Content uploaded by Kimberly A. With
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kimberly A. With on Jan 02, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Essays
1192
Conservation Biology, Pages 1192–1203
Volume 16, No. 5, October 2002
The Landscape Ecology of Invasive Spread
KIMBERLY A. WITH
Division of Biology, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, U.S.A., email kwith@ksu.edu
Abstract:
Although habitat loss, fragmentation, and invasive species collectively pose the greatest threats to
biodiversity, little theoretical or empirical research has addressed the effects of landscape structure—or spa-
tial pattern more generally—on the spread of invasive species. Landscape ecology is the study of how spatial
pattern affects ecological process. Thus, a landscape ecology of invasive spread involves understanding how
spatial pattern, such as habitat fragmentation or resource distributions, affects the various stages of the in-
vasion process. Landscape structure may affect the spread of invasive species and the invasibility of commu-
nities by (1) enhancing spread above some threshold level of landscape disturbance directly, or indirectly
through landscape effects on dispersal vectors; (2) affecting the various stages of the invasion process (e.g.,
dispersal vs. population growth) in different, potentially contrasting, ways; (3) interacting with the distribu-
tion of invasive species to facilitate spread (e.g., nascent foci); (4) promoting or altering species interactions
in ways that enhance the invasibility of communities (e.g., edge effects); (5) compromising the adaptive po-
tential of native species to resist invasion, or—alternatively—enhancing the adaptive response of invasive
species, in fragmented landscapes; and (6) interacting with the dynamics of the disturbance architecture to
create spatiotemporal fluctuations in resource availability, which enhance system invasibility. Understand-
ing the landscape ecology of invasive spread may thus afford new insights and opportunities for managing
and restoring landscapes so as to control the spread of invasive species and minimize the invasibility of
communities.
La Ecología de Paisaje de Extensiones Invasoras
Resumen:
Aunque la pérdida de hábitat, la fragmentación y las especies invasoras colectivamente son las
mayores amenazas para la biodiversidad, poco trabajo teórico o empírico se ha dirigido a los efectos de la
estructura del paisaje (o, más generalmente, el patrón espacial) sobre extensiones invasoras. La ecología de
paisaje se dedica al estudio de cómo el patrón espacial afecta al proceso ecológico. Así, la ecología de paisaje
de extensiones invasoras involucra comprender cómo el patrón espacial (e.g., fragmentación de hábitat o dis-
tribución de recursos) afecta las diversas etapas del proceso de invasión. La estructura del paisaje puede afec-
tar la propagación de especies invasoras y la susceptibilidad a la invasión de una comunidad 1) al incre-
mentar la extensión por encima de algún umbral de perturbación del paisaje, de forma directa o indirecta,
afectando los vectores de dispersión a nivel de paisaje; 2) al afectar las diferentes etapas del proceso de in-
vasión (por ejemplo, dispersión frente a crecimiento poblacional) de maneras diferentes y potencialmente
contrastantes; 3) al interactuar con la distribución de especies invasoras para facilitar su propagación ( por
ejemplo, focos nacientes); 4) al promover o alterar interacciones de especies de manera tal que aumente la
susceptibilidad a la invasión de comunidades (por ejemplo, efectos de borde); 5) al comprometer el potencial
adaptivo de especies nativas de resistir a la invasión, o como alternativa, al incrementar la respuesta adap-
tiva de especies invasoras en paisajes fragmentados; y 6) al interactuar con la dinámica de la arquitectura
de perturbación para crear fluctuaciones espacio-temporales en la disponibilidad de recursos, que incremen-
tan la susceptibilidad del sistema. Por lo tanto, entender la ecología de paisaje de extensiones invasoras
puede proporcionar nuevos puntos de vista y oportunidades para manejar y restaurar paisajes para contro-
lar extensiones invasoras y minimizar la susceptibilidad de comunidades a la invasión.
Paper submitted February 12, 2001; revised manuscript accepted October 24, 2001.
Conservation Biology
Volume 16, No. 5, October 2002
With Landscape Ecology of Invasive Spread
1193
Introduction
The impact of invasive species on human economic sys-
tems has been estimated at millions to billions of dollars
annually (Pimentel et al. 2000), but the magnitude of
the biotic costs to ecological systems is just now being
assessed (e.g., Vitousek et al. 1996; Mooney & Hobbs
2000). The title of a report published recently by the
U.S. Federal Interagency Committee for the Management
of Noxious and Exotic Weeds, “Invasive Plants: Changing
the Landscape of America” (Westbrooks 1998), high-
lights one of the most dramatic outcomes of biological in-
vasions: when a non-native species takes over a commu-
nity and completely alters landscape structure and
ecosystem function. Landscape transformation can thus
be viewed as the final stage of a terminal invasion.
Given the profound effect that exotic species have on
the structure and dynamics of landscapes, landscape ecol-
ogy can provide a much-needed perspective on the study
and management of invasive species. In turn, human land-
use patterns may enhance the invasibility of landscapes
(Hobbs 2000). Landscape transformation by humans has
been rapid, widespread, and extraordinarily thorough in
many cases (Whitney 1994). It is no coincidence, there-
fore, that anthropogenic disturbances resulting in habitat
destruction and fragmentation are viewed as the leading
threats to biodiversity, followed by the threat posed by in-
vasive species (Wilcove et al. 1998). Fragmentation is
characterized as a “landscape-level” disturbance (Hobbs &
Huenneke 1992), and disturbance is almost unanimously
acknowledged to influence invasive spread (Fox & Fox
1986). Thus, habitat loss and fragmentation may facilitate
the spread of invasive species. It is therefore surprising
that little theoretical or experimental work has addressed
the effects of habitat fragmentation on invasive spread.
We do not know at what critical level of habitat loss and
fragmentation invasive spread is most likely to occur,
which stages of the invasion process might be enhanced
by fragmentation, how the spatiotemporal dynamics of
disturbances affect the invasibility of communities, or to
what extent landscapes can be managed or restored to
control invasive spread. The consequences of human
land-use and global climate change on invasive spread
have recently been addressed elsewhere (Mooney &
Hobbs 2000). My purpose here is to explore what land-
scape ecology can contribute to the study and manage-
ment of invasive species by addressing specifically how
landscape structure (and spatial pattern more generally) is
expected to affect invasive spread (Fig. 1 ).
Landscape Ecology: the Effect of Spatial
Pattern on Ecological Process
Landscape ecology
has been variously defined as (1)
“the study of the structure, function and change in a het-
erogeneous land area composed of interacting ecosys-
tems” (Forman & Godron 1986); (2) “the investigation
of ecosystem structure and function at the landscape
scale” (Urban et al. 1987); and (3) the study of the “ef-
fect of pattern on process” (Turner 1989). The first two
definitions imply that a landscape is an area of broad spa-
tial extent that occurs at a level of organization above
ecosystems and communities (but below the biome) in
the traditional ecological hierarchy. If this is the case,
then landscape ecology is little more than “big-scale” or
regional ecology, in which the questions being asked are
the same as those in other areas of ecology, but at much
broader scales. This approach is not a trivial undertak-
ing, even with the advent of remote sensing and geo-
graphical information systems (e.g., Mack 2000). The in-
vasive species problem can benefit from a macroscopic
approach, especially in terms of documenting general
patterns of invasibility and monitoring regional patterns
of spread, because more-robust relationships are likely
to emerge at broader scales (e.g., Lonsdale 1999). Such a
definition of landscape ecology does not by itself repre-
sent a particularly unique contribution to the study of in-
Figure 1. How landscape structure may affect the
process of invasive spread.
1194
Landscape Ecology of Invasive Spread With
Conservation Biology
Volume 16, No. 5, October 2002
vasive species, however. Furthermore, equating landscape
with broad spatial scales is anthropocentric because it
is based on the spatial scales at which humans operate
rather than the scale of the ecological phenomena being
studied within a landscape context. It also imposes a
level of organization on ecological investigations that is
inappropriate if landscapes do not represent a true level
of ecological organization (i.e., above ecosystems; King
1997; Allen 1998).
Adopting a broader view of a landscape as a “spatially
heterogeneous area” (Turner & Gardner 1991) allows
for a much richer definition and scope for the discipline
of landscape ecology.
Landscapes
are defined at any
scale relative to the ecological process or organism under
investigation (Wiens 1989).
Landscape ecology
is then
uniquely defined as the study of the ecological conse-
quences of spatial pattern (Turner 1989). This is the
perspective I adopt throughout this essay. A landscape
ecological perspective on invasive spread thus involves
understanding how the spatial distribution of resources,
populations, or habitat at any scale affects various stages of
the invasion process. I begin by reviewing the classes of
spatial models that have been applied to predict invasive
spread. This provides a point of departure for exploring
what spatially structured models—those that explicitly in-
corporate the effects of landscape structure—can con-
tribute to the problem of the spread of invasive species.
Spatial Models of Invasive Spread
Spatial models of invasive spread have a long tradition in
ecology, beginning with the work of Skellam (1951),
who used simple reaction-diffusion (RD) models to de-
scribe the spread of muskrats (
Ondatra zibethicus
) in
central Europe. Reaction-diffusion models are still the
most common models of invasive spread (Andow et al.
1990; Higgins & Richardson 1996; Higgins et al. 1996)
and are based on partial differential equations of the gen-
eral form
(1)
where
N
(
x
,
y
,
t
) is the population density at time
t
at
point
x
,
y
on the landscape,
r
is the per capita popula-
tion growth rate, and
D
is the diffusion coefficient (the
rate of random movement across the landscape). Thus,
although RD models are spatial in that population den-
sity varies across the landscape, the landscape is spa-
tially homogeneous and the redistribution of individuals
is assumed to occur as a random-dispersal process.
Empirical dispersal data for a wide range of organisms,
however, typically show leptokurtic or “fat-tailed” distri-
butions in which rare long-distance dispersal events oc-
cur. Such dispersal functions can be incorporated within
integrodifference equation ( IDE ) models, which also
∂N
∂t
------- rN D ∂2N
∂x2
--------- ∂2N
∂y2
---------+,+=
have a long history, although their appearance in the
ecological literature has been relatively recent (e.g., Kot
et al. 1996). Unlike RD models, which assume that dis-
persal and reproduction occur simultaneously and con-
tinuously, IDE models break dispersal and population
growth into separate stages, as is typical of many organ-
isms. The model is composed of two parts: a difference
equation that describes population growth at each point
on the landscape (here a one-dimensional transect) and
an integral operator that accounts for the dispersal of or-
ganisms in space (i.e., the dispersal kernel). Integrodif-
ference equation models thus have the general form
(2)
where
N
t
1
(
x
) is the population density at some destina-
tion point
x
, which is a function of the population
growth at each source point
y
(
f
[
N
t
(
y
)] ) and the
movement of individuals from
y
to
x
according to the
shape of the dispersal kernel,
k.
Integrodifference equation models reveal that it is the
long-distance component of dispersal that ultimately
governs invasion speed, even when long-distance dis-
persal is rare (Kot et al. 1996; Lewis 1997; Neubert &
Caswell 2000). Although the shape of the dispersal dis-
tribution has been assumed to be more important than
demographic parameters in influencing invasions (van
den Bosch et al. 1992), models that lack stage-structured
dispersal will always overestimate invasion speed be-
cause not all life stages disperse (Neubert & Caswell
2000). Furthermore, demography may be just as impor-
tant as dispersal in determining the rate of invasive
spread. Invasion speed is highly correlated with popula-
tion growth rate (
) in teasel (
Dipsacus sylvestris
),
which invades fields in the northeastern United States,
to which it was introduced from Europe in the late nine-
teenth century (Neubert & Caswell 2000). Similarly, the
spread of House Finches (
Carpodacus mexicanus
)
throughout the eastern United States, following their re-
lease from Long Island in 1940, was strongly correlated
with the rate of population growth near the center of
their range (Veit & Lewis 1996). The inclusion of a mild
Allee effect at the front of the invasion wave (where a
small proportion of long-distance migrants are unsuc-
cessful in finding mates) was responsible for signifi-
cantly slowing the rate of invasion, especially during
the period of initial spread ( Veit & Lewis 1996; Lewis
1997 ). These studies highlight the importance of de-
mography by demonstrating that the rate of invasive
spread cannot be predicted from the shape of the dis-
persal kernel alone.
Although RD and IDE models are spatial models, they
generally have not considered how spatial pattern influ-
ences invasive spread, assuming instead that the land-
scape is homogeneous in order to simplify the mathe-
matical expression of this process. If individual dispersal
Nt1+x() kxy,()fN
ty()[]dy,
∞–
∞
∫
=
Conservation Biology
Volume 16, No. 5, October 2002
With Landscape Ecology of Invasive Spread
1195
or demography are affected by landscape structure (e.g.,
With 1994; With & King 1999
a
, 2001), however, it may
be inappropriate to treat these as fixed rates indepen-
dent of spatial pattern. Thus, RD and IDE models may
not predict invasive spread adequately when spatial pat-
tern significantly influences dispersal or demography, al-
though to what extent spatial pattern might “significantly
influence” invasive spread is currently unknown. Spatially
structured models of invasive spread are needed to deter-
mine the degree to which spatial structure influences the
process of invasion and thus when the addition of spatial
structure is required to predict rates of invasive spread. I
next examine how adopting a landscape ecological per-
spective can contribute to an understanding of how spa-
tial pattern affects invasive spread.
Toward a Landscape Ecology of Invasive Spread
Effect of Landscape Structure on the Potential
for Invasive Spread
Although habitat loss and fragmentation are expected to
enhance invasive spread, it is unknown at what level of
landscape disturbance this might occur. To address this
problem, it is necessary to define when landscapes be-
come critically disturbed or fragmented. Neutral land-
scape models (NLMs) have been used to predict when
landscapes become fragmented, which is defined in
terms of overall landscape connectivity (Gardner et al.
1987; With 1997; With & King 1997). Landscape con-
nectivity is determined by the ability of organisms (or
their propagules or dispersal vectors) to move among
habitat patches, which in turn is affected by the spatial
arrangement of habitat. The disruption of landscape
connectivity is predicted to occur abruptly, at a thresh-
old level of habitat loss and fragmentation called the per-
colation threshold ( With 1997 ).
The significance of percolation thresholds for invasion
biology is that invasive spread may occur most rapidly
and extensively above a threshold level of disturbance
(i.e., amount of habitat destruction). The specific thresh-
old at which that occurs, however, depends on the pat-
tern of disturbance (i.e., the degree of fragmentation).
To illustrate, consider an invasive plant that can spread
only to neighboring cells (dispersal neighborhood,
n
4 cells), provided that disturbed habitat suitable for colo-
nization is available (e.g., presence of bare-ground sites).
