The “bright side” of invasive species – with Portuguese and Spanish translations

In this post Karen Castillioni discusses a recent paper by Bianca Charbonneau and colleagues ‘A species effect on storm erosion: Invasive sedge stabilized dunes more than native grass during Hurricane Sandy‘.

Karen has also provided Portuguese and Spanish translations of this post to reach out to Portuguese and Spanish readers interested in this topic. Journal of Applied Ecology is dedicated to making papers more accessible for an international audience and increasing engagement with the wider ecological community. We encourage authors to write dual-language posts to increase the international relevance and real-world impact.

Bianca Charbonneau has also written a blog post about her paper: When a hurricane knocks, call on plants to protect.

So far you may have heard a lot of bad news about invasive species and how they most often cause trouble by impacting biodiversity and ecosystem function. I am not defending them, but showing another perspective of how their presence may help stabilize beach dune systems. Here is the proof: Charbonneau and colleagues (2017) quantified coastal dune erosion pre- and post- Hurricane Sandy (October 2012) and found that the invasive sedge, Carex kobomugi, may be beneficial for coastal protection and stabilization. This study helps us to understand elements affecting the ability of dunes to absorb the destructive forces of the coast to better prepare these areas for future perturbations.

Beach-dunes systems

Now, I shall tell this story from the beginning. Beach-dune systems are known to offer protection and buffer erosion in vulnerable and geologically unstable coastal areas. However, not surprisingly, human activities and climate change pose a threat to the sustainability of dunes and the areas they protect. Although native dune vegetation generally has high tolerance for the stressful conditions of the abiotic environment (unstable sand, extreme temperatures, and low water and nutrients), they can’t withstand large-scale disturbances, like hurricanes.

dunes-one
Beach-dunes in Island Beach State Park, New Jersey, USA. Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons: Left, Right.

Invasive sedges outperform native plants under disturbance

Asiatic sand sedge Carex kobomugi is an invasive species in U.S. coastal habitats, accidentally introduced in 1929 at Island Beach State Park, New Jersey. This species reduces native diversity and outcompetes the once native dominant American beachgrass (Ammophila breviligulata), another dune stabilizer. Although the presence of C. kobomugi might be ecologically detrimental, it is more capable of trapping sand and thus currently, a more effective dune stabilizer. This is the first study to quantify the direct role of dune vegetation in situ as opposed to ex situ studies that found that dunes stabilized by C. kobomugi were considered more prone to erosion.

So how do all these relate to disturbance? If you remember, Hurricane Sandy (AKA Superstorm Sandy; October 27-November 1, 2012) was the most destructive hurricane of 2012 and most economically impactful to the U.S. Taking advantage of this disturbance, Charbonneau and colleagues assessed pre- and post-Sandy aerial images in conjunction with GPS mapping, and quantified horizontal foredune erosion as a function of ecogeomorphology at Island Beach State Park (IBSP). Geomorphological components are dune height and beach width while the ecological component is flora.

They found that IBSP experienced significant horizontal dune erosion with disturbance. Not only this, but Sandy even spread C. kobomugi to new areas as the authors found it colonizing foredune in 27 distinct patches. Interestingly, although American beachgrass was morphologically better suited to combat erosion, foredunes stabilized by the invasive species incurred less erosion. This could be explained considering that C. kobomugi has higher lateral cover than American beachgrass, equating to potentially greater sediment deposition. In addition, the authors explain that bioconstruction by invasive flora increases sedimentation rates compared to natives. In this case, particles trapped by a high-density invasive like C. kobomugi may be better retained among thicker leaf matting and dense rooting structures as density has been shown to increase sand capture efficiency.

The root system of invasive C. kobomugi may be more extensive than American beachgrass, but this did not make it better anchored. However, Carex kobomugi may be better adapted to withstand overwash and inundation, thus it may be more important than root depth and anchoring. This is because C. kobomugi remains well established post-storm. Moreover, Hurricane Sandy likely retarded a potentially exponential expansion of C. kobomugi, by reducing its extent and creating fragmentation.

dunes-two
Left: Ammophila, Right: Carex kobomugi. Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons: Left, Right.

What are the management implications?

