Biological Invasions

, Volume 16, Issue 10, pp 2181–2193 | Cite as

Resident plant diversity and introduced earthworms have contrasting effects on the success of invasive plants

  • Timothy J. S. Whitfeld
  • Alexander M. Roth
  • Alexandra G. Lodge
  • Nico Eisenhauer
  • Lee E. Frelich
  • Peter B. Reich
Original Paper

Abstract

Theoretical predictions and empirical studies suggest that resident species diversity is an important driver of community invasibility. Through trait-based processes, plants in communities with high resident species diversity occupy a wider range of ecological niches and are more productive than low diversity communities, potentially reducing the opportunities for invasion through niche preemption. In terrestrial plant communities, biotic ecosystem engineers such as earthworms can also affect invasibility by reducing leaf litter stocks and influencing soil conditions. In a greenhouse experiment, we simultaneously manipulated resident species diversity and earthworm presence to investigate independent and interactive effects of these two variables on the success of several invasive plants. Higher diversity of resident species was associated with lower biomass of invasives, with the effect mediated through resident species biomass. The presence of earthworms had a strong positive effect on the biomass of invasive species across all levels of resident species diversity and a weaker indirect negative effect via decreased soil moisture. Earthworms also weakened the positive correlation between resident species diversity and productivity. We did not observe any interactive effects of resident species biomass and earthworms on invasive species success. Partitioning the net biodiversity effect indicated that selection effects increased with resident species diversity whereas complementarity effects did not. Results suggest that managing for diverse forest communities may decrease the susceptibility of these communities to invasions. However, the presence of introduced earthworms in previously earthworm-free sites may undermine these efforts. Furthermore, future studies of plant community invasibility should account for the effects of introduced earthworms.

Keywords

Biodiversity–ecosystem function Functional diversity Invasibility Lumbricus terrestris Rhamnus cathartica 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Cindy Buschena and Susan Barrott for their help during the experiment and Forest Isbell for assistance with data analysis. Also, we thank the two anonymous reviewers whose comments helped improve the manuscript. In addition, we thank Warner Nature Center for allowing us to collect soil and leaf litter for the experiment. For assistance during the experiment we thank the undergraduate student workers in the Reich lab. This project was supported by a grant from the Legislative Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources (M.L. 2010, Chp. 362, Sect. 2, Subd. 6c “Healthy Forests to Resist Invasion,” to PBR). Support was also provided by the Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship: Risk Analysis for Introduced Species and Genotypes (NSF DGE-0653827); University of Minnesota Graduate School; the Wilderness Research Foundation; and the Dayton Fund of the Bell Museum of Natural History. NE gratefully acknowledges funding by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG; Ei 862/1, Ei 862/2).

Supplementary material

10530_2014_657_MOESM1_ESM.docx (847 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 846 kb)

