Next Article in Journal
Semicryptic Diversity around Chaetoceros elegans (Bacillariophyta, Mediophyceae), and the Description of Two New Species
Previous Article in Journal
Spatial Variations of Aquatic Bacterial Community Structure and Co-Occurrence Patterns in a Coal Mining Subsidence Lake
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Impacts of Parthenium hysterophorus L. on Plant Species Diversity in Ginir District, Southeastern Ethiopia

1
Ethiopian Biodiversity Institute, Goba Biodiversity Center, Goba, Addis Ababa P.O. Box 30726, Ethiopia
2
Department of Wildlife and Protected Area Management, Hawassa University, Awassa P.O. Box 128, Ethiopia
3
Center for Environmental Science, College of Natural and Computational Sciences, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa P.O. Box 1176, Ethiopia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diversity 2022, 14(8), 675; https://doi.org/10.3390/d14080675
Submission received: 8 June 2022 / Revised: 24 July 2022 / Accepted: 9 August 2022 / Published: 18 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Biodiversity Loss & Dynamics)

Abstract

:
Invasive alien species are considered the second greatest global threat to biodiversity. This study is aimed at determining the impacts of Parthenium hysterophorus on herbaceous and woody plant species diversity in the Ginir district, southeast Ethiopia. Data on vegetation were collected from the three study sites’ four land use types, with each land use type having invaded and non-invaded land units. A systematic random sampling method was used for establishing sampling plots. To examine the impacts of the invasive on native plant diversity, a total of 160 plots (120 plots of 1 m2 on grazing lands, roadsides, and abandoned agricultural lands and 40 plots of 20 m2 for sampling herbaceous and tree (shrub) species, respectively) were established. The number of plots was equally distributed in both invaded and adjacent non-invaded areas. Plant species from each plot were recorded and identified. In each plot, all the individuals of P. hysterophorus were counted, the heights of the five tallest individuals were measured, and the mean height was calculated. The percentage cover of P. hysterophorus was visually estimated. The data were analyzed using both descriptive and inferential statistics. A total of 105 plant species (45 trees/shrubs and 60 herbaceous) belonging to 84 genera and 42 families were documented in the study area. The result showed a strong negative relationship between the density of P. hysterophorus and other plant species richness (r = −0.82, p = 0.013) and species abundance (r = −0.917, p = 0.001) per study site of the invaded community. Species richness in the non-invaded site was higher (105 species) than in the invaded area (63 species), demonstrating the negative impact of P. hysterophorus on local biodiversity. Furthermore, the number of plant families was 42 in the non-invaded area, in contrast to only 32 in the invaded areas, a 23.8% decline. Of the plant communities, similarity indices between non-invaded and invaded sites among different land use types were >50%. It was concluded that P. hysterophorus was one of the most dominant invasive alien species in the study area that reduced the species diversity of various plant species. Putting in place a strategy and effective planning for the control and management of this invasive alien species is strongly recommended.

1. Introduction

Invasive alien species (IAS) are the key drivers behind the current biodiversity loss. It is also among the evil five collectively known threats to biodiversity, i.e., habitat modification, over-exploitation, climate change, and chains of extinction [1,2]. Thus, biological invasions attract the concern of conservationists, ecologists, foresters, policymakers, and other scientists. This is due to their potential to cause hundreds of biological extinctions throughout the world, which have a great influence on society, economic life, health, and national heritage [3,4].
Since the 17th century, IAS has been responsible for nearly 40% of all known animal extinctions [5]. The estimated economic damage from invasive species worldwide has been USD 1.288 trillion over the past 50 years [6], close to 5% of global growth domestic product (GDP), with impacts across a wide range of sectors, including agriculture, forestry, aquaculture, transportation, trade, power generation, and recreation [7,8].
A 2021 study in North America estimated that invasive species cost USD 2 billion per year in the early 1960s and has increased to over USD 26 billion per year since 2010 [9]. The total economic costs incurred by the IAS on the Indian economy ranged from USD 137.3 billion to 182.6 billion between 1960 and 2020 [10]. In particular, the problem of invasive weeds is particularly serious in the poorest and most vulnerable countries. In Southeast Asia, invasive species cost at least USD 33 billion per year, accounting for 5% of total GDP [11]. Accordingly, the management of invasive species is one of the strategic intervention areas in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Goal 2, which is to end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture [12].
Africa may be particularly vulnerable to exotic and invasive species’ colonization. This may be due to its climate-sensitive distribution of native flora and fauna [13]. As biological invasion attracts both scientific and political attention [14], Ethiopia recognized the threats posed by invasive alien species (IAS) to local biodiversity and incorporated this fact into its various policy and strategy documents.
In Ethiopia, IAS are causing a variety of issues for agricultural lands, range lands, biodiversity, national parks, waterways, rivers, power dams, roadsides, and urban green spaces, with serious economic and environmental consequences. Approximately 35 invasive alien species were recorded, with Parthenium hysterophorus being among the top five highly targeted weeds [15,16].
Parthenium hysterophorusis (Santa Maria feverfew) is an annual herb in the family Asteraceae that is characterized by a deep taproot, pale green leaves, and an erect stem that gradually becomes woody. At maturity, the plant develops several branches in its top half and may finally reach a height of 1.5–2 m (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization [17]. The genus Parthenium has 16 species native to subtropical areas in northern South America, Central America, Mexico, Texas, and Florida but is currently widely distributed in tropical and subtropical countries such as Australia, China, Kenya, Ethiopia, Israel, Taiwan, India, and Nepal and has invaded as many as 30 countries around the globe [18,19].
The dispersal of P. hysterophorus occurs in multiple ways, including short-distance wind dispersal, or water surface, runoff in natural streams and rivers, in irrigation and drainage channels, and irrigation water from the ponds or through farm machinery, vehicles, movement of livestock, animal dung, and grain seeds [20,21]. In Ethiopia, the invasion history of this weed is not well known. However, anecdotal shreds of evidence indicate that it is widely distributed throughout the country even though there is no actual baseline data. It was believed to have been accidentally introduced to Ethiopia from North America in the 1970s when drought-induced famine triggered a massive multinational relief effort. It was supposed to be introduced as a contaminant of grain food aid and distributed with the grain [22].
P. hysterophorus is a major weed, existing in more than 45 countries [23,24]. It has been reported to have socio-economic impacts, including a decline in crop and livestock production, human health, soil fertility, and biodiversity. This invasive species changes the scenario of the agriculture of the world, i.e., reducing crop production by forty to fifty percent and pasture production by up to 90% [25]. For instance, in Australia, the economic damage caused by this species every year has been estimated to be USD 16.5 million in the beef industry and several million dollars in the cropping industries [26]. In eastern Ethiopia, the yield of sorghum grain was reduced by 40% to 97% [27] and by 18.8–86.4% in the common bean when P. hysterophorus was left uncontrolled throughout the season [28].
Data on the impacts of P. hysterophorus on the species richness, evenness, diversity, and composition of invaded communities is limited [29]. A few studies conducted in different parts of Ethiopia have revealed the aggressiveness of P. hysterophorus species on native plant species [16,30,31]. However, there has not been a specific study on the impacts of P. hysterophorus on the indigenous plant diversity in southeastern Ethiopia. In particular, the specific study attempted to answer previous, less explored research questions such as how P. hysterophorus affects native plant species composition, richness, and abundance and how it adversely affects native floral community structure in a specific agro-ecological condition. In order to fully understand the impact of this IAS on native biodiversity and take likely control measures, there is a need for proper documentation of its impacts in different agro-ecologies. This research is therefore aimed at determining the impacts of P. hysterophorus on the herbaceous and woody plant species diversity of invaded land use types in Ginir woreda of the East Bale zone, Oromia regional state, Ethiopia.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Description of the Study Area

The study area, Ginir district, is found in the East Bale zone, Oromia Regional State, Southeast Ethiopia. It is one of the administrative units (woreda) among the 7 districts of the East Bale zone, with an area of approximately 2384 km2. Ginir town is the administrative center of the district, which is located at a distance of 136 km from the Bale zone capital, Robe town, and 566 km from the country’s capital, Addis Ababa (Figure 1).
According to the Central Statistical Agency’s population projection, the total population of the district by the year 2021 was estimated to be 203,751 (103,592 males and 100,159 females). The topography of the district falls within the altitudinal range of 1200–2406 m above sea level. According to data from the district agricultural office, the land configuration of the district is categorized as plain, which accounts for approximately 85%, mountain 3%, and rugged and gorge areas account for approximately 12% (i.e., approximately 15% of the area of this district is covered with a valley, gorges, and hills). Similarly, the land use in the district indicates that 30.5% is arable or cultivable, 31.2% is pasture, 35.6% is forest, and the remaining 2.7% is considered swampy, mountainous, or otherwise unusable.

2.2. Methods

2.2.1. Sampling Design

Based on data from the Ginir district agricultural office and visual observation, three kebeles (smallest administrative units), namely Ardatare, Balekecha, and Jamie, were purposefully chosen. A systematic random sampling method was used to establish sampling plots to cover the total sampling sites [32]. This helped to include as many vegetation types as possible to represent the native flora of the study area. For each sampling area, line transects were used in a way that incorporated a sufficient number of sample plots from both invaded and non-invaded areas. This was conducted by applying the plot method [33] to sampling.
Sample plots were established in both invaded and non-invaded areas to compare the plant species diversity. In each sampling plot, one plot of the pair was placed in P. hysterophorus invaded plots, where there was a high infestation, and the second plot was placed in neighboring vegetation, where there was no infestation [34]. The plots were chosen to cover a range of site conditions and vegetation types in which the invader achieves dominance in the invaded communities. In a few cases, very low and recently emerging stems of the P. hysterophorus occurred in the non-invaded plot, which may not have induced any changes to vegetation structure and species composition [35]. As much as possible, the non-invaded plots were chosen to have similar site conditions (10 m) to the invaded plots [36].
Four dominant land use types were selected using a stratified random sampling method, i.e., woodland, grassland, roadside, and abandoned agricultural land. Four infested P. hysterophorus patches from each land use type of the study sites were selected and numbered, and two patches from each land use type with an area of >one hectare [37] were randomly chosen from each list of patches. The level of P. hysterophorus invasion and the size of the area covered were selected to increase the efficiency of sampling due to the assumption that areas of high P. hysterophorus cover and invasion could have a high impact.
To collect herbaceous vegetation data from grazing lands, roadsides, and abandoned agricultural lands, a hundred meter (100 m) long transect was established in each sampling site (patch) and along it, ten 1 m × 1 m (1 m2) size plots were systematically laid at an interval of 5–10 m [38,39]. To allow equal chance sampling between invaded and non-invaded areas, the number of plots was equally distributed in both invaded and adjacent non-invaded areas. As a result, depending on the field situation, data from non-invaded plots were collected at a distance of 10 m from invaded plots [36]. Thus, forty plots (20 plots for invaded and the rest 20 plots for non-invaded) were sampled from the different sample sites for each land use type. Therefore, a total of 120 plots were sampled for the three land use types in each of the three kebeles (Figure 2).
To examine the impacts of P. hysterophorus invasions on the indigenous woody species diversity of invaded communities, sampling plots were located purposively in two of the three kebeles based on the relatively high magnitude of infestation in the woodland areas of these kebeles. In each of the two sampling sites, five equally drawn imaginary transects were defined at an interval of horizontal distance of 100 to 150 m, passing along the length of the respective woodland plant community. In each of the five transects, two plots of 20 m × 20 m were taken for tree sampling, with nested plots of 5 m × 5 m (saplings and shrubs) and 2 m × 2 m (seedlings) taken within each sample plot [40]. To sample trees and shrubs, seedlings, and saplings of woody plants, ten plots were laid on invaded woodland forest areas and the remaining half in adjacent non-invaded areas, for a total of 20 plots in each sampling site (Figure 2).

2.2.2. Data Collection

Vegetation sampling was conducted during November and December 2019. The study assessed the impacts of P. hysterophorus on herbaceous and woody species diversity in different infested land use types. Each native plant species was identified and recorded. In each plot, all the individuals of P. hysterophorus were counted. The heights of the five tallest individuals were measured, and a mean height was calculated. The percentage cover of the invasive was visually estimated by classifying it into different infestation levels in each plot using the procedure documented in [33] to determine its impact on indigenous plant diversity.
Sample specimens were taken to the Ethiopian Biodiversity Institute Herbarium for identification and proper naming. The collected specimens were identified using authenticated specimens, consulting experts, and referring to the eight published volumes of Flora of Ethiopia and Eritrea [41,42].

2.2.3. Data Analysis

Both descriptive (frequency and percentage) and inferential statistics were used for data presentation and analysis. The biophysical data were organized using “Microsoft Office Excels”. Data collected from the plots survey was analyzed using different statistical tools with the help of IBM SPSS (Statistical Program for Social Sciences) Statistics for Windows Version 20.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp. IBM Corp. Released 2012 software.
All the plant species identified in this study were ranked according to their family. The diversity of the species for the vegetation data from the sample sites was compared using the Shannon Diversity Index [43]. This index accounts both for the abundance and for the evenness of the species in the natural environment. Abundance is the total number of occurrences of species in each plot across the different land use types, and evenness explains how equally abundant each species would be in the plant community [44].
The evenness of species was calculated as described by [45]. The species evenness has values between 0 and 1, where 0 indicates the abundance of a few species and 1 indicates the condition where all species are equally abundant. Besides, high evenness is a sign of ecosystem health [46]. A community with a high even-ness index is characterized by a large number of species that are distributed equally in most sample plots, and a community with a high evenness index is more stable than the lesser ones [47].
This was also used to assess the impact of P. hysterophorus on the diversity of herbaceous, shrub, and tree plant species. The higher value of the index of diversity indicates the variability in the type of species and heterogeneity in the community, whereas the lower values point to the homogeneity in the community.
The frequency of each species in non-invaded and invaded sites was calculated. Jaccard’s Similarity Index and Sorenson’s Similarity Index between non-invaded and invaded areas for the selected land use types of each sampling site were calculated [48,49].
Plot-wise data of vegetation attributes were used in the statistical analysis. A linear regression and correlation analysis were used, with the P. hysterophorus density as the in-dependent variable and species richness, species abundance, and height of P. hysterophorus as the dependent variables. A multicollinearity test among the independent variables was carried out by the evaluation of linear regression and Pearson correlations. The regression equation was computed as y = b0 + b1x1 + b2x2 + b3x3, where y is P. hysterophorus density, x1 is species abundance, x2 is species richness, and x3 is the height of P. hysterophorus per study site, b0 = regression constant and b1, b2, b3 are estimated regression coefficients.

3. Results

3.1. Impacts of Parthenium on Herbaceous and Woody Species Diversity

The result showed that there were 105 species in the non-invaded area and 63 species in the invaded sites (Appendix A). Thus, the number of species was reduced by 40% in the P. hysterophorus invaded area as compared to the non-invaded area. According to the result, the vegetation invaded by the invasive has fewer species in herbaceous and woody plant species diversity compared to the non-infested vegetation over all the land use types.
The results were expressed as mean ± standard deviation of the mean (SEM). The results of the Shannon–Wiener diversity index showed that the non-invaded part of the woodland area has relatively the highest mean species diversity (3.38 ± 0.1365) and richness (44.5 ± 2.5). On the contrary, the least mean species diversity (1.724 ± 0.045) and richness (9 ± 1.0) were recorded in the P. hysterophorus invaded vegetation along roadsides and abandoned agricultural land, respectively (Table 1).
Regarding the highest mean evenness value of the study sites, approximately similar results were recorded for both invaded (0.957 ± 0.003) and non-invaded (0.944 ± 0.023) land units in abandoned agricultural lands. On the other hand, the least mean evenness values were noted in the grazing lands (Table 1). On the other hand, the mean evenness value of the entire invaded sampled study sites was 0.847, indicating 84.7% of the plant communities had a uniform distribution, while the mean evenness value of the non-invaded samples was 0.833, indicating 83.3% of the plant communities had a uniform distribution. Thus, the heterogeneity of the invaded study sites was reduced by a very small value, that is, 1.4%.

3.1.1. Impacts of P. hysterophorus Invasion on Species Composition

The results of this study showed that the invasion of P. hysterophorus severely affected the composition of vegetation in the study area. Twenty-seven and forty-two plant species were recorded from each invaded and non-invaded land unit of the Baliekecha woodland sampling plots, respectively, whereas twenty-nine and forty-seven plant species were recorded in both invaded and non-invaded plots of the Ardatare woodland site. Ten and seventeen plant species were recorded from invaded and non-invaded plots of Baliekecha roadside plots, respectively (Table 1).
A total of 45 tree (shrub) and 60 herbaceous plant species belonging to 84 genera were documented from the study sites of different land use types. The number of plant families was 42 in the non-invaded area, in contrast to only 32 in the invaded areas. In non-invaded areas, the family Fabaceae was represented by the highest number of species (17 species), accounting for 16.35%, followed by Poaceae (13.46%), Asteraceae (7.69%), Euphorbiaceae (5.77%), and Bursseraceae (3.85%). It is worth noting that the above-mentioned five families alone represent the bulk of (47.12%) plant species in the total flora in non-invaded (controlled) study sites (Appendix A).
The plant species in the non-invaded plots belonging to 42 families were identified in the three sampling sites of four major land use types. The number of families decreased by 23.8% in the infested area as compared to the non-invaded land unit. In invaded areas, of the 32 plant families, Poaceae accounts for 15.87%, followed by Fabaceae (14.29%) and Asteraceae (7.94%). Euphorbiaceae and Sapindaceae account for 4.76% each. The above-mentioned five families alone account for 47.62% of the plant species recorded in the Parthenium-invaded study areas.
Among 105 documented plant species, 63 species were common to both non-invaded and invaded areas. This means that species collected from non-P. hysterophorus-invaded sampling areas accommodate all the species that are found on the invaded plots. Subsequently, the result indicated that 98 indigenous, three endemic, and four introduced plant species were recorded from the entire species collection. Of these species, three of them were invasive (Argemone mexicana, Parthenium hysterophorus, and Xanthium strumarium).

3.1.2. Species Similarity and Richness

The index of similarity of species composition between areas of P. hysterophorus invaded and non-invaded land units within the same land use types for the four major selected land use types combined was high (Table 2).
Plant communities’ similarity indices between P. hysterophorus non-invaded and invaded sites of the different land use types were >50% in all the study areas. The values of the Jaccard coefficient of similarity vary from 50% to 76.47%, whereas Sorensen varies from 66.6% to 86.6%. Similarity indices were comparatively higher on abandoned agricultural land, and a lower similarity index was recorded in the roadside vegetation (Table 2).
All of the 63 plant species found in the invaded area were found in the non-invaded area, and thus, species tend to be rarer in invaded areas. This was also evidenced by the higher frequencies for all of the species in non-invaded areas. At (=0.05), there is a significant difference in species richness between invaded and non-invaded areas. For each land use type, the effect of invasion on species richness was significant, i.e., the number of species varied significantly between P. hysterophorus invaded and non-invaded sites. The species richness also declined as P. hysterophorus densities increased (Figure 3).

3.1.3. Density, Percent Cover, and Height of P. hysterophorus across Different Land Use Types

The maximum mean density of P. hysterophorus stems was counted in the roadside area at 34 stems/m2 and the minimum was in the woodland area at 14 stems/m2. The mean density for an invaded area of grassland was 33 stem/m2 and 282 stem/20 m2 (14 stem/m2) was recorded in a woodland forest area. Similarly, the mean density of P. hysterophorus for roadside and abandoned agricultural land use types was 34 and 32 stems/m2, respectively (Table 3).
The highest density of P. hysterophorus was 61 stems/m2 in the invaded area of grassland at Jamie’s study site, and 47 stems/m2 in the invaded area of abandoned agricultural land at Ardatare’s study site. In the same way, 52 stems/m2 was the maximum density of P. hysterophorus on the roadside of the Ardatare study site, and 365 stems/20 m2 (18 stems/m2) was for the woodland-invaded area of the Baliekecha sampling site.
The maximum mean of P. hysterophorus percent cover was 72% in the roadside area and, inversely, the minimum was 56.5% in the woodland area. In roadside study sites, the mean maximum percent cover of P. hysterophorus was 72%. In contrast, the minimum Parthenium percent cover was 56.5% in the Acacia woodland study sites (Table 3). The highest percent cover of P. hysterophorus (90%) was recorded on the Ardatare roadside, while the lowest percent cover (35%) was recorded at the woodland area of the Baliekecha sampling site. Consequently, the effect of land use types on the percent cover of P. hysterophorus was not significant at p = 0.05 (0.082).
The maximum mean height of P. hysterophorus was recorded at 0.63 m in the roadside area and the minimum mean height was 0.5325 m in the woodland area. The mean height of the invasive in woodland and grassland was 0.53 and 0.59 m, respectively. On the other hand, the mean height for the roadside and abandoned agricultural land in the invaded area was 0.63 and 0.60 m, respectively (Table 3). Individual heights of P. hysterophorus in invaded areas of woodland, grassland, roadside, and abandoned agricultural land revealed no significant differences in the invasive’s mean height between these four different land use types at p = 0.05 (0.510).

3.1.4. Relationship between the Density of P. hysterophorus and Species Richness and Abundance

A scatter plot suggested that an increase in the density of P. hysterophorus led to a decrease in species abundance and the richness of native flora (Figure 4). The Pearson correlation (r = −0.88, p = 0.001) indicated a strong negative relationship between the density of P. hysterophorus and the species abundance in the invaded community. Sites that recorded a higher density of P. hysterophorus had lower floristic abundances of herbaceous and woody plant species. Similarly, sites that had a lower density of the invasive were recorded to harbor a higher species abundance. The decline in species richness and abundance with a successive increase in invasive species density indicates that community heterogeneity and distribution are negatively affected significantly.
The regression analysis showed a strong negative relationship between the density of P. hysterophorus and the species richness per study site (Figure 4). The Pearson correlation also indicated that there was a significant negative relationship between the density of Parthenium and species richness (r = −0.82, p = 0.013) at p = 0.05. This implies that an increase in the density of the invasive led to a decrease in the number of other herbaceous and woody plant species in the sampling areas, hence the negative correlation values. Sites that had a low density of P. hysterophorus had more herbaceous and woody plant species.

4. Discussion

4.1. Impacts of P. hysterophorus on Indigenous Plant Biodiversity

P. hysterophorus had an impact on local biodiversity in the study area’s various land use types, primarily in abandoned agricultural areas, grassland, roadsides, and woodland forest areas. In these land use types of the study sites, one can easily observe the prominent influence and fast expansion of P. hysterophorus on the other plant species. This may be due to many factors, such as wider adaptation across climates, photo insensitivity, and drought tolerance. The results of this study are consistent with [50,51]. Similarly, [52] described the allelopathic nature of the invasive and its impact on plant diversity.
According to the analysis, P. hysterophorus is the dominant species compared to other species in P. hysterophorus-infested areas. Very light or sometimes, no other vegetation can be seen in P. hysterophorus-dominated areas. On the contrary, better plant species diversity was recorded in non-infested areas. This might be due to the inhibitory nature of this invasive plant species. The result is in line with [53,54], who reported the inhibitory effect of allelochemicals of the invasive on both the germination and growth of a wide variety of crops, including pasture grasses, cereals, vegetables, and tree species.
Circumstantial evidence from the study indicated that P. hysterophorus has a great impact on plant diversity, causing habitat change in grasslands, along roadsides, open woodlands, and abandoned agricultural lands. These observations are in line with [55]. Ref. [56] also reported that P. hysterophorus can invade and adapt to new habitats, thereby reducing the number of indigenous plants. A study by [57] also showed that P. hysterophorus is among one of the major invaders in the northwestern part of India, causing a huge loss to indigenous species diversity.
Parthenium hysterophorus does have a high negative impact on species richness in infested areas. In P. hysterophorus infested areas, it reduced the species diversity of the study area by reducing their distribution, abundance, and changing the ecosystem. These happen because when areas are invaded by P. hysterophorus, it reduces the growth and abundance of the different species, leading to the area being dominated by this invasive species. Similarly, [58] reported that the weed is among three exotic invasive species that adversely affect the structural composition and dynamics of the diversity of the native flora.
The decline in species diversity in P. hysterophorus-infested areas indicates that this invasive species is displacing certain native species from their community. In this study, higher diversity indices were relatively recorded in the non-invaded plots in all three study sites when compared to the P. hysterophorus-invaded plots. This is because P. hysterophorus alters the invaded ecosystem and species composition to such an extent that it threatens native flora. This response to invasion is to be predicted from earlier work in India [59].
The displacement of native species might also be related to their highly adaptive nature. It can flower under a very wide range of climatic conditions, creating a deep taproot that enables it to survive in low moisture, germinating at temperatures ranging from 12 °C to 27 °C, and tolerating saline conditions [60]. Therefore, the ecologically diversified adaptability of the invasive may allow its rapid expansion and speedup of damaging impacts on native plants, resulting in monoculture formation and native biodiversity reduction [54].
The variation in Shannon–Weiner species diversity indices and richness values in the three selected study sites in the invaded and non-invaded plots showed significant differences. The result of this study revealed that there was a reduction in the diversity index as the dominance of the weed increased. This finding was consistent with [61], who reported that there was a decline in the diversity index as the density of P. hysterophorus increased.
The result of this study was in agreement with [58], who reported the fact that plant diversity in the un-infested area was greater than in the P. hysterophorus-infested areas. Accordingly, a lower value of the Shannon diversity index suggests an area is dominated by a few species, i.e., invaded sites were relatively homogeneous in the community. Therefore, in the non-invaded study sites, the communities were more variable in the type of species and heterogeneous in the community. [62] also pointed out that the diversity values depend on the dominance of the weed in the community. If there are more successful species with no species completely dominating the area, the value of the Shannon diversity index is high.
There are a couple of possible reasons for the significant reduction in plant species that were present in highly infested areas. The dominance of Parthenium at the study site might be attributed to features such as its fast growth rate, which can grow and flower year-round without a period of dormancy; its high seed production, where individual plants can produce over 150,000 seeds in their lifetime, though the majority of plants produced less than 4000 seeds [63]; its adaptive nature, i.e., in unfavorable conditions it exhibits phenotypic plasticity, forming low-growing rosettes that only bolt and flower when conditions improve [60]; as well as its ability to remain viable in the soil for more than two years [27]. This concept is in line with the finding of [64], which described how, due to its high growth rate and short life cycle, Parthenium can quickly colonize sites, leading to its strong dominance in the habitats.