Managers have attempted to eradicate C. kobomugi, but based on these findings, the authors stated that case-by-case basis evaluation by managers should take place to decide upon a course of action. It means that when the system is an already established ecologically diverse habitat, eradication of the invasive species is recommended to conserve natural diversity. On the other hand, if the ultimate priority is to establish the most fortified dune system possible to protect upland properties, then no control of the already established invasive stands is recommended. This can be an indefinite or temporary decision until more certainty of the accepted risks are known and, planting and removal can be taken together. Therefore, containment should be continued to prevent negative ecological impacts until a carefully considered decision is agreed upon.

How does it fit with what we know so far?

It is widely known that biological invasions are a threat to biodiversity (Dukes & Mooney 1999 ; Vila et al. 2011), often causing the extinction of native species (D’Antonio & Vitousek 1992; Mack et al. 2000). More specifically, invasion by herbaceous species can negatively affect native plant community because they alter microclimate (D’Antonio & Vitousek 1992) and affect species growth and seedling recruitment (D’Antonio et al. 1998; Cabin et al. 2002, Hoffmann & Haridasan 2008). Thus, in areas dominated by invasive grasses, the consequence is native plant biomass and diversity decrease (Flory & Clay 2009).

However, in Charbonneau et al. (2017) there seems to exist a trade-off between the ecologically detrimental effects of C. kobomugi on the native community composition and their function in stabilizing dunes to a better degree than native American beachgrass. Similarly, MacDougall & Turkington (2005) found a trade-off between the negative impacts of competition of exotic dominant grasses and the positive effect on juvenile survival and the suppression of woody plants in oak savanna in south-western British Columbia, Canada. Poa pratensis and Dactylis glomerata dominance appears to maintain the open savannah structure that is characteristic of this ecosystems by inhibiting succession to exotic woodland. However, this same role would probably be performed by functionally equivalent active perennial grasses if they were not dispersal-limited relative to the exotic dominants. Thus, P. pratensis and D. glomerata may act as “nursery plants” enhancing the survival of native seedlings after disturbance.

Take-home message

These results suggest that plant invasion cannot be explained solely by competitive ability but within a broader context of environmental change, life history trade-offs with potential evolutionary adjustments.

O “lado positivo” das espécies invasoras

Até o momento você deve ter ouvido muitas notícias ruins sobre espécies invasoras e como elas muitas vezes causam problemas por impactar a biodiversidade e a função do ecossistema. Não estou defendendo-as mas apenas mostrando outra perspectiva de como sua presença pode ajudar a estabilizar os sistemas de dunas em praias. Aqui está a prova, Charbonneau e colegas (2017) quantificaram a erosão de dunas costeiras pré e pós-furacão Sandy (outubro de 2012) e descobriram que a Cyperaceae invasora Carex kobomugi pode ser benéfica para a proteção e estabilização costeira. Este estudo nos ajuda a entender elementos que afetam a capacidade das dunas em absorver as forças destrutivas da costa para melhor preparar essas áreas para futuras perturbações.

Sistemas de dunas e praias

Agora, vou contar esta história desde o início. Os sistemas de praia e duna são conhecidos por oferecer proteção e amortecer a erosão em áreas costeiras vulneráveis e geologicamente instáveis. Entretanto, não surpreendentemente, as atividades humanas e as mudanças climáticas representam uma ameaça à sustentabilidade das dunas e às áreas que elas protegem. Embora a vegetação nativa de dunas geralmente tenha alta tolerância às condições estressantes do ambiente abiótico (areia instável, sal, temperaturas extremas, e baixo nível de água e nutrientes), elas não podem resistir a grandes distúrbios, como furacões.

dunes-one
Sistema de dunas e praias na Island Beach State Park, New Jersey, USA.

Cyperaceae invasora tem melhor desempenho que as plantas nativas sob distúrbio

Carex kobomugi é uma Cyperaceae asiática invasora em habitats costeiros dos EUA. Esta espécie foi introduzida acidentalmente em 1929 em Island Beach State Park, New Jersey. Esta espécie reduz a diversidade nativa e apresenta melhor desempenho que a outrora gramínea nativa dominante American beachgrass (Ammophila breviligulata), estabilizadora de dunas. Embora a presença de C. kobomugi possa ser ecologicamente prejudicial, ela é mais capaz de fixar a areia e, portanto, atualmente, é considerada uma estabilizadora de dunas mais eficaz. Este é o primeiro estudo a quantificar o papel direto da vegetação de dunas in situ em oposição aos estudos ex situ que descobriram que as dunas estabilizadas por C. kobomugi foram consideradas mais propensas à erosão.

Então, como tudo isso se relaciona com a perturbação? Se você se lembra, o furacão Sandy (também conhecido como Super Tempestade Sandy, de 27 de outubro a 1 de novembro de 2012) foi o furacão mais destrutivo de 2012 e mais economicamente impactante para os EUA. Aproveitando esta perturbação, Charbonneau e colegas avaliaram imagens aéreas pré e pós-Sandy, em conjunto com o mapeamento GPS, além de quantificarem a erosão horizontal da duna frontal em função da ecogeomorfologia na Island Beach State Park (IBSP). Os componentes geomorfológicos são a altura da duna e a largura da praia, enquanto o componente ecológico é a flora.

Eles descobriram que o IBSP experimentou significativa erosão horizontal das dunas com a perturbação. Não apenas isso, mas Sandy até mesmo espalhou C. kobomugi para novas áreas, uma vez que os autores encontraram colonização da espécie nas dunas frontais em 27 trechos distintos. Curiosamente, embora American beachgrass fosse morfologicamente mais indicada para combater a erosão, as dunas frontais foram melhor estabilizadas pela espécie invasora, pois sofreram menos erosão. Isto pode ser explicado considerando que C. kobomugi tem uma cobertura lateral maior do que American beachgrass, resultando em uma capacidade de deposição de sedimentos potencialmente maior. Além disso, os autores explicam que a bioconstrução pela flora invasora aumenta as taxas de sedimentação em comparação a nativa. Neste caso, partículas fixadas pela alta densidade de uma invasora como C. kobomugi podem ser melhor retidas pelas folhas mais espessas e estrutura mais densa das raízes, considerando que sua densidade aumentou a eficiência de captura da areia.

O sistema radicular de C. kobomugi é mais extenso do que o de American beachgrass, mas isso não a torna melhor enraizada. No entanto, C. kobomugi pode ser melhor adaptada para suportar inundação, o que pode ser mais importante do que raízes profundas e ancoragem no solo. Isso se baseia no fato de que C. kobomugi permanece bem estabelecida após a tempestade. Além disso, o furacão Sandy provavelmente retardou uma expansão potencialmente exponencial de C. kobomugi, reduzindo sua extensão e criando fragmentação.

dunes-two
Esquerda: Ammophila. Direita: Carex kobomugi.

Quais são as implicações para o manejo?

Gestores de parques já tentaram erradicar C. kobomugi, mas com base nestes resultados, os autores afirman que a avaliação caso a caso por gestores deve ocorrer ao planejar uma ação. Isso significa que quando o sistema é um habitat ecologicamente diverso já estabelecido, a erradicação das espécies invasoras é recomendada para conservar a diversidade natural. Por outro lado, se a prioridade absoluta é estabelecer um sistema de dunas mais fortificado possível para proteger as propriedades áreas elevadas (de planalto), então não é recomendado o controle dos pontos invadidos já estabelecidos. Esta pode ser uma decisão indefinida ou temporária até que se conheça com mais certeza os riscos aceitáveis e que plantio e remoção possam ser feitos em conjunto. Portanto, a contenção deve ser continuada para evitar impactos ecológicos negativos até que uma decisão seja considerada cuidadosamente e de comum acordo.

Como isso se encaixa com o que sabemos até agora?

É amplamente reconhecido que as invasões biológicas são uma ameaça para a biodiversidade, (Dukes & Mooney 1999 ; Vila et al. 2011), causando muitas vezes a extinção de espécies nativas (D’Antonio & Vitousek 1992; Mack et al. 2000). Mais especificamente, a invasão por espécies herbáceas pode afetar negativamente a comunidade de plantas nativas porque elas alteram o microclima (D’Antonio & Vitousek 1992) e afetam o crescimento das espécies e recrutamento das plântulas (D’Antonio et al. 1998; Cabin et al. 2002, Hoffmann & Haridasan 2008). Assim, em áreas dominadas por gramíneas invasoras, a consequência é redução da biomassa da vegetação nativa e de sua diversidade (Flory & Clay 2009).

