Meta-analysis reveals evolution in invasive plant species but little support for Evolution of Increased Competitive Ability (EICA)

Ecology and Evolution

Volumn 3, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 739-751

  Felker Quinn, Emmi ^a   Schweitzer, Jennifer A ^a   Bailey, Joseph K ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE   (United States)

Author keywords

Defense tradeoffs; Evolution of increased competitive ability (EICA); Herbivory; Introduced range; Invasive plant species; Plant defense; Rapid evolution; Selective agents

Indexed keywords

EID: 84886264540     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20457758     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ece3.488     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. Abhilasha, D., and J. Joshi 2009. Enhanced fitness due to higher fecundity, increased defence against a specialist and tolerance towards a generalist herbivore in an invasive annual plant. J. Plant Ecol. UK 2:77-86.
2. Agrawal, A. A., A. P. Hastings, M. T. J. Johnson, J. L. Maron, and J.-P. Salminen 2012. Insect Herbivores Drive Real-Time Ecological and Evolutionary Change in Plant Populations. Science 338:113-116.
3. Alexander, J. M., P. J. Edwards, M. Poll, C. G. Parks, and H. Dietz 2009. Establishment of parallel altitudinal clines in traits of native and introduced forbs. Ecology 90:612-622.
4. Allan, E., and J. R. Pannell 2009. Rapid divergence in physiological and life-history traits between northern and southern populations of the British introduced neo-species, Senecio squalidus. Oikos 118:1053-1061.
5. Alvarez, N., C. Thiel-Egenter, A. Tribsch, R. Holderegger, S. Manel, P. Schoenswetter, et al. 2009. History or ecology? Substrate type as a major driver of patial genetic structure in Alpine plants Ecol. Lett. 12:632-640.
6. Barto, E. K., and M. C. Rillig 2012. Dissemination biases in ecology: effect sizes matter more than quality. Oikos 121:228-235.
7. Beaumont, M. A., and D. J. Balding 2004. Identifying adaptive genetic divergence among populations from genome scans. Mol. Ecol. 13:969-980.
8. Blair, A. C., and L. M. Wolfe 2004. The evolution of an invasive plant: An experimental study with Silene latifolia. Ecology 85:3035-3042.
9. Blossey, B., and R. Nötzold 1995. Evolution of increased competitive ability in invasive nonindigenous plants: a hypothesis. J. Ecol. 83:3.
10. Blumenthal, D. M., and R. A. Hufbauer 2007. Increased plant size in exotic populations: a common-garden test with 14 invasive species. Ecology 88:2758-2765.
11. Bossdorf, O., D. Prati, H. Auge, and B. Schmid 2004. Reduced competitive ability in an invasive plant. Ecol. Lett. 7:346-353.
12. 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.
13. Bossdorf, O., A. Lipowsky, and D. Prati 2008. Selection of preadapted populations allowed Senecio inaequidens to invade Central Europe. Divers. Distrib. 14:676-685.
14. Buschmann, H., P. J. Edwards, and H. Dietz 2005. Variation in growth pattern and response to slug damage among native and invasive provenances of four perennial Brassicaceae species. J. Ecol. 93:322-334.
15. Buswell, J. M., A. T. Moles, and S. Hartley 2011. Is rapid evolution common in introduced plant species? J. Ecol. 99:214-224.
16. Callaway, R. M., W. M. Ridenour, T. Laboski, T. Weir, and J. M. Vivanco 2005. Natural selection for resistance to the allelopathic effects of invasive plants. J. Ecol. 93:576-583.
17. Catford, J. A., R. Jansson, and C. Nilsson 2009. Reducing redundancy in invasion ecology by integrating hypotheses into a single theoretical framework. Divers. Distrib. 15:22-40.
18. Cipollini, D., J. Mbagwu, K. Barto, C. Hillstrom, and S. Enright 2005. Expression of constitutive and inducible chemical defenses in native and invasive populations of Alliaria petiolata. J. Chem. Ecol. 31:1255-1267.
19. Colautti, R. I., J. L. Maron, and S. C. H. Barrett 2009. Common garden comparisons of native and introduced plant populations: latitudinal clines can obscure evolutionary inferences. Evol. Appl. 2:187-199.
20. Coley, P. D., J. P. Bryant, and F. S. Chapin 1985. Resource availability and plant antiherbivore defense. Science 230:895-899.
21. Conner, J. K., and D. L. Hartl 2004. A primer of ecological genetics. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.
22. Cripps, M. G., H. L. Hinz, J. L. McKenney, W. J. Price, and M. Schwarzlander 2009. No evidence for an 'evolution of increased competitive ability' for the invasive Lepidium draba. Basic Appl. Ecol. 10:103-112.
23. Doorduin, L., and K. Vrieling 2011. A review of the phytochemical support for the shifting defence hypothesis. Phytochem. Rev. 10:99-106.
24. Durka, W., O. Bossdorf, D. Prati, and H. Auge 2005. Molecular evidence for multiple introductions of garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata, Brassicaceae) to North America. Mol. Ecol. 14:1697-1706.
25. Ehrenfeld, J. G. 2003. Effects of exotic plant invasions on soil nutrient cycling processes. Ecosystems 6:503-523.
26. Eigenbrode, S. D., J. E. Andreas, M. G. Cripps, H. Ding, R. C. Biggam, and M. Schwarzlander 2008. Induced chemical defenses in invasive plants: a case study with Cynoglossum officinale L. Biol. Invasions 10:1373-1379.
27. Felker-Quinn, E., J. K. Bailey, and J. A. Schweitzer 2011. Soil biota drive expression of genetic variation and development of population-specific feedbacks in an invasive plant. Ecology 92:1208-1214.
28. Franks, S. J., P. D. Pratt, F. A. Dray, and E. L. Simms 2008. No evolution of increased competitive ability or decreased allocation to defense in Melaleuca quinquenervia since release from natural enemies. Biol. Invasions 10:455-466.
29. Franks, S. J., G. S. Wheeler, and C. Goodnight 2012. Genetic variation and evolution of secondary compounds in native and introduced populations of the invasive plant Melaleuca quinquenervia. Evolution 66:1398-1412.
30. Grotkopp, E., M. Rejmanek, and T. L. Rost 2002. Toward a causal explanation of plant invasiveness: seedling growth and life-history strategies of 29 pine (Pinus) species. Am. Nat. 159:396-419.
31. Guesewell, S., G. Jakobs, and E. Weber 2006. Native and introduced populations of Solidago gigantea differ in shoot production but not in leaf traits or litter decomposition. Funct. Ecol. 20:575-584.
32. Haider, S., C. Kueffer, P. J. Edwards, and J. M. Alexander 2012. Genetically based differentiation in growth of multiple non-native plant species along a steep environmental gradient. Oecologia 170:89-99.
33. Handley, R. J., T. Steinger, U. A. Treier, and H. Müller-Schärer 2008. Testing the evolution of increased competitive ability (EICA) hypothesis in a novel framework. Ecology 89:407-417.
34. He, W. M., Y. L. Feng, W. M. Ridenour, G. C. Thelen, J. L. Pollock, A. Diaconu, et al. 2009. Novel weapons and invasion: biogeographic differences in the competitive effects of Centaurea maculosa and its root exudate (+/-)-catechin. Oecologia 159:803-815.
35. Hinz, H. L., and M. Schwarzlaender 2004. Comparing invasive plants from their native and exotic range: what can we learn for biological Control? Weed Technol. 18:1533-1541.
36. Hornoy, B., M. Tarayre, M. Herve, L. Gigord, and A. Atlan (2011). Invasive Plants and Enemy Release: evolution of Trait Means and Trait Correlations in Ulex europaeus. PLoS ONE 6:2675
37. Huang, W., E. Siemann, G. S. Wheeler, J. W. Zou, J. Carrillo, and J. Q. Ding 2010. Resource allocation to defence and growth are driven by different responses to generalist and specialist herbivory in an invasive plant. J. Ecology 98:1157-1167.
38. Hull-Sanders, H. M., R. Clare, R. H. Johnson, and G. A. Meyer 2007. Evaluation of the evolution of increased competitive ability (EICA) hypothesis: loss of defense against generalist but not specialist herbivores. J. Chem. Ecol. 33:781-799.
39. Integrated Taxonomic Information System. Available at: http://www.itis.gov, (accessed 15 December 2012).
40. Johnson, R. H., H. M. Hull-Sanders, and G. A. Meyer 2007. Comparison of foliar terpenes between native and invasive Solidago gigantea. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 35:821-830.
41. Joshi, J., and K. Vrieling 2005. The enemy release and EICA hypothesis revisited: incorporating the fundamental difference between specialist and generalist herbivores. Ecol. Lett. 8:704-714.
42. Kawakami, T., T. J. Morgan, J. B. Nippert, T. W. Ocheltree, R. Keith, P. Dhakal, et al. 2011. Natural selection drives clinal life history patterns in the perennial sunflower species, Helianthus maximiliani. Mol. Ecol. 20:2318-2328.
43. Keller, S. R., and D. R. Taylor 2008. History, chance and adaptation during biological invasion: separating stochastic phenotypic evolution from response to selection. Ecol. Lett. 11:852-866.
44. van Kleunen, M., and M. Fischer 2008. Adaptive rather than non-adaptive evolution of Mimulus guttatus in its invasive range. Basic Appl. Ecol. 9:213-223.
45. van Kleunen, M., and B. Schmid 2003. No evidence for an evolutionary increased competitive ability in an invasive plant. Ecology 84:2816-2823.
46. Kollmann, J., and M. J. Banuelos 2004. Latitudinal trends in growth and phenology of the invasive alien plant Impatiens glandulifera (Balsaminaceae). Divers. Distrib. 10:377-385.
47. Koricheva, J., H. Nykanen, and E. Gianoli 2004. Meta-analysis of trade-offs among plant antiherbivore defenses: are plants jacks-of-all-trades, masters of all? Am. Nat. 163:E64-E75.
48. Lajeunesse, M. J. 2010. Achieving synthesis with meta-analysis by combining and comparing all available studies. Ecology 91:2561-2564.
49. Lankau, R. A., V. Nuzzo, G. Spyreas, and A. S. Davis 2009. Evolutionary limits ameliorate the negative impact of an invasive plant. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 106:15362-15367.
50. Lee, C. E. 2002. Evolutionary genetics of invasive species. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17:386-391.
51. Lloret, F., F. Medail, G. Brundu, I. Camarda, E. Moragues, J. Rita, et al. 2005. Species attributes and invasion success by alien plants on Mediterranean islands. J. Ecol. 93:512-520.
52. Macel, M., C. S. Lawson, S. R. Mortimer, M. Smilauerova, A. Bischoff, L. Cremieux, et al. 2007. Climate vs. soil factors in local adaptation of two common plant species. Ecology 88:424-433.
53. Maron, J. L., M. Vila, and J. Arnason 2004a. Loss of enemy resistance among introduced populations of St. John's Wort (Hypericum perforatum). Ecology 85:3243-3253.
54. Maron, J. L., M. Vila, R. Bommarco, S. Elmendorf, and P. Beardsley 2004b. Rapid evolution of an invasive plant. Ecol. Monogr. 74:261-280.
55. McDowell, S. C. L. 2002. Photosynthetic characteristics of invasive and noninvasive species of Rubus (Rosaceae). Am. J. Bot. 89:1431-1438.
56. McKenney, J. L., M. G. Cripps, W. J. Price, H. L. Hinz, and M. Schwarzlander 2007. No difference in competitive ability between invasive North American and native European Lepidium draba populations. Plant Ecol. 193:293-303.
57. Meyer, G., R. Clare, and E. Weber 2005. An experimental test of the evolution of increased competitive ability hypothesis in goldenrod, Solidago gigantea. Oecologia 144:299-307.
58. Muller, C., and N. Martens 2005. Testing predictions of the 'evolution of increased competitive ability' hypothesis for an invasive crucifer. Evol. Ecol. 19:533-550.
59. Müller-Schärer, H., U. Schaffner, and T. Steinger 2004. Evolution in invasive plants: implications for biological control. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19:417-422.
60. Pattison, R. R., G. Goldstein, and A. Ares 1998. Growth, biomass allocation and photosynthesis of invasive and native Hawaiian rainforest species. Oecologia 117:449-459.
61. Pregitzer, C., J. Bailey, S. Hart, and J. Schweitzer 2010. Soils as agents of selection: feedbacks between plants and soils alter seedling survival and performance. Evol. Ecol. 24:1045-1059.
62. Prentis, P. J., J. R. U. Wilson, E. E. Dormontt, D. M. Richardson, and A. J. Lowe 2008. Adaptive evolution in invasive species. Trends Plant Sci. 13:288-294.
63. Ridenour, W. M., J. M. Vivanco, Y. L. Feng, J. Horiuchi, and R. M. Callaway 2008. No evidence for trade-offs: Centaurea plants from America are better competitors and defenders. Ecol. Monogr. 78:369-386.
64. Rosenberg, M. S., D. C. Adams, and J. Gurevitch. (2011) Metawin Home Page. Available at: http://www.metawinsoft.com (accessed 01 July 2012).
65. Rosenthal, R. 1979. The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychol. Bull. 86:638-641.
66. Schweitzer, J. A., J. K. Bailey, B. J. Rehill, G. D. Martinsen, S. C. Hart, R. L. Lindroth, et al. 2004. Genetically based trait in a dominant tree affects ecosystem processes. Ecol. Lett. 7:127-134.
67. Smith, M. D., and A. K. Knapp 2001. Physiological and morphological traits of exotic, invasive exotic, and native plant species in tallgrass prairie. Int. J. Plant Sci. 162:785-792.
68. Stastny, M., U. Schaffner, and E. Elle 2005. Do vigour of introduced populations and escape from specialist herbivores contribute to invasiveness? J. Ecol. 93:27-37.
69. Stinchcombe, J. R., and H. E. Hoekstra 2007. Combining population genomics and quantitative genetics: finding the genes underlying ecologically important traits. Heredity 100:158-170.
70. Thebaud, C., and D. Simberloff 2001. Are plants really larger in their introduced ranges? Am. Nat. 157:231-236.
71. Thomas, M. B., and A. M. Reid 2007. Are exotic natural enemies an effective way of controlling invasive plants? Trends Ecol. Evol. 22:447-453.
72. Thompson, J. N. 1997. Evaluating the dynamics of coevolution among geographically structured populations. Ecology 78:1619-1623.
73. Van Driesche, R. G., R. I. Carruthers, T. Center, M. S. Hoddle, J. Hough-Goldstein, L. Morin, et al. 2010. Classical biological control for the protection of natural ecosystems. Biol. Control Suppl. 1:S2-S33.
74. Vasemagi, A. 2006. The adaptive hypothesis of clinal variation revisited: single-locus clines as a result of spatially restricted gene flow. Genetics 173:2411-2414.
75. Whitney, K. D., and C. A. Gabler 2008. Rapid evolution in introduced species, 'invasive traits' and recipient communities: challenges for predicting invasive potential. Divers. Distrib. 14:569-580.
76. Williams, J. L., H. Auge, and J. L. Maron 2008. Different gardens, different results: native and introduced populations exhibit contrasting phenotypes across common gardens. Oecologia 157:239-248.
77. Willis, A. J., M. B. Thomas, and J. H. Lawton 1999. Is the increased vigour of invasive weeds explained by a trade-off between growth and herbivore resistance? Oecologia 120:632-640.
78. Wilson, S. D., and D. Tilman 1993. Plant competition and resource availability in response to disturbance and fertilization. Ecology 74:599-611.
79. Zangerl, A. R., and M. R. Berenbaum 2005. Increase in toxicity of an invasive weed after reassociation with its coevolved herbivore. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102:15529-15532.
80. Zhang, D. Y., and X. H. Jiang 2006. Interactive effects of habitat productivity and herbivore pressure on the evolution of anti-herbivore defense in invasive plant populations. J. Theor. Biol. 242:935-940.
81. Zou, J. W., W. E. Rogers, and E. Siemann 2008. Increased competitive ability and herbivory tolerance in the invasive plant Sapium sebiferum. Biol. Invasions 10:291-302.