Non-native Richness Research Articles

Identifying Preservation and Restoration Priority Areas for Desert Fishes in an Increasingly Invaded World

A commonly overlooked aspect of conservation planning assessments is that wildlife managers are increasingly focused on habitats that contain non-native species. We examine this management challenge in the Gila River basin (150,730km(2)), and present a new planning strategy for fish conservation. By applying a hierarchical prioritization algorithm to >850,000 fish records in 27,181 sub-watersheds we first identified high priority areas (PAs) termed "preservation PAs" with high native fish richness and low non-native richness; these represent traditional conservation targets. Second, we identified "restoration PAs" with high native fish richness that also contained high numbers of non-native species; these represent less traditional conservation targets. The top 10% of preservation and restoration PAs contained common native species (e.g., Catostomus clarkii, desert sucker; Catostomus insignis, Sonora sucker) in addition to native species with limited distributions (i.e., Xyrauchen texanus, razorback sucker; Oncorhynchus gilae apache, Apache trout). The top preservation and restoration PAs overlapped by 42%, indicating areas with high native fish richness range from minimally to highly invaded. Areas exclusively identified as restoration PAs also encompassed a greater percentage of native species ranges than would be expected by the random addition of an equivalent basin area. Restoration PAs identified an additional 19.0 and 26.6% of the total ranges of two federally endangered species-Meda fulgida (spikedace) and Gila intermedia (Gila chub), respectively, compared to top preservation PAs alone-despite adding only 5.8% of basin area. We contend that in addition to preservation PAs, restoration PAs are well suited for complementary management activities benefiting native fishes.

Management intensity affects the relationship between non-native and native species in subtropical wetlands

Question: Does management intensity affect the association between non-native and native species and between non-native species and soil nutrients in wetlands? Location: MacArthur Agro-Ecology Research Center, Florida, USA. Methods: We evaluated native and non-native plant richness and relative frequency in 15 1-m2 plots in 40 wetlands across two types of pastures, highly managed (fertilized, ditched, planted, heavily grazed by cattle) and semi-natural (unfertilized, lightly seasonally grazed). Plant biomass was collected in five 0.25-m2 plots per wetland and sorted to species. Soil cores were collected to analyse soil total nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P). An information-theoretic approach was used to compare mixed effects models considering the association of non-native richness, relative frequency, and biomass with native richness, relative frequency, biomass, C3 grass relative frequency (a dominant native group), N, P and wetland-type. Results: Non-native richness was negatively correlated with native richness in semi-natural wetlands, but there was no evidence of an association between these variables in highly managed wetlands. Non-native richness increased with increasing soil N in semi-natural wetlands, but not in the highly managed wetlands. Soil P was positively related to non-native frequency in semi-natural wetlands but negatively related in highly managed wetlands. Non-native frequency and biomass were negatively related to relative frequency of C3 grasses in both management types. Conclusions: Our results indicate that management intensity influences relationships between native and non-native richness. Management intensity interacts with abiotic or biotic factors, such as soil nutrients and composition, in predicting where non-native species will most likely need control.

Diversity–invasibility relationships across multiple scales in disturbed forest understoreys

Non-native plant species richness may be either negatively or positively correlated with native species due to differences in resource availability, propagule pressure or the scale of vegetation sampling. We investigated the relationships between these factors and both native and non-native plant species at 12 mainland and island forested sites in southeastern Ontario, Canada. In general, the presence of non-native species was limited: <20% of all species at a site were non-native and non-native species cover was <4% m−2 at 11 of the 12 sites. Non-native species were always positively correlated with native species, regardless of spatial scale and whether islands were sampled. Additionally, islands had a greater abundance of non-native species. Non-native species richness across mainland sites was significantly negatively correlated with mean shape index, a measure of the ratio of forest edge to area, and positively correlated with the mean distance to the nearest forest patch. Other factors associated with disturbance and propagule pressure in northeastern North America forests, including human land use, white-tailed deer populations, understorey light, and soil nitrogen, did not explain non-native richness nor cover better than the null models. Our results suggest that management strategies for controlling non-native plant invasions should aim to reduce the propagule pressure associated with human activities, and maximize the connectivity of forest habitats to benefit more poorly dispersed native species.