Search for: All records

ABSTRACT A core hypothesis in invasion and community ecology is that species interaction patterns should differ between native and non‐native species due to non‐native species lacking a long evolutionary history in their resident communities. Numerous studies testing this hypothesis yield conflicting results, often focusing on mean interaction rates and overlooking the substantial within‐population variability in species interactions. We explored plant‐herbivore interactions in populations of native and established non‐native plant species by quantifying differences in mean herbivory and added a novel approach by comparing within‐population variability in herbivory. We include as covariates latitude, plant richness, plant growth form and cover. Using leaf herbivory data from the Herbivory Variability Network for 788 plant populations spanning 504 species globally distributed, we found no overall differences in mean herbivory or variability between native and non‐native plants. These results suggest native and established non‐native plants interact similarly with herbivores, indicating non‐native status is not a strong predictor of ecological roles. 

The Enemy Release Hypothesis (ERH) proposes that non-native plants escape their co-evolved herbivores and benefit from reduced herbivory in their introduced ranges. Numerous studies have tested this hypothesis, with conflicting results, but previous studies focus on average levels of herbivory and overlook the substantial within-population variability in herbivory, which may provide unique insights into the ERH. We tested differences in mean herbivory and added a novel approach to the ERH by comparing within-population variability in herbivory between native and non-native plant populations. We include several covariates that might mask an effect of enemy release, including latitude, regional plant richness, plant growth form and plant cover. We use leaf herbivory data collected by the Herbivory Variability Network for 788 plant populations (616 native range populations and 172 introduced range populations) of 503 different native and non-native species distributed worldwide. We found no overall differences in mean herbivory or herbivory variability between native and non-native plant populations. Taken together, our results indicate no evidence of enemy release for non-native plants, suggesting that enemy release is not a generalized mechanism favoring the success of non-native species. 

Understanding the distribution of herbivore damage among leaves and individual plants is a central goal of plant–herbivore biology. Commonly observed unequal patterns of herbivore damage have conventionally been attributed to the heterogeneity in plant quality or herbivore behaviour or distribution. Meanwhile, the potential role of stochastic processes in structuring plant–herbivore interactions has been overlooked. Here, we show that based on simple first principle expectations from metabolic theory, random sampling of different sizes of herbivores from a regional pool is sufficient to explain patterns of variation in herbivore damage. This is despite making the neutral assumption that herbivory is caused by randomly feeding herbivores on identical and passive plants. We then compared its predictions against 765 datasets of herbivory on 496 species across 116° of latitude from the Herbivory Variability Network. Using only one free parameter, the estimated attack rate, our neutral model approximates the observed frequency distribution of herbivore damage among plants and especially among leaves very well. Our results suggest that neutral stochastic processes play a large and underappreciated role in natural variation in herbivory and may explain the low predictability of herbivory patterns. We argue that such prominence warrants its consideration as a powerful force in plant–herbivore interactions. 

Interactions between plants and herbivores are central in most ecosystems, but their strength is highly variable. The amount of variability within a system is thought to influence most aspects of plant-herbivore biology, from ecological stability to plant defense evolution. Our understanding of what influences variability, however, is limited by sparse data. We collected standardized surveys of herbivory for 503 plant species at 790 sites across 116° of latitude. With these data, we show that within-population variability in herbivory increases with latitude, decreases with plant size, and is phylogenetically structured. Differences in the magnitude of variability are thus central to how plant-herbivore biology varies across macroscale gradients. We argue that increased focus on interaction variability will advance understanding of patterns of life on Earth. 

Plants and herbivores are remarkably variable in space and time, and variability has been considered a defining feature of their interactions. Empirical research, however, has traditionally focused on understanding differences in means and overlooked the theoretically significant ecological and evolutionary roles of variability itself. We review the literature with the goal of showing how variability-explicit research expands our perspective on plant–herbivore ecology and evolution. We first clarify terminology for describing variation and then review patterns, causes, and consequences of variation in herbivory across scales of space, time, and biological organization. We consider how incorporating variability improves existing hypotheses and leads to new ones. We conclude by suggesting future work that reports full distributions, integrates effects of variation across scales, describes nonlinearities, and considers how stochastic and deterministic variation combine to determine herbivory distributions. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, Volume 54 is November 2023. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.