1 / 66

Impacts Ecological

Impacts Ecological. Conceptual model: From Walker & Smith in Lukens & Thieret (1997) Invasive species affect: Nutrient & water availability. Impacts Ecological. Conceptual model: From Walker & Smith in Lukens & Thieret (1997) Invasive species affect: Nutrient & water availability

Download Presentation

Impacts Ecological

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Impacts • Ecological • Conceptual model: From Walker & Smith in Lukens & Thieret (1997) • Invasive species affect: • Nutrient & water availability

  2. Impacts • Ecological • Conceptual model: From Walker & Smith in Lukens & Thieret (1997) • Invasive species affect: • Nutrient & water availability • Primary productivity

  3. Impacts • Ecological • Conceptual model: From Walker & Smith in Lukens & Thieret (1997) • Invasive species affect: • Nutrient & water availability • Primary productivity • Disturbance regimes

  4. Impacts • Ecological • Conceptual model: From Walker & Smith in Lukens & Thieret (1997) • Invasive species affect: • Nutrient & water availability • Primary productivity • Disturbance regimes • Community dynamics

  5. Impacts • Ecological • i) Species replacement • Direct competition From Sherer-Lorenzen in Mooney & Hobbs (2000) • Moist, nutrient rich, disturbed sites in central Europe

  6. Impacts • Ecological Urtica (native) Helianthus (invasive) • i) Species replacement • Direct competition From Sherer-Lorenzen in Mooney & Hobbs (2000) • Moist, nutrient rich, disturbed sites in central Europe • Typically dominated by native herbUrtica dioica (stinging nettle) • Helianthus tuberosus(Jerusalem artichoke) invading

  7. Impacts • Ecological Urtica (native) Helianthus (invasive) • i) Species replacement • Direct competition From Sherer-Lorenzen in Mooney & Hobbs (2000) • Moist, nutrient rich, disturbed sites in central Europe • Typically dominated by native herb Urtica dioica (stinging nettle) • Helianthus tuberosus (Jerusalem artichoke) invading • Helianthus undermines and outshades Urtica, displacing it

  8. Impacts • Ecological • i) Species replacement • Direct competition • Large scale species displacements From Alvarez & Cushman (2002) Ecological Applications 12:1434-1444 • 3 coastal habitats in SF Bay Area • Invasive = Delairea odorata (Cape ivy) evergreen vine native to South Africa

  9. Impacts • Ecological • i) Species replacement • Direct competition • Large scalespecies displacements From Alvarez & Cushman (2002) • Cape ivy invading coastal habitats • Decreases species richness for natives (36%)

  10. Impacts • Ecological • i) Species replacement • Direct competition • Large scalespecies displacements From Alvarez & Cushman (2002) • Cape ivy invading coastal habitats • Decreases species richness for natives & non-natives (37%)

  11. Impacts • Ecological • i) Species replacement • Direct competition • Large scalespecies displacements From Alvarez & Cushman (2002) • Cape ivy invading coastal habitats • Decreases species richness for natives & non-natives and species diversity (31%)

  12. Impacts • Ecological • i) Species replacement • Direct competition • Large scalespecies displacements From Alvarez & Cushman (2002) Cape ivy invading coastal habitats • Fewer native & non-native species • Decreases occur across all habitat types

  13. Impacts • Ecological • i) Species replacement • Direct competition • Large scalespecies displacements From Alvarez & Cushman (2002) • Cape ivy invading coastal habitats • Fewer native & non-native species across all habitats and for all plant life forms

  14. Impacts • Ecological • i) Species replacement • Direct competition • Large scalespecies displacements From Alvarez & Cushman (2002) • Cape ivy invading coastal habitats • Fewer native & non-native species • Experimentally removed Cape ivy: • Control = no removal • Disturbance = insert pitchfork into soil to simulate soil disturbance that accompanies plant removal • Reduction = hand weeded Cape ivy

  15. Impacts • Ecological • i) Species replacement • Direct competition • Large scalespecies displacements From Alvarez & Cushman (2002) • Cape ivy invading coastal habitats • Fewer native & non-native species • Experimentally removed Cape ivy: • Natives richness ↑ (10%)

  16. Impacts • Ecological • i) Species replacement • Direct competition • Large scalespecies displacements From Alvarez & Cushman (2002) Cape ivy invading coastal habitats • Fewer native & non-native species • Experimentally removed Cape ivy: • Natives richness ↑ (10%) • Non-natives richness ↑ (43%)

  17. Impacts • Ecological • i) Species replacement • Direct competition • Large scalespecies displacements From Alvarez & Cushman (2002) • Cape ivy invading coastal habitats • Fewer native & non-native species • Experimentally removed Cape ivy: • Natives richness ↑ (10%) • Non-natives richness ↑ (43%) • Diversity ↑ (32%)

