Revisiting Darwin's conundrum reveals a twist on the relationship between phylogenetic distance and invasibility

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Volumn 110, Issue 51, 2013, Pages 20627-20632

  Jones, Emily I ^a,b,c   Nuismer, Scott L ^d   Gomulkiewicz, Richard ^a  

^a WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b WISSENSCHAFTSKOLLEG ZU BERLIN   (Germany)

^c RICE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO   (United States)

Author keywords

Coevolution; Competition; Consumer resource; Ecophylogenetics; Mutualism

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; GENETIC DRIFT; GENETIC VARIABILITY; INTRODUCED SPECIES; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; NONHUMAN; PHENOTYPE; PHYLOGENY; POPULATION GROWTH; POPULATION SIZE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT; SPECIES INVASION; STATISTICS;

EID: 84890812110     PISSN: 00278424     EISSN: 10916490     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1310247110     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Mack RN, et al. (2000) Biotic invasions: Causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol Appl 10(3):689-710.
2. Reaser JK, et al. (2007) Ecological and socioeconomic impacts of invasive alien species in island ecosystems. Environ Conserv 34(2):98-111.
3. Simberloff D (2011) How common are invasion-Induced ecosystem impacts Biol Invasions 13(5):1255-1268.
4. Kolar CS, Lodge DM (2001) Progress in invasion biology: Predicting invaders. Trends Ecol Evol 16(4):199-204.
5. Küster EC, Kuhn I, Bruelheide H, Klotz S (2008) Trait interactions help explain plant invasion success in the German flora. J Ecol 96(5):860-868.
6. Moles AT, Gruber MAM, Bonser SP (2008) A new framework for predicting invasive plant species. J Ecol 96(1):13-17.
7. Küster EC, Durka W, Kuhn I, Klotz S (2010) Differences in the trait compositions of non-Indigenous and native plants across Germany. Biol Invasions 12(7):2001-2012.
8. Kennedy TA, et al. (2002) Biodiversity as a barrier to ecological invasion. Nature 417(6889):636-638.
9. Levine JM, Adler PB, Yelenik SG (2004) A meta-Analysis of biotic resistance to exotic plant invasions. Ecol Lett 7(10):975-989.
10. Darwin C (1859) The Origin of Species (J. Murray, London).
11. Mitchell CE, et al. (2006) Biotic interactions and plant invasions. Ecol Lett 9(6): 726-740.
12. Mayfield MM, Levine JM (2010) Opposing effects of competitive exclusion on the phylogenetic structure of communities. Ecol Lett 13(9):1085-1093.
13. Burns JH, Strauss SY (2011) More closely related species are more ecologically similar in an experimental test. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108(13):5302-5307.
14. Connor EF, Faeth SH, Simberloff D, Opler PA (1980) Taxonomic isolation and the accumulation of herbivorous insects - a comparison of introduced and native trees. Ecol Entomol 5(3):205-211.
15. Agrawal AA, et al. (2005) Enemy release An experiment with congeneric plant pairs and diverse above-And belowground enemies. Ecology 86(11):2979-2989.
16. Gilbert GS, Webb CO (2007) Phylogenetic signal in plant pathogen-Host range. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104(12):4979-4983.
17. Hill SB, Kotanen PM (2009) Evidence that phylogenetically novel non-Indigenous plants experience less herbivory. Oecologia 161(3):581-590.
18. Ness JH, Rollinson EJ, Whitney KD (2011) Phylogenetic distance can predict susceptibility to attack by natural enemies. Oikos 120(9):1327-1334.
19. Richardson DM, Allsopp N, D'Antonio CM, Milton SJ, Rejmánek M (2000) Plant invasions - the role of mutualisms. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 75(1):65-93.
20. Cahill JF, Kembel SW, Lamb EG, Keddy PA (2008) Does phylogenetic relatedness influence the strength of competition among vascular plants Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 10(1):41-50.
21. Parker JD, Burkepile DE, Lajeunesse MJ, Lind EM (2012) Phylogenetic isolation increases plant success despite increasing susceptibility to generalist herbivores. Divers Distrib 18(1):1-9.
22. Yoder JB, Nuismer SL (2010) When does coevolution promote diversification Am Nat 176(6):802-817.
