, and vulnerabilities of control strategies, this analysis demonstrates the utility of climate models for providing information suitable to help formulate large-scale, long-term strategic plans for controlling biotic invasions. The effects of climate change upon the potential distribution of C. grandiflora are sufficiently great that strategic control plans for biotic invasions should routinely include their consideration. Whilst the effect of climate change upon the efficacy of introduced biological control agents remain unknown, their possible effect in the potential distribution of C. grandiflora will likely depend not only upon their effects on the population dynamics of C. grandiflora, but also on the gradient of climatic suitability adjacent to each segment of the range boundary.

biological control climate change CLIMEX Cryptostegia global change invasion modelling range shifts weed 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allard RW (1965) Genetic systems associated with colonizing ability in predominantly self-pollinated species. In: Baker HG and Stebbins GL (eds) The Genetics of Colonizing Species, pp 49–75. 1Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Anonymous (1997) The National Weeds Strategy: a Strategic Approach to Weed Problems of National Significance. Commonwealth of Australia, Australia, 52 ppGoogle Scholar
  3. Beckett RE, Stitt RS and Duncan EN (1934) Growth and Rubber Content of Cryptostegia, Guayule, and Miscellaneous Plants Investigated at the United States Acclimatization Garden, Bard, California, 1923–1934. United States Department of Agriculture, Sacramento, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonner J and Galston AW (1947) The physiology and biochemistry of rubber formation in plants. Botanical Review 13: 543–596Google Scholar
  5. Brown JH, Stevens GC and Kaufman DM (1996) The geographic range: size, shape, boundaries, and internal structure. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 27: 597–623Google Scholar
  6. Brown JR, Scanlan JC and McIvor JG (1998) Competition by herbs as a limiting factor in shrub increase: a test with different growth forms. Journal of Vegetation Science 9(6): 829–836Google Scholar
  7. Bureau of Meteorology (1975) Climatic Averages Australia, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 499 ppGoogle Scholar
  8. Caltabiano G (1972) Rubber Vine (Cryptostegia grandiflora) in North Queensland. Queensland Department of Lands, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  9. Carter RN and Prince SD(1981) Epidemic models used to explain biogeographical distribution limits. Nature 293: 644–645Google Scholar
  10. Carter RN and Prince SD (1988) Distribution limits from a demographic viewpoint. In: Davy AJ, Hutchings MJ and Watkinson AR (eds) The 28th Symposium of the British Ecological Society, Sussex. Blackwell Scientific Publications, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Chippendale JF (1991) The potential economic returns to research into rubber vine (Cryptostegia Grandiflora R. Br.) in North Queensland. Unpublished Master of Agricultural Studies Thesis, University of Queensland, Brisbane, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  12. Climate Impact Group (1992) Climate Change Scenarios for the Australian Region. CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research, Melbourne, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  13. Climate Impact Group (1996) Climate Change Scenarios for the Australian Region. CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research, Melbourne, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  14. Cole K (1982) Late Quaternary zonation of vegetation in the eastern Grand Canyon. Science 217: 1142–1145Google Scholar
  15. CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research (1988) Appendix: climate change in Australia to the year 2030 AD. In: Pearman GI (ed) Greenhouse: Planning for Climate Change, pp 737–740. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  16. Curtis JT (1946) Some factors affecting fruit production by Cryptostegia. American Journal of Botany 33: 763–769Google Scholar
  17. Curtis JT and Blondeau R (1946) Influence of the time of day on latex flow from Cryptostegia grandiflora. American Journal of Botany 33: 264–270Google Scholar
  18. Dale IJ (1980) Factors Affecting the Distribution of Rubber Vine (Cryptostegia grandiflora R. Br.) in North Queensland, Brisbane, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  19. Daubenmire RF (1974) Plants and Environment: a Textbook of Plant Autecology. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  20. Davis MB, Woods KD, Webb SL and Futyama RP (1986) Dispersal versus climate: expansion of Fagus and Tsuga into the upper Great Lakes Region. Vegetatio 67: 93–104Google Scholar
  21. Farquhar GD (1997) Carbon dioxide and vegetation. Science 278: 1411Google Scholar
  22. Fitzpatrick EA and Nix HA (1970) The climatic factor in Australian grassland ecology. In: Moore RM (ed) Australian Grasslands, pp 3–26. Australian National University Press, Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  23. Grice AC (1996) Seed production, dispersal and germination in Cryptostegia grandiflora and Ziziphus mauritiana, two invasive shrubs in tropical woodlands of northern Australia. Australian Journal of Ecology 21(3): 324–331Google Scholar
  24. Grime JP (1979) Primary strategies in the established phase. In: Grime JP (ed) Plant Strategies and Vegetation Processes, pp 7–55. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UKGoogle Scholar
  25. Hengeveld R (1989) Dynamics of Biological Invasions. Chapman and Hall, London, 160 ppGoogle Scholar
  26. Hengeveld R (1990) Theories on species responses to variable climates. In: Boer MM and De Groot RS (eds) Landscape-Ecological Impact of Climate Change, Lunteren, The Netherlands, pp 274–289. IOS Press, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  27. Hoffmann JH and Moran VC (1998) The population dynamics of an introduced tree, Sesbania punicea, in South Africa, in response to long-term damage caused by different combinations of three species of biological control agents. Oecologia 114: 343–348Google Scholar
  28. Houghton JT, Meira Filho LG, Callender BA, Harris N, Kattenberg A and Maskell K (1995) The Science of Climate Change: Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 572 ppGoogle Scholar
  29. Hutchinson MF, Houlder D, Nix HA and McMahon P (n.d.) ANUCLIM Version. Retrieved from http://cres.anu. edu.au/software/anuclim.html in August 2002Google Scholar
  30. Hynes R, Akers D, Csurhes S, Tomley A and Sparkes E (1992) Fitzroy Catchment Symposium: Weed Invasion, Potential Invasion and Integrated Control of Weeds in the Fitzroy River Catchment Area. Land Protection Branch, Queensland Department of Lands, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  31. Jenkins DW (1944) Cryptostegia as an Emergency Source of Rubber. United States Board of Economic Warfare, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  32. Knight P (1944) Insects associated with the Palay rubber vine in Haiti. Journal of Economic Entomology 37(1): 100–102Google Scholar
  33. Kriticos DJ (1996) The role of modelling in weed management. In: Shepherd RCH (ed) Proceedings of the Eleventh Australian Weeds Conference, Monash University, pp 560–569. Weed Science Society of Victoria, Melbourne, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  34. Kriticos DJ and Randall RP (2001) A comparison of systems to analyse potential weed distributions. In: Groves RH, Panetta FD and Virtue JG (eds) Weed Risk Assessment, pp 61–79. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  35. Larcher W(1975) Physiological Plant Ecology. Springer-Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  36. Mack RN, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM, Evans H, Clout M and Bazzaz FA (2000) Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecological Applications 10(3): 689–710Google Scholar
  37. Mackey AP (1996) Rubber vine (Cryptostegia grandiflora) in Queensland. Queensland Department of Natural Resources, Brisbane, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  38. McFadyen RE and Harvey GJ (1990) Distribution and control of rubber vine, Cryptostegia grandiflora, a major weed in northern Queensland. Plant Protection Quarterly 5(4): 152–155Google Scholar
  39. Moody ME and Mack RN (1988) Controlling the spread of plant invasions: the importance of nascent foci. Journal of Applied Ecology 25: 1009–1021Google Scholar
  40. Morison JIL (1993) Response of plants to CO2 under water limited conditions. Vegetatio 104/105: 193–209Google Scholar
  41. New MG, Hulme M and Jones PD (1999) Representing 20th century space–time climate variability. I: development of a 1961–1990 mean monthly terrestrial climatology. Journal of Climate 12(3): 829–856Google Scholar
  42. Parry M and Carter T (1998) Climate impact and adaptation assessment: a guide to the IPCC Approach. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  43. Parsons WT and Cuthbertson EG (1992) Noxious Weeds of Australia. Inkata Press, Melbourne, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  44. Polhamus RG, Hill HH and Elder JA (1934) The Rubber Content of Two Species of Cryptostegia and of an Interspecific Hybrid in Florida. USDA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  45. Rastetter EB (1996) Validating models of ecosystem response to global change. BioScience 46: 190–197Google Scholar
  46. Roberts L (1989) How fast can trees migrate? Science 243: 735–737Google Scholar
  47. Sen DN (1968) Ecology of desert plants and observations on their seedlings. II. Germination of seeds in Asclepiadacea. Österreichische Botanische Zeitschrift 115: 18–27Google Scholar
  48. Siddiqui RH and Mathur ML (1946) Cryptostegia grandiflora: suitability of the plant for composts and other purposes. Indian Farming 7(9): 397–401Google Scholar
  49. Stebbins GL (1957) Self-fertilisation and population variability in the higher plants. American Naturalist 91: 337–354Google Scholar
  50. Sutherst RW, Maywald GF, Yonow T and Stevens PM (1999) CLIMEX. Predicting the Effects of Climate on Plants and Animals. User Guide. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia, 88 ppGoogle Scholar
  51. Symontowne R (1943) Notes on the Cryptostegia plant. Tropical Agriculture 20: 195–197Google Scholar
  52. Tomley AJ (1995) The biology of australian weeds 26. Cryptostegia grandiflora R. Br. Plant Protection Quarterly 10(4): 122–130Google Scholar
  53. van den Bosch F, Hengeveld R and Metz JAJ (1992) Analyzing the velocity of range expansion. Journal of Biogeography 19: 135–150Google Scholar
  54. White G (1997) Population ecology and biological control of weeds. In: Julien M and White G (eds) Biological Control of Weeds: Theory and Practical Application, pp 39–45. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  55. Woodward FI (1987) Climate and Plant Distribution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 174 ppGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • D.J. Kriticos
    • 2
  • R.W. Sutherst
    • 4
  • J.R. Brown
    • 5
  • S.W. Adkins
    • 6
  • G.F. Maywald
    • 4
  1. 1.Australian Weed Management, Canberra, ACT, Australia
  2. 2.University of QueenslandSt. LuciaAustralia
  3. 3.Forest ResearchRotoruaNew Zealand
  4. 4.CSIRO EntomologyBrisbaneAustralia
  5. 5.USDA/NRCS Jornada RangeLas CrucesUSA
  6. 6.University of QueenslandSt. LuciaAustralia

Personalised recommendations