Do short-lived and long-lived alien plant species differ regarding the traits associated with their success in the introduced range?
- 181 Downloads
In spite of the several studies trying to identify the biological traits that are generally associated with the success of alien plant species, only a few traits are consistently shown to be important. Dividing the species into meaningful sub-categories may improve our ability to distinguish successful alien species. We asked whether there are differences between short-lived and long-lived herbaceous aliens regarding the biological traits associated with their success in their introduced range. We used the source-area approach to answer the question by performing a comparative study with those Central-European herbaceous plant species which are invasive or non-invasive aliens in the United States. Biological traits used in the analysis were extracted from European databases. The significant traits (with one exception) conferred invasiveness for only one of the two life history groups. These results outline a particular combination of competition and colonization in both groups, although achieved in different ways. Short-lived invasive species, which are supposed to be good colonizers with effective reproduction and dispersal, are backed by some kind of competitive ability conferred by height; while in the case of competitive and persistent long-lived species, the successful aliens are equipped with traits that make them better colonizers than other perennial alien species (e.g., tolerance for a wide range of anthropogenic disturbance, dispersal through water).
KeywordsNaturalization–invasion continuum Life span Source-area approach Central Europe Competitive ability Colonization Disturbance hypothesis
We are grateful to L. Balogh, E. Illyés, G. Kröel-Dulay, E. Ruprecht, I. Somodi, I. M. Parker and two anonymous referees for their useful comments on the manuscript. We wish to thank Tim Hoelzle for improving the English of the manuscript. The research was supported by NKFP 3B/0050 and NKFP 00013/2005 projects (ZBD), a PhD scholarship from the Hungarian Ministry of Education (AF) and a scholarship (no. 2008/A/19 E) from Hungarian Academy of Sciences (AF).
- Bretz F, Genz A, Hothorn LA (2001) On the numerical availability of multiple comparison procedures. Biom J 43:645–656. doi: 10.1002/1521-4036(200109)43:5<645::AID-BIMJ645>3.0.CO;2-F CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bretz F, Hothorn T, Westfall P (2004) Multcomp: multiple tests and simultaneous confidence intervals. R package version 0.4–8Google Scholar
- Davis MA, Thompson K (2000) Eight ways to be a colonizer; two ways to be an invader. ESA Bull 81:226–230Google Scholar
- Desdevises Y, Legendre P, Azouzi L, Morand S (2003) Quantifying phylogenetically structured environmental variation. Evol Int J Org Evol 57:2647–2652Google Scholar
- Dobson AJ (2001) An introduction to generalized linear models, 2nd edn. Chapman and Hall/CRC, London and Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
- Kleyer M, Bekker RM, Knevel IC, Bakker JP, Thompson K, Sonnenschein M, Poschlod P, van Groenendael JM, Klimes L, Klimesová J, Klotz S, Rusch GM, Hermy M, Adriaens D, Boedeltje G, Bossuyt B, Endels P, Götzenberger L, Hodgson JG, Jackel A-K, Dannemann A, Kühn I, Kunzmann D, Ozinga WA, Römermann C, Stadler M, Schlegelmilch J, Steendam HJ, Tackenberg O, Wilmann B, Cornelissen JHC, Eriksson O, Garnier E, Fitter A, Peco B (2008) The LEDA traitbase: a database of life-history traits of the Northwest European flora. J Ecol 96:1266–1274. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2008.01430.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Klimeš L, Klimešová J, Hendriks R, van Groenendael J (1997) Clonal plant architectures: a comparative analysis of form and function. In: de Kroon H, van Groenendael J (eds) The ecology and evolution of clonal plants, Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, pp 1–29. http://www.butbn.cas.cz/klimes/iclopla1.html. Cited Jan 2007
- Klotz S, Kühn I, Durka W (2002) BIOLFLOR—Eine Datenbank zu biologisch-ökologischen Merkmalen der Gefäßpflanzen in Deutschland. Schriftenreihe für Vegetationskunde 38: 1–334. http://www.ufz.de/biolflor/index.jsp. Cited May 2006
- Prinzing A, Durka W, Klotz S, Brandl R (2002) Which species become aliens? Evol Ecol Res 4:385–405Google Scholar
- Pyšek P (1997) Clonality and plant invasions: can a trait make a difference? In: de Kroon H, van Groenendael J (eds) The ecology and evolution of clonal plants. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, pp 405–427Google Scholar
- Pyšek P, Jarošík V (2005) Residence time determines the distribution of alien plants. In: Inderjit (ed) Invasive plants: ecological and agricultural aspects. Birkhäuser, Basel, pp 77–96Google Scholar
- Pyšek P, Richardson DM (2007) Traits associated with invasiveness in alien plants: where do we stand? In: Nentwig W (ed) Biological invasions, ecological studies 193. Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg, pp 97–126Google Scholar
- Pyšek P, Mándák B, Francírková T, Prach K (2001) Persistence of stout clonal herbs as invaders in the landscape: a field test of historical records. In: Brundu G, Brock J, Camarda I, Child L, Wade M (eds) Plant invasion: species ecology and ecosystem management. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, pp 235–244Google Scholar
- R Development Core Team (2008) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org
- Rejmánek M, Richardson DM, Pyšek P (2005) Plant invasions and invasibility of plant communities. In: van der Maarel E (ed) Vegetation ecology. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford, pp 332–355Google Scholar
- Swearingen J (2006) WeedUS: database of plants invading natural areas in the United States. http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/list/WeedUS.xls. Cited Nov 2006
- United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resource Conservation Service (2001) The PLANTS database, National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. http://plants.usda.gov/. Cited May 2006
- Williamson M (1996) Biological invasions, 1st edn. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar