Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of the receiving assemblage and disturbance on the colonisation of an invasive species

  • Invasive Species - Original paper
  • Published:
Marine Biology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

While the consequences of bioinvasions are becoming clearer, our understanding of the environmental and ecological factors driving them is limited due to the complexity of the invasion process. Invasion success can be considered to be influenced by characteristics of the receiving assemblage (habitat, food, community interactions) and disturbances. Studies on the effects of the receiving assemblage have typically focused on a single or small subset of species, rather than on complex, multitrophic assemblages. We used an experimental assemblage consisting of more than 30 taxa from multiple trophic levels to evaluate the importance of the presence of this community and disturbance on colonisation by a generalist invader. To achieve this, we compared colonisation between a disturbed and undisturbed community. In addition, we evaluated the effects of the presence of organic matter of a different source (simulating a disturbance event affecting different habitats) on colonisation. A model generalist invader, the isopod Cirolana harfordi, was introduced to patches of oyster beds with (1) undisturbed (live) assemblages, (2) disturbed assemblages, (3) organic matter (using organic matter of a different source), or (4) no assemblage or organic matter. Our results indicated that the presence of an assemblage (disturbed or not) fostered colonisation; however, colonisation was less successful when the assemblage was undisturbed. Results also indicate that for a disturbance event to affect the colonisation of C. harfordi, it has to directly affect the invaded assemblage. These results add to the understanding of the factors driving invasions, which is important to design management strategies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alpert P, Bone E, Holzapfel C (2000) Invasiveness, invasibility and the role of environmental stress in the spread of non-native plants. Perspect Plant Ecol Ecol Syst 3:52–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altieri AH, van Wesenbeeck BK, Bertness MD, Silliman BR (2010) Facilitation cascade drives positive relationship between native biodiversity and invasion success. Ecology 91:1269–1275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson MJ (2001) A new method for non parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Aust Ecol 26:32–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson MJ, Robinson J (2003) Generalized discriminant analysis based on distances. Aust NZ J Stat 45:301–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Australian Museum Business Services (2002) Port survey for introduced marine species—Sydney Harbour. Sydney Ports Corporation, Sydney, p 71

    Google Scholar 

  • Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2014) lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. http://CRANR-projectorg/package=lme4

  • Brandt CA, Rickard WH (1994) Alien taxa in the North American shrub-steppe four decades after cessation of livestock grazing and cultivation agriculture. Biol Conserv 68:95–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruno JF, Stachowicz JJ, Bertness MD (2003) Inclusion of facilitation into ecological theory. Trends Ecol Evol 18:119–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bugnot AB (2014) Associations between benthic communities and an invasive isopod. School of Biological Sciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney, p 184

    Google Scholar 

  • Bugnot AB, Coleman RA, Figueira WF, Marzinelli EM (2014) Patterns of the non-indigenous isopod Cirolana harfordi in Sydney Harbour. PLoS One 9:e86765

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bugnot AB, Coleman RA, Figueira WF, Marzinelli EM (2015) Community-level impacts of the invasive isopod Cirolana harfordi. Biol Invasions 17:1149–1161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunting D (2011) Ecology, genetics and habitat use of the potentially invasive isopod Cirolana harfordi. School of Biological Sciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney, p 219

    Google Scholar 

  • Byers JE (2002) Impact of non-indigenous species on natives enhanced by anthropogenic alteration of selection regimes. Oikos 97:449–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlton JT (2009) Deep invasion ecology and the assembly of communities in historical time. In: Rilov JA, Crooks JA (eds) Biological invasions in marine ecosystems: ecological, management and geographic perspectives. Springer, Berlin, pp 13–56

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Case TJ (1990) Invasion resistance arises in strongly interacting species-rich model competition communities. Proc Natl Acad Sci 87:9610–9614

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman M (1998) Relationships between spatial patterns of benthic assemblages in a mangrove forest using different levels of taxonomic resolution. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 162:71–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark GF, Johnston EL (2011) Temporal change in the diversity–invasibility relationship in the presence of a disturbance regime. Ecol Lett 14:52–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke K, Gorley R (2006) Primer V6: user manual/tutorial. Primer-E Ltd, Plymouth

    Google Scholar 

  • Crooks JA (2005) Lag times and exotic species: the ecology and management of biological invasions in slow-motion. Écoscience 12:316–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis MA, Grime JP, Thompson K (2000) Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invasibility. J Ecol 88:528–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doherty TS, Dickman CR, Nimmo DG, Ritchie EG (2015) Multiple threats, or multiplying the threats? Interactions between invasive predators and other ecological disturbances. Biol Conserv 190:60–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunstan PK, Johnson CR (2003) Invasion rates increase with species richness in a marine epibenthic community by two mechanisms. Oecologia 138:285–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elton C (1958) The ecology of invasions by animals and plants. Methue, London, p 180

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hewatt W (1937) Ecological studies on selected marine intertidal communities of Monterey Bay, California. Am Midl Nat 18:161–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P (2008) Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biom J 50:519–528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson A (2009) Biogenic habitat on artificial structures: consequences for an intertidal predator. Mar Freshw Res 60:519–528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson MC, Allen R, Pegg J, Britton JR (2013) Do trophic subsidies affect the outcome of introductions of a non-native freshwater fish? Freshw Biol 58:2144–2153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson WS (1976) Biology and population dynamics of the intertidal isopod Cirolana harfordi. Mar Biol 36:343–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine JM, Adler PB, Yelenik SG (2004) A meta-analysis of biotic resistance to exotic plant invasions. Ecol Lett 7:975–989

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lohrer AM, Fukui Y, Wada K, Whitlatch RB (2000) Structural complexity and vertical zonation of intertidal crabs, with focus on habitat requirements of the invasive Asian shore crab, Hemigrapsus sanguineus (de Haan). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 244:203–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lozon JD, MacIsaac HJ (1997) Biological invasions: are they dependent on disturbance? Environ Rev 5:131–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luczak C, Janquin M-A, Kupka A (1997) Simple standard procedure for the routine determination of organic matter in marine sediment. Hydrobiologia 345:87–94

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Lendech N, Córdoba-Aguilar A, Serrano-Meneses M (2007) Body size and fat reserves as possible predictors of male territorial status and contest outcome in the butterfly Eumaeus toxea Godart (Lepidoptera: lycaenidae). J Ethol 25:195–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olden Julian D, Poff NL (2003) Toward a mechanistic understanding and prediction of biotic homogenization. Am Nat 162:442–460

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Polis GA, Myers CA, Holt RD (1989) The ecology and evolution of intraguild predation: potential competitors that eat each other. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 20:297–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rejmanek M (1989) Invasibility of plant communities. In: Drake G, Mooney HA, Di Castri F, Groves RH, Kruger FJ, Rejmanek M, Williamson M (eds) Biological invasions: a global perspective. Wiley, Chichester, pp 369–388

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez LF (2006) Can invasive species facilitate native species? Evidence of how, when, and why these impacts occur. Biol Invasions 8:927–939

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sala O, Chapin F III, Armesto J, Berlow E, Bloomfield J, Dirzo R, Huber-Sanwald E, Huenneke L, Jackson R, Kinzig A (2000) Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287:1770–1774

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sax DF, Gaines SD (2003) Species diversity: from global decreases to local increases. Trends Ecol Evol 18:561–566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sax DF, Gaines SD, Brown JH (2002) Species invasions exceed extinctions on islands worldwide: a comparative study of plants and birds. Am Nat 160:766–783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scanes E, Johnston EL, Cole VJ, O'Connor WA, Parker LM, Ross PM (2015) Quantifying native and invasive oyster distributions in an urbanised estuary. Paper presented at the 52nd Australian Marine Science Association (AMSA) annual conference

  • Shea K, Chesson P (2002) Community ecology theory as a framework for biological invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 17:170–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shurin JB (2000) Dispersal limitation, invasion resistance, and the structure of pond zooplankton communities. Ecology 81:3074–3086

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff D (1989) Which insect introductions succeed and which fail? In: Drake JA, Mooney HA, Castri FD, Groves RH, Kruger FJ, Rejmanek M, Williamson M (eds) Biological invasions: a global perspective. Wiley, Chichester, pp 61–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff D, Von Holle B (1999) Positive interactions of nonindigenous species: invasional meltdown? Biol Invasions 1:21–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stachowicz JJ (2001) Mutualism, facilitation, and the structure of ecological communities. Bioscience 51:235–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stachowicz J, Whitlatch R, Osman R (1999) Species diversity and invasion resistance in a marine ecosystem. Science 286:1577

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson M (2013) Mouthparts and their setae of the intertidal isopod Cirolana harfordi. J Microsc 252:111–121

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Todd BD, Rothermel BB, Reed RN, Luhring TM, Schlatter K, Trenkamp L, Gibbons JW (2008) Habitat alteration increases invasive fire ant abundance to the detriment of amphibians and reptiles. Biol Invasions 10:539–546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuur A, Ieno EN, Walker N, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Statistics for biology and health. Springer, New York, p 574

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by an International Postgraduate Research Scholarship and Sydney Institute of Marine Science Doctoral Fellowship to A. B., and funding from the Centre for Research on Ecological Impacts of Coastal Cities. We thank Rebecca Morris and Marcos Gil for field assistance and Dov Sax for insightful comments. This is contribution number 183 to the Sydney Institute of Marine Science. All applicable institutional and/or national guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. Collection of animals from the field was done under NSW Fisheries research permit F96/146-7.1-2.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Research on Ecological Impacts of Coastal Cities, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia

    Ana B. Bugnot, Ross A. Coleman & Will F. Figueira

  2. Sydney Institute of Marine Science, 19 Chowder Bay Rd, Mosman, NSW, 2088, Australia

    Ezequiel M. Marzinelli

  3. Centre for Marine Bio-Innovation and Evolution and Ecology Research Centre, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia

    Ezequiel M. Marzinelli

Authors
  1. Ana B. Bugnot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ross A. Coleman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Will F. Figueira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ezequiel M. Marzinelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ana B. Bugnot.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: F. Chan.

Reviewed by Undisclosed experts.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Invasive Species.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bugnot, A.B., Coleman, R.A., Figueira, W.F. et al. Effects of the receiving assemblage and disturbance on the colonisation of an invasive species. Mar Biol 163, 155 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-016-2929-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-016-2929-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation