Next Article in Journal
The Influence of Serpentine Soil on the Early Development of a Non-Serpentine African Thistle, Berkheya radula (Harv.) De Wild
Next Article in Special Issue
Seed Germination of Invasive Phytolacca americana and Potentially Invasive P. acinosa
Previous Article in Journal
Pollen Morphology of Some Species from Genus Nitraria
Previous Article in Special Issue
Post-Invasion Recovery of Plant Communities Colonised by Gunnera tinctoria after Mechanical Removal or Herbicide Application and Its Interaction with an Extreme Weather Event
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 11
Issue 18
10.3390/plants11182358
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Diversity and Typology of Land-Use Explain the Occurrence of Alien Plants in a Protected Area

by
Peter Glasnović
1,*,
Sara Cernich
1,2,
Jure Peroš
1,
Manja Tišler
1,
Živa Fišer
1 and
Boštjan Surina
1,3
1
Faculty of Mathematics, Natural Sciences and Information Technologies, University of Primorska, Glagoljaška 8, 6000 Koper, Slovenia
2
Nature Park Strunjan—Javni zavod Krajinski Park Strunjan, Strunjan 152, 6320 Portorož, Slovenia
3
Natural History Museum Rijeka, Lorenzov Prolaz 1, 51000 Rijeka, Croatia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2022, 11(18), 2358; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11182358
Submission received: 4 August 2022 / Revised: 19 August 2022 / Accepted: 4 September 2022 / Published: 9 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Management and Application of Invasive Plant Species)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Plant life history and functional characteristics play an important role in determining the invasive potential of plant species and have implications for management approaches. We studied the distribution of 24 alien plant taxa in a protected area in relation to different land-uses by applying ordination analyses and generalized linear models. Taxa richness is best explained by the presence of built-up areas, followed by residential areas, marshlands, and agricultural lands with semi-natural formations. The diversity of land-use within the grid cell proved to be an important explanatory factor, being the only significant variable explaining the richness of wood perennials and vines. The richness of annual herbs and seed-dispersed taxa is explained by a similar set of variables, with the exception of residential areas. The richness of invasive species is explained only by agricultural land and the diversity of land-use. The richness of taxa with predominant vegetative dispersal is best explained by built-up, marshland, and seminatural areas along with land-use diversity. When we consider only the presence of plant groups within grid cells, the results are similar. The results of similar studies may provide an important tool for defining sustainable practices and overall conservation management in protected areas.

1. Introduction

Globalization of biodiversity is one of the consequences of the ongoing human influence on ecological patterns and processes. Alien plant species, especially invasive ones, are considered one of the greatest threats to both biodiversity and human society. In Europe, invasive plants have been shown to have particularly strong negative impacts on ecosystems, surpassing even the harm caused by invasive animals [1]. Although biotic migrations facilitated by human activities are as old as humanity itself, this trend has accelerated greatly in recent centuries due to the rapid development of transportation, industry, and communications. Intrinsic and extrinsic factors influence the direction and patterns of this process. Life form characteristics, stress tolerance, and reproductive strategies of plants favor the spread and establishment of certain plant species in new environments [2,3]. At the same time, human influences in these environments provide the background for their competitiveness with native species. It is widely recognized that human-induced disturbances play a crucial role in the establishment of non-native species [4,5]. Alien floral richness has proved particularly diverse in urban ecosystems, riverine ecosystems, and small-scale rural ecosystems [6]. In agricultural areas, much of the species’ richness is due primarily to alien species, and to an even greater extent than in urban areas [7]. Therefore, with the projected increase of urban areas [8,9], and the changes and prospects in agriculture [10], we can expect the spread and establishment of alien species leading to increased species diversity in the future, together with a harsh decline in the phylogenetic and functional diversity of native communities [11,12,13].
To halt the loss of biodiversity, a number of different conservation tools have been developed. Protected areas aim to preserve biodiversity within specific geographic boundaries, along with the terrestrial or marine landscape and the human actions that have shaped that diversity throughout history, by applying appropriate conservation management. In order to standardize management objectives worldwide, the IUCN proposed to assign protected areas to different categories (Table 1) according to their characteristics and conservation conditions [14]. Today, protected areas are also recognized as important actors in the identification, control, and management of alien species [15]. They represent a refuge from invasions, which could change due to predicted climate changes [16]. In some cases, however, there is also evidence of over-representation of alien species in protected areas compared to other areas, which should be considered particularly alarming [17]. Protected areas are also sensitive to influences emanating from their surroundings [18]. All this is a consequence of the fact that protected areas are increasingly becoming just a fragment within the mosaic a human-modified landscape [15].
Studies have shown that all management categories can be affected by the pressure represented by alien plant species. The highest number of sites with alien species problems has been reported for categories II, IV, and V [19]. While categories II and IV include more or less natural or near-natural areas or area focused on the conservation of particular habitat or species, category V consists of protected landscape where patterns and process were ruled throughout the history by the interaction of people and nature [14].
While inventories of alien species within protected areas can serve as an indicator of the state of the protected area [15], additional knowledge is needed to recognize the impact of alien species on ecosystems and to prioritize management approaches to control and eradicate them from protected areas [20].
In this study, we aim to identify patterns of occurrence of alien species (only neophytes, plant species introduced to Europe after 1492; e.g., [21]) based on different land-use categories in an IUCN Category IV/V protected area at the northern edge of the Mediterranean in the Istrian Peninsula (Slovenia). Specifically, we ask whether (1) land-uses of higher biodiversity conservation value support lower diversity of alien species than other land-uses, whether (2) there are differences in occurrence based on traits, invasion status or pathways of introduction, and finally, and whether (3) this knowledge can lead to appropriate management guidelines for maintaining favorable conservation status of such areas.

2. Results

A total of 24 alien taxa were recorded with 992 occurrences altogether (Table 2). The largest number of records (276) was obtained for three species of the genus Conyza (C. sumatrensis (Retz.) E.Walker, C. canadensis (L.) Cronquist, and C. bonariensis (L.) Cronquist), followed by Aster squamatus (Spreng.) Hieron. and Robinia pseudoacacia L. with 175 and 148 occurrences, respectively. Although C. sumatrensis is the most widely distributed species in the study area, we decided to consider it only at the genus level due to difficulties in identification at later stages and similarities in life history and ecology.
Of all the recorded taxa, five are classified as invasive at the national level: Robinia pseudoacacia, Helianthus tuberosus L., Ambrosia artemisiifolia L., Ailanthus altissima (Mill.) Swingle, and Erigeron annuus (L.) Desf, with the first species being the most numerous in the study area (Table 2). The majority of taxa included in the study are considered naturalized. Some of the plants considered problematic, such as Parthenocissus quinquefolia (L.) Planch., Passiflora caerulea L., Phyllostachys sp., Ligustrum lucidum W.T.Aiton, Broussonetia papyrifera (L.) L’Hér. Ex Vent., and Cortaderia selloana (Schult. & Schult.f.) Asch. & Graebn., are also cultivated in gardens, and their occurrence in nature is probably the result of escapes. This trend is supported by the analysis of distance to private homes and, to some extent, distance to tourist facilities (Figure 1).
The unconstrained analysis (DCA, Figure 2 left) generally identifies two groups that cannot be clearly explained by passively projected gradients of land-use. Only the gradient representing the coast clearly explains the occurrence of Amorpha fruticosa L. Supplementary variables account for 20.7% of the variation (adjusted explained variation is 10.8%).
The constrained analysis (CCA, Figure 2 right) and forward selection factors (Table 3) showed that public land-use explained most of the variation (4.6%; p = 0.014), followed by marshland (4.0%; p = 0.006), coast (2.9%; p = 0.022) and built-up areas (2.4%; p = 0.04). However, when adjusted p-values are considered, only the marshland land-use category shows statistical significance.
We found that the richness in the different categories is distributed differently over the study area (Figure 3). Richness in total taxa (Figure 3A) and of taxa with seed dispersal (Figure 3E) partially overlap, while patterns of occurrence diversity in other categories—woody perennials and vines (Figure 3B), annual herbs (Figure 3C), invasive species (Figure 3D), and taxa with vegetative dispersal (Figure 3F) are more scattered.
The land-use values did not show high collinearity and were, therefore, all used for model fitting. Land-use diversity at both accuracy levels showed a high correlation, so it was included in the models individually. Taxa richness is best explained by the presence of built-up areas along with residential areas, marshlands, and agricultural lands with semi-natural formations such as grasslands and hedgerows (Table 4). An important explanatory factor for taxa richness is the diversity of land-use within the grid cell, which is also the only significant variable explaining the richness of woody perennials and vines. Richness of annual herbs and seed dispersed taxa is explained by a similar set of variables as for taxa overall, with the exception of residential areas. The number of invasive species present in the grid cell is significantly explained only by the presence of agricultural land and the diversity of land-use within the grid cell. Richness of taxa with prevailing vegetative dispersal is best explained by built-up, marshland, and seminatural areas together with the diversity of land-uses.
If we consider only the presence of plant groups within the grid cells, the results are similar. The presence of woody perennials and vines is only well explained by the diversity of land-use within the grid cell (Table 5). Presence of annual herbs is best explained by the presence of agricultural land and semi-natural elements such as grasslands and hedgerows. If we consider agricultural land at a more detailed level, the categories that better explain the presence of therophytes are olive groves and field crops (Table 6). The presence of invasive species is also best explained by the diversity of land-use in the grid cell. Since agriculture was found to be one of the most important explanatory variables while fitting richness to land-use (Table 5), we tested the response of invasive species occurrence to the detailed level of land-use. Olive groves showed a significant effect on the occurrence of invasive species. The presence of taxa with seed dispersal is explained with near statistical significance by agricultural and semi-natural stands, while taxa with vegetative dispersal are significantly explained by marshland and land-use diversity.

3. Discussion

Habitat heterogeneity and niche partitioning are among the most important factors impacting taxa richness [42,43,44] and there is no particular reason why this should not relate to the diversity of alien plant species as well. Results of this study suggest that the diversity of land-uses, differences in biological traits and pathways of introductions influence the occurrence of alien species within a protected area.

3.1. Land-Use and Diversity of Alien Plants

In general, we observed that cells with more diverse land-use support the highest number of aliens in the study area. In the study area, agriculture is the most prevalent land-use within the landscape park (IUCN category V), while (anthropogenic) coastal wetlands and natural areas—consisting of sub-Mediterranean forest fragments and natural coast—dominate in the two nature reserves (IUCN IV category). Agriculture proved to be an important factor influencing the occurrence of alien species. The results show that the diversity of annual taxa and taxa spread mainly by seeds is promoted by agriculture. A particular significance for the occurrence of annual alien taxa was attributed to the cover of field crops and olive groves. To ensure proper production of agricultural crops, farmers must adopt suitable ways to control weeds on agricultural land. The primary role of protected areas is conservation of biodiversity richness and processes, thus agricultural practices should follow rules that ensure favourable conditions for the environment and the conservation of biodiversity. This is particularly important as we have found that agriculture is a major factor explaining the occurrence of invasive species. However, the role of protected areas consists also in achieving socio-cultural objectives, aimed at sustainable development [45]. An example from a neighbouring region (Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Italy) demonstrated that promoting extensive agricultural practices can maintain native plant diversity while reducing the number of exotic species [46]. Preference should be given to approaches that do not involve chemical control. This should be achieved through appropriate crop rotation strategies or sustainable tillage management, that showed to control the persistence of numerous annual plant species considered as weeds on crop fields [22,23,24,35]. Conversely, promoting cover crops instead of regular tillage is shown to improve microbial communities, leading to better agricultural efficiency while maintaining sustainable practices [47].
Coastal wetlands are also subject to problems resulting from the spread of alien species, leading to species loss and a reduction in functional diversity [13]. The impact of alien plant species on wetlands and riparian zones has been widely reported from many regions in the world [6,48,49]. Coastal marshes proved to be particularly significant for the distribution of alien species within the study area. All categories within this land-use are human-made habitats and have been extensively managed over the past several centuries. Nonetheless, these habitats, due to their biodiversity value, have been identified as requiring special protection and their management is a conservation priority. Our results show that land-uses categorized as marshlands are particularly conducive to the occurrence of annual taxa together with taxa characterized by seed and vegetative dispersal. Some of the taxa that occur in these environments are already known to be problematic or in fact represent invasive species (e.g., Senecio inaequidens DC., Lonicera japonica Thunb., Helianthus tuberosus). Others, such as Aster squamatus, are still considered at lower risk, as non-invasive species. However, due to their environmental engineering abilities, they may pose a potential threat to native species and habitats in the projected climate changes [50]. This is of particular concern because some of them abundantly occur in coastal wetlands, where the conservation of halophytic vegetation is a primary focus.
Other coastal habitats, like sand dunes and rocky shores, have been shown to be under pressure due to the spread of alien plant species as well [13]. In Strunjan Landscape Park, the rocky shoreline bears two noxious species that occur on sites with the highest visitor impact (Amorpha fruticosa, Ailanthus altissima). However, our results did not show a major correlation between the diversity of alien species or their occurrence within this land-use category.
As we postulated, the least impacted areas are the more pristine areas dominated by sub-Mediterranean forest stands and flysch cliffs along the natural shoreline. In general, forest stands are considered to be less susceptible to invasion by aliens than other habitats [51]. However, studies show that European woodlands are susceptible to alien plant invasion, especially in combination with human disturbance, fragmentation, alien propagule pression, and soil nutrients level [52]. Singular non-native species can have cascading effects on forest ecosystems [53]. There are also considerable differences when considering the interior of forests compared to their edges [54], and when considering surrounding land-use [55]. In the case of Strunjan Landscape Park, forests are represented by fragments within the matrix of other land-uses, thus management should seriously consider the potential impacts of invasive alien species.

3.2. Traits and Pathways of Introduction

Land-use diversity was the only significant variable explaining the diversity of woody, vine, and invasive species in the models. In the previous chapter, we have already emphasised that different land-uses can influence the distribution of plant groups based on different traits. In addition, the spread of alien species is accelerated in fragmented landscapes, especially when major portions of such areas consist of disturbed or man-made habitats [6,56,57]. This study has clearly shown that the distribution of some taxa is related to proximity to human settlements. Built-up areas and residential areas have been shown to be important descriptors of the occurrence of alien taxa in the study area. By using multiple pathways of introduction, species can reach a wider range of suitable habitats, which has been shown to be particularly important for prioritizing conservation efforts in protected areas [58]. General considerations identify two ways that precede successful naturalization—intentional and unintentional introduction [59]. Horticulture is one of the major pathways for non-native plants into new environments [60]. In horticulture, we can consider both types—intentional—when cultivated plants are deliberately introduced into new environments—or, more commonly, unintentional—when introductions are the result of escapes from gardens or parks. By measuring the distance of occurrences from private gardens or parks in tourist facilities, we have found that a number of species that normally grow as ornamentals have most likely spread as escapees from gardens (e.g., Passiflora caerulea, Parthenocissus quinquefolia, Ligustrum lucidum) or have been intentionally introduced (Phyllostachys sp.). Due to projected climate changes, the spread of some of these taxa should be carefully monitored because they have been identified as problematic invasive species in warmer areas of the world [29,33]. For some other species (e.g., Paspalum dilatatum Poir.), management of public lands (e.g., parks, loans at tourist facilities) plays an important role in their introduction, establishment, and continued spread [37].

3.3. Management of Alien Plants in Protected Areas

As the cornerstone of biodiversity conservation, protected areas should be at the forefront of the fight against biological invasions. Protection in itself will not reduce the threat of alien species, therefore, in-situ conservation of biodiversity by detecting and controlling the spread of alien species should be prioritized in protected areas’ management plans. Raising awareness of alien species issues should be in the focus of their conservation efforts. Because of their high standing in society, protected-area managers should take advantage of this to promote activities aimed at improving the implementation of conservation measures by local inhabitants and other users of the services provided by the area, including visitors [61]. This is particularly important because the integrity of the protected areas is highly dependent on the effectiveness of management outside their boundaries [18,62]. Surveillance and monitoring, as well as the development of staff capacity and response networks, should be another important component of the protected areas’ management plans [61]. Early campaigns usually lead to greater success than battles to eradicate infestations after a critical threshold has been reached [63]. However, prioritization should focus on the more vulnerable areas in order to ensure overall conservation, rather than the control itself [15]. Such a management approach can provide long-term and holistic solutions for biodiversity conservation. Managers should work with researchers to determine whether alien species are driving changes in ecosystems or are merely symptoms of the changing environment [20]. Approaches that consider ecological principles of organisms (e.g., dispersal, propagules, ecophysiology, life history) and habitats (e.g., site availability, disturbance) should form the basis of all management guidelines [64]. To achieve this, a robust network linking conservation managers, scientists, and users of protected areas should be established and maintained. In the changing world, protected areas should provide a suitable and well-managed refuge for biodiversity, that is safe from the threats represented by biological invasions.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Study Area

The Strunjan Landscape Park is a protected area situated in the south-western part of Slovenia on the eastern Adriatic coast (Figure 4). It comprises the area of the Strunjan peninsula, a 200 m wide shoreline that extends over a coastal line of 4 km and the entire bay of Strunjan. According to IUCN, the protected area belongs to categories IV and V and is listed as a Specially Protected Area of Mediterranean Importance (SPAMI) since 2019. The park extends over an area of 428.6 ha and includes two nature reserves and a natural monument. Landscape Park Strunjan was established in 1990 and is managed by a public institution since 2008.
The Strunjan Peninsula is characterized by a hilly landscape where agricultural land and farmhouses form a mosaic landscape, which has developed due to favorable natural conditions such as the submediterranean climate and leeward aspect, that allowed humans to settle and develop traditional economic activities in the area. Agriculture shaped the cultural landscape of the Strunjan Peninsula and has maintained a significant impact on the landscape. In the last decades, the coverage of traditional agricultural land decreased, and practices shifted from non-permanent towards permanent plantations (albeit still extensive) that are presently a predominant element in the area. The importance of traditional agriculture is decreasing as it no longer represents the main source of income for the area’s inhabitants, thus making it less appealing for the new inhabitants. The consequences of such changes are reflected in the abandonment and overgrowth of agricultural lands and in the loss of landscape elements and diversity. Despite being one of the most populated protected areas in Slovenia with a population density ranging from 112 to 336 inhabitants per km2 [65], only a smaller number of inhabitants engage in traditional agricultural activities.
A second, economically important activity in the area is tourism. The location of the park is very favorable for touristic activities due to good transport infrastructure, proximity to major coastal towns and the attractive seascape. Each year the park is visited by approximately 300,000 visitors, concentrated in the summer season [65]. The 18 accommodation facilities that exist within the park include hotels, apartments, and private rooms. In addition, 7 facilities are located in the near vicinity of the park area. Two parking lots with a total capacity of 600 vehicles are located within the park borders and are mainly used in the summer months by the daily visitors. Higher human pressure during the summer season represents a certain threat to the terrestrial part of the park.

4.2. Data Collection

We collected data on the occurrence of all naturalized or supposedly escaped alien plant species within the boundaries of the protected area between 2017 and 2020. Occurrences of individuals or groups of individuals were recorded using a GPS device (Garmin) in WGS84 coordinate systems and subsequently projected to coordinate system D96TM. Taxonomic status was determined based on regional and European floras [66,67,68,69,70,71]. When possible, we considered taxa at the species level. When taxonomic status was difficult to assess, we considered the taxon at the genus level, especially when it appeared that the characteristics and impact of all species within the genus were similar (e.g., Conyza spp.). We determined invasive status based on the register of invasive species in the Republic of Slovenia (Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning of the Republic of Slovenia). Because plant life history and functional traits play an important role in determining the invasive potential of plant species [3], and have implications for management approaches [64], we focused on two general traits: life form and predominant dispersal mode. To further contribute to an appropriate management approach, we reviewed existing control mechanisms for the management of individual taxa.
To understand the role of land-use in the distribution of alien species, we created a layer of features indicating different categories of land-use. This layer was initially created by combining two existing datasets: the Agricultural holdings and use unit (GERK) provided by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food of the Republic of Slovenia (2020) and the Land cadastre provided by the Surveying and Mapping Authority of the Republic of Slovenia (2019). Missing information was supplemented by additional fieldwork in 2020 and interpretation of digital orthophotos at a 1:5000 scale (Surveying and Mapping Authority of the Republic of Slovenia, 2020). Spatial data were obtained and further completed in D96TM national coordinate systems. We compiled two accuracy levels of land-use data (Table 7).

