Advertisement

Biological Invasions

, Volume 20, Issue 12, pp 3647–3658 | Cite as

Comparing species–area relationships of native and exotic species

  • Benjamin Baiser
  • Daijiang Li
Original Paper

Abstract

The species–area relationship (SAR) is one of the most general patterns in ecology. Recently, SARs have been employed as tools for comparing the ecology and biogeography of native and exotic species across spatial scales and exploring the influence of invasive species on native biodiversity. Here, we assess published studies to determine if SARs differ between native and exotic assemblages. We conducted a literature search to find studies that estimated the exponent (z) of the power-law SAR for native and exotic species across the same set of locales. We also compiled intercepts (c) of SARs where available. We used linear mixed models to test if z and c differed between native and exotic SARs and if this relationship differed across taxa. Our literature search produced 36 native-exotic pairs from 23 studies with which to compare the exponent of the power-law SAR. Further, SAR intercepts were available for 21 native-exotic pairs. Overall, exotic SAR exponents (z) did not differ from those of natives. However, this pattern did not hold across all taxonomic groups. Plant assemblages, which are best represented in our data (61% of total), mirrored the overall pattern showing no differences in exponents between native and exotic SARs. On the other hand, SAR exponents were greater for both native bird and animal assemblages. The intercepts (c) of native SARs were significantly greater than those of exotics for all taxa combined and for each individual taxonomic grouping. Our results suggest processes driving the increase in species richness with area are similar for native and exotic plant species, but not for animals. Expanding studies that compare SARs of native and exotic species to more taxonomic groups and different types of SARs (e.g., nested, contiguous, non-contiguous) will facilitate a better understanding of how native and exotic species richness scale with area.

Keywords

Birds Exotic Invasive species Non-native species Plants Species area relationship 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Edward F. Connor, Sara Kuebbing, and two anonymous reviewers for their feedback on earlier versions of this manuscript. This project was supported by NSF Grant ABI#1458034 to BB.

Supplementary material

10530_2018_1802_MOESM1_ESM.docx (68 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 52 kb)