References

  1. Arbuckle JL (2012) IBM SPSS Amos 19 user’s guide. Amos Development Corporation, CrawfordsvilleGoogle Scholar
  2. Azcarate FM, Peco B (2006) Effects of seed predation by ants on Mediterranean grassland related to seed size. J Veg Sci 17:353–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baskin JM, Baskin CC (1992) Seed germination biology of the weedy biennial Alliaria petiolata. Nat Areas J 12:191–197Google Scholar
  4. Bentler PM, Chou C (1987) Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociol Method Res 16:78–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown RL, Peet RK (2003) Diversity and invasibility of southern Appalachian plant communities. Ecology 84:32–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Byrne BM (2010) Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic concepts, applications, and programming, 2nd edn. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Byun C, de Blois S, Brisson J (2013) Plant functional group identity and diversity determine biotic resistance to invasion by an exotic grass. J Ecol 101:128–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cadotte MW, Cardinale BJ, Oakley TH (2008) Evolutionary history and the effect of biodiversity on plant productivity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:17012–17017PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cadotte MW, Cavender-Bares J, Tilman D et al. (2009) Using phylogenetic, functional and trait diversity to understand patterns of plant community productivity. PLoS ONE 4Google Scholar
  10. Cardinale BJ, Srivastava DS, Duffy JE et al (2006) Effects of biodiversity on the functioning of trophic groups and ecosystems. Nature 443:989–992PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Case TJ (1990) Invasion resistance arises in strongly interacting species-rich model competition communities. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 87:9610–9614PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cavender-Bares J, Ackerly DD, Baum DA et al (2004) Phylogenetic overdispersion in Floridian oak communities. Am Nat 163:823–843PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cleland EE, Smith MD, Andelman SJ et al (2004) Invasion in space and time: non-native species richness and relative abundance respond to interannual variation in productivity and diversity. Ecol Lett 7:947–957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Corbin JD, D’Antonio CM (2012) Gone but not forgotten? Invasive plants’ legacies on community and ecosystem properties. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 5:117–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Crooks JA (2002) Characterizing ecosystem-level consequences of biological invasions: the role of ecosystem engineers. Oikos 97:153–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Davis MA, Grime JP, Thompson K (2000) Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invasibility. J Ecol 88:528–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Davis MA, Thompson K, Grime JP (2005) Invasibility: the local mechanism driving community assembly and species diversity. Ecography 28:696–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eisenhauer N (2012) Aboveground-belowground interactions as a source of complementarity effects in biodiversity experiments. Plant Soil 351:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eisenhauer N, Scheu S (2008) Invasibility of experimental grassland communities: the role of earthworms, plant functional group identity and seed size. Oikos 117:1026–1036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eisenhauer N, Milcu A, Sabais ACW et al (2008) Animal ecosystem engineers modulate the diversity-invasibility relationship. PLoS ONE 3:e3489PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eisenhauer N, Schuy M, Butenschoen O et al (2009) Direct and indirect effects of endogeic earthworms on plant seeds. Pedobiologia 52:151–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eisenhauer N, Schlaghamerský Reich P et al (2011) The wave towards a new steady state: effects of earthworm invasion on soil microbial functions. Biol Invasions 13:2191–2196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Eisenhauer N, Fisichelli NA, Frelich LE et al (2012a) Interactive effects of global warming and ‘global worming’ on the initial establishment of native and exotic herbaceous plant species. Oikos 121:1121–1133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Eisenhauer N, Reich PB, Isbell F (2012b) Decomposer diversity and identity influence plant diversity effects on ecosystem functioning. Ecology 93:2227–2240PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eisenhauer N, Schulz W, Scheu S et al (2013) Niche dimensionality links biodiversity and invasibility of microbial communities. Funct Ecol 27:282–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Elton CS (1958) The ecology of invasions by animals and plants. Metheun & Co., LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Eschtruth AK, Battles JJ (2009) Assessing the relative importance of disturbance, herbivory, diversity, and propagule pressure in exotic plant invasion. Ecol Monogr 79:265–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Forey E, Barot S, Decaens T et al (2011) Importance of earthworm-seed interactions for the composition and structure of plant communities: a review. Acta Oecol Int J Ecol 37:594–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Frankow-Lindberg B (2012) Grassland plant species diversity decreases invasion by increasing resource use. Oecologia 169:793–802PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Frelich L, Hale C, Scheu S et al (2006) Earthworm invasion into previously earthworm-free temperate and boreal forests. Biol Invasions 8:1235–1245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Frelich LE, Peterson RO, Dovçiak M et al (2012) Trophic cascades, invasive species and body-size hierarchies interactively modulate climate change responses of ecotonal temperate-boreal forest. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 367:2955–2961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fridley JD, Stachowicz JJ, Naeem S et al (2007) The invasion paradox: reconciling pattern and process in species invasions. Ecology 88:3–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gilbert GS, Magarey R, Suiter K et al (2012) Evolutionary tools for phytosanitary risk analysis: phylogenetic signal as a predictor of host range of plant pests and pathogens. Evol Appl 5:869–878PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gilliam FS (2007) The ecological significance of the Herbaceous Layer in temperate forest ecosystems. Bioscience 57:845–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Grace JB (2006) Structural equation modeling and natural systems. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hale C, Frelich L, Reich P et al (2008) Exotic earthworm effects on hardwood forest floor, nutrient availability and native plants: a mesocosm study. Oecologia 155:509–518PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Heimpel G, Frelich L, Landis D et al (2010) European buckthorn and Asian soybean aphid as components of an extensive invasional meltdown in North America. Biol Invasions 12:2913–2931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hendrix PF, Callaham MA, Drake JM et al. (2008) Pandora’s box contained bait: the global problem of introduced earthworms. Annual review of ecology evolution and systematics. Annual Reviews, Palo Alto, pp 593–613Google Scholar
  39. Heneghan L, Steffen J, Fagen K (2007) Interactions of an introduced shrub and introduced earthworms in an Illinois urban woodland: Impact on leaf litter decomposition. Pedobiologia 50:543–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Holdsworth AR, Frelich LE, Reich PB (2007) Effects of earthworm invasion on plant species richness in northern hardwood forests. Conserv Biol 21:997–1008PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Holdsworth AR, Frelich LE, Reich PB (2008) Litter decomposition in earthworm-invaded northern hardwood forests: role of invasion degree and litter chemistry. Ecoscience 15:536–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hooper DU, Chapin FS, Ewel JJ et al (2005) Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol Monogr 75:3–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hoyle RH (2012) Handbook of structural equation modelingGoogle Scholar
  44. Huston MA (2004) Management strategies for plant invasions: manipulating productivity, disturbance, and competition. Divers Distrib 10:167–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kennedy TA, Naeem S, Howe KM et al (2002) Biodiversity as a barrier to ecological invasion. Nature 417:636–638PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Knight KS, Reich PB (2005) Opposite relationships between invasibility and native species richness at patch versus landscape scales. Oikos 109:81–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Laossi K-R, Noguera DC, Bartolomé-Lasa A et al (2009) Effects of an endogeic and an anecic earthworm on the competition between four annual plants and their relative fecundity. Soil Biol Biochem 41:1668–1673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Laossi KR, Noguera DC, Barot S (2010) Earthworm-mediated maternal effects on seed germination and seedling growth in three annual plants. Soil Biol Biochem 42:319–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Laossi K-R, Noguera DC, Decäens T et al (2011) The effects of earthworms on the demography of annual plant assemblages in a long-term mesocosm experiment. Pedobiologia 54:127–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Levine JM, D’Antonio CM (1999) Elton revisited: a review of evidence linking diversity and invasibility. Oikos 87:15–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lodge DM (1993) Biological invasions—lessons for ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 8:133–137PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Loreau M, Hector A (2001) Partitioning selection and complementarity in biodiversity experiments. Nature 412:72–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Madritch M, Lindroth R (2009) Removal of invasive shrubs reduces exotic earthworm populations. Biol Invasions 11:663–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. McCormick MK, Parker KL, Szlavecz K et al. (2013) Native and exotic earthworms affect orchid seed loss. AoB Plants 5Google Scholar
  55. McRill M, Sagar GR (1973) Earthworms and seeds. Nature 243:482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Milcu A, Paul S, Lukac M (2011) Belowground interactive effects of elevated CO2, plant diversity and earthworms in grassland microcosms. Basic Appl Ecol 12:600–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Naeem S, Knops JMH, Tilman D et al (2000) Plant diversity increases resistance to invasion in the absence of covarying extrinsic factors. Oikos 91:97–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Nuutinen V, Butt KR (2005) Homing ability widens the sphere of influence of the earthworm Lumbricus terrestris L. Soil Biol Biochem 37:805–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Nuzzo VA, Maerz JC, Blossey B (2009) Earthworm Invasion as the driving force behind plant invasion and community change in Northeastern North American Forests. Conserv Biol 23:966–974PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Partsch S, Milcu A, Scheu S (2006) Decomposers (Lumbricidae, Collembola) affect plant performance in model grasslands of different diversity. Ecology 87:2548–2558PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pimentel D, Zuniga R, Morrison D (2005) Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecol Econ 52:273–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pyšek P, Jarošík V, Hulme PE et al (2010) Disentangling the role of environmental and human pressures on biological invasions across Europe. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107:12157–12162PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Reich PB, Tilman D, Isbell F et al (2012) Impacts of biodiversity loss escalate through time as redundancy fades. Science 336:589–592PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Schaefer H, Hechenleitner P, Santos-Guerra A et al (2012) Systematics, biogeography, and character evolution of the legume tribe Fabeae with special focus on the middle-Atlantic island lineages. BMC Evol Biol 12:250PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Shipitalo MJ, Nuutinen V, Butt KR (2004) Interaction of earthworm burrows and cracks in a clayey, subsurface-drained, soil. Appl Soil Ecol 26:209–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Singer FJ, Swank WT, Clebsch EEC (1984) Effects of wild pig rooting in a deciduous forest. J Wildl Manag 48:464–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Srivastava DS, Cadotte MW, MacDonald AAM et al (2012) Phylogenetic diversity and the functioning of ecosystems. Ecol Lett 15:637–648PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Stohlgren TJ, Jarnevich C, Chong GW et al (2006) Scale and plant invasions: a theory of biotic acceptance. Preslia 78:405–426Google Scholar
  69. R Development Core Team (2009) A language and environment for statistical computing. v2.15.3. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  70. Thompson K, Green A, Jewels AM (1994) Seeds in soil and worm castings from a neutral grassland. Funct Ecol 8:29–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Thuiller W (2007) Biodiversity: climate change and the ecologist. Nature 448:550–552PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Tilman D (1997) Community invasibility, recruitment limitation, and grassland biodiversity. Ecology 78:81–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Tilman D, Reich PB, Isbell F (2012) Biodiversity impacts ecosystem productivity as much as resources, disturbance, or herbivory. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109:10394–10397PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Vitousek PM, Walker LR, Whiteaker LD et al (1987) Biological invasion by Myrica faya Alters ecosystem development in Hawaii. Science 238:802–804PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Vitousek PM, D’Antonio CM, Loope LL et al (1996) Biological invasions as global environmental change. Am Sci 84:468–478Google Scholar
  76. Whitfeld TJS, Lodge AG, Roth AM, et al. (2013) Community phylogenetic diversity and abiotic site characteristics influence abundance of the invasive plant Rhamnus cathartica L. J Plant Ecol. doi: 10.1093/jpe/rtt020
  77. Wiens JJ, Ackerly DD, Allen AP et al (2010) Niche conservatism as an emerging principle in ecology and conservation biology. Ecol Lett 13:1310–1324PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wurst S, Langel R, Scheu S (2005) Do endogeic earthworms change plant competition? A microcosm study. Plant Soil 271:123–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wurst S, Gebhardt K, Rillig MC (2011) Independent effects of arbuscular mycorrhiza and earthworms on plant diversity and newcomer plant establishment. J Veg Sci 22:1021–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Timothy J. S. Whitfeld
    • 1
    • 4
  • Alexander M. Roth
    • 1
  • Alexandra G. Lodge
    • 1
  • Nico Eisenhauer
    • 2
  • Lee E. Frelich
    • 1
  • Peter B. Reich
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Forest ResourcesUniversity of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA
  2. 2.Institute of EcologyFriedrich-Schiller-University JenaJenaGermany
  3. 3.Hawkesbury Institute for the EnvironmentUniversity of Western SydneyPenrithAustralia
  4. 4.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyBrown UniversityProvidenceUSA

Personalised recommendations