Non-Indigenous Plant Species In Central European Forest Ecosystems

  • S. ZERBE


In the study presented here, the occurrence of non-indigenous vascular plant species in Central European forest ecosystems is outlined with regard to the current state and future perspectives. A focus is laid on Germany. This analysis is based on numerous ecological investigations on the species and ecosystem level. In total, 29 non-indigenous woody and 25 non-indigenous herb species are recorded within forest stands. Generally, there are much less exotic species, which grow on forest sites compared to habitats more or less strongly altered by human impact like, for example, agricultural and urban-industrial ecosystems. Most of the exotic species found in forests belong to the plant families Rosaceae, Pinaceae, and Asteraceae and have their origin in North America. A wide range of different natural and anthropogenic forest communities are invaded by non-indigenous plants, such as floodplain forests, mixed broad-leaved and conifer forests on nutrient-poor to nutrient-rich sites, and dry oak forests. The establishment of nonindigenous species in forests can affect the ecosystem considerably. This is shown, for instance, for the tree species Robinia pseudoacacia(alteration of the soil conditions) and Prunus serotina(influence on forest regeneration) and the herbs of the genus Fallopia(decrease of species richness on a local scale). Few nonindigenous species in forests, like for example Prunus serotina, can cause problems with regard to land use on a supra-regional scale. In conclusion, the management of non-indigenous species in forests on a local scale, in accordance with regional nature conservation objectives and considering socio-economic aspects might be useful. However, an assessment of a positive or negative impact of non-indigenous species on forest ecosystems has to be based on properly defined values.


Floodplain Forest Robinia Pseudoacacia Nonindigenous Species Central European Forest Indigenous Plant Species 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adolphi, K. (1995). Neophytische Kultur- und Anbaupflanzen als Kulturflüchtlinge des Rheinlandes. Nardus,2, 1-272.Google Scholar
  2. Ahrens, S. and Zerbe, S. (2001). Historische und floristisch-vegetationskundliche Untersuchungen im Landschaftspark Märkisch-Wilmersdorf als Beitrag zur Gartendenkmalpflege. Landschaftsentwickl. u. Umweltforschg.,117, 1-158.Google Scholar
  3. Auge, H. (1997). Biologische Invasionen: Das Beispiel Mahonia aquifolium. In R. Feldmann, K. Henle, H. Auge, J. Flachowsky, S. Klotz and R. Krönert (Eds.), Regeneration und nachhaltige Landnutzung: Konzepte für belastete Regionen(pp. 124-129). Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
  4. Benkert, D., Erzberger, P., Klawitter, J., Linder, W., Linke, C., Schaepe, A., Steinland, M. and Wiehle, W. (1995). Liste der Moose von Brandenburg und Berlin mit Gefährdungsgraden. Verh. Bot. Ver. Berlin Brandenbg., 128, 1-70.Google Scholar
  5. Böcker, R., Gebhardt, H., Konold, W. and Schmidt-Fischer, S. (1995). Gebietsfremde Pflanzen. Auswirkungen auf einheimische Arten, Lebensgemeinschaften und Biotope, Kontrollmöglichkeiten und Management. ecomed, Landsberg.Google Scholar
  6. Böhmer, H.-J., Heger, T. and Trepl, L. (2001). Fallstudien zu gebietsfremden Arten in Deutschland. UBATexte, 13, 1-126.Google Scholar
  7. Bundesamt für Naturschutz (Ed.) (2005). Daten und Informationen zu Wildpflanzen und zur Vegetation Deutschlands. Retrieved Dec. 2005 from
  8. Cassidy, T.M., Fownes, J.H. and Harrington, R.A. (2004). Nitrogen limits an invasive perennial shrub in forest understory. Biol. Invasions, 6, 113–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chmura, D., Woźniak, G., śliwińska-Wyrzychowska, A. (2005). The participation of invasive plants in the degeneration of coniferous forests of the Silesian Upland. In A. Brzeg and M. Wojterska (Eds.), Coniferous forests vegetation – differentiation, dynamics and transformations. Wyd. Nauk. UAM, Ser. Biologia, 69, 339-342.Google Scholar
  10. Deutschewitz, K., Lausch, A., Kühn, I. and Klotz, S. (2003). Native and alien plant species richness in relation to spatial heterogeneity on a regional scale in Germany. Global Ecol. and Biogeography, 12, 299–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dostálek, J. (1997). Changes in the distribution of synanthropic plants along roads in the territory of the Protected Landscape Area of the Orlické hory Mts. Přŕroda10, 159-182.Google Scholar
  12. Dupré, C. and Diekmann, M. (1998). Prediction of occurrence of vascular plants in deciduous forests of South Sweden by means of Ellenberg indicator values. Appl. Veg. Sci., 1, 139-150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ellenberg, H. (1996). Vegetation Mitteleuropas mit den Alpen. 5th ed., Ulmer, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  14. Ellenberg, H., Weber, H.E., Düll, R., Wirth, V., Werner, W. and Paulissen, D. (1991). Zeigerwerte von Pflanzen in Mitteleuropa. Scripta Geobot. 18, 1–247.Google Scholar
  15. Falinski, J.B. (1986). Vegetation dynamics in temperate lowland primeval forests. Geobotany, 8, 1-537.Google Scholar
  16. Hartmann, E., Schuldes, H., Kübler R. and Konold, W. (1995). Neophyten. Biologie, Verbreitung und Kontrolle ausgewählter Arten.ecomed, Landsberg.Google Scholar
  17. Hobbs, R.J., Arico, S., Aronson, J., Baron, J.S., Bridgewater, P., Cramer, V.A., Epstein, P.R., Ewel, J.J., Klink, C.A., Lugo, A.E., Norton, D., Ojima, D., Richardson, D., Sanderson, E.W., Valladares, F., Vilá, M., Zamora, R. and Zobel, M. (2005). Emerging Ecosystems: Theoretical and Management Aspects of the New Ecological World Order. Retrieved Jan. 2005 from hobbs.pdf.
  18. Hobbs, R.J. and Huenneke, L.F. (1992). Disturbance, diversity, and invasions: Implications for conservation. Conservation Biol., 6, 324–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hoffmann, G. (1961). Die Stickstoffbindung der Robinie (Robinia pseudoacaciaL.). Arch. Forstwesen, 10, 627-631.Google Scholar
  20. Huennecke, L.F., Hamburg, S.P., Koide, R., Mooney, H.A. and Vitousek, P.A. (1990). Effects of soil resources on plant invasion and community structure in Californian serpentine grassland. Ecol., 71, 478–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hüttl, R. (1998). Neuartige Waldschäden. Ber. u. Abh. Berlin-Brandenburg. Akad. d. Wissensch.,5, 131- 215.Google Scholar
  22. Jordán, F., Takács-Sánta, A. and Molnár, I. (1999). A reliability theoretical quest for keystones. Oikos, 86, 453-462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jurko, A. (1963). Die Veränderung der ursprünglichen Waldphytozönosen durch die Introduktion der Robinie. Ceskoslov. Ochr. Prŕr., 1, 56-74.Google Scholar
  24. Jurko, A. and Kontris, J. (1982). Phytocoenological and ecological characteristics of acacia-woods in the little Carpathians. Biológia, 37, 67-74.Google Scholar
  25. Keil, A. (2005). Use and perception of post-industrial urban landscapes in the Ruhr. In I. Kowarik and S. Körner (Eds.), Wild Urban Woodlands. New Perspectives for Urban Forestry(pp. 117-130). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Klauck, E.J. (1986). Robinien-Gesellschaften im mittleren Saartal. Tuexenia, 6, 325-334.Google Scholar
  27. Klimo, E., Hager, H. and Kulhavý, J. (Eds.) (2000). Spruce monocultures in Central Europe –problems and prospects. Eur. For. Inst. Proc., 33, 1-208.Google Scholar
  28. Knoerzer, D. (1999). Zur Naturverjüngung der Douglasie im Schwarzwald. Diss. Bot., 306, 1–283.Google Scholar
  29. Knoerzer, D. and Reif, A. (2002). Fremdländische Baumarten in deutschen Wäldern. Fluch oder Segen? In I. Kowarik and U. Starfinger (Eds.), Biologische Invasionen: Herausforderung zum Handeln? Neobiota, 1, 27–35.Google Scholar
  30. Kohler, A. and Sukopp, H. (1964). über die soziologische Struktur einiger Robinienbestände im Stadtgebiet von Berlin. Sitzungsber. Ges. Naturforsch. Freunde N.F., 4, 74-88.Google Scholar
  31. Kowarik, I. (1990). Zur Einführung und Ausbreitung der Robinie (Robinia pseudoacaciaL.) in Brandenburg und zur Sukzession ruderaler Robinienbestände in Berlin. Verh. Berliner Bot. Ver., 8, 33-67.Google Scholar
  32. Kowarik, I. (1992). Einführung und Ausbreitung nichteinheimischer Gehölzarten in Berlin und Brandenburg und ihre Folgen für Flora und Vegetation. Ein Modell für die Freisetzung gentechnisch veränderter Organismen. Verh. Bot. Ver. Berlin Brandenbg., Suppl., 3, 1–188.Google Scholar
  33. Kowarik, I. (1995). On the role of alien species in urban flora and vegetation. In P. Pyšek, K. Prach, M. Rejmánek and M. Wade (Eds.), Plant invasions. General aspects and special problems(pp. 85-103). SPB Acad. Publ., Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  34. Kowarik, I. (2003). Biologische Invasionen: Neophyten und Neozoen in Mitteleuropa. Ulmer, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  35. Kowarik, I. and Körner, S. (Eds.) (2005). Wild urban woodlands. New perspectives for urban forestry. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.Google Scholar
  36. Kowarik, I. and Schepker, H. (1998). Plant invasions in Northern Germany: Human perception and response. In U. Starfinger, K. Edwards, I. Kowarik and M. Williamson (Eds.), Plant invasions: Ecological mechanism and human responses(pp. 109-120). Backhuys Publ., Leiden.Google Scholar
  37. Kreyer, D. and Zerbe, S. (2006). Short-lived tree species and their role as indicators for plant diversity in pine forests. Restor. Ecol., 14, 137-147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lohmeyer, W. and Sukopp, H. (1992). Agriophyten in der Vegetation Mitteleuropas. Schriftenr. Vegetationskde., 25, 1-185.Google Scholar
  39. Lohmeyer, W. and Sukopp, H. (2001). Agriophyten in der Vegetation Mitteleuropas. 1. Nachtrag. In >D. Brandes (Ed.), Adventivpflanzen. Beiträge zu Biologie, Vorkommen und Ausbreitungsdynamik von Archaeophyten und Neophyten in Mitteleuropa. Braunschw. Geobot. Arb., 8, 179-220.Google Scholar
  40. McIntyre, S. and Lavorel, S. (1994). Predicting richness of native, rare, and exotic plants in response to habitat and disturbance variables across a variegated landscape. Conserv. Biol.,8, 521–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mills, L.S., Soulé, M.E. and Doak, D.F. (1993). The keystone-species concept in ecology and conservation. BioScience,43, 219-224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Oberdorfer, E. (1992). Süddeutsche Pflanzengesellschaften, Part IV: Wälder und Gebüsche. 2nd ed., Fischer, Jena.Google Scholar
  43. Oberdorfer, E. (2001). Pflanzensoziologische Exkursionsflora für Deutschland und angrenzende Gebiete. 8th ed., Ulmer, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  44. Olsthoorn, A.F.M., Bartelink, H.H., Gardiner, J.J., Pretzsch, H., Hekhuis, H.J. and Franc, A. (1999). Management of mixed-species forest: silviculture and economics. IBN Scient Contrib., 15, 1-389.Google Scholar
  45. Paar, M., Tiefenbach, M. and Winkler, I. (1994). Trockenrasen in österreich. Bestandsaufnahme und Gefährdung. UBA-Rep., 107, 1-86.Google Scholar
  46. Pyšek, P. (1993). Factors affecting the diversity of flora and vegetation in Central European settlements. Vegetatio, 106, 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pyšek, P. (1997). Compositae as invaders – better than others? Preslia, 69, 9-22.Google Scholar
  48. Pyšek, P. (1998b). Is there a taxonomic pattern to plant invasions? Oikos, 82, 282-294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pyšek, P. and Prach, K. (1994). Plant invasions and the role of riparian habitats – a comparison of four species alien to Central Europe. J. Biogeogr., 20, 413-420.Google Scholar
  50. Pyšek, P., Prach, K.Rejmánek, M. and Wade, M. (Eds.) (1995). Plant Invasions. General Aspects and Special Problems. SPB Acad. Publ., Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  51. Pyšek, P. and Pyšek, A. (1995). Invasion of Heracleum mantegazzianumin different habitats in the Czech Republic. J. Veg. Sci.,6, 711-718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pyšek, P., Sádlo, J. and Mandák, B. (2002). Catalogue of alien plants of the Czech Republic. Preslia, 74, 97-186.Google Scholar
  53. Rebele, F. and Dettmar, J. (1996). Industriebrachen. ökologie und Management. Ulmer, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  54. Rejmánek, M., Richardson, D.M., Pyšek, P. (2005). Plant invasions and invasibility of plant communities. In E. van der Maarel (Ed.). Vegetation Ecology(pp. 332-354). Blackwell Science Ltd.Google Scholar
  55. Sandlund, O.T., Schei, P.J. and Viken, A. (1999). Invasive Species and Biodiversity Management. Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  56. Schepker, H. (1998). Wahrnehmung, Ausbreitung und Bewertung von Neophyten. Eine Analyse der problematischen nichteinheimischen Pflanzenarten in Niedersachsen. ibidem, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  57. Schepker, H. and Kowarik, I. (1998). Invasive North American blueberry hybrids (Vaccinium corymbosumx angustifolium) in Northern Germany. In U. Starfinger, K. Edwards, I. Kowarik and M. Williamson (Eds.), Plant Invasions: Ecological Mechanisms and Human Responses(pp. 253- 260). Backhuys Publ., Leiden.Google Scholar
  58. Schroeder, F.-G. (1969). Zur Klassifizierung der Anthropochoren. Vegetatio, 16, 225-238.Google Scholar
  59. Schroeder, F.-G. (1972). Amelanchier-Arten als Neophyten in Europa. Abh. Naturwiss. Ver. Bremen, 37, 287-419.Google Scholar
  60. Spaeth, I., Balder, H. and Kilz, E. (1994). Das Problem mit der Spätblühenden Traubenkirsche in den Berliner Forsten. Allg. Forstzeitschr., 49, 234-236.Google Scholar
  61. Starfinger, U. (1997). Introduction and naturalization of Prunus serotinain Central Europe. In J.H. Brock, M. Wade, P. Pyšek and D. Green (Eds.), Plant Invasions: Studies from North America and Europe(pp. 161–171). Backhuys Publ., Leiden.Google Scholar
  62. Starfinger, U., Edwards, K., Kowarik, I. and Williamson, M. (Eds.) (1998). Plant Invasions: Ecological Mechanism and Human Responses. Backhuys Publ., Leiden.Google Scholar
  63. Starfinger, U., Kowarik, I., Rode, M. and Schepker, H. (2003). From desirable ornamental plant to pest to accepted addition to the flora? – the perception of an alien tree species through the centuries. Biol. Invasions,5, 323-335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Stohlgren, T.J., Binkley, D., Chong, G.W., Kalkhan, M.A., Schell, L.D., Bull, K.A., Otsuki, J., Newman, G., Bashkin, M. and Son, Y. (1999). Exotic plant species invade hot spots of native plant diversity. Ecol. Monogr., 69, 25–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Trepl, L. (1983). Zum Gebrauch von Pflanzenarten als Indikatoren der Umweltdynamik. Sitzungsber. Ges. Naturf. Freunde N.F., 23, 151-171.Google Scholar
  66. Trepl, L. (1984). über Impatiens parvifloraDC. Agriophyt in Mitteleuropa. Diss. Bot., 73, 1–400.Google Scholar
  67. U.S. Congress O.T.A. (1993). Harmful Non-Iindigenous Species in the United States.U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  68. Vitousek, P.M., D’Antonio, C.M., Loope, L.L., Rejmanek, M. and Westbrooks, R. (1997). Introduced species: a significant component of human-caused global change. New Zealand J. Ecol.,21: 1-16.Google Scholar
  69. Wilmanns, O. and Bogenrieder, A. (1995). Die Entwicklung von Flaumeichenwäldern im Kaiserstuhl im Laufe des letzten halben Jahrhunderts. Forstarchiv, 4, 167-174.Google Scholar
  70. Zerbe, S. (1999). Die Wald- und Forstgesellschaften des Spessarts mit Vorschlägen zu deren zukünftigen Entwicklung. Mitt. Naturwiss. Mus. Aschaffenbg., 19, 1–354.Google Scholar
  71. Zerbe, S. (2001). On the ecology of Sorbus aucuparia(Rosaceae) with special regard to germination, establishment, and growth. Pol. Bot. J., 46, 229-239.Google Scholar
  72. Zerbe S. (2002). Restoration of natural broad-leaved woodland in Central Europe on sites with coniferous forest plantations. For. Ecol. Manage., 167, 27-42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zerbe, S., Brande, A. and Gladitz, F. (2000). Kiefer, Eiche und Buche in der Menzer Heide (NBrandenburg). Veränderungen der Waldvegetation unter dem Einflu{\ss} des Menschen. Verh. Bot. Ver. Berlin Brandenbg., 133, 45-86.Google Scholar
  74. Zerbe, S., Maurer, U., Schmitz, S., Sukopp, H. (2003). Biodiversity in Berlin and its potential for nature conservation. Landsc. Urban Plan., 62, 139–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Zerbe, S. and Vater, G. (2000). Vegetationskundliche und standortsökologische Untersuchungen in Pappelforsten auf Niedermoorstandorten des Oberspreewaldes (Brandenburg). Tuexenia, 20, 55-76.Google Scholar
  76. Zerbe, S. and Wirth, P. (2006). Ecological range of invasive plant species in Central European pine (Pinus sylvestrisL.) forests. Ann. For. Sci., 63, 189-203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. ZERBE
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Botany and Landscape EcologyUniversity GreifswaldD-17487 GreifswaldGermany

Personalised recommendations