Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Phylogenetic structure predicts capitular damage to Asteraceae better than origin or phylogenetic distance to natives

  • Community ecology - Original Paper
  • Published:
Oecologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Exotic species more closely related to native species may be more susceptible to attack by native natural enemies, if host use is phylogenetically conserved. Where this is the case, the use of phylogenies that include co-occurring native and exotic species may help to explain interspecific variation in damage. In this study, we measured damage caused by pre-dispersal seed predators to common native and exotic plants in the family Asteraceae. Damage was then mapped onto a community phylogeny of this family. We tested the predictions that damage is phylogenetically structured, that exotic plants experience lower damage than native species after controlling for this structure, and that phylogenetically novel exotic species would experience lower damage. Consistent with our first prediction, 63% of the variability in damage was phylogenetically structured. When this structure was accounted for, exotic plants experienced significantly lower damage than native plants, but species origin only accounted for 3% of the variability of capitular damage. Finally, there was no support for the phylogenetic novelty prediction. These results suggest that interactions between exotic plants and their seed predators may be strongly influenced by their phylogenetic position, but not by their relationship to locally co-occurring native species. In addition, the influence of a species’ origin on the damage it experiences often may be small relative to phylogenetically conserved traits.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agrawal AA, Kotanen PM (2003) Herbivores and the success of exotic plants: a phylogenetically controlled experiment. Ecol Lett 6:712–715

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borcard D, Legendre P (2002) All-scale spatial analysis of ecological data by means of principal coordinates of neighbour matrices. Ecol Model 153:51–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brändle M, Brandl R (2006) Is the composition of phytophagous insects and parasitic fungi among trees predictable? Oikos 113:296–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cadotte MW, Hamilton MA, Murray BR (2009) Phylogenetic relatedness and plant invader success across two spatial scales. Divers Distrib 15:481–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cahill JF, Kembel SW, Lamb EG, Keddy PA (2008) Does phylogenetic relatedness influence the strength of competition among vascular plants? Perspect Plant Ecol 10:41–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cappuccino N, Carpenter D (2005) Invasive exotic plants suffer less herbivory than non-invasive exotic plants. Biol Lett 1:435–438

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chun YJ, van Kleunen M, Dawson W (2010) The role of enemy release, tolerance and resistance in plant invasions: linking damage to performance. Ecol Lett 13:937–946

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Colautti RI, Ricciardi A, Grigorovich IA, MacIsaac HJ (2004) Is invasion success explained by the enemy release hypothesis? Ecol Lett 7:721–733

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawley MJ (1989) Insect herbivores and plant population dynamics. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 34:531–564

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawley MJ (2007) The R book. Wiley, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Daehler CC (2001) Darwin’s naturalization hypothesis revisited. Am Nat 158:324–330

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Darwin C (1859) On the origin of species by means of natural selection. Murray, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson W, Burslem D, Hulme PE (2009) Herbivory is related to taxonomic isolation, but not to invasiveness of tropical alien plants. Divers Distrib 15:141–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Candolle ALP (1855) Géographie botanique raissoné. Masson, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Desdevises Y, Legendre P, Azouzi L, Morand S (2003) Quantifying phylogenetically structured environmental variation. Evolution 57:2647–2652

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Diez JM, Sullivan JJ, Hulme PE, Edwards G, Duncan RP (2008) Darwin’s naturalization conundrum: dissecting taxonomic patterns of species invasions. Ecol Lett 11:674–681

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Diniz-Filho JAF, de Sant’Ana CER (1998) An eigenvector method for estimating phylogenetic inertia. Evolution 52:1247–1262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan RP, Williams PA (2002) Darwin’s naturalization hypothesis challenged. Nature 417:608–609

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Felsenstein J (1985) Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am Nat 125:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fenner M, Lee WG (2001) Lack of pre-dispersal seed predators in introduced Asteraceae in New Zealand. N Z J Ecol 25:95–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenner M, Cresswell JE, Hurley RA (2002) Relationship between capitulum size and pre-dispersal seed predation by insect larvae in common Asteraceae. Oecologia 130:72–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Frenzel M, Brandl R (2001) Hosts as habitats: faunal similarity of phytophagous insects between host plants. Ecol Entomol 26:594–601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funk VA, Bayer RJ, Kelley S, Chan R, Watson L, Gemeinholzer B, Schilling E, Panero JL, Baldwin BG, Garcia-Jacas N, Susanna A, Jansen RK (2005) Everywhere but Antarctica: using a supertree to understand the diversity and distribution of the Compositae. Biol Skr 55:343–374

