Community composition influences the population growth and ecological impact of invasive species in response to climate change
Predicting long-term impacts of introduced species is challenging, since stressors related to global change can influence species–community interactions by affecting both demographic rates of invasive species and the structure of the invaded ecosystems. Invasive species can alter ecosystem structure over time, further complicating interactions between invasive species and invaded communities in response to additional stressors. Few studies have considered how cumulative impacts of species invasion and global change on the structure of invaded ecosystems may influence persistence and population growth of introduced species. Here, we present an empirically based population model for an invasive epiphytic bryozoan that can dramatically alter the structure of its invaded kelp bed ecosystems. We use this model to predict the response of invasive species to climate change and associated changes in the invaded community. Population growth of the bryozoan increased under near-future projections of increasing ocean temperature; however, the magnitude of population growth depended on the community composition of invaded kelp beds. Our results suggest that, in some cases, indirect effects of climate change mediated through changes to the structure of the invaded habitat can modulate direct effects of climate change on invasive species, with consequences for their long-term ecological impact. Our findings have important implications for management of invasive species, as modifying invaded habitats at local to regional scales may be more logistically feasible than addressing stressors related to global climate change.
KeywordsPopulation dynamics Population model Kelp beds Bryozoan Temperature
We thank J. Lindley, R. E. Scheibling, J. O’Brien, C. Feehan, K. Sorochan, K. Filbee-Dexter, E. Simonson, and K. Desilets for assistance with field work. R. E. Scheibling and two anonymous reviewers provided comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. This research was funded by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) Discovery grant to A.M, and a Dalhousie Faculty of Graduate Studies scholarship, Nova Scotia Scholarship, NSERC Canada Graduate Scholarship, and Dalhousie Killam Scholarship to D.D.
Author contribution statement
DD collected and analysed field data, developed the study design and matrix population model, analysed model output, and wrote the manuscript. AM supervised the study design and analysis and edited the manuscript, KF supervised the development of the matrix population model and analysis of model output and edited the manuscript.
This study was funded by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council Discover grant (NSERC RGPIN-2016-04,878) to AM.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All applicable national and institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed in accordance with the recommendations of the Canadian Council on Animal Care and the policies of Dalhousie University.
- Carlton JT (2000) Global change and biological invasions in the ocean. In: Mooney HA, Richard JH (eds) invasive species in a changing world. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 31–54Google Scholar
- Caswell H (2001) Matrix population models. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
- Kirtman B, Power SB, Adedoyin JA, Boer GJ, Bojariu R, Camilloni I, Doblas-Reyes FJ, Fiore AM, Kimoto M, Meehl GA, Prather M, Sarr A, Schär C, Sutton R, van Oldenborgh GJ, Vecchi G, Wang HJ (2013) Near-term climate change: projections and predictability. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PH (eds) Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Lambert G (2003) Marine biodiversity of Guam: the Ascidiacea. Micronesica 35–36:588–597Google Scholar
- Lodge DM (1993b) Species invasions and deletions: community effects and responses to climate and habitat change. In: Kareiva PM, Kingsolver JG, Huey RB (eds) Biotic interactions and global change. Sinauer Associates Inc., Sunderland, pp 367–387Google Scholar
- O’Brien J (2018) Processes reinforcing regime shift to turf-forming algae in a kelp bed ecosystem. PhD dissertation, Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, CanadaGoogle Scholar
- Pimm SL (1989) Theories of predicting success and impact of introduced species. In: Drake JA, Mooney HA, di Castri F, Groves RH, Kruger FJ, Rejmànek M, Williamson M (eds) Biological invasions: a global perspective. Wiley, Chichester, pp 351–367Google Scholar
- Rejmánek M (1995) What makes a species invasive? In: Pysek P, Prach K, Rejmánek M, Wade PM (eds) Plant invasions. SPB Academic Publishing, The Hague, pp 3–13Google Scholar
- Ricciardi A, Jones LA, Kestrup AM, Ward JM (2011) Impacts of biological invasions on freshwater ecosystems. In: Richardson DM (ed) Fifty years of invasion ecology: the legacy of Charles Elton. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Chichester, pp 225–235Google Scholar
- Simons RD, Page HM, Zaleski S, Miller R, Dugan JE, Schroeder DM, Doheny B (2016) The effects of anthropogenic structures on habitat connectivity and the potential spread of non-native invertebrate species in the offshore environment. PLoS One 11(3):e0152261. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152261 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Vitousek PM, D’Antonio CM, Loope LL, Rejmánek M, Westbrooks R (1997) Introduced species: a significant component of human-caused global change. N Z J Ecol 21:1–16Google Scholar
- Williamson M (1996) Biological invasions. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Yoshioka PM (1973) The population dynamics and ecology of the encrusting ectoproct Membranipora serrilamella. PhD dissertation, University of California, San Diego, California, USAGoogle Scholar