Cited by 22Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesAnimal Ecology and Behavior StudiesForest Insect Ecology and Management

Weeds, worms, and deer: positive relationships among common forest understory stressors

Fisichelli, Nicholas A., Miller, Kathryn M.·2018·Biological Invasions

Abstract

Biotic global change agents, such as non-native plants (‘weeds’), non-native earthworms (‘worms’), and overabundant herbivores (white-tailed ‘deer’), can be major stressors in the forest understory. The status and relationships among these global change stressors across large spatial extents and under naturally varying conditions are poorly understood. Here, through an observational study using a network of U.S. National Park Service forest health monitoring plots (n = 350) from eight parks in seven northeastern states, we modeled causal pathways among global change stressors through model selection in a structural equation (SEM) framework. Weeds, worms, and, deer were common across all parks in the study—46% of plots had non-native plants, 42% of plots had evidence of earthworms, and all parks had plots with high deer browse damage. All biotic global change stressors were significantly and positively correlated with one another (all Spearman rank correlations ≥ 0.44). Consequently, 28% of plots had a combination of earthworms absent, low deer browse, and no non-native plants, and 29% of plots included earthworms, non-native plants, and moderate or greater browse damage. Through SEM, we found strong support for pathways among global change stressors, e.g., deer browse positively influenced earthworm presence and both deer and earthworms promoted non-native plants. Warmer air temperatures and higher soil pH also facilitated non-natives. This research highlights the tremendous…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10530-017-1630-y

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fisichelli, N. A., & Miller, K. M.
Affiliations
  • Schoodic Institute (US)
  • National Park Service (US)
Corresponding author
Fisichelli, Nicholas A.
Venue
Biological Invasions
Published
2017-11-17
Volume
20
Issue
5
Pages
1337-1348
ISSN
  • 1387-3547 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-1464
OpenAlex
W2770409279
Cited by
21
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2019: 2
FWCI
0.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Biological Invasions (publishedVersion)
Funders
Maine Timberlands Charitable Trust
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Animal Ecology and Behavior Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Forest Insect Ecology and Management
Keywords
understory vegetation, non-native plants, earthworms, white-tailed deer, invasive species, global warming, soil pH, forest health, causal pathways, national parks, northeastern United States

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review