4.3. Spatial Procedures

All data were elaborated over a 200 × 200 m grid. Species richness was calculated as the number of alien taxa occurring within a grid cell. We also calculated the richness and binary occurrence of taxa per grid cell considering invasiveness, life form, and prevailing dispersal mode. All spatial procedures were performed using ArcGIS ver.10.7 (ESRI, Redlands, CA, USA). We calculated the distance of taxa occurrence to private homes and tourist facilities using the ‘Near’ tool. The extent of land-use was calculated by summing the areas of each polygon within the grid cell using the ‘Zonal Statistics as Table’ tool. The land-use in each cell was then expressed as a percentage. We also calculated the number of different land-use categories per grid cell. We considered both levels of accuracy in all land-use calculations.

4.4. Statistical Analysis

Distances to private homes and tourist facilities were visualized using boxplots from the R package ‘ggplot2’ [72]. Only taxa with 5 or more occurrence data were considered.
Ordination analyses were performed using Canoco v. 5 (Microcomputer Power, Ithaca, New York, USA) [73]. Unconstrained (DCA—discriminant canonical analysis) and constrained (CCA—canonical correspondence analysis) ordination analyses were performed to explain variation in taxa composition in individual grid cells by specific land-use parameters. To determine the length of the gradients, DCA analyses, detrended by segments, were first performed and the models (linear, unimodal) were used accordingly. The statistical significance of the parameters was tested using the Monte Carlo test with 1000 permutations. To estimate the overall affinity of taxa composition, land-use values were passively projected into the ordination plots. The land-use value was estimated as a weighted average of the indicator values of taxa presence. To understand the contribution of land-use to taxa occurrence, we performed step forward analysis by calculating p and adjusted p values using pseudo-F statistics and significance calculated using the permuted data. Results of all statistical analyses were considered significant if the probability of the null hypothesis was less than 0.05.
To understand the distribution of alien taxa in the studied area, we calculated generalized linear models (GLM) using land-use data as predictors. Collinearity of predictors was assessed by calculating Pearson correlation coefficients. GLMs with Poisson distribution and log linkage were fitted to examine the relationship between predictor variables and taxa richness, while presence–absence data were examined using GLMs with binomial distribution and logit linkage. We fitted GLMs that included all predictors and included only statistically significant predictors from the first model. Models were compared on the basis of AIC value. Correlations and GLMs were calculated using the R package ‘stats’ [74].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.G. and B.S.; Fieldwork, P.G., S.C., J.P. and M.T.; Software, P.G. and B.S. Writing—Review & Editing, P.G., Ž.F. and B.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work is partially supported by the Slovenian Research Agency, infrastructure program I0—0035.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the authorities of the Strunjan Landscape Park for the support and data sharing and Tine Mlač and Matic Jančič for the fruitful discussions on statistical procedures.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Vilà, M.; Basnou, C.; Pyšek, P.; Josefsson, M.; Genovesi, P.; Gollasch, S.; Nentwig, W.; Olenin, S.; Roques, A.; Roy, D.; et al. How Well Do We Understand the Impacts of Alien Species on Ecosystem Services? A Pan-European, Cross-Taxa Assessment. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2010, 8, 135–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Milanović, M.; Knapp, S.; Pyšek, P.; Kühn, I. Linking Traits of Invasive Plants with Ecosystem Services and Disservices. Ecosyst. Serv. 2020, 42, 101072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Palma, E.; Vesk, P.A.; White, M.; Baumgartner, J.B.; Catford, J.A. Plant Functional Traits Reflect Different Dimensions of Species Invasiveness. Ecology 2021, 102, e03317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ahmed, D.A.; Fawzy, M.; Saeed, N.M.; Awad, M.A. Effect of the Recent Land Use on the Plant Diversity and Community Structure of Omayed Biosphere Reserve, Egypt. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2015, 4, 26–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lundgren, M.R.; Small, C.J.; Dreyer, G.D. Influence of Land Use and Site Characteristics on Invasive Plant Abundance in the Quinebaug Highlands of Southern New England. Northeast. Nat. 2004, 11, 313–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Deutschewitz, K.; Lausch, A.; Kühn, I.; Klotz, S. Native and Alien Plant Species Richness in Relation to Spatial Heterogeneity on a Regional Scale in Germany. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2003, 12, 299–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Wania, A.; Kühn, I.; Klotz, S. Plant Richness Patterns in Agricultural and Urban Landscapes in Central Germany—Spatial Gradients of Species Richness. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 75, 97–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Faeth, S.H.; Bang, C.; Saari, S. Urban Biodiversity: Patterns and Mechanisms. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2011, 1223, 69–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Grimm, N.B.; Faeth, S.H.; Golubiewski, N.E.; Redman, C.L.; Wu, J.; Bai, X.; Briggs, J.M. Global Change and the Ecology of Cities. Science 2008, 319, 756–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zabel, F.; Putzenlechner, B.; Mauser, W. Global Agricultural Land Resources—A High Resolution Suitability Evaluation and Its Perspectives until 2100 under Climate Change Conditions. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e114980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Loiola, P.P.; de Bello, F.; Chytrý, M.; Götzenberger, L.; Carmona, C.P.; Pyšek, P.; Lososová, Z. Invaders among Locals: Alien Species Decrease Phylogenetic and Functional Diversity While Increasing Dissimilarity among Native Community Members. J. Ecol. 2018, 106, 2230–2241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Milanović, M.; Kühn, I.; Pyšek, P.; Knapp, S. Functional Diversity Changes in Native and Alien Urban Flora over Three Centuries. Biol. Invasions 2021, 23, 2337–2353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Tordoni, E.; Petruzzellis, F.; Nardini, A.; Savi, T.; Bacaro, G. Make It Simpler: Alien Species Decrease Functional Diversity of Coastal Plant Communities. J. Veg. Sci. 2019, 30, 498–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Dudley, N. Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  15. Foxcroft, L.C.; Pyšek, P.; Richardson, D.M.; Genovesi, P. Plant Invasions in Protected Areas: Patterns, Problems and Challenges; Springer Dordrecht: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; pp. 1–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Gallardo, B.; Aldridge, D.C.; González-Moreno, P.; Pergl, J.; Pizarro, M.; Pyšek, P.; Thuiller, W.; Yesson, C.; Vilà, M. Protected Areas Offer Refuge from Invasive Species Spreading under Climate Change. Glob. Change Biol. 2017, 23, 5331–5343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Szilassi, P.; Soóky, A.; Bátori, Z.; Hábenczyus, A.A.; Frei, K.; Tölgyesi, C.; van Leeuwen, B.; Tobak, Z.; Csikós, N. Natura 2000 Areas, Road, Railway, Water, and Ecological Networks May Provide Pathways for Biological Invasion: A Country Scale Analysis. Plants 2021, 10, 2670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Holenstein, K.; Simonson, W.D.; Smith, K.G.; Blackburn, T.M.; Charpentier, A. Non-Native Species Surrounding Protected Areas Influence the Community of Non-Native Species Within Them. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2021, 8, 625137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. de Poorter, M.; Pagad, S.; Ulla, M.I. Invasive Alien Species and Protected Areas: A Scoping Report. Part 1. Scoping the Scale and Nature of Invasive Alien Species Threats to Protected Areas, Impediments to IAS Management and Mens to Address Those Impediments. In Produced for the World Bank as a Contribution to the Global Invasive Species Programme (GISP); 2007; Volume 1, pp. 1–94. Available online: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.637.6151&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed on 8 February 2022).
  20. Hulme, P.E.; Pyšek, P.; Pergl, J.; Jarošík, V.; Schaffner, U.; Vilà, M. Greater Focus Needed on Alien Plant Impacts in Protected Areas. Conserv. Lett. 2014, 7, 459–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Pyšek, P.; Richardson, D.M.; Rejmánek, M.; Webster, G.L.; Williamson, M.; Kirschner, J. Alien Plants in Checklists and Floras: Towards Better Communication between Taxonomists and Ecologists. Taxon 2004, 53, 131–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Schumann, A.W.; Little, K.M.; Eccles, N.S. Suppression of Seed Germination and Early Seedling Growth by Plantation Harvest Residues. S. Afr. J. Plant Soil 1995, 12, 170–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Leroux, G.D.; Benoît, D.L.; Banville, S. Effect of Crop Rotations on Weed Control, Bidens cernua and Erigeron canadensis Populations, and Carrot Yields in Organic Soils. Crop Prot. 1996, 15, 171–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bajwa, A.A.; Sadia, S.; Ali, H.H.; Jabran, K.; Peerzada, A.M.; Chauhan, B.S. Biology and Management of Two Important Conyza Weeds: A Global Review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2016, 23, 24694–24710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Nicolescu, V.N.; Rédei, K.; Mason, W.L.; Vor, T.; Pöetzelsberger, E.; Bastien, J.C.; Brus, R.; Benčať, T.; Đodan, M.; Cvjetkovic, B.; et al. Ecology, Growth and Management of Black Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia, L.), a Non-Native Species Integrated into European Forests. J. For. Res. 2020, 31, 1081–1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Constán-Nava, S.; Bonet, A.; Pastor, E.; Lledó, M.J. Long-Term Control of the Invasive Tree Ailanthus altissima: Insights from Mediterranean Protected Forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 2010, 260, 1058–1064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. de Paiva Pamplona, J.; de Freitas Souza, M.; Sousa, D.M.M.; de Mesquita, H.C.; Freitas, C.D.M.; Lins, H.A.; Torres, S.B.; Silva, D.V. Seed Germination of Bidens subalternans DC. Exposed to Different Environmental Factors. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0233228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Shimamoto, Y.; Nomura, N.; Takaso, T.; Setoguchi, H. Overcompensation of Seed Production Caused by Clipping of Bidens pilosa Var. radiata (Compositae): Implications for Weed Control on Iriomote-Jima Island, Japan. Weed Biol. Manag. 2011, 11, 118–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. CABI/US Department of Agriculture Invasive Species Compendium. Available online: https://www.cabi.org/ISC (accessed on 8 February 2022).
  30. Wu, J.Y.; Qing, H.W.; Zhen, Y.S.; Guo, K.J. Impact of Burning, Cutting, and Chemicals on the Spreading of Virginia Creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia). For. Res. 2004, 17, 237–240. [Google Scholar]
  31. Fehér, A.; Končeková, L. Evaluation of Mechanical Regulation of Invasive Helianthus Tuberosus Populations in Agricultural Landscape [Hodnotenie Mechanickej Regulácie Inváznych Populácií Helianthus Tuberosus v Pol’nohospodárskej Krajine]. J. Cent. Eur. Agric. 2009, 10, 245–250. [Google Scholar]
  32. Pietrogiovanna, M.; Spechtenhauser, R.; Gluderer, P.; Broll, M.; Peratoner, G. Timing of Different Non-Chemical Control Strategies of Narrow-Leaved Ragwort (Senecio inaequidens) in Grassland. Grassl. Sci. Eur. 2016, 21, 501–503. [Google Scholar]
  33. Johnson, S.B. Privet Species—Are We Sitting on Species Time Bombs? In Proceedings of the 15th Biennial NSW Weeds Conference, Narrabri, Australia, 15–17 September 2009. [Google Scholar]
  34. Song, U.; Son, D.; Kang, C.; Lee, E.J.; Lee, K.; Park, J.S. Mowing: A Cause of Invasion, but Also a Potential Solution for Management of the Invasive, Alien Plant Species Erigeron annuus (L.) Pers. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 223, 530–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Vencill, W.K.; Banks, P.A. Effects of Tillage Systems and Weed Management on Weed Populations in Grain Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). Weed Sci. 1994, 42, 541–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Essl, F.; Biró, K.; Brandes, D.; Broennimann, O.; Bullock, J.M.; Chapman, D.S.; Chauvel, B.; Dullinger, S.; Fumanal, B.; Guisan, A.; et al. Biological Flora of the British Isles: Ambrosia Artemisiifolia. J. Ecol. 2015, 103, 1069–1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Henry, G.M.; Burton, M.G.; Yelverton, F.H. Effect of Mowing on Lateral Spread and Rhizome Growth of Troublesome Paspalum Species. Weed Sci. 2007, 55, 486–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Szigetvári, C.S. Initial Steps in the Regeneration of a Floodplain Meadow after a Decade of Dominance of an Invasive Transformer Shrub, Amorpha Fruticosa L. Tiscia 2002, 33, 67–77. [Google Scholar]
  39. Williams, P.A.; Timmins, S.M.; Smith, J.M.; Downey, P.O. The Biology of Australian Weeds 38. Lonicera Japonica Thunb. Plant Prot. Q. 2001, 16, 90–100. [Google Scholar]
  40. Maan, I.; Kaur, A.; Singh, H.P.; Batish, D.R.; Kohli, R.K. Evaluating the Role of Phenology in Managing Urban Invasions: A Case Study of Broussonetia Papyrifera. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 48, 126583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Banfi, E.; Galasso, G. La Flora Esotica Lombarda; Museo di Storia Naturale di Milano: Milano, Italy, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  42. Kallimanis, A.S.; Mazaris, A.D.; Tzanopoulos, J.; Halley, J.M.; Pantis, J.D.; Sgardelis, S.P. How Does Habitat Diversity Affect the Species-Area Relationship? Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2008, 17, 532–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Williams, C.B. No Patterns in the Balance of Nature and Related Problems in Quantitative EcologyTitle; Academic Press: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 1964. [Google Scholar]
  44. Kadmon, R.; Allouche, O. Integrating the Effects of Area, Isolation, and Habitat Heterogeneity on Species Diversity: A Unification of Island Biogeography and Niche Theory. Am. Nat. 2007, 170, 443–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Saviano, M.; di Nauta, P.; Montella, M.M.; Sciarelli, F. The Cultural Value of Protected Areas as Models of Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Pellegrini, E.; Buccheri, M.; Martini, F.; Boscutti, F. Agricultural Land Use Curbs Exotic Invasion but Sustains Native Plant Diversity at Intermediate Levels. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 8385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Schmidt, R.; Gravuer, K.; Bossange, A.V.; Mitchell, J.; Scow, K. Long-Term Use of Cover Crops and No-till Shift Soil Microbial Community Life Strategies in Agricultural Soil. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0192953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mayoral, O.; Mascia, F.; Podda, L.; Laguna, E.; Fraga, P.; Rita, J.; Frigau, L.; Bacchetta, G. Alien Plant Diversity in Mediterranean Wetlands: A Comparative Study within Valencian, Balearic and Sardinian Floras. Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot. Cluj Napoca 2018, 46, 317–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Zelnik, I. The Presence of Invasive Alien Plant Species in Different Habitats: Case Study from Slovenia. Acta Biol. Slov. 2012, 55, 25–38. [Google Scholar]
  50. Šajna, N.; Kaligarič, M.; Ivajnšic, D. Reproduction Biology of an Alien Invasive Plant: A Case of Drought-Tolerant Aster Squamatus on the Northern Adriatic Seacoast, Slovenia. In Managing Protected Areas in Central and Eastern Europe Under Climate Change; Rannow, S., Neubert, M., Eds.; Springer Open: London, UK, 2014; pp. 279–288. [Google Scholar]
  51. Rejmánek, M. Biological Invasions in Forests and Forest Plantations. In Routledge Handbook of Forest Ecology; Peh, K.S.-H., Corlett, R.T., Bergeron, Y., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2015; pp. 452–469. ISBN 9781317816447. [Google Scholar]
  52. Wagner, V.; Chytrý, M.; Jiménez-Alfaro, B.; Pergl, J.; Hennekens, S.; Biurrun, I.; Knollová, I.; Berg, C.; Vassilev, K.; Rodwell, J.S.; et al. Alien Plant Invasions in European Woodlands. Divers. Distrib. 2017, 23, 969–981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Liebhold, A.M.; Brockerhoff, E.G.; Kalisz, S.; Nuñez, M.A.; Wardle, D.A.; Wingfield, M.J. Biological Invasions in Forest Ecosystems. Biol. Invasions 2017, 19, 3437–3458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Vilà, M.; Ibáñez, I. Plant Invasions in the Landscape. Landsc. Ecol. 2011, 26, 461–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. González-Moreno, P.; Pino, J.; Gassó, N.; Vilà, M. Landscape Context Modulates Alien Plant Invasion in Mediterranean Forest Edges. Biol. Invasions 2013, 15, 547–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. With, K.A. Assessing the Risk of Invasive Spread in Fragmented Landscapes. Risk Anal. 2004, 24, 803–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Honnay, O.; Piessens, K.; van Landuyt, W.; Hermy, M.; Gulinck, H. Satellite Based Land Use and Landscape Complexity Indices as Predictors for Regional Plant Species Diversity. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2003, 63, 241–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Foxcroft, L.C.; Spear, D.; van Wilgen, N.J.; McGeoch, M.A. Assessing the Association between Pathways of Alien Plant Invaders and Their Impacts in Protected Areas. NeoBiota 2019, 43, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Pyšek, P.; Jarošík, V.; Pergl, J. Alien Plants Introduced by Different Pathways Differ in Invasion Success: Unintentional Introductions as a Threat to Natural Areas. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e0024890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Reichard, S.H.; White, P. Horticulture as a Pathway of Invasive Plant Introductions in the United States. BioScience 2001, 51, 103–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Monaco, A.; Genovesi, P. European Guidelines on Protected Areas and Invasive Alien Species; Council of Europe: Rome, Italy, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  62. Spear, D.; Foxcroft, L.C.; Bezuidenhout, H.; McGeoch, M.A. Human Population Density Explains Alien Species Richness in Protected Areas. Biol. Conserv. 2013, 159, 137–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Pluess, T.; Jarošík, V.; Pyšek, P.; Cannon, R.; Pergl, J.; Breukers, A.; Bacher, S. Which Factors Affect the Success or Failure of Eradication Campaigns against Alien Species? PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e0048157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. James, J.J.; Smith, B.S.; Vasquez, E.A.; Sheley, R.L. Principles for Ecologically Based Invasive Plant Management. Invasive Plant Sci. Manag. 2010, 3, 229–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Javni zavod Krajinski park Strunjan; Načrt Upravljanja Krajinskega Parka Strunjan Za Obdobje 2018–2027, Strunjan. 2018. Available online: https://parkstrunjan.si/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/NUKPS_2018_2027.pdf (accessed on 8 February 2022).
  66. Martinčič, A.; Wraber, T.; Jogan, N.; Podobnik, A.; Turk, B.; Vreš, B.; Ravnik, V.; Frajman, B.; Strgulc Krajšek, S.; Trčak, B.; et al. Mala Flora Slovenije; Tehniška Založba Slovenije: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  67. Pignatti, S. Flora d’Italia; Edagricole-New Business Media: Bologna, Italy, 2017; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
  68. Guarino, R.; la Rosa, M.; Pignatti, S. Flora d’Italia; Edagricole-New Business Media: Bologna, Italy, 2017; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
  69. Pignatti, S. Flora d’Italia; Edagricole-New Business Media: Bologna, Italy, 2018; Volume 3. [Google Scholar]
  70. Pignatti, S.; Guarino, R.; la Rosa, M. Flora d’Italia; Edagricole-New Business Media: Bologna, Italy, 2019; Volume 4. [Google Scholar]
  71. Tutin, G.T.; Heywood, V.H.; Burges, A.N.; Valentine, D.H.; Walters, M.S.; Webb, D.A. Flora Europaea on CD-Rom; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  72. Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  73. Šmilauer, P.; Lepš, J. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data Using CANOCO 5, 2nd ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  74. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing; R Core Team: Vienna, Austria, 2020. [Google Scholar]
Plants 11 02358 g001 550
Figure 1. Boxplots indicating minimal, maximal, and median distance (together with outliers) of recorded alien plant taxa to private homes (left) and touristic facilities (right).
Figure 1. Boxplots indicating minimal, maximal, and median distance (together with outliers) of recorded alien plant taxa to private homes (left) and touristic facilities (right).
Plants 11 02358 g001
Plants 11 02358 g002 550
Figure 2. Taxa and factors (land-use), vectors passively projected into the ordination space (left). CCA analysis of taxa and factors; red—statistically significant vectors (factors): p (adjusted) < 0.05; red-dashed vectors (factors): p < 0.05, but p (adjusted) > 0.05; black solid vectors (factors)—statistically insignificant vectors (factors): p (adjusted) and p > 0.05 (right).
Figure 2. Taxa and factors (land-use), vectors passively projected into the ordination space (left). CCA analysis of taxa and factors; red—statistically significant vectors (factors): p (adjusted) < 0.05; red-dashed vectors (factors): p < 0.05, but p (adjusted) > 0.05; black solid vectors (factors)—statistically insignificant vectors (factors): p (adjusted) and p > 0.05 (right).
Plants 11 02358 g002
Plants 11 02358 g003 550
Figure 3. Diversity of aliens in the study area based on different categories expressed as the richness of (A)—all taxa; (B)—woody perennials and vines; (C)—annual herbs; (D)—invasive species; (E)—taxa with seed dispersal; (F)—taxa with vegetative dispersal. Numbers and colors in the legends indicate the number of taxa/species per grid cell.
Figure 3. Diversity of aliens in the study area based on different categories expressed as the richness of (A)—all taxa; (B)—woody perennials and vines; (C)—annual herbs; (D)—invasive species; (E)—taxa with seed dispersal; (F)—taxa with vegetative dispersal. Numbers and colors in the legends indicate the number of taxa/species per grid cell.
Plants 11 02358 g003
Plants 11 02358 g004 550
Figure 4. Study area with zonation according to IUCN categories of protected areas and simplified land-use. The red dot indicates the location of the study area within the northern Adriatic region.
Figure 4. Study area with zonation according to IUCN categories of protected areas and simplified land-use. The red dot indicates the location of the study area within the northern Adriatic region.
Plants 11 02358 g004
Table
Table 1. IUCN categories of protected areas with definitions [14].
Table 1. IUCN categories of protected areas with definitions [14].
IUCN CategoryDefinition
IStrict protection: (Ia) Strict nature reserve and (Ib) Wilderness area
IIEcosystem conservation and protection (i.e., National park)
IIIConservation of natural features (i.e., Natural monument)
IVConservation through active management (i.e., Habitat/species management area)
VLandscape/seascape conservation and recreation (i.e., Protected landscape/seascape)
VISustainable use of natural resources (i.e., Managed resource protected area)
Table
Table 2. Alien plant taxa included in the study and basic information about their biology and their management as reported in the literature.
Table 2. Alien plant taxa included in the study and basic information about their biology and their management as reported in the literature.
TaxaNumber of RecordsOccurrence in the Protected AreaStatus in the CountryLife FormPrevailing Dispersal ModeMechanical ControlGeneral Success
1Conyza sp.
(C. sumatrensis (Retz.) E.Walker, C. canadensis (L.) Cronquist and C. bonariensis) (L.) Cronquist		276naturalizedalienannual herbseedsRequirement of light for germination can address proper management of arable land through mulching or proper tilling strategies. Crop rotation decreases the density of plants. Hand removing of young plants [22,23,24].Effective
2Aster squamatus (Spreng.) Hieron.175naturalizedalienannual herbseedsHand pulling of plants of all size, preferably before fructification,No data
3Robinia pseudoacacia L.148naturalized/potentially cultivatedalien/invasivewoody perennialvegetative (root suckers)/seedsCuttings, pulling of seedlings [25]Ineffective due to intensive vegetative resprouting
4Artemisia verlotiorum Lamotte69naturalizedalienperennial herbvegetativeNo dataNo data
5Ailanthus altissima (Mill.) Swingle56naturalizedalien/invasivewoody perennialseeds/vegetativeCuttings, pulling of seedlings [26].Ineffective due to intensive vegetative resprouting
6Bidens subalternans DC.46naturalizedalienannual herbseedsCrop rotation decreases the density of plants. Requirement of light for germination can address proper management through tilling strategies. Frequent cutting (less then 8 weeks) can reduce sexual reproduction capacity [23,27,28].No data
7Phyllostachys sp.36cultivated/escaped/naturalizedalienperennial herbvegetativeIntensive and repetitive digging and removing of rhizome and root system [29]Effective
8Parthenocissus quinquefolia (L.) Planch.29cultivated/naturalizedalienvineseeds/vegetativelyCuttings and root digging [30].Effective
9Helianthus tuberosus L.25naturalized/potentially cultivatedalien/invasiveperennial herb with tubersvegetative (rhizomes)Regular mowing before new tubers have formed and mowing in riparian habitats [31].Effective
10Senecio inaequidens DC.23naturalizedalienperennial herbseeds/vegetative (very rarely)Hand pulling/mowing ahead seed formation [32].Effective/moderately effective
11Ligustrum lucidum W.T. Aiton21cultivated/escapedcultivated/alienwoody perennialseeds/vegetativeHand removal of young plants. Cuttings of older plants result in vegetative resprouting [33].Ineffective
12Erigeron annuus (L.) Desf19naturalizedalien/invasiveannual herbseedsSelective mowing [34].Moderately effective
13Xanthium strumarium L.11naturalizedalienannual herbseedsSeed densities in seed banks greater in conventional tillage than in no tillage areas [35].No data
14Artemisia annua L.10naturalizedalienannual herbseedsNo dataNo data
15Passiflora caerulea L.10cultivated/escapedcultivated/alienvinevegetative/seedsHand removal with root system.No data
16Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.9naturalizedalien/invasiveannual herbseedsHand pulling of young plants or very frequent cuttings [36].Effective/very expensive
17Paspalum dilatatum Poir.9naturalizedalienperennial herbseeds/vegetativeIntensive mowing reduces lateral spread of rhizomes [37].Effective
18Amorpha fruticosa L.7naturalizedalienwoody perennialseeds/vegetativeSystematic and repeated cuttings [38].Effective
19Lonicera japonica Thunb.5naturalizedalienvinevegetative/seedsCuttings results in resprouting of original plant and runners, however cutting and hand removing of spreading colonies may slower the spreading process [39].Ineffective
20Broussonetia papyrifera (L.) L’Hér. Ex Vent.3cultivated/escapedcultivated/alienwoody perennialseeds/vegetativeCuttings, pulling of seedlings [40].Ineffective due to vegetative resprouting
21Lepidium virginicum L.2naturalizedalienannual herbseedsSelective mowing, tends to propagate on barren grounds [41].No data
22Cortaderia selloana (Schult. & Schult.f.) Asch. & Graebn.1cultivated/escapedalienperennial herbseedsIntensive and repetitive digging of root system before flowering [29].No data
23Datura stramonium L.1naturalizedalienannual herbseedsHand or mechanical removal of young plants [29].Effective
24Fallopia multiflora (Thunb.) Haraldson1naturalizedalienvinevegetativeCuttings, intensive and repetitive digging and removing of rhizome and root system [41].No data
Table
Table 3. Forward selection results of the CCA analysis. Total variation is 4.66, explanatory variables account for 20.7% (adjusted explained variation is 10.8%).
Table 3. Forward selection results of the CCA analysis. Total variation is 4.66, explanatory variables account for 20.7% (adjusted explained variation is 10.8%).
NameExplains %Contribution %Pseudo-Fpp (Adjusted)
Public4.622.33.40.0140.112
Marshland4.019.43.10.0060.048
Coast2.914.12.30.0220.176
Built-up2.411.71.90.040.32
Seminatural2.19.91.60.0660.528
Agricultural1.99.21.50.0820.656
Natural1.78.21.40.1521
Residential1.15.20.90.451
Table
Table 4. Richness (count data) of all taxa, woody perennials and vines, annual herbs, invasive species, and taxa considered based on predominant seed or vegetative dispersal explained by simplified categories of land-use and land-use diversity. Coefficients of generalized linear models (Poisson distribution) selected according to the lowest AIC value. Statistically significant values are indicated with asterisks * p ≤ 0.05; ** p ≤ 0.01; *** p ≤ 0.001.
Table 4. Richness (count data) of all taxa, woody perennials and vines, annual herbs, invasive species, and taxa considered based on predominant seed or vegetative dispersal explained by simplified categories of land-use and land-use diversity. Coefficients of generalized linear models (Poisson distribution) selected according to the lowest AIC value. Statistically significant values are indicated with asterisks * p ≤ 0.05; ** p ≤ 0.01; *** p ≤ 0.001.
All TaxaWoody Perennials and VinesInvasive SpeciesSeed DispersalVegetative Dispersal
(Intercept)−1.569−2.302 ***−2.470 ***−1.947 ***−2.663 ***
Coast −0.023 −0.035
Public −0.008 −0.010
Built−up0.051 ***0.017 0.052 ***0.056 *
Marshland0.017 ***0.006 0.018 ***0.016 **
Residential0.013 *0.008 0.011
Agricultural0.012 ***0.0010.009 *0.013 ***0.008
Seminatural0.025 ***0.009 0.024 **0.025 *
Natural −0.003 0.008
Land-use diversity original
Land-use diversity simplified0.271 ***0.413 ***0.364 ***0.283 ***0.305 **
Table
Table 5. Presence of woody perennials and vines, annual herbs, invasive species, and taxa considered based on predominant seed or vegetative dispersal explained by simplified categories of land-use and land-use diversity. Coefficients of generalized linear models (Binomial distribution) selected according to the lowest AIC value. Statistically significant values are indicated with asterisks * p ≤ 0.05; ** p ≤ 0.01; *** p ≤ 0.001; and nearly significant with ˚.
Table 5. Presence of woody perennials and vines, annual herbs, invasive species, and taxa considered based on predominant seed or vegetative dispersal explained by simplified categories of land-use and land-use diversity. Coefficients of generalized linear models (Binomial distribution) selected according to the lowest AIC value. Statistically significant values are indicated with asterisks * p ≤ 0.05; ** p ≤ 0.01; *** p ≤ 0.001; and nearly significant with ˚.
Woody Perennials and VinesAnnual HerbsInvasive SpeciesSeed DispersalVegetative Dispersal
(Intercept) −7.762 **−4.285 ***−4.650 ***−3.437 ***
Coast 0.002−0.0280.004
Public 0.006−0.0130.195
Built−up 0.2420.0760.118
Marshland 14.60.01214.1200.020 *
Residential −0.05−0.024−0.064
Agricultural0.0120.066 **0.0160.045 ˚
Seminatural 0.158 *0.030.158 ˚
Natural 0.0370.010.0100.016
Land-use diversity original 0.378 ***
Land-use diversity simplified0.767 ***0.820.719 **0.654
Table
Table 6. Presence of annual herbs and alien species explained by agricultural categories of land-use. Coefficients of two generalized linear models (Binomial distribution) fitted to all variables (Model 1) and only statistically significant variables (Model 2). Statistically significant values are indicated with asterisks ** p ≤ 0.01; *** p ≤ 0.001; and nearly significant with ˚.
Table 6. Presence of annual herbs and alien species explained by agricultural categories of land-use. Coefficients of two generalized linear models (Binomial distribution) fitted to all variables (Model 1) and only statistically significant variables (Model 2). Statistically significant values are indicated with asterisks ** p ≤ 0.01; *** p ≤ 0.001; and nearly significant with ˚.
Annual HerbsInvasive Species
Model 1Model 2Model 1Model 2
(Intercept)−1.260 ***−1.236 ***−1.268 ***−1.254 ***
Crop0.422 **0.256 **0.062 ˚0.0535 ˚
Orchard−0.065 −0.028
Mixed−0.317 ˚ 0.155
Olive0.110 **0.076 **0.043 **0.042 ***
Vine−0.080 −0.018
AIC118.39117.8157.3153.65
Table
Table 7. Two levels of land-use categories used as explanatory factors for the diversity and occurrence of aliens in the study area. Land-uses considered of higher priority for biodiversity conservation are indicated with asterisk (*).
Table 7. Two levels of land-use categories used as explanatory factors for the diversity and occurrence of aliens in the study area. Land-uses considered of higher priority for biodiversity conservation are indicated with asterisk (*).
Land-Use—OriginalLand-Use—Simplified
Olive groveAgricultural
Field crop
Vineyard
Orchard
Mixed culture
Built-upBuilt-up
Parking area
Road—connective
Road—main
Road—regional
Natural coastline with cliffs *Coast *
Marine lagoon *Marshland *
Saltworks *
Riparian vegetation *
Estuary *
Submediterranean wood *Natural *
ParkPark
Recreational areaPublic
Touristic facilities
Other public facilities
OutbuildingResidential
Private residence
Yard
SeaSea
Shrubland and hedgerowSemi-natural
Meadow
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Glasnović, P.; Cernich, S.; Peroš, J.; Tišler, M.; Fišer, Ž.; Surina, B. Diversity and Typology of Land-Use Explain the Occurrence of Alien Plants in a Protected Area. Plants 2022, 11, 2358. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11182358

AMA Style

Glasnović P, Cernich S, Peroš J, Tišler M, Fišer Ž, Surina B. Diversity and Typology of Land-Use Explain the Occurrence of Alien Plants in a Protected Area. Plants. 2022; 11(18):2358. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11182358

Chicago/Turabian Style

Glasnović, Peter, Sara Cernich, Jure Peroš, Manja Tišler, Živa Fišer, and Boštjan Surina. 2022. "Diversity and Typology of Land-Use Explain the Occurrence of Alien Plants in a Protected Area" Plants 11, no. 18: 2358. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11182358

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop