Eradicating Invasives Backfires

Eradicating invasive species can sometimes do more harm than good. New research shows that the relative abundance of native species actually drops when one of the U.K.’s worst invasive plants is removed from riparian plots.

“The species that respond most dramatically are other nonnative plants,” say Philip Hulme and Eleanor Bremner of the NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Banchory, U.K., in the Journal of Applied Ecology. This is the first experimental study of how riparian habitats are affected when Himalayan balsam (Impatiens glandulifera) is removed.

Listed as one of the top 20 invasive plants in the U.K., Himalayan balsam is also widespread in continental Europe, North America, and New Zealand. The balsam can reach three meters in height, making it the tallest annual in the U.K., and often grows in dense stands that deprive other plants of light. Although this invasive is clearly not a good thing, the question is, how bad is it? “The options for management are limited and costly. Thus, identifying the risk of this species to biodiversity is important,” says Hulme.

The researchers assessed plant diversity in 12 sites representing grasslands, fens, and other riparian communities along the River Wear in Durham, U.K., which have been invaded by Himalayan balsam since 1900. Each site had two one-meter-square plots dominated by the balsam: a “removal” plot where the balsam stems were cut to the ground and an “invaded” plot that was left untouched. Four months later, the researchers compared the diversity of native and nonnative seedlings in the removal and invaded plots. All together, the plots had 47 plant species comprising 38 natives and 9 nonnatives.

The results showed that removing Himalayan balsam does increase plant diversity. On average, there were about one-third more species in removal plots than in invaded plots (10 vs. 7, respectively). However, the results also showed that removing the balsam benefited other nonnative plants the most. The proportion of nonnative species was one-third higher in removal plots than in invaded plots (33 percent vs. 25 percent, respectively). These nonnatives include invasive species such as ground elder (Aegopodium podagraria) that, like the balsam, can outcompete native plants.

Although there have been calls for eradicating Himalayan balsam along U.K. riverbanks, the researchers urge caution. “Management may lead to a compensatory increase in the abundance of other nonnative species and thus fail to achieve desired conservation goals,” they say.

by Robin Meadows

Hulme, P.E. and Bremner, E.T. 2006. Assessing the impact of Impatiens glandulifera on riparian habitats: partitioning diversity components following species removal. Journal of Applied Ecology 43:43-50.

Photo: Impatiens balsamina.©istockphoto.com/Aleksandar Bracinac

Recommended

2 Comments

  • Amanda June 21, 2012 at 5:05 am

    Interesting feature. Many bees and other pollinators really love himalayan balsam, and as we all know, they are under threat.

    Fact is we have lost much native habitat (e.g. 97% of UK lowland meadow has been lost in the last 75 years, according to Grassland’s Trust). I wonder whether species such as himalayan balsam throw pollinators & other insects a much needed life line. Maybe we don’t really weigh all the factors – how abundant are the plant species said to be ‘crowded out’ by Himalayan balsam, and how useful are they to wildlife? How many people have a vested interest/job to “control” himalayan balsam, and what if the vested interest is ignored?

    By the way, I read that apparently, parts of the plant are edible – like many “weeds” – (but I don’t know if this is correct!)

    Reply

  • Jamie McMillan June 21, 2012 at 5:11 am

    Interesting article, rubbish headline. This suggests removing balsam is bad for conservation, which the actual text doesn’t say and the research doesn’t show. It just may not be quite as good for conservation in areas where there are more non-native propagules in the soil. And even here it still increases the native plant diversity – it says proportion, not actual number of species. Try to get it right!

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Like-what-you're-reading-Donate2