References

  1. Ackerman JD, Tremblay RL, Rojas-Sandoval J, Hernández-Figueroa E (2017) Biotic resistance in the tropics: patterns of seed plant invasions within an island. Biol Invasions 19:315–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arrhenius O (1921) Species and area. J Ecol 9:95–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67:1–48.  https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bennett JR, Dunwiddie PW, Giblin DE, Arcese P (2012) Native versus exotic community patterns across three scales: roles of competition, environment and incomplete invasion. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 14:381–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernard-Verdier M, Hulme PE (2015) Alien and native plant species play different roles in plant community structure. J Ecol 103:143–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blackburn TM, Cassey P, Lockwood J et al (2008) The island biogeography of exotic bird species. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 17:246–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blackburn TM, Cassey P, Lockwood JL (2009) The role of species traits in the establishment success of exotic birds. Glob Change Biol 15:2852–2860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blackburn TM, Lockwood JL, Cassey P (2015) The influence of numbers on invasion success. Mol Ecol 24:1942–1953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blackburn TM, Delean S, Pyšek P, Cassey P (2016) On the island biogeography of aliens: a global analysis of the richness of plant and bird species on oceanic islands. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 25:859–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burns KC (2015) A theory of island biogeography for exotic species. Am Nat 186:441–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carpio A, Barasona J, Guerrero-Casado J et al (2017) An assessment of conflict areas between alien and native species richness of terrestrial vertebrates on a macro-ecological scale in a mediterranean hotspot. Anim Conserv 20:433–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chase JM, Powell KI, Knight TM (2015) ‘Bigger data’on scale-dependent effects of invasive species on biodiversity cannot overcome confounded analyses: a comment on stohlgren & rejmánek (2014). Biol Let 11:20150103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chiarucci A, Fattorini S, Foggi B et al (2017) Plant recording across two centuries reveals dramatic changes in species diversity of a mediterranean archipelago. Sci Rep 7:5415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chown S, Gremmen N, Gaston K (1998) Ecological biogeography of southern ocean islands: species–area relationships, human impacts, and conservation. Am Nat 152:562–575Google Scholar
  15. Connor EF, McCoy ED (1979) The statistics and biology of the species–area relationship. Am Nat 113:791–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Daehler CC (2003) Performance comparisons of co-occurring native and alien invasive plants: implications for conservation and restoration. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:183–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Davidson AM, Jennions M, Nicotra AB (2011) Do invasive species show higher phenotypic plasticity than native species and if so, is it adaptive? A meta-analysis. Ecol Lett 14:419–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Davies KF, Chesson P, Harrison S et al (2005) Spatial heterogeneity explains the scale dependence of the native–exotic diversity relationship. Ecology 86:1602–1610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dengler J (2009) Which function describes the species–area relationship best? A review and empirical evaluation. J Biogeogr 36:728–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Denslow MW, Palmer MW, Murrell ZE (2010) Patterns of native and exotic vascular plant richness along an elevational gradient from sea level to the summit of the appalachian mountains, usa. J Torrey Bot Soc 137:67–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Drakare S, Lennon JJ, Hillebrand H (2006) The imprint of the geographical, evolutionary and ecological context on species–area relationships. Ecol Lett 9:215–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dyer EE, Franks V, Cassey P et al (2016) A global analysis of the determinants of alien geographical range size in birds. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 25:1346–1355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Flaspohler DJ, Giardina CP, Asner GP et al (2010) Long-term effects of fragmentation and fragment properties on bird species richness in hawaiian forests. Biol Cons 143:280–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Flores-Moreno H, Thomson FJ, Warton DI, Moles AT (2013) Are introduced species better dispersers than native species? A global comparative study of seed dispersal distance. PLoS ONE 8:e68541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fridley J, Stachowicz J, Naeem S et al (2007) The invasion paradox: reconciling pattern and process in species invasions. Ecology 88:3–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Funk JL (2008) Differences in plasticity between invasive and native plants from a low resource environment. J Ecol 96:1162–1173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gao D, Perry G (2016) Species–area relationships and additive partitioning of diversity of native and nonnative herpetofauna of the west indies. Ecol Evol 6:7742–7762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gelbard JL, Belnap J (2003) Roads as conduits for exotic plant invasions in a semiarid landscape. Conserv Biol 17:420–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gilbert B, Lechowicz MJ (2005) Invasibility and abiotic gradients: the positive correlation between native and exotic plant diversity. Ecology 86:1848–1855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gould SJ (1979) An allometric interpretation of species–area curves: the meaning of the coefficient. Am Nat 114:335–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gram WK, Borer ET, Cottingham KL et al (2004) Distribution of plants in a california serpentine grassland: Are rocky hummocks spatial refuges for native species? Plant Ecol 172:159–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. He F, Legendre P (2002) Species diversity patterns derived from species–area models. Ecology 83:1185–1198Google Scholar
  33. Herben T, Mandák B, Bímová K, Münzbergová Z (2004) Invasibility and species richness of a community: a neutral model and a survey of published data. Ecology 85:3223–3233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Holle BV, Simberloff D (2005) Ecological resistance to biological invasion overwhelmed by propagule pressure. Ecology 86:3212–3218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Houlahan JE, Keddy PA, Makkay K, Findlay CS (2006) The effects of adjacent land use on wetland species richness and community composition. Wetlands 26:79–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hulme PE (2008) Contrasting alien and native plant species–area relationships: the importance of spatial grain and extent. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 17:641–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kuznetsova A, Brockhoff PB, Christensen RHB (2017) lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. J Stat Softw 82:1–26.  https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Leffler AJ, James JJ, Monaco TA, Sheley RL (2014) A new perspective on trait differences between native and invasive exotic plants. Ecology 95:298–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lemoine NP, Burkepile DE, Parker JD (2016) Quantifying differences between native and introduced species. Trends Ecol Evol 31:372–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Li D, Monahan WB, Baiser B (2018) Species richness and phylogenetic diversity of native and non-native species respond differently to area and environmental factors. Divers Distrib 24:853–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lockwood JL, Cassey P, Blackburn T (2005) The role of propagule pressure in explaining species invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 20:223–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lomolino MV (2000) Ecology’s most general, yet protean pattern: the species–area relationship. J Biogeogr 27:17–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lomolino MV (2001) The species–area relationship: new challenges for an old pattern. Prog Phys Geogr 25:1–21Google Scholar
  44. Long JD, Trussell GC, Elliman T (2009) Linking invasions and biogeography: isolation differentially affects exotic and native plant diversity. Ecology 90:863–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lososová Z, Chytry M, Tichy L et al (2012) Biotic homogenization of central european urban floras depends on residence time of alien species and habitat types. Biol Cons 145:179–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Malkinson D, Kopel D, Wittenberg L (2018) From rural-urban gradients to patch–matrix frameworks: plant diversity patterns in urban landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 169:260–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Martin LM, Wilsey BJ (2015) Differences in beta diversity between exotic and native grasslands vary with scale along a latitudinal gradient. Ecology 96:1042–1051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McKinney ML (2002) Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation: the impacts of urbanization on native species are poorly studied, but educating a highly urbanized human population about these impacts can greatly improve species conservation in all ecosystems. Bioscience 52:883–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McKinney ML (2004) Do exotics homogenize or differentiate communities? Roles of sampling and exotic species richness. Biol Invasions 6:495–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. McKinney ML (2006) Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biol Cons 127:247–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the prisma statement. PLoS Med 6:e1000097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nichols WF, Nichols VC (2008) The land use history, flora, and natural communities of the isles of shoals, rye, new hampshire and kittery, maine. Rhodora 110:245–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. O’Connor R, Usher M, Gibbs A, Brown K (1986) Biological characteristics of invaders among bird species in britain. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 314:583–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ordonez A, Wright IJ, Olff H (2010) Functional differences between native and alien species: a global-scale comparison. Funct Ecol 24:1353–1361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Palacio-López K, Gianoli E (2011) Invasive plants do not display greater phenotypic plasticity than their native or non-invasive counterparts: a meta-analysis. Oikos 120:1393–1401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Poisot T (2011) The digitize package: extracting numerical data from scatterplots. R J 3:25–26Google Scholar
  57. Powell KI, Chase JM, Knight TM (2013) Invasive plants have scale-dependent effects on diversity by altering species–area relationships. Science 339:316–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Preston FW (1962) The canonical distribution of commonness and rarity: part i. Ecology 43:185–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pyšek P (1998) Alien and native species in central european urban floras: a quantitative comparison. J Biogeogr 25:155–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rejmánek M, Stohlgren TJ (2015) Scale-dependent impacts of invasive species: a reply to chase. Biol Lett 11:20150402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ricklefs RE, Lovette IJ (1999) The roles of island area per se and habitat diversity in the species–area relationships of four lesser antillean faunal groups. J Anim Ecol 68:1142–1160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rosenzweig ML (1995) Species diversity in space and time. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rosindell J, Cornell SJ (2009) Species–area curves, neutral models, and long-distance dispersal. Ecology 90:1743–1750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Roura-Pascual N, Sanders NJ, Hui C (2016) The distribution and diversity of insular ants: do exotic species play by different rules? Glob Ecol Biogeogr 25:642–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sakai AK, Allendorf FW, Holt JS et al (2001) The population biology of invasive species. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 32:305–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sax DF, Gaines SD (2006) The biogeography of naturalized species and the species–area relationship: reciprocal insights to biogeography ans invasion biology. In: Conceptual ecology and invasion biology: Reciprocal approaches to nature. Springer, pp 449–480Google Scholar
  67. Scheiner SM (2003) Six types of species–area curves. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 12:441–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Stark SC, Bunker DE, Carson WP (2006) A null model of exotic plant diversity tested with exotic and native species–area relationships. Ecol Lett 9:136–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Stohlgren TJ, Rejmánek M (2014) No universal scale-dependent impacts of invasive species on native plant species richness. Biol Let 10:20130939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Stohlgren TJ, Binkley D, Chong GW et al (1999) Exotic plant species invade hot spots of native plant diversity. Ecol Monogr 69:25–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Stohlgren TJ, Barnett DT, Kartesz JT (2003) The rich get richer: patterns of plant invasions in the united states. Front Ecol Environ 1:11–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Tarasi DD, Peet RK (2017) The native-exotic species richness relationship varies with spatial grain of measurement and environmental conditions. Ecology 98:3086–3095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Tittensor DP, Micheli F, Nyström M, Worm B (2007) Human impacts on the species–area relationship in reef fish assemblages. Ecol Lett 10:760–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Triantis KA, Guilhaumon F, Whittaker RJ (2012) The island species–area relationship: biology and statistics. J Biogeogr 39:215–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Turner WR, Tjørve E (2005) Scale-dependence in species–area relationships. Ecography 28:721–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Van Kleunen M, Weber E, Fischer M (2010) A meta-analysis of trait differences between invasive and non-invasive plant species. Ecol Lett 13:235–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Whittaker RJ, Rigal F, Borges PA et al (2014) Functional biogeography of oceanic islands and the scaling of functional diversity in the azores. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111:13709–13714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Williams C (1964) Patterns in the balance of nature: and related problems in quantitative ecology. Academic Press, CambridegeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Wildlife Ecology and ConservationUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations