earthworms – Center for Invasive Species Prevention

Welcome high-level attention to bioinvasions – although key issues remain unresolved

Japanese knotweed (*Reynoutria japonica*) – one of the worst invaders around globe. Photo by Will Parson, Chesapeake Bay Program via Flickr

On 23 October, Science published a five-page, data-packed analysis of bioinvasion impacts on terrestrial ecosystems!!!

Thakur, Gu, van Kleunen, and Zhou (full citation at end of this blog) analyzed 775 studies with the goal of improving understanding of factors contributing to invasions’ impacts – as distinct from “invasibility” (ability to establish). This knowledge is essential to assessing the risk posed by introduced species and setting priorities for management. They analyzed five ecological contexts—diversity of native species and introduced species in the recipient systems, latitude, invader residence time, and invader traits.

They concluded that ecological factors commonly used to explain invasion success do not consistently translate into strong predictors of invasion impacts. Impacts vary in response to the context of the invasion.

[In January 2026, the authors announced changes in details of the article due to some errors in the database and their understanding of it. (Science 8 Jan 2026 Vol. 391 Issue 6781) They conclude that the corrected analysis did not alter the trends described or the overall conclusions.]

limber pine (*Pinus flexilis*) – one of the species killed by *Cronartium ribicoli*; photo by F.T. Campbell

Among the studies available for analysis, reports on plants dominated: 605 focused on plant invasions, 114 on animal invasions, and only 56 on microbial invasions. Among the animals were one study of Adelges tsugae (hemlock woolly adelgid), two studies of Agrilus planipennis (emerald ash borer) and one study each of Lymantria dispar (spongy moth), and Ips pini (North American pine engraver). Studies also addressed earthworms, ants, rats, and feral hogs. Microorganisms included Cronartium ribicoli (white pine blister rust) and several Phytophthora species, including P. agathidicida (kauri dieback), P. alni (affects alders), and P. ramorum (sudden oak death).

Thakur et al. note the skewed taxonomic coverage and say that the low number and narrow taxonomic/ecological variety in the animals and microorganisms probably limit their ability to reach robust conclusions about the impacts of such invasions.

The most consistent negative impact they found is reductions in native plant diversity. While this is not surprising given the studies analyzed, I think it is still important since it counters the widespread sense that plant invasions are somehow less deserving of a robust response.

The authors also detected some broader ecosystem impacts of plant invasions. Plant invasions increased soil organic carbon; soil nitrogen (ammonium and nitrate), and available phosphorus; soil moisture, litter biomass; and emissions of carbon dioxide (CO₂), nitrous oxide (N₂O), and methane (CH₄). The changes in biogeochemical properties might reinforce impacts on native plant communities. The reported increase in greenhouse gas emissions might reflect a bias in the studies so Thakur et al. call for more research to solidify this finding.

High native plant species richness had only a weak overall effect on ecosystem-level impacts. While plant invasions often resulted in higher overall plant species richness, when considering only native community responses, the gain in species numbers did not necessarily indicate conservation benefits. Native plants’ biomass increased after invasion. This might reflect short-term increases in productivity in response to altered resource conditions or structural facilitation, rather than a long-term reversal of competitive exclusion. Finally, the longer the invasive [plant] species had been present, the greater the negative effects on native diversity. However, soil abiotic property impacts weakened over time. In fact, the initial increase in soil organic carbon and total nitrogen disappeared after 6 to 10 years. This development might reflect fertilization of ecosystems by long-established nitrogen-fixing invaders such as non-native legumes.

Traits of non-native plant species related to growth and resource acquisition were overall weak predictors of ecosystem impacts. Thakur et al. consider that this finding reflects the relatively narrow range of specific leaf area exhibited by the plant species studied most commonly.

Consequently, Thakur et al. urge managers to focus on containment and impact mitigation, and to prioritize persistent losses of native plant diversity. When considering abiotic responses that might lessen over time, managers should apply “adaptive monitoring” (which is not defined).

Thakur et al. had greater difficulty determining the impacts of animal and microorganism invasions because of the smaller number of studies. They could not determine the effect of native species richness. The observed decline in soil organic carbon they thought was attributable to the large proportion of studies (9 out of 114) that focused on introduced earthworms. Earthworms reduce organic matter by consuming litter. Mammals were also found to reduce soil organic carbon. Introduced insects had no significant ecosystem effects on soil organic carbon. Non-native animals also increased soil emissions of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide. The microorganisms included in reviewed studies decreased soil ammonium and increased nitrate, consistent with elevated nitrification. While data on body size of invasive animals were sparse, the authors could determine that larger-bodied species tended to increase soil nitrate while reducing effects on total soil N.