Thus, the species has limited dispersal ability ( local
dispersal), but then not all invasive species are good dis-
persers (e.g., agricultural weeds). If disturbances are
small and localized, so as to create a more fragmented
pattern of disturbed habitat, the spread of this species
will be confined to a small portion of the landscape until
about 70% of the landscape is disturbed, at which point
it is able to percolate across the entire map (Fig. 2a; Fig.
3a, random curve). If disturbances are large and concen-
trated, however, this species would be able to percolate
across a landscape in which as little as 30% of the habitat
had been disturbed (Fig. 2c; Fig. 3a, clumped fractal
curve).
From this it follows that fragmentation of the habitat
through which the species is able to disperse might pro-
vide a means for controlling invasive spread (e.g.,
Turner et al. 1989). This may involve reducing the ex-
Figure 2. Effect of landscape struc-
ture on the potential for invasive
spread (black). The invasive spe-
cies shown here has poor dispersal
ability and is constrained to move
only through adjacent cells of suit-
able habitat (neighborhood size,
n
4). (a) Spread in a random
landscape (maximum fragmenta-
tion) at different levels of habitat
disturbance. (b) Spread across a
fragmented fractal landscape in
which disturbances are spatially
uncorrelated ( H
0.0). (c) Spread
in a clumped fractal landscape
where disturbances are spatially
autocorrelated ( H
1.0).
1196
Landscape Ecology of Invasive Spread With
Conservation Biology
Volume 16, No. 5, October 2002
tent and connectivity of disturbed habitats that promote
the spread of exotic species. Not all exotic species
spread through disturbed areas, however. Some species
may spread through native habitats, in which case inten-
tional fragmentation in strategic sections of the land-
scape may help slow the rate of spread. Such a proposal
may at first seem antithetical to conservation, because
habitat fragmentation may have adverse effects on indig-
enous species, especially those with poor dispersal abili-
ties and low reproductive output (low demographic po-
tential) that are particularly sensitive to habitat loss and
fragmentation (e.g., With & King 1999
b
). Fragmentation
may also facilitate the spread of other exotic species
across the landscape. Where appropriate, however, de-
liberate habitat fragmentation may act as a “fire break”
to minimize or control the spread of invasive species
with limited dispersal abilities. This is consistent with
the management practice of creating “barrier zones” at
invasion fronts where eradication or suppression activi-
ties are employed to prevent or slow the rate of expan-
sion, as the U.S. Forest Service has done to control the
spread of gypsy moths (
Lymantria dispar
) (Sharov &
Liebhold 1998). In this case, the barrier zone would be a
physical one that disrupts the movement of organisms
across the landscape.
Deliberate habitat fragmentation is not appropriate for
the management of all invasive species, however. Con-
sider another invasive species with better dispersal abili-
ties (spread to adjacent and diagonal cells; dispersal
neighborhood,
n
8 cells). As before, fragmentation
minimizes invasive spread at low levels of disturbance
(20–40%, random or fragmented fractal landscape; Fig.
3b). At intermediate levels of disturbance (40–60%),
however, this species may be able to spread farther
across a fragmented landscape by using fragments as
stepping stones to dispersal (Fig. 3b). In general, good
dispersers are expected to be less affected by fragmenta-
tion and are capable of percolating at lower levels of dis-
turbance (Fig. 3c).
Another concern is that habitat fragmentation creates
more edge, which may facilitate invasion into habitat
remnants by species that move primarily between habi-
tat types. For example, the occurrence of non-native
plants is greater along edges of forest fragments (wood-
lots) in agriculturally dominated landscapes in the mid-
western United States (Brothers & Spingam 1992). In east-
ern Australia, the invasion of dry sclerophyll bushland by
Pittosporum undulatum
is enhanced along urban edges
in fragmented landscapes (Rose 1997 ). These types of in-
vasive species might therefore benefit from a moderately
fragmented landscape where edge is maximized.
Thus, fragmentation per se cannot be embraced as a
general management guideline for controlling invasive
spread, although landscape management to minimize
spread should be possible in theory. To my knowledge,
no study has yet explored the feasibility of landscape
manipulation (or the manipulation of the spatial distribu-
tion of resources at any scale) to control invasive spread,
probably because efforts are generally targeted at the
eradication or suppression of specific populations as a
means of controlling spread.
Although these percolation-based landscape models
are based on assumptions about dispersal, such as the
gap-crossing abilities of species, they do not incorporate
specific processes that contribute to invasive spread,
such as demographic factors leading to successful colo-
nization and establishment. Their main contribution is
thus to enhance our understanding of how landscape
Figure 3. Probability of invasive spread as a function
of landscape disturbance. (a) An invasive species with
poor dispersal ability constrained to move only
through adjacent cells of suitable habitat (neighbor-
hood size, n
4) in different landscapes (cf. Fig. 2a).
(b) Probability of invasive spread for a species with
better dispersal ability (n
8) in different landscapes.
(c) Invasive species in fragmented fractal landscapes
(e.g., Fig. 2b) that vary in dispersal ability. Figures
modified from those of With (1999).
Conservation Biology
Volume 16, No. 5, October 2002
With Landscape Ecology of Invasive Spread
1197
structure might affect the potential for invasive spread in
fragmented landscapes. To make this approach more pro-
cess-based, the next step in developing a landscape ecol-
ogy of invasive spread involves understanding how spatial
pattern—resource distributions or habitat fragmenta-
tion—affects various stages of the invasion process.
Effect of Landscape Structure on the Invasion Process
The invasion process involves several stages, which in-
clude (1) introduction, (2) colonization (e.g., germina-
tion), (3) successful establishment (i.e., survival and suc-
cessful reproduction in new location), (4) dispersal to
new sites, which may lead to (5) spatially distributed
populations, which may set the stage for (6) invasive
spread (Fig. 1). Given that many invasions are initiated
by the intentional or accidental introduction of a nonin-
digenous species by humans, it is unlikely that landscape
structure plays a role in the initial arrival of such species,
which involves transport across some geographic bar-
rier (e.g., Richardson et al. 2000
a
). The exception is
when topography and other features of the landscape
also shape human land-use patterns and thus indirectly
facilitate the introduction of exotic species (landscape
effects on introduction, Fig. 1). Similarly, landscape posi-
tion may also influence whether invasions become initi-
ated. For example, the proximity of pine-tree (
Pinus
)
plantations to native habitat types affected the likeli-
hood that pines escaped cultivation and spread into the
adjacent forests, shrublands, and grasslands of South Af-
rica (Higgins & Richardson 1998).
Successful colonization requires high propagule pres-
sure (number of propagules arriving at a site), repeated
introductions into the appropriate habitat, or overcom-
ing environmental barriers that affect survival (Richard-
son et al. 2000
a
). The ability of a species to colonize suc-
cessfully may nevertheless depend on the availability of
suitable sites, which may occur ephemerally as a spa-
tiotemporal mosaic of disturbance (i.e., an interaction
between species’ dispersal abilities and landscape dy-
namics; Fig. 1, landscape effects on colonization), and
will be discussed later in the section on how landscape
dynamics affect the invasibility of communities.
Effect of Landscape Structure on Dispersal
Success of Invasive Species
Predicting the effects of habitat fragmentation on inva-
sive spread will require, at a minimum, an understand-
ing of the scale at which species interact with the scale
of landscape structure. The observation that the dis-
persal distances of many species (or their propagules)
exhibit a leptokurtic distribution indicates that rare long-
distance movements across unsuitable habitat are to be
expected. If these rare long-distance movements ulti-
mately govern invasion speed (Lewis 1997; Higgins &
Richardson 1999; Neubert & Caswell 2000), it might be
argued that landscape structure—the spatial arrange-
ment of habitat or resources—should have little or no ef-
fect on invasive spread. Indeed, this was demonstrated
for wind-dispersed pine trees (
Pinus pinaster
) invading
the fynbos of South Africa, in which a small percentage
of seeds (0.1%) moved long distances (1–10 km; Higgins
& Richardson 1999). Good dispersers are not necessar-
ily good colonizers, however. Long-range dispersal is un-
necessarily risky when suitable habitat is patchily distrib-
uted (i.e., clumped or aggregated in space; Lavorel et al.
1994, 1995 ) or when Allee effects occur (Veit & Lewis
1996, Lewis 1997 ). In landscapes where colonization
sites are clumped, short-range dispersal ensures that most
propagules will fall within the same local neighborhood
where other suitable habitat sites (or mates) are likely to
be found, which eventually leads to full landscape occu-
pation (i.e., spread; Lavorel et al. 1995). Where two spe-
cies might be competing for space (e.g., an invasive vs. a
native plant species), the species with the shorter dis-
persal distance will inevitably displace the other, all else
being equal (Lavorel et al. 1994).
Some research related to how landscape structure af-
fects dispersal and invasive spread involves the recent
modeling efforts directed at simulating tree migration
within fragmented landscapes in response to climate
change (e.g., Schwartz 1992; Dyer 1995; Malanson &
Cairns 1997; Pitelka et al. 1997; Higgins & Richardson
1999; Collingham & Huntley 2000). Schwartz (1992)
found that fragmentation at moderate levels affected mi-
gration rate when dispersal was mostly local (i.e., a neg-
ative exponential dispersal function) but affected it less
so when a leptokurtic distribution was used, which al-
lowed for the occasional long-distance dispersal event.
This is consistent with the expectation that fragmentation
is unlikely to affect species that are capable of long-dis-
tance movements, even though these events are rare. In
contrast, Dyer (1995 ) suggested that continuous tracts of
favorable habitat might be required to facilitate migration
of wind-dispersed species (e.g.,
Pinus
), in spite of their
occasional feats of long-distance dispersal (modeled as
one 2.5-km dispersal event per generation), because wind
dispersal is inherently random (or at least was modeled
as such), making establishment tricky if the species
drifted too far beyond the source patch. This is consis-
tent with the tradeoff between dispersal distance and
colonization success in fragmented landscapes dis-
cussed by Lavorel et al. (1995). Habitat fragmentation
reduced the migration rate of wind-dispersed species in
Dyer’s (1995) model because typical dispersal distances
tended to be shorter than those of bird-dispersed spe-
cies such as
Quercus
(e.g., 200 m vs. 1.1 km, respec-
tively). In fact, migration of bird-dispersed species might
actually be enhanced in fragmented landscapes, because
habitat fragments create stepping stones along which
jays deposit acorns (forest edges), resulting in a more di-
1198
Landscape Ecology of Invasive Spread With
Conservation Biology
Volume 16, No. 5, October 2002
rected dispersal across the landscape than achieved by
wind. This is also suggested by percolation models of in-
vasive spread (see “Effect of Landscape Structure on the
Potential for Invasive Spread”), in which good dispers-
ers were more likely to spread across fragmented than
clumped landscapes at intermediate levels of distur-
bance (Fig. 3b).
Many of these researchers found that migration rates
are critically reduced below a certain threshold of habi-
tat availability. Schwartz (1992) found an order-of-mag-
nitude reduction in migration rate when suitable habi-
tat for colonization occupies only 20% of the landscape.
Malanson and Cairns (1997) found that a threshold in
migration rate occurs when suitable habitat is reduced
to
33% of the landscape. Collingham et al. (1996)
found that migration rates are little affected by frag-
mentation until
10% of a landscape represents habitat
suitable for colonization. Landscape structure affects
migration rates only when suitable habitat falls below
10–25%, depending on the pattern of fragmentation
(Collingham & Huntley 2000). In that study, migration
rates were slowest in clumped landscapes that had
large gaps between habitat patches (suitable sites for
colonization).
The recurring threshold in dispersal or migration rates
at low levels of suitable habitat—or at high levels of frag-
mentation or disturbance—is probably related to la-
cunarity thresholds, rather than percolation thresholds
of landscape connectivity ( With & King 1999
a
). La-
cunarity measures the distribution of gap sizes (inter-
patch distances) on the landscape (Plotnick et al. 1993).
The lacunarity index (
) increases nonlinearly on land-
scapes with
10–20% suitable habitat, meaning that the
distance between patches increases suddenly below this
threshold (Fig. 4). Consequently, dispersal success de-
clines precipitously in the same domain as lacunarity
thresholds, particularly on clumped landscapes where
the interpatch distances ( gap sizes) are greatest (With &
King 1999
a
; Fig. 4). Thus, manipulating such thresholds
in landscape structure may offer a means of controlling
invasive spread.
Thresholds in dispersal or migration rates might not al-
ways occur, however. A linear decline in migration rate
as a function of habitat loss was observed in the simu-
lated migration of a wind-dispersed tree (
Pinus
pinaster
;
Higgins & Richardson 1999). This study also failed to
document an effect of fragmentation on tree-migration
rates, in contrast to Dyer’s (1995) model, which was pa-
rameterized for a generic wind-dispersed pine. In Dyer’s
study, dispersal was modeled to include both short and
long distances, but these are basically independent events,
and most dispersal occurs to neighboring cells. The dis-
persal function in Higgins’s and Richardson’s (1999)
model simultaneously includes the short- and long-distance
components of dispersal (by fitting a mixture of Weibull
distributions to the frequency distribution of seed-dispersal
data). This dispersal function thus integrates across the
various scales at which different dispersal processes op-
erate, which may mitigate any effect of habitat fragmen-
tation on dispersal or migration rate. Again, the scale(s)
at which dispersal interacts with the scaling of habitat or
resource distributions determines whether or to what
extent landscape structure will affect dispersal success
and, ultimately, invasive spread.
Although landscape structure may affect the dispersal
of exotic species or their propagules, it may also have an
effect on the movement or activities of dispersal vectors,
which has obvious implications for invasive spread. For
example, pied curragwongs (
Strepera graculina
) have
been implicated in the spread of the forest-dwelling
P.
undulatum
into bushland habitats that adjoin residen-
tial developments (Rose 1997). Pied currawongs are the
primary dispersal vectors for fruits of
P. undulatum
,
and are one of the few native species that have been suc-
cessful in exploiting suburban areas. Their increased
abundance and concentrated activity along these subur-
ban-bushland edges have facilitated the spread of
P. un-
dulatum
beyond its native range. Fragmentation may
also promote the spread of exotic species across land-
scapes if habitat remnants attract or concentrate verte-
brate seed dispersers, such as when birds perch and def-
ecate on trees within woodlots scattered throughout an
agricultural landscape. The planting of windbreaks has
been advocated as a means of accelerating natural suc-
cession in degraded or agricultural areas, because trees
attract seed dispersers and thus increase the seed rain of
forest plants into these areas (Harvey 2000). It is thus
possible that in the same manner such forest fragments
could also serve to accelerate invasion by exotic species
into these landscapes.
Figure 4. Effect of landscape structure on colonization
success for an invasive species with local dispersal
(n
8) on clumped and fragmented fractal land-
scapes (cf. Fig. 2b & 2c). Thresholds in dispersal (colo-
nization success) coincide with thresholds in lacunar-
ity, a measure of interpatch distances (assessed here at
the finest scale of a 1
1 box size; With & King
1999a).
Conservation Biology
Volume 16, No. 5, October 2002
With Landscape Ecology of Invasive Spread 1199
Effect of Landscape Structure on Demography
of Invasive Species
Successful dispersal is only part of the equation. Many of
the previously discussed landscape models do not incor-
porate demographic processes or examine fragmenta-
tion effects on demographic rates. Recent theoretical
work has demonstrated that demographic rates might ul-
timately be more important than dispersal ability for pre-
dicting the ability of populations to persist in frag-
mented landscapes (South 1999; With & King 1999b).
Fragmentation may affect tree migration rates more
through a reduction in source strength (the number of
propagules produced) than through the creation of dis-
persal barriers, once some threshold is exceeded (Malan-
son & Cairns 1997). Thus, landscape effects on demog-
raphy involve factors that affect fecundity or
survivorship of exotic species (population vital rates),
which may affect establishment and thus govern the rate
of invasive spread (Fig. 1).
As an example, consider how landscape structure might
affect population vital rates in plants. Habitat destruc-
tion and fragmentation may increase resource availabil-
ity (such as light) that can be exploited by invasive spe-
cies directly (Luken et al. 1997 ) or indirectly by mediating
competition with native plants, which may increase the
performance of exotic species in disturbed areas by in-
creasing germination, growth, or seed set. Using a combi-
nation of simulation models and field experiments, Ber-
gelson et al. (1993) demonstrated that the size and
distribution of disturbed areas influence the probability
that seeds of the weed Senecio vulgaris will survive to
maturity. This effect of landscape structure (distribution
of bare-ground areas) on survivorship ultimately affects
the population growth rate and determines the rate at
which Senecio can spread across the landscape.
Demographic rates of exotic species may be different
in novel environments than in their native habitats,
which may fundamentally alter their response to land-
scape alteration. For example, the Australian shrub Aca-
cia cyclops exhibits higher fecundity in the fynbos of
South Africa than in its native land (Richardson et al.
2000b). This is typical of many exotic plants and is gener-
ally attributed to a release from seed predators in the new
environment. High fecundity interacts strongly with rare,
long-distance dispersal events, such that more seeds are
dispersed farther on the landscape (Higgins & Richard-
son 1999). Subsequently, the invasive spread of A. cy-
clops was predicted to be little affected by landscape
structure in the South African fynbos, although lower
levels of fecundity would have reduced its rate of spread
when habitat was limiting in its native Australia (Rich-
ardson et al. 2000b). To control the spread of this spe-
cies, management efforts might first be directed at reduc-
ing its fecundity, which would then increase its sensitivity
to fragmentation or other land-management practices.
Invasive spread requires successful dispersal and posi-
tive population growth rates. Assessing the relative contri-
butions of dispersal and demography to invasive spread is
complicated by the fact that landscape structure may af-
fect different stages of the invasion process in contrasting
ways. For example, Bergelson et al. (1993) demonstrated
that Senecio is able to disperse farther when bare-ground
areas are distributed uniformly across the landscape
(i.e., landscape is fragmented). In contrast, the population
growth rates of Senecio are enhanced when disturbed ar-
eas are aggregated in space (i.e., not fragmented). More
plants are able to establish successfully when suitable sites
for colonization are clumped, because a greater concen-
tration of seeds can build up in these sites ( higher
propagule pressure). This illustrates a trade-off that may
exist for many species in fragmented landscapes. Dis-
persal may be facilitated in a fragmented landscape be-
cause colonization sites are well distributed across it and
the species can move farther or “percolate” across the
entire landscape. In contrast, population persistence
and growth rates are enhanced in landscapes with more-
aggregated habitat. Even for an aggressive weed like
Senecio, such trade-offs might make it difficult for a spe-
cies to persist on the landscape simply by outdispersing
superior competitors. An inferior, but established, com-
petitor can slow the advance of an invading species
(Hart & Gardner 1997 ). Successful invasion requires a
species to maintain positive growth rates ( 0) on the
landscape, but the demographic aspects of the invasion
process, particularly in terms of how landscape struc-
ture affects population vital rates, have received less at-
tention than dispersal and are in need of further study.
Spatially Distributed Populations and Invasive Spread
Most invasions do not occur along a single wave front or
as a single expanding focus, as depicted in most spatial
models of invasive spread (see “Spatial Models of Inva-
sive Spread”). The interaction of landscape structure
with dispersal and demography may produce a spatially
distributed population that sets the stage for further in-
vasion (Fig. 1). Such spatially distributed populations are
characterized by multiple foci resulting from repeated
introductions or ongoing dispersal from an initial point
of introduction that create satellite populations, or “na-
scent foci” ( Moody & Mack 1988). Invasion occurs
through continued establishment of nascent foci in out-
lying areas, which then grow and coalesce. These spa-
tially distributed populations vary tremendously in size
owing to different dates of establishment, constraints of
landscape structure (size and geometry of habitat), and
the inherent stochasticity of small populations (Moody
& Mack 1988). The importance of controlling the inva-
sive spread of exotic plants by eradicating these small,
nascent foci on the periphery of the main area of infesta-
tion has been demonstrated by Moody and Mack (1988).
1200 Landscape Ecology of Invasive Spread With
Conservation Biology
Volume 16, No. 5, October 2002
Landscape Effects on Invasibility
The invasibility of a system is determined by several fac-
tors, including climate, disturbance regime, and the
competitive abilities of native species (Lonsdale 1999).
In particular, landscape structure might affect species in-
teractions, such as competition, in ways that favor inva-
sion or reduce the resistance of communities to invasion.
Habitat fragmentation produces edge effects, in which
the direction or magnitude of species interactions may
be enhanced or even altered (e.g., Fagan et al. 1999).
For example, enhanced competition with, or intense
predation or parasitism by, an invasive species may neg-
atively effect the survivorship and reproductive success
of native species, increasing their susceptibility to ex-
tinction and thus the vulnerability of the community to
invasion. Not all ecological interactions that promote in-
vasion are negative, however. The presence and spatial
distribution of mutualists on the landscape, such as dis-
persal vectors, pollinators, or mycorrhizal fungi, may be
critically important for the success and spread of an in-
vasive species (Richardson et al. 2000c). These mutualis-
tic interactions may occur between native species that
perform these services for exotic species or may result
from a synergy that develops between two or more in-
troduced species.
Evolutionary Constraints on Invasion
Resistance in Fragmented Landscapes
Negative ecological interactions between exotic and na-
tive species may also create landscape sinks in which na-
tive populations are unable to persist ( 0) without
continual immigration from outside sources (e.g., Pul-
liam 1988). Such source-sink dynamics in fragmented
populations may then compromise the ability of native
species to mount an evolutionary defense to invasion.
Habitat loss and fragmentation may decrease population
sizes and the genetic diversity of native populations,
compromising the potential for adaptive responses to in-
vasive species. At the same time, such disturbances may
facilitate the spread of invasive species (e.g., Bergelson
et al. 1993), thus increasing gene flow and contributing
to the high genetic variability of invasive species. This
further promotes the adaptability of invasive species in
response to disturbance (Dietz et al. 1999).
For example, the invasion of the eastern United States
by Brown-headed Cowbirds (Moluthrus ater), an avian
brood parasite, was apparently facilitated by widespread
deforestation following European settlement in the nine-
teenth century (Mayfield 1965). Given that cowbirds
were not native to this region historically, native forest-
breeding songbirds generally lacked defenses for dealing
with brood parasitism, such as egg-rejection strategies
that have developed in regions where cowbirds and
their hosts have coevolved. Cowbird parasitism has sig-
nificantly curtailed reproduction in at least some species,
which should generate strong selective pressure (Robin-
son et al. 1995). Rapid evolutionary changes can emerge
in populations subjected to strong selective pressures
(Thompson 1998, 1999). Why, then, have avian hosts
failed to evolve adaptive strategies for dealing with brood
parasitism in the 200 or so years since cowbirds have in-
vaded the eastern United States?
An intriguing hypothesis (R. Holt, personal communi-
cation) posits that adaptive constraints in host-parasite
interactions are expected in fragmented landscapes as
the result of source-sink dynamics that arise in the host
population (Holt & Gaines 1992; Holt & Gomulkiewicz
1997). The midwestern and eastern United States con-
sist of a mosaic of fragmented and continuously forested
landscapes (e.g., Donovan et al. 1997). Because frag-
mented landscapes are population sinks for some forest-
interior birds (Donovan et al. 1995; With & King 2001),
these populations are sustained by immigration from
landscape sources. Consequently, selection for behav-
iors, such as egg rejection, in sink landscapes would be
constantly diluted by immigrants from source land-
scapes where selection is less stringent. Landscape
structure (habitat fragmentation) may thus impose a
constraint on the ability of native species to adapt to in-
vasive species.
The spatial configuration of patches within a land-
scape can also promote the adaptive response of exotic
species to new environments. The invasion of serpen-
tine grasslands in California by Mediterranean grasses
such as Avena fatua and Bromus hordeaceus is greatly
enhanced within small patches (5 ha) of serpentine
grasslands because of the high influx of seeds from the
surrounding landscape matrix ( i.e., edge effects are
greater in small patches than large ones; Harrison et al.
2001). An adaptive response leading to the differentia-
tion of a “serpentine ecotype,” in which these exotic
grasses perform better on serpentine than nonserpen-
tine soils, occurs within small patches and is likely facili-
tated by the grasses’ high dispersal rate, which provides
the necessary genetic variation upon which selection
can operate.
Influence of Landscape Dynamics on Invasibility
Landscape dynamics refer to changes in the patch struc-
ture of habitat, resources, or land use, which usually
may occur in response to disturbance. Disturbances may
be natural or anthropogenic and occur across a wide
range of temporal and spatial scales (Pickett et al. 1989).
Different types of disturbance are likely to affect system
invasibility in different ways and at different scales, and
a given disturbance may have contrasting effects on dif-
ferent stages of the invasion process (e.g., colonization
vs. invasive spread; Bergelson et al. 1993). Untangling
the complexity of interactions between disturbances
Conservation Biology
Volume 16, No. 5, October 2002
With Landscape Ecology of Invasive Spread 1201
and species’ life-history attributes to determine invasion
success is a research challenge. Disturbance alters the
availability of resources, which may be a key factor con-
trolling ecosystem invasibility (Davis et al. 2000). Re-
source availability may increase due to a decline in re-
source use by the community, as might occur after a
disturbance, or because of increased resource supply to
the system (e.g., increased precipitation, nutrient en-
richment, elevated light levels). The increase in resource
availability is often transient (e.g., Seastedt & Knapp
1993), but the ecosystem is particularly vulnerable to in-
vasion during these relatively brief windows of opportu-
nity (Davis et al. 2000). If a general theory of invasion bi-
ology is to emerge, it must incorporate the effect of the
spatiotemporal dynamics of interacting disturbances on
the invasion process.
Summary
Although habitat loss, fragmentation, and invasive species
pose the greatest threats to biodiversity, there has been lit-
tle research that integrates these areas of study into a com-
prehensive framework for understanding and predicting
the effects of landscape structure (or spatial pattern more
generally) on invasive spread. The need for a landscape
ecology of invasive spread was recognized by Mooney and
Drake (1989) over a decade ago: “Spread through a patchy
environment is likely to depend on the degree of habitat
heterogeneity, size and distribution of patches, distance
between suitable patches, and population characteristics
such as growth rate . . . and dispersal ability.” Yet the ques-
tion remains: how does landscape pattern affect the inva-
sion process and the rate of invasive spread? I have out-
lined six ways in which landscape structure can affect
invasive spread and the invasibility of communities.
(1) Thresholds in landscape structure occur and may
affect invasive spread. Landscape models predict that the
potential for invasive spread may be greatly enhanced
past some threshold level of disturbance, which is deter-
mined by the spatial pattern of disturbance, the mode of
dispersal, and the shape of the dispersal-distance func-
tion. Such thresholds in landscape structure might be ma-
nipulated to control the spread of invasive species
through habitat management or restoration efforts.
(2) Landscape structure may affect different stages of
the invasion process in different and possibly contrast-
ing ways. Land management to minimize invasive spread
may be complicated if landscape structure affects the
dispersal and demography of an invasive species in con-
trasting ways. For example, fragmentation may reduce
establishment and source strength but enhance dis-
persal success. Deciding which land-management sce-
nario will best control invasive species will depend on
whether dispersal or demography contributes more to
invasive spread.
(3) Landscape structure may alter species interactions
in ways that enhance the invasibility of communities.
Habitat fragmentation may directly affect the population
viability of native species, thereby enhancing extinction
risk and rendering such communities more vulnerable
to invasion. In addition, ecological interactions may be
altered at habitat edges in ways that give invasive spe-
cies an advantage over native species. The occurrence
and spatial distribution of mutualists (e.g., seed dispers-
ers) on the landscape may also facilitate invasive spread.
(4) Landscape structure may affect the distribution of
exotic species in fragmented landscapes, resulting in sat-
ellite populations (nascent foci) beyond the population
core, which may greatly accelerate invasive spread.
(5) The adaptive potential of native species to resist in-
vasion may be compromised in fragmented landscapes.
Fragmented landscapes may function as overall popula-
tion sinks, which are maintained by immigration from
source populations in more intact landscapes. Native
species may thus fail to evolve adaptative strategies for
dealing with invasive species, because selection is con-
tinually diluted by immigrants from source landscapes
where selective pressures are less stringent. Alterna-
tively, fragmented landscapes may enhance the adaptive
response of exotic species to novel environments, par-
ticularly if continual dispersal or introduction enhances
genetic variation within these populations.
(6) The disturbance architecture of landscapes likely
affects the invasibility of communities. The spatiotempo-
ral dynamics of landscapes may create windows of op-
portunity (or vulnerability), such as transient increases
in resource availability, that may facilitate invasion.
Understanding the effect of landscape structure on in-
vasion biology may thus be important for predicting and
halting the spread of invasive species. Spatially struc-
tured models of invasive spread are required to deter-
mine the degree to which landscape structure influ-
ences invasive spread and the stages of invasion most
affected by landscape structure. Empirical or experimen-
tal investigations into the effect of spatial pattern on in-
vasion are also required, not only for model calibration
and verification but also for documenting the effect ex-
otic species have in fragmented landscapes and how
fragmentation facilitates invasive spread, and for evaluat-
ing the potential of land-management strategies for con-
trolling the spread of invasive species. A landscape ecol-
ogy of invasive spread may thus afford new insights into
and opportunities for the study and management of inva-
sive species.
Acknowledgments
This paper is based on a presentation given at the work-
shop on “Integrating Disciplines to Understand and Ad-
dress Problems in Invasive Species” at the 85th Annual
1202 Landscape Ecology of Invasive Spread With
Conservation Biology
Volume 16, No. 5, October 2002
Meeting of the Ecological Society of America. I thank
A. K. Sakai and S. G. Weller for inviting me to participate
in this workshop, thereby giving me the opportunity to
explore applications of landscape ecology to invasive
species biology. This synthesis was thus supported by
the Collaboratory on the Population Biology of Invasive
Species, a group funded by the National Science Foun-
dation (supplement to grant DEB 98–15878 to A.K. Sakai
and S.G. Weller). I thank H. Caswell for discussion on
mathematical models of invasive spread and R. J. Hobbs,
D. M. Richardson, and an anonymous reviewer for help-
ful comments on the manuscript.
Literature Cited
Allen, T. F. H. 1998. The landscape “level” is dead: persuading the fam-
ily to take it off the respirator. Pages 35–54 in D. L. Petersen and V. T.
Parker, editors. Ecological scale: theory and applications. Columbia
University Press, New York.
Andow, D. A., P. M. Kareiva, S. A. Levin, and A. Okubo. 1990. Spread
of invading organisms. Landscape Ecology 4:177–188.
Bergelson, J., J. A. Newman, and E. M. Floresroux. 1993. Rates of weed
spread in spatially heterogeneous environments. Ecology 74:999–
1011.
Brothers, T. S., and A. Spingam. 1992. Forest fragmentation and alien
plant invasions of central Indiana old-growth forests. Conservation
Biology 6:91–100.
Collingham, Y. C., M. O. Hill, and B. Huntley. 1996. The migration of
sessile organisms: a simulation model with measurable parameters.
Journal of Vegetation Science 7:831–846.
Collingham, Y. C., and B. Huntley. 2000. Impacts of habitat fragmenta-
tion and patch size upon migration rates. Ecological Applications
10:131–144.
Davis, M. A., J. P. Grime, and K. Thompson. 2000. Fluctuating re-
sources in plant communities: a general theory of invasibility. Jour-
nal of Ecology 88:528–534.
Dietz, H., M. Fischer, and B. Schmid. 1999. Demographic and genetic
invasion history of a 9-year-old roadside population of Bunias ori-
entalis L. (Brassicaceae). Oecologia 120:225–234.
Donovan, T. M., R. H. Lamberson, A. Kimber, F. R. Thompson III, and
J. Faaborg. 1995. Modeling the effects of habitat fragmentation on
source and sink demography of Neotropical migrant birds. Conser-
vation Biology 9:1396–1407.
Donovan, T. M., P. W. Jones, E. M. Annand, and F. R. Thompson III.
1997. Variation in local-scale edge effects: mechanisms and land-
scape context. Ecology 78:2064–2075.
Dyer, J. M. 1995. Assessment of climatic warming using a model of for-
est species migration. Ecological Modelling 79:199–219.
Fagan, W. E., R. S. Cantrell, and C. Cosner. 1999. How habitat edges
change species interactions. The American Naturalist 153:165–
182.
Forman, R. T. T., and M. Godron. 1986. Landscape ecology. Wiley,
New York.
Fox, M. D., and B. D. Fox. 1986. The susceptibility of communities to
invasion. Pages 97–105 in R. H. Groves and J. J. Burdon, editors.
Ecology of biological invasions: an Australian perspective. Austra-
lian Academy of Science, Canberra.
Gardner R. H., B. T. Milne, M. G. Turner, and R. V. O’Neill. 1987. Neu-
tral models for the analysis of broad-scale landscape pattern. Land-
scape Ecology 1:19–28.
Harrison, S., K. Rice, and J. Maron. 2001. Habitat patchiness promotes
invasion by alien grasses on serpentine soil. Biological Conserva-
tion 100:45–53.
Hart, D. R., and R. H. Gardner. 1997. A spatial model for the spread of
invading organisms subject to competition. Journal of Mathemati-
cal Biology 35:935–948.
Harvey, C. A. 2000. Windbreaks enhance seed dispersal into agricul-
tural landscapes in Monteverde, Costa Rica. Ecological Applica-
tions 10:155–173.
Higgins, S. I., and D. M. Richardson. 1996. A review of models of alien
plant spread. Ecological Modelling 87:249–265.
Higgins, S. I., and D. M. Richardson. 1998. Pine invasions in the South-
ern Hemisphere: modelling interactions between organism, envi-
ronment and disturbance. Plant Ecology 135:79–93.
Higgins, S. I., and D. M. Richardson. 1999. Predicting plant migration
rates in a changing world: the role of long-distance dispersal. The
American Naturalist 153:464–475.
Higgins, S. I., D. M. Richardson, and R. M. Cowling. 1996. Modeling in-
vasive plant spread: the role of plant-environment interactions and
model structure. Ecology 77:2043–2054.
Hobbs, R. J. 2000. Land-use changes and invasion. Pages 55–64 in H. A.
Mooney and R. J. Hobbs, editors. Invasive species in a changing
world. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Hobbs, R. J., and L. F. Huenneke. 1992. Disturbance, diversity, and inva-
sion: implications for conservation. Conservation Biology 6:324–337.
Holt, R. D., and M. S. Gaines. 1992. Analysis of adaptation in heteroge-
neous landscapes: implications for the evolution of fundamental
niches. Evolutionary Ecology 6:433–447.
Holt, R. D., and R. Gomulkiewicz. 1997. How does immigration influ-
ence local adaptation? A reexamination of a familiar paradigm. The
American Naturalist 149:563–572.
King, A. W. 1997. Hierarchy theory: a guide to system structure for
wildlife biologists. Pages 185–212 in J. A. Bissonette, editor. Wild-
life and landscape ecology: effects of pattern and scale. Springer-
Verlag, New York.
Kot, M., M. A. Lewis, and P. van den Driesshe. 1996. Dispersal data and
the spread of invading organisms. Ecology 77:2027–2042.
Lavorel, S., R. V. O’Neill, and R. H. Gardner. 1994. Spatio-temporal dis-
persal strategies and annual plant species coexistence in a struc-
tured landscape. Oikos 71:75–88.
Lavorel, S., R. H. Gardner, and R. V. O’Neill. 1995. Dispersal of annual
plants in hierarchically structured landscapes. Landscape Ecology
10:277–289.
Lewis, M. A. 1997. Variability, patchiness, and jump dispersal in the
spread of an invading population. Pages 46–69 in D. Tilman and P.
Kareiva, editors. Spatial ecology: the role of space in population dy-
namics and interspecific interactions. Princeton University Press,
Princeton, New Jersey.
Lonsdale, W. M. 1999. Global patterns of plant invasions and the con-
cept of invasibility. Ecology 80:1522–1536.
Luken, J. O., L. M. Kuddes, T. C. Tholemeier, and D. M. Haller. 1997.
Comparative responses of Lonicera maackii (amur honeysuckle)
and Lindera benzoin (spicebush) to increased light. American
Midland Naturalist 138:331–343.
Mack, R. N. 2000. Assessing the extent, status, and dynamism of plant
invasions: current and emerging approaches. Pages 141–168 in
H. A. Mooney and R. J. Hobbs, editors. Invasive species in a chang-
ing world. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Malanson, G. P., and D. M. Cairns. 1997. Effects of dispersal, popula-
tion delays, and forest fragmentation on tree migration rates. Plant
Ecology 131:67–79.
Mayfield, H. 1965. The Brown-headed Cowbird, with old and new
hosts. Living Bird 4:13–28.
Moody, M. E., and R. N. Mack. 1988. Controlling the spread of plant in-
vasions: the importance of nascent foci. Journal of Applied Ecology
25:1009–1021.
Mooney, H. A., and J. A. Drake. 1989. Biological invasions: a SCOPE
program overview. Pages 491–506 in J. A. Drake, H. A. Mooney, F.
di Castri, R. H. Groves, F. J. Kruger, M. Rejmanek, and M. William-
son, editors. Biological invasions, a global perspective. Wiley, Chi-
chester, United Kingdom.
Conservation Biology
Volume 16, No. 5, October 2002
With Landscape Ecology of Invasive Spread 1203
Mooney, H. A., and R. J. Hobbs. 2000. Invasive species in a changing
world. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Neubert, M. G., and H. Caswell. 2000. Demography and dispersal: cal-
culation and sensitivity analysis of invasion speed for structured
populations. Ecology 81:1613–1628.
Pickett, S. T. A., J. Kolasa, J. J. Armesto, and S. L. Collins. 1989. The
ecological concept of disturbance and its expression at various hi-
erarchical levels. Oikos 54:129–136.
Pimentel, D., L. Lach, R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 2000. Environmental
and economic costs of nonindigenous species in the United States.
BioScience 50:53–65.
Pitelka, L. F., and the Plant Migration Workshop Group. 1997. Plant mi-
gration and climate change. American Scientist 85:464–473.
Plotnick R. E., R. H. Gardner, and R. V. O’Neill. 1993. Lacunarity indices
as measures of landscape texture. Landscape Ecology 8:201–211.
Pulliam, H. R. 1988. Sources, sinks, and population regulation. The
American Naturalist 132:652–661.
Richardson, D. M., P. Pyšek, M. Rejmánek, M. G. Barbour, F. D. Panetta,
and C. J. West. 2000a. Naturalization and invasion of alien plants: con-
cepts and definitions. Diversity and Distributions 6:93–107.
Richardson, D. M., W. J. Bond, W. Richard J. Dean, S. I. Higgins, G. F.
Midgley, S. J. Milton, L. W. Powerie, M. C. Rutherford, M. J. Sam-
ways, and R. E. Schulze. 2000b. Invasive alien species and global
change: a South African perspective. Pages 303–349 in H. A.
Mooney and R. J. Hobbs, editors. Invasive species in a changing
world. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Richardson, D. M., N. Allsopp, C. M. D’Antonio, S. J. Milton, and M. Rej-
mánek. 2000c. Plant invasions: the role of mutualisms. Biological
Reviews 75:65–93.
Robinson, S. K., F. R. Thompson III, T. M. Donovan, D. R. Whitehead,
and J. Faaborg. 1995. Regional forest fragmentation and the nesting
success of migratory birds. Science 267:1987–1990.
Rose, S. 1997. Influence of suburban edges on invasion of Pittosporum
undulatum into the bushland of northern Sydney, Australia. Austra-
lian Journal of Ecology 22:89–99.
Schwartz, M. W. 1992. Modelling effects of habitat fragmentation on
the ability of trees to respond to climatic warming. Biodiversity and
Conservation 2:51–61.
Seastedt, T. R., and A. K. Knapp. 1993. Consequences of nonequilib-
rium resource availability across multiple time scales: the transient
maxima hypothesis. The American Naturalist 141:621–633.
Sharov, A. A., and A. M. Liebhold. 1998. Model of slowing the spread
of gypsy moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) with a barrier zone.
Ecological Applications 8:1170–1179.
Skellam, J. B. 1951. Random dispersal in theoretical populations. Bio-
metrika 38:196–218.
South, A. 1999. Dispersal in spatially explicit population models. Con-
servation Biology 13:1039–1046.
Thompson, J. N. 1998. Rapid evolution as an ecological process.
Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13:329–332.
Thompson, J. N. 1999. The evolution of species interactions. Science
284:2116–2118.
Turner, M. G. 1989. Landscape ecology: the effect of patten on
process. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 20:171–
197.
Turner, M. G., and R. H. Gardner. 1991. Quantitative methods in land-
scape ecology: an introduction. Pages 3–14 in M. G. Turner and
R. H. Gardner, editors. Quantitative methods in landscape ecology.
Springer-Verlag, New York.
Turner M. G., R. H. Gardner, V. H. Dale, and R. V. O’Neill. 1989. Pre-
dicting the spread of disturbance across heterogeneous land-
scapes. Oikos 55:121–129.
Urban, D. L., R. V. O’Neill, and H. H. Shugart. 1987. Landscape ecol-
ogy. BioScience 37:119–127.
van den Bosch, F., R. Hengeveld, and A. J. Metz. 1992. Analyzing the
velocity of animal range expansion. Journal of Biogeography 19:
135–150.
Veit, R. R., and M. A. Lewis. 1996. Dispersal, population growth and
the Allee effect: dynamics of the House Finch invasion of North
America. The American Naturalist 148:255–274.
Vitousek, P. M., C. M. D’Antonio, L. L. Loope, and R. G. Westbrooks.
1996. Biological invasions as global environmental change. Ameri-
can Scientist 84:218–228.
Westbrooks, R. G. 1998. Invasive plants, changing the landscape of
America: fact book. Federal Interagency Committee for the Man-
agement of Noxious and Exotic Weeds, Washington, D.C.
Whitney, G. 1994. From coastal wilderness to fruited plain: a history of
environmental change in temperate North America from 1500 to
the present. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Wiens, J. A. 1989. Spatial scaling in ecology. Functional Ecology 3:
385–397.
Wilcove, D. S., D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips, and E. Losos. 1998.
Assessing the relative importance of habitat destruction, alien spe-
cies, pollution, over-exploitation, and disease. BioScience 48:607–
616.
With, K. A. 1994. Using fractal analysis to assess species’ perceptions
of landscape structure. Landscape Ecology 9:25–36.
With, K. A. 1997. The application of neutral landscape models in con-
servation biology. Conservation Biology 11:1069–1080.
With, K. A. 1999. Is landscape connectivity necessary and sufficient
for wildlife management? Pages 97–115 in J. A. Rochelle, L. A. Leh-
mann, and J. Wisniewski, editors. Forest fragmentation: wildlife and
management implications. Brill Academic Publishers, Leiden, The
Netherlands.
With K. A., and A. W. King. 1997. The use and misuse of neutral land-
scape models in ecology. Oikos 79:219–229.
With, K. A., and A. W. King. 1999a. Dispersal thresholds in fractal
landscapes: a consequence of lacunarity thresholds. Landscape
Ecology 14:73–82.
With, K. A., and A. W. King. 1999b. Extinction thresholds for species
in fractal landscapes. Conservation Biology 13:314–326.
With, K. A., and A. W. King. 2001. Analysis of landscape sources and
sinks: the effect of spatial pattern on avian demography. Biological
Conservation 100:75–88.
