Geology topics

Cascade J.B. Sorte

Publications and source records attributed to Cascade J.B. Sorte.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2025

Why are non-native plants successful? Consistently fast economic traits and novel origin jointly explain abundance across US ecoregions

Are non-native plants abundant because they are non-native, and have advantages over native plants, or because they possess ‘fast’ resource strategies, and have advantages in disturbed environments? This question is central to invasion biology but remains unanswered. We quantified the relative importance of resource strategy and biogeographic origin in 69 441 plots across the conterminous United States containing 11 280 plant species. Non-native species had faster economic traits than native species in most plant communities (77%, 86% and 82% of plots for leaf nitrogen concentration, specific leaf area, and leaf dry matter content). Non-native species also had distinct patterns of abundance, but these were not explained by their fast traits. Compared with functionally similar native species, non-native species were (1) more abundant in plains and deserts, indicating the importance of biogeographic origin, and less abundant in forested ecoregions, (2) were more abundant where co-occurring species had fast traits, for example due to disturbance, and (3) showed weaker signals of local environmental filtering. These results clarify the nature of plant invasion: Although non-native plants have consistently fast economic traits, other novel characteristics and processes likely explain their abundance and, therefore, impacts.

conterminous United States↗

USGS2025

A quantitative classification of the geography of non-native flora in the United States

Aim Non-native plants have the potential to harm ecosystems. Harm is classically related to their distribution and abundance, but this geographical information is often unknown. Here, we assess geographical commonness as a potential indicator of invasive status for non-native flora in the United States. Geographical commonness could inform invasion risk assessments across species and ecoregions. Location Conterminous United States. Time Period Through 2022. Major Taxa Studied Plants. Methods We compiled and standardised occurrence and abundance data from 14 spatial datasets and used this information to categorise non-native species as uncommon or common based on three dimensions of commonness: area of occupancy, habitat breadth and local abundance. To assess consistency in existing categorizations, we compared commonness to invasive status in the United States. We identified species with higher-than-expected abundance relative to their occupancy, habitat breadth or residence time. We calculated non-native plant richness within United States ecoregions and estimated unreported species based on rarefaction/extrapolation curves. Results This comprehensive database identified 1874 non-native plant species recorded in 4,844,963 locations. Of these, 1221 species were locally abundant (> 10% cover) in 797,759 unique locations. One thousand one hundred one non-native species (59%) achieved at least one dimension of commonness, including 565 species that achieved all three. Species with longer residence times tended to meet more dimensions of commonness. We identified 132 species with higher-than-expected abundance. Ecoregions in the central United States have the largest estimated numbers of unreported, abundant non-native plants. Main Conclusions A high proportion of non-native species have become common in the United States. However, existing categorizations of invasive species are not always consistent with species' abundance and distribution, even after considering residence time. Considering geographical commonness and higher-than-expected abundance revealed in this new dataset could support more consistent and proactive identification of invasive plants and lead to more efficient management practices.

Conterminous United States↗

USGS2025

Using plant invasions to compare occurrence- and abundance-based calculations of biotic homogenisation: Are results complementary or contradictory?

Aim Beta diversity quantifies the similarity of ecological assemblages. Its increase, known as biotic homogenisation, can be a consequence of biological invasions. However, species occurrence (presence/absence) and abundance-based analyses can produce contradictory assessments of the magnitude and direction of changes in beta diversity. Previous work indicates these contradictions should be less frequent in nature than in theory, but a growing number of empirical studies report discrepancies between occurrence- and abundance-based approaches. Understanding if these discrepancies represent a few isolated cases or are systematic across a diversity of ecosystems would allow us to better understand the general patterns, mechanisms and impacts of biotic homogenisation. Location United States. Time Period 1963–2020. Major Taxa Studied Vascular plants. Methods We used a dataset of more than 70,000 vegetation survey plots to assess differences in biotic homogenisation with and without invasion using both occurrence- and abundance-based metrics of beta diversity. We estimated taxonomic biotic homogenisation by comparing beta diversity of invaded and uninvaded plots with both classes of metrics and investigated the characteristics of the non-native species pool that influenced the likelihood that these metrics disagree. Results In 78% of plot comparisons, occurrence- and abundance-based calculations agreed in direction, and the two metrics were generally well correlated. Our empirical results are consistent with previous theory. Discrepancies between the metrics were more likely when the same non-native species was at high cover at both plots compared for beta diversity, and when these plots were spatially distant. Main Conclusions In about 20% of cases, our calculations revealed differences in direction (homogenisation vs. differentiation) when comparing occurrence- and abundance-based metrics, indicating that the metrics are not interchangeable, especially when distances between plots are high and invader diversity is low. When data permit, combining the two approaches can offer insights into the role of invasions and extirpations in driving biotic homogenisation/differentiation.

Global Ecology and Biogeography↗

USGS2024

Observed and potential range shifts of native and non-native species with climate change

There is broad concern that the range shifts of global flora and fauna will not keep up with climate change, increasing the likelihood of population declines and extinctions. Many populations of nonnative species already have advantages over native species, including widespread human-aided dispersal and release from natural enemies. But do nonnative species also have an advantage with climate change? Here, we review observed and potential range shifts for native and nonnative species globally. We show that nonnative species are expanding their ranges orders of magnitude faster than native species, reflecting both traits that enable rapid spread and ongoing human-mediated introduction. We further show that nonnative species have large potential ranges and range expansions with climate change, likely due to a combination of widespread introduction and broader climatic tolerances. With faster spread rates and larger potential to persist or expand, nonnative populations have a decided advantage in a changing climate.

Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systemati↗

USGS2023

Combining local, landscape, and regional geographies to assess plant community vulnerability to invasion impact

Invasive species science has focused heavily on the invasive agent. However, management to protect native species also requires a proactive approach focused on resident communities and the features affecting their vulnerability to invasion impacts. Vulnerability is likely the result of factors acting across spatial scales, from local to regional, and it is the combined effects of these factors that will determine the magnitude of vulnerability. Here, we introduce an analytical framework that quantifies the scale-dependent impact of biological invasions on native richness from the shape of the native species–area relationship (SAR). We leveraged newly available, biogeographically extensive vegetation data from the U.S. National Ecological Observatory Network to assess plant community vulnerability to invasion impact as a function of factors acting across scales. We analyzed more than 1000 SARs widely distributed across the USA along environmental gradients and under different levels of non-native plant cover. Decreases in native richness were consistently associated with non-native species cover, but native richness was compromised only at relatively high levels of non-native cover. After accounting for variation in baseline ecosystem diversity, net primary productivity, and human modification, ecoregions that were colder and wetter were most vulnerable to losses of native plant species at the local level, while warmer and wetter areas were most susceptible at the landscape level. We also document how the combined effects of cross-scale factors result in a heterogeneous spatial pattern of vulnerability. This pattern could not be predicted by analyses at any single scale, underscoring the importance of accounting for factors acting across scales. Simultaneously assessing differences in vulnerability between distinct plant communities at local, landscape, and regional scales provided outputs that can be used to inform policy and management aimed at reducing vulnerability to the impact of plant invasions.

Ecological Applications↗

USGS2022

Global environmental changes more frequently offset than intensify detrimental effects of biological invasions

Human-induced abiotic global environmental changes (GECs) and the spread of nonnative invasive species are rapidly altering ecosystems. Understanding the relative and interactive effects of invasion and GECs is critical for informing ecosystem adaptation and management, but this information has not been synthesized. We conducted a meta-analysis to investigate effects of invasions, GECs, and their combined influences on native ecosystems. We found 458 cases from 95 published studies that reported individual and combined effects of invasions and a GEC stressor, which was most commonly warming, drought, or nitrogen addition. We calculated standardized effect sizes (Hedges’ d ) for individual and combined treatments and classified interactions as additive (sum of individual treatment effects), antagonistic (smaller than expected), or synergistic (outside the expected range). The ecological effects of GECs varied, with detrimental effects more likely with drought than the other GECs. Invasions were more strongly detrimental, on average, than GECs. Invasion and GEC interactions were mostly antagonistic, but synergistic interactions occurred in >25% of cases and mostly led to more detrimental outcomes for ecosystems. While interactive effects were most often smaller than expected from individual invasion and GEC effects, synergisms were not rare and occurred across ecological responses from the individual to the ecosystem scale. Overall, interactions between invasions and GECs were typically no worse than the effects of invasions alone, highlighting the importance of managing invasions locally as a crucial step toward reducing harm from multiple global changes.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences↗

USGS2020

Adjusting the lens of invasion biology to focus on the impacts of climate-driven range shifts

As Earth’s climate rapidly changes, species range shifts are considered key to species persistence. However, some range-shifting species will alter community structure and ecosystem processes. By adapting existing invasion risk assessment frameworks, we can identify characteristics shared with high-impact introductions and thus predict potential impacts. There are fundamental differences between introduced and range-shifting species, primarily shared evolutionary histories between range shifters and their new community. Nevertheless, impacts can occur via analogous mechanisms, such as wide dispersal, community disturbance and low biotic resistance. As ranges shift in response to climate change, we have an opportunity to develop plans to facilitate advantageous movements and limit those that are problematic.

Nature Climate Change↗