Applying the Results

Thakur et al. report that residence time outperformed other factors as a predictor of invasion impacts. The authors regret the scarcity of long-term studies, especially in the Global South, that could increase our understanding of whether these impacts persist or shift under sustained invasion pressure.

How can scientists apply this information in risk assessments evaluating not-yet introduced species or in deciding what is the appropriate intensity of immediate response to newly detected incursions. Should they give greater weight to others’ studies that focus on long-established invasions by the species in question? Otherwise, this finding seems to largely duplicate the long-established “invasion curve”.

I hope scientists will note that observational studies generally showed stronger impacts than experimental ones, particularly in the case of plant invasions. Perhaps this is true because observational studies better incorporate environmental heterogeneity and longer time spans.

Agrostis stolonifera – one of the plants invading on Prince Edward Island, an Antarctic region island under South African jurisdiction. Photo by Stefan Iefnaer via Wikimedia

Thakur et al. note that one factor they analyzed, “latitude”, incorporates several ecological and anthropogenic components relevant to invasion impacts. One element is the greater native bioidiversity in warmer, lower-latitude, regions. According to the “biotic resistance” hypothesis, greater diversity might make these systems more resistant to bioinvasion. However, the situation is complicated by the fact that temperate regions have also often experienced longstanding and intensive land-use modifications — which are believed to facilitate invasive species establishment and spread. I regret that the authors make no attempt to separate the effects of factors that are anthropogenic from those arising from immutable conditions, e.g., latitude, topography, weather patterns, etc.

Thakur et al. call for more studies that cover a wider geographic range. In addition, the studies should include more experimental designs and explore the relationship between invaders’ traits and impacts — especially regarding animals and microbes.

SOURCE

Thakur, M.P., Z. Gu, M. van Kleunen, X. Zhou. 2025. Invasion impacts in terrestrial ecosystems: Global patterns and predictors. Science 23 October 2025

Posted by Faith Campbell

We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.

For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm

https://fadingforests.org

Threats to Spring

*Erythronium americanum* dominating herb layer in woods owned by the Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, in the 1970s; photo by F.T. Campbell

I fell in love with spring ephemerals in the woods of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Princeton. While the degree I was pursuing had no relationship to birding in the swamp, I spent a lot of time enjoying the woods. At that time, more than 50 years ago, the herbaceous layer was dominated by spring beauties (Claytonia virginica), trout lilies (Erythronium americanum), and violets (Viola species).

Beyond the beauty that delights us (or at least, me!), spring ephemerals are important ecologically. They support specialist pollinators and reduce nutrient losses at a time of year when vegetation cover is low and leaching and runoff rates high.

In the decades since I left Princeton, scientists and nature lovers have observed declines in native understory plant communities. These are predicted to continue due to invasion by plants and worms, worm blogs herbivore pressure by deer, E NPS blog, Blossey blog land use changes, and climate change.

Where I live, in the suburbs of the District of Columbia, these forces are clear. The formerly glorious riparian forests where I walk are overrun by invasive plants. The herb layer is dominated by Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum) and – increasingly — lesser celandine (Ficaria verna = Ranunculus ficaria). (I found it interesting that Ficaria began taking over floodplain forests only in the last decades of the 20^th century, although it was introduced more than 100 years earlier.) Many invasive shrubs (Rosa multiflora, various Lonicera species. …) and vines (Ampelopsis sp, Orbiculatus, Lonicera japonica, Hedera helix …) compound the problem. While I am not sure whether most earthworms here are native or not, high deer populations certainly are a factor.

*Ficaria* invasion in Fairfax County, Virginia in 2023; photo by F.T. Campbell

So I rejoice that scientists are studying how one taxon of spring ephemerals, trout lilies – Erythronium species – are coping with individual and combined threats. Gutiérrez and Hovick (full citation at the end of this blog) investigated how two species of Erythronium performed in the absence of a leaf litter layer – with and without competition by Ficaria. They chose to manipulate leaf litter as a proxy for impacts from invasive earthworms and non-native shrubs, especially those with rapidly decomposing leaves. They refer to others’ studies focused on different spring ephemerals.

Gutiérrez and Hovick found that the absence of leaf litter reduced asexual reproduction (corm biomass) in both Erythronium albidum and E. americanum species by 30%. That is, the absence of leaf litter alone reduced the native plants’ performance. This is alarming because persistent leaf litter has been reduced across much of the deciduous forests of eastern North America as a result of action by invasive earthworms and the rapid decomposition of the leaves of most invasive shrubs.

Trout lilies’ performance declined even more when litter absence was coupled with direct competition from Ficaria. Under those conditions, corm biomass declined by 50%. Impacts by lesser celandine occurred despite these plants’ being smaller than counterparts in nearby woodlands. The reduced size of Erythronium corms was sufficient, in their view, to reduce the likelihood that Erythronium would flower to nearly zero. This has clear implications for the long-term population viability of Erythronium andtheir specialist pollinators.

Gutiérrez and Hovick conclude restoration of these floodplain forests’ herb layer must incorporate management strategies that not only reduce Ficaria’s presence but also restore leaf litter.

*Erythronium albidum* along Accotink Creek in Fairfax County, Virginia; photo by F.T. Campbell

Underlying Factors

Native spring ephemerals in eastern North America evolved to emerge through litter layers in early spring. The litter layers impose both costs and benefits. In response to shading by leaf litter, Erythronium produces larger petioles compared to same-sized leaves, thus reducing the proportion of resources allocated to building photosynthetic tissue. In these cases, the corms that both perpetuate the individual and carry out asexual reproduction are smaller.

On the other hand, leaf litter increases moisture retention and reduces frost damage by buffering soil temperatures. While these results were seen in their experiment, Gutiérrez and Hovick believe the benefits are greater in nature than demonstrated in the study using potted plants. Leaf litter also increases nutrient availability, directly by increasing supply and indirectly by facilitating fine root growth. In this context, they note that their experiment used litter composed of just two tree species — red oak (Quercus rubra) and red maple (Acer rubrum). This narrow sample probably failed to capture the varied properties of other tree species’ litter and associated microbial activity.

*Erythronium americanum* along Pohick Creek; photo by F.T. Campbelle

Plants in the Erythronium genus reproduce primarily asexually through producing runners that form corms. The parent corm and runners disintegrate before summer dormancy; the offspring corms persist. Some individuals do not reproduce asexually; they simply replenish their own corm.

The few previous studies give mixed results regarding lesser celandine’s impacts on co-occurring native herbaceous plants (see the summaries in Gutiérrez and Hovick). The authors do not explicitly say whether lesser celandine is usually associated with low litter levels, but that appears to be the implication. They do say that it is not clear whether lesser celandine drives leaf litter loss by altering soil physiochemistry and microbial activity. Or, rather, that it simply performs well when leaf litter is absent.

Where lesser celandine and Erythronium co-occur at high densities, the former’s biomass per square meter can be more than an order of magnitude higher than Erythronium. Gutiérrez and Hovick suggest that competition between the species is primarily belowground. They cite their finding that by the time Erythronium shoots matured, lesser celandine roots occupied most of the belowground pot volume. They expect belowground competition in forests to be even more pronounced because of accumulated lesser celandine root biomass.

Aboveground, the principal factor appears to be the necessity for trout lilies to grow longer petioles to raise their leaves above lesser celandine rosettes, perhaps starving leaf formation. Since leaves are the plant’s photosynthetic organ, this tradeoff could ultimately result in fewer resources returned to the corm for future growth and reproduction. Although Gutiérrez and Hovick also mention that lesser celandine competition might delay Erythronium emergence and flowering, they do not discuss that.

A factor not mentioned by Gutiérrez and Hovick is the probability that Ficaria verna is allelopathic. See the article by Kendra Cipollini listed as a source at the end if this blog.

one of the few floodplains in Fairfax County still dominated by native herbs – Pohick Creek in the Burke area of Fairfax County, Virginia. Note the prevalence of beech in the canopy and subcanopy! photo by F.T. Campbell

Details of Impaired Performance of Erythronium

At the time of senescence, Erythronium plants grown in pots with leaf litter were nearly twice as large as those grown in bare soil conditions. One-third of their offspring corms grew to be larger than the putative biomass threshold for flowering. Only 9% of corms of plants grown in bare soil and 2% (one individual) of those grown with lesser celandine did. As noted above, corms developed by Erythronium grown in the presence of Ficaria actually lost biomass. This is the basis for their conclusion that there would be almost no sexual reproduction the following year where litter was absent and lesser celandine present.

Gutiérrez and Hovick think the principle mechanisms by which leaf litter affects performance of Erythronium plants is by buffering temperature ranges and increasing moisture retention. Indeed, they found that daily temperature ranges and maxima of soil in pots with bare soil or lesser celandine plants were both higher than temperatures under leaf litter. Reducing temperature maxima could be especially important with the increasing frequency and intensity of late-spring heatwaves associated with climate change. Absence of leaf litter advanced trout lily’s shoot emergence, flower emergence, and petal opening by 14 or more days.

This change might expose the plants to increased risk of frost damage. These dynamics will be system-specific, especially with complications added by climate change. However, Therefore, Gutiérrez and Hovick encourage future research to explore species-specific litter effects on spring ephemerals.

