Journal Search Engine

to

Search Advanced Search Adode Reader(link)
Download PDF Export Citation Korean Bibliography
ISSN : 1226-9999(Print)
ISSN : 2287-7851(Online)
Korean J. Environ. Biol. Vol.43 No.4 pp.577-589
DOI : https://doi.org/10.11626/KJEB.2025.43.4.577

Effects of Ambrosia trifida L. invasion on plant community structure and the short-term effectiveness of mechanical control

Saeromi Mun, EunJu Lee1*
Restoration Ecology Research Team, Division of Restoration Ecological Research, National Institution of Ecology, Seocheon 33657, Republic of Korea
1School of Biological Sciences, Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, Republic of Korea
*Corresponding author EunJu Lee Tel. 02-880-6673 E-mail. ejlee@snu.ac.kr

Contribution to Environmental Biology


▪ This study clarifies how A. trifida L. invasion alters plant community structure and demonstrates that mechanical removal can promote short-term vegetation recovery.


▪ The findings provide practical ecological insights for invasive-plant management and contribute to improving restoration strategies in disturbed habitats.


07/12/2025 19/12/2025 26/12/2025

Abstract


Ambrosia trifida is an invasive annual plant species that creates dense stands, suppressing native vegetation in affected habitats. To assess its ecological impact and the short-term effectiveness of mechanical management, we conducted field removal experiments using cutting and uprooting methods. We examined plant community composition, species richness, and diversity before and after treatment. Mechanical removal significantly altered plant community structure, leading to increased emergence of native species and reduced dominance of A. trifida, while control plots showed minimal change. Treated plots also had substantially lower soil seed bank density, with most remaining seeds concentrated in the upper 0-5 cm layer, indicating that limiting annual seed input is crucial for suppressing population persistence. However, recovery responses varied by site: Mugunri experienced notable declines in A. trifida cover and a greater establishment of native species, whereas the CCZ site retained A. trifida as a sub-dominant and saw limited recruitment of native species. These differing outcomes suggest that site-specific environmental conditions, initial species pools, and residual seed bank size may affect vegetation recovery after invasive plant removal. While this study demonstrates that mechanical removal disrupts A. trifida dominance and encourages short-term vegetation recovery, its one-year duration limits our understanding of longterm successional pathways. Continued monitoring, repeated annual removal, and assessments across multiple sites are necessary to better understand the mechanisms driving post-removal recovery and to inform the development of effective restoration strategies.


Ambrosia trifida , invasive plant management , mechanical control , plant community structure , species diversity

초록

    1. INTRODUCTION

    Exotic invasive plants negatively affect ecosystems by reducing local species diversity, altering nutrient cycling, and disrupting ecosystem stability (Ehrenfeld 2003, 2010;Pejchar and Mooney 2009;Powell et al. 2011). Besides, they also cause economic problems and human health issues (Waisel et al. 2008;Chen et al. 2018). So, understanding how invasive plants alter ecosystems and developing effective management strategies are essential for mitigating their adverse effects. Various management approaches are applied to control invasive plant populations. Chemical control is widely used due to its efficiency and minimal physical disturbance (van Wilgen et al. 2001;Wagner et al. 2017). However, it can pose environmental problems and risks to non-target plant species and may lead to herbicide tolerance (Taylor et al. 2002;Powles 2008). Biological control using natural enemies or allelopathic interactions shows promise; although many applications remain experimental (Kong et al. 2007;Kim et al. 2017a). Mechanical control can effectively reduce plant abundance and facilitate the recovery of native diversity (Lishawa et al. 2017), though its efficiency varies among species and may require repeated treatments.

    In South Korea, non-native species are designated as invasive alien species based on the results of the ecological risk assessment, and designated invasive exotic species are managed by the environmental law (Kim 2018). A total of 18 non-native plants are designated as invasive alien species, and Ambrosia trifida (giant ragweed) is one of the first designated plant species. A. trifida (Asteraceae) is an annual plant species native to North America, grows more than 4 m, disperse by seeds and germinates relatively earlier than neighboring species, giving it competitive advantages in resource acquisition and space occupancy (Abul-Fatih and Bazzaz 1979). It often forms dense monoculture that suppress other species through shading and resource competition, eventually reducing plant species diversity (Abul-Fatih and Bazzaz 1979;Baysinger and Sims 1992). Its invasion also reduces crop productivity in agricultural areas (Barnett and Steckel 2013;Goplen et al. 2016). A. trifida is one of the problematic plants not only in non-native areas but also in native areas. The distribution of A. trifida was initially limited to northern Gyeonggi and parts of Gangwon Province, but has since been reported to expand southern regions (NIE 2016;Kim et al. 2017b). Management activity is widely implemented by local governments. However, in some cases, invasive exotic plants abundance increases even after management (Park and Lee 2018), highlighting the need for post-management monitoring to evaluate vegetation changes and reinvasion.

    The objective of this study was to evaluate how shortterm mechanical control of A. trifida influences plant community composition, species richness, and diversity in two regions of Paju, and to examine ecological implications that may inform restoration planning following management.

    2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

    2.1. Study sites and survey methods

    The study was conducted at two locations in Paju, Gyeonggi-do, with experiments carried out for two consecutive years at each site (2015-2016 at Mugunri site and 2016-2017 at the Civilian Control Zone (CCZ) site). Mechanical control experiments were initiated in 2015 at an abandoned area near the Mugunri military training ground (37°53ʹ54.7ʺN, 126°55ʹ26.7ʺE; Fig. 1A) and at another abandoned area located in the western part of CCZ (37°54ʹ58.42ʺN, 126°46ʹ32.69ʺE; Fig. 1B), adjacent to the Imjin River in 2016. Both sites were characterized by high density of A. trifida and minimal external disturbance due to restricted access associated with military or controlled zones. These conditions reduced the likelihood on unintended management activities and allowed consistent monitoring throughout the study period.

    To conduct the species removal experiment, three treatments-control, cutting, and uprooting-were applied using 3×3 m plots (three replicates per treatment). Plots were placed within dense A. trifida stands and spaced at least 1 m apart to avoid interference among treatments (Fig. 2). Cutting involved removing only the aboveground stems, which were clipped to approximately 10 cm above the soil surface. Uprooting consisted of manually removing entire plants, including both aboveand below-ground parts. These two mechanical control methods were used to compare the effects of partial versus complete physical removal of A. trifida. The number of newly emerged plant species and their cover were recorded every month during the study period. To compare seed input between mechanically treated plots and control plots, soil samples for the seed bank analysis were collected in the following spring from each plot at two depth layers (0-5 cm and 5-10 cm). Six soil cores (5 cm diameter×5 cm depth) were collected per treatment (control, cutting, and uprooting) using a soil core sampler. The samples were transported to the laboratory, where seeds of A. trifida were separated from the soil and counted to assess seed density among treatments and soil depths.

    2.2. Data analysis

    Species diversity was evaluated using the Shannonindex. Rank abundance curves were generated to examine species dominance patterns in each plot from the rank abundance function in Biodiversity package in R (Kindt and Kindt 2019). For each species, importance value (IV) was measured to determine the influence of individual species in the plot using the following formula (Schlising and Sanders 1982):

    Importance value (IV)    = Relative cover + Relative frequency

    For univariate measures such as species diversity, coverage, treatment effects were analyzed using one-way ANOVA, and significant pairwise differences among treatments were identified using Tukey’s HSD post-hoc test at p<0.05. Plant community composition was analyzed using non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) based on Bray-Curtis dissimilarity using the metaMDS function in vegan package in R. NMDS was conducted with two dimensions, consistent with the 2-D ordination used for graphical representation. Stress values were examined to assess ordination quality. The analysis of similarity (ANOSIM) was used to determine the statistical significance of the differences in plant community composition of each study plot using the anosim function in vegan package in R (Oksanen et al. 2025).

    3. RESULTS

    Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) showed clear shifts in plant community composition following mechanical control in both study sites (Figs. 3 and 4). The NMDS ordinations had stress value of 0.26 (Mungunri) and 0.28 (CCZ). ANOSIM results indicated that communities in the cutting and uprooting plots in August were significantly different from their initial conditions in June (R=0.76, p<0.001) (Table 1), while control plots showed little change during the same period. After one year, plant communities in the control plots remained similar to the previous year, but mechanical control plot continued to diverge from their initial states (R=0.97, p<0.05; Fig. 4B). At the CCZ site, mechanical control also resulted in significant dissimilarity from initial community composition (R= 0.92, p<0.001); however, control plots did not differ significantly between years (R=0.30, p>0.05).

    In the control plots, species composition remained largely unchanged throughout the study period, with only a few new species emerging (Appendix Tables A1- A6). Newly observed species included native taxa such as Urtica angustifolia and vines such as Glycine soja or Humulus japonicus. At the Mugunri site, surface-covering species including Duchesnea indica and Potentilla anemonefolia were observed. In contrast, mechanical control plots showed an increase in the number of emergent species, which approximately doubled following the removal of A. trifida. At the CCZ site, surfacecovering species such as Stellaria aquatic and Potentilla anemonefolia appeared after treatment. Although A. trifida was removed again before seed formation, it remained the second-most dominant species in the mechanical control plots.

    Species diversity was higher in the mechanical control plots than in non-treatment plots at both sites (Fig. 5A and B). However, diversity did not differ between the cutting and uprooting treatments (p>0.05). Species evenness increased following mechanical control at the Mugunri site (Fig. 5C), while no significant change was detected at the CCZ site (Fig. 5D). Importance value analyses showed that A. trifida was the dominant species in all control plots, accounting for more than 70% of total cover (Tables 2 and 5). Mechanical control treatments led to pronounced shifts in dominance: perennial herbs and vines such as Artemisia princeps, Glycine soja, or Trifolium repens became dominant at the Mugunri site (Tables 3 and 4). At the CCZ site, Urtica angustifolia became the dominant species in both treatment plots, while A. trifida remained as a secondary dominant species (Tables 6 and 7). After one year, A. trifida cover in the control plots did not differ significantly from the previous year, whereas its cover decreased in the mechanical control plots (Fig. 6).

    Soil seed bank analyses showed that the number of A. trifida seeds was substantially higher in the control plots than in the mechanical control pots, with most seed concentrated in the 0-5 cm topsoil layer (Fig. 7).

    4. DISCUSSION

    Removal of A. trifida revealed its strong suppressive effects on plant community structure. In the control plots, where A. trifida maintained high dominance, species richness and the number of plant families remained low, and community composition showed little change over time. In contrast, plots where A. trifida was removed exhibited marked increases in species number and diversity, indicating that the invader had constrained community development. Such suppression is consistent with the ecological strategy of fastgrowing that effectively monopolize light and other resources (Tilman 1988), a mechanism previously reported for invasive species that reduce species emergence and diversity in invaded habitats (El-Keblawy and Al- Rawai 2007;Hejda et al. 2009). The NMDS results further demonstrated that community structure diverged substantially from its initial state following removal, whereas no structural change occurred in the control plots. This pattern supports earlier findings that invasvie plants can alter native community composition by inhibiting the growth and establishment of co-occurring species (Flory and Clay 2010). The colonization of perennial species and ground-covering species after removal also aligns with broader ecological observations that reducing dominant competitors can release subordinate species and shift resource availability within the habitat (D’Antonio et al. 1998;Minchinton and Bertness 2003). Although biomass was not quantified in this study, the appearance of new annual and perennial species and the rapid expansion of surface-covering plants resemble post disturbance recovery patterns reported in grassland systems following vegetation removal (Baoyin et al. 2015).

    Mechanical removal substantially reduced the cover of A. trifida during the research period, whereas the control plots maintained similar levels of dominance. Since A. trifida propagates exclusively through seeds (Kaur et al. 2016), preventing annual seed input is critical for suppressing its persistence. Seed bank analyses showed that the number of A. trifida seeds was markedly higher in the control plots than in the mechanically treated plots, with most seeds concentrated in the upper 0-5 cm of soil. This vertical distribution mirrors previous reports that A. trifida seed are primarily confined to shallow soil layers, where they readily contribute to new recruitment (Zhao et al. 2011;Dong et al. 2020). These results explain why A. trifida remained abundant in the control plots but declined in the mechanical treatment: repeated removal before seed formation limited replenishment of the seed bank and reduced subsequent emergence. The reduced seed input following removal also allowed other species to establish more successful, contributing to the observed increases in community diversity and shifts in dominant species.

    Overall, the findings of this study demonstrate that mechanical removal not only reduces the abundance of A. trifida but also disrupts the monospecific dominance it establishes, thereby facilitating the short-term recovery of native perennial herbs and ground-cover species. In the mechanically treated plots, the number of A. trifida seeds in the soil was significantly reduced, and most seeds were concentrated in the upper 0-5 cm of the soil profile. Given that A. trifida has high seed production and that more than 50% of its seeds retain germination potential (Goplen et al. 2016), effective management strategies should prioritize preventing the accumulation of seeds in the surface soil and repeatedly removing plants before seed set to limit further seedbank replenishment. Despite these short-term effects, this study is limited by its one-year assessment period, which restricts our ability to determine whether the observed recovery patterns persist over longer timescales. In addition, because only two sites were examined, it was not possible to fully disentangle how site-specific environmental conditions influenced vegetation recovery. Notably, even under the same mechanical treatments, Mugunri and the CCZ exhibited contrasting recovery trajectories: Mugunri showed sustained reductions in A. trifida dominance and greater emergence of native species, whereas the CCZ retained A. trifida as a sub-dominant species and exhibited lower levels of native species establishment. These differences suggest that initial species composition, surrounding species pools, soil conditions, disturbance intensity, and residual seedbank size may influence post-removal recovery of native plant communities (Petri and Ibáñez 2025). To better understand these mechanisms, future studies should quantify the structure and recovery potential of native plant communities across regions with differing environmental conditions and evaluate how these sitespecific factors shape successional trajectories following invasive plant removal. Incorporating longer-term monitoring, repeated annual removal trials, and detailed seedbank investigation will be essential for developing more effective and region-specific restoration strategies in habitats invaded by A. trifida.

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

    This research was funded by National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2017R1A2B4006761) and National Institute of Ecology (NIE-B-2025-38).

    CRediT authorship contribution statement

    S Mun: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing- Original draft. EJ Lee: Supervision, Writing-Review and editing.

    Declaration of Competing Interest

    The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

    Figure

    KJEB-43-4-577_F1.jpg

    Location of the Mugunri site (A) and CCZ (B) in South Korea. The yellow point in each figure represents the experiment site.

    KJEB-43-4-577_F2.jpg

    Experimental plot for each treatment (3 replicates per plot) - control (A), cutting (B), and uprooting (C). Debris was moved out of the study site.

    KJEB-43-4-577_F3.jpg

    Results of Non-metric Multidimensional Scaling (NMDS) ordination graph based on the plant community structure in control, cutting, and uprooting treatment plots in Mugunri. Scaling was based on Bray-Curtis dissimilarity calculation. Figure 3A shows the results of the comparison of community structure before treatment (N6, C6, U6) and after treatment (N8, C8, U8) in 2015. Figure 3B is the result of community structure 1 year after mechanical control. Abbreviations: RN=revisited control, RT=revisited cutting, RU=revisited uprooting (2016).

    KJEB-43-4-577_F4.jpg

    Results of Non-metric Multidimensional Scaling (NMDS) ordination graph based on the plant community structure in control, cutting, and uprooting treatment plots in CCZ. Scaling was based on Bray-Curtis dissimilarity calculation. Figure 4A shows the results of the comparison of community structure before treatment (N6, C6, U6) and after treatment (N9, C9, U9) in 2016. Figure 4B is the result of community structure 1 year after mechanical treatment. Abbreviations: RN=Revisited control, RC=Revisited cutting, RU=Revisited uprooting (2017).

    KJEB-43-4-577_F5.jpg

    Average(±SE) species diversity (A and B) and evenness (C and D) for fall at Mugunri in 2015 and at CCZ in 2016. Different letters indicate significant differences at p<0.05. Abbreviations: NT=No treatment, CT=Cutting treatment, UR=Uprooting.

    KJEB-43-4-577_F6.jpg

    Coverage of Ambrosia trifida a year after management activity in Mugunri (A) and CCZ (B). Different letters indicate significant differences at p<0.05. Abbreviations: NT=No treatment, CT=Cutting treatment, UR=Uprooting.

    KJEB-43-4-577_F7.jpg

    Number of seeds in 0-5 cm depth (A) and 5-10 cm depth (B) in each plot of CCZ. Different letters indicate significant differences at p<0.05. Abbreviations: NT=No treatment, CT=Cutting treatment, UR=Uprooting.

    Table

    Analysis of similarity (ANOSIM) for Bray-Curtis among groups for the experimental plot groups

    The abundance and importance values (IV) in the control plot in Mugunri (n=3)

    The abundance and importance values (IV) in the cutting plot in Mugunri (n=3)

    The abundance and importance values (IV) in the uprooting plot in Mugunri (n=3)

    The abundance and importance values (IV) in the control plot in CCZ (n=3)

    The abundance and importance values (IV) in the cutting plot in CCZ (n=3)

    The abundance and importance values (IV) in the uprooting plot in CCZ (n=3)

    List of 2015 (June) and 2016 (June) total emergent plant species in Mugunri control plot

    *Non-native species
    Invasive exotic plant species designated by Ministry of Environment

    List of 2015 (June) and 2016 (June) total emergent plant species in Mugunri mechanical control plot (cutting)

    *Non-native species
    Invasive exotic plant species designated by Ministry of Environment

    List of 2015 (June) and 2016 (June) total emergent plant species in Mugunri mechanical control plot (uprooting)

    *Non-native species
    Invasive exotic plant species designated by Ministry of Environment

    List of 2016 (June) and 2017 (June) total emergent plant species in CCZ control plot

    *Non-native species
    Invasive exotic plant species designated by Ministry of Environment

    List of 2016 (June) and 2017 (June) total emergent plant species in CCZ mechanical control plot (cutting)

    *Non-native species
    Invasive exotic plant species designated by Ministry of Environment

    List of 2016 (June) and 2017 (June) total emergent plant species in CCZ mechanical control plot (uprooting)

    *Non-native species
    Invasive exotic plant species designated by Ministry of Environment

