THE SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF INVASIVE PLANT PRESENCE, ABUNDANCE, AND IMPACT

Across the globe, native ecosystems are increasingly threatened by the spread and negative impacts of non-native, invasive plants. While many hypotheses explore what contributes to the damage caused by invasive species, few studies have tested these hypotheses at the macroscale. My dissertation addresses this knowledge gap by synthesizing thousands of vegetation surveys from ecosystems across the United States. I leverage existing, as well as explore new macroecological methods to deepen our understanding of the spatial ecology of plant invasions. My dissertation also asks how effective management and policy has been at reducing plant invasions. The primary introduction pathway for invasive plants is the horticultural industry. Despite efforts to regulate horticultural trade, I found that 61% of U.S. invasive species were still marketed as garden plants. Consistently regulated invasive plants were sold less often, but many high-impact invaders were still available through plant trade. More policy efforts are needed to stop the spread of invasive plants. A key take-home from my research is that the environmental conditions of recipient native communities play an important role in determining invasive plant success. For example, species-rich native plant communities were more resistant to invasive plant establishment. But once an invader reaches high abundance, high richness native communities were more susceptible to diversity loss. In areas with high anthropogenic effects, invasive plants were more likely to establish as well as have greater negative impacts on native plant communities. The effect of the environment on invasive plant abundance differed by species. Some invasive plants reached high abundance in any environment where it was able to occur, whereas other invasive plants only reached high abundance in a subset of the habitats where they could occur. While some invasion processes may be species-specific, my research shows that at macroscales, top priority habitats for management should include species-rich native plant communities in high resource environments and communities facing high anthropogenic effects. These findings deepen our understanding of the spatial ecology of plant invasions

Invaders for sale: the ongoing spread of invasive species by the plant trade industry

The sale of ornamental nonnative plants is a primary pathway of invasive plant introduction into the US. As a result, many nonnative plants have been identified as noxious weeds by federal and state governments, or as problematic invasive plants by agencies and nonprofit organizations. However, it is unclear whether identifying a species as invasive has curtailed its sale as an ornamental. Using the Google search engine and a database of nursery catalogs, we found that 61% of 1285 plant species identified as invasive in the US remain available through the plant trade, including 50% of state-regulated species and 20% of federal noxious weeds. Vendors offering invasive plants were located in all lower 48 states. The widespread availability of invasive plants in the US is likely a symptom of disjointed state regulations that fail to protect ecosystems and economies. Regional regulation coupled with outreach to growers and consumers is needed to reduce the ongoing propagation of invasive plants in the US

Incorporating climate change into invasive species management: insights from managers

Invasive alien species are likely to interact with climate change, thus necessitating management that proactively addresses both global changes. However, invasive species managers’ concerns about the effects of climate change, the degree to which they incorporate climate change into their management, and what stops them from doing so remain unknown. Therefore, we surveyed natural resource managers addressing invasive species across the U.S. about their priorities, concerns, and management strategies in a changing climate. Of the 211 managers we surveyed, most were very concerned about the influence of climate change on invasive species management, but their organizations were significantly less so. Managers reported that lack of funding and personnel limited their ability to effectively manage invasive species, while lack of information limited their consideration of climate change in decision-making. Additionally, managers prioritized research that identifies range-shifting invasive species and native communities resilient to invasions and climate change. Managers also reported that this information would be most effectively communicated through conversations, research summaries, and meetings/symposia. Despite the need for more information, 65% of managers incorporate climate change into their invasive species management through strategic planning, preventative management, changing treatment and control, and increasing education and outreach. These results show the potential for incorporating climate change into management, but also highlight a clear and pressing need for more targeted research, accessible science communication, and two-way dialogue between researchers and managers focused on invasive species and climate change

Regional Invasive Species & Climate Change Management Challenge: Why Native? Benefits of planting native species in a changing climate

Yards host a variety of native and non-native plants. It is easy to assume all plants play a similar role in supporting wildlife, but native plants dramatically increase the diversity of bees, butterflies, birds and other native animals. Additionally, non-native plants can become invasive or support invasive pests. Native plants increase biodiversity and reduce risks associated with invasive species, which supports resilient ecosystems in the face of climate change

Regional Invasive Species & Climate Change Management Challenge: Double Trouble. Understanding risks from invasive species + climate change

Individually, invasive species and climate change are major threats to global ecosystems. Together they create new challenges for effective management. Before we can design management strategies to respond to this double trouble, we need to understand how these two forms of global change interact

Breaking down barriers to consistent, climate-smart regulation of invasive plants - a case study of northeast states

Efforts to prevent the introduction and spread of new invasive plants are most effective when regulated species are consistent across jurisdictional boundaries and proactively prohibit species before they arrive or in the earliest stages of invasion. Consistent and proactive regulation is particularly important in the northeast U.S. which is susceptible to many new invasive plants due to climate change. Unfortunately, recent analyses of state regulated plant lists show that regulated species are neither consistent nor proactive. To understand why, we focus on two steps leading to invasive plant regulation across six northeast states (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont): which sets of species are evaluated and how risk is assessed. Our analysis confirms previous findings that invasive plant regulations are inconsistent and reactive. Of the 128 plants regulated by one or more states, 54 were regulated by a single state and only 16 were regulated by all six states; regulated species tended to be widespread across the region (not proactive). These outcomes are largely driven by different sets of evaluated species. For example, neighboring states Vermont and New Hampshire evaluated 92 species in total, but only 26 overlapped. In addition, states rarely evaluated species that were absent from the state. Risk assessment protocols varied considerably across states, but consistently included criteria related to ecological impact, potential to establish, dispersal mechanisms, and life history traits. While none of the assessments explicitly consider climate change, they also did not contain language that would preclude regulating species that have not yet arrived in the state. To increase consistency and proactivity, states would benefit from 1) evaluating species identified as high risk by neighboring states as well as high risk, range-shifting invasives, both of which we compiled here and 2) explicitly considering climate change when assessing ‘potential distribution’ or ‘potential impact’ of target species. Additionally, a mechanism for sharing knowledge and risk assessments regionally would benefit states with fewer resources to address invasive species threats. Presenting a unified defense against current and future threats is critical for reducing impacts from invasive species and is achievable with better state-to-state coordination

Regional Invasive Species & Climate Change Management Challenge: Nuisance Neonatives. Guidelines for Assessing Range-Shifting Species

Native species will need to shift their ranges northward and upslope to keep pace with climate change in the Northeast U.S. However, this may cause some range-shifting species to have undesirable consequences in their expanded range. We provide a framework to identify the likelihood that a range-shifting species will become problematic and offer suggestions to minimize impacts from these species in the recipient habitat

Regional Invasive Species & Climate Change Management Challenge: Taking Action. Managing invasive species in the context of climate change

Climate change is likely to alter the timing and effect of invasive species management, as well as the suite of species we are managing. Despite concern about the effects of climate change, lack of information about how and when to take action is a barrier to climate-smart invasive species management. Here, we outline strategies for incorporating climate change into management along with examples of tools that can inform proactive decision-making

Regional Invasive Species & Climate Change Management Challenge: Gardening with climate-smart native plants in the Northeast

An estimated 80% of ornamental plants for sale are non-native. This means that the average yard does a poor job of supporting native flora and fauna. By shifting our plantings towards natives, we can dramatically increase the diversity of bees, butterflies, birds and other animals. In contrast, non-native plants do not support local food webs and can become invasive. Native plants increase biodiversity and reduce risks associated with invasive species, which supports resilient ecosystems in the face of climate change

Translational invasion ecology: bridging research and practice to address one of the greatest threats to biodiversity

Effective natural resource management and policy is contingent on information generated by research. Conversely, the applicability of research depends on whether it is responsive to the needs and constraints of resource managers and policy makers. However, many scientific fields including invasion ecology suffer from a disconnect between research and practice. Despite strong socio-political imperatives, evidenced by extensive funding dedicated to addressing invasive species, the pairing of invasion ecology with stakeholder needs to support effective management and policy is lacking. As a potential solution, we propose translational invasion ecology (TIE). As an extension of translational ecology, as a framework to increase collaboration among scientists, practitioners, and policy makers to reduce negative impacts of invasive species. As an extension of translational ecology, TIE is an approach that embodies an intentional and inclusive process in which researchers, stakeholders, and decision makers collaborate to develop and implement ecological research via joint consideration of the ecological, sociological, economic, and/or political contexts in order to improve invasive species management. TIE ideally results in improved outcomes as well as shared benefits between researchers and managers. We delineate the steps of our proposed TIE approach and describe successful examples of ongoing TIE projects from the US and internationally. We suggest practical ways to begin incorporating TIE into research and management practices, including supporting boundary-spanning organizations and activities, expanding networks, sharing translational experiences, and measuring outcomes. We find that there is a need for strengthened boundary spanning, as well as funding and recognition for advancing translational approaches. As climate change and globalization exacerbate invasive species impacts, TIE provides a promising approach to generate actionable ecological research while improving outcomes of invasive species management and policy decisions