Broader Implications

Their findings regarding these two species of spring ephemerals prompt Gutiérrez and Hovick to assert that negative impacts from invasive plant species might be especially underestimated in spring ephemeral communities due to the combination of their short period of annual aboveground activity and tendency towards long lives. Changes might be very subtle over short timeframes.

They add that it is important to learn the role different conditions might play in the futures of related species. The two species’ ranges largely overlap, but E. americanum extends into the extreme southeast and northeast, E. albidum into the prairie states. Although these species’ respond to loss of leaf litter and lesser celandine invasions in similar ways, the fact that E. albidum occurs in areas of higher soil moisture makes it more vulnerable to negative population-level impacts from lesser celandine invasions.

Note about additional threats

Most of the photos of Erythronium americanum in this blog were taken along a particular creek in Fairfax County, Virginia. Ficaria has just begun to invade this area (see photo above); deer are plentiful. These plants face another bioinvasion: beech leaf disease has arrived. Widespread mortality of the predominantly beech understory will presumably open areas to more light, probably spread of the extant invasive plants.

beech in Fairfax County, Virginia with symptoms of beech leaf disease; photo by F.T. Campbell

SOURCES

Cipollini, K. and K.D. Schradin. 2011. Guilty in the Court of Public Opinion: Testing Presumptive Impacts and Allelopathic Potential of Ranunculus ficaria”

Gutiérrez, R.G. and S.M. Hovick. 2025. Compounding negative effects of leaf litter absence and belowground competition from an invasive spring ephemeral on native spring ephemeral growth and reproduction. Biol Invasions (2025) 27:213 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-025-03668-4

Forest Regeneration — Need to See Holistic Picture

Research scientists in the USFS Northern Region (Region 9) – Maine to Minnesota, south to West Virginia and Missouri – continue to be concerned about regeneration patterns of the forest and the future productivity of northern hardwood forests.

The most recent study of which I am aware is that by Stern et al. (2023) [full citation at the end of this blog]. They sought to determine how four species often dominant in the Northeast (or at least in New England) might cope with climate change. Those four species are red maple (Acer rubrum), sugar maple (Acer saccharum), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), and yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis). The study involved considerable effort: they examined tree ring data from 690 dominant and co-dominant trees on 45 plots at varying elevations across Vermont. The tree ring data allowed them to analyze each species’ response to several stressors over the 70-year period of 1945 to 2014.

In large part their findings agreed with those of studies carried out earlier, or at other locations. As expected, all four species grew robustly during the early decades, then plateaued – indicative of a maturing forest. All species responded positively to summer and winter moisture and negatively to higher summer temperatures. Stern et al. described the importance of moisture availability in non-growing seasons – i.e., winter – as more notable.

The American Northeast and adjacent areas in Canada have already experienced an unprecedented increase of precipitation over the last several decades. This pattern is expected to continue or even increase under climate change projections. However, Stern et al. say this development is not as promising for tree growth as it first appears. The first caveat is that winter snow will increasingly be replaced by rain. The authors discuss the importance of the insulation of trees’ roots provided by snow cover. They suggest that this insulation might be particularly necessary for sugar maple.

The second caveat is that precipitation is not expected to increase in the summer; it might even decrease. Their data indicate that summer rainfall – during both the current and preceding years – has a significant impact on tree growth rates.

Stern et al. also found that the rapid rise in winter minimum temperatures was associated with slower growth by sugar maple, beech, and yellow birch, as well as red maple at lower elevations. Still, temperature had less influence than moisture metrics.

Stern et al. discuss specific responses of each species to changes in temperatures, moisture availability, and pollutant deposition. Of course, pollutant levels are decreasing in New England due to implementation of provisions of the Clean Air Act of 1990.

They conclude that red maple will probably continue to outcompete the other species.

In their paper, Stern et al. fill in some missing pieces about forests’ adaptation to the changing climate. I am disappointed, however, that these authors did not discuss the role of biotic stressors, i.e., “pests”.

They do report that growth rates of American beech increased in recent years despite the prevalence of beech bark disease. They note that others’ studies have also found an increase in radial growth for mature beech trees in neighboring New Hampshire, where beech bark disease is also rampant.

For more specific information on pests, we can turn to Ducey at al. – also published in 2023. These authors expected American beech to dominate the Bartlett Experimental Forest (in New Hampshire) despite two considerations that we might expect to suppress this growth. First, 70-90% of beech trees were diseased by 1950. Second, managers have made considerable efforts to suppress beech.

Stern et al. say specifically that their study design did not allow analysis of the impact of beech bark disease. I wonder at that decision since American beech is one of four species studied. More understandable, perhaps, is the absence of any mention of beech leaf disease. In 2014, the cutoff date for their growth analysis, beech leaf disease was known only in northeastern Ohio and perhaps a few counties in far western New York and Pennsylvania. Still, by the date of publication of their study, beech leaf disease was recognized as a serious disease established in southern New England.

counties where beech leaf disease has been confirmed

Eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) and northern red oak (Quercus rubra) are described as common co-occurring dominant species in the plots analyzed by Stern et al. Although hemlock woolly adelgid has been killing trees in southern Vermont for years, Stern et al. did not discuss the possible impact of that pest on the forest’s regeneration trajectory. Nor did they assess the possible effects of oak wilt, which admittedly is farther away (in New York (& here) and in Ontario, Canada, west of Lake Erie).

In contrast, Ducey at al. (2023) did discuss link to blog 344 the probable impact of several non-native insects and diseases. In addition to beech bark disease, they addressed hemlock woolly adelgid, emerald ash borer, and beech leaf disease.

Non-native insects and pathogens are of increasing importance in our forests. To them, we can add overbrowsing by deer, proliferation of non-native plants, and spread of non-native earthworms. There is every reason to think the situation will only become more complex. I hope forest researchers will make a creative leap – incorporate the full range of factors affecting the future of US forests.

I understand that such a more integrated, holistic analysis might be beyond any individual scientist’s expertise or time, funding, and constraints of data availability and analysis. I hope, though, that teams of collaborators will compile an overview based on combining their research approaches. Such an overview would include human management actions, climate variables, established and looming pest infestations, etc. I hope, too, that these experts will extrapolate from their individual, site-specific findings to project region-wide effects.

Some studies have taken a more integrative approach. Reed, Bronson, et al. (2022) studied interactions of earthworm biomass and density with deer. Spicer et al. (2023) examined interactions of deer browsing and various vegetation management actions. Hoven et al. (2022) considered interactions of non-native shrubs, tree basal area, and forest moisture regimes.

See also my previous blogs on studies of regeneration in New Hampshire, North Carolina, National parks in the East, Allegheny Plateau and Ohio, and the impact of deer.

SOURCE

Stern, R.L., P.G. Schaberg, S.A. Rayback, C.F. Hansen, P.F. Murakami, G.J. Hawley. 2023. Growth trends and environmental drivers of major tree species of the northern hardwood forest of eastern North America. J. For. Res. (2023) 34:37–50 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-022-01553-7

Posted by Faith Campbell

www.fadingforests.org

Europe outlaws “ecocide”

American bullfrog (*Lithobates catesbeianus*); photo by Will Brown via Wikimedia; one of invasive animals deliberately introduced to Europe in the past

In February 2024 the European Parliament approved legislation outlawing “ecocide” and providing sanctions for environmental crimes. Member states now have two years to enshrine its provisions in national law.

The new rules update the list of environmental crimes adopted in 2008 and enhance the sanctions. The goal is to ensure more effective enforcement. Listed among the offenses are:

the import and use of mercury and fluorinated greenhouse gases,
the import of invasive species,
the illegal depletion of water resources, and
pollution caused by ships.

This action followed an in-depth analysis of the failures of the previous EU environmental directive, first adopted in 2008 (Directive 2008/99/EC). The review found that:

The Directive had little effect on the ground.
Over the 10 years since its adoption few environmental crime cases were successfully investigated and sentenced.
Sanction levels were too low to dissuade violations.
There had been little systematic cross-border cooperation.

EU Member states were not enforcing the Directive’s provisions. They had provided insufficient resources to the task. They had not developed the needed specialized knowledge and public awareness. They were not sharing information or coordinating either among individual governments’ several agencies or with neighboring countries.

The review found that poor data hampered attempts by both the EU body and national policy-makers to evaluate the Directive’s efficacy.

The new Directive attempts to address these weaknesses. To me, the most important change is that complying with a permit no longer frees a company or its leadership from criminal liability. These individuals now have a “duty of care”. According to Antonius Manders, Dutch MEP from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), if new information shows that actions conducted under the permit are “causing irreversible damage to health and nature – you will have to stop.” This action reverses the previous EU environmental crime directive – and most member state laws. Until now, environmental crime could be punished only if it is unlawful; as long as an enterprise was complying with a permit, its actions would not be considered unlawful. Michael Faure, a professor of comparative and international environmental law at Maastricht University, calls this change revolutionary.

Another step was to make corporate leadership personally liable to penalties, including imprisonment. If a company’s actions cause substantial environmental harm, the CEOs and board members can face prison sentences of up to eight years. If the environmental harm results in the death of any person, the penalty can be increased to ten years.

Financial penalties were also raised. Each Member state sets the fines within certain parameters. Fines may be based on either a proportion of annual worldwide turnover (3 to 5%) or set at a fixed fine (up to 40 million euros). Companies might also be obliged to reinstate the damaged environment or compensate for the damage caused. Companies might also lose their licenses or access to public funding, or even be forced to close.

Proponents of making ecocide the fifth international crime at the International Criminal Court argue that the updated directive effectively criminalizes “ecocide” — defined as “unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts.”

Individual member states also decide whether the directive will apply to offences committed outside EU borders by EU companies.

Some members of the European Parliament advocate for an even stronger stance: creation of a public prosecutor at the European Union level. They hope that the Council of Europe will incorporate this idea during its ongoing revision of the Convention on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law. To me, this seems unlikely since the current text of the Convention, adopted by the Council in 1998, has never been ratified so it has not come into force.

The Council of Europe covers a wider geographic area than the European Union – 46 member states compared to 27. Members of the Council of Europe which are not in the EU include the United Kingdom, Norway, Switzerland, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Serbia, Kosovo, Albania; several mini-states, e.g., Monaco and San Remo; and countries in arguably neighboring regions, e.g., Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey.

While I rejoice that invasive species are included in the new Directive, I confess that I am uncertain about the extent to which this inclusion will advance efforts to prevent spread. The species under consideration would apparently have to be identified by some European body as “invasive” and its importation restricted. As we know, many of the most damaging species are not recognized as invasive before their introduction to a naïve environment. On the other side, the requirement that companies recognize new information and halt damaging actions – even when complying with a permit! – provides for needed flexibility.

Posted by Faith Campbell

www.fadingforests.org

Invading deer, earthworms, shrubs & more! Managing Forests with Many Risks

a West Virginia forest; photo by Jarek Tuszyński

The Eastern deciduous forest is large and important ecologically. The forest is important for biological diversity: it shelters many endangered species, especially plants, molluscs and fish, mammals, and reptiles. In addition, the majority of forest carbon stocks in the U.S. are those of the eastern states.

But the Eastern deciduous forest is also under many anthropogenic stresses – including high numbers of non-native insects and pathogens, Liebhold map high numbers of invasive plants, blog invasive earthworms, blog browsing by overabundant deer, and timber extraction. In the southern portions of the forest, human populations are expanding, resulting in landscape fragmentation (USDA FS 2023b RPA, full reference at end of this blog).

map showing number of non-native pests in each county, as of ~2010

Agency and academic scientists in the USDA Forest Service Eastern Region (Maine to Minnesota; Delaware to West Virginia, then north of the Ohio River to Missouri) are trying to understand how long-term, continuous stressors, like deer browsing and invasive plants and earthworms, – interact with short-term gap-forming events. They call the long-term stressors “press” disturbances to distinguish them from the short-term “pulse” disturbances (Reed, Bronson, et al.; full citation at end of this blog). Understanding the processes by which forests recover from disturbance is increasingly important. Climate change is expected to raise the frequency and intensity of catastrophic natural disturbances (Spicer and Reed, Royo et al.).

The scientists emphasize that the impacts of these stressors – and effective solutions — vary depending on context.

Invasive Earthworms

USDA APHIS is responsible for regulating introduction of new species. For earthworms, APHIS’ principal concern is clearly the possibility that imported worms or soil might transport pathogens. However, the agency’s website does mention worms’ ability to disrupt the soil and possibly cause undesirable impacts on plant growth and diversity. At the 2023 National Plant Board meeting in early August 2023, Gregg Goodman, Senior Agriculturalist in APHIS PPQ NPB website for agenda? discussed issues that he considers when evaluating whether to grant permits for importing earthworms. APHIS allows imports to be used for fish bait. Dr. Goodman explained that APHIS surveyed fishermen to determine where they dump unused bait. He found no damage to plants along streams, etc. where they are dumped. A state plant health official from a northern state and I objected that the ecosystem damage caused by earthworms is well documented and we doubted that dumping of bait is not a pathway for introducing worms into natural areas.

Reed, Bronson et al. found lower earthworm biomass and density in both deer exclosures and canopy gaps. They hypothesize that the new plant growth associated with canopy gaps attracts deer, resulting in increased browse pressure. That browse pressure then affects the plant community, succession and forest structure. The changed plant community affects soil properties that then affect soil-dwelling fauna like earthworms. They believe the higher worm densities in closed-canopy sites might be the result of nutrient-rich tree leaf litter which provides both shelter and food. Another factor might be lack of recent soil disturbances in closed canopy sites.

While they say need more research is needed on the complex, combined effects of earthworms and deer, Reed, Bronson et al. still suggest that reducing deer populations or – where that is not possible – creating gaps might help manage earthworm invasions.

Deer Interactions

The long-term, chronic effect of excessive deer herbivory are well documented. See the many presentations at the recent Northern Hardwood research forum (USDA FS 2023b Proceedings). Most studies show that deer browsing overwhelms other disturbances, such as fire and canopy gaps that typically promote seedling diversity. However, recent results refine our understanding.

