![]() |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
Teaching Links:
Groups:
Field Trips & Research Areas
BIO 115 Ecology and
Evolution
BBB Biological Honors Society
at MWSU
Ozark Underground Lab
BIO 105 Concepts in Organismal
Biology
Wildlife Society at MWSU
Reis Biological
Field Station
BIO 101 Concepts in Biology
Missouri Academy of Science
Bio 305 Human Ecology
Bio 340 Plant Physiology
Bio 350 Plant Systematics - Fall 2012
Field
Partner:
Research Program Summary:
So you want to go to grad school...Now What? ---
info on attending grad school
Characterizing
topographic influence on loess hill prairie species at Squaw Creek
National Wildlife Refuge [Link]
Invasive
species research:
I am interested in modeling the colonizing behavior of invasive plants including
morphological adaptations, performance, and adaptations to abiotic environment. Plants
in early successional environments have ability to disperse to sites,
accommodate environmental conditions, grow quickly, and compete with adjacent
competitors for above- and below-ground resources. Some of the invasion process
is stochastically based, depending on who gets there first and what proportions
of resources that invaders are able to pre-empt from competitors. Other
components of invasion are based on deterministic types of models including
individuals as “winners or losers,” and time specific models. What is interesting is
that these types of invasion patterns also incorporate variations in resource
allocation and plastic morphology at all levels of organismal development.
Responses include fine and coarse root biomass, root morphology and turnover, branch
architecture, leaf stomatal conductance, photosynthetic capacity, and
respiration rate. Overall, these characters translate into the morphological
and physiological performance of particular species. In terms of life
history categorizations, asexual performance of
any species eventually
translates into fecundity, but with sexually reproducing invasive species, we
most often stereotype them as initial outcrossers. Thus when they are
transplanted to a new location this most often produces a small population which
are facilitated by in-breeding but with high dispersal capacity. Through the evolution of
most species, this transforms into reduced dispersal-ability and greater proportions
of outcrossing individuals. Two final layers to understand invasive species
is how they interact intra- and
inter-specifically and how they react to environmental conditions. In
herbaceous habitats, these factors come into play in a 2-dimensional
scale, but in forests plants which are a relatively more vertical system,
interactions are assumed to occur on longer time 3-dimensional scales. These
are some of the immediate and long-term challenges and questions that I am trying
to factor into predicting invasive success. I have used Amur honeysuckle,
(Lonicera maackii) as a model species and determining the overall success of
this invasive species will be critical to predicting its success in
various environments as well as understand the most effective methods of control.
Restoration
ecology research: I am also interested in restoration ecology in
that I am trying to understand both how the patterns and processes of both
invasive species and native species are influenced by human activity.
Actions such as removal of invasive species,
addition of natives, and creation of specific “designer” communities and
ecosystems influence both species composition and ecosystem processes
within habitats. The
big questions to answer include the following: (1) are restored systems functioning similarly as
intact communities that have not had restoration activity?
(2) do these restored habitats have similar species
composition as non-restored and how does species diversity or composition
influence nutrient and energy flow in these habitats?
(3) how does the addition or removal of specific
keystone species alter the interaction of species in communities or other
population or ecosystem dynamics?
Selected References
Hartman, K.M. & B.C. McCarthy. 2008. Effects of
Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii) on forest composition and structure in
southwestern Ohio. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society. 135(2): 245-259. [PDF]
Hartman, K.M. & B.C. McCarthy. 2007. A dendro-ecological study of forest overstorey productivity following the invasion of a non-indigenous shrub, Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii). Applied Vegetation Science 10(1): 3-14. [PDF]
Hartman, K.M. 2005. The impacts, invasibility, and restoration ecology of an invasive shrub, Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii). Dissertation, Dept of Environmental & Plant Biology, Ohio University. [PDF]
Hartman, K.M. & B.C. McCarthy. 2004. Restoration of a forest understory after the removal of an invasive shrub, Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii). Restoration Ecology 12(2): 154-165. [PDF]
Suding, K.N., D.E. Goldberg, & K.M. Hartman. 2003. Relationships among species traits: separating levels of response and identifying linkages to abundance. Ecology 84(1): 1-16. [PDF]
Hartman, K.M. & B.C. McCarthy. Predicting growth and biomass allocation for seedlings of an invasive species, Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii), in varying light, water, and soil conditions.