skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Search for: All records

Creators/Authors contains: "Petri, Laís"

Note: When clicking on a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) number, you will be taken to an external site maintained by the publisher. Some full text articles may not yet be available without a charge during the embargo (administrative interval).
What is a DOI Number?

Some links on this page may take you to non-federal websites. Their policies may differ from this site.

  1. Summary Are non‐native plants abundant because they are non‐native, and have advantages over native plants, or because they possess ‘fast’ resource strategies, and have advantages in disturbed environments? This question is central to invasion biology but remains unanswered.We quantified the relative importance of resource strategy and biogeographic origin in 69 441 plots across the conterminous United States containing 11 280 plant species.Non‐native species had faster economic traits than native species in most plant communities (77%, 86% and 82% of plots for leaf nitrogen concentration, specific leaf area, and leaf dry matter content). Non‐native species also had distinct patterns of abundance, but these were not explained by their fast traits. Compared with functionally similar native species, non‐native species were (1) more abundant in plains and deserts, indicating the importance of biogeographic origin, and less abundant in forested ecoregions, (2) were more abundant where co‐occurring species had fast traits, for example due to disturbance, and (3) showed weaker signals of local environmental filtering.These results clarify the nature of plant invasion: Although non‐native plants have consistently fast economic traits, other novel characteristics and processes likely explain their abundance and, therefore, impacts. 
    more » « less
    Free, publicly-accessible full text available June 24, 2026
  2. ABSTRACT AimNon‐native plants have the potential to harm ecosystems. Harm is classically related to their distribution and abundance, but this geographical information is often unknown. Here, we assess geographical commonness as a potential indicator of invasive status for non‐native flora in the United States. Geographical commonness could inform invasion risk assessments across species and ecoregions. LocationConterminous United States. Time PeriodThrough 2022. Major Taxa StudiedPlants. MethodsWe compiled and standardised occurrence and abundance data from 14 spatial datasets and used this information to categorise non‐native species as uncommon or common based on three dimensions of commonness: area of occupancy, habitat breadth and local abundance. To assess consistency in existing categorizations, we compared commonness to invasive status in the United States. We identified species with higher‐than‐expected abundance relative to their occupancy, habitat breadth or residence time. We calculated non‐native plant richness within United States ecoregions and estimated unreported species based on rarefaction/extrapolation curves. ResultsThis comprehensive database identified 1874 non‐native plant species recorded in 4,844,963 locations. Of these, 1221 species were locally abundant (> 10% cover) in 797,759 unique locations. One thousand one hundred one non‐native species (59%) achieved at least one dimension of commonness, including 565 species that achieved all three. Species with longer residence times tended to meet more dimensions of commonness. We identified 132 species with higher‐than‐expected abundance. Ecoregions in the central United States have the largest estimated numbers of unreported, abundant non‐native plants. Main ConclusionsA high proportion of non‐native species have become common in the United States. However, existing categorizations of invasive species are not always consistent with species' abundance and distribution, even after considering residence time. Considering geographical commonness and higher‐than‐expected abundance revealed in this new dataset could support more consistent and proactive identification of invasive plants and lead to more efficient management practices. 
    more » « less
    Free, publicly-accessible full text available April 1, 2026
  3. ABSTRACT AimBeta diversity quantifies the similarity of ecological assemblages. Its increase, known as biotic homogenisation, can be a consequence of biological invasions. However, species occurrence (presence/absence) and abundance‐based analyses can produce contradictory assessments of the magnitude and direction of changes in beta diversity. Previous work indicates these contradictions should be less frequent in nature than in theory, but a growing number of empirical studies report discrepancies between occurrence‐ and abundance‐based approaches. Understanding if these discrepancies represent a few isolated cases or are systematic across a diversity of ecosystems would allow us to better understand the general patterns, mechanisms and impacts of biotic homogenisation. LocationUnited States. Time Period1963–2020. Major Taxa StudiedVascular plants. MethodsWe used a dataset of more than 70,000 vegetation survey plots to assess differences in biotic homogenisation with and without invasion using both occurrence‐ and abundance‐based metrics of beta diversity. We estimated taxonomic biotic homogenisation by comparing beta diversity of invaded and uninvaded plots with both classes of metrics and investigated the characteristics of the non‐native species pool that influenced the likelihood that these metrics disagree. ResultsIn 78% of plot comparisons, occurrence‐ and abundance‐based calculations agreed in direction, and the two metrics were generally well correlated. Our empirical results are consistent with previous theory. Discrepancies between the metrics were more likely when the same non‐native species was at high cover at both plots compared for beta diversity, and when these plots were spatially distant. Main ConclusionsIn about 20% of cases, our calculations revealed differences in direction (homogenisation vs. differentiation) when comparing occurrence‐ and abundance‐based metrics, indicating that the metrics are not interchangeable, especially when distances between plots are high and invader diversity is low. When data permit, combining the two approaches can offer insights into the role of invasions and extirpations in driving biotic homogenisation/differentiation. 
    more » « less
    Free, publicly-accessible full text available March 1, 2026
  4. Despite decades of research documenting the consequences of naturalized and invasive plant species on ecosystem functions, our understanding of the functional underpinnings of these changes remains rudimentary. This is partially due to ineffective scaling of trait differences between native and naturalized species to whole plant communities. Working with data from over 75,000 plots and over 5,500 species from across the United States, we show that changes in the functional composition of communities associated with increasing abundance of naturalized species mirror the differences in traits between native and naturalized plants. We find that communities with greater abundance of naturalized species are more resource acquisitive aboveground and belowground, shorter, more shallowly rooted, and increasingly aligned with an independent strategy for belowground resource acquisition via thin fine roots with high specific root length. We observe shifts toward herbaceous-dominated communities but shifts within both woody and herbaceous functional groups follow community-level patterns for most traits. Patterns are remarkably similar across desert, grassland, and forest ecosystems. Our results demonstrate that the establishment and spread of naturalized species, likely in combination with underlying environmental shifts, leads to predictable and consistent changes in community-level traits that can alter ecosystem functions. 
    more » « less
  5. null (Ed.)
  6. 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
  7. Abstract It is a critical time to reflect on the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) science to date as well as envision what research can be done right now with NEON (and other) data and what training is needed to enable a diverse user community. NEON became fully operational in May 2019 and has pivoted from planning and construction to operation and maintenance. In this overview, the history of and foundational thinking around NEON are discussed. A framework of open science is described with a discussion of how NEON can be situated as part of a larger data constellation—across existing networks and different suites of ecological measurements and sensors. Next, a synthesis of early NEON science, based on >100 existing publications, funded proposal efforts, and emergent science at the very first NEON Science Summit (hosted by Earth Lab at the University of Colorado Boulder in October 2019) is provided. Key questions that the ecology community will address with NEON data in the next 10 yr are outlined, from understanding drivers of biodiversity across spatial and temporal scales to defining complex feedback mechanisms in human–environmental systems. Last, the essential elements needed to engage and support a diverse and inclusive NEON user community are highlighted: training resources and tools that are openly available, funding for broad community engagement initiatives, and a mechanism to share and advertise those opportunities. NEON users require both the skills to work with NEON data and the ecological or environmental science domain knowledge to understand and interpret them. This paper synthesizes early directions in the community’s use of NEON data, and opportunities for the next 10 yr of NEON operations in emergent science themes, open science best practices, education and training, and community building. 
    more » « less