A framework for understanding human‐driven vegetation change

Abstract

Despite a major research focus on human‐mediated reshuffling of plant communities, no coherent framework unites the numerous types of changes in abundances and distributions of native and non‐native species that are driven by human activities. Human driven vegetation change can occur through: non‐native species introductions; population outbreaks or collapses; range expansions or contractions; and range shifts of both native and non‐native species. Boundaries among these different types of floristic changes are not always distinct because of an overlap in the ecological, climatic, and anthropogenic processes that underpin them. We propose a new framework that connects various human‐mediated causes of vegetation change, highlights the spatial scales at which drivers act and the temporal scale at which plant assemblages respond, and provides critical insights for identifying and appropriately managing these changes.

Changes in plant community and soil ecological indicators in response to Prosopis juliflora and Acacia mearnsii invasion and removal in two biodiversity hotspots in Southern India

“…The most evident effect of plant invasions is the loss of local plant community composition and diversity (Callaway and Aschehoug, 2000;Cutway, 2017) through different mechanisms such as competition for limited resources, exploitation of resources untapped by local vegetation, novel chemical compounds and biotic interactions (Levine et al, 2003;Pyšek et al, 2012, Lorenzo et al, 2013. Loss of native diversity and domination of invasive plant species have been found to reduce provisioning and regulating ecosystem services, such as water provision, wildfire regulation, plant biodiversity and soil stabilization (Callaway and Aschehoug, 2000;Pyšek et al, 2012;Inderjit et al, 2017). Different mechanisms by which invasive plant species influence aboveground vegetation have been studied in detail (Simberloff et al, 2013;Inderjit et al, 2017) but the related below-ground ecosystem processes are still poorly understood.…”

“…Loss of native diversity and domination of invasive plant species have been found to reduce provisioning and regulating ecosystem services, such as water provision, wildfire regulation, plant biodiversity and soil stabilization (Callaway and Aschehoug, 2000;Pyšek et al, 2012;Inderjit et al, 2017). Different mechanisms by which invasive plant species influence aboveground vegetation have been studied in detail (Simberloff et al, 2013;Inderjit et al, 2017) but the related below-ground ecosystem processes are still poorly understood.…”

“…Complete removal is considered an effective way to reduce the density of invasive populations and restore ecosystem services, including recovery of native biodiversity (Love et al, 2009;Simberloff et al, 2013), habitat provision and restoration of soil properties (Marchante et al, 2008;Strickland et al, 2011). However, invasive plant species removal programs have potential undesirable ecological effects such as soil erosion and further loss of biodiversity (Courchamp et al, 2011;van der Waal et al, 2012) and should therefore be evaluated at the species and landscape level (Inderjit et al, 2017). Current knowledge on the effects of removal on plant and soil communities is limited, especially in tropical ecosystems (Cutway, 2017;Inderjit et al, 2017;Arasumani et al, 2018).…”

“…However, invasive plant species removal programs have potential undesirable ecological effects such as soil erosion and further loss of biodiversity (Courchamp et al, 2011;van der Waal et al, 2012) and should therefore be evaluated at the species and landscape level (Inderjit et al, 2017). Current knowledge on the effects of removal on plant and soil communities is limited, especially in tropical ecosystems (Cutway, 2017;Inderjit et al, 2017;Arasumani et al, 2018).…”

Insights on the persistence of pines (Pinusspecies) in the Late Cretaceous and their increasing dominance in the Anthropocene

“…Many of the hypotheses that are currently debated in invasion ecology assume that species experience biogeographical-evolutionary advantages in their introduced ranges compared to their native ranges (Hierro, Maron, & Callaway, 2005;Inderjit, Catford, Kalisz, Simberloff, & Wardle, 2017;Inderjit, Wardle, Karban, & Callaway, 2011). Gallien et al (2016) reported that understanding biogeographical and evolutionary histories is valuable for understanding pine invasions.…”