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaskin JF, Wilson LM (2007) Phylogenetic relationships among native and naturalized Hieracium (Asteraceae) in Canada and the United States based on plastid DNA sequences. Syst Bot 32:478–485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert GS, Webb CO (2007) Phylogenetic signal in plant pathogen-host range. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:4979–4983

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gross RS, Werner PA, Hawthorn WR (1980) The biology of Canadian weeds 38: Arctium minus (Hill) Bernh. and A. lappa L. Can J Plant Sci 60:621–634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkes CV (2007) Are invaders moving targets? The generality and persistence of advantages in size, reproduction, and enemy release in invasive plant species with time since introduction. Am Nat 170:832–843

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hawthorn WD, Hayne PD (1978) Seed production and pre-dispersal seed predation in the biennial composite species, Arctium minus (Hill) Bernh. and A. lappa L. Oecologia 34:283–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill SB, Kotanen PM (2009) Evidence that phylogenetically novel non-indigenous plants experience less herbivory. Oecologia 161:581–590

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hill SB, Kotanen PM (2010) Phylogenetically structured damage on Asteraceae: susceptibility of native and exotic species to foliar herbivores. Biol Invasions 12:3333–3342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holt RD (1977) Predation, apparent competition, and structure of prey communities. Theor Popul Biol 12:197–229

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Joshi J, Vrieling K (2005) The enemy release and EICA hypothesis revisited: incorporating the fundamental difference between specialist and generalist herbivores. Ecol Lett 8:704–714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keane RM, Crawley MJ (2002) Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. Trends Ecol Evol 17:164–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim KJ, Choi KS, Jansen RK (2005) Two chloroplast DNA inversions originated simultaneously during the early evolution of the sunflower family (Asteraceae). Mol Biol Evol 22:1783–1792

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Levine JM, Adler PB, Yelenik SG (2004) A meta-analysis of biotic resistance to exotic plant invasions. Ecol Lett 7:975–989

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewinsohn TM, Novotny V, Basset Y (2005) Insects on plants: diversity of herbivore assemblages revisited. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 36:597–620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu H, Stiling P (2006) Testing the enemy release hypothesis: a review and meta-analysis. Biol Invasions 8:1535–1545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu H, Stiling P, Pemberton RW (2007) Does enemy release matter for invasive plants? evidence from a comparison of insect herbivore damage among invasive, non-invasive and native congeners. Biol Invasions 9:773–781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louda SM (1983) Seed predation and seedling mortality in the recruitment of a shrub, Haplopappus venetus (Asteraceae), along a climatic gradient. Ecology 64:511–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louda SM, O’Brien CW (2002) Unexpected ecological effects of distributing the exotic weevil, Larinus planus (F.), for the biological control of Canada thistle. Conserv Biol 16:717–727

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louda SM, Potvin MA (1995) Effect of inflorescence-feeding insects in the demography and lifetime fitness of a native plant. Ecology 76:229–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louda SM, Kendall D, Connor J, Simberloff D (1997) Ecological effects of an insect introduced for the biological control of weeds. Science 277:1088–1090

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Louda SM, Pemberton RW, Johnson MT, Follett PA (2003) Nontarget effects—the Achilles’ heel of biological control? Retrospective analyses to reduce risk associated with biocontrol introductions. Annu Rev Entomol 48:365–396

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mack RN (1996) Predicting the identity and fate of plant invaders: emergent and emerging approaches. Biol Conserv 78:107–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maron JL, Vilà M (2001) When do herbivores affect plant invasion? Evidence for the natural enemies and biotic resistance hypotheses. Oikos 95:361–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason PG, Huber JT (2002) Biological control programmes in Canada 1981–2000. CABI, Ottawa

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell CE, Agrawal AA, Bever JD, Gilbert GS, Hufbauer RA, Klironomos JN, Maron JL, Morris WF, Parker IM, Power AG, Seabloom EW, Torchin ME, Vazquez DP (2006) Biotic interactions and plant invasions. Ecol Lett 9:726–740

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moore RJ (1975) The biology of Canadian weeds, 13. Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. Can J Plant Sci 55:1033–1048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morton JK, Venn JM (1990) A checklist of the flora of Ontario: vascular plants. University of Waterloo Biology Series 34, Waterloo, ON

    Google Scholar 

  • Noyes RD (2000) Biogeographical and evolutionary insights on Erigeron and allies (Asteraceae) from ITS sequence data. Plant Syst Evol 220:93–114

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Odegaard F, Diserud OH, Ostbye K (2005) The importance of plant relatedness for host utilization among phytophagous insects. Ecol Lett 8:612–617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oksanen J, Kindt R, Legendre P, O’Hara B, Simpson GL, Solymos P, Stevens MHH, Wagner H (2009) vegan: community ecology package. R package version 1.15-4. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan

  • Parker IM, Gilbert GS (2007) When there is no escape: the effects of natural enemies on native, invasive, and noninvasive plants. Ecology 88:1210–1224

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Parker JD, Hay ME (2005) Biotic resistance to plant invasions? Native herbivores prefer non-native plants. Ecol Lett 8:959–967

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearse IS, Hipp AL (2009) Phylogenetic and trait similarity to a native species predict herbivory on non-native oaks. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 106:18097–18102

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • SAS (2002) JMP. SAS Institute, Cary

  • Semple JC, Cook RE (2006) Solidago. In: Committee FNAE (ed) Flora of North America. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 107–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss SY, Webb CO, Salamin N (2006) Exotic taxa less related to native species are more invasive. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:5841–5845

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Strong DR, Lawton JH, Southwood R (1984) Insects on plants. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • R Development core team (2006) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org

  • Thuiller W, Gallien L, Boulangeat I, de Bello F, Münkemüller T, Roquet C, Lavergne S (2010) Resolving Darwin’s naturalization conundrum: a quest for evidence. Diversity Distrib 16:461–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torchin ME, Mitchell CE (2004) Parasites, pathogens, and invasions by plants and animals. Front Ecol Environ 2:183–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb CO, Donoghue MJ (2005) Phylomatic: tree assembly for applied phylogenetics. Mol Ecol Notes 5:181–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb CO, Ackerly DD, McPeek MA, Donoghue MJ (2002) Phylogenies and community ecology. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 33:475–505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiblen GD, Webb CO, Novotny V, Basset Y, Miller SE (2006) Phylogenetic dispersion of host use in a tropical insect herbivore community. Ecology 87:S62–S75

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Whitton J, Wallace RS, Jansen RK (1995) Phylogenetic-relationships and patterns of character change in the tribe Lactuceae (Asteraceae) based on chloroplast DNA restriction site variation. Can J Bot 73:1058–1073

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuefle ME, Brown WP (2008) Tallamy DW (2008) Effects of non-native plants on the native insect community of Delaware. Biol Invasions 10:1159–1169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zwölfer H (1998) Evolutionary and ecological relationships of the insect fauna of thistles. Annu Rev Entomol 33:103–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by NSERC Discovery and Equipment Grants (PMK), an NSERC PGS-D (SBH), and the Koffler Scientific Reserve at Jokers Hill. Thanks to Kateryna Kostyukova for her help, Andrew MacDonald and Megan Saunders for their support, discussions, and field assistance, and two anonymous reviewers for their comments. All of the experiments conducted in this study comply with the current laws of Canada. This is a publication of the Koffler Scientific Reserve.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto at Mississauga, 3359 Mississauga Road N, Mississauga, ON, L5L 1C6, Canada

    Steven B. Hill & Peter M. Kotanen

Authors
  1. Steven B. Hill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter M. Kotanen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter M. Kotanen.

Additional information

Communicated by Melinda Smith.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hill, S.B., Kotanen, P.M. Phylogenetic structure predicts capitular damage to Asteraceae better than origin or phylogenetic distance to natives. Oecologia 166, 843–851 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-011-1927-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-011-1927-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation