Advertisement

Biological Invasions

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 577–589 | Cite as

Temperate trees and shrubs as global invaders: the relationship between invasiveness and native distribution depends on biological traits

  • Petr Pyšek
  • Vojtěch Jarošík
  • Jan Pergl
  • Lenka Moravcová
  • Milan Chytrý
  • Ingolf Kühn
Original Paper

Abstract

Many woody plants have been recently recognized as major invasive species with serious impacts on species diversity and functioning of invaded ecosystems. We evaluated the global invasion success of temperate trees and shrubs with native ranges in central Europe and explored the role of their native distribution and that of biological traits in determining whether they have become invasive in other parts of the world. Of the 94 species forming the source-area species pool, 27 % are known to be invasive in at least one region of the world. Generalized linear models on phylogenetically non-informed analyses revealed that tall woody plants flowering early in the season, and occupying many grid cells in the native range are significantly more likely to become successful invaders than species not possessing these traits. However, other traits can partly reduce the disadvantages resulting from low regional frequencies in the native range and consequent lower probability of them being introduced elsewhere. Species that do not depend for reproduction on another individual, those pollinated by wind and dispersed by animals are likely to become invasive even if they do not have extensive native distributions. However, of these traits only the regional frequency in the native range remained significant when phylogenetic relationships were taken into account. This indicates that the effect of the regional frequency is generic, valid across all woody species, and fine-tuned by advantageous biological traits inherited from common ancestors, shared by groups of phylogenetically-related species. Traits that only appeared significant in the phylogenetically non-informed analyses should be considered as specific for shrubs and trees of central Europe. Mode of reproduction was only significant in the phylogenetically-informed analysis, indicating that reproduction exclusively by seed favours invasiveness of woody species. From the management perspective, however, the predictive value of some traits is not diminished by them being phylogenetically constrained since we are not interested whether the behaviour of particular species is a result of evolutionary history but how we can treat specific cases of invasion.

Keywords

Central Europe Dispersal Distribution Invasiveness Native range Pollination Reproduction Shrubs Source area approach Tree invasions 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank two anonymous reviewers and David Richardson for their comments. The work was supported by grants nos. 206/09/0563 and P504/11/1028 (Czech Science Foundation), long-term research development project no. RVO 67985939 (Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic) and institutional resources of Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic. P.P. acknowledges the support by the Praemium Academiae award from the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic. It is with deep sadness that we note the passing of our dear colleague and co-author Vojta Jarošík.

Supplementary material

10530_2013_600_MOESM1_ESM.doc (176 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 176 kb)

References

  1. Barton AM, Brewster LB, Cox AN, Prentiss NK (2004) Non-indigenous woody invasive plants in a rural New England town. Biol Invasions 6:205–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bellingham PJ, Duncan RP, Lee GW, Buxton RP (2004) Seedling growth rate and survival do not predict invasiveness in naturalized woody plants in New Zealand. Oikos 106:308–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blackburn TM, Duncan RP (2001) Determinants of establishment success in introduced birds. Nature 414:195–197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bucharová A, van Kleunen M (2009) Introduction history and species characteristics partly explain naturalization success of North American woody species in Europe. J Ecol 97:230–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carl G, Kühn I (2007) Analyzing spatial autocorrelation in species distributions using Gaussian and Logit models. Ecol Model 207:159–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carmen JG, Brotherson JD (1982) Comparison of sites infested and not infested with saltcedar (Tamarix pentandra) and Russian olive (Eleagnus angustifolia). Weed Sci 30:360–364Google Scholar
  7. Castro-Díez P, Godoy O, Saldana A, Richardson DM (2011) Predicting invasiveness of Australian acacias on the basis of their native climatic affinities, life history traits and human use. Divers Distrib 17:934–945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chytrý M (2012) Vegetation of the Czech Republic: diversity, ecology, history and dynamics. Preslia 84:427–504Google Scholar
  9. Crawley MJ (2002) Statistical computing: an introduction to data analysis using S-Plus. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  10. DAISIE (2009) Handbook of alien species in Europe. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  11. Danihelka J, Chrtek J Jr, Kaplan Z (2012) Checklist of vascular plants of the Czech Republic. Preslia 84:647–811Google Scholar
  12. Diggle PJ, Heagerty P, Liang K-Y, Zeger SL (2002) Analysis of longitudinal data. 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  13. Durka W, Michalski SG (2012) DaPhne: a dated phylogeny of a large European flora for phylogenetically informed ecological analyses. Ecology 93:2297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ellenberg H (1988) Vegetation ecology of Central Europe. Cambridge Univ Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Freckleton RP, Cooper N, Jetz W (2011) Comparative methods as a statistical fix: the dangers of ignoring an evolutionary model. Am Nat 178:E10–E17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gallagher RV, Leishman MR, Miller JT, Hui C, Richardson DM, Suda J, Trávníček P (2011) Invasiveness in introduced Australian acacias: the role of species traits and genome size. Divers Distrib 17:884–897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gibson M, Richardson DM, Marchante E, Marchante H, Rodger JG, Stone GN, Byrne M, Fuentes-Ramírez A, George N, Harris C, Johnson SD, Le Roux JJ, Miller JT, Murphy DJ, Pauw A, Prescott MN, Wandrag EM, Wilson JRU (2011) Reproductive biology of Australian Acacia species: important mediator of invasiveness? Divers Distrib 17:911–933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Godoy O, Richardson DM, Valladares F, Castro-Díez P (2009) Flowering phenology of invasive alien plant species compared with native species in three Mediterranean-type ecosystems. Ann Bot 103:485–494PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goodwin BJ, McAllister AJ, Fahrig J (1999) Predicting invasiveness of plant species based on biological information. Conserv Biol 13:422–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grime JP, Hodgson JG (1987) Botanical contributions to contemporary ecological theory. New Phytol 106(Suppl):283–295Google Scholar
  21. Grotkopp E, Rejmánek M, Rost TL (2002) Toward a causal explanation of plant invasiveness: seedling growth and life-history strategies of 29 pine (Pinus) species. Am Nat 159:396–419PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hamilton MA, Murray BR, Cadotte MW, Hose GC, Baker AC, Harris CJ, Licari D (2005) Life-history correlates of plant invasiveness at regional and continental scales. Ecol Lett 8:1066–1074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hanspach J, Kühn I, Pyšek P, Boos E, Klotz S (2008) Correlates of naturalization and occupancy of introduced ornamentals in Germany. Perspect Plant Ecol Evolut Syst 10:241–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harvey PH, Pagel MD (1991) The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  25. Henderson L (1998) Invasive woody alien plants of the southern and south-western Cape region. Bothalia 28:91–112Google Scholar
  26. Herron PM, Martine CT, Latimer AM, Leicht-Young SA (2007) Invasive plants and their ecological strategies: prediction and explanation of woody plant invasions in New England. Divers Distrib 13:633–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Higgins SI, Richardson DM (1998) Pine invasions in the southern hemisphere: modelling interactions between organism, environment and disturbance. Plant Ecol 135:79–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hui C, Richardson DM, Robertson MP, Wilson JRU, Yates CJ (2011) Macroecology meets invasion ecology: linking native distribution of Australian acacias to invasiveness. Divers Distrib 17:872–883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Klotz S, Kühn I, Durka W (2002) BIOLFLOR: Eine Datenbank mit biologisch-ökologischen Merkmalen zur Flora von Deutschland. Schriftenreihe für Vegetationskunde 38:1–334Google Scholar
  30. Křivánek M, Pyšek P (2006) Predicting invasions by woody species in a temperate zone: a test of three risk assessment schemes in the Czech Republic (Central Europe). Divers Distrib 12:319–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Křivánek M, Pyšek P, Jarošík V (2006) Planting history and propagule pressure as predictors of invasions by woody species in a temperate region. Conserv Biol 20:1487–1498PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kubát K, Hrouda L, Chrtek Jr, Kaplan Z, Kirschner J, Štěpánek J (eds) (2002) Klíč ke květeně České republiky [Key to the Flora of the Czech Republic]. Academia, PrahaGoogle Scholar
  33. Kueffer C, Pyšek P, Richardson DM (2013) Integrative invasion science: model systems, multi-site studies, focused meta-analysis, and invasion syndromes. New Phytol 200:615–633.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kühn I, Dormann CF (2012) Less than eight (and a half) misconceptions of spatial analysis. J Biogeogr 39:995–998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kühn I, Brandenburg M, Klotz S (2004) Why do alien plant species that reproduce in natural habitats occur more frequently? Divers Distrib 10:417–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Küster EC, Kühn I, Bruelheide H, Klotz S (2008) Trait interactions help explain plant invasion success in the German flora. J Ecol 96:860–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Liang K, Zeger S (1986) Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika 73:13–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mack RN (2000) Cultivation fosters plant naturalization by reducing environmental stochasticity. Biol Invasions 2:111–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mulvaney M (2001) The effect of introduction pressure on the naturalisation of ornamental woody plants in south eastern Australia. In: Groves RH, Panetta FD, Virtue JG (eds) Weed risk assessment. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, pp 186–193Google Scholar
  40. Neter J, Kutner MH, Nachtsheim CJ, Wasserman W (1996) Applied linear statistical models, 4th edn. Irwin, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  41. Paradis E (2012) Analysis of phylogenetics and evolution with R, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Paradis E, Claude J, Strimmer K (2004) APE: analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Bioinformatics 20:289–290PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Prinzing A, Durka W, Klotz S, Brandl R (2002) Which species become aliens? Evol Ecol Res 4:385–405Google Scholar
  44. Pyšek P, Jarošík V (2005) Residence time determines the distribution of alien plants. In: Inderjit (ed) Invasive plants: ecological and agricultural aspects. Birkhäuser Verlag-AG, Basel, pp 77–96Google Scholar
  45. Pyšek P, Richardson DM (2007) Traits associated with invasiveness in alien plants: Where do we stand? In: Nentwig W (ed) Biological invasions. Springer, Berlin, pp 97–125Google Scholar
  46. Pyšek P, Richardson DM, Rejmánek M, Webster G, Williamson M, Kirschner J (2004a) Alien plants in checklists and floras: towards better communication between taxonomists and ecologists. Taxon 53:131–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pyšek P, Richardson DM, Williamson M (2004b) Predicting and explaining plant invasions through analysis of source area floras: some critical considerations. Divers Distrib 10:179–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pyšek P, Richardson DM, Pergl J, Jarošík V, Sixtová Z, Weber E (2008) Geographical and taxonomical biases in invasion ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 23:237–244PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pyšek P, Jarošík V, Pergl J, Randall R, Chytrý M, Kühn I, Tichý L, Danihelka J, Chrtek J Jr, Sádlo J (2009a) The global invasion success of Central European plants is related to distribution characteristics in their native range and specie traits. Divers Distrib 15:891–903Google Scholar
  50. Pyšek P, Křivánek M, Jarošík V (2009b) Planting intensity, residence time, and species traits determine invasion success of alien woody species. Ecology 90:2734–2744PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pyšek P, Jarošík V, Pergl J (2011) Alien plants introduced by different pathways differ in invasion success: unintentional introductions as a threat to natural areas. PLoS ONE 6:e24890PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pyšek P, Chytrý M, Pergl J, Sádlo J, Wild J (2012a) Plant invasions in the Czech Republic: current state, introduction dynamics, invasive species and invaded habitats. Preslia 84:576–630Google Scholar
  53. Pyšek P, Danihelka J, Sádlo J, Chrtek J Jr, Chytrý M, Jarošík V, Kaplan Z, Krahulec F, Moravcová L, Pergl J, Štajerová K, Tichý L (2012b) Catalogue of alien plants of the Czech Republic (2nd edition): checklist update, taxonomic diversity and invasion patterns. Preslia 84:155–255Google Scholar
  54. Pyšek P, Jarošík V, Hulme PE, Pergl J, Hejda M, Schaffner U, Vilà M (2012c) A global assessment of invasive plant impacts on resident species, communities and ecosystems: the interaction of impact measures, invading species’ traits and environment. Glob Change Biol 18:1725–1737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Quinn GP, Keough MJ (2002) Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. R DevelopmentCore Team (2011) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  57. Randall RP (2002) A global compendium of weeds. R.G. and F.J. Richardson, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  58. Reichard SH, Hamilton CW (1997) Predicting invasions of woody plants introduced into North America. Conserv Biol 11:193–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rejmánek M (1996) A theory of seed plant invasiveness: the first sketch. Biol Conserv 78:171–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rejmánek M, Richardson DM (1996) What attributes make some plant species more invasive? Ecology 77:1655–1661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rejmánek M, Richardson DM (2013) Trees and shrubs as invasive alien species—2013 update of the global database. Divers Distrib 19:1093–1094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rejmánek M, Richardson DM, Higgins SI, Pitcairn MJ, Grotkopp E (2005) Ecology of invasive plants: state of the art. In: Mooney HA, Mack RM, McNeely JA, Neville L, Schei P, Waage J (eds) Invasive alien species: searching for solutions. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 104–161Google Scholar
  63. Richardson DM (1998) Forestry trees as invasive aliens. Conserv Biol 12:18–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Richardson DM (2006) Pinus: a model group for unlocking the secrets of alien plant invasions? Preslia 78:375–388Google Scholar
  65. Richardson DM, Bond WJ (1991) Determinants of plant distribution: evidence from pine invasions. Am Nat 137:639–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Richardson DM, Pyšek P (2006) Plant invasions: merging the concepts of species invasiveness and community invasibility. Progr Phys Geogr 30:409–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Richardson DM, Rejmánek M (2004) Conifers as invasive aliens: a global survey and predictive framework. Divers Distrib 10:321–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Richardson DM, Rejmánek M (2011) Trees and shrubs as invasive alien species—a global review. Divers Distrib 17:788–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Richardson DM, Macdonald IA, Forsyth GC (1989) Reduction in plant species richness under stands of alien trees and shrubs in fynbos biome. S Afr For J 149:1–8Google Scholar
  70. Richardson DM, Williams PA, Hobbs RJ (1994) Pine invasions in the Southern Hemisphere: determinants of spread and invadability. J Biogeogr 21:511–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Richardson DM, Pyšek P, Rejmánek M, Barbour MG, Panetta FD, West CJ (2000) Naturalization and invasion of alien plants: concepts and definitions. Divers Distrib 6:93–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Richardson DM, Pyšek P, Carlton JT (2011) A compendium of essential concepts and terminology in biological invasions. In: Richardson DM (ed) Fifty years of invasion ecology: the legacy of Charles Elton. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp 409–420Google Scholar
  73. Rouget M, Richardson DM (2003) Inferring process from pattern in plant invasions: a semimechanistic model incorporating propagule pressure and environmental factors. Am Nat 162:713–724PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sádlo J, Chytrý M, Pyšek P (2007) Regional species pools of vascular plants in habitats of the Czech Republic. Preslia 79:303–321Google Scholar
  75. Schönfelder P (1999) Mapping the flora of Germany. Acta Bot Fenn 162:43–53Google Scholar
  76. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry, 3rd edn. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  77. Sol D, Vilà M, Kühn I (2008) The comparative analysis of historical alien introductions. Biol Invasions 10:1119–1129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Stohlgren TJ, Pyšek P, Kartesz J, Nishino M, Pauchard A, Winter M, Pino J, Richardson DM, Wilson JRU, Murray BR, Phillips ML, Ming-yang L, Celesti-Grapow L, Font X (2011) Widespread plant species: natives versus aliens in our changing world. Biol Invasions 13:1931–1944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Thuiller W, Richardson DM, Pyšek P, Midgley GF, Hughes GO, Rouget M (2005) Niche-based modelling as a tool for predicting the risk of alien plant invasions at a global scale. Glob Change Biol 11:2234–2250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Thuiller W, Richardson DM, Rouget M, Procheş S, Wilson JRU (2006) Interactions between environment, species traits and human uses describe patterns of plant invasions. Ecology 87:1755–1769PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. van Kleunen M, Johnson SD, Fischer M (2007) Predicting naturalization of southern African Iridaceae in other regions. J Appl Ecol 44:594–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. van Kleunen M, Dawson W, Schlaepfer D, Jeschke JM, Fischer M (2010) Are invaders different? A conceptual framework of comparative approaches for assessing determinants of invasiveness. Ecol Lett 13:947–958PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Vitousek PM, Walker LR (1989) Biological invasion by Myrica faya in Hawaii: plant demography, nitrogen fixation, ecosystem effects. Ecol Monogr 59:247–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Westoby M, Leishman MR, Lord JM (1995) On misinterpreting the ‘phylogenetic correction’. J Ecol 83:531–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Widrlechner MP (2001) The role of environmental analogs in identifying potentially invasive woody plants in Iowa. J Iowa Acad Sci 108:158–165Google Scholar
  86. Wilson JRU, Richardson DM, Rouget M, Procheş S, Amis MA, Henderson L, Thuiller W (2007) Residence time and potential range: crucial considerations in modelling plant invasions. Divers Distrib 13:11–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Petr Pyšek
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Vojtěch Jarošík
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jan Pergl
    • 1
  • Lenka Moravcová
    • 1
  • Milan Chytrý
    • 4
  • Ingolf Kühn
    • 5
  1. 1.Institute of BotanyAcademy of Sciences of the Czech RepublicPrůhoniceCzech Republic
  2. 2.Department of Ecology, Faculty of ScienceCharles University in PraguePragueCzech Republic
  3. 3.Department of Botany and Zoology, Centre for Invasion BiologyStellenbosch UniversityMatielandSouth Africa
  4. 4.Department of Botany and ZoologyMasaryk UniversityBrnoCzech Republic
  5. 5.Department of Community EcologyHelmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZHalleGermany

Personalised recommendations