Samuel P. Reed and colleagues (Reed, Royo et al.) found that on the Allegheny Plateau of western Pennsylvania high deer densities at the time of stand initiation resulted in long-term reduced tree species diversity, density, and basal area. These responses were still detectable nearly four decades later. Stands are dominated by the unpalatable black cherry (Prunus serotina). The reduced stand density and the cherries’ narrower crowns lead to less above-ground biomass and reductions in above-ground carbon stocks. These scientists recommend that managers reduce deer populations to prevent changes in forest structure with probably long-term and important ramifications for many ecosystem functions.

*Prunus serotina*; photo by Awinch1001 via Flickr

Hoven et al. concurred with the importance of reducing deer densities, but suggested focussing on wet sites where, in their study, deer browsing had its greatest effects. On drier sites deer browsing had no effect on the diversity of woody plant seedlings.

Spicer et al. seek particularly to maintain a heterogeneous landscape to allow coexistence of both early- and late-successional species. In the Eastern Deciduous Forest biome, herbs, shrubs, and vines comprise 93% of the species richness of vascular plants

These authors found that the impact of deer browsing diverged depending on vegetation management actions. In wind-throw gaps where the plant community was retained, deer caused a 14% decline in shrub cover. In contrast, when scientists removed the extant vegetation at the beginning of recovery, deer exclusion caused a 67% increase in shrub cover. The authors speculate that vegetation removal stimulated abundant blackberry (Rubus species) regrowth. Where they had access (in gaps lacking exclosures), deer heavily browsed young Rubus stalks that sprouted after the competing vegetation was cut down. However, when the pre-established vegetation was not removed, older Rubus thickets might have protected other herbs and shrubs from browsing. Spicer et al. did not observe any major shifts in browse-tolerant species in deer-exclusion plots.

Invasive Shrubs

Hoven et al. found that in drier forest plots, the presence of non-native shrubs reduced native seedling abundance, richness, and diversity. Instead there were more seedlings of introduced species, including Lonicera maackii, L. morrowii, Ligustrum sp., and Rosa multiflora. They are concerned that replacement by invasive honeysuckles might be particularly strong in gaps resulting from death of ash trees caused by emerald ash borer. Woodlands could become dominated introduced shrubs, reducing diversity. Consequently, they recommend removing non-native shrubs in drier forests to promote seedling numbers and diversity.

In contrast, in wetter forests basal area of non-native shrubs did not affect introduced seedling abundance. However, the shrubs’ size did promote greater proportions of Lonicera maackii and Ligustrum seedlings. They suggest this might be the outcome of either abundant seed sources or allelopathic properties of some invasive shrubs e.g., L. maackii. In such sites, seedling diversity is already limited to plants that tolerate waterlogging. A hopeful note is that one native shrub, Lindera benzoin, seems able to prevent establishment of L. maackii.

*Lonicera maackii*; photo by pverdonk via Flickr

Hoven et al. do worry that death of ash trees might lead to declining transpiration rates, raising water tables, and further reducing seedling species richness and diversity.

Impact of Salvage Logging and Vegetation Removal

Spicer et al. studied how anthropogenic stressors affect succession. These scientists took advantage of tornado-caused gaps to compare interactions with deer browsing, salvage logging, and mechanical removal of the understory.

Contrary to expectations, none of these anthropogenic disturbances delayed community recovery or reduced diversity in comparison to the natural disturbance (tornado blowdown). Instead, adding either salvage logging or mechanical removal of understory vegetation substantially enhanced herbaceous species richness and shrub cover.

However, each major plant growth form responded differently. First, none of the manipulations affected species diversity or abundance of tree seedlings and saplings. Second, salvage logging in the wind-throw gaps increased species richness of herbs by 30%. Shrub abundance was doubled and cover almost tripled, but species richness did not change. Third, removing competing understory vegetation caused an increase of 23% in mean herbaceous cover. I have already discussed the impact of excluding deer.

Spicer et al. greet these increases in species richness with enthusiasm; they recommend managing to create a patchwork of combined natural and anthropogenic disturbances to promote plant diversity. However, I have some questions about which species are being promoted.

This study identified a total of 264 vascular plant species: 40 trees, 190 herbs, 15 shrubs, 17 vines, and 2 of unknown growth form. Only about half of these, 123 species, grew in portions of the mature forest not affected by either the tornado or one of the anthropogenic manipulations.

Gaps contained more plant species – as is to be expected. Natural blowdown areas where no manipulation was carried out had 49 more species than the undisturbed forest community (172 species). Blowdown sites subjected to salvage logging added another 53 species for a total of 225 species, or 102 more than the undisturbed reference forest.

A total of 17 species occurred only once in the authors’ data [= unique species]. Eight of these species grew only in the undisturbed forest. Two grew only in the tornado-impacted plots. Spicer et al. do not elaborate on whether these species are officially rare in that part of Pennsylvania – although it seems they might be. I wish Spicer et al. had addressed whether these possibly rare species might be affected by the forest management they recommend, i.e., intentionally creating a patchwork of various disturbances. An additional seven unique species were found in plots that had been subjected to an anthropogenic disturbance — either salvage logging or removal of remnant vegetation.

nodding trillium (*Trillium cernuum*); imperiled by restricted range or low populations; photo by Jason Ryndock, Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program

In tornado-disturbed sites, one native species associated with areas where vegetation was left intact is one of the gorgeous wildflowers of eastern deciduous forests: a Trillium (species not indicated). The one native plant associated with plots from which vegetation was removed was a grass (unspecified).

Spicer et al. report that the proportion of the flora composed of non-native species was very similar between the salvage-logged area (7%) and the undisturbed reference forest (5%). Half of the non-native plant species (3.5% or 9 species) are listed as invasive in Pennsylvania (the article does not list them).

Spicer et al. say these non-native species are relatively uncommon and that they pose a minimal threat. They do concede that the invasive thorny shrub barberry (Berberis thunbergii) was more common in disturbed than intact areas. [I saw plenty of barberry along forest edges in Cook State Forest, which is only 100 miles away from the study site.] I think Spicer and others are too blasé since invasive plant populations can build up quickly when seed sources are present.

Spicer et al. raise two caveats. First, their results regarding the beneficial effects of salvage logging and vegetation manipulation probably will not apply to situations in which vast areas are logged.

More pertinent to us, they warn that their results would also not apply to forest areas in which propagules have been drastically depleted. This can result from previous human land-use or repeated catastrophic disturbances, such as canopy fires. Nor would their results apply to forests that are more threatened by invasive species. They note that a widespread and dense understory of multiple non-native species can create invasional meltdowns, resulting in a lasting depauperate state. This is especially the case when invaders at higher trophic levels, such as earthworms, are part of the mix.

Other Lessons

Reed, Bronson et al. conclude that forest canopies’ responses to disturbance are too variable to be measured by a single method. Evaluating proposals for management will require multiple measures. The overwhelming recommendation of presenters at the recent northern hardwoods research symposium (USDA FS 2023a Proceedings) was to adapt more flexible management strategies to promote forest sustainability and species diversity.

Hovena et al.’s principal finding is that interactions among site wetness, non-native shrubs and the total basal area of trees in the stand had the largest impacts on the species composition of seedlings. In Ohio, site wetness and chronic stressors like deer and introduced shrubs are acting together to shift seedling communities towards fewer native species. Of these three long-term “press” stresses, the interaction between introduced shrubs and soil wetness overshadowed even the impact of deer herbivory on seedling species richness and abundance. Surprisingly, site-specific characteristics – e.g., wetness, canopy tree competition, deer herbivory and introduced shrubs – were more influential than ash mortality in shaping woody seedling communities.

SOURCES

Hoven, B.M., K.S. Knight, V.E. Peters, D.L. Gorchov. 2022. Woody seedling community responses to deer herbivory, introduced shrubs, and ash mortality depend on canopy competition and site wetness. Forest Ecology and Management 523 (2022) 120488

Reed, S.P., D.R. Bronson, J.A. Forrester, L.M. Prudent, A.M. Yang, A.M. Yantes, P.B. Reich, and L.E. Frelich. 2023. Linked disturbance in the temperate forest: Earthworms, deer, and canopy gaps. Ecology. 2023;104:e4040. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/r/ecy

Reed, S.P, A.A. Royo, A.T. Fotis, K.S. Knight, C.E. Flower, and P.S. Curtis. 2022. The long-term impacts of deer herbivory in determining temperate forest stand and canopy structural complexity. Journal of Applied Ecology. 2022; 59:812-821

Spicer, M.E., A.A. Royo, J.W. Wenzel, and W.P. Carson. 2023. Understory plant growth forms respond independently to combined natural and anthropogenic disturbances. Forest Ecology and Management 543 (2023) 12077

United States Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. 2023a. Proceedings of the First Biennial Northern Hardwood Conference 2021: Bridging Science and Management for the Future. Northern Research Station General Technical Report NRS-P-211 May 2023

United States Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. 2023b. Future of America’s Forests and Rangelands. Forest Service 2020 Resources Planning Act Assessment. GTR-WO-102. July 2023 https://www.fs.usda.gov/research/treesearch/66413

Posted by Faith Campbell