Search for: All records

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. 

ABSTRACT QuestionsThe detection and interpretation of ecological processes are strongly influenced by the spatial scale at which studies are conducted. Scale terms (e.g., ‘local’ or ‘regional’) are frequently used to denote study scale and imply that studies using the same scale term should be directly comparable. However, whether the area encompassed by a particular scale term is consistent across studies remains unclear. LocationGlobal. MethodsWe reviewed 385 papers in plant community ecology and analysed 962 spatial scale terms and their reported areas. We tested whether variation in the use of individual scale terms could be explained by habitat, type of study or geographic region, and virtually sampled a simulated plant community to demonstrate the consequences of this variation for calculating common biodiversity metrics. ResultsSingle scale terms covered areas that vary by an average of 4.7 orders of magnitude, with significant overlap between distinct scale terms. Though this variation could be partly explained by habitat type (e.g., scale terms cover larger areas in forests than grasslands), we still found large variability (3.8 orders of magnitude) in the use of single terms within habitats. We also found overall high consistency (but still high variability) in the use of scale terms across geographic regions and study types. Our community simulation showed that Shannon's and Simpson's indices are highly sensitive to this variation, especially at finer spatial scales, suggesting that variation in the use of individual scale terms has major consequences for synthesising biodiversity trends. ConclusionsWhile terminology can make it appear that studies are directly comparable, they may cover vastly different areas and capture different ecological processes. Spatial scales should be reported in a standardised fashion by clearly stating the actual study size in abstracts and methods, and inconsistencies in scale term use should be accounted for when synthesising previous research.