Do invasive species perform better in their new ranges?

Ecology

Volumn 94, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 985-994

  Parker, John D ^a   Torchin, Mark E ^b   Hufbauer, Ruth A ^c   Lemoine, Nathan P ^d   Alba, Christina ^e   Blumenthal, Dana M ^f   Bossdorf, Oliver ^g   Byers, James E ^h   Dunn, Alison M ⁱ   Heckman, Robert W ^j   Hejda, Martin ^e   Jarošík, Vojtěch ^e,k   Kanarek, Andrew R ^l   Martin, Lynn B ^m   Perkins, Sarah E ⁿ   Pyšek, Petr ^e,k   Schierenbeck, Kristina ^o   Schlöder, Carmen ^b   Van Klinken, Rieks ^p   Vaughn, Kurt J ^q   Williams, Wyatt ^c,s   Wolfe, Lorne M ^r   more..

^a SMITHSONIAN ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER   (United States)

^b SMITHSONIAN TROPICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Panama)

^c Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences   (United States)

^d FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e INSTITUTE OF BOTANY   (Czech Republic)

^f AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

^h UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

^j UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^k CHARLES UNIVERSITY   (Czech Republic)

^l UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE   (United States)

^m UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

ⁿ CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^o CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^p CSIRO   (Australia)

^q Landowner Stewardship Program Audubon California   (United States)

^r GEORGIA SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^s OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

Animal invasion; Biogeography; Comparative demography; Invasion paradox; Invasive species; plant invasion

Indexed keywords

ABUNDANCE; BIOGEOGRAPHY; BIOLOGICAL INVASION; CONSPECIFIC; DEMOGRAPHY; EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; HOME RANGE; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; INVASIVE SPECIES;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; CLASSIFICATION; DEMOGRAPHY; ECOSYSTEM; INTRODUCED SPECIES; PLANT;

ANIMALS; BAYES THEOREM; DEMOGRAPHY; ECOSYSTEM; INTRODUCED SPECIES; PLANTS;

EID: 84878102864     PISSN: 00129658     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1890/12-1810.1     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Adams, J. M., W. Fang, R. M. Callaway, D. Cipollini, and E. Newell. 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. Biological Invasions 11:1005-1016.
2. Alba, C., and R. Hufbauer. 2012. Exploring the potential for climatic factors, herbivory, and co-occurring vegetation to shape performance in native and introduced populations of Verbascum thapsus. Biological Invasions 14:2505-2518.
3. Blackburn, T. M., P. Pyšek, S. Bacher, J. T. Carlton, R. P. Duncan, V. Jarošík, J. R. U. Wilson, and D. M. Richardson. 2011. A proposed unified framework for biological invasions. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 26:333-339.
4. Blakeslee, A. M. H., C. L. Keogh, J. E. Byers, A. M. Kuris, K. D. Lafferty, and M. E. Torchin. 2009. Differential escape from parasites by two competing introduced crabs. Marine Ecology-Progress Series 393:83-96.
5. Blossey, B., and R. Nötzold. 1995. Evolution of increased competitive ability in invasive nonindigenous plants-a hypothesis. Journal of Ecology 83:887-889.
6. Bossdorf, O., H. Auge, L. Lafuma, W. E. Rogers, E. Siemann, and D. Prati. 2005. Phenotypic and genetic differentiation between native and introduced plant populations. Oecologia 144:1-11.
7. Bradshaw, A. D. 1972. Some of the evolutionary consequences of being a plant. Evolutionary Biology 5:25-47.
8. Callaway, R. M., and W. M. Ridenour. 2004. Novel weapons: invasive success and the evolution of increased competitive ability. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2:436-443.
9. Chrobock, T., A. Kempel, M. Fischer, and M. van Kleunen. 2011. Introduction bias: Cultivated alien plant species germinate faster and more abundantly than native species in Switzerland. Basic and Applied Ecology 12:244-250.
10. Conlon, E. M., J. J. Song, and A. Liu. 2007. Bayesian metaanalysis models for microarray data: a comparative study. BMC Bioinformatics 8:1-21.
11. Cooling, M., S. Hartley, D. A. Sim, and P. J. Lester. 2012. The widespread collapse of an invasive species: Argentine ants (Linepithema humile) in New Zealand. Biology Letters 8:430-433.
12. Crawley, M. J. 1987. What makes a community invasible? Pages 429-453 in A. J. Gray, M. J. Crawley, and P. J. Edwards, editors. Colonization, succession, and stability. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.
13. Ellstrand, N. C., and K. A. Schierenbeck. 2000. Hybridization as a stimulus for the evolution of invasiveness in plants? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 97: 7043-7050.
14. Facon, B., R. A. Hufbauer, A. Tayeh, A. Loiseau, E. Lombaert, R. Vitalis, T. Guillemaud, J. G. Lundgren, and A. Estoup. 2011. Inbreeding depression is purged in the invasive insect Harmonia axyridis. Current Biology 21:424-427.
15. Firn, J., et al. 2011. Abundance of introduced species at home predicts abundance away in herbaceous communities. Ecology Letters 14:274-281.
16. Freeland, W. J. 1990. Large herbivorous mammals: exotic species in Northern Australia. Journal of Biogeography 17: 445-449.
17. Gelman, A., and J. Hill. 2007. Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
18. Grigulis, K., A. W. Sheppard, J. E. Ash, and R. H. Groves. 2001. The comparative demography of the pasture weed Echium plantagineum between its native and invaded ranges. Journal of Applied Ecology 38:281-290.
19. Grosholz, E. D., and G. M. Ruiz. 2003. Biological invasions drive size increases in marine and estuarine invertebrates. Ecology Letters 6:700-705.
20. Gurevitch, J., G. A. Fox, G. M. Wardle, Inderjit, and D. Taub. 2011. Emergent insights from the synthesis of conceptual frameworks for biological invasions. Ecology Letters 14:407-418.
21. Harper, J. L. 1977. Population biology of plants. Academic Press, New York, New York, USA.
22. Hawkes, C. V. 2007. Are invaders moving targets? The generality and persistence of advantages in size, reproduction, and enemy release in invasive plant species with time since introduction. American Naturalist 170:832-843.
23. Herrera, A. M., R. I. Carruthers, and N. J. Mills. 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. Biological Invasions 13:369-380.
24. Hierro, J. L., J. L. Maron, and R. M. Callaway. 2005. A biogeographical approach to plant invasions: the importance of studying exotics in their introduced and native range. Journal of Ecology 93:5-15.
25. Hinz, H. L., and M. Schwarzlaender. 2004. Comparing invasive plants from their native and exotic range: What can we learn for biological control? Weed Technology 18:1533-1541.
26. Hinz, H. L., M. Schwarzlaender, J. L. McKenney, M. G. Cripps, B. Harmon, and W. J. Price. 2012. Biogeographical comparison of the invasive Lepidium draba in its native, expanded and introduced ranges. Biological Invasions 14: 1999-2016.
27. Hufbauer, R., and M. Torchin. 2007. Integrating ecological and evolutionary theory of biological invasions. Pages 79-96 in W. Nentwig, editor. Biological invasions: ecological studies 193. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany
28. Jakobs, G., E. Weber, and P. J. Edwards. 2004. Introduced plants of the invasive Solidago gigantea (Asteraceae) are larger and grow denser than conspecifics in the native range. Diversity and Distributions 10:11-19.
29. Jeschke, J. M., and D. L. Strayer. 2005. Invasion success of vertebrates in Europe and North America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 102:7198-7202.
30. Lamarque, L. J., S. Delzon, M. H. Sloan, and C. J. Lortie. 2012. Biogeographical contrasts to assess local and regional patterns of invasion: a case study with two reciprocally introduced exotic maple trees. Ecography 35:803-810.
31. Lind, E. M., and J. D. Parker. 2010. Novel weapons testing: Are invasive plants more chemically defended than native plants? PLoS One 5.
32. Lowe, S., M. Browne, S. Boudjelas, and M. DePoorter. 2004. 100 of the world's worst invasive alien species: selection from the Global Invasive Species Database. In T. I. S. S. Group, editor. Species Survival Commission of the World Conservation Union. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
33. Mack, R. N. 2000. Cultivation fosters plant naturalization by reducing environmental stochasticity. Biological Invasions 2: 111-122.
34. 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.
35. Miller, A. W., C. L. Hewitt, and G. M. Ruiz. 2002. Invasion success: does size really matter? Ecology Letters 5:159-162.
36. Mitchell, C. E., D. Blumenthal, V. Jarošík, E. E. Puckett, and P. Pyšek. 2010. Controls on pathogen species richness in plants' introduced and native ranges: roles of residence time, range size and host traits. Ecology Letters 13:1525-1535.
37. Mitchell, C. E., and A. G. Power. 2003. Release of invasive plants from fungal and viral pathogens. Nature 421:625-627.
38. Parker, I. M., et al. 1999. Impact: toward a framework for understanding the ecological effects of invaders. Biological Invasions 1:3-19.
39. Parker, J. D., D. E. Burkepile, and M. E. Hay. 2006. Opposing effects of native and exotic herbivores on plant invasions. Science 311:1459-1461.
40. Plummer, M. 2012. Bayesian graphical models using MCMC. Page Interface to the JAGS MCMC library, CRAN. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
41. Prati, D., and O. Bossdorf. 2004. A comparison of native and introduced populations of the African Ragwort Senecio inaequidens D.C. in the field. Pages 353-359 in S. Breckle, B.
42. Pyšek, P., and V. Jarošík. 2005. Residence time determines the distribution of alien plants. Pages 77-96 in Inderjit, editor. Invasive plants: ecological and agricultural aspects. Birkhäuser Verlag-AG, Basel, Switzerland.
43. Pyšek, P., V. Jarošík, and J. Pergl. 2011. Alien plants introduced by different pathways differ in invasion success: unintentional introductions as a threat to natural areas. PLoS One 6:e24890.
44. Pyšek, P., and D. M. Richardson. 2007. Traits associated with invasiveness in alien plants: where do we stand?. Pages 97-125 in W. Nentwig, editor. Biological invasions. Springer, New York, New York, USA.
45. Randall, R. 2002. A global compendium of weeds. Meredith, Australia.
46. Richardson, D. M., N. Allsopp, C. M. D'Antonio, S. J. Milton, and M. Rejmanek. 2000a. Plant invasions-the role of mutualisms. Biological Reviews 75:65-93.
47. Richardson, D. M., P. Pyšek, M. Rejmanek, 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.
48. Simberloff, D., and B. Von Holle. 1999. Positive interactions of nonindigenous species: invasional meltdown? Biological Invasions 1:21-32.
49. Stastny, M., U. Schaffner, and E. Elle. 2005. Do vigour of introduced populations and escape from specialist herbivores contribute to invasiveness? Journal of Ecology 93:27-37.
50. Sutton, A. J., and K. R. Abrams. 2001. Bayesian methods in meta-analysis and evidence synthesis. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 10:277-303.
51. Thébaud, C., and D. Simberloff. 2001. Are plants really larger in their introduced ranges? American Naturalist 157:231-236.
52. Torchin, M. E., K. D. Lafferty, A. P. Dobson, V. J. McKenzie, and A. M. Kuris. 2003. Introduced species and their missing parasites. Nature 421:628-630.
53. Torchin, M. E., K. D. Lafferty, and A. M. Kuris. 2001. Release from parasites as natural enemies: increased performance of a globally introduced marine crab. Biological Invasions 3:333-345.
54. van Kleunen, M., W. Dawson, D. Schlaepfer, J. M. Jeschke, and M. Fischer. 2010a. Are invaders different? A conceptual framework of comparative approaches for assessing determinants of invasiveness. Ecology Letters 13:947-958.
55. van Kleunen, M., E. Weber, and M. Fischer. 2010b. A metaanalysis of trait differences between invasive and noninvasive plant species. Ecology Letters 13:235-245.
56. Vila, M., J. L. Maron, and L. Marco. 2005. Evidence for the enemy release hypothesis in Hypericum perforatum. Oecologia 142:474-479.