An official website of the United States government
Darwin’s Naturalization Conundrum holds that both functional similarity and distinctiveness can facilitate biological invasions: invaders similar to natives may succeed through preadaptation to local abiotic conditions, whereas functionally distinct invaders may succeed by reducing competition. Yet the contexts in which either mechanism dominates are unclear. Prior research has primarily attributed variability in native–invasive differentiation to shifts in the balance between biotic and climatic barriers to invasion from local to regional scales. However, similarity and distinctiveness are frequent at both local and regional levels, indicating key drivers of native–invasive differentiation remain overlooked. Crucially, theory and evidence show that as climatic stress increases, competition weakens. This implies that harsh climates should favor invaders functionally similar to natives, whereas mesic climates should favor distinctiveness. However, this hypothesis has not been tested across climate regimes and functional traits. We addressed this gap by combining models of species distributions and flowering phenology for 2,810 species across the United States, estimating phylogenetic distance and phenological differentiation between natives and invasives relative to differentiation among co-occurring natives. In warm, humid regions, invasives flowered earlier, less synchronously, and were more distantly related to natives. In cold or dry regions, they flowered at similar or later times, more synchronously, and were more closely related than natives themselves. Across all climates, invasives consistently exhibited longer flowering durations, with little evidence of greater phenological plasticity. These findings reveal that Darwin’s Conundrum reflects a predictable continuum shaped by environmental context, highlighting climate as a key axis of invasion success.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on November 1, 2026
Evidence for environmental filtering and limiting similarity depends on spatial scale and dissimilarity metrics
Abstract Darwin's theory of natural selection provides two seemingly contradictory hypotheses for explaining the success of biological invasions: (1) the pre‐adaptation hypothesis posits that introduced species that are closely related to native species will be more likely to succeed due to shared advantageous characteristics; (2) the limiting similarity hypothesis posits that invaders that are more similar to resident species will be less likely to succeed due to competitive exclusion. Previous studies assessing this conundrum show mixed results, possibly stemming from inconsistent study spatial scales and failure to integrate both functional and phylogenetic information. Here, we address these limitations using a 33‐year grassland successional survey at Cedar Creek Ecosystem Science Reserve (USA). We incorporate functional dissimilarities, phylogenetic distances, environmental covariates, and species origin data for 303 vascular plant taxa (256 native, 47 introduced), collected from 2700 plots. In contrast with other studies, we test both hypotheses at two fine spatial scales—neighborhood (0.5 m2) and site (~40 m2)—to better capture competition and environmental filtering, respectively. Findings related to Darwin's naturalization conundrum depended on spatial scale and dissimilarity metric. Our results agreed with the pre‐adaptation hypothesis at site scale (40 m2)—a much finer resolution than typically used to test the pre‐adaptation hypothesis—highlighting the role of environmental filtering. At the neighborhood scale (0.5 m2), support for the limiting similarity hypothesis emerged when using functional dissimilarity, while phylogenetic distance aligned with the pre‐adaptation hypothesis, demonstrating that different dissimilarity metrics can yield contrasting conclusions. In addition, native and introduced species showed different abundance patterns in relation to functional ranked dissimilarities, with introduced species reaching higher cover when they were taller than co‐occurring species, had higher leaf dry matter content (LDMC) and lower seed mass. Introduced species also reached high cover with higher soil N concentrations and a shorter time after colonization, relative to native species. Our results suggest that inconsistent findings related to Darwin's naturalization conundrum may arise from an overreliance on single dissimilarity metrics and the use of spatial scales failing to capture underlying ecological processes. This highlights the need for more nuanced methodologies when testing the pre‐adaptation and limiting similarity hypotheses.
more »
« less
- PAR ID:
- 10659509
- Publisher / Repository:
- Wiley
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Ecology
- Volume:
- 106
- Issue:
- 11
- ISSN:
- 0012-9658
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Understanding the mechanisms governing biological invasions has implications for population dynamics, biodiversity, and community assembly. The enemy escape hypothesis posits that escape from enemies such as herbivores and predators that were limiting in the native range helps explain rapid spread in the introduced range. While the enemy escape hypothesis has been widely tested aboveground, data limitations have prevented comparisons of belowground mechanisms for invasive and noninvasive introduced species, which limits our understanding of why only some introduced species become invasive. We assessed the role of soil biota in driving plant invasions in a phylogenetic meta−analysis, incorporating phylogeny in the error structure of the models, and comparing live and sterilized conditioned soils. We found 29 studies and 396 effect size estimates across 103 species that compared live and sterilized soils. We found general positive effects of soil biota for plants (0.099, 95% CI = 0.0266, 0.1714), consistent with a role of soil mutualists. The effect size of soil biota among invaders was 3.2× higher than for natives, the strength of effects was weaker for older conditioning species with a longer introduced history, and enemy escape was stronger for distant relatives. In addition, invasive species had a weaker allocation tradeoff than natives. By demonstrating that the net effect of soil biota is more positive for invasive than native and noninvasive introduced species, weakens over time since introduction, and strengthens as phylogenetic distance increasing, we provide mechanistic insights into the considerable role of soil biota in biological invasions, consistent with the predictions of the enemy escape hypothesis.more » « less
-
Understanding the mechanisms governing biological invasions has implications for population dynamics, biodiversity, and community assembly. The enemy escape hypothesis posits that escape from enemies such as herbivores and predators that were limiting in the native range helps explain rapid spread in the introduced range. While the enemy escape hypothesis has been widely tested aboveground, data limitations have prevented comparisons of below- ground mechanisms for invasive and noninvasive introduced species, which limits our understanding of why only some introduced species become invasive. We assessed the role of soil biota in driving plant invasions in a phylogenetic meta−analysis, incorpo- rating phylogeny in the error structure of the models, and comparing live and sterilized conditioned soils. We found 29 studies and 396 effect size estimates across 103 species that compared live and sterilized soils. We found general positive effects of soil biota for plants (0.099, 95% CI 0.0266, 0.1714), consistent with a role of soil mutualists. The effect size of soil biota among invaders was 3.2× higher than for natives, the strength of effects was weaker for older conditioning species with a longer introduced history, and enemy escape was stronger for distant relatives. In addition, invasive species had a weaker allocation tradeoff than natives. By demonstrating that the net effect of soil biota is more positive for invasive than native and noninvasive introduced species, weakens over time since introduction, and strengthens as phy- logenetic distance increasing, we provide mechanistic insights into the considerable role of soil biota in bio- logical invasions, consistent with the predictions of the enemy escape hypothesis.more » « less
-
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
-
Summary A prevailing hypothesis posits that achieving higher maximum rates of leaf carbon gain and water loss is constrained by geometry and/or selection to limit the allocation of epidermal area to stomata (fS). Under this ‘stomatal‐area minimization hypothesis’, highergs,maxis associated with greater numbers of smaller stomata because this trait combination increasesgs,maxwith minimal increase infS, leading to relative conservation offSsemi‐independent ofgs,maxdue to coordination in stomatal size, density, and pore depth. An alternative hypothesis is that the evolution of highergs,maxcan be enabled by a greater epidermal area allocated to stomata, leading to positive covariation betweenfSandgs,max; we call this the ‘stomatal‐area adaptation hypothesis’. Under this hypothesis, the interspecific scaling betweengs,max, stomatal density, and stomatal size is a by‐product of selection on a moving optimalgs,max.We integrated biophysical and evolutionary quantitative genetic modeling with phylogenetic comparative analyses of a global data set of stomatal density and size from 2408 vascular forest species. The models present specific assumptions of both hypotheses and deduce predictions that can be evaluated with our empirical analyses of forest plants.There are three main results. First, neither the stomatal‐area minimization nor adaptation hypothesis is sufficient to be supported. Second, estimates of interspecific scaling from common regression methods cannot reliably distinguish between hypotheses when stomatal size is bounded. Third, we reconcile both hypotheses with the data by including an additional assumption that stomatal size is bounded by a wide range and under selection; we refer to this synthetic hypothesis as the ‘stomatal adaptation + bounded size’ hypothesis.This study advances our understanding of scaling between stomatal size and density by mathematically describing specific assumptions of competing hypotheses, demonstrating that existing hypotheses are inconsistent with observations, and reconciling these hypotheses with phylogenetic comparative analyses by postulating a synthetic model of selection ongs,max,fS, and stomatal size.more » « less
