Jeff and Teresa,

You make an excellent point about the need for us to back up our 
statements with evidence. Although many have provided very believable 
and plausible arguments for why invasive species have caused native 
plant extinctions, I find it interesting that hardly anyone is 
offering clear cut published examples.

I'd like to see these examples, because in my experience, documenting 
even local losses of plant species is very difficult (as Andy Dyer 
alluded to).  I have personally seen cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica) 
displace about 2/3 of the native longleaf pine savanna species in 
those portions of the site it has invaded. How do I know this? It 
produces discrete patches that expand radially. So, you can literally 
witness the "disappearance" of natives as each patch expands via 
clonal growth (much the same way as in Phragmites). However, to truly 
document their local "loss", you also have to look at the seed bank, 
especially if the species that are disproportionately lost are 
annuals with persistent seed banks. In their case, the invader may 
simply be preventing seedling emergence in these species (for the 
time being). I've looked at the seed bank in infested areas, and it 
turns out that it is depauperate as well. However, one only has to 
walk a few meters out of the patch to find the "displaced" species. 
So, no extirpation, just reduced numbers.

All this brings back the original question that Teresa raised, are 
there documented instances in which an invasive plant has extirpated 
native species? I'm not aware of ANY (but I haven't read Davis' 
article yet). Although I have certainly seen cogongrass (considered 
one of  the worst weeds in the southeastern US) dramatically reduce 
species richness in longleaf pine savannas, I cannot say that I have 
seen it extirpate any species. I believe this is simply because its 
competitive effects operate at too small a spatial scale to cause 
such losses in the short term. I recognize that reduced numbers mean 
reduced population viability, but even then, given the  potential for 
rescue effects, I would feel more confident saying that invasive 
species caused extinctions if there were actual direct evidence, as 
opposed to inferences from stochastic simulations on a computer or 
negative correlations. Turning the population viability question 
around, I have just witnessed 100% mortality of woody goldenrod 
(Solidago pauciflosculosa) on three barrier islands as a result of 
the storm surge associated with Hurricane Katrina (though there may 
be a few viable seeds left in its short-lived seed bank, assuming 
they weren't washed away). Would anyone suggest that I need not 
bother monitoring this species on these islands anymore? I'm inclined 
to think that this species won't recover on these islands, but I 
wouldn't bet more than $50. Also, I think we should be careful about 
assuming extinction when we document that an invasive species has 
altered the ecosystem (e.g., fire regime, nutrient regime) in a way 
that is "incompatible" with the persistence of some native species. I 
think it is sufficient to say that the invasive species has altered 
the ecosystem in a way that is harmful to native species. Period.

I agree with Jeff that perhaps we can be confident in saying that 
some invasive species have reduced the numbers and have threatened 
the viability of some native species. I fear that skeptics will brand 
all of us who are genuinely concerned about the impacts of invasive 
species as chicken littles prone to hyperbole if we make claims we 
can't back up with empirical evidence. Furthermore, I believe that if 
make overly pessimistic assumptions about extinctions, this will lead 
some to conclude that, once an invasive species has "taken over" an 
area, there is nothing we can do.

Anyway, as far as documentation is concerned related to cogongrass, 
Teresa, you might check out:

Lippincott, C. L. 1997. Ecological consequences of Imperata 
cylindrica (cogongrass) invasion in Florida sandhill. Ph.D. 
dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.

Brewer, J. S. and S. P. Cralle. 2003. Phosphorus addition reduces 
invasion of a longleaf pine savanna (southeastern USA) by a 
non-indigenous grass (Imperata cylindrica). Plant Ecology 167:237-245.

The first one deals more directly with negative effects of cogongrass 
on natives. The second study indirectly shows displacement (i.e., 
more native species in adjacent to patch than within a 
cogongrass-dominated patch). The other evidence I alluded to has not 
been published.

Steve Brewer



I think Teresa is raising a very good point and to the best of my 
knowledge the answer to her question is no, there is little in the 
way of empirical evidence that invasive species cause extinctions or 
even local extirpations.  The empirical evidence on loosestrife for 
example, is that although we see it everywhere it has not caused 
extinctions.  Best.

jeff Houlahan

-----Original Message-----
From: Teresa Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 13:49:11 -0500
Subject: invasive plants

A couple articles to consider:

Gurevitch, J. and D.K. Padilla. 2004. Are invasive species a major cause
of extinctions?  TREE 19:470-474.

Davis, M. 2003.  Biotic globalization: does competition from introduced
species threaten biodiversity?  BioScience 53:481-489.

I couldn't believe the conclusions of these articles when I read them
last year, but they did bring home the message that if indeed invasives
are causing extinctions, even community level ones, we need to be
documenting them in ways other than anecdotally.  Hence, my question
about relevant publications.  I'd love to see them.  As I said, even
ones that show a correlation, as causation is justifiably hard to show.

I am not as familiar with aquatic invasives except to know that some
like zebra mussels are extremely aggressive and destructive.  But
regarding plants, invasives are often linked with disturbed habitats,
and it may be that habitat destruction is the primary cause of local
extinctions, and the invasives follow as the "final nail in the coffin
(Gurevitch and Padilla 2002)."  It is also likely that the extinction
trajectories are definitely occuring but are longer-term, and just
haven't reached the end yet.

The link to the NYTimes article was, as I said, meant to fan the flames
here -- not that I agree in any way with him, but to put on the table
what landscape designers and architects are surely also being
influenced by -- even if from, as has been correctly pointed out, a
very biased point of view.

So my query still stands -- is there empirical evidence supporting the
sense that most of us have that invasives are causing native
extinctions?  I'd love to have evidence to contradict the NYTimes
author's view.

Teresa

Teresa Woods
Graduate Assistant
Division of Biology
232 Ackert Hall
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS  66506
785-532-9834
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to