No entanto, em Charbonneau et al. (2017) Parece existir um tradeoff entre os efeitos ecologicamente prejudiciais de C. kobomugi sobre a composição da comunidade nativa e sua função na estabilização das dunas em um grau melhor do que American beachgrass. Similarmente, MacDougall & Turkington (2005) encontraram um tradeoff entre os impactos negativos da competição de gramíneas dominantes exóticas e o efeito positivo sobre a sobrevivência de juvenis e a supressão de plantas lenhosas em oak savanas no sudoeste da British Columbia, Canada. A dominância de Poa pratensis e Dactylis glomerata parece manter a estrutura de savana aberta que é característica deste ecossistema, inibindo a sucessão de florestas exóticas. Entretanto, este mesmo papel seria provavelmente realizado por uma gramínea equivalentemente functional se não fosse limitada em dispersão em relação as exóticas dominantes. Portanto, P. pratensis e D. glomerata podem atuar como “berçário de plantas” aumentando a sobrevivência de plântulas nativas após perturbações.

Mensagem final

Esses resultados sugerem que a invasão por plantas não pode ser explicada apenas pela capacidade competitiva, mas dentro de um contexto mais amplo de mudança ambiental e tradeoffs relacionados ao histórico de vida com possíveis ajustes evolutivos.

El “lado positivo” de las especies invasoras

Hasta ahora usted puede haber oído muchas malas noticias acerca de las especies invasoras y del cómo, frecuentemente, causan problemas al afectar la biodiversidad y la función del ecosistema. No las estoy defendiendo pero mostraré otra perspectiva de cómo su presencia puede ayudar a estabilizar los sistemas de dunas de playa. Aquí está la prueba, Charbonneau y sus colegas (2017) cuantificaron la erosión de las dunas costeras antes y después del huracán Sandy (octubre de 2012) y encontraron que el “Cyperaceae invasora”, Carex kobomugi, puede ser beneficiosa para la protección y la estabilización costera. Este estudio nos ayuda a entender los elementos que afectan la capacidad de las dunas para absorber las fuerzas destructivas de la costa y así preparar mejor estas áreas para futuras perturbaciones.

Sistemas de dunas de playa

Ahora, contaré esta historia desde el principio. Se sabe que los sistemas de dunas de playa ofrecen protección y amortiguan la erosión en zonas costeras vulnerables y geológicamente inestables. Sin embargo, no es sorprendente que las actividades humanas y el cambio climático supongan una amenaza para la sostenibilidad de las dunas y las áreas que protegen. Aunque la vegetación nativa de dunas generalmente tiene una alta tolerancia a las condiciones estresantes del ambiente abiótico (arena inestable, temperaturas extremas y bajo nivel de agua y nutrientes), no pueden soportar disturbios a gran escala, como huracanes.

dunes-one
Dunas de playas en Island Beach State Park, New Jersey, USA.

“Cyperaceae invasora” supera a las plantas nativas bajo un disturbio

Carex kobomugi es una especie asiatica invasora en hábitats costeros de los Estados Unidos, introducida accidentalmente en 1929 en Island Beach State Park, New Jersey. Esta especie reduce la diversidad nativa y desplaza a la antes gramínea dominante American beachgrass (Ammophila breviligulata), otra planta estabilizadora de dunas. Aunque la presencia de C. kobomugi puede ser ecológicamente perjudicial, tiene una capacidad mayor de atrapar la arena y por lo tanto actualmente es un estabilizador de dunas más eficaz. Este es el primer estudio para cuantificar el papel directo de la vegetación de dunas in situ en oposición a los estudios ex situ que encontraron que las dunas estabilizadas por C. kobomugi fueron más propensas a la erosión.

Entonces, ¿cómo se relaciona todo esto con la perturbación? Si usted recuerda, el huracán Sandy (también conocido como Supertormenta Sandy, 27 de octubre – 1 de noviembre de 2012) fue el huracán más destructivo de 2012 y económicamente más impactante a los EUA. Aprovechando esta perturbación, Charbonneau y sus colegas evaluaron el antes y el después de la playa con el uso del imágenes aéreas de Sandy, conjuntamente con la cartografía del GPS. Además, cuatificaran a la erosión horizontal de las dunas frontales (foredune) en función de la ecogeomorfología en el Island Beach State Park (IBSP, sigla en inglés). Los componentes geomorfológicos son la altura de las dunas y el ancho de la playa, mientras que el componente ecológico es la flora.

Los investigadores encontraron que IBSP experimentó una erosión horizontal significativa de la duna posterior a la perturbación. No sólo esto, sino que Sandy incluso dispersó a C. kobomugi a nuevas áreas, porque los autores la encontraron colonizando dunas frontales en 27 nuevos parches distintos. Curiosamente, aunque American beachgrass fue morfológicamente más adecuada para combatir la erosión, las dunas frontales estabilizadas por las especies invasoras contrajeron menor erosión. Esto podría explicarse considerando que C. kobomugi tiene una cubierta lateral más alta que American beachgrass, lo que equivale a una deposición de sedimentos potencialmente mayor. Además, los autores explican que la bioconstrucción por flora invasora aumenta las tasas de sedimentación en comparación con las nativas. En este caso, las partículas atrapadas por una alta densidad de especies invasoras como C. kobomugi pueden ser mejor retenidas entre la capa de hojas más gruesas y estructuras de enraizamiento densas, ya que se ha demostrado que la densidad aumenta la eficiencia de captura de arena.

El sistema de raíces de la planta invasora C. kobomugi  puede ser más extenso que de American beachgrass, pero esto no lo hace mejor anclado. Sin embargo, C. kobomugi puede ser mejor adaptado para soportar el sobrelavado e inundación, por lo que puede ser más importante que la profundidad de la raíz y el anclaje. Por esta razón C. kobomugi permanece bien establecida después de la tormenta. Además, el huracán Sandy probablemente retrasó una expansión potencialmente exponencial de C. kobomugi, reduciendo su extensión y creando fragmentación en la población.

dunes-two
Izquierda: Ammophila breviligulata. Derecha: Carex kobomugi.

¿Cuáles son las implicaciones para manejo?

Los gestores han intentado erradicar Carex kobomugi, pero sobre la base de estos hallazgos, los autores declararon que la evaluación caso por caso por los gestores debe tener lugar al decidir la acción en extenso. Significa que cuando el sistema es un hábitat ecológico ya establecido, se recomienda la erradicación de las especies invasoras para conservar la diversidad natural. Por otra parte, si la prioridad última es establecer el sistema de dunas más fortificado posible para proteger las propiedades de las tierras altas, entonces no se recomienda el control de las plantas invasoras ya establecidas. Esto puede ser una decisión indefinida o temporal hasta que se conozca más la certidumbre de los riesgos aceptados y, la siembra y el retiro se pueden tomar juntos. Por lo tanto, se debe continuar la contención para prevenir impactos ecológicos negativos hasta que se acuerde una decisión cuidadosamente considerada.

¿Cómo se ajusta a lo que sabemos hasta ahora?

Es ampliamente conocido que las invasiones biológicas son una amenaza para la biodiversidad (Dukes & Mooney 1999 ; Vila et al. 2011), causando a menudo la extinción de especies nativas (D’Antonio & Vitousek 1992; Mack et al. 2000). Más específicamente, la invasión por especies herbáceas puede afectar negativamente a la comunidad de plantas nativas porque alteran el microclima (D’Antonio & Vitousek 1992) y afectan el crecimiento de las especies y el reclutamiento de las plántulas (D’Antonio et al. 1998; Cabin et al. 2002, Hoffmann & Haridasan 2008). Así, en áreas dominadas por gramíneas invasoras, la consecuencia es la pérdida de biomasa vegetal nativa y la disminución de la diversidad (Flory & Clay 2009).

Sin embargo, en Charbonneau et al. (2017) parece existir una compensación entre los efectos ecológicamente perjudiciales de C. kobomugi sobre la composición de la comunidad nativa y su función en la estabilización de las dunas en un grado mejor que la gramínea nativa americana. Del mismo modo, MacDougall & Turkington (2005) encontraron una compensación entre los impactos negativos de la competencia de hierbas dominantes exóticas y el efecto positivo sobre la supervivencia juvenil y la supresión de plantas leñosas en la sabana de roble en el suroeste de British Columbia, Canadá. La dominancia de Poa pratensis y Dactylis glomerata parece mantener la estructura de la sabana abierta que es característica de estos ecosistemas por la inhibición de la sucesión de bosques exóticos. Sin embargo, este mismo papel probablemente sería llevado a cabo por hierbas perennes activas funcionalmente equivalentes si no estuvieran limitados por dispersión en relación con los dominantes exóticos. Por lo tanto, P. pratensis y D. glomerata pueden actuar como “plantas de viveiro” mejorando la supervivencia de las plántulas nativas después de la alteración.

Mensaje final

Estos resultados sugieren que la invasión de las plantas no puede ser explicada únicamente por la capacidad competitiva, sino dentro de un contexto más amplio de cambio ambiental y de compensaciones (tradeoffs) en las historias de vida con posibles ajustes evolutivos.

3 thoughts on “The “bright side” of invasive species – with Portuguese and Spanish translations

  1. Thank you so much for feeling inspired to write a blog post about our research! Myself and coauthors, really appreciate the enthusiasm and that you felt compelled by the research to contribute. We would however like to clarify a few things within this post that are stated somewhat strongly as facts when they are still areas that lack research or are areas of the paper that have been misinterpreted. We would like to respectfully clarify these areas of concern below for the sake of only conveying what we believe to be true based on this and the other research that has been done in this system.

    1) In the first paragraph of the “beach-dunes systems” section, the author states that “Although native dune vegetation generally has high tolerance for the stressful conditions of the abiotic environment (unstable sand, extreme temperatures, and low water and nutrients), they can’t withstand large-scale disturbances, like hurricanes.” This is not true as stated. Dune vegetation generally has high tolerance for the stressful conditions of the abiotic environment (unstable sand, extreme temperatures, and low water and nutrients). However, large-scale disturbances, like hurricanes, present episodic stresses that the plants can tolerate, but that also de-vegetate areas and make them vulnerable to recolonization by invasives.

    2) In the first paragraph of the “invasive sedges outperform native plants under disturbance” section, the author states that “Although the presence of C. kobomugi might be ecologically detrimental, it is more capable of trapping sand and thus currently, a more effective dune stabilizer. ” This is false as it is just speculation now, something that we currently do not know, and an area that myself and other researchers are exploring further.

    3) Similarly, in the “invasive sedges outperform native plants under disturbance” section, the author states that “This is the first study to quantify the direct role of dune vegetation in situ as opposed to ex situ studies that found that dunes stabilized by C. kobomugi were considered more prone to erosion.” This is misleading, as to our knowledge, this is the first study to compare erosion as a result of any specific vegetation species in situ, native or invasive. Ex situ studies tend to be conducted in wave tanks and use roughness elements to mimic plants, not actual plants and do not compare across species; we are only aware of one study with wave tanks using actual plants, that study being Silva et al. 2016. There are anecdotal reports suggested that dunes stabilized by C. kobomugi may be more prone to erosion, but no actual studies conducted on this or any other specific species ability to combat coastal erosion, as is suggested by the current above wording.

    4) In the third paragraph of the “invasive sedges outperform native plants under disturbance” section, the author talks about how increased aboveground plant biomass has been found to increase sedimentation rates and hyperstabilize areas in the case of invasives. This is true, but we would like to point out that increased sedimentation should result in increased dune height and we found no difference in dune height between the two plants though particles trapped by a high-density invasive like C. kobomugi may be better retained among thicker leaf matting. Currently, this is an area of research in this field, that also needs more attention.

    5) In the “management implication” section, the author writes that “On the other hand, if the ultimate priority is to establish the most fortified dune system possible to protect upland properties, then no control of the already established invasive stands is recommended.” This is not what we as the authors suggested. We tried to be impartial and unbiased, as we feel that science should be, in discussing the management implications. A more accurate statement of what we convey is that “On the other hand, if the ultimate priority is to establish the most fortified dune system possible to protect upland properties, then no control of the already established invasive stands may be an option that is considered.”

    Again, thank you very much for your excitement about the research! We very much enjoyed reading your piece. We hope that you can understand that given that this paper is about a native and invasive, my co-authors and I worry that inaccuracies in the portrayal of the work could have drastic consequences for managers reading the information and reacting.

    Like

  2. Dear authors, I thank you for the feedback you pointed out. I believe that open discussion in science is valid because everyone can learn from that. Writing about your paper was an opportunity to learn how other systems, such as beach-dunes, are dealing with the problem of biological invasions. Not only this, I also had the chance to write in other languages (Portuguese and Spanish) in order to spread science communication, which is of much relevance, thus a broader audience can be aware of the direction research moves in. The blog post I wrote reflects my interpretation to what I read and so I apologize for any confusion or misinterpretation. I will also respectfully go over each topic you pointed and show you why I interpreted that way.

    1. You said: “Dune vegetation generally has high tolerance for the stressful conditions of the abiotic environment (unstable sand, extreme temperatures, and low water and nutrients). However, large-scale disturbances, like hurricanes, present episodic stresses that the plants can tolerate, but that also de-vegetate areas and make them vulnerable to recolonization by invasives.”

    I agree with you and highlight how it was written in the paper: “Native dune plants generally respond positively to natural stresses and stochasticity, but negatively to large-scale disturbances, like hurricanes, which create opportunities for invasive plants to colonize (Hierro et al. 2006).”
    “(…) negatively to large-scale disturbances” suggests to be something that will show or tends towards opposite response and so, it appeared to me that “they can’t withstand large-scale disturbances, like hurricanes.”

    2. You said the following sentence was false: “Although the presence of C. kobomugi might be ecologically detrimental, it is more capable of trapping sand and thus currently, a more effective dune stabilizer. ”

    The following interpretation came from these statements:

    “Hurricane Sandy (AKA Superstorm Sandy; October 27-November 1, 2012), presented an
    opportunity to compare the effectiveness of CK and AB as dune stabilizers along NJ’s largest continuous natural dune system, Island Beach State Park.”

    “As an invasive, CK might be ecologically detrimental, but beneficial as a dune stabilizer.”

    “However, a lack of species effect on dune height in this system suggests that invasive CK (Wootton et al. 2005), and other small statured species and invasives (Seabloom et al. 2013), may be more capable of trapping sand, thereby aiding in accretion, and are less prone to wave
    overtopping and erosion than previously believed.”
    However, I agree that by adding the following information would possibly enforce the importance of further research: “Future research on the ecogeomorphological relationship between plant and dune are necessary to better understand how plants structure these and other systems.”

    3. I said “This is the first study to quantify the direct role of dune vegetation in situ as opposed to ex situ studies that found that dunes stabilized by C. kobomugi were considered more prone to erosion.”
    You said it is misleading “as to our knowledge, this is the first study to compare erosion as a result of any specific vegetation species in situ, native or invasive.”

    It may be misled from what finds in the paper:
    “We are aware of no other studies that have quantified species-specific influences on any dune erosion metrics.” (..) “Dunes stabilized by CK were considered more prone to erosion (Lea & McLaughlin 2009), though to our knowledge this study is the first to quantify the direct role of dune vegetation in situ as opposed to ex situ (Silva et al. 2016);”

    4. Thank you for adding that.

    5. I said “On the other hand, if the ultimate priority is to establish the most fortified dune system possible to protect upland properties, then no control of the already established invasive stands is recommended.”

    This sentence was interpreted from the underlined statement below:

    “Based on our findings, we believe that managers should evaluate the priorities of their community in full on a case-by-case basis before deciding on a course of action. If the system is an already established ecologically diverse habitat, then eradication or containment would be preferable, to conserve natural diversity and in the case of containment, increase the functional resiliency of the system (Diaz & Cabido 2001; Reiss et al. 2009). However, containment of CK or any invasive is a management risk; invasives are effective at spreading locally and over longer distances (Yang et al. 2012), especially in high disturbance systems (Fei, Phillips, & Shouse et al. 2014). Preventing stands from spreading into ecologically diverse and sensitive areas, where they could colonize rampantly, may prove unrealistic based on the dynamics of system. If the ultimate priority is to establish the most fortified dune system possible to protect upland properties, then leaving already established invasive stands indefinitely or temporarily until a planting can coincide with removal might be a viable alternative if the caveat of not knowing how the species affects dune shape and growth rate is accepted as a risk. Until a carefully considered decision is agreed upon, containment should be continued to prevent negative ecological impacts.”

    Perhaps, adding the word “temporally” to my sentence would make it more clear and correct.

    Finally, I agree with you that in science we should be careful when making recommendations and so I believe that any discussion in regard to management practices is valuable. Again, thank you to your comments and amendments to this blog post. I certainly learned a lot from this paper and was pleased to write the blog post.

    Like

Leave a comment