    Reference

    1. Abul-Fatih HA and FA Bazzaz. 1979. The biology of Ambrosia trifida L. II. Germination, emergence, growth, and survival. New Phytol. 83:817-827.
    2. Baoyin T, FY Li, H Minggagud, Q Bao and Y Zhong. 2015. Mowing succession of species composition is determined by plant growth forms, not photosynthetic pathways in Leymus chinensis grassland of Inner Mongolia. Landsc. Ecol. 30:1795- 1803.
    3. Barnett KA and LE Steckel. 2013. Giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) competition in cotton. Weed Sci. 61:543-548.
    4. Baysinger JA and BD Sims. 1992. Giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) control in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 6:13-18.
    5. Chen KW, L Marusciac, PT Tamas, R Valenta and C Panaitescu. 2018. Ragweed pollen allergy: burden, characteristics, and management of an imported allergen source in Europe. Int. Arch. Allergy Immunol. 176:163-180.
    6. D’Antonio CM, RF Hughes, M Mack, D Hitchcock and PM Vitousek. 1998. The response of native species to removal of invasive exotic grasses in a seasonally dry Hawaiian woodland. J. Veg. Sci. 9:699-712.
    7. Dong H, T Liu, Z Liu and Z Song. 2020. Fate of the soil seed bank of giant ragweed and its significance in preventing and controlling its invasion in grasslands. Ecol. Evol. 10:4854-4866.
    8. Ehrenfeld JG. 2003. Effects of exotic plant invasions on soil nutrient cycling processes. Ecosystems 6:503-523.
    9. Ehrenfeld JG. 2010. Ecosystem consequences of biological invasions. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 41:59-80.
    10. El -Keblawy A and A Al -Rawai. 2007. Impacts of the invasive exotic Prosopis juliflora (Sw.) DC on the native flora and soils of the UAE. Plant Ecol. 190:23-35.
    11. Flory SL and K Clay. 2010. Non-native grass invasion alters native plant composition in experimental communities. Biol. Invasions 12:1285-1294.
    12. Goplen JJ, CC Sheaffer, RL Becker, JA Coulter, FR Breitenbach, LM Behnken, GA Johnson and JL Gunsolus. 2016. Giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) seed production and retention in soybean and field margins. Weed Technol. 30:246-253.
    13. Hejda M, P Pyšek and V Jarošík. 2009. Impact of invasive plants on the species richness, diversity and composition of invaded communities. J. Ecol. 97:393-403.
    14. Kaur S, J Aulakh and AJ Jhala. 2016. Growth and seed production of glyphosate-resistant giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida L.) in response to water stress. Can. J. Plant Sci. 96:828-836.
    15. Kim DE. 2018. Management system of invasive alien species threatening biodiversity in Korea and suggestions for the improvement. J. Environ. Impact Assess. 27:33-55.
    16. Kim DS, KS Oh, YD Lee, SY Lee, H Lee, HJ Kim and DE Kim. 2017a. The distribution of the exotic species Ophraella communa LeSage (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) and their applicability for biological control against ragweed Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. on Jeju Island. Korean J. Environ. Biol. 35:437-445.
    17. Kim JW, IY Lee and J Lee. 2017b. Distribution of invasive alien species in Korean croplands. Weed Turfgrass Sci. 6:117-123.
    18. Kindt R and MR Kindt. 2019. BiodiversityR: Package for Community Ecology and Suitability Analysis. Accessed December 24, 2025.
    19. Kong CH, P Wang and XH Xu. 2007. Allelopathic interference of Ambrosia trifida with wheat (Triticum aestivum). Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 119:416-420.
    20. Lishawa SC, BD Carson, JS Brandt, JM Tallant, NJ Reo, DA Albert, AM Monks, JM Lautenbach and E Clark. 2017. Mechanical harvesting effectively controls young Typha spp. invasion and unmanned aerial vehicle data enhances post-treatment monitoring. Front. Plant Sci. 8:1-14.
    21. Minchinton TE and MD Bertness. 2003. Disturbance-mediated competition and the spread of Phragmites australis in a coastal marsh. Ecol. Appl. 13:1400-1416.
    22. NIE. 2016. Monitoring on Invasive Alien Species Designated by the Wildlife Protection Act (3). National Institute of Ecology. Seocheon, Korea.
    23. Oksanen J, G Simpson, F Blanchet, R Kindt, P Legendre, P Minchin, R O’Hara, P Solymos, M Stevens, E Szoecs, … , L Lahti, C Martino, D McGlinn, M Ouellette, E Ribeiro Cunha, T Smith, A Stier, C Ter Braak and J Weedon. 2025. Vegan: community ecology package. R package version 2.8-0. https://vegandevs.github.io/vegan. Accessed December 24, 2025.
    24. Park SH and HS Lee. 2018. A study on management and present condition of invasive alien species. J. Korea Acad.-Ind. Coop. Soc. 19:488-496.
    25. Pejchar L and HA Mooney. 2009. Invasive species, ecosystem services and human well-being. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24:497- 504.
    26. Petri L and I Ibáñez. 2025. Successful recovery of native plants post-invasive removal in forest understories is driven by native community features. Ecol. Appl. 35:e70012.
    27. Powell KI, JM Chase and TM Knight. 2011. A synthesis of plant invasion effects on biodiversity across spatial scales. Am. J. Bot. 98:539-548.
    28. Powles SB. 2008. Evolved glyphosate-resistant weeds around the world: lessons to be learned. Pest Manag. Sci. 64:360- 365.
    29. Schlising RA and EL Sanders. 1982. Quantitative analysis of vegetation at the Richvale vernal pools, California. Am. J. Bot. 69: 734-742.
    30. Taylor JB, MM Loux, SK Harrison and E Regnier. 2002. Response of ALS-resistant common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) and giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) to ALS-inhibiting and alternative herbicides. Weed Technol. 16:815-825.
    31. Tilman D. 1988. Plant Strategies and the Dynamics and Structure of Plant Communities. Princeton Univ. Press. Princeton, NJ, USA.
    32. van Wilgen B, D Richardson and SI Higgins. 2001. Integrated control of invasive alien plants in terrestrial ecosystems. Land Use Water Resour. Res. 1:1-8.
    33. Wagner V, PM Antunes, M Irvine and CR Nelson. 2017. Herbicide usage for invasive non-native plant management in wildland areas of North America. J. Appl. Ecol. 54:198-204.
    34. Waisel Y, A Eshel, N Keynan and D Langgut. 2008. Ambrosia: A new impending disaster for the Israeli allergic population. Isr. Med. Assoc. J. 10:856-857.
    35. Zhao J, X Wang, Y Shao, G Xu and S Fu. 2011. Effects of vegetation removal on soil properties and decomposer organisms. Soil Biol. Biochem. 43:954-960.

    Vol. 40 No. 4 (2022.12)

    Journal Abbreviation 'Korean J. Environ. Biol.'
    Frequency quarterly
    Doi Prefix 10.11626/KJEB.
    Year of Launching 1983
    Publisher Korean Society of Environmental Biology
    Indexed/Tracked/Covered By

    Contact info

    Any inquiries concerning Journal (all manuscripts, reviews, and notes) should be addressed to the managing editor of the Korean Society of Environmental Biology. Yongeun Kim,
    Korea University, Seoul 02841, Korea.
    E-mail: kjeb@koseb.org
    Tel: +82-2-3290-3496 / +82-10-9516-1611