Geology topics

Jeffrey Dukes

Publications and source records attributed to Jeffrey Dukes.

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↗

USGS2024

Naturalized species drive functional trait shifts in plant communities

Despite decades of research documenting the consequences of naturalized and invasive plant species on ecosystem functions, our understanding of the functional underpinnings of these changes remains rudimentary. This is partially due to ineffective scaling of trait differences between native and naturalized species to whole plant communities. Working with data from over 75,000 plots and over 5,500 species from across the United States, we show that changes in the functional composition of communities associated with increasing abundance of naturalized species mirror the differences in traits between native and naturalized plants. We find that communities with greater abundance of naturalized species are more resource acquisitive aboveground and belowground, shorter, more shallowly rooted, and increasingly aligned with an independent strategy for belowground resource acquisition via thin fine roots with high specific root length. We observe shifts toward herbaceous-dominated communities but shifts within both woody and herbaceous functional groups follow community-level patterns for most traits. Patterns are remarkably similar across desert, grassland, and forest ecosystems. Our results demonstrate that the establishment and spread of naturalized species, likely in combination with underlying environmental shifts, leads to predictable and consistent changes in community-level traits that can alter ecosystem functions.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences↗

USGS2023

Macroscale analyses suggest invasive plant impacts depend more on the composition of invading plants than on environmental context

Aim Native biodiversity is threatened by the spread of non-native invasive species. Many studies demonstrate that invasions reduce local biodiversity but we lack an understanding of how impacts vary across environments at the macroscale. Using ~11,500 vegetation surveys from ecosystems across the United States, we quantified how the relationship between non-native plant cover and native plant diversity varied across different compositions of invading plants (measured by non-native plant richness and evenness) and environmental contexts (measured by productivity and human activity). Location Continental United States. Time Period Surveys from 1990s-present. Major Taxa Studied Terrestrial plant communities. Methods We fit mixed effects models to understand how native plant richness, diversity and evenness varied with non-native cover. We tested how this relationship varied when non-native cover interacted with non-native plant richness and evenness, and with productivity and human activity. Results Across the United States, communities with greater cover of non-native plants had lower native plant richness and diversity but higher evenness, suggesting rare native plants can be lost while dominant plants decline in abundance. The relationship between non-native cover and native community diversity varied with non-native plant richness and evenness but was not associated with productivity and human activity. Negative associations were strongest in areas with low non-native richness and evenness, characterizing plant communities that were invaded by a dominant non-native plant. Main Conclusions Non-native plant cover provides a first approximation of invasion impacts on native community diversity, but the magnitude of impact depended on non-native plant richness and evenness. Relationships between non-native cover and native diversity were consistent in strength across continental scale gradients of productivity and human activity. Therefore, at the macroscale, invasive plant impacts on native plant communities likely depend more on the characteristics of the invading plants, that is the presence of a dominant invader, than on the environmental context.

Global Ecology and Biogeography↗

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↗

USGS2023

The future of Indiana's water resources: A report from the Indiana climate change impacts assessment

Indiana’s water resources—in streams and lakes, in plants and soils, and underground—are a critical component of the state’s economy and well-being. Availability of this important resource is driven by precipitation and temperature patterns, both of which have shifted in recent decades, and is also highly influenced by how we manage natural and human systems. As local temperatures continue to rise and rainfall patterns shift, managing the multiple water needs of communities, natural systems, recreation, industry, and agriculture will become increasingly difficult. Ensuring that enough water is available in the right places and at the right times will require awareness of Indiana’s changing water resources and planning at regional and state levels. This report from the Indiana Climate Change Impacts Assessment (IN CCIA) applies climate change projections for the state to explore how continued changes in Indiana’s climate are going to affect all aspects of water resources, including soil water, evaporation, runoff, snow cover, streamflow, drought, and flooding. The findings presented here are primarily based on the IN CCIA Water Resources Working Group technical report (Cherkauer et al., 2021) and the IN CCIA report Indiana’s Past and Future Climate (Widhalm et al., 2018).

Indiana↗

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↗