It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Effective control of an invasive species is frequently used to infer positive outcomes for the broader ecosystem. In many situations, whether the removal of an invasive plant is of net benefit to biodiversity is poorly assessed. We undertook a 10-year study on the effects of invasive shrub management (bitou bush, Chrysanthemoides monilifera ssp. rotundata) on native flora and fauna in a eucalypt forest in south-eastern Australia. Bitou bush eradication is a management priority, yet the optimal control regime (combination of herbicide spray and fire) is difficult to implement, meaning managed sites have complex management histories that vary in effectiveness of control. Here we test the long-term response of common biodiversity indicators (species richness, abundance and diversity of native plants, birds, herpetofauna and small mammals) to both the management, and the post-management status of bitou bush (% cover). While average bitou bush cover decreased with management, bitou bush consistently occurred at around half of our managed sites despite control efforts. The relationship between biodiversity and bitou bush cover following management differed from positive, neutral or negative among species groups and indicators. Native plant cover was lower under higher levels of bitou bush cover, but the abundance of birds and small mammals were positively related to bitou bush cover. Evidence suggests that the successful control of an invader may not necessarily result in beneficial outcomes for all components of biodiversity.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details





1 The Australian National University, Fenner School of Environment and Society, Canberra, Australia (GRID:grid.1001.0) (ISNI:0000 0001 2180 7477); Charles Sturt University, School of Environmental Science, Albury, Australia (GRID:grid.1037.5) (ISNI:0000 0004 0368 0777)
2 University of Wollongong, Centre for Sustainable Ecosystem Solutions, School of Biological Sciences, Wollongong, Australia (GRID:grid.1007.6) (ISNI:0000 0004 0486 528X); CSIRO Health and Biosecurity, Canberra, Australia (GRID:grid.492989.7)
3 The Australian National University, Fenner School of Environment and Society, Canberra, Australia (GRID:grid.1001.0) (ISNI:0000 0001 2180 7477)
4 The Australian National University, Fenner School of Environment and Society, Canberra, Australia (GRID:grid.1001.0) (ISNI:0000 0001 2180 7477); The Australian National University, Threatened Species Recovery Hub of the National Environment Science Programme, Fenner School of Environment and Society, Canberra, Australia (GRID:grid.1001.0) (ISNI:0000 0001 2180 7477)
5 University of Southampton, Biological Sciences, Southampton, UK (GRID:grid.5491.9) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 9297); King’s College London, Department of Geography, London, UK (GRID:grid.13097.3c) (ISNI:0000 0001 2322 6764)