23. Nuismer SL, Doebeli M, Browning D (2005) The coevolutionary dynamics of antagonistic interactions mediated by quantitative traits with evolving variances. Evolution 59(10):2073-2082.
24. Nuismer SL, Ridenhour BJ, Oswald BP (2007) Antagonistic coevolution mediated by phenotypic differences between quantitative traits. Evolution 61(8):1823-1834.
25. Lande R (1976) Natural selection and random genetic drift in phenotypic evolution. Evolution 30(2):314-334.
26. Abrams PA, Harada Y, Matsuda H (1993) On the relationship between quantitative genetic and ESS models. Evolution 47(3):982-985.
27. Lynch M, Lande R (1993) Evolution and extinction in response to environmental change. Biotic Interactions and Global Change, eds Kareiva P, Kingsolver JG, Huey R (Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA), pp 234-250.
28. Sax DF, Brown JH (2000) The paradox of invasion. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 9(5):363-371.
29. Jones EI, Gomulkiewicz R (2012) Biotic interactions, rapid evolution, and the establishment of introduced species. Am Nat 179(2):E28-E36.
30. Violle C, Nemergut DR, Pu ZC, Jiang L (2011) Phylogenetic limiting similarity and competitive exclusion. Ecol Lett 14(8):782-787.
31. Peay KG, Belisle M, Fukami T (2012) Phylogenetic relatedness predicts priority effects in nectar yeast communities. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 279(1729):749-758.
32. Mack RN, Moran VC, Hoffmann JH, eds (1996) Biotic barriers to plant naturalization. Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, eds Moran VC, Hoffmann JH (University of Cape Town, Stellenbosch, South Africa), pp 39-46.
33. Rejmanek M (1996) A theory of seed plant invasiveness: The first sketch. Biol Conserv 78(1-2):171-181.
34. Jiang L, Tan JQ, Pu ZC (2010) An experimental test of Darwin's naturalization hypothesis. Am Nat 175(4):415-423.
35. Davies KF, Cavender-Bares J, Deacon N (2011) Native communities determine the identity of exotic invaders even at scales at which communities are unsaturated. Divers Distrib 17(1):35-42.
36. van Wilgen NJ, Richardson DM (2011) Is phylogenetic relatedness to native species important for the establishment of reptiles introduced to California and Florida Divers Distrib 17(1):172-181.
37. Tan JQ, Pu ZC, Ryberg WA, Jiang L (2012) Species phylogenetic relatedness, priority effects, and ecosystem functioning. Ecology 93(5):1164-1172.
38. Daehler CC (2001) Darwin's naturalization hypothesis revisited. Am Nat 158(3):324-330.
39. Duncan RP, Williams PA (2002) Ecology: Darwin's naturalization hypothesis challenged. Nature 417(6889):608-609.
40. Diez JM, Sullivan JJ, Hulme PE, Edwards G, Duncan RP (2008) Darwin's naturalization conundrum: Dissecting taxonomic patterns of species invasions. Ecol Lett 11(7):674-681.
41. Diez JM, et al. (2009) Learning from failures: Testing broad taxonomic hypotheses about plant naturalization. Ecol Lett 12(11):1174-1183.
42. Tingley R, Phillips BL, Shine R (2011) Establishment success of introduced amphibians increases in the presence of congeneric species. Am Nat 177(3):382-388.
43. Ferreira RB, Beard KH, Peterson SL, Poessel SA, Callahan CM (2012) Establishment of introduced reptiles increases with the presence and richness of native congeners. Amphib-Reptil 33(3-4):387-392.
44. Maitner BS, Rudgers JA, Dunham AE, Whitney KD (2012) Patterns of bird invasion are consistent with environmental filtering. Ecography 35(7):614-623.
45. Kunstler G, et al. (2012) Competitive interactions between forest trees are driven by species' trait hierarchy, not phylogenetic or functional similarity: Implications for forest community assembly. Ecol Lett 15(8):831-840.
46. Burns JH, Ashman TL, Steets JA, Harmon-Threatt A, Knight TM (2011) A phylogenetically controlled analysis of the roles of reproductive traits in plant invasions. Oecologia 166(4): 1009-1017.
47. Lambdon PW, Hulme PE (2006) How strongly do interactions with closely-Related native species influence plant invasions Darwin's naturalization hypothesis assessed on Mediterranean islands. J Biogeogr 33(6):1116-1125.
48. Ricciardi A, Mottiar M (2006) Does Darwin's naturalization hypothesis explain fish invasions Biol Invasions 8(6):1403-1407.