Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T10:51:08.096Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Predicting Biofuel Invasiveness: A Relative Comparison to Crops and Weeds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Larissa L. Smith ,
Daniel R. Tekiela  and
Jacob N. Barney
Larissa L. Smith
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology and Weed Science, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA
Daniel R. Tekiela
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology and Weed Science, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA
Jacob N. Barney*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology and Weed Science, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA
*
Corresponding author's E-mail address: jnbarney@vt.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Concern raised against using highly competitive, exotic, large-statured, perennial grasses with fast growth rates as bioenergy crops has led to calls for risk assessment before widespread cultivation. Weed risk assessments (WRAs) are decision support tools commonly used throughout the world to determine the invasion risk of new plant taxa—primarily used as a pre-entry screen. Here, we compare the common Australian (A-WRA) and newer U.S. (US-WRA) models to evaluate the invasion risk of 16 candidate bioenergy crops and to compare their WRA scores to 14 important agronomic crops and 10 invasive species with an agronomic origin. Of the 40 species assessed, the A-WRA and US-WRA ranked 34 and 28 species, respectively, as high risk, including the major crops alfalfa, rice, canola, and barley. Surprisingly, in several cases, both models failed to effectively parse weeds from crops. For example, cereal rye received scores above (US-WRA) or comparable to (A-WRA) kudzu, a widespread damaging invader of the Southeastern United States introduced as forage. Our results indicate that these models are unable to accurately address broad, intraspecific variation and that species introduced for agronomic purposes pose special limitations to WRAs. This further supports other calls for postborder evaluation (e.g., field testing) following WRA screening. We should be cautious of the role of WRAs in setting policy, as illustrated by this relative evaluation of novel crops.

Keywords

Kudzu, Pueraria montana var. lobata (Willd.) Maesen & S.M. Almeidacereal rye (Secale cereale L.)alfalfa, Medicago sativa L.barley, Hordeum vulgare L.canola, Brassica napus L.rice, Oryza sativa L.Bioenergyinvasive speciesweed risk assessment
Type
Research Article
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , September 2015 , pp. 323 - 333
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

References

Literature Cited

Barney, JN (2014) Bioenergy and invasive plants: quantifying and mitigating future risks. Invasive Plant Sci Manage 7:199–209 Google Scholar
Barney, JN, DiTomaso, JM (2008) Non-native species and bioenergy: are we cultivating the next invader? Bioscience 58:64–70 Google Scholar
Barney, JN, Smith, LL, Tekiela, DR (2015) Using weed risk assessments to separate the weeds from the crops. Pages 67–84 in Quinn, LD, Matlaga, DP, Barney, JN, eds. Bioenergy and Biological Invasions: Ecological, Agronomic and Policy Perspectives on Minimising Risk. Oxford, U.K.: CABI Google Scholar
Barney, JN, Tekiela, D, Dollete, E, Tomasek, B (2013) What is the “real” impact of invasive plant species? Front Ecol Environ 11:322–329 Google Scholar
Barney, JN, Whitlow, TH (2008) A unifying framework for biological invasions: the state factor model. Biol Invasions 10:259–272 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, GP (1997) Ecology and management of Arundo donax, and approaches to riparian habitat restoration in Southern California. Pages 103–113 in Brock, JH, Wade, M, Pysek, P, Green, D, eds. Plant Invasions: Studies from North America and Europe. Leiden, The Netherlands Blackhuys Google Scholar
Buckley, YM, Brockerhoff, E, Langer, L, Ledgard, N, North, H, Rees, M (2005) Slowing down a pine invasion despite uncertainty in demography and dispersal. J Appl Ecol 42:1020–1030 Google Scholar
Buddenhagen, CE, Chimera, C, Clifford, P (2009) Assessing biofuel crop invasiveness: a case study. PLoS One 4:e5261. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005261Google Scholar
[CAST] Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (2013) Impact of the precautionary principle on feeding current and future generations. Ames, Iowa CAST Issue Paper 52Google Scholar
Cousens, R (2008) Risk assessment of potential biofuel species: an application for trait-based models for predicting weediness. Weed Sci 56:873–88Google Scholar
Daehler, CC, Denslow, JS, Ansari, S, Kuo, H (2004) A risk-assessment system for screening out invasive pest plants from Hawaii and other Pacific Islands. Conserv Biol 18:360–368 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, AS, Cousens, RD, Hill, J, Mack, RN, Simberloff, D, Raghu, S (2010) Screening bioenergy feedstock crops to mitigate invasion risk. Front Ecol Environ 8:533–539 Google Scholar
Davis, MA, Chew, M, Hobbs, R, Lugo, A, Ewel, J, Vermeij, G, Brown, J, Rosenzweig, M, Gardner, M, Carroll, S, Thompson, K, Pickett, S, Stromberg, J, Del Tredici, P, Suding, KN, Ehrenfeld, JG, Grime, J, Mascaro, J, Briggs, J (2011) Don't judge species on their origins. Nature 474:153–154 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawson, W, Keser, LH, Winter, M, Pysek, P, Kartesz, J, Nishino, M, Fuentes, N, Chytry, M, Celesti-Grapow, L, Van Kleunen, M (2013) Correlations between global and regional measures of invasiveness vary with region size. Neobiota 16:59–80 Google Scholar
Dostál, P, Müllerová, J, Pyšek, P, Pergl, J, Klinerová, T, Vila, M (2013) The impact of an invasive plant changes over time. Ecol Lett 16:1277–1284 Google Scholar
Dougherty, RF, Quinn, L, Endres, A, Voigt, T, Barney, JN (2014) Natural history survey of the ornamental grass Miscanthus sinensis in the invaded range. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 7:113–120 Google Scholar
Driscoll, DA, Catford, JA, Barney, JN, Hulme, PE, Inderjit, , Martin, TG, Pauchard, A, Pyšek, P, Richardson, DM, Riley, S, Visser, V (2014) New pasture plants intensify invasive species risk. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111:16622–16627 Google Scholar
Eiswerth, ME, Van Kooten, GC (2000) Uncertainty, economics and the spread of an invasive species plant. Am J Agric Econ 84:1317–1322 Google Scholar
Fellows, GM, Roeth, FW (1992) Factors influencing shattercane (Sorghum bicolor) seed survival. Weed Sci 40:434–440 Google Scholar
Glaser, A, Glick, P (2012) Growing Risk: Addressing the Invasive Potential of Bioenergy Feedstocks. Washington, DC National Wildlife Federation Google Scholar
Gordon, DR, Mitterdorfer, B, Pheloung, PC, Ansari, S, Buddenhagen, C, Chimera, C, Daehler, CC, Dawson, W, Denslow, JS, Larosa, A, Nishida, T, Onderdonk, DA, Panetta, FD, Pysek, P, Randall, RP, Richardson, DM, Tshidada, NJ, Virtue, JG, Williams, PA (2010) Guidance for addressing the Australian weed risk assessment questions. Plant Prot Q 25:56–74 Google Scholar
Gordon, DR, Onderdonk, DA, Fox, AM, Stocker, RK (2008) Consistent accuracy of the Australian weed risk assessment system across varied geographies. Divers Distrib 14:234–242 Google Scholar
Gordon, DR, Tancig, KJ, Onderdonk, DA, Gantz, CA (2011) Assessing the invasive potential of biofuel species proposed for Florida and the United States using the Australian weed risk assessment. Biomass Bioenerg 35:74–79 Google Scholar
Holm, LG, Plucknett, DL, Juan, PV, Herberger, JP (1977) The World's Worst Weeds: Distribution and Biology. Honolulu University Press of Hawaii Google Scholar
Hulme, PE (2012) Weed risk assessment: a way forward or a waste of time? J Appl Ecol 49:10–19 Google Scholar
Hulme, PE, Pysek, P, Jaroaìk, VC, Pergl, J, Schaffner, U, Villa, M (2013) Bias and error in understanding plant invasion impacts. Trends Ecol Evol 28:212–218 Google Scholar
Keller, RP, Lodge, DM, Finnoff, DC (2007) Risk assessment for invasive species produces net bioeconomic benefits. Proc Nat Acad Sci U S A 104:203–207 Google Scholar
Koop, A, Fowler, L, Newton, L, Caton, B (2012) Development and validation of a weed screening tool for the United States. Biol Invasions 14:273–294 Google Scholar
Lewandowski, I, Scurlock, JMO, Lindvall, E, Christou, M (2003) The development and current status of perennial rhizomatous grasses as energy crops in the US and Europe. Biomass Bioenerg 25:335–361 Google Scholar
Lewis, KC, Porter, RD (2014) Global approaches to addressing biofuel-related invasive species risks and incorporation into U.S. laws and policies. Ecol Monogr 84:171–201 Google Scholar
Lonsdale, WM (2011) Risk assessment and prioritization. Pages 604–609 in Simberloff, D, Rejmanek, M, eds. Encyclopedia of Biological Invasions. Berkeley University of California Press Google Scholar
Mack, RN (2005) Predicting the identity of plant invaders: future contributions from horticulture. Hortscience 40:1168–1174 Google Scholar
Martin, J, Waldren, R, Stamp, D (2006) Principles of Field Crop Production. Upper Saddle River, NJ Prentice Hall Google Scholar
Mcneely, JA, Neville, LE, , M. R. (2003) When is eradication a sound investment? Conserv Pract 4:30–41 Google Scholar
Meyer, MH, Tchida, CL (1999) Miscanthus Andress. produces viable seed in four USDA hardiness zones. J Environ Hortic 17:137–140 Google Scholar
Molina-Montenegro, MA, Carrasco-Urra, F, Rodrigo, C, Valladares, F, Gianoli, E (2012) Occurrence of the non-native annual bluegrass on the Antarctic mainland and its negative effects on native plants. Conserv Biol 26:717–723 Google Scholar
Nishida, T, Yamashita, N, Asia, M, Kurokawa, S, Enomoto, T, Pheloung, PC, Groves, RH (2009) Developing a pre-entry weed risk assessment system for use in Japan. Biol Invasions 11:1319–1333 Google Scholar
Panetta, FD (2009) Weed eradication—an economic perspective. Invasive Plant Sci Manage 2:360–368 Google Scholar
Peel, MC, Finlayson, BL, Mcmahon, TA (2007) Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 11:1633–1644 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pekrun, C, Lane, P, Lutman, P (2005) Modelling seedbank dynamics of volunteer oilseed rape (Brassica napus). Agric Syst 84:1–20 Google Scholar
Perlack, RD, Wright, LL, Turhollow, AF, Graham, RL, Stokes, BJ, Erbach, DC (2005) Biomass as feedstock for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry: the technical feasibility of a billion-ton annual supply. Oak Ridge, TN Oak Ridge National Laboratory Tech Rep ORNL/TM-2006/66Google Scholar
Pheloung, PC, Williams, PA, Halloy, SR (1999) A weed risk assessment model for use as a biosecurity tool evaluating plant introductions. J Environ Manage 57:239–251 Google Scholar
Pimentel, D, Lach, L, Zuniga, R, Morrison, D (2000) Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous species in the United States. Bioscience 50:53–65 Google Scholar
Quinn, L, Allen, DJ, Stewart, R (2010) Invasiveness potential of Miscanthus sinensis: implications for bioenergy production in the United States. Glob Change Biol Bioenergy 2:310–320 Google Scholar
Quinn, L, Barney, J, Mccubbins, J, Endres, A (2013) Navigating the “noxious” and “invasive” regulatory landscape: suggestions for improved regulation. Bioscience 63:124–131 Google Scholar
Quinn, LD, Gordon, DR, Glaser, A, Lieurance, D, Flory, SL (2015) Bioenergy feedstocks at low risk for invasion in the USA: a “white list” approach. Bioenerg Res 8:471–481. DOI: 10.1007/s12155-014-9503-zGoogle Scholar
Quinn, LD, Holt, JS (2008) Ecological correlates of invasion by Arundo donax in three southern California riparian habitats. Biol Invasions 10:591–601 Google Scholar
Raghu, S, Anderson, RC, Daehler, CC, Davis, AS, Wiedenmann, RN, Simberloff, D, Mack, RN (2006) Adding biofuels to the invasive species fire? Science 313:1742 Google Scholar
Rejmanek, M, Richardson, DM (1996) What attributes make some plant species more invasive? Ecology 77:1655–1660 Google Scholar
Robertson, GP, Dale, VH, Doering, OC, Hamburg, SP, Melillo, JM, Wander, MM, Parton, WJ, Adler, PR, Barney, JN, Cruse, RM, Duke, CS, Fearnside, PM, Follett, RF, Gibbs, HK, Goldemberg, J, Mladenoff, DJ, Ojima, D, Palmer, MW, Sharpley, A, Wallace, L, Weathers, KC, Wiens, JA, Wilhelm, WW (2008) Sustainable biofuels redux. Science 322:49–50 Google Scholar
Sax, DF, Stachowicz, JJ, Gaines, SD, eds, (2005) Species Invasions: Insights into Ecology, Evolution, and Biogeography. Sunderland, MA Sinauer Google Scholar
Seawright, EK, Rister, ME, Lacewell, RD, Mccorkle, DA, Sturdivant, AW, Yang, C, Goolsby, JA (2009) Economic implications for the biological control of Arundo donax: Rio Grande Basin. Southwest Entomol 34:377–394 Google Scholar
Simberloff, D (2005) The politics of assessing risk for biological invasions: the USA as a case study. Trends Ecol Evol 20:216–222 Google Scholar
Simberloff, D (2008) Invasion biologists and the biofuels boom: Cassandras or colleagues? Weed Sci 56:867–872 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, LL, Allen, DJ, Barney, JN (2015) The thin green line: sustainable bioenergy feedstocks or invaders in waiting? Neobiota 25:47–71 Google Scholar
Smith, LL, Barney, JN (2014) The relative risk of invasion: evaluation of Miscanthus × giganteus seed establishment. Invasive Plant Sci Manage 7:93–106 Google Scholar
Stone, LM, Byrne, M, Virtue, JG (2008) An environmental weed risk assessment model for Australian forage improvement programs. Aust J Exp Agric 48:568–574 Google Scholar
Van Kleunen, M, Weber, E, Fischer, M (2010) A meta-analysis of trait differences between invasive and non-invasive plant species. Ecol Lett 13:235–245 Google Scholar
Vilà, M, Espinar, JL, Hejda, M, Hulme, PE, Jarošík, V, Maron, JL, Pergl, J, Schaffner, U, Sun, Y, Pyšek, P (2011) Ecological impacts of invasive alien plants: a meta-analysis of their effects on species, communities and ecosystems. Ecol Lett 14:702–708 Google Scholar
Virtue, JG, Bennett, SJ, Randall, RP (2004) of Conference. Plant introductions in Australia: how can we resolve weedy conflicts of interest? Pages 42–48 in Sindel, BM, Johnson, SB, eds. Proceedings of Weed Management: Balancing People, Planet, Profit—the 14th Australian Weeds Conference. Sydney, Australia Weed Society of New South Wales Google Scholar
Warwick, SI, Black, LD (1983) The biology of Canadian weeds. 61. Sorghum halepense (L.) PERS. Can J Plant Sci 63:997–1014 Google Scholar
Williamson, M, Fitter, A (1996) The varying success of invaders. Ecology 77:1661–1666 Google Scholar
Yokomizo, H, Possingham, HP, Hulme, PE, Grice, AC, Buckley, YM (2012) Cost–benefit analysis for intentional plant introductions under uncertainty. Biol Invasions 14:839–849 Google Scholar