  18. Impacts • Ecological • i) Species replacement • Direct competition • Large scalespecies displacements From Alvarez & Cushman (2002) • Cape ivy invading coastal habitats • Fewer native & non-native species • Experimentally removed Cape ivy: • Other species recover, • especially forbs (other life forms NS)

  19. Impacts • Ecological • i) Species replacement • Direct competition • Large scalespecies displacements • Interacting factors • From D’Antonio et al. (2000) Austral Ecology 25: 507-522 • Series of 14 study sites (#’s) from eastern coastal lowlands to seasonal submontane zone on Big Island, Hawaii

  20. Impacts • Ecological • i) Species replacement • Direct competition • Large scalespecies displacements • Interacting factors • From D’Antonio et al. (2000) • Series of 14 study sites (#’s) from eastern coastal lowlands to seasonal submontane zone on Big Island, Hawaii • Lowlands: warm tropical zone with 1500-2000 mm yr-1, but dry summers; elevation from sea level to 400 m • Submontane: several °C cooler, but similar amount and seasonality of precipitation; 400 – 1200 m elevation

  21. Impacts • Ecological • i) Species replacement • Direct competition • Large scalespecies displacements • Interacting factors • From D’Antonio et al. (2000) • Series of 14 study sites (#’s) from eastern coastal lowlands to seasonal submontane zone on Big Island, Hawaii • Lowlands: warm tropical zone with 1500-2000 mm yr-1, but dry summers; elevation from sea level to 400 m • Submontane: several °C cooler, but similar amount and seasonality of precipitation; 400 – 1200 m elevation • In both zones, fires occur; most ignited by lava or by humans • Do fires consistently favor invasives across this elevational gradient?

  22. Impacts • Ecological • i) Species replacement • Direct competition • Large scalespecies displacements • Interacting factors From D’Antonio et al. (2000) • Do fires favor invasives across elevational gradient? • Measured cover of native species

  23. Impacts • Ecological • i) Species replacement • Direct competition • Large scalespecies displacements • Interacting factors From D’Antonio et al. (2000) • Do fires favor invasives across elevational gradient? • Measured cover of native and exotic species

  24. Impacts • Ecological • i) Species replacement • Direct competition • Large scalespecies displacements • Interacting factors From D’Antonio et al. (2000) • Do fires favor invasives across elevational gradient? • Measured cover of native and exotic species in adjacent unburned

  25. Impacts • Ecological • i) Species replacement • Direct competition • Large scalespecies displacements • Interacting factors From D’Antonio et al. (2000) • Do fires favor invasives across elevational gradient? • Measured cover of native and exotic speciesin adjacent unburned and burned sites along gradient

  26. Impacts • Ecological • i) Species replacement • Direct competition • Large scalespecies displacements • Interacting factors From D’Antonio et al. (2000) • Do fires favor invasives across elevational gradient? • Measured cover of native and exotic speciesin adjacent unburned and burned sites along gradient Individual sites

  27. Impacts • Ecological • i) Species replacement • Direct competition • Large scalespecies displacements • Interacting factors From D’Antonio et al. (2000) • Do fires favor invasives across elevational gradient? • For seasonal submontane: • For 26 of 35 (74%) occurrences, native had ↓ cover in burned areas Individual sites

  28. Impacts • Ecological • i) Species replacement • Direct competition • Large scalespecies displacements • Interacting factors From D’Antonio et al. (2000) • Do fires favor invasives across elevational gradient? • For seasonal submontane: • For 26 of 35 (74%) occurrences, native had ↓ cover in burned areas • For 28 of 41 (68%) occurrences, exotics had ↑ cover Individual sites

  29. Impacts • Ecological • i) Species replacement • Direct competition • Large scalespecies displacements • Interacting factors From D’Antonio et al. (2000) • Do fires favor invasives across elevational gradient? • Submontane: Many natives ↓ & many exotics ↑ with fire Individual sites

  30. Impacts • Ecological • i) Species replacement • Direct competition • Large scalespecies displacements • Interacting factors From D’Antonio et al. (2000) • Do fires favor invasives across elevational gradient? • Submontane: Many natives ↓ & many exotics ↑ with fire • For coastal lowlands: • 14 of 26 (54%) natives ↓ • 6 of 29 (29%) of exotics ↑ Individual sites

  31. Impacts • Ecological • i) Species replacement • Direct competition • Large scalespecies displacements • Interacting factors From D’Antonio et al. (2000) • Do fires favor invasives across elevational gradient? • Submontane: Many natives ↓ & many exotics ↑ with fire • Lowlands: Fewer natives ↓ & fewer exotics ↑ with fire Individual sites

  32. Impacts • Ecological • i) Species replacement • Direct competition • Large scalespecies displacements • Interacting factors From D’Antonio et al. (2000) • Do fires favor invasives across elevational gradient? • Yes, but not uniformly Individual sites

  33. Impacts • Ecological • i) Species replacement • Direct competition • Large scalespecies displacements • Interacting factors From D’Antonio et al. (2000) • Do fires favor invasives across elevational gradient? • Yes, but not uniformly • Not due to differences in rainfall amount or seasonality Individual sites

  34. Impacts • Ecological • i) Species replacement • Direct competition • Large scalespecies displacements • Interacting factors From D’Antonio et al. (2000) • Do fires favor invasives across elevational gradient? • Yes, but not uniformly • Not due to differences in rainfall amount or seasonality • Appears to be due to differences in native species composition: some of the species in coastal lowlands appear to be fire tolerant Individual sites

  35. Impacts • Ecological • ii) Ecosystem functions • Overview • From Walker & Smith in Lukens & Thieret (1997) • Summarized: Typical effects of invasive on specific processes

  36. Impacts • Ecological • ii) Ecosystem functions • Overview • From Walker & Smith in Lukens & Thieret (1997) • Summarized: Typical effects of invasive on specific processes • And how this change on a specific process then feeds back and affects community function or structure

  37. Impacts • Ecological • ii) Ecosystem functions • Overview • From Walker & Smith in Lukens & Thieret (1997) • Summarized: Typical effects of invasive on specific processes • And how this change on a specific process then feeds back and affects community function or structure

  38. Impacts • Ecological • ii) Ecosystem functions • Overview • From Walker & Smith in Lukens & Thieret (1997) • Summarized: Typical effects of invasive on specific processes • And how this change on a specific process then feeds back and affects community function or structure

  39. Impacts • Ecological • ii) Ecosystem functions • Overview • From Walker & Smith in Lukens & Thieret (1997) • Summarized: Typical effects of invasive on specific processes • And how this change on a specific process then feeds back and affects community function or structure

  40. Impacts • Ecological • ii) Ecosystem functions • Overview • Specific example: Ecosystem C storage • From Jackson et al. (2002) Nature 418:623-626 • Woody plant invasion into grasslands thought to increase amount of C stored • If so, then woody plant invasions are good for C sequestration

  41. Impacts • Ecological • ii) Ecosystem functions • Overview • Specific example: Ecosystem C storage • From Jackson et al. (2002) • Does woody plant invasion increase C sequestration? • Examined 6 sites along precipitation gradient (200 – 1100 mm)

  42. Impacts • Ecological • ii) Ecosystem functions • Overview • Specific example: Ecosystem C storage • From Jackson et al. (2002) • Does woody plant invasion increase C sequestration? • Examined 6 sites along precipitation gradient (200 – 1100 mm) that had similar age of woody plant invasion

  43. Impacts • Ecological • ii) Ecosystem functions • Overview • Specific example: Ecosystem C storage • From Jackson et al. (2002) • Does woody plant invasion increase C sequestration? • Sites along precipitation gradient • Measured total soil organic carbon • in soil profile • Calculated total soil organic C for • 0-3 m depth for both grass & • invaded sites

  44. Impacts • Ecological • ii) Ecosystem functions • Overview • Specific example: Ecosystem C storage • From Jackson et al. (2002) • Does woody plant invasion increase C sequestration? • Sites along precipitation gradient • Plot proportion of total soil organic C • in woody invaded / grass • (>1 means more SOC in woody)

  45. Impacts • Ecological • ii) Ecosystem functions • Overview • Specific example: Ecosystem C storage • From Jackson et al. (2002) • Does woody plant invasion increase C sequestration? • Sites along precipitation gradient • Plot proportion of total soil organic C • in woody invaded / grass • vs. precipitation

  46. Impacts • Ecological • ii) Ecosystem functions • Overview • Specific example: Ecosystem C storage • From Jackson et al. (2002) • Does woody plant invasion increase C sequestration? • Contrary to expectations, ↑ only • for dry sites • As precipitation ↑, get less SOC • in woody invaded areas

  47. Impacts • Ecological • ii) Ecosystem functions • Overview • Specific example: Soil N change • From Vitousek & Walker (1989) Ecological Monographs 59:247-265 • Myrica faya small evergreen tree native to Canary Islands & other islands in North Atlantic Ocean • Actinorhizal N-fixer • Brought to Hawaii, where is invading young lava flows that had been dominated by natives

  48. Impacts • Ecological • ii) Ecosystem functions • Overview • Specific example: Soil N change • From Vitousek & Walker (1989) • Exotic Myrica faya, actinorhizal N-fixer, greatly ↑ annual N input into young lava flows >   >

  49. Impacts • Ecological • ii) Ecosystem functions • Overview • Specific example: Soil N change • From Vitousek & Walker (1989) • Exotic Myrica faya, actinorhizal N-fixer, greatly ↑ annual N input into young lava flows • High N facilitates the invasion of other exotic plants >   >

  50. Impacts • Ecological • ii) Ecosystem functions • Overview • Specific examples: Fire effects • From D’Antonio in Mooney & Hobbs (2002) • Compiled 20 examples from around the world where invaders have altered fire regimes

More Related