Biological Invasions

, Volume 9, Issue 7, pp 773–781

Does enemy release matter for invasive plants? evidence from a comparison of insect herbivore damage among invasive, non-invasive and native congeners



One of the most popular single-factor hypotheses that have been proposed to explain the naturalization and spread of introduced species is the enemy release hypothesis (ERH). One ramification of the ERH is that invasive plants sustain less herbivore damage than their native counterparts in the invaded range. However, introduced plants, invasive or not, may experience less herbivore damage than the natives. Therefore, to test the role of natural enemies in the success of invasive plants, studies should include both invasive as well as non-invasive introduced species. In this study, we employed a novel three-way comparison, in which we compared herbivore damage among native, introduced invasive, and introduced non-invasive Eugenia (Myrtaceae) in South Florida. We found that introduced Eugenia, both invasive and non-invasive, sustained less herbivore damage, especially damage by oligophagous and endophagous insects, than native Eugenia. However, the difference in insect damage between introduced invasive and introduced non-invasive Eugenia was not significant. Escape from herbivores may not account for the spread of invasive Eugenia. We would not have been able to draw this conclusion without inclusion of the non-invasive Eugenia species in the study.


Biological invasion Endophagous insect damage Enemy release hypothesis Eugenia Herbivory Introduced species Invasive species Non-invasive species Oligophagous insect damage 


  1. Agrawal AA, Kotanen PM (2003) Herbivores and the success of exotic plants: a phylogenetically controlled experiment. Ecol Lett 6:712–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cappuccino N, Carpenter D (2005) Invasive exotic plants suffer less herbivory than non-invasive exotic plants. Biol Lett 1:435–438PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carpenter D, Cappuccino N (2005) Herbivory, time since introduction and the invasiveness of exotic plants. J Ecol 93:215–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Colautii RI, Ricciardi A, Grigorovich IA, MacIsaac HJ (2004) Is invasion success explained by the enemy release hypothesis? Ecol Lett 7:721–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crawley MJ (1997) Plant ecology. Blackwell Science, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Dietz H, Wirth LR, Buschmann H (2004) Variation in herbivore damage to invasive and native woody plant species in open forest vegetation on Mahé, Seychelles. Biol Invasions 6:511–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Frenzel M, Brandl R (1998) Diversity and composition of phytophagous insect guilds on Brassicaceae. Oecologia 113:391–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gann GD, Bradley KA, Woodmansee SW (2001) Floristic inventory of south Florida database. Institute for Regional Conservation, MiamiGoogle Scholar
  10. Joshi J, Vrieling K (2005) The enemy release and EICA hypothesis revisited: incorporating the fundamental difference between specialist and generalist herbivores. Ecol Lett 8:704–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Keane RM, Crawley MJ (2002) Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. Trends Ecol Evol 17:164–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Levine JM, Adler PB, Yelenik SG (2004) A meta-analysis of biotic resistance to exotic plant invasions. Ecol Lett 7:975–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Liu H, Stiling P (2006) Testing the enemy release hypothesis: a review and meta-analysis. Biol Invasions 8:1535–1545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Liu H, Stiling P, Pemberton RW, Peña J (2006) Insect herbivore faunal diversity among invasive, non-invasive and native Eugenia species: implications for the enemy release hypothesis. Fla Entomol 89:475–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Maron JL, Vilà M (2001) When do herbivores affect plant invasion? Evidence for the natural enemies and biotic resistance hypotheses. Oikos 95:361–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Martin FW, Campbell CW, Ruberte RM (1987) Perennial edible fruits of the tropics—an inventory. Agriculture handbook No. 642. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, FLGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Mitchell CE, Power AG (2003) Release of invasive plants from fungal and viral pathogens. Nature 421:625–627PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Parker JD, Burkepile DE, Hay ME (2006) Opposing effects of native and exotic herbivores on plant invasions. Science 311:1459–1461PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Parker JD, Hay ME (2005) Biotic resistance to plant invasions? Native herbivores prefer non-native plants. Ecol Lett 8:959–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ruehle GD, Mowry H, Toy LR, Wolfe HS (1958) Miscellaneous tropical and subtropical Florida fruits. Revised by Ruehle GD. Fla Agric Exp Station Bull 156A:116Google Scholar
  22. Schall R (2000) New Pest Advisory Group Data: Myllocerus undatus, an Asian Grey Weevil. United States Department of Agriculture, APHIS, PPQ, FLGoogle Scholar
  23. Schierenbeck KA, Mack RN, Sharitz RR (1994) Effects of herbivory on growth and biomass allocation in native and introduced species of Lonicera. Ecology 75:1661–1672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Siemann E, Rogers WE (2003) Herbivory, disease, recruitment limitation, and success of alien and native tree species. Ecology 84:1489–1505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Snyder JR, Herndon A, Robertson WB (1990) South Florida rockland. In: Myers RL, Ewel JJ (eds) Ecosystems of Florida. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando, FL, pp230–277Google Scholar
  26. Stastny M, Schaffner U, Elle E (2005) Do vigor of introduced populations and escape from specialist herbivores contribute to invasiveness? J Ecol 93:27–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Strong DR, Lawton JH, Southwood R (1984) Insects on plants: community patterns and mechanisms. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  28. Wolfe LM (2002) Why alien invaders succeed: support for the escape-from-enemy hypothesis. Am Nat 160:705–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Wunderlin RP, Hansen BF (2003) Guide to the vascular plants of Florida, 2nd edn. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, FLGoogle Scholar
  31. Zar JH (1984) Biostatistical analysis, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hong Liu
    • 1
    • 3
  • Peter Stiling
    • 1
  • Robert W. Pemberton
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of South FloridaTampaUSA
  2. 2.USDA, ARSInvasive Plant Research LabFort LauderdaleUSA
  3. 3.IFAS, Ft. Lauderdale Education and Research CenterUniversity of FloridaFort LauderdaleUSA

Personalised recommendations