Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Predicted versus actual invasiveness of climbing vines in Florida

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biological Invasions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Climbing vines cause substantial ecological and economic harm, and are disproportionately represented among invasive plant species. Thus, the ability to identify likely vine invaders would enhance the effectiveness of both prevention and management. We tested whether the Weed Risk Assessment (WRA) accurately predicted the current invasion status of 84 non-native climbing vines in Florida. Seventeen percent of the species require further evaluation before risk of invasion can be determined. Of the remaining 70 species, the WRA predicted that 70% were at high risk for invasion, but only 50% of the 84 species are currently invasive in Florida. The status and risk prediction were inconsistent for 27% of the species: 15 non-invaders were predicted to be of high risk for invasion (i.e., false positive) and 4 invaders were predicted to be of low risk (i.e., false negative). Longer residence time in the flora was significantly correlated with higher invasion risk. Further investigation is necessary to identify whether residence time explains inconsistencies between risk and status conclusions, or whether the WRA over-predicts invasion risk. Nevertheless, the effects of invasive vines on native systems coupled with the influence of time on invasion status, suggest a precautionary approach is warranted when considering the introduction and management of non-native vines.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Batianoff GN, Butler DW (2003) Impact assessment and analysis of sixty-six priority invasive weeds in south-east Queensland. Plant Prot Q 18:11–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Caley P, Kuhnert PM (2006) Application and evaluation of classification trees for screening unwanted plants. Austral Ecol 31:647–655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castro SA, Figueroa JA, Muñoz-Schick M, Jaksic F (2005) Minimum residence time, biogeographical origin, and life cycle as determinants of the geographical extent of naturalized plants in continental Chile. Divers Distrib 11:183–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Champion PD, Clayton JS (2001) A weed risk assessment model for aquatic weeds in New Zealand. In: Groves RH, Panetta FD, Virtue JG (eds) weed risk assessment. CSIRO Publishing, Victoria, pp 194–202

    Google Scholar 

  • Chong KY, Corlett RT, Yeo DCJ, Tan HTW (2011) Towards a global database of weed risk assessments: a test of transferability for the tropics. Biol Invasions 13:1571–1577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colunga-Garcia M, Haack R, Magarey R, Borchert D (2013) Understanding trade pathways to target biosecurity surveillance. NeoBiota 18:103–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daehler CC (1998) The taxonomic distribution of invasive angiosperm plants: ecological insights and comparison to agricultural weeds. Biol Conser 84:167–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daehler CC, Denslow JL, Ansari S, Kuo H (2004) A risk assessment system for screening out harmful invasive pest plants from Hawaii’s and other Pacific islands. Conserv Biol 18:360–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL (1988) Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 44:837–845

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dlugosch KM, Parker IM (2008) Founding events in species invasions: genetic variation, adaptive evolution, and the role of multiple introductions. Mol Ecol 7:431–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ewel JJ (1986) Invasibility: lessons from South Florida. In: Mooney HA, Drake JA (eds) Ecology of biological invasions of North America and Hawaii. Springer, New York, pp 214–230

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Genton BJ, Shykoff JA, Giraud T (2005) High genetic diversity in French invasive populations of common ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia, as a result of multiple sources of introduction. Mol Ecol 14:4275–4285

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon DR (1998) Effects of invasive, non-indigenous plant species in ecosystem processes: lessons from Florida. Ecol Appl 8:975–989

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon DR, Onderdonk DA, Fox AM, Stocker RK (2008a) Consistent accuracy of the Australian Weed Risk Assessment system across varied geographies. Divers Distrib 14:234–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon DR, Onderdonk DA, Fox AM, Stocker RK, Gantz C (2008b) Predicting Invasive Plants in Florida using the Australian Weed Risk Assessment. Invasive Plant Sci Manage 1:178–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon DR, Mitterdorfer B, Pheloung PC, Ansari S, Buddenhagen C, Chimera C, Daehler CC, Dawson W, Denslow JS, LaRosa A, Nishida T, Onderdonk DA, Panetta FD, Pyšek P, Randall RP, Richardson DM, Tshidada NJ, Virtue JG, Williams PA (2010) Guidance for addressing the Australian Weed Risk Assessment questions. Plant Prot Q 25(2):56–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon DR, Gantz CA, Jerde CL, Chadderton WL, Keller RP, Champion PD (2012) Weed risk assessment for aquatic plants: modification of a New Zealand system for the United States. PLoS ONE 7(7):e40031. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0040031

