California Wildland Invasive Plants
John M. Randall and Marc C. Hoshovsky
The focus of this book is non-native plants that invade parks, preserves, and other wildlands in California, but our real concern is the survival and growth of the native plants and animals these invaders threaten. Unfortunately, some non-native invasive plant species inflict so much damage that, unless they are controlled, it will be impossible to preserve viable populations of many native species or many of the state’s natural communities and ecosystems.
The good news is that many plant invasions can be halted or slowed, and, in certain situations, even badly infested areas can be restored to relatively healthy communities dominated by native species. Weed control and restoration are now widely regarded as necessary in many wildlands across the state and around the world. We hope this book will help land managers, volunteer stewards, and others to recognize some of California’s most damaging wildland in vad ers, to better understand their impacts, and to minimize the damage they do to native biological diversity.
Invasive species are now widely recognized worldwide as posing threats to biological diversity second only to direct habitat loss and fragmentation (Pimm and Gilpin 1989, Scott and Wilcove 1998). In fact, when biological invasion by all types of organisms is considered as a single phenomenon, it is clear that to date it has had greater impacts on the world’s biota than have more notorious aspects of global environmental change such as rising CO2 concentrations, climate change, and decreasing stratospheric ozone levels (Vitousek et al. 1996). Compared to other threats to biological diversity, invasive non-native plants present a complex problem that is difficult to manage and has long-lasting effects. Even when exotics are no longer actively introduced, these plants continue to spread and invade new areas. Effective control will require awareness and active participation of the public as well as natural resource managers and specialists.
California’s invasive plant problems are widespread and severe. The state’s varied topography, geology, and climates have helped to give rise to the state’s extraordinary native biological diversity and high levels of endemism. However, these varied conditions also provide suitable habitat for a wide variety of non-native plant species, many of which have readily established and rapidly spread in the state. Fewer than ten percent of the 1,045 non-native plant species that have established in California are recognized as serious threats (Randall et al. 1998), but these have dramatically changed California’s ecological landscape. They alter ecosystem functions such as nutrient cycles, hydrology, and wildfire frequency, outcompete and exclude native plants and animals, harbor dangerous animal invaders, and hybridize with native species. Some spread into national parks, preserves, and other wildlands and reduce or eliminate the species and communities these sites were set aside to protect.
Rare species appear to be particularly vulnerable to the changes wrought by non-native invaders. For example, the California Natural Diversity Database indicates that 181 of the state’s rare plant species are experiencing threats from invasive weeds (California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Heritage Division). Habitats for rare animals such as the San Clemente sage sparrow and the Palos Verde blue butterfly are also being invaded. Even more common species could be driven to rarity or near extinction by particularly disruptive invaders, as evidenced by the fate of the American chestnut (Castanea dentata) in the eastern hardwood forest following introduction of chestnut blight, Cryphonectria parasitica (National Academy of Science 1975).
IMPACTS OF INVASIVE PLANTS ON WILDLANDS
Non-native plant invasions can have a variety of effects on wildlands, including alteration of ecosystem processes; displacement of native species; support of non-na tive animals, fungi, or microbes; and alteration of gene pools through hybridization with native species.
The invasive species that cause the greatest damage are those that alter ecosystem processes such as nutrient cycling, intensity and frequency of fire, hydrological cycles, sediment deposition, and erosion (D’Antonio and Vitousek 1992, Vitousek 1986, Vitousek and Walker 1989, Vitousek et al. 1987, Whisenant 1990). These invaders change the rules of the game of survival and growth, placing many native species at a severe disadvantage (Vitousek et al. 1996). Cheat grass (Bromus tectorum) is a well studied example of an invader that has altered ecosystem processes. This annual grass has invaded millions of acres of rangeland in the Great Basin, leading to widespread increases in fire frequency from once every sixty to 110 years to once every three to five years (Billings 1990, Whisenant 1990). Native shrubs do not recover well from more frequent fires and have been eliminated or reduced to minor components in many of these areas (Mack 1981).
Some invaders alter soil chemistry, making it difficult for native species to survive and reproduce. For example, iceplant (Mesembryanthemum crystallinum) accumulates large quantities of salt, which is released after the plant dies. The increased salinity prevents native vegetation from reestablishing (Vivrette and Muller 1977, Kloot 1983). Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) and gorse (Ulex europaea) can increase the content of nitrogen in soil. Although this increases soil fertility and overall plant growth, it gives a competitive advantage to non-native species that thrive in nitrogen-rich soil. Researchers have found that the nitrogen-fixing firetree (Myrica faya) increases soil fertility and consequently alters succession in Hawaii (Vitousek and Walker 1989).
Wetland and riparian invaders can alter hydrology and sedimentation rates. Tamarisks (Tamarix chinensis, T. ramosissima, T. pentandra, T. parviflora) invade wetland and riparian areas in southern and central California and throughout the Southwest, and are believed to be responsible for lowering water tables at some sites. This may reduce or eliminate surface water habitats that native plants and animals need to survive (Brotherson and Field 1987, Neill 1983). For example, tamarisk invaded Eagle Borax Spring in Death Valley in the 1930s or 1940s. By the late 1960s the large marsh had dried up, with no visible surface water. When managers removed tamarisk from the site, surface water reappeared, and the spring and its associated plants and animals recovered (Neill 1983). Tamarisk infestations also can trap more sediment than stands of native vegetation and thus alter the shape, carrying capacity, and flooding cycle of rivers, streams, and washes (Blackburn et al. 1982). Interestingly, the only species of Tamarix established in California that is not generally regarded as invasive (athel, or T. aphylla) is regarded as a major riparian invader in arid central Australia.
Other wetland and riparian invaders and a variety of beach and dune invaders dramatically alter rates of sedimentation and erosion. One example is saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora), native to the Atlantic and Gulf coasts and introduced to the Pacific Coast, where it invades intertidal habitats. Sedimentation rates may increase dramatically in infested areas, while nearby mudflats deprived of sediment erode and become areas of open water (Sayce 1988). The net result is a sharp reduction in open intertidal areas where many migrant and resident waterfowl feed.
Coastal dunes along the Pacific Coast from central California to British Columbia have been invaded and altered by European beachgrass (Ammophila arenaria). Dunes in infested areas are generally steeper and oriented roughly parallel to the coast rather than nearly perpendicular to it as they are in areas dominated by Leymus mollis, L. pacificus, and other natives (Barbour and Johnson 1988). European beachgrass eliminates habitats for rare native species such as Antioch Dunes evening-primrose (Oenothera deltoides ssp. howellii) and Menzies’ wallflower (Erysimum menziesii ssp. menziesii). Species richness on foredunes dominated by European beachgrass may be half that on adjacent dunes dominated by Leymus species (Barbour et al. 1976). Changes in the shape and orientation of the dunes also alter the hydrology and microclimate of the swales and other habitats behind the dunes, affecting species in these areas.
Some upland invaders also alter erosion rates. For example, runoff and sediment yield under simulated rainfall were fifty-six percent and 192 percent higher on plots in western Montana dominated by spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) than on plots dominated by native bunchgrasses (Lacey et al 1989). This species is already established in northern California and the southern Peninsular Range and recently was found on an inholding within Yosemite National Park (Hrusa pers. comm.).
Some invasive plants completely alter the structure of the vegetation they invade. For example, the punk tree (Melaleuca quinquenervia) invades marshes in southern Florida’s Everglades that are dominated by sedges, grasses, and other herbaceous species, rapidly converting them to swamp forest with little or no herbaceous understory (LaRoche 1994, Schmitz et al. 1997). Such wholesale changes in community structure may be expected to be followed by changes in ecosystem function.
HABITAT DOMINANCE AND DISPLACEMENT OF NATIVE SPECIES
Invaders that move into and dominate habitats without obviously altering ecosystem properties can nevertheless cause grave damage. They may outcompete native species, suppress native species recruitment, alter community structure, degrade or eliminate habitat for native animals, and provide food and cover for undesirable non-native animals. For example, edible fig (Ficus carica) is invading riparian forests in the Central Valley and surrounding foothills and can become a canopy dominant. Invasive vines are troublesome in forested areas across the continent. In California, cape ivy (Delairea odorata) blankets riparian forests along the coast from San Diego north to the Oregon border (Elliott 1994).
Non-native sub-canopy trees and shrubs invade forest understories, particularly in the Sierra Nevada and Coast Ranges. Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), French broom (Genista monspessulana), and gorse (Ulex europaea) are especially troublesome invaders of forests and adjacent openings and of coastal grasslands (Bossard 1991a, Mountjoy 1979). Herbaceous species can colonize and dominate grasslands or the ground layer in forests. Eupatory (Ageratina adenophora) invades and dominates riparian forest understories along California’s southern and central coast. Impacts of these ground-layer invaders have not been well studied, but it is suspected that they displace native herbs and perhaps suppress recruitment of trees.
Annual grasses and forbs native to the Mediterranean region have replaced most of California’s native grasslands. Invasion by these species was so rapid and complete that we do not know what the dominant native species were on vast areas of bunchgrasses in the Central Valley and other valleys and foothills around the state. The invasion continues today as medusa-head (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) and yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) spread to sites already dominated by other non-natives. Yellow starthistle is an annual that produces large numbers of seeds and grows rapidly as a seedling. It is favored by soil disturbance, but invades areas that show no sign of being disturbed by humans or livestock for years and has colonized several relatively pristine preserves in California, Oregon, and Idaho (Randall 1996b).
In some situations invasive, non-native weeds can prevent reestablishment of na tive species following natural or human-caused disturbance, altering natural suc ces sion. Ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), which is used to reseed burned areas in southern California, interferes with herb establishment (Keeley et al. 1981) and, at least in the short term, with chaparral recovery (Schultz et al. 1955, Gautier 1982, Zedler et al. 1983).
Hybridization with Native Species
Some non-native plants hybridize with natives and could, in time, effectively eliminate native genotypes. The non-native Spartina alterniflora hybridizes with the native S. foliosa where they occur together. In some Spartina populations in salt marshes around south San Francisco Bay, all individual plants tested had non-native genes (Ayres et al. in press).
Promotion of Non-Native Animals
Many non-native plants facilitate invasions by non-native animals and vice versa. Myrica faya invasions of volcanic soils in Hawaii promote populations of non-native earthworms, which increase rates of nitrogen burial and accentuate the impacts these nitrogen-fixing trees have on soil nutrient cycles (Aplet 1990). M. faya is aided by the non-native bird, Japanese white-eye (Zosterops japonica), perhaps the most active of the many native and non-native species that consume its fruits and disperse its seeds to intact forest (Vitousek and Walker 1989).
EARLY INVASIONS BY NON-NATIVE PLANTS
The first recorded visit by European explorers to the territory now called California occurred in 1524, but people of Old World ancestry did not begin to settle here until 1769. Available evidence indicates that the vast majority of non-native plants now established in California were introduced after this time. There is compelling evidence that red-stem filaree (Erodium cicutarium), and perhaps a few other species, may have established even earlier, perhaps after being carried to the territory by roaming animals or by way of trading networks that connected Indian communities to Spanish settlements in Mexico (Hendry 1931, Hendry and Kelley 1925, Mensing and Byrne 1998). Once settlers began to arrive, they brought non-native plants accidentally in ship ballast and as contaminants of grain shipments and intentionally for food, fiber, medicine, and ornamental uses (Frenkel 1970, Gerlach 1998).
The number of non-native species established in California rose from sixteen during the period of Spanish colonization (1769-1824) to seventy-nine during the period of Mexican occupation (1825-1848) to 134 by 1860 following American pioneer settlement (Frenkel 1970). Jepson’s A Manual of the Flowering Plants of California (1925), the first comprehensive flora covering the entire state, recognized 292 established non-native species. Rejmnek and Randall (1994) accounted for taxonomic inconsistencies between the 1993 Jepson Manual and earlier floras and found that Munz and Keck’s 1959 A Flora of California included 725 non-native plants species and their 1968 A California Flora and Supplement included 975. The 1993 Jepson Manual recorded 1,023 non-natives, and subseqent reports in the literature have brought the number up to 1,045 (Randall et al. 1998). Rejmnek and Randall (1994) remarked that, although non-native species continue to establish in California, the rate of increase in their number appears to be slowing after roughly 150 years of rapid growth.
Most non-native plants introduced to California in earlier times first established at coastal sites near ports and around missions and other settlements. In recent times, first reports of new non-native species have come from every major geographic subdivision of the state (Rejmnek and Randall 1994). Apparently, the great speed and reach of modern transportation systems and the increasing global trade in plants and other commodities have enabled non-natives to spread to sites throughout the state. A variety of human activities continue to introduce new species to California and to spread those that have established populations in only a few areas. For example, land managers still introduce non-native species to control erosion or provide forage for livestock. New ornamental plants and seeds are imported and sold. Movement of bulk commodities such as gravel, roadfill, feed grain, straw, and mulch transport invasive plant propagules from infested to uninfested areas (OTA 1993). The rate of spread is often alarming. For example, within California, yellow starthistle has expanded its range at an exponential rate since the late 1950s, increasing from 1.2 to 7.9 million acres by 1991 (Maddox et al. 1996, Thomsen et al. 1993).
Problems caused by invasive plants in California were recognized by Frederick Law Olmsted in 1865 in a report he filed on the newly set-aside Yosemite Valley, noting that, unless actions were taken, its vegetation likely would be diminished by common weeds from Europe. The report pointed out that this had already happened in large districts of the Atlantic States. Botanists and other students of natural history noted the establishment of non-native species in the state in published papers, and by the 1930s natural area managers in Yosemite and scattered parks and preserves around the state began controlling invading non-native species that were recognized as agricultural pests (Randall 1991). The issue was brought into mainstream ecology in the late 1950s with the publication of Charles Elton’s book, The Ecology of Invasions by Animals and Plants (1958). Concern and interest among both land managers and researchers have grown since that time, particularly since the mid-1980s.
SPECIES MOST LIKELY TO BE INVASIVE
Many people have wondered if certain traits distinguish species that become invasive. Despite a great deal of study, no single answer presents itself, and researchers have been surprised by the success of some species and the failure of others. Studies conducted in 1980 in central California on Peruvian pepper (Schinus molle) and its close relative Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) failed to determine why the former was spreading in California (Nilsen and Muller 1980a, 1980b). Instead the studies suggested Brazilian pepper was the more invasive species. Recently, Brazilian pepper has been found to be invasive in southern California, so perhaps studies of this type do have some predictive power.
Despite these puzzling cases, recent work has pointed to several factors that may help to predict which species are likely to be invasive. In two studies the best predictor was whether a species was invasive elsewhere (Panetta 1993, Reichard and Hamilton 1997). For example, if a species native to Spain is invasive in Western Australia, it is likely to be invasive in California and South Africa as well. Rejmnek and Richardson (1996) analyzed characteristics of twenty species of pines and found that the invasive species were those that produce many small seeds and that begin reproducing within their first few years. When they extended the analysis to a group of flowering trees, these same characters usually discriminated between invasive and non-invasive species. This study and several others also found plants with animal-dispersed seeds, such as bush honeysuckles or ligustrums, are much more likely to be invasive in forested communities (Reichard 1997, Reichard and Hamilton 1997). It has also been suggested that species capable of reproducing both by seed and by vegetative growth have a better chance of spreading in a new land (Reichard 1997).
Self-compatible species, with individuals that can fertilize themselves, have been thought more likely to invade, since a single plant of this type could initiate an invasion (Baker 1965). However, many self-incompatible species are successful invaders, including some with male and female flowers on separate plants. It is also thought that plants dependent on one or a few other species for pollination, fruit dispersal, or the uptake of nutrients from the soil are less likely to invade new areas unless these organisms are introduced at the same time. As a group, figs may be relatively poor invaders because, with few exceptions, each species is pollinated by a distinctive species of wasp that is in turn dependent on that species of fig. However, the edible fig’s pollinator was introduced to promote fruit production, and now the species is invasive in parts of California. Other plant invasions may be promoted by introduced animals as well. For example, honeybees boost seed production of invaders whose flowers they favor (Barthell pers. comm.). In Hawaii feral pigs promote the spread of banana poka (Passiflora mollissima) and other species by feeding voraciously on their fruits and distributing them in their scat, often in soil they have disturbed while rooting for food.
It has also been suggested that species with relatively low DNA contents in their cell nuclei are more likely to be invasive in disturbed habitats (Rejmnek 1996). Under certain conditions, cells with low DNA contents can divide and multiply more quickly, and consequently these plants grow more rapidly than species with higher cellular DNA content. Plants that germinate and grow rapidly can quickly occupy such areas and exclude other plants following disturbance.
It is generally agreed that a species is most likely to invade an area with a climate similar to that of its native range, but some non-native species now thrive in novel conditions. An analysis of the distribution of non-native herbs of the sunflower and grass families in North America indicated that species with a larger native range in Europe and Asia are more likely to become established and to have a larger range here than species with small native ranges (Rejmnek 1995). It is thought that species with large native ranges are adapted to a variety of climate and soil conditions and are more likely to find suitable habitat in a new area. This ability to cope with different conditions can be attributed in part to genetic plasticity (genetic differences among individuals of a species) or to phenotypic plasticity (the ability of any given individual of some species to cope with a variety of conditions). Another factor that may help to determine whether a plant will invade a site is whether it is closely related to a native species (e.g., in the same genus). Plants without close relatives appear more likely to become established (Rejmnek 1996).
A species may be more likely to become established if many individuals are introduced at once or if they are introduced repeatedly. Introductions of many individuals may help to ensure that they will mate and produce offspring and that there will be sufficient genetic variability in the population for the species to cope with a wider variety of conditions. In addition, if sites where the species can successfully germinate and grow are limited in number, the chance that at least one seed scattered at random will land on an appropriate site increases with the number of seeds dispersed. Chance may be important in other ways. For example, species that happen to be introduced at the beginning of a drought may be doomed to fail, although they might easily establish following a return to normal rainfall. An early introduction may by chance include no individuals with the genetic makeup to thrive in an area, while a later introduction may include several.
There is often a time lag of many decades between the first introduction of a plant and its rapid spread. In fact, some species that rarely spread today may turn out to be troublesome forty, fifty, or more years from now. This makes it all the more urgent that we find some way of determining which species are most likely to become invasive so that we can control them while their populations are still small.
HABITATS AND COMMUNITIES MOST LIKELY TO BE INVADED
Another question that has long intrigued ecologists is why some areas appear more prone to invasion than others. Again, many hypotheses have been advanced, but we have few solid answers. There is even some question about which areas have suffered the highest numbers of invasions, since this may differ depending on the type of organism considered and which species are regarded as firmly established. A given area may be highly susceptible to invasion by one type of organism and highly resistant to another, while the situation might be reversed in other areas.
It is generally agreed that areas where the vegetation and soil have been disturbed by humans or domestic animals are more susceptible to invasion. In North America disturbed sites are commonly invaded by species native to the Mediterranean region and the fertile crescent of the Old World where the plants had millennia to adapt to agricultural disturbances. Changes in stream flows, the frequency of wildfires, or other environmental factors caused by dam building, firefighting, and other human activities may also hinder survival of native plants and promote invasion by non-natives. Nonetheless, reserves and protected areas are not safe from exotic species. In a 1996 poll, sixty-one percent of National Park Service supervisors throughout the United States reported that non-native plant invasions are moderate to major problems within their parks. In more than half (fifty-nine percent) of The Nature Conservancy’s 1,500 preserves exotic plants are considered one of the most important management problems (TNC 1996a, 1997).
It is also safe to say that remote islands in temperate and tropical areas appear to be highly susceptible to invasions by non-native plants and animals. For example, nearly half (forty-nine percent) of the flowering plant species found in the wild in Hawaii are non-native as are twenty-five percent of plants on California’s Santa Cruz Island (Junak et al. 1995). Most remote islands had no large native herbivores, so pigs, cattle, sheep, and other grazers introduced by humans found the native plants unprotected by spines or foul-tasting chemicals. Introduced grazers often denuded large areas of native vegetation, leaving them open to colonization by introduced species adapted to grazing. There is also speculation that islands, peninsulas such as southern Florida, and other areas with low numbers of native species or without any representative or distinctive groups are more prone to invasion. For example, there are no rapidly growing woody vines native to the Hawaiian Islands, where several introduced vines have become pests. Some researchers theorize that where such gaps exist, certain resources are used inefficiently if at all. Such open niches are vulnerable to invasion by non-native species capable of exploiting these resources. Other researchers reject this concept, maintaining that open niches are impossible to identify in advance and that when new species move in they do not slip into unoccupied slots but instead use resources that would have been used by organisms already present.
History likely also plays a large role in determining the susceptibility of a site to invasion. Busy seaports, railroad terminals, and military supply depots are exposed to multiple introductions. People from some cultures are more likely to introduce plants from their homelands when they migrate to new regions. In fact, colonization of much of the Americas, Australia, and other areas of the world by western Europeans and the plants and animals from their homelands may go hand in hand, the success of one species promoting the success of others. European colonists were followed, sometimes preceded, by animals and plants with which they were familiar and that they knew how to exploit. The plants and animals benefited in turn when these people cleared native vegetation and plowed the soil.
DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED IN THIS BOOK
Native plants are those growing within their natural range and dispersal potential. They are species or subspecies that are within the range they could occupy without direct or indirect introduction and/or care by humans. Most species can be easily classed as either native or non-native using this definition, but there are some gray areas. Natural ranges should not be confused with political or administrative boundaries. Bush lupine (Lupinus arboreus), for example, may be thought of as a California native, but its native range is only along the central and southern coasts of the state. It is not native along the north coast, where it was intentionally planted outside its natural range (Miller 1988, Pickart this volume). All hybrids between introduced or domesticated species and native species are also non-native.
Non-native plants are those species growing beyond their natural range or natural zone of potential dispersal, including all domesticated and feral species and all hybrids involving at least one non-native parent species. Other terms that are often used as synonyms for non-native include alien, exotic, introduced, adventive, non-indigenous, non-aboriginal, and naturalized. With rare exceptions, conservation programs are dedicated to the preservation of native species and communities. The addition of non-native species rarely contributes positively to this unless these plants alter the environment in ways that favor native species as do some grazers and biological control agents.
Natural areas are lands and waters set aside specifically to protect and preserve undomesticated organisms, biological communities, and/or ecosystems. Examples include most national parks, state and federally designated wilderness areas, and preserves held by private organizations such as The Nature Conservancy and the National Audubon Society.
Wildlands include natural areas and other lands managed at least in part to promote game and/or non-game animals or populations of native plants and other organisms. Examples include federal wildlife refuges, some national and state forests, portions of Bureau of Land Management holdings, including some areas used for grazing, and some lands held by private landowners.
Pest plant and weed are used interchangeably in this book to refer to species, populations, and individual plants that are unwanted because they interfere with management goals and objectives. Plants regarded as pests in some wildlands may not be troublesome elsewhere. For example, the empress tree (Paulownia tomentosa) is a pest in deciduous forests of the eastern United States, particularly in the southern Appalachians, but it is not known to escape from cultivation in California, where it is used as an ornamental landscape tree. Some species that are troublesome in agricultural or urban areas rarely, if ever, become wildland weeds. The term environmental weeds is used by many Australians (Groves 1991, Humphries et al. 1991b) to refer to wildland weeds, but few North American land managers or researchers use this term.
Invasive species are those that spread into areas where they are not native, according to Rejmnek (1995), while other authors define as invasives only species that displace natives or bring about changes in species composition, community structure, or ecosystem function (Cronk and Fuller 1995, White et al. 1993). Most wildland weeds are both invasive and non-native, but not all non-native plants are invasive. In fact, only a small minority of the thousands of species introduced to California have escaped cultivation, and a minority of those that have escaped spread into wildlands.