URBANIZED PLANT COMMUNITIES DOMINATED BY INVASIVE ACER NEGUNDO

  • M.M. MADANI
Keywords: urboecology, invasive plants, ecosystem, urban vegetation, urbanization, fragmentation, α-diversity.

Abstract

Goal. To compare the α-diversity parameters of plant communities prone and not prone to A. negundo invasion, but aligned with each other according to other characteristics (degree of urbanization, fragmentation, anthropogenic disturbance). Methods. Complex use of field, laboratory, mathematical-statistical, calculationcomparative methods and system analysis. Results. We compared the α-diversity of groups of the grass layer, prone and not prone to Acer negundo invasion, but aligned with each other according to the degree of urbanization, fragmentation, and anthropogenic disturbance. The research was carried out in Odesa on 13 sites with two test sites on each: one – grouping dominated by A. negund; the second is a grouping dominated by other types of trees, i.e. 26 communities in total. It was established that the main reasons for the variation in the characteristics of the grass layer are the dominant tree species (A. negundo or other trees) and the area of plantations. In thickets of A. negundo, the number of grass species per 400 m2 was lower than under the crowns of other trees: 17±3 and 28±3, respectively. However, communities with and without A. negundo did not differ in Shannon index values and degree of dominance, as well as in the ratio of annual/perennial species and graminoids/herbs. The increase in habitat fragmentation was accompanied by an increase in the share of synanthropic species both under the canopy of A. negundo and in groups dominated by other trees. From a methodological point of view, the results showed that when assessing the consequences of plant invasions, it is necessary to take into account the spatial regularities of the determination of the structure of groupings. Conclusions. It was established that the main effect accompanying the dominance of the alien North American tree Acer negundo in urbanized communities is a decrease in the species richness of the grass layer. The change of most other characteristics of the groups under the influence of A. negundo was not confirmed. The effect of A. negundo on grass species is non-selective or slightly selective, but special studies are needed to reliably find out the degree of such selectivity. It was established that the reasons for variation in the composition of urbanized plant communities are the dominant tree species (A. negundo or other trees) and the area of plantations. Thus, from a methodological point of view, the obtained results indicate that when assessing the consequences of plant invasions at the scale of groups, it is necessary to take into account spatial and other regularities of the structure of groups. A clear division of the effects of urbanization, fragmentation, habitat pollution, as well as the consequences of the introduction of alien plants is possible only with special methodological efforts. Otherwise, there is a possibility of misinterpreting the effects of urbanization or fragmentation as the effects of alien species invasions or vice versa.

References

1. Wilcove D.S., Rothstein D., Dubow J. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. Bioscience. 2000. V. 48. № 8. P. 607-615.
2. Vila M., Espinar J.L., Hejda M. Ecological impacts of invasive alien plants: a meta-analysis of their effects on species, communities and ecosystems. Ecol. Lett. 2011. V. 14. № 7. P. 702-708. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01628.x
3. Gioria M., Osborne B.A. Resource competition in plant invasions: emerging patterns and research needs. Front. Plant Sci. 2014. V. 5. № 501. P. 1-21. https://doi. org/10.3389/fpls.2014.00501
4. Vila M., Corbin J.D., Dukes J.S. Linking plant invasions to global environmental change. Terrestrial ecosystems in a changing world. Berlin : Springer, 2006. 294 р. 5. Maron J.L., Marler M. Effects of native species diversity and resource additions on invader impact. Am. Nat. 2008. V. 172. № 1. P. 18-33. https://doi.org/10.1086/588303
6. Hejda M., Pyšek P., Jarošík V. Impact of invasive plants on the species richness, diversity and composition of invaded communities. J. Ecol. 2009. V. 97. № 3. P. 393-403.
7. Lanta V., Hyvonen T., Norrdahl K. Non-native and native shrubs have differing impacts on species diversity and composition of associated plant communities. Plant Ecol. 2013. V. 214. № 12. P. 1517-1528. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11258-013-0272-0
8. Blackburn T.M., Bellard C., Ricciardi A. Alien versus native species as drivers of recent extinctions. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2019. V. 17. № 4. P. 203-207. https://doi. org/10.1002/fee.2020
9. Davis M., Chew M.K., Hobbs R.J. Don’t judge species on their origins. Nature. 2011. V. 474 (7350). P. 153-154. https://doi.org/10.1038/474153a
10. Kowarik I., von der Lippe M., Cierjacks A. Prevalence of alien versus native species of woody plants in Berlin differs between habitats and at different scales. Preslia. 2013. V. 85. № 2. P. 113-132.
11. Кисельов Ю.О., Суханова І.П., Парахненко В.Г., Швець Я.А., Черниш В.І. Адвентивна флора України: географічні особливості поширення. Науковий вісник НЛТУ України. 2020. Т. 30. № 1. С. 9-13. https:// doi.org/10.36930/40300101
12. Іващенко О.О., Бурда Р.І. Європейська політика щодо інвазійних чужорідних видів рослин і перспективи її запровадження в Україні. Наукові праці Інституту біоенергетичних культур і цукрових буряків. 2014. Вип. 20. С. 46-54. URL: http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/ znpicb_2014_20_10 (звернення 11.07.2022).
13. Бурда Р.І., Пашкевич Н.А., Бойко Г.В. Чужорідні види охоронних флор Лісостепу України. Київ : Наукова думка, 2015. 116 с.
14. Клименко Т.К., Сягайло І.О. Успішність впровадження інвазійних видів деревних рослин в урбофітоценози. Екологічні науки. 2020. № 1(28). С. 328-334. https:// doi.org/10.32846/2306-9716/2020.eco.1-28.53
15. Гусєва К.Д., Пилипенко Г.П., Сафранов Т.А. Ландшафтні передумови забруднення урбоекосистем (на прикладі території міста Одеси). Вісник Одеського державного екологічного університету. 2012. Вип. 13. C. 17-28.
16. Федорчук М.М., Протопопова В.В., Шевера М.В., Шевчик В.Л. Синантропізація лісового та чагарникового флорокомплексів Середнього Придніпров'я (Україна). Науковий вісник Чернівецького університету. Біологія. 2020. Т.12. № 2. С. 263-278. https:// doi.org/10.31861/biosystems2020.02.263
17. Гудзевич Ф.В., Гудзевич Л.С., Любченко В.Є. До проблеми збереження й відновлення біорізноманіття на природоохоронних та суміжних з ними територіях. Моніторинг та охорона біорізноманіття в Україні. Моніторинг та охорона біорізноманіття в Україні. 2020. Вип. 16. Т. 1. С. 66-74.
18. Міськова О.В. Участь інвазійних видів рослин у різних типах біотопів регіонального ландшафтного парку «Сеймський». Класифікація рослинності та біотопів України : матеріали IV наук.-теорет. конф., м. Київ, 25-26 березня 2020. Київ, 2020. С. 106-115.
19. Reinhart K.O., Greene E., Callaway R.M. Effects of Acer platanoides invasion on understory plant communities and tree regeneration in the Rocky Mountains. Ecography. 2005. V. 28. № 5. P. 573-582.
20. Schuster M.J., Reich P.B. Amur maple (Acer ginnala): an emerging invasive plant in North America. Biol. Invasions. 2018. V. 20. № 10. P. 2997-3007.
21. Del Vecchio S., Acosta A., Stanisci A. The impact of Acacia saligna invasion on Italian coastal dune EC habitats. Comptes Rendus Biologies. 2013. V. 336. № 7. P. 364-369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. crvi.2013.06.004
22. Slabejova D., Bacigal T., Hegedusova K. Comparison of the understory vegetation of native forests and adjacent Robinia pseudoacacia plantations in the Carpathian-Pannonian region. For. Ecol. Manag. 2019. V. 439. P. 28-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. foreco.2019.02.039
23. Hui C., Richardson D.M., Visser V. Ranking of invasive spread through urban green areas in the world’s 100 most populous cities. Biol. Invasions. 2017. V. 19. № 12. P. 3527-3539. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10530-017-1584-0
24. Chytrý M., Jarošík V., Pyšek P. Separating habitat invisibility by alien plants from the actual level of invasion. Ecology. 2008. V. 89. № 6. P. 1541-1553.
25. Arianoutsou M., Delipetrou P., Vilа M. et al. Comparative patterns of plant invasions in the Mediterranean biome. PLОS One. 2013. V. 8. № 11. P. 1-13. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0079174
26. Pyšek P., Chytrý M., Perg J. Plant invasions in the Czech Republic: current state, introduction dynamics, invasive species and invaded habitats. Preslia. 2012. V. 84. № 3. P. 575-629.
27. Національний каталог біотопів України / за ред. А.А. Куземко, Я.П. Дідуха, В.А. Онищенка, Я. Шеффера. Київ : ФОП Клименко Ю.Я., 2018. 442 с. 1. 28. Зелена книга України /за заг. ред. Я.П. Дідуха. Київ : Альтерпрес, 2009. 448 с.
28. Burnham K.P., Anderson D.R. Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical information-theoretical approach. N.Y. : Springer-Verlag, 2002. 488 p.
29. Kennedy T.A., Naeem S., Howe K.M. Biodiversity as a barrier to ecological invasion. Nature. 2002. V. 417 (6889). P. 636-638. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature00776 30. Suding K.N., Harpole W.S., Fukami T. Consequences of plant-soil feedbacks in invasion. J. Ecol. 2013. V. 101. № 2. P. 298-308.
31. Zhang P., Li B., Wu J., Hu S. Invasive plants differentially affect soil biota through litter and rhizosphere pathways: a meta-analysis. Ecol. Lett. 2019. V. 22. № 1. P. 200-210. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13181
Published
2022-09-29
Section
MELIORATION, ARABLE FARMING, HORTICULTURE