Advertisement

Biological Invasions

, Volume 9, Issue 5, pp 515–521 | Cite as

Does intraspecific hybridization contribute to the evolution of invasiveness?: an experimental test

  • Lorne M. WolfeEmail author
  • Amy C. Blair
  • Brandy M. Penna
Original paper

Abstract

One of the major objectives of research on invasive species is to determine the relative importance of different evolutionary and ecological forces in the invasion process. It was recently suggested that post-introduction intraspecific hybridization between previously isolated genotypes could produce novel and/or heterotic progeny that might express enhanced invasiveness. We tested this hypothesis with Silene latifolia, a European native that has successfully invaded North America and has previously been shown to have undergone genetic change since its introduction. In a common garden experiment we compared the performance of plants derived from within and between population crosses from eight European and 18 North American populations. Results showed that there was no significant effect of crossing distance on progeny phenotype. Furthermore, progeny from within or between population crosses did not differ in size, reproductive output or survival. Collectively, these results suggest that the invasive phenotype of S. latifolia is likely the result of natural selection and/or genetic drift rather than intraspecific hybridization.

Keywords

Intraspecific hybridization Biological invasion Silene latifolia Survival Common garden Gene flow Interbreeding 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank J. Antonovics, J. Burns, G. Greenwood, M. Hood, J. Partain, D. Sowell and D. Taylor for help with field work; University of Virginia’s Mountain Lake Biological Station for providing research space and facilities, D. Baker for help with GIS; R. Chandler for statistical advice, and J. Antonovics, K. Burgess, R. Hufbauer, S. Keller, and two anonymous reviewers for discussion and/or for providing comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript. This study was supported by grants from National Science Foundation (DEB 0349553) and United States Department of Agriculture (Weedy and Invasive Species) to L.M.W.

