Paper · 2017 · Invasive Plant Science and Management

Secondary Invasion and Reinvasion after Russian-Olive Removal and Revegetation

Erin K. Espeland; Jennifer M. Muscha; Joseph Scianna; et al.

14
claims
16
verbatim quotes
16
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Russian-olive is a nitrogen-fixing tree invading riparian corridors in western North America. The premise of revegetation after weed removal is that revegetation is required to return native species to a removal site and that revegetation improves site resistance to invasion or reinvasion via competitive exclusion. Therefore, we expected that revegetation would reduce invasive species cover and increase native species cover compared with non-revegetated controls. Native understory species diversity increased with time since removal. We recorded 18.2 native species in 2012, and 28.2 native species in 2016. Out of 22 planted species, 2 did not establish. Diversity in revegetated plots did not differ from unplanted controls, likely because species spread quickly across plot boundaries. Native perennial grass, seeded species, and annual bromes increased over time, while nonnative forbs and native forbs decreased over time. Only invasive perennial grass cover responded to the revegetation treatment with cover much higher in controls compared with revegetated plots (25.7% vs. 7.7%); this was likely a response to a preplanting herbicide treatment. All categories of species diversity except invasive species diversity increased over time. Only 4% of Russian-olive stumps resprouted in the first year of removal, less than 1% resprouted 2 yr after removal. There was no Russian-olive emergence from seed in the removal year, and seed emergence varied exponentially among following years. Seeded native species did not have trouble establishing once adequate spring moisture occurred in the second growing season after Russian-olive removal, indicating that removal did not present substantial obstacles to successful revegetation. Follow-up control of Russian-olive is critical after initial treatment.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 14

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Native understory species diversity increased with time since removal, with 18.2 native species recorded in 2012 and 28.2 in 2016.

Taxon
Native understory speciese0
Outcome
diversitye0
Direction
increasede0
Value
18.2 native species in 2012, and 28.2 native species in 2016e1
Qualifier
time since removale0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Native understory species diversity increased with time since removal”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 468–537 · show in text ↑
e1

“We recorded 18.2 native species in 2012, and 28.2 native species in 2016”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 539–611 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Diversity in revegetated plots did not differ from unplanted controls.

Taxon
Native understory speciese0
Treatment
revegetated plotse1
Outcome
Diversitye1
Direction
did not differe1
Comparator
unplanted controlse1

Verbatim

e0

“Native understory species diversity increased with time since removal”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 468–537 · show in text ↑
e1

“Diversity in revegetated plots did not differ from unplanted controls”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 661–730 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Of 22 planted species, 2 did not establish.

Taxon
planted speciese0
Outcome
did not establishe0
Value
2e0
Qualifier
Out of 22 planted speciese0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Out of 22 planted species, 2 did not establish”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 613–659 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Native perennial grass, seeded species and annual bromes increased over time.

Taxon
Native perennial grass, seeded species, and annual bromese0
Outcome
increased over timee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Native perennial grass, seeded species, and annual bromes increased over time”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 794–871 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nonnative forbs and native forbs decreased over time.

Taxon
nonnative forbs and native forbse0
Outcome
decreased over timee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“nonnative forbs and native forbs decreased over time”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 879–931 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Only invasive perennial grass cover responded to revegetation, being much higher in controls than in revegetated plots (25.7% vs. 7.7%).

Taxon
invasive perennial grasse0
Treatment
revegetation treatmente0
Outcome
covere0
Direction
much highere0
Value
25.7% vs. 7.7%e0
Comparator
controlse0

Verbatim

e0

“Only invasive perennial grass cover responded to the revegetation treatment with cover much higher in controls compared with revegetated plots (25.7% vs. 7.7%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 933–1092 · show in text ↑
Mechanismhypothesisoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The lower invasive perennial grass cover with revegetation was likely a response to a preplanting herbicide treatment.

Taxon
invasive perennial grasse0
Treatment
preplanting herbicide treatmente0
Outcome
covere0
Qualifier
likelye0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Only invasive perennial grass cover responded to the revegetation treatment with cover much higher in controls compared with revegetated plots (25.7% vs. 7.7%); this was likely a response to a preplanting herbicide treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 933–1157 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

All categories of species diversity except invasive species diversity increased over time.

Taxon
speciese0
Outcome
All categories of species diversitye0
Direction
increasede0
Qualifier
except invasive species diversitye0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“All categories of species diversity except invasive species diversity increased over time”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1159–1248 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Only 4% of Russian-olive stumps resprouted in the first year after removal.

Taxon
Russian-oliveElaeagnus angustifoliae0
Outcome
stumps resproutede0
Value
4%e0
Qualifier
first year of removale0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Elaeagnus angustifolia
Elaeagnus angustifolia · TaxonGeorg Slickers · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Only 4% of Russian-olive stumps resprouted in the first year of removal”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1250–1321 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Less than 1% of Russian-olive stumps resprouted 2 years after removal.

Taxon
Russian-oliveElaeagnus angustifoliae0
Outcome
stumps resproutede0
Value
less than 1%e0
Qualifier
2 yr after removale0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Elaeagnus angustifolia
Elaeagnus angustifolia · TaxonGeorg Slickers · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Only 4% of Russian-olive stumps resprouted in the first year of removal, less than 1% resprouted 2 yr after removal”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1250–1365 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

There was no Russian-olive emergence from seed in the removal year.

Taxon
Russian-oliveElaeagnus angustifoliae0
Outcome
emergence from seede0
Qualifier
removal yeare0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Elaeagnus angustifolia
Elaeagnus angustifolia · TaxonGeorg Slickers · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“There was no Russian-olive emergence from seed in the removal year”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1367–1433 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Russian-olive seed emergence varied exponentially among the years following removal.

Taxon
Russian-oliveElaeagnus angustifoliae0
Outcome
seed emergencee0
Qualifier
varied exponentially among following yearse0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Elaeagnus angustifolia
Elaeagnus angustifolia · TaxonGeorg Slickers · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“There was no Russian-olive emergence from seed in the removal year, and seed emergence varied exponentially among following years”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1367–1496 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Seeded native species did not have trouble establishing once adequate spring moisture occurred in the second growing season after Russian-olive removal.

Taxon
Seeded native speciese0
Outcome
establishinge0
Qualifier
once adequate spring moisture occurred in the second growing seasone0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Seeded native species did not have trouble establishing once adequate spring moisture occurred in the second growing season after Russian-olive removal”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1498–1649 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Follow-up control of Russian-olive is critical after initial treatment.

Taxon
Russian-oliveElaeagnus angustifoliae0
Outcome
Follow-up controle0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Elaeagnus angustifolia
Elaeagnus angustifolia · TaxonGeorg Slickers · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Follow-up control of Russian-olive is critical after initial treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1741–1811 · show in text ↑