Successful invaders co-opt pollinators of native flora and accumulate insect pollinators with increasing residence time

Ecological Monographs

Volumn 81, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 277-293

  Pyšek, Petr ^a,b   Chytrý, Jarošík ^a,b   Milan, Vojtěch ^c   Danihelka, Jlří ^a,c   Kühn, Ingolf ^d   Pergl, Jan ^a   Tichý, Lubomír ^c   Biesmeijer, Jacobus C ^e   Ellis, Willem N ^f   Kunin, William E ^e   Settele, Josef ^d  

^a INSTITUTE OF BOTANY   (Czech Republic)

^b CHARLES UNIVERSITY   (Czech Republic)

^c MASARYK UNIVERSITY   (Czech Republic)

^d HELMHOLTZ CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH UFZ   (Germany)

^e UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

^f NONE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Alien plant species; Central Europe; Habitat range; Insect pollination; Plant invasion; Residence time; Selfing; Stage of invasion

Indexed keywords

AUTOGAMY; BIOLOGICAL INVASION; HABITAT SELECTION; HABITAT TYPE; INVASIBILITY; NATIVE SPECIES; POLLINATOR; RESIDENCE TIME; SPECIES DIVERSITY; SPECIES OCCURRENCE;

CZECH REPUBLIC;

HEXAPODA;

EID: 79955506648     PISSN: 00129615     EISSN: 15577015     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1890/10-0630.1     Document Type: Article

References (124)

1. Aizen, M. A., C. L. Morales, and J. M. Morales. 2008. Invasive mutualists erode native pollination webs. PLoS Biology 6:396-403.
2. Ashman, T. L., T. M. Knight, J. A. Steets, P. Amarasekare, M. Burd, D. R. Campbell, M. R. Dudash, M. O. Johnston, S. J. Mazer, R. J. Mitchell, M. T. Morgan, and W. G. Wilson. 2004. Pollen limitation of plant reproduction: ecological and evolutionary causes and consequences. Ecology 85:2408-2421. (Pubitemid 39348534)
3. Baker, H. G. 1955. Self-compatibility and establishment after 'long-distance' dispersal. Evolution 9:347-349.
4. Baker, H. G. 1965. Characteristics and modes of origin of weeds. 147-168 in H. G. Baker and G. L. Stebbins, editors. The genetics of colonizing species. Academic Press, New York, New York, USA.
5. Baker, H. G. 1974. The evolution of weeds. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 5:1-24.
6. Barrett, S. C. H. 2000. Microevolutionary influences of global changes on plant invasions. 115-139 in H. A. Mooney and R. J. Hobbs, editors. Invasive species in a changing world. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.
7. Bartomeus, I., and M. Vilà . 2009. Breeding system and pollen limitation in two supergeneralist alien plants invading Mediterranean shrublands. Australian Journal of Botany 57:109-115.
8. Bartomeus, I., M. Vilà , and L. Santamaria. 2008. Contrasting effects of invasive plants in plant-pollinator networks. Oecologia 155:761-770.
9. Biernaskie, J. M., S. C. Walker, and R. J. Gegear. 2009. Bumblebees learn to forage like Bayesians. American Naturalist 174:413-423.
10. Biesmeijer, J. C., S. P. M. Roberts, M. Reemer, R. Ohlemü ller, M. Edwards, T. Peeters, A. P. Schaffers, S. G. Potts, R. Kleukers, C. D. Thomas, J. Settele, and W. E. Kunin. 2006. Parallel declines in pollinators and insect-pollinated plants in Britain and the Netherlands. Science 313:351-354. (Pubitemid 44480959)
11. Bini, L. M., et al. 2009. Coefficient shifts in geographical ecology: an empirical evaluation of spatial and non-spatial regression. Ecography 32:193-204.
12. Bjerknes, A.-L., O. Totland, S. J. Hegland, and A. Nielsen. 2007. Do alien plant invasions really affect pollination success in native plant species? Biological Conservation 138:1-12. (Pubitemid 46890839)
13. Brown, J. H., and B. A. Maurer. 1989. Macroecology: the division of food and space among species on continents. Science 243:1145-1150. (Pubitemid 19326079)
14. Brown, B. J., and R. J. Mitchell. 2001. Competition for pollination: effects of pollen of an invasive plant on seed set of a native congener. Oecologia 129:43-49. (Pubitemid 32943760)
15. Brown, B. J., R. J. Mitchell, and S. A. Graham. 2002. Competition for pollination between an invasive species (purple loosestrife) and a native congener. Ecology 83:2328-2336. (Pubitemid 36524769)
16. Cadotte, M. W., and J. Lovett-Doust. 2001. Ecological and taxonomic differences between native and introduced plants of southwestern Ontario. Ecoscience 8:230-238. (Pubitemid 32653163)
17. Cadotte, M. W., S. M. McMahon, and T. Fukami, editors. 2006. Conceptual ecology and invasions biology: reciprocal approaches to nature. Springer, Berlin, Germany.
18. Chittka, L., and S. Schü rkens. 2001. Successful invasion of a floral market. Nature 411:653-654.
19. Chittka, L., J. D. Thomson, and N. M. Waser. 1999. Flower constancy, insect psychology, and plant evolution. Naturwissenschaften 86:361-377. (Pubitemid 29399546)
20. Chytrý , M., V. Jarǒsík, P. Py̌sek, O. Há jek, I. Knollová, L. Tichý , and J. Danihelka. 2008. Separating habitat invisibility by alien plants from the actual level of invasion. Ecology 89:1541-1553.
21. Chytrý , M., P. Py̌sek, L. Tichý , I. Knollová , and J. Danihelka. 2005. Invasions by alien plants in the Czech Republic: a quantitative assessment across habitats. Preslia 77:339-354. (Pubitemid 43273630)
22. Crawley, M. J. 1993. GLIM for ecologists. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, UK.
23. Crawley, M. J. 2002. Statistical computing. An introduction to data analysis using S-Plus. Wiley, Chichester, UK.
24. Crawley, M. J., P. H. Harvey, and A. Purvis. 1996. Comparative ecology of the native and alien floras of the British Isles. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 351:1251-1259.
25. Deutschewitz, K., A. Lausch, I. Kühn, and S. Klotz. 2003. Native and alien plant species richness in relation to spatial heterogeneity on a regional scale in Germany. Global Ecology and Biogeography 12:299-311.
26. Díaz, S., et al. 2004. The plant traits that drive ecosystems: evidence from three continents. Journal of Vegetation Science 15:295-304. (Pubitemid 38673715)
27. Dietz, H., and P. J. Edwards. 2006. Recognition that causal processes change during plant invasion helps explain conflicts in evidence. Ecology 87:1359-1367. (Pubitemid 44066083)
28. Diniz-Filho, J. A. F., C. E. R. De Sant'ana, and L. M. Bini. 1998. An eigenvector method for estimating phylogenetic inertia. Evolution 52:1247-1262. (Pubitemid 28537236)
29. Durka, W. 2002. Phylogenie der Farn- und Blü tenpflanzen Deutschlands. 75-91 in S. Klotz, I. Kühn, and W. Durka, editors. BIOLFLOR-Eine Datenbank zu biologisch- ö kologischen Merkmalen der Gefäβpflanzen in Deutschland. Schriftenreihe fü r Vegetationskunde 38. Bundesamt fü r Naturschutz, Bonn, Germany.
30. Ellis, W. N., and A. C. Ellis-Adam. 1993. To make a meadow it takes a clover and a bee: the entomophilous flora of N.W. Europe and its insects. Bijdragen tot de Dierkunde 63:193-220.
31. Essl, F., D. Dullinger, and I. Kleinbauer. 2009. Changes in the spatio-temporal patterns and habitat preferences of Ambrosia artemisiifolia during the invasion of Austria. Preslia 81:119-133.
32. Felsenstein, J. 1985. Phylogenies and the comparative method. American Naturalist 125:1-15.
33. Forster, P. I. 1994. Diurnal insects associated with the flowers of Gomphocarpus physocarpus E. Mey (Asclepiadaceae), an introduced weed in Australia. Biotropica 26:214-217.
34. Gassó , N., P. Py̌sek, M. Vilà , and M. Williamson. 2010. Spreading to a limit: the time required for a neophyte to reach its maximum range. Diversity and Distributions 16:310-311.
35. Grabas, G. P., and T. M. Laverty. 1999. The effect of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria L.; Lythraceae) on the pollination and reproductive success of sympatric co-flowering wetland plants. Ecoscience 6:230-242. (Pubitemid 30081007)
36. Griffith, D. A., and P. R. Peres-Neto. 2006. Spatial modeling in ecology: the flexibility of eigenfunction spatial analyses. Ecology 87:2603-2613. (Pubitemid 44885971)
37. Hanspach, J., I. Kühn, P. Py̌sek, E. Boos, and S. Klotz. 2008. Correlates of naturalization and occupancy of introduced ornamentals in Germany. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 10:241-250.
38. Harvey, P. H., and M. D. Pagel. 1991. The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
39. Heger, T., and L. Trepl. 2003. Predicting biological invasions. Biological Invasions 5:313-321. (Pubitemid 38042833)
40. Hejda, M., P. Py̌sek, J. Pergl, J. Sádlo, M. Chytrý and V. Jarǒsík V. 2009. Invasion success of alien plants: do habitat affinities in the native distribution range matter? Global Ecology and Biogeography 18:372-382.
41. Hejný , S., and B. Slavík, editors. 1988-1992. Flora of the Czech Republic. Volumes 1 (1988), 2 (1990), 3 (1992). Academia, Praha, Czech Republic. [In Czech.]
42. Hulme, P. E., G. Brundu, I. Camarda, P. Dalias, P. Lambdon, F. Lloret, F. Mé dail, E. Moragues, C. Suehs, A. Traveset, and A. Troumbis. 2008. Assessing the risks of alien plant invasions on Mediterranean islands. 39-56 in B. Tokarska-Guzik, J. H. Brock, G. Brundu, L. Child, C. C. Daehler, and P. Py̌sek, editors. Plant invasions: human perception, ecological impacts and management. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands.
43. Hulme, P., P. Py̌sek, W. Nentwig, and M. Vilà . 2009. Will threat of biological invasions unite the European Union? Science 324:40-41.
44. Jakobsson, A., B. Padró n, and A. Traveset. 2009. Competition for pollinators between invasive and native plants: effects of spatial scale of investigation (note). Ecoscience 16:138-141.
45. Klotz, S., I. Kühn, and W. Durka. 2002. BIOLFLOR: Eine Datenbank mit biologisch-ö kologischen Merkmalen zur Flora von Deutschland. Schriftenreihe fü r Vegetationskunde 38:1-334.
46. Knapp, S., I. Kühn, J. Stolle, and S. Klotz. 2010. Changes in the functional composition of a Central European urban flora over three centuries. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 12:235-244.
47. Kowarik, I. 1995. Time lags in biological invasions with regard to the success and failure of alien species. 15-38 in P. Py̌sek, K. Prach, M. Rejmá nek, and M. Wade, editors. Plant invasions: general aspects and special problems. SPB Academic, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
48. Kubá t, K., L. Hrouda, J. Chrtek, Jr., Z. Kaplan, J. Kirschner, and J. štěpá nek, editors. 2002. Key to the flora of the Czech Republic. Academia, Praha, Czech Republic. [In Czech.]
49. Kühn, I., S. J. Biermann, W. Durka, and S. Klotz. 2006. Relating geographical variation in pollination types to environmental and spatial factors using novel statistical methods. New Phytologist 172:127-139. (Pubitemid 44268118)
50. Kühn, I., W. Durka, and S. Klotz. 2004. BIOLFLOR: new plant-trait database as a tool for plant invasion ecology. Diversity and Distributions 10:363-365. (Pubitemid 39260371)
51. Kühn, I., and S. Klotz. 2003. The alien flora of Germany-basics from a new German database. Pages 89-100 in L. E. Child, J. H. Brock, G. Brundu, K. Prach, P. Pysek, P. M. Wade, and M. Williamson, editors. Plant invasions: ecological threats and management solutions. Leiden, Backhuys, The Netherlands.
52. Kühn, I., R. May, R. Brandl, and S. Klotz. 2003. Plant distribution patterns in Germany-Will aliens match natives? Feddes Repertorium 114:559-573. (Pubitemid 38078248)
53. Küster, E. C., W. Durka, I. Kühn, and S. Klotz. 2010. Differences in the trait compositions of non-indigenous and native plants across Germany. Biological Invasions 12:2001-2012.
54. Kü ster, E. C., I. Kühn, H. Bruelheide, and S. Klotz. 2008. Trait interactions help explain plant invasion success in the German flora. Journal of Ecology 96:860-868.
55. Lambdon, P. W., et al. 2008. Alien flora of Europe: species diversity, temporal trends, geographical patterns and research needs. Preslia 80:101-149.
56. Larson, B. M. H., and S. C. H. Barrett. 2000. A comparative analysis of pollen limitation in flowering plants. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 69:503-520.
57. La Sorte, F., and P. Py̌sek. 2009. Extra-regional residence time as a correlate of plant invasiveness: European archaeophytes in North America. Ecology 90:2589-2597.
58. Liu, H., R. W. Pemberton, and P. Stiling. 2006. Native and introduced pollinators promote an invasive woody vine (Paederia foetida L.) in Florida. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 133:304-311. (Pubitemid 44320593)
59. Lloret, F., F. Mé dail, G. Brundu, I. Camarda, E. Moragues, J. Rita, P. Lambdon, and P. E. Hulme. 2005. Species attributes and invasion success by alien plants on Mediterranean islands. Journal of Ecology 93:512-520. (Pubitemid 40809795)
60. Lopezaraiza-Mikel, M. E., R. B. Hayes, M. R. Whalley, and J. Memmott. 2007. The impact of an alien plant on a native plant-pollinator network, an experimental approach. Ecology Letters 10:539-550. (Pubitemid 46850120)
61. Mack, R. N., D. Simberloff, W. M. Lonsdale, H. Evans, M. Clout, and F. A. Bazzaz. 2000. Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecological Applications 10:689-710. (Pubitemid 32139517)
62. McCullagh, P., and J. A. Nelder. 1989. Generalized linear models. Chapman and Hall, London, UK.
63. Memmot, J. M., and N. M. Waser. 2002. Integration of alien plants into a native flower-pollination visitation web. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 269:2395-2399. (Pubitemid 36005691)
64. Milbau, A., and J. C. Stout. 2008. Factors associated with alien plants transitioning from casual, to naturalized, to invasive. Conservation Biology 22:308-317. (Pubitemid 351503422)
65. Mitchell, C. E., and A. G. Power. 2003. Release of invasive plants from fungal and viral pathogens. Nature 421:625-627. (Pubitemid 36227668)
66. Molina-Montenegro, M. A., E. I. Badano, and L. A. Cavieres. 2008. Positive interactions among plant species for pollinator service: assessing the 'magnet species' concept with invasive species. Oikos 117:1833-1839. (Pubitemid 352840384)
67. Morales, C. L., and M. A. Aizen. 2002. Does invasion of exotic plants promote invasion of exotic flower visitors? A case study from the temperate forests of the southern Andes.Biological Invasions 4:87-100. (Pubitemid 35249959)
68. Morales, C. L., and M. A. Aizen. 2006. Invasive mutualisms and the structure of plant-pollinator interactions in the temperate forests of north-west Patagonia, Argentina. Journal of Ecology 94:171-180.
69. Morales, C. L., and A. Traveset. 2008. Interspecific pollen transfer: magnitude, prevalence and consequences for plant fitness. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 27:221-238.
70. Morales, C. L., and A. Traveset. 2009. A meta-analysis of impacts of alien vs. native plants on pollinator visitation and reproductive success of co-flowering native plants. Ecology Letters 12:716-728.
71. Müller, F., C. Baessler, H. Schubert, and S. Klotz, editors. 2010. Long-term ecological research. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
72. Mũnoz, A. A., and L. A. Cavieres. 2008. The presence of a showy invasive plant disrupts pollinator service and reproductive output in native alpine species only at high densities. Journal of Ecology 96:459-467. (Pubitemid 351533400)
73. Nentwig, W., editor. 2007. Biological invasions. Springer, Berlin, Germany.
74. Olesen, J. M., L. I. Eskildsen, and S. Venkatasamy. 2002. Invasion of pollination networks on oceanic islands: importance of invader complexes and endemic super generalists. Diversity and Distributions 8:181-192. (Pubitemid 34544120)
75. Padró n, B., A. Traveset, T. Biedenweg, D. Diaz, M. Nogales, and J. M. Olesen. 2009. Impact of alien plant invaders on pollination networks in two archipelagos. PLoS ONE 4:e6275.
76. Parker, I. M. 1997. Pollinator limitation of Cytisus scoparius (Scotch broom), an invasive exotic shrub. Ecology 78:1457-1470.
77. Parker, I. M., and K. I. Haubensak. 2002. Comparative pollinator limitation of two non-native shrubs, do mutualisms influence invasions? Oecologia 130:250-258. (Pubitemid 36064482)
78. Price, M. V., and N. M. Waser. 1998. Effects of experimental warming on plant reproductive phenology in a subalpine meadow. Ecology 79:1261-1271. (Pubitemid 28378679)
79. Prinzing, A., W. Durka, S. Klotz, and R. Brandl. 2001. The niche of higher plants: evidence for phylogenetic conservatism. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 268:2383-2389. (Pubitemid 33096104)
80. Py̌sek, P., and V. Jarǒsík. 2005. Residence time determines the distribution of alien plants. 77-96 in Inderjit, editor. Invasive plants: ecological and agricultural aspects. Birkhä user Verlag-AG, Basel, Switzerland.
81. Py̌sek, P., V. Jarǒsík, M. Chytrý , Z. Kropáč, L. Tichý , and J. Wild. 2005. Alien plants in temperate weed communities: prehistoric and recent invaders occupy different habitats. Ecology 86:772-785. (Pubitemid 40390670)
82. Py̌sek, P., V. Jarǒsík, J. Pergl, R. Randall, M. Chytrý, I.Kühn, L. Tichý , J. Danihelka, J. Chrtek, Jr., and J. Sá dlo. 2009a. The global invasion success of Central European plants is related to distribution characteristics in their native range and species traits. Diversity and Distributions 15:891-903.
83. Py̌sek, P., M. Kr?ivá nek, and V. Jarǒsík. 2009b. Planting intensity, residence time, and species traits determine invasion success of alien woody species. Ecology 90:2734-2744.
84. Py̌sek, P., K. Prach, and P. šmilauer. 1995. Relating invasion success to plant traits: an analysis of the Czech alien flora. 39-60 in P. Py̌sek, K. Prach, M. Rejmá nek, and M. Wade, editors. Plant invasions: general aspects and special problems. SPB Academic, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
85. Py̌sek, P., and D. M. Richardson. 2007. Traits associated with invasiveness in alien plants: Where do we stand? 97-125 in W. Nentwig, editor. Biological invasions. Springer-Verlag, Berlin and Heidelberg, Germany.
86. Py̌sek, P., D. M. Richardson, J. Pergl, V. Jarǒsík, Z. Sixtová , and E. Weber. 2008. Geographical and taxonomic biases in invasion ecology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23:237-244. (Pubitemid 351626202)
87. Py̌sek, P., D. M. Richardson, M. Rejmá nek, G. Webster, M. Williamson, and J. Kirschner. 2004a. Alien plants in checklists and floras: towards better communication between taxonomists and ecologists. Taxon 53:131-143. (Pubitemid 38329455)
88. Py̌sek, P., D. M. Richardson, and M. Williamson. 2004b. Predicting and explaining plant invasions through analysis of source area floras: some critical considerations. Diversity and Distributions 10:179-187. (Pubitemid 38600477)
89. Py̌sek, P., J. Sá dlo, and B. Mandá k. 2002. Catalogue of alien plants of the Czech Republic. Preslia 74:97-186. (Pubitemid 34718456)
90. Quinn, G. P., and M. J. Keough. 2002. Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
91. Richardson, D. M., N. Allsopp, C. D'Antonio, S. J. Milton, and M. Rejmá nek. 2000a. Plant invasions: the role of mutualisms. Biological Reviews 75:65-93.
92. Richardson, D. M., and P. Py̌sek. 2006. Plant invasions: merging the concepts of species invasiveness and community invasibility. Progress in Physical Geography 30:409-431. (Pubitemid 44018774)
93. Richardson, D. M., P. Py̌sek, M. Rejmá nek, M. G. Barbour, F. D. Panetta, and C. J. West. 2000b. Naturalization and invasion of alien plants: concepts and definitions. Diversity and Distributions 6:93-107.
94. 2 on flowering phenology and nectar production of nectar plants important for butterflies of calcareous grasslands. Oecologia 113:341-349. (Pubitemid 28107067)
95. Sá dlo, J., M. Chytrý , and P. Py̌sek. 2007. Regional species pools of vascular plants in habitats of the Czech Republic. Preslia 79:303-321. (Pubitemid 350253600)
96. Sargent, R. D., and D. D. Ackerly. 2008. Plant-pollinator interactions and the assembly of plant communities. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23:123-130. (Pubitemid 351323978)
97. Sax, D. F., and J. H. Brown. 2000. The paradox of invasion. Global Ecology and Biogeography 9:363-371.
98. Schönfelder, P. 1999. Mapping the flora of Germany. Acta Botanica Fennica 162:43-53. (Pubitemid 129492935)
99. Schweiger, O., et al. 2010. Multiple stressors on biotic interactions: how climate change and alien species interact to affect pollination. Biological Reviews 85:777-795.
100. Schweiger, O., S. Klotz, W. Durka, and I. Kühn. 2008a. A test of phylogenetic diversity indices. Oecologia 157:485-495.
101. Schweiger, O., J. Settele, O. Kudrna, S. Klotz, and I. Kühn. 2008b. Climate change can cause spatial mismatch of trophically interacting species. Ecology 89:3472-3479.
102. Settele, J., et al. 2005. ALARM: Assessing LArge-scale environmental Risks for biodiversity with tested Methods. GAIA Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 14:69-72.
103. Settele, J., R. Steiner, R. Reinhardt, R. Feldmann, and G. Hermann. 2009. Schmetterlinge: Die Tagfalter Deutschlands. Second edition. Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart, Germany.
104. Simberloff, D. 2006. Invasional meltdown six years later? Important phenomenon, unfortunate metaphor, or both? Ecology Letters 9:912-919. (Pubitemid 44167965)
105. Slavík, B., editor. 1995-2000. Flora of the Czech Republic. Volumes 4 (1995), 5 (1997), 6 (2000). Academia, Praha, Czech Republic. [In Czech.]
106. Slavík, B., and J. štěpánková , editors. 2004. Flora of the Czech Republic. Volume 7. Academia, Praha, Czech Republic. [In Czech.]
107. Sokal, R., and F. J. Rohlf. 1995. Biometry. Third edition. Freeman, New York, New York, USA.
108. Sol, D., M. Vilà , and I. Kühn. 2008. The comparative analysis of historical alien introductions. Biological Invasions 10:1119-1129.
109. Stanton, M. L., A. A. Snow, and S. N. Handel. 1986. Floral evolution: attractiveness to pollinators increases male fitness. Science 232:1625-1627. (Pubitemid 17251221)
110. Steffan-Dewenter, I., U. Mü nzenberg, and T. Tscharntke. 2001. Pollination, seed set and seed predation on a landscape scale. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 268:1685-1690. (Pubitemid 32758605)
111. Stout, J. C., J. A. N. Parnell, J. Arroyo, and T. P. Crowe. 2006. Pollination ecology and seed production of Rhododendron ponticum in native and exotic habitats. Biodiversity and Conservation 15:755-777. (Pubitemid 43288304)
112. Sutherland, S. 2004. What makes a weed a weed: life history traits of native and exotic plants in the USA. Oecologia 141:24-39. (Pubitemid 39320462)
113. Thomas, J. A., and R. Lewington. 2010. The butterflies of Britain and Ireland. Second edition. British Wildlife Publishing, Gillingham, UK.
114. Thompson, K., J. G. Hodgson, and K. J. Gaston. 1998. Abundance-range size relationships in the herbaceous flora of central England. Journal of Ecology 86:439-448. (Pubitemid 28324790)
115. Traveset, A., and D. M. Richardson. 2006. Biological invasions as disruptors of plant reproductive mutualism. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21:208-216.
116. Underwood, A. J. 1997. Experiments in ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
117. van Kleunen, M., and S. D. Johnson. 2007. Effects of self compatibility on distributional range of invasive European plants in North America. Conservation Biology 21:1537-1544. (Pubitemid 350290848)
118. van Kleunen, M., J. C. Manning, V. Pasqualetto, and S. D. Johnson. 2008. Phylogenetically independent associations between autonomous self-fertilization and plant invasiveness. American Naturalist 171:195-201. (Pubitemid 351323448)
119. Vilà , M., I. Bartomeus, A. C. Dietzsch, T. Petanidou, I. Steffan-Dewenter, J. C. Stout, and T. Tscheulin. 2009. Invasive plant integration into native plant-pollinator networks across Europe. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 276:3887-3893.
120. Warwick, R. M., and K. R. Clarke. 1995. New 'biodiversity' measures reveal a decrease in taxonomic distinctness with increasing stress. Marine Ecology Progress Series 129:301-305. (Pubitemid 26464051)
121. Williamson, M. 2006. Explaining and predicting the success of invading species at different stages of invasion. Biological Invasions 8:1561-1568. (Pubitemid 44663608)
122. Williamson, M., K. Dehnen-Schmutz, I. Kühn, M. Hill, S. Klotz, A. Milbau, J. Stout, and P. Py̌sek. 2009. The distribution of range sizes of native and alien plants in four European countries and the effects of residence time. Diversity and Distributions 15:158-166.
123. Williamson, M. H., and A. Fitter. 1996. The characters of successful invaders. Biological Conservation 78:163-170.
124. Wright, I. J., et al. 2004. The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Nature 428:821-827. (Pubitemid 38529491)