References

  1. Arnold ML (1997) Natural hybridization and evolution. Oxford S. Eco, EvoGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnold ML, Bulger MR, Burke JM et al (1999) Natural hybridization: how low can you go and still be important? Ecology 80:371–381Google Scholar
  3. Barrett SCH (2000) Microevolutionary influences of global change on plant invasions. In: Mooney HA, Hobbs RK (eds) The impact of global change on invasive species. Covelo, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  4. Blair AC, Wolfe LM (2004) The evolution of an invasive plant: an experimental study with Silene latifolia. Ecology 85:3035–3042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blossey B, Notzold R (1995) Evolution of increased competitive ability in invasive nonindigenous plants— a hypothesis. J Ecol 83:887–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Broyles SB, Wyatt R (1991) Effective pollen dispersal in a natural-population of Asclepias exaltata—the influence of pollinator behavior, genetic similarity, and mating success. Am Nat 138:1239–1249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burke JM, Arnold ML (2001) Genetics and the fitness of hybrids. Ann Rev Genet 35:31–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cox GW (2004) Alien species and evolution: the evolutionary ecology of exotic plants, animals, microbes, and interacting native species. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  9. Crawley MJ (1987) The population biology of invaders. Phil Trans Roy Soc Lond B 314:711–731Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Edmands S (1999) Heterosis and outbreeding depression in interpopulation crosses spanning a wide range of divergence. Evolution 53:1757–1768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Edmands S, Feaman HV, Harrison JS et al (2005) Genetic consequences of many generations of hybridization between divergent copepod populations. J Hered 96:114–123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ellstrand NC, Schierenbeck KA (2000) Hybridization as a stimulus for the evolution of invasiveness in plants? Proc Nat Acad Sci 97:7043–7050PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Facon B, Jarne P, Pointier JP et al (2005) Hybridization and invasiveness in the freshwater snail Melanoides tuberculata: hybrid vigour is more important than increase in genetic structure. J Evol Biol 18:524–535PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fenster CB, Galloway LF (2000) Inbreeding and outbreeding depression in natural populations of Chamaecrista fasciculata (Fabaceae): consequences for conservation biology. Con Biol 14:1406–1412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Galloway LF, Etterson JR (2005) Population differentiation and hybrid success in Campanula americana: geography and genome size. J Evol Biol 18:81–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gaskin JF, Schaal BA (2002) Hybrid Tamarix widespread in US invasion and undetected in native Asian range. Proc Nat Acad Sci 99:11256–11259PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hardner CM, Potts BM, Gore PL (1998) The relationship between cross success and spatial proximity of Eucalyptus globulus ssp. globulus parents. Evolution 52:614–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Irwin RE (2001) Field and allozyme studies investigating optimal mating success in two sympatric spring-ephemeral plants, Trillium erectum and T. grandiflorum. Heredity 87:178–189PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Keller M, Kollmann J, Edwards PJ (2000) Genetic introgression from distant provenances reduces fitness in local weed populations. J Appl Ecol 37:647–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kliber A, Eckert CG (2005) Interaction between founder effect and selection during biological invasion in an aquatic plant. Evolution 59:1900–1913PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Kolbe J, Glor R, Schettino L et al (2004) Genetic variation increases during biological invasion by a Cuban lizard. Nature 431:177–181PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lande R (1988) Genetics and demography in biological conservation. Science 241:1455–1460PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lee CE (2002) Evolutionary genetics of invasive species. TREE 17:386–391Google Scholar
  25. Leger EA, Rice KJ (2003) Invasive California poppies (Eschscholzia californica Cham.) grow larger than native individuals under reduced competition. Ecol Lett 6:257–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lynch M (1991) The genetic interpretation of inbreeding depression and outbreeding depression. Evolution 45:622–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McNeil J (1977) The biology of Canadian weeds. Can J Bot 57:1103–1114Google Scholar
  28. Nolte AW, Freyhof J, Stemshorn KC et al (2005) An invasive lineage of sculpins, Cottus sp (Pisces, Teleostei) in the Rhine with new habitat adaptations has originated from hybridization between old phylogeographic groups. Proc Roy Soc 272:2379–2387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Novak SJ, Mack RN (2005) Genetic bottlenecks in alien plant species: influence of mating systems and introduction dynamics. In: Sax DF, Stachowicz JJ, Gaines SD (eds) Species invasions: insights into ecology, evolution, and biogeography. Sunderland, MAGoogle Scholar
  30. Price MV, Waser NM (1989) Pollen dispersal and optimal outcrossing in Delphinium nelsoni. Nature 277:294–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rieseberg LH, Raymond O, Rosenthal DM et al (2003) Major ecological transitions in annual sunflowers facilitated by hybridization. Science 301:1211–1216PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rigney LP, Thomson JD, Cruzan MB et al (1993) Differential success of pollen donors in a self-compatible lily. Evolution 47:915–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sakai AK, Allendorf FW, Holt JS et al (2001) The population biology of invasive species. Ann Rev Ecol Sys 32:305–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schierenbeck K, Symonds V, Gallagher K et al (2005) Genetic variation and phylogeographic analyses of two species of Carpobrotus and their hybrids in California. Mol Ecol 14:539–547PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Seehausen O (2004) Hybridization and adaptive radiation. TREE 19:198–207PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Siemann E, Rogers WE (2003) Reduced resistance of invasive varieties of the alien tree Sapium sebiferum to a generalist herbivore. Oecologia 135:451–457PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Souto CP, Aizen MA, Premoli AC (2002) Effects of crossing distance and genetic relatedness on pollen performance in Alstroemeria aurea (Alstroemeriaceae). Am J Bot 89:427–432Google Scholar
  38. Stacey EA (2001) Cross-fertility in two tropical tree species: evidence of inbreeding depression within populations and genetic divergence among populations. Am J Bot 88:1041–1051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stebbins GL (1959) The role of hybridization in evolution. Proc Am Phil Soc 103:231–251Google Scholar
  40. Taylor DR, Keller SR (2006) Historical range expansion influences the genetics of two contemporary species invasions. Evolution (in press)Google Scholar
  41. Tsutsui ND, Suarez AV, Holway DA et al (2000) Reduced genetic variation and the success of an invasive species. Proc Nat Acad Sci 97:5948–5953Google Scholar
  42. USDA-ARS (1965) Report Agricultural Research Service. USDA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  43. Vila M, D’Antonio CM (1998) Fitness of invasive Carpobrotus (Aizoaceae) hybrids in coastal California. Ecoscience 5:191–199Google Scholar
  44. Waser NM, Price MV (1989) Optimal outcrossing in Ipomopsis aggregata—seed set and offspring fitness. Evolution 43:1097–1109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wolfe LM (2002) Why alien invaders succeed: support for the escape-from-enemy hypothesis. Am Nat 160:705–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lorne M. Wolfe
    • 1
    Email author
  • Amy C. Blair
    • 2
  • Brandy M. Penna
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyGeorgia Southern UniversityStatesboroUSA
  2. 2.Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest ManagementColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA

Personalised recommendations