Advertisement

Biological Invasions

, Volume 12, Issue 7, pp 2013–2023 | Cite as

Impacts of the emerald ash borer (EAB) eradication and tree mortality: potential for a secondary spread of invasive plant species

  • Constance E. Hausman
  • John F. Jaeger
  • Oscar J. Rocha
Original Paper

Abstract

Since the discovery of the emerald ash borer in 2002, eradication efforts have been implemented in an attempt to eliminate or contain the spread of this invasive beetle. The eradication protocol called for the removal of every ash tree within a 0.8 km radius around an infested tree. In 2005 this study was established to identify environmental changes attributed to the eradication program and measure subsequent shifts in forest community composition and structure. We conducted this study in Ohio and compared areas that received the eradication treatment (ash trees cut down), to areas that were left uncut, (ash still standing). The goal of this project was to identify how the plant community is responding in these two areas. The eradication protocol accelerated the formation and size of gaps within the forest and thus increased the duration and intensity of light penetrating through to the forest floor. In addition, the use of track vehicles for removal of cut trees resulted in significant soil compaction. The resultant plant community had greater species diversity (H′). When specific species composition differences were compared, an increase in the establishment of invasive plant species was detected in areas that received eradication efforts compared to those that did not. Invasive species accounted for 18.7% of the total herbaceous cover in this highly disturbed environment which included Cirsium arvense, Rhamnus cathartica and 2 species of Lonicera. In contrast, invasive species accounted for <1% of the total herbaceous cover in the undisturbed uncut areas.

Keywords

Emerald ash borer Invasive species Eradication Disturbance Soil compaction Light environment 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Barb Andreas, Denny Cooke and two anonymous reviewers for comments and suggestions on a previous version of this manuscript. We thank Tim Gallaher, Tim Schetter, Marty Overholt, Bob Jacksy and the rest of the Toledo Area Metropark staff and volunteers for their support and assistance in the field. We also thank Brendan Morgan, Mike Monfredi, Maureen Drinkard, Justin Montemarano, Dylan Stover and Wade Schock for their field support and assistance throughout this project. This project was financially supported with funding from Art and Margaret Herrick Research Grants of the Department of Biological Sciences at Kent State University (KSU), Ohio Biological Survey, Metropark District of the Toledo Area, and the KSU Graduate Student Senate.

References

  1. Abrams MA (1998) The red maple paradox. Bioscience 48:355–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andreas BK, Mack JJ, McCormac JS (2004) Floristic quality assessment index (FQAI) for vascular plants and mosses for the State of Ohio. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, Wetland Ecology Group, Columbus, OhioGoogle Scholar
  3. Campbell FT, Schlarbaum SE (1994) Fading forests: North American trees and the threat of exotic pests. Natural Resource Defense Council, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Campbell RW, Sloan RJ (1977) Forest stand responses to defoliation by the gypsy moth. Forest Sci Monogr 19:1–34Google Scholar
  5. Canham CD, Denslow WJ, Platt WJ, Runkle JR, Spies TA, White PS (1990) Light regimes beneath closed canopies and tree-fall gaps in temperate and tropical forests. Can J For Res 20:620–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Collier MH, Vankat JL, Hughes MR (2002) Diminished plant richness and abundance below Lonicera maackii, an invasive shrub. Am Midl Nat 147:60–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Collins BS, Dunne KP, Pickett STA (1985) Responses of forest herbs to canopy gaps. In: Pickett STA, White PS (eds) The ecology of natural disturbance and patch dynamics. Academic Press, Orlando, pp 217–234Google Scholar
  8. Crozier CR, Boerner RE (1984) Correlations of understory herb distribution patterns with microhabitats under different tree species in a mixed mesophytic forest. Oecologia 62:337–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Curtis JT, McIntosh RP (1951) An upland forest continuum in the prairie-forest border region of Wisconsin. Ecology 32:476–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davidson CB, Gottschalk KE, Johnson JE (2001) European gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar L.) outbreaks: a review of the literature. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA. Gen. Tech Rpt NE-278, pp 15Google Scholar
  11. Fajvan MA, Wood JM (1996) Stand structure and development after gypsy moth defoliation in the Appalachian Plateau. For Ecol Manag 89:79–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frelich LE, Lorimer CG (1985) Current and predicted long-termeffects of deer browsing in hemlock forests in Michigan, USA. Biol Conserv 34(2):99–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haack RA, Jendek E, Liu H, Marchant KR, Petrice TR, Poland TM, Ye H (2002) The emerald ash borer: a new exotic pest in North America. Mich Entomol Soc Newsl 47:1–5Google Scholar
  14. Harrington RA, Brown BJ, Reich PB (1989) Ecophysiology of exotic and native shrubs in southern Wisconsin. I. Relationship of leaf characteristics, resource availability, and pheonology to seasonal patterns of carbon gain. Oecologia 80:356–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hausman CE (2001) The effects of a light gradient on the establishment of an oak savanna plant community. Thesis, Bowling Green State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  16. Herms DA, Stone AK, Chatfield JA (2004) Emerald ash borer: the beginning of the end of ash in North America? In: Chatfield JA, Draper EA, Mathers HM, Dyke DE, Bennett PF, Boggs JF (eds) Ornamental plants: annual reports and research reviews 2003. OARDC/OSU Extension Special Circular 193, pp 62–71Google Scholar
  17. Johnson LE, Padilla DK (1996) Geographical spread of exotic species: ecological lessons and opportunities from the invasion of the Zebra mussel Dreissena polymorpha. Biol Conserv 78:23–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Knight KS, Long RP, Rebbeck J, Smith A, Gandhi K, Herms DA (2007) How fast will trees die? A transition matrix model of ash decline in forest stands infested by emerald ash borer. Emerald ash borer and Asian Longhorn beetle research and technology development meeting FHTET-2008–07: 28–29Google Scholar
  19. Kozlowski TT (1999) Soil compaction and growth of woody plants. Scand J For Res 14:596–619Google Scholar
  20. Liebhold AM, MacDonald WL, Bergdahl D, Mastro VC (1995) Invasion by exotic forest pests: a threat to forest ecosystems. Forest Sci 41:1–49Google Scholar
  21. Lockaby BG, Vidrine CG (1984) Effect of logging equipment traffic on soil density and growth and survival of loblolly pine. South J Appl Forest 8:109–112Google Scholar
  22. Lucik S, Redding J (2006) USDA Expands emerald ash borer quarantine in Illinois, Indiana and Ohio. APHIS News Release Nov 21Google Scholar
  23. Mack RN, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM, Evans H, Clout M, Bazzaz F (2000) Biotic Invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences and control. Ecol Appl 10:689–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McCullough DG, Roberts DL (2002) Emerald ash borer. Pest alert, USDA forest service state and private forestry Northeastern Area. NA-PR-07-02Google Scholar
  25. McCune B, Medford MJ (1999) PC-ORD. Multivariate analysis of ecological data, version 4. MjM software design. Gleneden Beach, Oregon, USAGoogle Scholar
  26. McDowell SCL (2002) Photosynthetic characteristics of invasive and noninvasive species of Rubus (Rosaceae). Am J Bot 89(9):1431–1438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moller H (1996) Lessons for invasion theory form social insects. Biol Conserv 78:125–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Myers JH, Savoie A, von Randen E (1998) Eradication and pest management. Annu Rev Entomol 43:471–491CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Oberbauer SF, Clark DB, Clark D, Rich P, Vega G (1993) Light environment, gas exchange and annual growth of saplings of three species of rain forest trees in Costa Rica. J Trop Ecol 9:511–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pattison RR, Goldstein G, Ares A (1998) Growth, biomass allocation and photosynthesis of invasive and native Hawaiian rainforest species. Oecologia 117:449–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pimentel D, Lach L, Zuñiga R, Morrison D (2000) Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous species in the United States. Bioscience 50:53–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Poland TM, McCullough DG (2006) Emerald ash borer: invasion of the urban forest and the threat to North America’s ash resource. J For 104:118–124Google Scholar
  33. Primack RB (1993) Essentials of conservation biology. Sinauer Associates Inc, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  34. Ross KA, Fox BJ, Fox MD (2002) Changes to plant species richness in forest fragments: fragment age, disturbance and fire history may be as important as area. J Biogeogr 29:749–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sandlund OT, Schei PJ, Viken A (1999) Invasive species and biodiversity management. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  36. Shetron SG, Sturos JA, Padley E, Trettini C (1988) Forest soil compaction: effect of multiple passes and loadings on wheel track surface soil bulk density. North J Appl Forest 5:120–133Google Scholar
  37. Small CJ, McCarthy BC (2002) Spatial and temporal variation in the response of understory vegetation to disturbance in a central Appalachian oak forest. J Torrey Bot Soc 129(2):136–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Smith A (2006) Effects of community structure on forest susceptibility and response to the emerald ash borer invasion of the Huron river watershed in Southeast Michigan. Thesis, The Ohio State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  39. Soil Survey Staff (2008) Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Web soil survey. Available via http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/ Accessed 17 Dec 2008
  40. Stone AK, Herms DA, Brewer M (2005) Ohio battles the borer: an emerald ash borer update. In: Chatfield JA, Draper EA, Mathers HM, Bennett PJ, Boggs JF and Dyke DE (eds) Ornamental plants: annual reports and research reviews 2004. OARDC/OSU Extension special circular 195: 85–91Google Scholar
  41. Thorpe HC, Thomas SC, Caspersen JP (2008) Tree mortality following partial harvests is determined by skidding proximity. Ecol Appl 18(7):1652–1663CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. US Congress Office of Technology Assessment (1993) Harmful non indigenous species in the United States. US government Printing Office, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  43. USDA NRCS (2008) The PLANTS Database. National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA Available via http://plants.usda.gov. Accessed 14 Nov 2008
  44. USDA-APHIS (2003) Rules and Regulations, Emerald ash borer: quarantine and regulations federal register 68(198): 59082–59091Google Scholar
  45. Vitousek PM (1990) Biological invasions and ecosystem processes: toward an integration of population biology and ecosystem studies. Oikos 57:7–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Weckel M, Tirpak JM, Nagy C, Chrisie R (2006) Structural and compositional change in an old-growtheastern hemlock Tsuga Canadensis forest, 1965–2004. For Ecol Manag 231:114–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Whitmore TC, Brown ND, Swaine MD, Kennedy D, Goodwin-Bailey CI, Wong WK (1993) Use of hemispherical photographs in forest ecology: measurement gaps and radiation totals in Bornean tropical forest. J Trop Ecol 9:131–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Widmann RH (2008) Ohio’s forest resources, 2006. Res. Note. NRS-22. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA, pp 4Google Scholar
  49. Wingate-Hill R, Jakobson BF (1982) Increased mechanization and soil damage in forests: a review. N Z J Forest Sci 12:380–393Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Constance E. Hausman
    • 1
  • John F. Jaeger
    • 2
  • Oscar J. Rocha
    • 1
  1. 1.Kent State UniversityKentUSA
  2. 2.Metropark District of the Toledo AreaToledoUSA

Personalised recommendations