Biological Invasions

, Volume 19, Issue 5, pp 1421–1430 | Cite as

Competitive advantages of the red-billed leiothrix (Leiothrix lutea) invading a passerine community in Europe

  • Pedro Filipe Pereira
  • Carlos Godinho
  • Maria João Vila-Viçosa
  • Paulo Gama Mota
  • Rui Lourenço
Original Paper
  • 190 Downloads

Abstract

The establishment of an introduced species is an important step of the invasion pathway. Often species become established because of their superior competitiveness over the native community or by occupying empty niches. Recently, the red-billed leiothrix Leiothrix lutea has become established in some European natural-woods, which can be quite relevant for nature conservation considering its position among the seven exotic bird species with highest negative impact in bird communities. We assessed which European-native species are more likely to compete with the leiothrix (i.e. potential competitors) based on their structural size and diet composition. Also, we evaluated the competitive advantages of the leiothrix, relatively to its potential competitors, that may allow its successful establishment, considering two approaches: exploratory behaviour and foraging morphology. Two species showed great similarity in structural size with the leiothrix, and also presented great similarity in diet composition, which makes them potential competitors: the robin Erithacus rubecula and the blackcap Sylvia atricapilla. The exploratory behaviour of the leiothrix did not differ from those of its potential competitors. However, the leiothrix presented more efficient foraging morphology than their potential competitors. Our results support the hypothesis of an establishment process by competitive advantage over native species rather than an opportunistic occupation of an empty ecological niche. The establishment of the leiothrix in European natural-habitats, and not in highly disturbed habitats as other invasive species, may constitute a new challenge for conservation.

Keywords

Competition hypothesis Erithacus rubecula Establishment Opportunistic hypothesis Sylvia atricapilla 

References

  1. Amano HE, Eguchi K (2002) Foraging niches of introduced Red-billed Leiothrix and native species in Japan. Ornithol Sci 1:123–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrade P, Rodrigues P, Lopes RJ, Ramos JA, Cunha RTD, Gonçalves D (2015) Ecomorphological patterns in the Blackcap Sylvia atricapilla: insular versus mainland populations. Bird Study 62:498–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Azzurro E, Tuset VM, Lombarte A, Maynou F, Simberloff D, Rodríguez-Pérez A, Solé RV (2014) External morphology explains the success of biological invasions. Ecol Lett 17:1455–1463CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Batalha HR, Ramos JA, Cardoso GC (2013) A successful avian invasion occupies a marginal ecological niche. Acta Oecol 49:92–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carnicer J, Jordano P, Melián CJ (2009) The temporal dynamics of resource use by frugivorous birds: a network approach. Ecology 90:1958–1970CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Catry P, Costa H, Elias G, Matias R (2010) Aves de Portugal: Ornitologia do território continental. Assírio & Alvim, LisboaGoogle Scholar
  7. Chapple DG, Simmonds SM, Wong BB (2012) Can behavioral and personality traits influence the success of unintentional species introductions? Trends Ecol Evol 27:57–64CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Cordier J (2007) Reproduction dans les Pyrénées-Atlantiques du Léiothrix Jaune Leiothrix lutea. Alauda 70:260–262Google Scholar
  9. Corlett RT (1998) Frugivory and seed dispersal by birds in Hong Kong shrubland. Forktail 13:23–28Google Scholar
  10. Cramp S, Perrins CM (1994) The birds of the Western Palearctic. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Dawson A (2005) The scaling of primary flight feather length and mass in relation to wing shape, function and habitat. Ibis 147:283–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dingemanse NJ, Both C, Drent PJ, Van Oers K, Van Noordwijk AJ (2002) Repeatability and heritability of exploratory behaviour in great tits from the wild. Anim Behav 64:929–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dubois PJ, Cugnasse J-M (2015) Les populations d’oiseaux allochtones en France en 2014 (3e enquête nationale). Ornithos 22:72–91Google Scholar
  14. Duncan RP (1997) The role of competition and introduction effort in the success of passeriform birds introduced to New Zealand. Am Nat 149:903–915CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Duncan RP, Blackburn TM, Sol D (2003) The ecology of bird introductions. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:71–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Farina A, Pieretti N, Morganti N (2013) Acoustic patterns of an invasive species: the Red-billed Leiothrix (Leiothrix lutea Scopoli 1786) in a Mediterranean shrubland. Bioacoustics 22:175–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fernández-González S, De la Hera I, Pérez-Rodríguez A, Pérez-Tris J (2013) Divergent host phenotypes create opportunities and constraints on the distribution of two wing-dwelling feather mites. Oikos 122:1227–1237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fisher HI, Baldwin PH (1947) Notes on the Red-billed Leiothrix in Hawaii. Pac Sci 1:45–51Google Scholar
  19. Forstmeier W, Keßler A (2001) Morphology and foraging behaviour of Siberian Phylloscopus warblers. J Avian Biol 32:127–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Foster JT, Robinson SK (2007) Introduced birds and the fate of Hawaiian rainforests. Conserv Biol 21:1248–1257CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Fuentes M (1994) Diets of fruit-eating birds: what are the causes of interspecific differences? Oecologia 97:134–142CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Gaston A (1974) Adaptation in the genus Phylloscopus. Ibis 116:432–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Herrando S, Llimona F, Brotons L, Quesada J (2010) A new exotic bird in Europe: recent spread and potential range of Red-billed Leiothrix Leiothrix lutea in Catalonia (northeast Iberian Peninsula). Bird Study 57:226–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Herrando S, Brotons L, Estrada J, Guallar S, Anton M (2011) Atles dels ocells de Catalunya a l’hivern 2006–2009: Catalan winter bird atlas 2006–2009. Institut Catalá d’Ornitologia y Lynx Edicions, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  25. Herrera CM (1984) A study of avian frugivores, bird-dispersed plants, and their interaction in Mediterranean scrublands. Ecol Monogr 54:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Herrera CM (1998) Long-term dynamics of mediterranean frugivorous birds and fleshy fruits: a 12-year study. Ecol Monogr 68:511–538Google Scholar
  27. Holway DA (1999) Competitive mechanisms underlying the displacement of native ants by the invasive Argentine ant. Ecology 80:238–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jordano P (1982) Migrant birds are the main seed dispersers of blackberries in southern Spain. Oikos 38:183–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kaboli M, Aliabadian M, Guillaumet A, Roselaar CS, Prodon R (2007) Ecomorphology of the wheatears (genus Oenanthe). Ibis 149:792–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Keast A (1996) Wing shape in insectivorous passerines inhabiting New Guinea and Australian rain forests and eucalypt forest/eucalypt woodlands. The Auk 113:94–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lê S, Josse J, Husson F (2008) FactoMineR: an R package for multivariate analysis. J Stat Softw 25:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lenth RV (2013) lsmeans: least-squares means. R package Version 1.06-05. http://cran.r-project.org/package=lsmeans
  33. Lockwood JL, Hoopes MF, Marchetti MP (2013) Invasion ecology. Wiley, MaldenGoogle Scholar
  34. Male TD, Fancy SG, Ralph CJ (1998) The red-billed leiothrix. In: Poole A, Gill F (eds) The birds of north America. Birds of North America, Incorporated, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  35. Martin-Albarracin VL, Amico GC, Simberloff D, Nuñez MA (2015) Impact of non-native birds on native ecosystems: a global analysis. PLoS ONE. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0143070 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Matias R (2010) Aves exóticas em Portugal: anos de 2005–2008. Anu Ornitol 7:95–108Google Scholar
  37. Morrison ML (1982) The structure of western warbler assemblages: ecomorphological analysis of the Black-throated Gray and Hermit Warblers. Auk 99:503–513Google Scholar
  38. Nentwig W (2007) Biological invasions, vol 193. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  39. Palmeirim J, Gorchoy D, Stoleson S (1989) Trophic structure of a neotropical frugivore community: is there competition between birds and bats? Oecologia 79:403–411CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Parker IM et al (1999) Impact: toward a framework for understanding the ecological effects of invaders. Biol Invasions 1:3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Peiró IG, Robledano F, Esteve MA (2006) The effect of age and sex on wing morphology and body size of the Bearded Tit Panurus biarmicus in relation to complete moult. Ring Migr 23:101–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pejchar L (2015) Introduced birds incompletely replace seed dispersal by a native frugivore. AoB Plants. doi:10.1093/aobpla/plv072 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Petren K, Case TJ (1996) An experimental demonstration of exploitation competition in an ongoing invasion. Ecology 77:118–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Piet GJ (1998) Ecomorphology of a size-structured tropical freshwater fish community. Environ Biol Fishes 51:67–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Puglisi L, Bosi E, Corsi I, Del Sere M, Pezzo F, Sposimo P, Verducci D (2009) Usignolo del Giappone, bengalino & Co: alieni in Toscana. Alula 16:426–431Google Scholar
  46. R-Core-Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org
  47. Rehage JS, Sih A (2004) Dispersal behavior, boldness, and the link to invasiveness: a comparison of four Gambusia species. Biol Invasions 6:379–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rey PJ, Gutiérrez JE (1996) Pecking of olives by frugivorous birds: a shift in feeding behaviour to overcome gape limitation. J Avian Biol 27:327–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rey P, Gutiérrez J, Alcántara J, Valera F (1997) Fruit size in wild olives: implications for avian seed dispersal. Funct Ecol 11:611–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sanz-Aguilar A, Carrete M, Edelaar P, Potti J, Tella JL (2015) The empty temporal niche: breeding phenology differs between coexisting native and invasive birds. Biol Invasions 17:3275–3288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schoener TW (1983) Field experiments on interspecific competition. Am Nat 123:240–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Shea K, Chesson P (2002) Community ecology theory as a framework for biological invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 17:170–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sol D (2008) Do successful invaders exist? Pre-adaptations to novel environments in terrestrial vertebrates. In: Czeschlik D (ed) Biological invasions. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 127–141Google Scholar
  54. Sol D, Timmermans S, Lefebvre L (2002) Behavioural flexibility and invasion success in birds. Anim Behav 63:495–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sol D, Bartomeus I, Griffin AS (2012) The paradox of invasion in birds: competitive superiority or ecological opportunism? Oecologia 169:553–564CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Strubbe D, Broennimann O, Chiron F, Matthysen E (2013) Niche conservatism in non-native birds in Europe: niche unfilling rather than niche expansion. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 22:962–970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Svensson L (1992) Identification guide to European Passerines. Märstatryck, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  58. Swaddle J, Lockwood R (1998) Morphological adaptations to predation risk in passerines. J Avian Biol 29:172–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Swaddle JP, Lockwood R (2003) Wingtip shape and flight performance in the European Starling Sturnus vulgaris. Ibis 145:457–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Vall-llosera M, Llimona F, de Cáceres M, Sales S, Sol D (2016) Competition, niche opportunities and the successful invasion of natural habitats. Biol Invasions 18:3535–3546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Yong W, Moore FR (1994) Flight morphology, energetic condition, and the stopover biology of migrating thrushes. The Auk 111:683–692Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Center in Biodiversity and Genetic Resources (CIBIO)University of PortoVairãoPortugal
  2. 2.Department of Life SciencesUniversity of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal
  3. 3.Labor-Laboratory of Ornithology, Instituto de Ciências Agrárias e Ambientais Mediterrânicas (ICAAM)Universidade de ÉvoraÉvoraPortugal
  4. 4.Victor Caeiro Laboratory of Parasitology, Departamento de Medicina Veterinária, ECT, Instituto de Ciências Agrárias e Ambientais Mediterrânicas (ICAAM)Universidade de ÉvoraÉvoraPortugal

Personalised recommendations