4.2. Impacts of P. hysterophorus on Species Similarity and Composition

The similarity index determines the interspecific association between the species of plant communities. The result of similarity indices between non-invaded and invaded areas of the different land use types in study areas was found to be high. This indicates that there is no fundamental change in species composition within the study sites. In agreement with this finding, [61] observed no major difference in species composition between infested and non-infested areas in the cultivated fields of Bilaspur, India.
In P. hysterophorus-invaded areas, species composition was found to be low compared to the non-invaded areas. In the studied area, the largest species proportion, which is 105 species (45 shrub/tree and 60 herbaceous) belonging to 42 families, was in the non-infested area, whereas 63 species belonging to 32 families were in the invaded area. The observed effects of P. hysterophorus on vegetation composition could be explained by the fact that it grows fast and spreads easily, thereby affecting the availability of resources. This is in line with the study by [26], which stated that the infestation of P. hysterophorus in the invaded area seriously distresses the composition and structure of plant species. In addition, [37] in a study conducted in the western part of Nyando Sub-County, Kenya, also postulated that an increase in P. hysterophorus would lead to changes in the structure and species composition of vegetation, affecting the availability of resources.
The identified families were also reported to be economically important and common in different parts of Ethiopia [65]. The most dominant plant species families, in terms of the number of species they contain, recorded in this research were analogous to other related findings, namely Fabaceae [30], Poaceae, Asteraceae [30,31,66] and Euphorbiaceae [31].

4.3. Impacts of P. hysterophorus Density on Species Richness and Abundance

The result of this study showed a negative relationship between the density of Parthenium and the density of native plant species in all selected land use types. Thus, the number of herbaceous, shrub, and tree species was found to be higher in areas where P. hysterophorus invasion was absent. [58] reported a decrease in species richness from 25 to 12 from a non-invaded Parthenium site to a heavily invaded Lower Himalaya (India) site. This would imply that most of the native species are not equipped with the adaptable characteristics of P. hysterophorus and cannot withstand its strong competition. These results support the work of [67], who reported a decline in different species due to an increase in P. hysterophorus density.
The density of P. hysterophorus in invaded plots found in the study area ranges from 12 to 61 stems/m2 in the woodland area of the Ardatare site and grazing land of the Jamie study site, respectively. A study conducted by [36], in two urban areas of Nepal showed that the range of density of P. hysterophorus in invaded plots found in the Bharatpur area was 19 to 69 stems/m2, which was similar to this study. The finding of this study is also comparable to the range reported by [68], which was 11 to 47 stems/m2. Moreover, [28] reported 55 stems/m2 in eastern Ethiopia, which was within the range of this study.
In contrast to the above reports, the [36] study at the Nepal Hetauda site found 402 stems/m2, which was the highest record in Nepal and might also be the highest in the world. The highest stem P. hysterophorus density at the Hetauda site ecologically indicates that this weed acquires the most favorable habitat for its growth and germination. On the other hand, [69] reported lower densities, i.e., 1.5 to 38 stems/m2 of the invasive in the grasslands of the mid hills in central Nepal. Furthermore, the P. hysterophorus density reported by [70] was 0.55 stems/m2 in fallow lands, which was very low compared to the results of other studies, including this study.
The mean height of P. hysterophorus in invaded plots found in different land use types ranges between 53.25 cm and 63.0 cm, respectively. In this study, the lowest mean height was recorded in the woodland area, whereas the maximum mean height was recorded along the roadside. A study conducted by [31] in the Gedeo Zone, SNNPR (Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Region), showed the highest mean height (1.6 m) of the invasive species along the way, which was not equivalent to this study. Another study by [71], indicated that the maximum height of Parthenium was in abandoned agricultural land. According to these authors and similar to this study, the P. hysterophorus height differed significantly (p < 0.001) with land use types
Several studies have revealed the aggressiveness of P. hysterophorus on native species [16,30,31,72]. A similar trend was observed in the current study where species diversity, richness, and density decreased significantly with the increase in P. hysterophorus density. For instance, sites that recorded a higher density of invasive species had the lowest plant species richness and abundance. This makes P. hysterophorus a successful invader of non-native habitats [73].
During the initial stage of invasion, a very low density could be possible, but it quickly rises within a short time, and at this time, it may allow other species to grow in its vicinity. This is in agreement with the idea of [64], which reported that P. hysterophorus invasion at an early stage might increase habitat heterogeneity and grazing exclusion in grassland, roadside, plantation, and abandoned agricultural land. Overtime, as P. hysterophorus density increases, the richness of other species may decline. This may be because of the competitive replacement and lack of natural enemies outside its native range [73].
The decline in species diversity and richness with a continual increase in the P. hysterophorus infestation level is an indicator that the community heterogeneity has significantly and negatively been affected. This might be related to its ability to disperse animals and other human activities. The current results are in agreement with the findings of [30], which noted that within a few years of the introduction of the invasive into Awash National Park, there was a decline of 69% in the stand density of herbaceous species. Similarly, [51] also reported that the weed easily occupied new locations and often substituted native plant species, resulting in serious damage to biodiversity.
The mechanism of the decrease in species richness was explained by [74]. During the early stages of growth, P. hysterophorus forms a basal rosette of leaves that spreads rapidly very close to the ground and thus requires a suitable open area to establish. The stem of P. hysterophorus then elongates rapidly and starts branching at the apex, and this interferes with the emergence of other seedlings. Moreover, due to its high growth rate, P. hysterophorus becomes competitive and develops the ability to exclude the growth of other species.
In agreement with the above concept, [75] describe how native species differ in their resistance to invasion, i.e., some are excluded from invaded communities more easily than others are. In this study, Argemone mexicana, Calpurina aurea, Cynodon dactylon, Datura stramonium, Dodonaea angustifolia, Euclea racemosa, Solanum incanum, and Xanthium strumarium were the major and relatively dominant species as they were present in most of the selected land use types. This might be because the plants have strong competitive vigor with P. hysterophorus and are also adaptable to the different land use types.

5. Conclusions

The results of the current study have indicated that P. hysterophorus harms indigenous species composition by decreasing species diversity. The study demonstrated that infestation of the invasive was found to have a highly negative impact on the species richness and abundance of herbaceous and woody species of vegetation by reducing their growth and distribution and by changing the habitat of an area. In this study, higher diversity indices were relatively recorded in the non-invaded areas in all three study sites when compared to invaded areas. This study also discovered that P. hysterophorus infestation changes the structure of plant species in the invaded community, as the mean density of P. hysterophorus was found to be significantly different across land use types. The adverse effect of the invasive was mainly notable on plant species of grassland, woodland and bushland, roadside, and abandoned agricultural land areas where these land use types are the major feed sources for livestock and are areas of high plant diversity. This in turn reduced the carrying capacity of grazing lands and the diversity of plants that existed in the study area.
Based on the results obtained, the following recommendations were made: creating public awareness through different means of communication about its impacts on plant species diversity for the local community and relevant stakeholders to prevent its further spread into agriculture lands and other natural ecosystems of the study area; the priority kebeles in the district could be identified based on the density distribution of the invasive to act accordingly and to control its further dissemination; protecting and restoring those identified as sensitive and important land use types through an integrated multidisciplinary approach; further wider and long-term research could be conducted on its impacts on crop yield, human and domestic animals’ health, biodiversity of indigenous plant species, and soil seed bank; removing this invasive species through a public campaign prior to seed production, and the Ethiopian Biodiversity Institute could take responsibility for an integrated long-term management program by coordinating local people, universities, research centers, governments, and non-governmental organizations to work together.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.B.; methodology, M.B.; software, M.B.; validation, M.B., Z.G. and G.D.; formal analysis, M.B.; investigation, M.B.; resources, M.B., Z.G. and G.D.; data curation, M.B.; writing—original draft preparation, M.B.; writing—review and editing, Z.G. and G.D.; visualization, M.B.; supervision, Z.G. and G.D.; project administration, M.B.; funding acquisition, M.B. and Z.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

Our sincere gratitude goes to the Ethiopian Biodiversity Institute for its financial support to carry out this research and for the provision of field materials and plant identification. We are also highly grateful to Ginir district environment, forest and climate change authority and district agricultural offices for their provision of information and support letters during data collection.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. Number of Each Species in Each Land Use Types

NO.Botanical NameLocal NameFamily NameRoad
side
Grazing LandAcacia WoodlandAbandoned Agri. LandNo. of
Individuals
OromicAmharic
1.Acacia albida Del.Garbi Fabaceae039012
2.Acacia brevispica HarmsHamaresa QwantaFabaceae6412022
3.Acacia bussei Harms ex sjostedeHalo Fabaceae00303
4.Acacia etbaica Schweinf.Derie; Qereta Fabaceae02507
5.Acacia gerrardii Benth.Dodoti Fabaceae02406
6.Acacia mellifera (Vahl.) Benth.Bilala;Kontir; AtnkuyFabaceae037010
7.Acacia nilotica (L.) Willd. ex. Del.Burquqe; Kasale BurquqeFabaceae00303
8.Acacia oerfota (Forssk.) Schweinf.Wangay Fabaceae00606
9.Acacia senegal (L.) Willd.GorsaKontirFabaceae02507
10.Acacia seyal Del.Wacho Fabaceae02709
11.Acacia tortilis (Forssk.) Hayne.Tadacha; Korera Fabaceae01607
12.Acalypha racemosa Baill.Dhigri Euphorbiaceae02507
13.Acokanthera schimperi (A.DC) Schwein.QararuMerenzApocynaceae00404
14.Agave sisalana Perro ex Eng.Alge; Qaca Agavaceae265013
15.Aloe pirottae Berger.Hargisa baru Aloaceae20608
16.Aloe retrospiciense Reynolds and BallyHargisaRetAloaceae307010
17.Andropogon gayanus Kunth.Gaja Poaceae027400274
18.Argemone mexicana L.Qore adiNech LebashPapaveraceae36231152122
19.Asparagus falcatus L.SeritiYeseit qestAsparagaceae328013
20.Avena abyssinica Hochst.Gaja gacaSinarPoaceae0002323
21.Balanites aegyptiaca (L.) Del.BedenaJemo; KudkudaBalanitaceae00404
22.Barbeya oleoides Schweinf.Adado Barbeyaceae0012012
23.Barleria eranthemoides R. Br.BalanwarantiYesetAfeAcanthaceae0143017
24.Bothriochloa insculpta (Hochst. ex A.Rich.)Suto Poaceae028600286
25.Cadia purpurea (Picc.) Ait.Tokeda; Hijire Fabaceae20608
26.Calpurina aurea (Ait.) Benth.CheketaDigtaFabaceae14735056
27.Canthium pseudosetitflorum BridsonLadhana Rubiaceae00303
28.Caralluma speciosa (N. E.Br.)Haleko aje Asclpiadaceae00404
29.Carissa spinarum L.HagamsaAgamApocynaceae235010
30.Cissus cactiformis Gilg.Gorsa; MatbotGurajVitaceae00606
31.Cissus quadrangularis L.Chophi Vitaceae04307
32.Clematis sp.Gadila Ranunculaceae2260028
33.Combretum molle R. Br. ex G. DonBiresa;Abalo; WeybaCombertaceae00707
34.Commiphora africana (A. Rich) Engl.HammesaAnquwaBurseraceae00505
35.Commiphora confusa VollesenChacho; Hamesa Burseraceae00202
36.Commiphora erythraea (Ehrenb.) Engl.Hagarsu Bursseraceae0011011
37.Commiphora sp.Dhiga Bursseraceae00202
38.Conomitra linearis FenzlHanchagire Asclepiadaceae00909
39.Cordia africana Lam.WadesdaWanzaBoraginaceae00505
40.Crepis rueppellii Sch. Bip.AananoYefyel WotetAsteraceae050914
41.Croton macrostachyus Del.BakanisaBissanaEuphorbiaceae346013
42.Cucumis prophetarum L. Yemdere embwayCucurbitaceae02002
43.Cymbopogon commutatus (Steud.) Stapf SembeletPoaceae025800258
44.Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.Sardo Poaceae0315018333
45.Cynodon aethiopicus Clayton and Harlan Poaceae027600276
46.Cynoglossum geometricum Hochst. ex A.DC.Matane-chatiChigogotBoraginaceae8002634
47.Datura stramonium L.BanjiAtse FarisSolanaceae46002369
48.Dichrostachys cinerea L.Adesa; JirmeAderFabaceae00606
49.Digitaria abyssinica (Hochst ex. A.Rich.) StapfWariat Poaceae025200252
50.Dodonaea angustifolia L.f.EtechaKitkitaSapindaceae301248090
51.Dombeya torrida (J. F. Gmel.) P. BampsDanisaWulkfaSterculiaceae00505
52.Dracaena ellenbeckiana EnglerMetti; Yabelo Deracenaceae00303
53.Ehretia cymosa Thonn.Ulaga; Mukereba Boraginaceae00202
54.Eleusine floccifolia (Forssk.) Spreng.DagooAkirmaPoaceae021600216
55.Enteropogon macrostachyus (Hochst ex A.Rich.) Benth. Poaceae023500235
56.Eragrostis papposa (Roem. and Schult.) Steud. Poaceae029200292
57.Erythrina brucei Schweinf.WalenaKorchFabaceae00101
58.Euclea racemosa subsp. schimperiMieasaDedehoEbenaceae122462098
59.Euphorbia dumalis S. CarterGuriAnterfaEuphorbiaceae00606
60.Euphorbia sp. QulqwalitEuphorbiaceae06006
61.Euphorbia tirucalli L. KinchibEuphorbiaceae20608
62.Ficus sycomorus L.Oda Moraceae00202
63.Ficus vasta Forssk.QiltuWarkaMoraceae00303
64.Grewia mollis A. Juss.HaroresaBetre MusieTiliaceae00404
65.Guizotia scabra (Vis.) Chiov.Hadaa; TufoGimeAsteraceae0004242
66.Guizotia schimperi Sch. Bip. ex Walp.Hadaa; Asteraceae0003434
67.Haplocoelum foliolosum (Hiem) BullockChenaAdey AbebaSapindaceae0011011
68.Hibiscus macranthus Hochst. ex A. RichSukumeta;NachaMalvaceae40004
69.Hyparrhenia hirta (L.) Stapf SembelietPoaceae029600296
70.Ipomoea kituiensis Vatke Gale; kossole Convolvulaceae00505
71.Juniperus procera Hochst. Ex Endl.HindhesaTidCupressaceae0010010
72.Justicia schimperiana (Hochst. ex Nees) T. Anders.DumogaSenselAcanthaceae1406020
73.Kalanchoe petitiana A.Rich.Hancura Crassulaceae507012
74.Lactuca inermis Forssk.Mech Algu Asteraceae340916
75.Lannea schimperi (A. Rich) Engl.Ruku; Rukesa Anacardiaceae00404
76.Launaea intybacea (Jacq.) Beauv.Hoola-gabbisa, Asteraceae0802634
77.Leucas martinicensis (Jacq.) R. Br. Yeferes ZengLamiaceae0301720
78.Lippia adoensis Hochst. ex Walp.KassieKassieVerbenaceae06006
79.Maerua aethiopica (Fenzl) Oliv. KontrCapparidaceae03003
80.Olea europaea L. subsp. cuspidataEjersaWieyraOleaceae0210012
81.Opuntia ficus-indica (L.) Miller. ShonkaQulqualCactaceae16024040
82.Osteospermum vailliantii (Decne) T. Norl.Gurbi halooftu Asteraceae0003131
83.Ozoroa insignis Del.Garri Anacardiaceae00303
84.Pappea capensis Eckl. and Zeyh.Biqa Sapindaceae00303
85.Parthenium hysterophorus L.Anamale; Faramsis Asteraceae
86.Pennisetum sphacelatum (Nees) Th. Dur. and SchinzGetaSendedoPoaceae024400244
87.Psydrax schimperiana (A. Rich) BridsonGaloo; Seged Rubiaceae00808
88.Rhoicissus revoilii Planch.Aremo Saged Vitaceae00505
89.Rhus natalensis Krauss.Gongomamst-aybelashAnacardiaceae00606
90.Rhus vulgaris MeikleTatesaEmbsAnacardiaceae00404
91.Ricinus communis L.KoboGuloEuphorbiaceae3800038
92.Rosa abyssinica LindleyGoraKegaRosaceae6015021
93.Rumex nepalensis Spreng. TultPolygonaceae02404670
94.Secamone Parvifolia (Olive.) Bullocksari Asclepiadaceae00606
95.Senna didymobotrya (Fresen.)Irwin and Barneby Fabaceae2800028
96.Senra incana Cav. NechiloMalvaceae0510015
97.Snowdenia polystachya (Fresen.) Pilg.Muja Poaceae03203668
98.Solanum incanum L.HidiEmbwa`ySolanaceae5437028119
99.Sporobolus africanus (Poir.) Robyns and TournayMurie; Migra Poaceae019200192
100.Tagetes minuta L.AjeGime;Yahiya AritiAsteraceae0007474
101.Tamarandus indica L. RoqaFabaceae00202
102.Terminalia brownii Fresen.Biresa; Weyba Combretaceae00707
103.Woodfordia uniflora (A. Rich) Koehne.Dambitto; Mar Mate Lythraceae00202
104.Xanthium strumarium L.Bandoo Abdulhakim Asteraceae17902349
105.Ziziphus mauritiana Lam.Kurkura Rhamnaceae00404
37834085415174844

References

  1. Kumar, N.H.; Murali, M.; Girish, H.V.; Chandrashekar, S.; Amruthesh, K.N.; Sreenivasa, M.Y.; Jagannath, S. Impact of climate change on biodiversity and shift in major biomes. In Global Climate Change; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 33–44. [Google Scholar]
  2. Sonwa, D.J.; Dieye, A.; El Mzouri, E.H.; Majule, A.; Mugabe, F.T.; Omolo, N.; Wouapi, H.; Obando, J.; Brooks, N. Drivers of climate risk in African agriculture. Clim. Dev. 2017, 9, 383–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Afrin, S.; Sharmin, S.; Mowla, Q.A. The environmental impact of alien invasive plant species in Bangladesh. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Environmental Aspects of Bangladesh (ICEAB10), Kitakyushu, Japan, 4 September 2010; pp. 62–64. [Google Scholar]
  4. Tola, J.; Tessema, T. Abundance and Distribution of Invasive Alien Plant Species in Illu Ababora Zone of Oromia National Regional State, Ethiopia. J. Agric. Sci. Food Technol. 2015, 1, 94–100. [Google Scholar]
  5. Convention on Biological Diversity. What Are Invasive Alien Species? Available online: https://www.cbd.int/idb/2009/about/what/ (accessed on 22 July 2022).
  6. Zenni, R.D.; Essl, F.; García-Berthou, E.; McDermott, S.M. The economic costs of biological invasions around the world. NeoBiota 2021, 67, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Stern, N. The Economics of Climate Change; HM Treasury: London, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  8. IBC. Report on the Celebrations of the International Day for Biological Diversity; Invasion Management: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  9. Crystal-Ornelas, R.; Hudgins, E.J.; Cuthbert, R.N.; Haubrock, P.J.; Fantle-Lepczyk, J.; Angulo, E.; Kramer, A.M.; Ballesteros-Mejia, L.; Leroy, B.; Leung, B.; et al. Economic costs of biological invasions within North America. NeoBiota 2021, 67, 485–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bang, A.; Cuthbert, R.N.; Haubrock, P.J.; Fernandez, R.D.; Moodley, D.; Diagne, C.; Turbelin, A.J.; Renault, D.; Dalu, T.; Courchamp, F. Massive economic costs of biological invasions despite widespread knowledge gaps: A dual setback for India. Biol. Invasions 2022, 24, 2017–2039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Nghiem, L.T.; Soliman, T.; Yeo, D.C.; Tan, H.T.; Evans, T.A.; Mumford, J.D.; Keller, R.P.; Baker, R.H.; Corlett, R.T.; Carrasco, L.R. Economic and environmental impacts of harmful non-indigenous species in Southeast Asia. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e71255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Rosa, W. Goal 2. End Hunger, Achieve Food Security and Improved Nutrition, and Promote Sustainable Agriculture. In A New Era in Global Health: Nursing and the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2017; p. 257. [Google Scholar]
  13. Genovesi, P.; Carboneras, C.; Vilà, M.; Walton, P. EU adopts innovative legislation on invasive species: A step towards a global response to biological invasions? Biol. Invasions 2015, 17, 1307–1311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sintayehu, D.W. Impact of climate change on biodiversity and associated key ecosystem services in Africa: A systematic review. Ecosyst. Health Sustain. 2018, 4, 225–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Boy, G.; Witt, A. Invasive Alien Plants and Their Management in Africa; Synthesis Report of the UNEP/GEF Removing Barriers to Invasive Plant Management in Africa (RBIPMA) Project, Implemented in Four African Countries (Ethiopia, Ghana, Uganda and Zambia) between 2005 and 2010; Gutenberg Press Limited: Iż-Żejtun, Malta, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  16. Tamiru, G. Invasive alien weed species distribution, impacts on agriculture, challenge and reaction in Ethiopia: A review. J. Biol. Agric. Healthc. 2017, 7, 136–146. [Google Scholar]
  17. EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization). Parthenium hysterophorus L. Asteraceae—Parthenium weed. Data sheets on invasive alien plants. OEPP Bull. 2014, 44, 474–478. [Google Scholar]
  18. Bhowmik, P.C.; Sarkar, D.; Yaduraju, N.T. The status of Parthenium hysterophorus and its potential management. Ecoprint Int. J. Ecol. 2007, 14, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Adkins, S.; Shabbir, A. Biology, ecology and management of the invasive parthenium weed (Parthenium hysterophorus L.). Pest Manag. Sci. 2014, 70, 1023–1029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Nigatu, L.; Hassen, A.; Sharma, J.; Adkins, S.W. Impact of Parthenium hysterophorus on grazing land communities in north-eastern Ethiopia. Weed Biol. Manag. 2010, 10, 143–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Riaz, T.; Javaid, A. Prevalence of invasive parthenium weed in district Hafizabad, Pakistan. J. Anim. Plant Sci. 2010, 20, 90–93. [Google Scholar]
  22. Murphy, S.T.; Cheesman, O.D. The Aid Trade—International Assistance Programmes as Pathways for the Introduction of IAS (a Preliminary Report); World Bank Paper 109. A paper prepared by CABI Bioscience; UK Centre: London, UK, 2006; 38p. [Google Scholar]
  23. Bajwa, A.A.; Chauhan, B.S.; Adkins, S.W. Morpho-physiological responses of two Australian biotypes of parthenium weed (Parthenium hysterophorus L.) to soil moisture stress. In Proceedings of the 20th Australasian Weeds Conference, Perth, WA, Australia, 11–15 September 2016; pp. 11–15. [Google Scholar]
  24. Shabbir, A.; McConnachie, A.; Adkins, S.W. Spread. In Parthenium Weed: Biology, Ecology and Management; Adkins, S.W., Shabbir, A., Dhileepan, K., Eds.; CABI: Boston, MA, USA, 2019; Volume 7, pp. 40–56. [Google Scholar]
  25. Khan, N.; Fahad, S. Economic Review of Parthenium Hysterophorus L. Plant in the World. Plant World 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kaur, M.; Aggarwal, N.K.; Kumar, V.; Dhiman, R. Effects and management of Parthenium hysterophorus: A weed of global significance. Int. Sch. Res. Not. 2014, 2014, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Tamado, T.; Ohlander, L.; Milberg, P. Interference by the weed Parthenium hysterophorus L. with grain sorghum: Influence of weed density and duration of competition. Int. J. Pest Manag. 2002, 48, 183–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Mitiku, W. Competitive study between parthenium (Parthenium hysterophorus L.) and common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Master’s Thesis, Haramaya University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  29. Seifu, A.; Seboka, N.; Misganaw, M.; Bekele, T.; Merawi, E.; Ayenew, A.; Faris, G. Impact of invasive alien plant, Xanthium strumarium, on species diversity and composition of invaded plant communities in Borena Zone, Ethiopia. Biodivers. Int. J. 2017, 1, 00004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Etana, A.; Kelbessa, E.; Soromessa, T. Impact of Parthenium hysterophorus L. (Asteraceae) on herbaceous plant biodiversity of Awash National Park (ANP), Ethiopia. Manag. Biol. Invasions 2011, 2, 69–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Seta, T.; Assefa, A.; Mesfin, F.; Balcha, A. Distribution status and the impact of Parthenium weed (Parthenium hysterophorus L.) at Gedeo Zone (southern Ethiopia). Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2013, 8, 386–397. [Google Scholar]
  32. Cunningham, A.B. Applied Ethnobotany: People, Wild Plant Use and Conservation; Earthscan: London, UK, 2001; 300p. [Google Scholar]
  33. Wittenberg, R. Instruments and tools for assessing the impact of invasive plant species in Africa. In Report Submitted under the PDF-B Phase of the UNEP/GEF Project: Removing Barriers to Invasive Plant Management in Africa; CABI Africa Regional Centre: Nairobi, Kenya, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  34. Pimentel, D.; Zuniga, R.; Morrison, D. Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecol. Econ. 2005, 52, 273–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hejda, M.; Pyšek, P.; Jarošík, V. Impact of invasive plants on the species richness, diversity and composition of invaded communities. J. Ecol. 2009, 97, 393–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Karki, D. Ecological and Socio-Economic Impacts of Parthenium hysterophorus L. Invasion in Two Urban Areas in Nepal. Ph.D. Thesis, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  37. Dorca, A.M.; Emily, W.; Paul, K.M.; John, O.A. Distribution of Parthenium hysterophorus Linn and its Impacts on Biodiversity in Nyando Sub-County, Kisumu County, Kenya. Eur. Acad. Res. 2018, 6, 1599–1621. [Google Scholar]
  38. Gebrehiwot, N.; Berhanu, L. Impact of parthenium on species diversity in Gamo Gofa, Ethiopia. Sch. J. Agric. Sci. 2015, 5, 226–231. [Google Scholar]
  39. Musese, L.J.; Andrew, J.M.; Shirima, D.D.; Witt, A.; Kilewa, R. Effects of the abundance of Parthenium hysterophorus on the composition and diversity of other herbaceous plant species in Simanjiro Rangeland, Tanzania. Int. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. Res. 2020, 7, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. ECZ (Environmental Council of Zambia). Implementation of Invasive Plant Prevention and Control Programmes in Zambia, Report Submitted to the CAB International Africa Regional Centre under the PDF-B Phase of the UNEP/GEF Project; Environmental Council of Zambia: Lusaka, Zambia, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  41. Hedberg, I.; Edwards, S.; Nemomissa, S. (Eds.) Flora of Ethiopia and Eritrea; The National Herbarium, Addis Ababa University: Uppsala, Sweden, 2003; Volume 4, pp. lxiii, 1–532. [Google Scholar]
  42. Mesfin, T. Flora of Ethiopia and Eritrea Volume 4 Part 2, Asteraceae (Compositae); The National Herbarium: Addis Ababa, Ethiopio; Uppsala, Sweden, 2004; p. 408. [Google Scholar]
  43. Shannon, C.E.; Wiener, W. The Mathematical Theory of Communication; University of Illinois: Chicago, IL, USA, 1949. [Google Scholar]
  44. Nagendra, H. Opposite trends in response for the Shannon and Simpson indices of landscape diversity. Appl. Geogr. 2002, 22, 175–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kent, M.; Coker, P. Vegetation Description and Analysis: A Practical Approach; Belhaven Press: London, UK, 1992; 438p. [Google Scholar]
  46. Whittaker, H.G. Communities and Ecosystem, 2nd ed.; Macmillan Publishing Co., Willey and Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1975; 547p. [Google Scholar]
  47. Girma, M.; Maryo, M. The diversity and composition of woody plants in chebera churcura national park (ccnp), southern Ethiopia. Open J. For. 2018, 8, 439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Jaccard, P. Distribution comparée de la flore alpine dans quelques régions des Alpes occidentales et orientales. Bull. Murithienne 1902, 31, 81–92. [Google Scholar]
  49. Sorensen, T.A. A method of establishing groups of equal amplitude in plant sociology based on similarity of species content and its application to analyses of the vegetation on Danish commons. Biol. Skar. 1948, 5, 1–34. [Google Scholar]
  50. Anteneh, N.; Esayas, M. Allelopathic effects of Parthenium hysterophorus L. aqueous extracts on soybean (Glycine max L.) and haricot bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) seed germination, shoot and root growth and dry matter production. J. Appl. Bot. Food Qual. 2011, 84, 219–222. [Google Scholar]
  51. Dalip, K.; Ahmed, J.; Singh, S. Distribution and effect of Parthenium hysterophorus L. Mehari sub-watershed of Rajouri forest range. Int. J. Sci. Res. 2013, 2, 304–306. [Google Scholar]
  52. Anil, K. Parthenium hysterophorus L. and its Impact on living World. Indian J. Sci. Res. 2014, 4, 08–14. [Google Scholar]
  53. Belz, R.G.; Reinhardt, C.F.; Foxcroft, L.C.; Hurle, K. Residue allelopathy in Parthenium hysterophorus L.—Does parthenin play a leading role? Crop Prot. 2007, 26, 237–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Joshi, B.; Pandey, N.; Rao, P.B. Allelopathic effect of weed species extracts on germination, growth and biochemical aspects in different varieties of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Indian J. Agric. Res. 2009, 43, 79–87. [Google Scholar]
  55. Shabbir, A.; Bajwa, R. Distribution of parthenium weed (Parthenium hysterophorus L.), an alien invasive weed species threatening the biodiversity of Islamabad. Weed Biol. Manag. 2006, 6, 89–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Akter, A.; Zuberi, M.I. Invasive alien species in Northern Bangladesh: Identification, inventory and impacts. Int. J. Biodivers. Conserv. 2009, 1, 129–134. [Google Scholar]
  57. Dogra, K.S.; Kohli, R.K.; Sood, S.K. An assessment and impact of three invasive species in the Shivalik hills of Himachal Pradesh, India. Int. J. Biodivers. Conserv. 2009, 1, 4–10. [Google Scholar]
  58. Kohli, R.K.; Dogra, K.S.; Batish, D.R.; Singh, H.P. Impact of invasive plants on the structure and composition of natural vegetation of northwestern Indian Himalayas1. Weed Technol. 2004, 18 (Suppl. S1), 1296–1300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Yaduraju, N.T.; Kumar, S.; Prasad Babu, M.B.B.; Gogoi, A.K. Parthenium hysterophorus—Distribution, problem and management strategies in India. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Parthenium Management, Bangalore, India, 5–7 December 2005; University of Agricultural Sciences: Bangalore, India, 2005; pp. 6–10. [Google Scholar]
  60. Bajwa, A.A.; Farooq, M.; Nawaz, A.; Yadav, L.; Chauhan, B.S.; Adkins, S. Impact of invasive plant species on the livelihoods of farming households: Evidence from Parthenium hysterophorus invasion in rural Punjab, Pakistan. Biol. Invasions 2019, 21, 3285–3304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Kumari, P.; Sahu, P.K.; Soni, M.Y.; Awasthi, P. Impact of Parthenium hysterophorus L. invasion on species diversity of cultivated fields of Bilaspur (CG) India. Agric. Sci. 2014, 2014, 48207. [Google Scholar]
  62. Navie, S.C.; PANETTA, F.D.; McFADYEN, R.E.; Adkins, S.W. Germinable soil seedbanks of central Queensland rangelands invaded by the exotic weed Parthenium hysterophorus L. Weed Biol. Manag. 2004, 4, 154–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Dhileepan, K.; Strathie, L. Parthenium hysterophorus L. (Asteraceae). In Biological Control of Tropical Weeds Using Arthropods; Muniappan, R., Reddy, G., Raman, A., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  64. Timsina, B.; Shrestha, B.B.; Rokaya, M.B.; Münzbergová, Z. Impact of Parthenium hysterophorus L. invasion on plant species composition and soil properties of grassland communities in Nepal. Flora-Morphol. Distrib. Funct. Ecol. Plants 2011, 206, 233–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Nigatu, L.; Sharma, J. Parthenium weed invasion and biodiversity loss in Ethiopia: A literature. In African Crop Science Conference Proceedings; African Crop Science Society: Kampala, Uganda, 2013; Volume 11, pp. 377–381. [Google Scholar]
  66. Ayele, S.; Nigatu, L.; Tana, T.; Adkins, S.W. Impact of parthenium weed (Parthenium hysterophorus L.) on the above-ground and soil seed bank communities of rangelands in Southeast Ethiopia. Int. Res. J. Agric. Sci. Soil Sci. 2013, 3, 262–274. [Google Scholar]
  67. Shabbir, A.; Bajwa, R. Parthenium invasion in Pakistan-a threat still unrecognized. Pak. J. Bot. 2007, 39, 2519–2526. [Google Scholar]
  68. Joshi, S. Reproductive Efficiency and Biomass Allocation of Invasive weed, Parthenium hysterophorus L. Ph.D. Thesis, Central Department of Botany, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  69. Timsina, B. Impact of Parthenium hysterophorus L. Invasion on Soil and Plant Species Composition of Grasslands of Central Nepal. Master’s Thesis, Central Department of Botany, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  70. Tiwari, S.; Adhikari, B.; Siwakoti, M.; Subedi, K. An Inventory and Assessment of Invasive Alien Plant Species of Nepal; IUCN World Conservation Union: Gland, Switzerland, 2005; 115p. [Google Scholar]
  71. Upendra, K.C.; Bharat, S. Invasion of Parthenium hysterophorus L. across land use types in Kirtipur Municipality. Int. J. Hum. Cap. Urban Manag. 2019, 4, 259–268. [Google Scholar]
  72. Kathiresan, R. Ecology and control of Parthenium hysterophorus invasion in veeranum command area. Indian J. Weed Sci 2008, 40, 78–80. [Google Scholar]
  73. Grice, A.C. The impacts of invasive plant species on the biodiversity of Australian rangelands. Rangel. J. 2006, 28, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Navie, S.C.; McFadyen, R.E.; Panetta, F.D.; Adkins, S.W. The biology of Australian weeds. 27. Parthenium hysterophorus L. Plant Prot. Q. 1996, 11, 76–88. [Google Scholar]
  75. Stinson, K.; Kaufman, S.; Durbin, L.; Lowenstein, F. Impacts of garlic mustard invasion on a forest understory community. Northeast. Nat. 2007, 14, 73–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Location map of the study area.
Figure 1. Location map of the study area.
Diversity 14 00675 g001
Figure 2. Layout of sample plots for vegetation data collection in different land use types. Notes:—Transect A–A’ shows layout for herbaceous vegetation data collection in agricultural land, roadside, and grassland land use types (10 similar layouts of transects were laid in each site). Transect B–B’ indicates layout for vegetation data collection in woodland land use types (five similar layout transects were laid in each site).
Figure 2. Layout of sample plots for vegetation data collection in different land use types. Notes:—Transect A–A’ shows layout for herbaceous vegetation data collection in agricultural land, roadside, and grassland land use types (10 similar layouts of transects were laid in each site). Transect B–B’ indicates layout for vegetation data collection in woodland land use types (five similar layout transects were laid in each site).
Diversity 14 00675 g002
Figure 3. Comparison of species richness at invaded and non-invaded plots of different land use types. ATA—Ardatare Abandoned Agricultural land study side, ATW—Ardatare Woodland land study side, ATG—Ardatare Grazing land study side, ATR—Ardatare Roadside study side, JMA—Jamie Abandoned Agricultural land study side, JMG—Grazing land study side, BKR—Baliekecha Roadside study side, BKW—Baliekecha Woodland land study side.
Figure 3. Comparison of species richness at invaded and non-invaded plots of different land use types. ATA—Ardatare Abandoned Agricultural land study side, ATW—Ardatare Woodland land study side, ATG—Ardatare Grazing land study side, ATR—Ardatare Roadside study side, JMA—Jamie Abandoned Agricultural land study side, JMG—Grazing land study side, BKR—Baliekecha Roadside study side, BKW—Baliekecha Woodland land study side.
Diversity 14 00675 g003
Figure 4. The relationship between mean P. hysterophorus density with species abundance and richness. (a). Mean P. hysterophorus density vs. mean species abundance. (b). Mean P. hysterophorus density vs. mean richness.
Figure 4. The relationship between mean P. hysterophorus density with species abundance and richness. (a). Mean P. hysterophorus density vs. mean species abundance. (b). Mean P. hysterophorus density vs. mean richness.
Diversity 14 00675 g004
Table 1. Mean species abundance, richness, evenness, and diversity for invaded and non-invaded land units among different land use types in Ginir district.
Table 1. Mean species abundance, richness, evenness, and diversity for invaded and non-invaded land units among different land use types in Ginir district.
S.NKebelesLUTAbundanceRichnessEvennessH′
INNIINNIINNIINNI
1 BalekechaWood land11126527420.8650.8692.853.247
ArdatareWood land12227629470.8950.9143.0163.52
Mean116.5 ± 0.5 270.5 ± 0.528 ± 1.044.5 ± 2.50.88 ± 0.0150.891 ± 0.02252.93 ± 0.0833.38 ± 0.1365
2 BalekechaRoadside13823110170.7290.8021.682.27
ArdatareRoadside721338110.850.771.771.849
Mean105 ± 0.3182 ± 1.99 ± 1.014 ± 3.00.789 ± 0.60.786 ± 0.0161.724 ± 0.0452.059 ± 0.21
3 JamieA. agri. land1482678120.9550.9211.9862.28
ArdatareA. agri. land12825010110.9610.9672.212.27
Mean138 ± 1.0258.5 ± 1.59 ± 1.011.5 ± 0.50.957 ± 0.0030.944 ± 0.0232.098 ± 0.1122.275 ± 0.005
4 ArdatareG. land672129619270.740.6882.182.27
JamieG. land907210817290.7870.7342.2292.47
Mean789.5 ± 1.171702 ± 2.618 ± 1.028 ± 1.00.763 ± 0.02350.711 ± 0.0232.204 ± 0.02452.37 ± 0.1
Note: LUT (Land use types), IN (Invaded area), NI (Non-invaded), A. agri. land (Abandoned agricultural land), G. land (Grassland).
Table 2. Similarity indices in Parthenium invaded and non-invaded areas.
Table 2. Similarity indices in Parthenium invaded and non-invaded areas.
No.Index of SimilarityLand Use Types
Woodland VegetationAbandoned Agricultural LandRoadside VegetationGrassland Vegetation
1Jaccard’s Similarity Index (ISj)56.5276.475052.17
2Sorenson’s Similarity Index (ISs)72.2286.6666.6668.57
Table 3. Mean of P. hysterophorus density, height, and percentage cover in invaded and non-invaded land unit in Ginir district, southeastern Ethiopia.
Table 3. Mean of P. hysterophorus density, height, and percentage cover in invaded and non-invaded land unit in Ginir district, southeastern Ethiopia.
S.NLUTStudy SiteDensity (Stem/m2)Height (m)% Cover
NIINNIINNIIN
1Acacia Wood landBaliekecha-15.825-0.53-60
Ardatare-12.335-0.535-53
Mean 14.08 ± 1.745 0.5325 ± 0.0025 56.5 ± 3.5
2RoadsideBaliekecha-34.9-0.695-69
Ardatare-33.5-0.565-75
Mean 34.2 ± 0.7 0.63 ± 0.065 72 ± 3.0
3A. agri. landArdatare-34-0.525-63
Jamie-30-0.685-69
Mean 32 ± 2.0 0.605 ± 0.08 66 ± 3.0
4G. landArdatare-27.3-0.65-72
Jamie-39.6-0.54-64
Mean 33.45 ± 6.15-0.595 ± 0.055-68 ± 4.0
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Boja, M.; Girma, Z.; Dalle, G. Impacts of Parthenium hysterophorus L. on Plant Species Diversity in Ginir District, Southeastern Ethiopia. Diversity 2022, 14, 675. https://doi.org/10.3390/d14080675

AMA Style

Boja M, Girma Z, Dalle G. Impacts of Parthenium hysterophorus L. on Plant Species Diversity in Ginir District, Southeastern Ethiopia. Diversity. 2022; 14(8):675. https://doi.org/10.3390/d14080675

Chicago/Turabian Style

Boja, Mesfin, Zerihun Girma, and Gemedo Dalle. 2022. "Impacts of Parthenium hysterophorus L. on Plant Species Diversity in Ginir District, Southeastern Ethiopia" Diversity 14, no. 8: 675. https://doi.org/10.3390/d14080675

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