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Harris CJ, Murray BR, Hose GC, Hamilton MA (2007) Introduction history and invasion success in exotic vines introduced to Australia. Divers Distrib 13:467–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hellmann JJ, Byers JE, Bierwagen G, Dukes JS (2008) Five potential consequences of climate change for invasive species. Conserv Biol 22:534–543

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Horvitz CC, Pascarella JB, McMann S, Freedman A, Hofstetter RH (1998) Functional roles of invasive non-indigenous plants in hurricane-affected subtropical hardwood forests. Ecol Appl 8:947–974

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kearns SK (2008) Nonnative terrestrial species invasions. In: Waller DM, Rooney TP (eds) The Vanishing Present: Wisconsin’s changing lands, waters, and wildlife. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 439–452

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lieurance D, Flory SL, Cooper AL, Gordon DR, Fox AM, Dusky J, Tyson L (2013) The UF/IFAS assessment of nonnative plants in Florida’s natural areas: History, purpose, and use. University of Florida IFAS Extension SS-AGR-371

  • Lockwood JL, Cassey P, Blackburn T (2005) The role of propagule pressure in explaining species invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 20:223–228

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lonsdale WM (1999) Global patterns of plant invasion and the concept of invasibility. Ecology 80:1522–1536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novy A, Flory SL, Hartman JM (2013) Evidence for rapid evolution of phenology in an invasive grass. J Evol Biol 26:443–450

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pemberton RW, Liu H (2009) Marketing time predicts naturalization of horticultural plants. Ecology 90:69–80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Perrings C, Williamson M, Barbier EB, Delfino D, Dalmazzone S, Shogren J, Simmons P, Watkinson A (2002) Biological invasion risks and the public good: an economic perspective. Conserv Ecol (1):1 http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss1/art1. Accessed 6 June 2016

  • Pheloung PC, Williams PA, Halloy SR (1999) A weed risk assessment model for use as a biosecurity tool evaluating plant introductions. J Environ Manag 57:239–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pimentel D, Zuniga R, Morrison D (2005) Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecol Econ 52:273–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plant Health Program (2005) Plant protection and quarantine strategic plan FY005-2009. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Riverdale, Maryland

    Google Scholar 

  • Pyšek P, Křivánek M, Jarošík V (2009) Planting intensity, residence time, and species traits determine invasion success of alien woody species. Ecology 90:2734–2744

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rejmánek M, Pitcairn MJ (2002) When is eradication of exotic pest plants a realistic goal? In: Veitch CR, Clout MN (eds) Turning the tide: the eradication of invasive species. IUCN Gland, Cambridge, pp 249–253

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson DM, Pyšek P (2006) Plant invasions: merging the concepts of species invasiveness and community invasibility. Prog Phys Geog 30:409–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnitzer SA, Bongers F (2011) Increasing liana abundance and biomass in tropical forests: emerging patterns and putative mechanisms. Ecol Lett 14:397–406

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff D (1997) The biology of invasions. In: Simberloff D, Schmitz DC, Brown TC (eds) Strangers in paradise: impact and management of nonindigenous species in Florida. Island Press, Washington, pp 3–17

    Google Scholar 

  • US Congress (1993) Harmful non-indigenous species in the United States. Washington, DC: US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, OTA-F-565

  • Wilson JRU, Richardson DM, Rouget M, Proches S, Amis MA, Henderson L, Thuiller W (2007) Residence time and potential range: crucial considerations in modelling plant invasions. Divers Distrib 13:11–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Austin Young and Christina Wiley for conducting WRA assessments and two reviewers for helpful comments. DRG was supported by gifts to the Environmental Defense Fund from the Kravis Scientific Research Fund and Robertson Foundation. Funding for the UF/IFAS Assessment of Non-native Plants in Florida’s Natural Areas is provided in part by the UF/IFAS Deans for Research and Extension and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Environmental Defense Fund, 1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, Washington, DC, 20009, USA

    Doria R. Gordon

  2. Department of Biology, University of Florida, P.O. Box 118526, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA

    Doria R. Gordon

  3. Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants, University of Florida, PO Box 110500, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA

    Deah Lieurance

  4. Agronomy Department, University of Florida, PO Box 110500, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA

    S. Luke Flory

Authors
  1. Doria R. Gordon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Deah Lieurance
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Luke Flory
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Doria R. Gordon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gordon, D.R., Lieurance, D. & Flory, S.L. Predicted versus actual invasiveness of climbing vines in Florida. Biol Invasions 19, 2375–2384 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-017-1448-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-017-1448-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation