, Volume 144, Issue 1, pp 1–11 | Cite as

Phenotypic and genetic differentiation between native and introduced plant populations

  • Oliver BossdorfEmail author
  • Harald Auge
  • Lucile Lafuma
  • William E. Rogers
  • Evan Siemann
  • Daniel Prati
Concepts, Reviews, and Syntheses


Plant invasions often involve rapid evolutionary change. Founder effects, hybridization, and adaptation to novel environments cause genetic differentiation between native and introduced populations and may contribute to the success of invaders. An influential idea in this context has been the Evolution of Increased Competitive Ability (EICA) hypothesis. It proposes that after enemy release plants rapidly evolve to be less defended but more competitive, thereby increasing plant vigour in introduced populations. To detect evolutionary change in invaders, comparative studies of native versus introduced populations are needed. Here, we review the current empirical evidence from: (1) comparisons of phenotypic variation in natural populations; (2) comparisons of molecular variation with neutral genetic markers; (3) comparisons of quantitative genetic variation in a common environment; and (4) comparisons of phenotypic plasticity across different environments. Field data suggest that increased vigour and reduced herbivory are common in introduced plant populations. In molecular studies, the genetic diversity of introduced populations was not consistently different from that of native populations. Multiple introductions of invasive plants appear to be the rule rather than the exception. In tests of the EICA hypothesis in a common environment, several found increased growth or decreased resistance in introduced populations. However, few provided a full test of the EICA hypothesis by addressing growth and defence in the same species. Overall, there is reasonable empirical evidence to suggest that genetic differentiation through rapid evolutionary change is important in plant invasions. We discuss conceptual and methodological issues associated with cross-continental comparisons and make recommendations for future research. When testing for EICA, greater emphasis should be put on competitive ability and plant tolerance. Moreover, it is important to address evolutionary change in characteristics other than defence and growth that could play a role in plant invasions.


Biological invasions Ecological genetics Microevolution Molecular markers Phenotypic plasticity 



This review originated from a workshop on evolution in invasions that was financially supported by the ESF European Science Foundation, the Stiftung Allgemeine Hypothekenbank, and the UFZ Centre for Environmental Research. WER and ES were supported by the US NSF, US EPA and USDA. We are grateful to Sarah Elmendorf, Gabi Jakobs, Jasmin Joshi, Annett Winkler for their unpublished data, and to Saara DeWalt for her thoughtful comments. Comments by Christian Körner and two anonymous reviewers greatly improved the quality of this manuscript.


  1. Amsellem L, Noyer JL, Le Bourgeois T, Hossaert-McKey M (2000) Comparison of genetic diversity of the invasive weed Rubus alceifolius Poir. (Rosaceae) in its native range and in areas of introduction, using amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) markers. Mol Ecol 9:443–455CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Amsellem L, Noyer JL, Hossaert-McKey M (2001) Evidence for a switch in the reproductive biology of Rubus alceifolius (Rosaceae) towards apomixis, between its native range and its area of introduction. Am J Bot 88:2243–2251CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bais HP, Vepachedu R, Gilroy S, Callaway RM, Vivanco JM (2003) Allelopathy and plant invasions: from molecules to genes to species interactions. Science 301:1377–1380CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker HG (1965) Characteristics and modes of origin of weeds. In: Baker HG, Stebbins GL (eds) The genetics of colonizing species. Academic, New York, pp 147–169Google Scholar
  5. Baker HG (1974) The evolution of weeds. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 5:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barrett SCH, Husband BC (1990) Genetics of plant migration and colonization. In: Brown AHD, Clegg MT, Kahler AL, Weir BS (eds) Plant population genetics, breeding, and genetic resources. Sinauer, Sunderland, pp 254–277Google Scholar
  7. Barrett SCH, Shore JS (1989) Isozyme variation in colonizing plants. In: Soltis D, Soltis P (eds) Isozymes in plant biology. Dioscorides, Portland, pp 106–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bastlova D, Květ J (2002) Differences in dry weight partitioning and flowering phenology between native and non-native plants of purple lossestrife (Lythrum salicaria L.). Flora 197:332–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blair AC, Wolfe LM (2004) The evolution of an invasive plant: an experimental study with Silene latifolia. Ecology 85:3035–3042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blossey B, Kamil J (1996) What determines the increased competitive ability of invasive non-indigenous plants?. In: Moran VC, Hoffmann JH (eds) Proceedings of the IX international symposium on the biological control of weeds. University of Cape Town, Stellenbosch, pp 3–9Google Scholar
  11. Blossey B, Nötzold R (1995) Evolution of increased competitive ability in invasive non-indigenous plants: a hypothesis. J Ecol 83:887–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bossdorf O, Prati D, Auge H, Schmid B (2004a) Reduced competitive ability in an invasive plant. Ecol Lett 7:346–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bossdorf O, Schröder S, Prati D, Auge H (2004b) Palatability and tolerance to simulated herbivory in native and introduced populations of Alliaria petiolata (Brassicaceae). Am J Bot 91:856–862CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Brown AHD, Marshall DR (1981) Evolutionary changes accompanying colonization in plants. In: Scudder GGE, Reveal JL (eds) Evolution today. Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburg, pp 351–363Google Scholar
  15. Buckley YM, Downey P, Fowler SV, Hill R, Memmott J, Norambuena H, Pitcairn M, Shaw R, Sheppard AW, Winks C, Wittenberg R, Rees M (2003) Are invasives bigger? A global study of seed size variation in two invasive shrubs. Ecology 84:1434–1440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Buschmann H, Edwards PJ, Dietz H (2005) Variation in growth pattern and response to slug damage among native and invasive provenances of four perennial Brassicaceae species. J Ecol (in press)Google Scholar
  17. Callaway RM, Aschehoug ET (2000) Invasive plants versus their new and old neighbors: a mechanism for exotic invasion. Science 290:521–523PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Callaway RM, Ridenour (2004) Novel weapons: invasive success and the evolution of increased competitive ability. Front Ecol Environ 2:436–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Callaway RM, Thelen GC, Rodriguez A, Holben WE (2004) Soil biota and exotic plant invasion. Nature 427:731–733CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Clement SL (1994) Resistance among populations of yellow starthistle to thistle-head insects: results from garden plots in Italy. Biol Control 4:149–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cody ML, Overton JM (1996) Short-term evolution of reduced dispersal in island plant populations. J Ecol 84:53–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Crawley MJ (1987) What makes a community invasible?. In: Gray AJ, Crawley MJ, Edwards PJ (eds) Colonisation, succession and stability. Blackwell, London, pp 429–453Google Scholar
  23. Crawley MJ, Harvey PH, Purvis A (1996) Comparative ecology of the native and alien floras of the British Isles. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 351:1251–1259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Daehler CC, Strong DR (1997) Reduced herbivore resistance in introduced smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) after a century of herbivore-free growth. Oecologia 110:99–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. DeWalt SJ, Denslow JS, Hamrick JL (2004a) Biomass allocation, growth, and photosynthesis of genotypes from native and introduced ranges of the tropical shrub Clidemia hirta. Oecologia 138:121–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. DeWalt SJ, Hamrick JL (2004) Genetic variation of introduced Hawaiian and native Costa Rican populations of an invasive tropical shrub, Clidemia hirta. Am J Bot 91:1155–1162CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. DeWalt SJ, Denslow JS, Ickes K (2004b) Natural-enemy release facilitates habitat expansion of the invasive tropical shrub Clidemia hirta. Ecology 85:471–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Drake JA, Mooney HA, di Castri F, Groves RH, Kruger FJ, Rejmánek M, Williamson M (1989) Biological invasions: a global perspective. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  29. Durka W (1999) Genetic diversity in peripheral and subcentral populations of Corrigiola litoralis L. (Illecebraceae). Heredity 83:476–484CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Durka W, Bossdorf O, Prati D, Auge H (2005) Molecular evidence for multiple introductions of Alliaria petiolata to North America. Mol Ecol (in press)Google Scholar
  31. Eckert CG, Manicacci D, Barrett SCH (1996) Genetic drift and founder effect in native versus introduced populations of an invading plant, Lythrum salicaria (Lythraceae). Evolution 50:1512–1519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Eckert CG, Massonnet B, Thomas JJ (2000) Variation in sexual reproduction among introduced populations of flowering rush, Butomus umbellatus (Butomaceae). Can J Bot 78:437–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Edwards KR, Adams MS, Květ J (1998) Differences between European native and American invasive populations of Lythrum salicaria. Appl Veg Sci 1:267–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ellstrand NC, Schierenbeck KA (2000) Hybridization as a stimulus for the evolution of invasiveness in plants? Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:7043–7050CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Erfmeier A, Bruelheide H (2004) Comparison of native and invasive Rhododendron ponticum populations: growth, reproduction and morphology under field conditions. Flora 199:120–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Fenner M, Lee WG (2001) Lack of pre-dispersal seed predators in introduced Asteraceae in New Zealand. N Z J Ecol 25:95–99Google Scholar
  37. Fenster CB, Galloway LF, Chao L (1997) Epistasis and its consequences for the evolution of natural populations. Trends Ecol Evol 12:282–286CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Gilpin M (1990) Ecological prediction. Science 248:88–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Goldberg DE (1996) Competitive ability: definitions, contingency and correlated traits. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 351:1377–1385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Grime JP (1979) Plant strategies and vegetation processes. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  41. Hänfling B, Kollmann J (2002) An evolutionary perspective on biological invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 17:545–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hierro JL, Maron JL, Callaway RM (2005) A biogeographical approach to plant invasions: the importance of studying exotics in their introduced and native range. J Ecol 93:5–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Husband BC, Barrett SCH (1991) Colonization history and population genetic structure in Eichhornia paniculata. Heredity 66:287–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Jakobs G, Weber E, Edwards PJ (2004) Introduced plants of the invasive Solidago gigantea (Asteraceae) are larger and grow denser than conspecifics in the native range. Divers Distrib 10:11–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kaufman SR, Smouse PE (2001) Comparing indigenous and introduced populations of Melaleuca quiquenervia (Cav.) Blake: response of seedlings to water and pH levels. Oecologia 127:487–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Keane RM, Crawley MJ (2002) Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. Trends Ecol Evol 17:164–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. van Kleunen M, Schmid B (2003) No evidence for an evolutionary increased competitive ability (EICA) in an invasive plant. Ecology 84:2816–2823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Klironomos JN (2002). Feedback with soil biota contributes to plant rarity and invasiveness in communities. Nature 417:67–70CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Kowarik I (1995) Time lags in biological invasions with regard to the succes and failure of alien species. In: Pysek P, Prach K, Rejmanek M, Wade M (eds) Plant invasions: general aspects and special problems. SPB Academic, Amsterdam, pp 14–38Google Scholar
  50. Lafuma L (2003) L’invasion de Senecio inaequidens (Asteraceae) en Europe: une approche evolutive. PhD thesis, Université de MontpellierGoogle Scholar
  51. Lafuma L, Balkwill K, Imbert E, Verlaque R, Maurice S (2003) Ploidy level and origin of the European invasive weed Senecio inaequidens (Asteraceae). Plant Syst Evol 243:59–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lankau RA, Rogers WE, Siemann E (2004) Constraints on the utilisation of the invasive Chinese tallow tree Sapium sebiferum by generalist native herbivores in coastal prairies. Ecol Entomol 29:66–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lee CE (2002) Evolutionary genetics of invasive species. Trends Ecol Evol 17:386–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Leger EA, Rice KJ (2003) Invasive Californian poppies (Eschscholzia californica Cham.) grow larger than native individuals under reduced competition. Ecol Lett 6:257–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Levine J, Vilà M, D’Antonio CM, Dukes JS, Grigulis K, Lavorel S (2003) Mechanisms underlying the impact of exotic plant invasions. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:775–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lodge DM (1993) Biological invasions: lessons for ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 8:133–137CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Lonsdale WM (1999) Global patterns of plant invasions and the concept of invasibility. Ecology 80:1522–1536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lym RG, Carlson RB (2002) Effect of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) genotype on feeding damage and reproduction of Aphthona spp.: implications for biological weed control. Biol Control 23:127–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lynch M, Walsh B (1998) Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits. Sinauer, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  60. Mack RN, Lonsdale WM (2001) Humans as global plant dispersers: getting more than we bargained for. Bioscience 51:95–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Mack RN, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM, Evans H, Clout M, Bazzaz FA (2000) Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol Appl 10:689–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Maron JL, Vilà M (2001) When do herbivores affect plant invasions? Evidence for the natural enemies and biotic resistance hypotheses. Oikos 95:361–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Maron JL, Vilà M, Bommarco R, Elmendorf S, Beardsley P (2004) Rapid evolution of an invasive plant. Ecol Monogr 74:261–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Meekins JF, Ballard Jr HE, McCarthy BC (2001) Genetic variation and molecular biogeography of a Northern American invasive plant species (Alliaria petiolata, Brassicaceae). Int J Plant Sci 162:161–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. van der Meijden E (1996) Plant defence, an evolutionary dilemma: contrasting effects of (specialist and generalist) herbivores and natural enemies. Entom Exp Appl 80:307–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Memmott J, Fowler SV, Paynter Q, Sheppard AW, Syrett P (2000) The invertebrate fauna on broom, Cytisus scoparius, in two native and two exotic habitats. Acta Oecol 21:213–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Milne RI, Abbott RJ (2000) Origin and evolution of invasive naturalized material of Rhododendron ponticum L. in the British Isles. Mol Ecol 9:541–556CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Mitchell CE, Power AG (2003) Release of invasive plants from fungal and viral pathogens. Nature 421:625–627CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Mooney HA, Cleland EE (2001) The evolutionary impact of invasive species. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:5446–5451CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  70. Müller H (1989) Growth pattern of diploid and tetraploid spotted knapweed, Centaurea maculosa Lam. (Compositae) and effects of the root-mining moth Agapeta zoegana (L.) (Lep.: Cochylidae). Weed Res 29:103–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Müller-Schärer H, Steinger T (2004) Predicting evolutionary change in invasive, exotic plants and its consequences for plant–herbivore interactions. In: Ehler LE, Sforza R, Mateille T (eds) Genetics, evolution and biological control. CABI, Wallingford, pp 137–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Naciri-Graven Y, Goudet J (2003) The additive genetic variance after bottlenecks is affected by the number of loci involved in epistatic interactions. Evolution 57:706–716PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Neuffer B, Hurka H (1999) Colonization history and introduction dynamics of Capsella bursa-pastoris (Brassicaceae) in North America: isozymes and quantitative traits. Mol Ecol 8:1667–1681CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Novak SJ, Mack RN (1993) Genetic variation in Bromus tectorum (Poaceae): comparison between native and introduced populations. Heredity 71:167–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Novak SJ, Mack RN, Soltis DE (1991) Genetic variation in Bromus tectorum: population differentiation in its North American range. Am J Bot 78:1150–1161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Olivieri I (1984) Effect of Puccinia cardui-pycnocephali on slender thistles (Carduus pycnocephalus and C. tenuiflorus). Weed Sci 32:507–510Google Scholar
  77. Perrings C, Williamson M, Dalmazzone S (2000) The economics of biological invasions. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Pimentel D, Lach L, Zuniga R, Morrison D (2000) Environmental and economic costs of non-indigenous species in the Unites States. Bioscience 50:53–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Prati D, Bossdorf O (2004a) A comparison of native and introduced populations of the South African Ragwort Senecio inaequidens DC. in the field. In: Breckle SW, Schweizer B, Fangmeier A (eds) Results of worldwide ecological studies. Verlag Günther Heimbach, Stuttgart, pp 353–359Google Scholar
  80. Prati D, Bossdorf O (2004b) Allelopathic inhibition of germination by Alliaria petiolata (Brassicaceae). Am J Bot 91:285–288CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Rahm S (2003) Comparison of invasive European and native American taxa of the S.canadensis complex, in respect to some taxonomic features and their response to herbivory. Diploma thesis, University of ZurichGoogle Scholar
  82. Reinhart KO, Packer A, Van der Putten WH, Clay K (2003) Plant-soil biota interactions and spatial distribution of black cherry in its native and invasive ranges. Ecol Lett 6:1046–1050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Reznick DN, Ghalambor CK (2001) The population ecology of contemporary adaptations: what empirical studies reveal about the conditions that promote adaptive evolution. Genetica 112–113:183–198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Rice KJ, Mack RN (1991) Ecological genetics of Bromus tectorum. II. Intraspecific variation in phenotypic plasticity. Oecologia 88:84–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Roach DA, Wulff RD (1987) Maternal effects in plants. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 18:209–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Rogers WE, Siemann E (2004a) Invasive ecotypes tolerate herbivory more effectively than native ecotypes of the Chinese tallow tree Sapium sebiferum. J Appl Ecol 41:561–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Rogers WE, Siemann E (2004b) The role of herbivores in alien plant invasions: insights using a combination of methods to enhance or reduce herbivory. In: Weisser WW, Siemann E (eds) Insects and ecosystem function. Springer, Berlin, pp 329–356Google Scholar
  88. Rogers WE, Lankau RA, Siemann E (2003) Damage induced production of extrafloral nectaries in native and introduced seedlings of Chinese tallow tree (Sapium sebiferum). Am Midl Nat 149:413–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Ross C (2003) Der Anteil der nordamerikanischen Arten Rhododendron catawbiense und Rhododendron maximum an der genetischen Struktur hybridogener Rhododendron ponticum-Populationen in Irland. Diploma thesis, Albrecht-von-Haller-Institut für Pflanzenwissenschaften, University of GöttingenGoogle Scholar
  90. Sakai A, Allendorf F, Holt JS, Lodge DM, Molofsky J, With KA, Baughman S, Cabin RJ, Cohen JE, Ellstrand NC, Mc Cauley DE, O’Neill P, Parker IM, Thompson JN, Weller SG (2001) The population biology of invasive species. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 32:305–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Sala OE, Chapin III FS, Armesto JJ, Berlow E, Bloomfield J, Dirzo R, Huber-Sanwald E, Huenneke LF, Jackson RB, Kinzig A, Leemans R, Lodge DM, Mooney HA, Oesterheld M, Poff NL, Sykes MT, Walker BH, Walker M, Wall DH (2000) Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287:1770–1774CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. Saltonstall K (2003) Microsatellite variation within and among North American lineages of Phragmites australis. Mol Ecol 12:1689–1702CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. Sexton JP, McKay JK, Sala A (2002) Plasticity and genetic diversity may allow saltcedar to invade cold climates in North America. Ecol Appl 12:1652–1660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Siemann E, Rogers WE (2001) Genetic differences in growth of an invasive tree species. Ecol Lett 4:514–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Siemann E, Rogers WE (2003a) Increased competitive ability of an invasive tree my be limited by an invasive beetle. Ecol Appl 13:1503–1507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Siemann E, Rogers WE (2003b) Reduced resistance of invasive varieties of the alien tree Sapium sebiferum to a generalist herbivore. Oecologia 135:451–457PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Squirrell J, Hollingsworth PM, Bateman RM, Dickson JH, Light MHS, MacConaill M, Tebbitt MC (2001) Partitioning and diversity of nuclear and organelle markers in native and introduced populations of Epipactis helleborine (Orchidaceae). Am J Bot 88:1409–1418CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. Stastny M, Schaffner U, Elle E (2005) Do vigour of introduced populations and escape from specialist herbivores contribute to invasiveness? J Ecol 93:27–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Thébaud C, Simberloff D (2001) Are plants really larger in their introduced ranges? Am Nat 157:231–236CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. Thompson JN (1998) Rapid evolution as an ecological process. Trends Ecol Evol 13:329–332CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. Tilman D (1982) Resource competition and community structure. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USAGoogle Scholar
  102. Vilà M, Gómez A, Maron JL (2003) Are alien plants more competitive than their native conspecifics? A test using Hypericum perforatum L. Oecologia 137:211–215CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. Vilà M, Maron JL, Marco L (2005) Evidence for the enemy release hypothesis in Hypericum perforatum. Oecologia 142:474–479CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. Vitousek PM, D’Antonio CM, Loppe LL, Westbrooks R (1996) Biological invasions as global environmental change. Am Sci 84:468–478Google Scholar
  105. Walker NF, Hulme PE, Hoelzel AR (2003) Population genetics of an invasive species, Heracleum mantegazzianum: implications for the role of life history, demographics and independent introductions. Mol Ecol 12:1747–1756CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. Warwick SI, Thompson BK, Black LD (1987) Genetic variation in Canadian and European populations of the colonizing weed species Apera spica-venti. New Phytol 106:301–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Weber E, D’Antonio CM (1998) Phenotypic plasticity in hybridizing Carpobrotus ssp. (Aizoaceae) from coastal California and its role in plant invasions. Can J Bot 77:1411–1418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Williamson M (1996) Biological invasions. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  109. Willis AJ, Blossey B (1999) Benign environments do not explain the increased vigour of non-indigenous plants: a cross-continental transplant experiment. Biocontrol Sci Tech 9:567–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Willis AJ, Thomas MB, Lawton JH (1999) Is the increased vigour of invasive weeds explained by a trade-off between growth and herbivore resistance? Oecologia 120:632–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Willis AJ, Memmott J, Forrester RI (2000) Is there evidence for the post-invasion evolution of increased size among invasive plant species? Ecol Lett 3:275–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Wolfe LM (2002) Why alien invaders succeed: support for the escape-from-enemy hypothesis. Am Nat 160:705–711CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. Wolfe LM, Elzinga JA, Biere A (2004) Increased susceptibility to enemies following introduction in the invasive plant Silene latifolia. Ecol Lett 7:813–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Woodburn TL, Sheppard AW (1996) The demography of Carduus nutans as a native and an alien weed. Plant Protect Q 11:236–238Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oliver Bossdorf
    • 1
    • 2
    • 5
    Email author
  • Harald Auge
    • 1
  • Lucile Lafuma
    • 3
  • William E. Rogers
    • 4
    • 6
  • Evan Siemann
    • 4
  • Daniel Prati
    • 1
  1. 1.UFZ – Centre for Environmental Research Leipzig-HalleDepartment of Community EcologyHalleGermany
  2. 2.Institut für UmweltwissenschaftenUniversität ZürichZürichSwitzerland
  3. 3.ISEM, cc 065Université de Montpellier IIPlace Eugene BataillonMontpellierFrance
  4. 4.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyRice UniversityHoustonUSA
  5. 5.Department of Ecology and EvolutionState University of New YorkStony BrookUSA
  6. 6.Department of Rangeland Ecology and ManagementTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations