Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Competition between similar invasive species: modeling invasional interference across a landscape

  • Original article
  • Published:
Population Ecology

Abstract

As the number of biological invasions increases, interactions between different invasive species will become increasingly important. Several studies have examined facilitative invader–invader interactions, potentially leading to invasional meltdown. However, if invader interactions are negative, invasional interference may lead to lower invader abundance and spread. To explore this possibility, we develop models of two competing invaders. A landscape simulation model examines the patterns created by two such species invading into the same region. We then apply the model to a case study of Carduus nutans L. and C. acanthoides L., two economically important invasive weeds that exhibit a spatially segregated distribution in central Pennsylvania, USA. The results of these spatially-explicit models are generally consistent with the results of classic Lotka–Volterra competition models, with widespread coexistence predicted if interspecific effects are weaker than intraspecific effects for both species. However, spatial segregation of the two species (with lower net densities and no further spread) may arise, particularly when interspecific competition is stronger than intraspecific competition. A moving area of overlap may result when one species is a superior competitor. In the Carduus system, our model suggests that invasional interference will lead to lower levels of each species when together, but a similar net level of thistle invasion due to the similarity of intra- and interspecific competition. Thus, invasional interference may have important implications for the distribution and management of invasive species.

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
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen MR, Shea K (2006) Spatial segregation of congeneric invaders in central Pennsylvania, USA. Biol Invasions 8:509–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amarasekare P (2003) Competitive coexistence in spatially structured environments: a synthesis. Ecol Lett 6:1109–1122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballari SA, Kuebbing SE, Nuñez MA (2016) Potential problems of removing one invasive species at a time: interactions between invasive vertebrates and unexpected effects of removal programs. Peer J 4:e2029

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Bullock JM, Edwards RJ, Carey PD, Rose RJ (2000) Geographical separation of two Ulex species at three spatial scales: does competition limit species’ ranges? Ecography 23:257–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burlakova LE, Tulumello BL, Karatayev AY, Krebs RA, Schloesser DW, Paterson WL, Griffith TA, Scott MW, Crail T, Zanatta DT (2014) Competitive replacement of invasive congeners may relax impact on native species: interactions among zebra, quagga, and native unionid mussels. PLoS One 9:e114926

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Case TJ (2000) An illustrated guide to theoretical ecology. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesson P (2000) Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 31:343–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connolly J, Wayne P, Bazzaz FA (2001) Interspecific competition in plants: how well do current methods answer fundamental questions? Am Nat 157:107–125

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Coomes DA, Rees M, Turnbull L (1999) Identifying aggregation and association in fully mapped spatial data. Ecology 80:554–565

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desrochers AM, Bain JF, Warwick SI (1988) The biology of Canadian weeds 89. Carduus nutans L. and Carduus acanthoides L. Can J Plant Sci 68:1053–1068

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez S, Gonda-King L, Orians CM, Preisser EL (2014) Competitor avoidance drives within-host feeding site selection in a passively dispersed herbivore. Ecol Entomol 39:10–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez S, Gonda-King L, Orians CM, Orwig DA, Panko R, Radville L, Soltis N, Thornber CS, Preisser EL (2015) Interactions between invasive herbivores and their longterm impact on New England hemlock forests. Biol Invasions 17:661–673

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gurevitch J, Fox GA, Wardle GM, Inderjit, Taub D (2011) Emergent insights from the synthesis of conceptual frameworks for biological invasions. Ecol Lett 14:407–418

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Henriksson A, Wardle DA, Trygg J, Diehl S, Englund G (2016) Strong invaders are strong defenders – implications for the resistance of invaded communities. Ecol Lett 19:487–494

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchinson GE (1957) Concluding remarks. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol 22:415–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson MC (2015) Interactions among multiple invasive animals. Ecology 96:2035–2041

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jongejans E, Shea K, Skarpaas O, Kelly D, Sheppard AW, Woodburn TL (2008) Dispersal and demography contributions to population spread of Carduus nutans in its native and invaded range. J Ecol 96:687–697

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juliano SA (2010) Coexistence, exclusion, or neutrality? A meta-analysis of competition between and resident mosquitoes. Isr J Ecol Evol 56:325–351

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kendall BE (2015) Some directions in ecological theory. Ecology 96:3117–3125

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kuebbing SE, Nuñez MA (2015) Negative, neutral, and positive interactions among nonnative plants: Patterns, processes, and management implications. Glob Chang Biol 21:926–934

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kuebbing SE, Nuñez MA, Simberloff D (2013) Current mismatch between research and conservation efforts: the need to study co-occurring invasive plant species. Biol Conserv 160:121–129

    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 

  • Lotka AJ (1924) Elements of physical biology. Dover, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur R, Levins R (1967) Limiting similarity convergence and divergence of coexisting species. Am Nat 101:377–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neuhauser C, Pacala SW (1999) An explicitly spatial version of the Lotka–Volterra model with interspecific competition. Ann Appl Probab 9:1226–1259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pacala SW (1986) Neighborhood models of plant-population dynamics 2. multispecies models of annuals. Theor Popul Biol 29:262–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pacala SW, Silander JA (1985) Neighborhood models of plant-population dynamics 0.1. single-species models of annuals. Am Nat 125:385–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rauschert ESJ, Shea K (2012) Invasional interference due to similar inter- and intraspecific competition between invaders may affect management. Ecol Appl 22:1413–1420

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rauschert ESJ, Shea K, Bjornstad ON (2012) Coexistence patterns of two invasive thistle species, Carduus nutans and C. acanthoides, at three spatial scales. Biol Invasions 14:151–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruokolainen L, Hanski I (2016) Stable coexistence of ecologically identical species: conspecific aggregation via reproductive interference. J Anim Ecol 85:1365–2656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell JC, Sataruddin NS, Heard AD (2014) Over-invasion by functionally equivalent invasive species. Ecology 95:2268–2276

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Seabloom EW, Bjørnstad ON, Bolker BM, Reichman OJ (2005) Spatial signature of environmental heterogeneity, dispersal, and competition in successional grasslands. Ecol Monogr 75:199–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shea K, Kelly D, Sheppard AW, Woodburn TL (2005) Context-dependent biological control of an invasive thistle. Ecology 86:3174–3181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silvertown J, Holtier S, Johnson J, Dale P (1992) Cellular automaton models of interspecific competition for space—the effect of pattern on process. J Ecol 80:527–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff D (2006) Invasional meltdown 6 years later: important phenomenon, unfortunate metaphor, or both? Ecol Lett 9:912–919

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skarpaas O, Shea K (2007) Dispersal patterns, dispersal mechanisms, and invasion wave speeds for invasive thistles. Am Nat 170:421–430

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tilman D (1994) Competition and biodiversity in spatially structured habitats. Ecology 75:2–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, Melillo JM (1997) Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science 277:494–499

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wang JH, Kropff MJ, Lammert B, Christensen S, Hansen PK (2003) Using CA model to obtain insight into mechanism of plant population spread in a controllable system: annual weeds as an example. Ecol Modell 166:277–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warwick SI, Thompson BK, Black LD (1990) Comparative growth response in Carduus nutans, Carduus acanthoides, and their F1 hybrids. Can J Bot 68:1675–1679

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiner J, Conte PT (1981) Dispersal and neighborhood effects in an annual plant competition model. Ecol Model 13:131–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang SA, Ferrari MJ, Shea K (2011) Pollinator behavior mediates negative interactions between two congeneric invasive plant species. Am Nat 177:110–118

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the United States Department of Agriculture Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service National Research Initiative (Biology of Weedy and Invasive Plants) Grant #2002-35320-1228 to KS and a National Aeronautics and Space Administration Space Grant Fellowship to ER. Thanks to Olav Skarpaas, Zeynep Sezen, Adam Miller and Ingmar Rauschert for helpful suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biological, Geological and Environmental Sciences, Cleveland State University, 2121 Euclid Ave., Cleveland, OH, 44115, USA

    Emily Sofia Jalics Rauschert

  2. Department of Biology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

    Katriona Shea

Authors
  1. Emily Sofia Jalics Rauschert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Katriona Shea
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emily Sofia Jalics Rauschert.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rauschert, E.S.J., Shea, K. Competition between similar invasive species: modeling invasional interference across a landscape. Popul Ecol 59, 79–88 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10144-016-0569-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10144-016-0569-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation