An official website of the United States government
Abstract Determining the drivers of non-native plant invasions is critical for managing native ecosystems and limiting the spread of invasive species1,2. Tree invasions in particular have been relatively overlooked, even though they have the potential to transform ecosystems and economies3,4. Here, leveraging global tree databases5–7, we explore how the phylogenetic and functional diversity of native tree communities, human pressure and the environment influence the establishment of non-native tree species and the subsequent invasion severity. We find that anthropogenic factors are key to predicting whether a location is invaded, but that invasion severity is underpinned by native diversity, with higher diversity predicting lower invasion severity. Temperature and precipitation emerge as strong predictors of invasion strategy, with non-native species invading successfully when they are similar to the native community in cold or dry extremes. Yet, despite the influence of these ecological forces in determining invasion strategy, we find evidence that these patterns can be obscured by human activity, with lower ecological signal in areas with higher proximity to shipping ports. Our global perspective of non-native tree invasion highlights that human drivers influence non-native tree presence, and that native phylogenetic and functional diversity have a critical role in the establishment and spread of subsequent invasions.
more »
« less
Reciprocal human-natural system feedback loops within the invasion process
Biological invasions are inextricably linked to how people collect, move, interact with and perceive non-native species. However, invasion frameworks generally do not consider reciprocal interactions between non-native species and people. Non-native species can shape human actions via beneficial or detrimental ecological and socioeconomic effects and people, in turn, shape invasions through their movements, behaviour and how they respond to the collection, transport, introduction and spread of non-natives. The feedbacks that stem from this ‘coupled human and natural system’ (CHANS) could therefore play a key role in mitigating (i.e. negative feedback loops) or exacerbating (i.e. positive feedback loops) ongoing and future invasions. We posit that the invasion process could be subdivided into three CHANS that span from the source region from which non-natives originate to the recipient region in which they establish and spread. We also provide specific examples of feedback loops that occur within each CHANS that have either reduced or facilitated new introductions and spread of established non-native species. In so doing, we add to exisiting invasion frameworks to generate new hypotheses about human-based drivers of biological invasions and further efforts to determine how ecological outcomes feed back into human actions.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1832016
- PAR ID:
- 10200387
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- NeoBiota
- Volume:
- 62
- ISSN:
- 1619-0033
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 489 to 508
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Doi, Hideyuki (Ed.)Non-native species have the potential to cause ecological and economic harm to coastal and estuarine ecosystems. Understanding which habitat types are most vulnerable to biological invasions, where invasions originate, and the vectors by which they arrive can help direct limited resources to prevent or mitigate ecological and socio-economic harm. Information about the occurrence of non-native species can help guide interventions at all stages of invasion, from first introduction, to naturalization and invasion. However, monitoring at relevant scales requires considerable investment of time, resources, and taxonomic expertise. Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding methods sample coastal ecosystems at broad spatial and temporal scales to augment established monitoring methods. We use COI mtDNA eDNA sampling to survey a diverse assemblage of species across distinct habitats in the Salish Sea in Washington State, USA, and classify each as non-native, native, or indeterminate in origin. The non-native species detected include both well-documented invaders and species not previously reported within the Salish Sea. We find a non-native assemblage dominated by shellfish and algae with native ranges in the temperate western Pacific, and find more-retentive estuarine habitats to be invaded at far higher levels than better-flushed rocky shores. Furthermore, we find an increase in invasion level with higher water temperatures in spring and summer across habitat types. This analysis contributes to a growing understanding of the biotic and abiotic factors that influence invasion level, and underscores the utility of eDNA surveys to monitor biological invasions and to better understand the factors that drive these invasions.more » « less
-
Abstract Invasive species science has focused heavily on the invasive agent. However, management to protect native species also requires a proactive approach focused on resident communities and the features affecting their vulnerability to invasion impacts. Vulnerability is likely the result of factors acting across spatial scales, from local to regional, and it is the combined effects of these factors that will determine the magnitude of vulnerability. Here, we introduce an analytical framework that quantifies the scale‐dependent impact of biological invasions on native richness from the shape of the native species–area relationship (SAR). We leveraged newly available, biogeographically extensive vegetation data from the U.S. National Ecological Observatory Network to assess plant community vulnerability to invasion impact as a function of factors acting across scales. We analyzed more than 1000 SARs widely distributed across the USA along environmental gradients and under different levels of non‐native plant cover. Decreases in native richness were consistently associated with non‐native species cover, but native richness was compromised only at relatively high levels of non‐native cover. After accounting for variation in baseline ecosystem diversity, net primary productivity, and human modification, ecoregions that were colder and wetter were most vulnerable to losses of native plant species at the local level, while warmer and wetter areas were most susceptible at the landscape level. We also document how the combined effects of cross‐scale factors result in a heterogeneous spatial pattern of vulnerability. This pattern could not be predicted by analyses at any single scale, underscoring the importance of accounting for factors acting across scales. Simultaneously assessing differences in vulnerability between distinct plant communities at local, landscape, and regional scales provided outputs that can be used to inform policy and management aimed at reducing vulnerability to the impact of plant invasions.more » « less
-
Summary Non‐native invasive species (NIS) release chemicals into the environment that are unique to the invaded communities, defined as novel chemicals. Novel chemicals impact competitors, soil microbial communities, mutualists, plant enemies, and soil nutrients differently than in the species’ native range. Ecological functions of novel chemicals and differences in functions between the native and non‐native ranges of NIS are of immense interest to ecologists. Novel chemicals can mediate different ecological, physiological, and evolutionary mechanisms underlying invasion hypotheses. Interactions amongst the NIS and resident species including competitors, soil microbes, and plant enemies, as well as abiotic factors in the invaded community are linked to novel chemicals. However, we poorly understand how these interactions might enhance NIS performance. New empirical data and analyses of how novel chemicals act in the invaded community will fill major gaps in our understanding of the chemistry of biological invasions. A novel chemical‐invasion mechanism framework shows how novel chemicals engender invasion mechanisms beyond plant–plant or plant–microorganism interactions.more » « less
-
Although many species shift their phenology with climate change, species vary significantly in the direction and magnitude of these responses (i.e., phenological sensitivity). Studies increasingly detect early phenology or high phenological sensitivity to climate in non-native species, which may favor non-native species over natives in warming climates. Yet relatively few studies explicitly compare phenological responses to climate between native vs. non-native species or between non-native populations in the native vs. introduced range, limiting our ability to quantify the role of phenology in invasion success. Here, we review the empirical evidence for and against differences in phenology and phenological sensitivity to climate in both native vs. non-native species and native and introduced populations of non-native species. Contrary to common assumptions, native and non-native plant species did not consistently differ in mean phenology or phenological sensitivity. However, non-native plant species were often either just as or more sensitive, but rarely less sensitive, to climate as natives. Introduced populations of non-native plant species often show earlier reproduction than native populations of the same species, but there was mixed evidence for differences in phenological sensitivity between introduced and native plant populations. We found very few studies comparing native vs. invasive animal phenology. Future work should characterize phenological sensitivity to climate in native vs. non-native plant and animal species, in native vs. introduced populations of non-native species, and across different stages of invasion, and should carefully consider how differences in phenology might promote invasion success or disadvantage native species under climate change.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.62.52664
