<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE></TITLE>
<META content="text/html; charset=us-ascii" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19019"></HEAD>
<BODY><!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT face=Arial><STRONG>It would be interesting to know if the only 2.5
sites per species in home ranges were natural sites or unnatural disturbed sites
without competition from native species. Native Switch Grass has been found
invasive in America in unnatural habitats but not in natural habitats and is a
new invasive in Europe. </STRONG></FONT></P>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><STRONG><SPAN class=812141512-06032011><FONT
color=#0000ff> </FONT>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN style="COLOR: navy">Marc Imlay, PhD,</SPAN></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN style="COLOR: navy">Conservation biologist, Park
Ranger Office</SPAN></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN style="COLOR: navy">(301) 442-5657
cell</SPAN></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN style="COLOR: navy"><A
title="blocked::blocked::mailto:Marc.Imlay@pgparks.com
blocked::mailto:Marc.Imlay@pgparks.com
mailto:Marc.Imlay@pgparks.com"
href="blocked::mailto:Marc.Imlay@pgparks.com" target=_blank><SPAN
style="COLOR: navy"
title="blocked::blocked::mailto:Marc.Imlay@pgparks.com
blocked::mailto:Marc.Imlay@pgparks.com">Marc.Imlay@pgparks.com</SPAN></A> <A
title="blocked::blocked::mailto:ialm@erols.com
blocked::mailto:ialm@erols.com
mailto:ialm@erols.com"
href="blocked::mailto:ialm@erols.com" target=_blank></A><A
title=blocked::mailto:ialm@erols.com href="mailto:ialm@erols.com"><A
title=blocked::mailto:ialm@erols.com
href="mailto:ialm@erols.com">ialm@erols.com</A></A></SPAN></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN style="COLOR: navy">Natural and Historical Resources
Division</SPAN></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="COLOR: navy">The Maryland-National Capital Park and
Planning Commission</SPAN></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN style="COLOR: navy"><A
title="blocked::blocked::http://www.pgparks.com/
blocked::http://www.pgparks.com/
http://www.pgparks.com"
href="blocked::http://www.pgparks.com/" target=_blank></A><A
title=blocked::http://www.pgparks.com/ href="http://www.pgparks.com/"><A
title=blocked::http://www.pgparks.com/
href="http://www.pgparks.com/">www.pgparks.com</A></A></SPAN></B></P></SPAN></STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<P><BR><BR><STRONG>-----Original Message-----<BR>From:
apwg-bounces@lists.plantconservation.org [</STRONG></FONT><A
href="mailto:apwg-bounces@lists.plantconservation.org"><FONT
face=Arial><STRONG>mailto:apwg-bounces@lists.plantconservation.org</STRONG></FONT></A><FONT
face=Arial><STRONG>] On Behalf Of Reinhart, Kurt<BR>Sent: Thursday, March 10,
2011 11:59 AM<BR>To: apwg@lists.plantconservation.org<BR>Subject: Re: [APWG]
NEWS: Invasive Species Widespread,but Not More Than at Home<BR><BR>Okay, I'll
bite & also do some shameless self promotion.<BR><BR>A contrary view to Firn
et al. is provided using a single species (a prominent invasive tree species)
that was carried out across 40 total populations with slightly more than half in
its native range and nearly half in its non-native range in Reinhart et al.
(2010, New Phytologist </STRONG></FONT><A
href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.03159.x/abst"><FONT
face=Arial><STRONG>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.03159.x/abst</STRONG></FONT></A><BR><FONT
face=Arial><STRONG>ract). This study concluded that measures of local
relative abundance were considerably greater in the non-native than native
ranges. This study may not seem like a direct comparison because the main
topic relates to Enemy release but comparable data are in the supplement (which
apparently hasn't been read by many). Others have made similar
observations though often without quantitative evidence for species like spotted
knapweed, garlic mustard, etc.<BR><BR>Firn et al's ELE study's main advantage
over Reinhart et al.'s is their use of considerably more species (26 species, 12
grass and 14 forb<BR>species) at 39 sites. They concluded species have
similar levels of abundance in native vs. non-native ranges. A conclusion
from their paper is that many of the grasses were common at home and away while
many of the forbs were rare at home and away. However based on information
in their supplement, I calculated that on average they have measurements for
only 2.5 sites per species in home ranges and 7.6 sites per species in exotic
ranges. Sampling more species per region is valued because many species
have incredibly large distributions and local abundances are variable
throughout. Sampling broadly is necessary to avoid forms of regional
sampling bias though researchers have to balance logistics (also see Adams et
al. 2009 as an example of an extensive sampling network<BR>(</STRONG></FONT><A
href="http://www.plantecology.org/Full%20text%20papers%20and%20abstracts/2009"><FONT
face=Arial><STRONG>http://www.plantecology.org/Full%20text%20papers%20and%20abstracts/2009</STRONG></FONT></A><BR><FONT
face=Arial><STRONG>%20papers/Adams%20Bioinvasions%202009.pdf). Firn et al.
help avoid this limitation by looking at numerous species though more than half
represent relatively minor invasions.<BR><BR>I think what we would mostly like
to know is what traits/processes/interactions can we attribute to the success of
the most invasive species and whether their abundances, effects of enemies, etc.
differ at biogeographical scales. Following the rule of 10s, these species
represent the most improbable invasion scenarios. So we shouldn't be too
surprised if such rare events can never be predicted without the benefit of
hindsight. However, I wouldn't be surprised if further studies, focusing
on highly invasive species which are the exceptions, reveal that most/many are
cases where the species attain greater levels of local abundance/dominance in
their non-native than native ranges. My 2 cents. You
decide.<BR><BR>Kurt Reinhart<BR><BR> 31. NEWS: Invasive Species
Widespread, but Not More Than
at<BR>Home<BR> Range (Olivia Kwong)<BR>Message:
31<BR>Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 08:27:30 -0600 (CST)<BR>From: Olivia Kwong
<plant@plantconservation.org><BR>To:
apwg@lists.plantconservation.org<BR>Subject: [APWG] NEWS: Invasive Species
Widespread, but Not
More<BR>Than<BR> at Home
Range<BR>Message-ID:<BR>
<Pine.LNX.4.64.1103030826390.1121@cpanel1-bb.epconline.net><BR>Content-Type:
TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed<BR><BR></STRONG></FONT><A
href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110301111459.htm"><FONT
face=Arial><STRONG>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110301111459.htm</STRONG></FONT></A><BR><BR><FONT
face=Arial><STRONG>Invasive Species Widespread, but Not More Than at Home
Range<BR><BR>ScienceDaily (Mar. 1, 2011) -- Invasive plant species have long had
a reputation as being bad for a new ecosystem when they are
introduced.<BR><BR>Stan Harpole, assistant professor of ecology, evolution and
organismal biology at Iowa State University, is founding organizer of a team of
more than 70 researchers working at 65 sites worldwide that tested that
assumption.<BR><BR>See the link above for the full article
text.<BR><BR><BR></STRONG></FONT><FONT
face=Arial><STRONG></P></STRONG></FONT></BODY></HTML>