Biogeographical contrasts to assess local and regional patterns of invasion: A case study with two reciprocally introduced exotic maple trees

Ecography

Volumn 35, Issue 9, 2012, Pages 803-810

  Lamarque, Laurent J ^a,b   Delzon, Sylvain ^c   Sloan, Margaret H ^a   Lortie, Christopher J ^a  

^a YORK UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DE BORDEAUX   (France)

^c UMR 1202 BIOGECO   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ABUNDANCE; AGE STRUCTURE; BIOLOGICAL INVASION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DECIDUOUS TREE; DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY; DISPERSAL; GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION; HABITAT CORRIDOR; INVASIVE SPECIES; NATIVE SPECIES; PHYTOGEOGRAPHY; POPULATION DENSITY; RANGE SIZE; RECRUITMENT (POPULATION DYNAMICS); RIPARIAN FOREST;

CANADA; FRANCE; ONTARIO [CANADA];

ACER; ACER NEGUNDO; ACER PLATANOIDES;

EID: 84863475547     PISSN: 09067590     EISSN: 16000587     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2011.07300.x     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Adams J. M. et al. 2009. A cross-continental test of the enemy release hypothesis: leaf herbivory on Acer platanoides (L.) is three times lower in North America than in its native Europe. Biol. Invasions 11: 1005-1016.
2. Beckmann M. 2009. A comparison of native and invasive populations of three clonal plant species in Germany and New Zealand. J. Biogeogr. 36: 865-878.
3. Bertin R. I. 2005. Norway maple (Acer platanoides) and other non-native trees in urban woodlands of central Massachusetts. J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 132: 225-235.
4. Brooker R. W. and Kikividze Z. 2008. Importance: an overlooked concept in plant interaction research. J. Ecol. 96: 703-708.
5. Byth K. 1982. On robust distance-based intensity estimators. Biometrics 38: 127-135.
6. Chapin F. S. 2000. Consequences of changing biodiversity. Nature 405: 234-242.
7. Colautti R. I. and MacIsaac H. J. 2004. A neutral terminology to define 'invasive' species. Divers. Distrib. 10: 135-141.
8. Crawley M. J. 1987. What makes a community invasible? - In: Gray A. J. et al.(eds), Colonization, succession, and stability. Blackwell, pp. 429-453.
9. Dunster K. 1990. Exotic plant species management plan, Point Pelee National Park. Report prepared for Parks Canada, Ontario Region.
10. Ebeling S. K. 2008. The invasive shrub Buddleja davidii performs better in its introduced range. Divers. Distrib. 14: 225-233.
11. Elton C. S. 1958. The ecology of invasions by animals and plants. - Methuen Publishing.
12. Erfmeier A. and Bruelheide B. 2004. Comparison of native and invasive Rhododendron ponticum populations: growth, reproduction and morphology under field conditions. Flora 199: 120-133.
13. Erfmeier A. and Bruelheide H. 2005. Invasive and native Rhododendron ponticum populations: is there evidence for genotypic differences in germination and growth? Ecography 28: 417-428.
14. Fang W. 2005. Spatial analysis of an invasion front of Acer platanoides: dynamic inferences from static data. Ecography 28: 283-294.
15. Firn J. 2011. Abundance of introduced species at home predicts abundance away in herbaceous communities. Ecol. Lett. 14: 274-281.
16. Foster B. L. 2002. Invasibility and compositional stability in a grassland community: relationships to diversity and extrinsic factors. Oikos 99: 300-307.
17. Gomez-Aparicio L. 2008. Neighbourhood models of the effects of the invasive Acer platanoides on tree seedling dynamics: linking impacts on communities and ecosystems. J. Ecol. 96: 78-90.
18. Grigulis K. 2001. The comparative demography of the pasture weed Echium plantagineum between its native and invaded ranges. J. Appl. Ecol. 38: 281-290.
19. Herrera A. M. 2011. Introduced populations of Genista monspessulana (French broom) are more dense and produce a greater seed rain in California, USA, than native populations in the Mediterranean Basin of Europe. Biol. Invasions 13: 369-380.
20. Hierro J. L. 2005. A biogeographical approach to plant invasions: the importance of studying exotics in their introduced and native range. J. Ecol. 93: 5-15.
21. Hinz H. L. and Schwarzlaender M. 2004. Comparing invasive plants from their native and exotic range: what can we learn for biological control? Weed Technol. 18: 1533-1541.
22. Inderjit 2005. Plant invasions: habitat invasibility and dominance of invasive plant species. Plant Soil 277: 1-5.
23. Jakobs G. 2004. Introduced plants of the invasive Solidago gigantea (Asteraceae) are larger and grow denser than conspeci fics in the native range. Divers. Distrib. 10: 11-19.
24. Jones C. G. 1994. Organisms as ecosystem engineers. Oikos 69: 373-386.
25. Keane R. M. and Crawley M. J. 2002. Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17: 164-170.
26. Knight K. S. and Reich P. B. 2005. Opposite relationships between invasibility and native species richness at patch versus landscape scales. Oikos 109: 81-88.
27. Kowarik I. and Säumel I. 2008. Water dispersal as an additional pathway to invasions by the primarily wind-dispersed tree Ailanthus altissima. Plant Ecol. 198: 241-252.
28. Krebs C. J. 1999. Ecological methodology, 2nd ed. - Exeter Software.
29. Kuhman T. R. 2010. Effects of land-use history and the contemporary landscape on non-native plant invasion at local and regional scales in the forest-dominated southern Appalachians. Landscape Ecol. 25: 1433-1445.
30. Larson D. W. 1996. Brown's Woods: an early gravel pit forest restoration project, Ontario, Canada. Restor. Ecol. 4: 11-18.
31. Levine J. M. 2000. Species diversity and biological invasions: relating local process to community pattern. Science 288: 852-854.
32. Mack R. N. 2000. Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol. Appl. 10: 689-710.
33. Martin P. H. 1999. Norway maple (Acer platanoides) invasion of a natural forest stand: understory consequence and regeneration pattern. Biol. Invasions 1: 215-222.
34. Martin P. H. and Marks P. L. 2006. Intact forests provide only weak resistance to a shade-tolerant invasive Norway maple (Acer platanoides L.). J. Ecol. 94: 1070-1079.
35. Martin P. H. and Canham C. D. 2010. Dispersal and recruitment limitation in native versus exotic tree species: life-history strategies and Janzen-Connell effects. Oikos 119: 807-824.
36. Martin P. H. 2009. Why forests appear resistant to exotic plant invasions: intentional introductions, stand dynamics, and the role of shade tolerance. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7: 142-149.
37. Medrzycki P. 2007. Invasive alien species fact sheet -Acer negundo. Online Database of the North European and Baltic Network on Invasive Alien Species - NOBANIS.
38. Morrison J. A. and Mauck K. 2007. Experimental field compa rison of native and non-native maple seedlings: natural enemies, ecophysiology, growth and survival. J. Ecol. 95: 1036-1049.
39. Nowak D. J. and Rowntree R. A. 1990. History and range of Norway maple. J. Arboric. 16: 291-296.
40. Pauchard A. and Shea K. 2006. Integrating the study of non-native plant invasions across spatial scales. Biol. Invasions 8: 399-413.
41. Paynter Q. 2003. Age structure and growth of the woody legume weed Cytisus scoparius in native and exotic habitats: implications for control. J. Appl. Ecol. 40: 470-480.
42. Pergl J. 2006. Population age structure and reproductive behavior of the monocarpic perennial Heracleum mantegazzianum (Apiaceae) in its native and invaded distribution ranges. Am. J. Bot. 93: 1018-1028.
43. Pysek P. and Prach K. 1993. Plant invasions and the role of riparian habitats: a comparison of 4 species alien to central Europe. J. Biogeogr. 20: 413-420.
44. Pysek P. and Hulme P. E. 2005. Spatio-temporal dynamics of plant invasions: linking pattern to process. Ecoscience 12: 302-315.
45. Pysek P. 2004. Trends in species diversity and composition of urban vegetation over three decades. J. Veg. Sci. 15: 781-788.
46. Reinhart K. O. and Callaway R. M. 2004. Soil biota facilitate exotic Acer invasions in Europe and North America. Ecol. Appl. 14: 1737-1745.
47. Reinhart K. O. 2003. Plant-soil biota interactions and spatial distribution of black cherry in its native and invasive ranges. Ecol. Lett. 6: 1046-1050.
48. Reinhart K. O. 2005. Effects of Acer platanoides invasion on understory plant communities and tree regeneration in the northern Rocky Mountains. Ecography 28: 573-582.
49. Reinhart K. O. 2006. Facilitation and inhibition of seedlings of an invasive tree (Acer platanoides) by different tree species in a mountain ecosystem. Biol. Invasions 8: 231-240.
50. Rejmanek M. and Richardson D. M. 1996. What attributes make some plant species more invasive? Ecology 77: 1655-1661.
51. Richardson D. M. 1998. Forestry trees as invasive aliens. Conserv. Biol. 12: 18-26.
52. Richardson D. M. and Pysek P. 2006. Plant invasions: merging the concepts of species invasiveness and community invasibility. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 30: 409-431.
53. Richardson D. M. et al. 2000. Naturalization and invasion of alien plants: concepts and definitions. Divers. Distrib. 6: 93-107.
54. Rogers W. E. and Siemann E. 2005. Herbivory tolerance and compensatory differences in native and invasive ecotypes of Chinese tallow tree (Sapium sebiferum). Plant. Ecol. 181: 57-68.
55. Saccone P. 2010a. Challenging growth-survival trade-off: a key for Acer negundo invasion in European floodplains? Can. J. For. Res. 40: 1879-1886.
56. Saccone P. 2010b. Acer negundo invasion along a successional gradient: early direct facilitation by native pioneers and late indirect facilitation by conspecifics. New Phytol. 187: 831-842.
57. Sakai A. K. 2001. The population biology of invasive species. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 32: 305-332.
58. Säumel I. and Kowarik I. 2010. Urban rivers as dispersal corridors for primarily wind-dispersed invasive tree species. Landscape Urban Plann. 94: 244-249.
59. Spongberg S. A. 1990. A reunion of trees. - Harvard Univ. Press.
60. Steinke I. and Hennenberg K. J. 2006. On the power of plotless density estimators for statistical comparisons of plant populations. Can. J. Bot. 84: 421-432.
61. Stohlgren T. J. 2002. Assessing vulnerability to invasion by nonnative plant species at multiple spatial scales. Environ. Manage. 29: 566-577.
62. Tabacchi E. and Planty-Tabacchi A. M. 2003. Recent changes in riparian vegetation: possible consequences on dead wood processing along rivers. River Res. Appl. 19: 251-263.
63. Tilman D. 1997. Community invasibility, recruitment limitation, and grassland biodiversity. Ecology 78: 81-92.
64. Valery L. 2008. In search of a real definition of the biological invasion phenomenon itself. Biol. Invasions 10: 1345-1351.
65. Vila M. 2005. Evidence for the enemy release hypothesis in Hypericum perforatum. Oecologia 142: 474-479.
66. Vitousek P. M. 1996. Biological invasions as global environmental change. Am. Sci. 84: 468-478.
67. Von Holle B. 2005. Biotic resistance to invader establishment of a southern Appalachian plant community is determined by environmental conditions. J. Ecol. 93: 16-26.
68. Wangen S. R. and Webster C. R. 2006. Potential for multiple lag phases during biotic invasions: reconstructing an invasion of the exotic tree Acer platanoides. J. Appl. Ecol. 43: 258-268.
69. Webb S. L. and Kaunzinger C. K. 1993. Biological invasion of the Drew-University (New-Jersey) Forest Preserve by Norway maple (Acer platanoides L.). Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 120: 343-349.
70. Webster C. R. 2005. Stand dynamics of an insular population of an invasive tree, Acer platanoides. For. Ecol. Manage. 208: 85-99.
71. Williams J. L. 2008. Different gardens, different results: native and introduced populations exhibit contrasting phenotypes across common gardens. Oecologia 157: 239-248.
72. Wilson J. R. U. 2009. Biogeographic concepts define invasion biology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24: 586-586.
73. Wilson M. V. 2007. Measuring the components of competition along productivity gradients. J. Ecol. 95: 301-308.
74. Wolfe L. M. 2002. Why alien invaders succeed: support for the escape-from-enemy hypothesis. Am. Nat. 160: 705-711.
75. Wyckoff P. H. and Webb S. L. 1996. Understory influence of the invasive Norway maple (Acer platanoides). Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 123: 197-205.
76. Zobel M. 2006. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: it is time for dispersal experiments. J. Veg. Sci. 17: 543-547.