Origin matters: Widely distributed native and non-native species benefit from different functional traits

Ecology Letters

Volumn 15, Issue 7, 2012, Pages 696-703

  Knapp, Sonja ^a   Kühn, Ingolf ^a  

^a HELMHOLTZ CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH UFZ   (Germany)

Author keywords

Alien species; Anthropogenic habitats; Archaeophytes; Community assembly; Functional ecology; Neophytes; Niches; Novel ecosystems; Species ranges

Indexed keywords

ANTHROPOGENIC EFFECT; DIVERGENCE; ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS; FLOWERING; INVASIVE SPECIES; NATIVE SPECIES; NICHE; POLYPLOIDY; RANGE EXPANSION; VASCULAR PLANT;

ANGIOSPERM; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; ECOSYSTEM; FLOWER; GEOGRAPHY; GERMANY; INTRODUCED SPECIES; PHYLOGENY; PHYSIOLOGY; POLLINATION;

ANGIOSPERMS; ECOSYSTEM; FLOWERS; GEOGRAPHY; GERMANY; INTRODUCED SPECIES; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PHYLOGENY; POLLINATION;

TRACHEOPHYTA;

EID: 84862119914     PISSN: 1461023X     EISSN: 14610248     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2012.01787.x     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Botham, M.S., Rothery, P., Hulme, P.E., Hill, M.O., Preston, C.D. & Roy, D.B. (2009). Do urban areas act as foci for the spread of alien plant species? An assessment of temporal trends in the UK. Divers. Distrib., 15, 338-345.
2. Brunzel, S., Fischer, S.F., Schneider, J., Jetzkowitz, J. & Brandl, R. (2009). Neo- and archaeophytes respond more strongly than natives to socio-economic mobility and disturbance patterns along an urban-rural gradient. J. Biogeogr., 36, 835-844.
3. Burnham, K.P., Anderson, D.R. & Huyvaert, K.P. (2011). AIC model selection and multimodel inference in behavioral ecology: some background, observations, and comparisons. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 65, 23-35.
4. Carey, V.J. (2011). gee: Generalized Estimation Equation solver. Ported to R by Thomas Lumley and Brian Ripley. Note that maintainers are not available to give advice on using a package they did not author, R package version 4.13-17. Available at: Last accessed 2 March 2012.
5. Carl, G. & Kühn, I. (2007). Analyzing spatial autocorrelation in species distributions using Gaussian and logit models. Ecol. Model., 207, 159-170.
6. Cavender-Bares, J., Kozak, K.H., Fine, P.V.A. & Kembel, S.W. (2009). The merging of community ecology and phylogenetic biology. Ecol. Lett., 12, 693-715.
7. Celesti-Grapow, L., Di Marzio, P. & Blasi, C. (2003). Temporal niche separation of the alien flora of Rome (Italy). In: Plant Invasions: Ecological Threats and Management Solutions (eds Child, L.E., Brock, J.H., Brundu, G., Prach, K., Pysek, P., Wade, P.M. & Williamson, M.). Backhuys Publishers Leiden, The Netherlands, pp. 101-111.
8. Chrobock, T., Kempel, A., Fischer, M. & van Kleunen, M. (2011). Introduction bias: Cultivated alien plant species germinate faster and more abundantly than native species in Switzerland. Basic Appl. Ecol., 12, 244-250.
9. Chytrý, M., Pyšek, P., Wild, J., Pino, J., Maskell, L.C. & Vilà, M. (2009). European map of alien plant invasions based on the quantitative assessment across habitats. Divers. Distrib., 15, 98-107.
10. Crawley, M.J., Harvey, P.H. & Purvis, A. (1996). Comparative ecology of the native and alien floras of the British Isles. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, 351, 1251-1259.
11. Davis, M.A., Grime, J.P. & Thompson, K. (2000). Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invasibility. J. Ecol., 88, 528-534.
12. Davis, M., Chew, M.K., Hobbs, R.J., Lugo, A.E., Ewel, J.J., Vermeij, G.J. et al. (2011). Don't judge species on their origins. Nature, 474, 153-154.
13. Dehnen-Schmutz, K., Touza, J., Perrings, C. & Williamson, M. (2007). The horticultural trade andornamental plant invasions in Britain. Conserv. Biol., 21, 224-231.
14. Fattorini, S. (2011). Insect extinction by urbanization: A long term study in Rome. Biol. Conserv., 144, 370-375.
15. Freckleton, R.P., Cooper, N. & Jetz, W. (2011). Comparative Methods as a Statistical Fix: The Dangers of Ignoring an Evolutionary Model. Am. Nat., 178, E10-E17.
16. Godoy, O., Castro-Díez, P., Valladares, F. & Costa-Tenorio, M. (2009). Different flowering phenology of alien invasive species in Spain: evidence for the use of an empty temporal niche? Plant Biology, 11, 803-811.
17. Grime, J.P. (2006). Trait convergence and trait divergence in herbaceous plant communities: Mechanisms and consequences. J. Veg. Sci., 17, 255-260.
18. Hill, M.O., Roy, D.B. & Thompson, K. (2002). Hemeroby, urbanity and ruderality: bioindicators of disturbance and human impact. J. Appl. Ecol., 39, 708-720.
19. Hobbs, R.J., Arico, S., Aronson, J., Baron, J.S., Bridgewater, P., Cramer, V.A. et al. (2006). Novel ecosystems: theoretical and management aspects of the new ecological world order. Global Ecol. Biogeogr., 15, 1-7.
20. Hulme, P.E., Pyšek, P. & Duncan, R.P. (2011). Don't be fooled by a name: a reply to Thompson and Davis. Trends Ecol. Evol., 26, 318-318.
21. Jalas, J. (1955). Hemerobe und hemerochore Pflanzenarten. Ein terminologischer Reformversuch. Acta Soc. Fauna Flora Fenn., 72, 1-15.
22. van Kleunen, M., Manning, J.C., Pasqualetto, V. & Johnson, S.D. (2008). Phylogenetically independent associations between autonomous self-fertilization and plant invasiveness. Am. Nat., 171, 195-201.
23. van Kleunen, M., Dawson, W., Schlaepfer, D., Jeschke, J.M. & Fischer, M. (2010a). Are invaders different? A conceptual framework of comparative approaches for assessing determinants of invasiveness. Ecol. Lett., 13, 947-958.
24. van Kleunen, M., Weber, E. & Fischer, M. (2010b). A meta-analysis of trait differences between invasive and non-invasive plant species. Ecol. Lett., 13, 235-245.
25. van Kleunen, M., Dawson, W. & Dostal, P. (2011). Research on invasive-plant traits tells us a lot. Trends Ecol. Evol., 26, 317-317.
26. Klotz, S., Kühn, I. & Durka, W. (2002). BIOLFLOR - Eine Datenbank zu Biologisch-Ökologischen Merkmalen der Gefäßpflanzen in Deutschland. Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn.
27. Kowarik, I. (2005). Urban ornamentals escaped from cultivation. In: Crop Ferality and Volunteerism: A Threat to Food Security in Thetransgenic Era? (ed. Gressel, J.). Taylor & Francis Boca Raton, Fla., pp. 97-121.
28. Kühn, I. & Klotz, S. (2007). From ecosystem invasibility to local, regional and global patterns of invasive species. In: Biological Invasions (ed. Nentwig, W.). Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, pp. 181-196.
29. Kühn, I., Brandl, R. & Klotz, S. (2004a). The flora of German cities is naturally species rich. Evol. Ecol. Res., 6, 749-764.
30. Kühn, I., Durka, W. & Klotz, S. (2004b). BiolFlor - a new plant-trait database as a tool for plant invasion ecology. Divers. Distrib., 10, 363-365.
31. Küster, E.C., Kühn, I., Bruelheide, H. & Klotz, S. (2008). Trait interactions help explain plant invasion success in the German flora. J. Ecol., 96, 860-868.
32. Lachmuth, S., Durka, W. & Schurr, F.M. (2011). Differentiation of reproductive and competitive ability in the invaded range of Senecio inaequidens: the role of genetic Allee effects, adaptive and nonadaptive evolution. New Phytol., 192, 529-541.
33. Lambdon, P.W., Pyšek, P., Basnou, C., Hejda, M., Arianoutsou, M., Essl, F. et al. (2008). Alien flora of Europe: species diversity, temporal trends, geographical patterns and research needs. Preslia, 80, 101-149.
34. Lockwood, J.L., Hoopes, M.F. & Marchetti, M.P. (2011). Non-natives: plusses of invasion ecology. Nature, 475, 36-36.
35. MacArthur, R. & Levins, R. (1967). Limiting Similarity Convergence and Divergence of Coexisting Species. Am. Nat., 101, 377-385.
36. Paradis, E., Claude, J. & Strimmer, K. (2004). APE: analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Bioinformatics, 20, 289-290.
37. Pyšek, P. (1998). Alien and native species in Central European urban floras: a quantitative comparison. J. Biogeogr., 25, 155-163.
38. Pyšek, P., Jarošík, V., Chytrý, M., Danihelka, J., Kühn, I., Pergl, J. et al. (2011). Successful Invaders Co-opt Pollinators of Native Flora and Accumulate Insect Pollinators with Increasing Residence Time. Ecol. Monogr., 81, 277-293.
39. R Development Core Team (2011). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing Vienna, Austria.
40. Roelofs, J.G.M., Bobbink, R., Brouwer, E. & Degraaf, M.C.C. (1996). Restoration ecology of aquatic and terrestrial vegetation on non-calcareous sandy soils in The Netherlands. Acta Bot. Neerl., 45, 517-541.
41. Seppelt, R., Kühn, I., Klotz, S., Frank, K., Schloter, M., Auge, H. et al. (2009). Land Use Options - Strategies and Adaptation to Global Change Terrestrial Environmental Research. GAIA, 18, 77-80.
42. Sukopp, H. (1969). Der Einfluss des Menschen auf die Vegetation. Vegetatio, 17, 360-371.
43. Thompson, K. & Davis, M.A. (2011). Why research on traits of invasive plants tells us very little. Trends Ecol. Evol., 26, 155-156.
44. Thompson, K., Hodgson, J.G. & Rich, T.C.G. (1995). Native and alien invasive plants: More of the same? Ecography, 18, 390-402.
45. Vilà, M., Basnou, C., Pyšek, P., Josefsson, M., Genovesi, P., Gollasch, S. et al. (2010). How well do we understand the impacts of alien species on ecosystem services? A pan-European, cross-taxa assessment. Front. Ecol. Environ., 8, 135-144.
46. Weiher, E., Clarke, G.D.P. & Keddy, P.A. (1998). Community assembly rules, morphological dispersion, and the coexistence of plant species. Oikos, 81, 309-322.
47. Williamson, M. & Gaston, K.J. (1999). A simple transformation for sets of range sizes. Ecography, 22, 674-680.
48. Wittig, R., Diesing, D. & Gödde, M. (1985). Urbanophob Urbanoneutral Urbanophil - Behavior of Species Concerning the Urban Habitat. Flora, 177, 265-282.
49. Zobel, M. (1997). The relative role of species pools in determining plant species richness: an alternative explanation of species coexistence? Trends Ecol. Evol., 12, 266-269.