Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 161, Issue 3, pp 581–590 | Cite as

Evidence that phylogenetically novel non-indigenous plants experience less herbivory

  • Steven Burton Hill
  • Peter M. Kotanen
Community ecology - Original Paper

Abstract

The degree to which biotic interactions influence invasion by non-indigenous species may be partly explained by the evolutionary relationship of these invaders with natives. Darwin’s naturalization hypothesis controversially proposes that non-native plants are more likely to invade if they lack close relatives in their new range. A possible mechanism for this pattern is that exotics that are more closely related to natives are more likely to share their herbivores, and thus will suffer more damage than phylogenetically isolated species. We tested this prediction using exotic plants in Ontario, Canada. We measured herbivore damage to 32 species of exotic plants in a common garden experiment, and 52 in natural populations. We estimated their phylogenetic distances from locally occurring natives in three ways: as mean distance (age) to all native plants, mean distance to native members of the same family, and distance to the closest native species. In the common garden, the proportion of leaves damaged and the average proportion of leaf area damaged declined with mean phylogenetic distance to native family relatives by late summer. Distance to native confamilials was a better predictor of damage than distance to the closest native species, while mean distance to the entire native plant community failed to predict damage. No significant patterns were detected for plants in natural populations, likely because uncontrolled site-to-site variation concealed these phylogenetic trends. To the extent that herbivory has negative demographic impacts, these results suggest that exotics that are more phylogenetically isolated from native confamilials should be more invasive; conversely, native communities should be more resistant to invasion if they harbor close familial relatives of potential invaders. However, the large scatter in this relationship suggests that these often are likely to be weak effects; as a result, these effects often may be difficult to detect in uncontrolled surveys of natural populations.

Keywords

Biological invasions Biotic resistance Community phylogenetics Enemy release Natural enemies 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by NSERC Research and Equipment Grants (P. M. K.), an NSERC PGS-D (S. B. H), and the KSR at Jokers Hill. Thanks to Kateryna Kostyukova for her continuous help, to Nathalie Taraban-Lagois, Gilbert Tang, James McKay, and Andrew MacDonald for their support, discussions, and field assistance, and to two anonymous reviewers for valuable suggestions on an earlier version of this manuscript. This is a publication of the KSR. All of the experiments conducted in this study comply with the current laws of Canada.

References

  1. Agrawal AA, Kotanen PM (2003) Herbivores and the success of exotic plants: a phylogenetically controlled experiment. Ecol Lett 6:712–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agrawal AA, Kotanen PM, Mitchell CE, Power AG, Godsoe W, Klironomos J (2005) Enemy release? An experiment with congeneric plant pairs and diverse above- and belowground enemies. Ecology 86:2979–2989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailey CD, Koch MA, Mayer M, Mummenhoff K, O’Kane SL Jr, Warwick SI, Windham MD, Al-Shehbaz IA (2006) Toward a global phylogeny of the Brassicaceae. Mol Biol Evol 23:2142–2160PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burnham KD, Anderson DA (2002) Model selection and multi-model inference, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Cahill JF, Kembel SW, Lamb EG, Keddy PA (2008) Does phylogenetic relatedness influence the strength of competition among vascular plants? Plant Ecol Evol Syst 10:41–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cappuccino N, Carpenter D (2005) Invasive exotic plants suffer less herbivory than non-invasive exotic plants. Biol Lett 1:435–438PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cavender-Bares J, Ackerly DD, Baum DA, Bazzaz FA (2004) Phylogenetic overdispersion in Floridian oak communities. Am Nat 163:823–843PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cavender-Bares J, Keen A, Miles B (2006) Phylogenetic structure of Floridian plant communities depends on taxonomic and spatial scale. Ecology 87:S109–S122PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Colautti RI, Ricciardi A, Grigorovich IA, MacIsaac HJ (2004) Is invasion success explained by the enemy release hypothesis? Ecol Lett 7:721–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crall AW, Meyerson LA, Stohlgren TJ, Jarnevich CS, Newman GJ, Graham J (2006) Show me the numbers: what data currently exist for non-native species in the USA? Front Ecol Environ 4:414–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Daehler CC (2001) Darwin’s naturalization hypothesis revisited. Am Nat 158:324–330PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Darwin C (1859) On the origin of species by means of natural selection. Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Dawson W, Burslem DFRP, Hulme PE (2009) Herbivory is related to taxonomic isolation, but not to invasiveness of tropical alien plants. Divers Distrib 15:141–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dewalt SJ, Denslow JS, Ickes K (2004) Natural-enemy release facilitates habitat expansion of the invasive tropical shrub Clidemia hirta. Ecology 85:471–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Diez JM, Sullivan JJ, Hulme PE, Edwards G, Duncan RP (2008) Darwin’s naturalization conundrum: dissecting taxonomic patterns of species invasions. Ecol Lett 11:674–681PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Downie SR, Katz-Downie DS, Watson MF (2000) A phylogeny of the flowering plant family Apiaceae based on chloroplast DNA rpl16 and rpoCl intron sequences: towards a suprageneric classification of subfamily Apioideae. Am J Bot 87:273–292PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Duncan RP, Williams PA (2002) Ecology—Darwin’s naturalization hypothesis challenged. Nature 417:608–609PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Freudenstein JV, van den Berg C, Goldman DH, Kores PJ, Molvray M, Chase MW (2004) An expanded plastid DNA phylogeny of Orchidaceae and analysis of jackknife branch support strategy. Am J Bot 91:149–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Funk VA, Bayer RJ, Kelley S, Chan R, Watson L, Gemeinholzer B, Schilling E, Panero JL, Baldwin BG, Garcia-Jacas N, Susanna A, Jansen RK (2005) Everywhere but Antarctica: using a supertree to understand the diversity and distribution of the Compositae. Biol Skr 55:343–374Google Scholar
  20. Gilbert GS, Webb CO (2007) Phylogenetic signal in plant pathogen–host range. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:4979–4983PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hawkes CV (2007) Are invaders moving targets? The generality and persistence of advantages in size, reproduction, and enemy release in invasive plant species with time since introduction. Am Nat 170:832–843PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hillis DM (1987) Molecular versus morphological approaches to systematics. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 18:23–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Holt RD (1977) Predation, apparent competition, and structure of prey communities. Theor Popul Biol 12:197–229PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Holt RD, Lawton JH (1994) The ecological consequences of shared natural enemies. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 25:495–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Keane RM, Crawley MJ (2002) Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. Trends Ecol Evol 17:164–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Långström E, Chase MW (2002) Tribes of Boraginoideae (Boraginaceae) and placement of Antiphytum, Echiochilon, Ogastemma, and Sericostoma: a phylogenetic analysis based on atpB plastid DNA sequence data. Plant Syst Evol 234:137–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lewinsohn TM, Novotny V, Basset Y (2005) Insects on plants: diversity of herbivore assemblages revisited. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 36:597–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Liu H, Stiling P (2006) Testing the enemy release hypothesis: a review and meta-analysis. Biol Invasions 8:1535–1545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Liu H, Stiling P, Pemberton RW (2007) Does enemy release matter for invasive plants? Evidence from a comparison of insect herbivore damage among invasive, non-invasive and native congeners. Biol Invasions 9:773–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Maron JL, Vila M (2001) When do herbivores affect plant invasion? Evidence for the natural enemies and biotic resistance hypotheses. Oikos 95:361–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mitchell CE, Power AG (2003) Release of invasive plants from fungal and viral pathogens. Nature 421:625–627PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mitchell CE, Agrawal AA, Bever JD, Gilbert GS, Hufbauer RA, Klironomos JN, Maron JL, Morris WF, Parker IM, Power AG, Seabloom EW, Torchin ME, Vazquez DP (2006) Biotic interactions and plant invasions. Ecol Lett 9:726–740PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Morton JK, Venn JM (1990) A checklist of the flora of Ontario: vascular plants. University of Waterloo biology series. University of Waterloo, WaterlooGoogle Scholar
  35. Natali A, Manen J-F, Ehrendorfer F (1995) Phylogeny of the Rubiaceae–Rubioideae, in particular the tribe Rubieae: evidence from a non-coding chloroplast DNA sequence. Ann Mo Bot Gard 82:428–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Novotny V, Basset Y (2005) Host specificity of insect herbivores in tropical forests. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 272:1083–1090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Novotny V, Basset Y, Miller SE, Weiblen GD, Bremer B, Cizek L, Drozd P (2002) Low host specificity of herbivorous insects in a tropical forest. Nature 416:841–844PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Odegaard F, Diserud OH, Ostbye K (2005) The importance of plant relatedness for host utilization among phytophagous insects. Ecol Lett 8:612–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Olmstead RA, dePamphilis CW, Wolfe AD, Young ND, Ellisons WJ, Reeves PA (2001) Disintegration of the Scrophulariaceae. Am J Bot 88:348–361PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Oxelman B, Lidén M, Berglund D (1996) Chloroplast rps16 intron phylogeny of the tribe Sileneae (Caryophyllaceae). Plant Syst Evol 206:393–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Parker JD, Hay ME (2005) Biotic resistance to plant invasions? Native herbivores prefer non-native plants. Ecol Lett 8:959–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Parker JD, Burkepile DE, Hay ME (2006) Opposing effects of native and exotic herbivores on plant invasions. Science 311:1459–1461PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Paton AJ, Springate D, Suddee S, Otieno D, Grayer RJ, Harley MM, Willis F, Simmonds MSJ, Powell MP, Savolainen V (2004) Phylogeny and evolution of basils and allies (Ocimeae, Labiatae) based on three plastid DNA regions. Mol Phylogenet Evol 31:277–299PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pimentel D, Lach L, Zuniga R, Morrison D (2000) Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous species in the United States. Bioscience 50:53–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Potter D, Erickson T, Evans RC, Oh S, Smedmark JEE, Morgan DR, Kerr M, Robertson KR, Arsenault M, Dickinson TA, Campbell CS (2007) Phylogeny and classification of Rosaceae. Plant Syst Evol 266:5–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Proches S, Wilson JRU, Richardson DM, Rejmanek M (2008) Searching for phylogenetic pattern in biological invasions. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 17:5–10Google Scholar
  47. Rejmanek M (1996) A theory of seed plant invasiveness: the first sketch. Biol Conserv 78:171–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ro K-E, Keener CS, McPheron BA (1997) Molecular phylogenetic study of the Ranunculaceae: utility of the nuclear 26S ribosomal DNA in inferring intrafamilial relationships. Mol Phylogenet Evol 8:117–127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ronsted N, Chase MW, Albach DC, Bello MA (2002) Phylogenetic relationships within Plantago (Plantaginaceae): evidence from nuclear ribosomal ITS and plastid trnL-F sequence data. Bot J Linn Soc 139:323–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. SAS Institute (2002) JMP version 50. SAS Institute, CaryGoogle Scholar
  51. Smedmark JEE, Erickson T (2002) Phylogenetic relationships of Geum (Rosaceae) and relatives inferred from the nrITS and trnL-trnF regions. Syst Bot 27:303–317Google Scholar
  52. Smissen RD, Clement JC, Garnock-Jones PJ, Chambers GK (2002) Subfamilial relationships within Caryophyllaceae as inferred from 5′ ndhF sequences. Am J Bot 89:1336–1341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Strauss SY, Webb CO, Salamin N (2006) Exotic taxa less related to native species are more invasive. PNAS 15:5841–5845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Strong DR, Lawton JH, Southwood R (1984) Insects on plants. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  55. Swenson NG, Enquist BJ, Thompson J, Zimmerman JK (2007) The influence of spatial and size scale on phylogenetic relatedness in tropical forest communities. Ecology 88:1770–1780PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. R Development Core Team (2006) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. http://wwwR-projectorg
  57. Torchin ME, Mitchell CE (2004) Parasites, pathogens, and invasions by plants and animals. Front Ecol Environ 2:183–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wagstaff SJ, Hickerson L, Spangler R, Reeves PA, Olmsted RA (1998) Phylogeny in Labiatae s l inferred from cpDNA sequences. Plant Syst Evol 209:265–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Webb CO (2000) Exploring the phylogenetic structure of ecological communities: an example for rain forest trees. Am Nat 156:145–155PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Webb CO, Donoghue MJ (2005) Phylomatic: tree assembly for applied phylogenetics. Mol Ecol Notes 5:181–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Webb CO, Ackerly DD, McPeek MA, Donoghue MJ (2002) Phylogenies and community ecology. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 33:475–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Webb CO, Gilbert GS, Donoghue MJ (2006) Phylodiversity-dependent seedling mortality, size structure, and disease in a Bornean rain forest. Ecology 87:S123–S131PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Weiblen GD, Webb CO, Novotny V, Basset Y, Miller SE (2006) Phylogenetic dispersion of host use in a tropical insect herbivore community. Ecology 87:S62–S75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wikstrom N, Savolainen V, Chase MW (2001) Evolution of the angiosperms: calibrating the family tree. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 268:2211–2220CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of Toronto at MississaugaMississaugaCanada

Personalised recommendations