Biological Invasions

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 809–821 | Cite as

Ecological Patterns and Biological Invasions: Using Regional Species Inventories in Macroecology

  • Marc W. Cadotte
  • Brad R. Murray
  • Jon Lovett-Doust


Macroecology depends heavily on a comparative methodology in order to identify large-scale patterns and to test alternative hypotheses that might generate such patterns. With the advent and accessibility of large electronic databases of species and their life history and ecological attributes, ecologists have begun seeking generalities, and examining large-scale ecological hypotheses involving core themes of range, abundance and diversity. For example, combinations of ecological, life history and phylogenetic data have been analysed using large species sets to test hypotheses in invasion biology. Analysis of regional species inventories can contribute cogently to our understanding of invasions. Here we examine several ways in which database analysis is effective. We review 19 studies of comparative invasions biology, each using >100 species of plants in their analyses, and show that invader success is linked to seven correlates: short life cycle, abiotic (mostly wind) dispersal, large native range size, non-random taxonomic patterns (emphasizing certain families or orders), presence of clonal organs, occupying disturbed habitats, and earlier time of introduction. These phylogenetically influenced, comparative analyses using regional species inventories are only just beginning and have much potential.

Key words

comparative studies database analyses ecological generalities macroecology plant invasions phylogenetic analyses predictability 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ackerly DD and Donoghue MJ (1998). Leaf size, sapling allometry and Corner’s Rules: phylogeny and correlated evolution in Maples (Acer). American Naturalist 152: 767–791CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson UV (1995). Comparison of dispersal strategies of alien and native species in the Danish flora. In: Pyšek, P, Prach, K, Rejmánek, M and Wade, M (eds) Plant Invasions: General Aspects and Special Problems, Academic Publishing, Amsterdam 61–70Google Scholar
  3. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (2003). An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG II. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 141: 399–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker HG (1974). The evolution of weeds. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 5: 1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bell G (2001). Neutral macroecology. Science 293: 2413–2418CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bierregaard RO, Lovejoy TE, Kapos V and Dos Santos AA (1992). The biological dynamics of tropical rainforest fragments. Bioscience 42: 859–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonnet X, Besnard M and Van den Driessche J (2002). Taxonomic chauvinism. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 17: 1–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown JH (1999). Macroecology: progress and prospect. Oikos 87: 3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cadotte MW (in press) Darwin to Elton: early ecology and the problem of invasive species. In: Cadotte MW, McMahon SM and Fukami T (eds) Conceptual Ecology and Invasions Biology: Reciprocal Approaches to Nature. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  10. Cadotte MW and Lovett-Doust J (2001). Ecological and taxonomic differences between native and introduced plants of southwestern Ontario. Ecoscience 8: 230–238 Google Scholar
  11. Cadotte MW and Lovett-Doust J (2002). Ecological and taxonomic differences between rare and common plants of southwestern Ontario. Ecoscience 9: 397–407 Google Scholar
  12. Clements FE (1905). Research Methods in Ecology. The University Publishing Company, Lincoln, NBGoogle Scholar
  13. Colautti RI and MacIsaac HJ (2004). A neutral terminology to define ‘invasive’ species. Diversity and Distributions 10: 135–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crawley MJ, Harvey PH and Purvis A (1996). Comparative ecology of the native and alien floras of the British Isles. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London, Series B 351: 1251–1259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Daehler CC (1998). The taxonomic distribution of invasive angiosperm plants: ecological insights and comparison to agricultural weeds. Biological Conservation 84: 167–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Daehler CC (2001). Darwin’s naturalization hypothesis revisited. American Naturalist 158: 324–330CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Daehler CC and Carino DA (2000). Predicting invasive plants: prospects for a general screening system based on current regional models. Biological Invasions 2: 92–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dodd ME, Silvertown J and Chase MW (1999). Phylogenetic analysis of trait evolution and species diversity variation among angiosperm families. Evolution 53: 732–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ehrlich PR (2002). Human natures, nature conservation and environmental ethics. Bioscience 52: 31–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Elton CS (1958). The Ecology of Invasions by Animals and Plants. Chapman and Hall, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  21. Eriksson O and Bremer B (1992). Pollination systems, dispersal modes, life forms and diversification rates in angiosperm families. Evolution 46: 258–266 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Felsenstein J (1985). Phylogenies and the comparative method. American Naturalist 125: 1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Garland T, Midford PE and Ives AR (1999). An introduction to phylogenetically based statistical methods, with a new method for confidence intervals on ancestral values. American Zoologist 39: 374–388Google Scholar
  24. Gaston KJ and Blackburn TM (2000). Patterns and Process in Macroecology. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  25. Gause GF (1934). The Struggle for Existence. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, MDGoogle Scholar
  26. Gilpin M (1990). Ecological prediction. Science 248: 88–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Goodwin BJ, McAllister AJ and Fahrig L (1999). Predicting invasiveness of plant species based on biological information. Conservation Biology 13: 422–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Grafen A (1989). The phylogenetic regression. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B 326: 119–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Grime JP, Hodgson JG and Hunt R (1988). Comparative Plant Ecology. Unwin Hyman, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  30. Grinnell J (1925). Risks incurred in the introduction of alien game birds. Science 61: 621–623PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hardin G (1960). The competitive exclusion principle. Science 131: 1292–1297PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Harper JL (1982). After description. In: Newman, EI (eds) The Plant Community as a Working Mechanism, Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, UK 11–25Google Scholar
  33. Harvey PH and Pagel MD (1991). The Comparative Method in Evolutionary Biology. Oxford University Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  34. Harvey PH and Rambaut A (1998). Phylogenetic extinction rates and comparative methodology. Proceedings of the Royal Society, London, Series B 265: 1691–1696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Harvey PH and Rambaut A (2000). Comparative analyses for adaptive radiations. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London, Series B 355: 1599–1605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Harvey PH, Read AF and Nee S (1995). Why ecologists need to be phylogenetically challenged. Journal of Ecology 83: 535–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hegde SG and Ellstrand NC (1999). Life history differences between rare and common flowering plant species of California and the British Isles. International Journal of Plant Sciences 160: 1083–1091CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Hubbell SP (2001). The Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  39. Kelly CK (1996). Identifying functional types using floristic data bases: ecological correlates of plant range size. Journal of Vegetation Science 7: 417–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kelly CK and Woodward FI (1996). Ecological correlates of plant range size: taxonomies and phylogenies in the study of plant commonness and rarity in Great Britain. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London, Series B 351: 1261–1269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Khedr AH, Cadotte MW, El-Keblawy A and Lovett-Doust J (2002). Phylogenetic diversity and ecological features in the Egyptian flora. Biodiversity and Conservation 11: 1809–1824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kolar CS and Lodge DM (2001). Progress in invasion biology: predicting invaders. Trends in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology 16: 199–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Leishman MR, Westoby M and Jurado E (1995). Correlates of seed size variation: a comparison among five temperate floras. Journal of Ecology 83: 517–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lovett-Doust J (2003). Introduction. In: Day, BJ (eds) The Garden: Myth, Meaning and Metaphor. Working Papers in the Humanities, 12, pp. University of Windsor Press, Windsor, ONGoogle Scholar
  45. Lovett-Doust J, Biernacki M, Page R, Chan M, Natgunarajah R and Timis G (2003). Effects of land ownership and landscape-level factors on rare-species richness in natural areas of southern Ontario, Canada. Landscape Ecology 18: 621–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lovett-Doust J and Kuntz K (2001). Land ownership and other landscape-level effects on biodiversity in southern Ontario’s Niagara Escarpment Biosphere Reserve, Canada. Landscape Ecology 16: 743–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lonsdale WM (1994). Inviting trouble: introduced pasture species in Northern Australia. Australian Journal of Ecology 19: 345–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. MacArthur RH and Wilson EO (1963). An equilibrium theory of insular zoogeography. Evolution 17: 373–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mack RN (2003). Plant naturalization and invasions in the eastern United States: 1634–1860. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 90: 77–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mack RN and Lonsdale WM (2001). Humans as global plant dispersers: are we getting more than we bargained for?. Bioscience 51: 95–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mack RN, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM, Evans H, Clout M and Bazzaz FA (2000). Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecological Applications 10: 689–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Martins EP and Hansen TF (1996). The statistical analysis of interspecific data: a review and evaluation of phylogenetic comparative methods. In: Martins, EP (eds) Phylogenies and the Comparative Method in Animal Behaviour, Oxford University Press, Oxford 22–75Google Scholar
  53. McMahon S and Cadotte M (2002). Complexity and conservation: an ecological perspective. Bioscience 52: 460–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Murray BR, Thrall PH and Lepschi BJ (2002). Relating species rarity to life history in plants of eastern Australia. Evolutionary Ecology Research 4: 937–950 Google Scholar
  55. Murtaugh PA (2002). Journal quality, effect size and publication bias in meta-analysis. Ecology 83: 1162–1166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nee S, Read AF, Greenwood JJD and Harvey PH (1991). The relationship between abundance and body size in British birds. Nature 351: 312–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Peterson AT and Vieglais DA (2001). Predicting species invasions using ecological niche modeling: new approaches from bioinformatics attack a pressing problem. Bioscience 51: 363–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pheloung PC, Williams PA and Halloy SR (1999). A weed risk assessment model for use as a biosecurity tool evaluating plant introductions. Journal of Environmental Management 57: 239–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pimm SL (1989). Theories of predicting success and impact of introduced species. In: Drake, JA, Mooney, HA, Groves, RH, Kruger, FJ, Rejmanek, M and Williamson, M (eds) Biological Invasions: A Global Perspective, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY 351–367Google Scholar
  60. Preston FW (1948). The commonness and rarity of species. Ecology 29: 254–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Price T (1997). Correlated evolution and independent contrasts. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London, Series B 352: 519–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Prinzing A, Durka W, Klotz S and Brandl R (2002). Which species become aliens. Evolutionary Ecology Research 4: 385–405Google Scholar
  63. Purvis A, Agapow PM, Gittleman JL and Mace GM (2000). Nonrandom extinction and the loss of evolutionary history. Science 288: 328–330CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Purvis A and Rambaut A (1995). Comparative analysis by independent contrasts (CAIC): an Apple Macintosh application for analysing comparative data. CABIOS 11: 247–251PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Pyšek P (1997). Clonality and plant invasions: can a trait make a difference?. In: de Kroon H and van Groenendael J (eds) The Ecology and Evolution of Clonal Plants, Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands 405–427Google Scholar
  66. Pyšek P (1998). Is there a taxonomic pattern to plant invasions?. Oikos 82: 282–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Pyšek P, Prach K and Šmilauer P (1995). Relating invasion success to plant traits: an analysis of the Czech alien flora. In: Pyšek, P, Prach, K, Rejmánek, M, and Wade, M (eds) Plant Invasions: General Aspects and Special Problems, Academic Publishing, Amsterdam 39–60 Google Scholar
  68. Pyšek P, Sádlo J, Mandák B and Jarošik V (2003). Czech alien flora and the historical pattern of its formation: what came first to Central Europe?. Oecologia 135: 122–130PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Rabinowitz D and Rapp JK (1981). Dispersal abilities of seven sparse and common grasses from a Missouri prairie. American Journal of Botany 68: 616–624 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Reichard SH and Hamilton CW (1997). Predicting invasions of woody plants introduced into North America. Conservation Biology 11: 193–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rejmanek M (1996). A theory of seed plant invasiveness: the first sketch. Biological Conservation 78: 171–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rejmanek M and Richardson DM (1996). What attributes make some plant species more invasive?. Ecology 77: 1655–1661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Ricklefs RE and Renner SS (1994). Species richness within families of flowering plants. Evolution 48: 1619–1636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Ricklefs RE and Starck JM (1996). Applications of phylogenetically independent contrasts: a mixed progress report. Oikos 77: 167–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Ridley M (1983). The Explanation of Organic Diversity. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  76. Ruesink JL (2003). One fish, two fish, old fish, new fish: which invasions matter?. In: Kareiva, P and Levin, SA (eds) The Importance of Species, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ 161–178Google Scholar
  77. Scott JK and Panetta FD (1993). Predicting the Australian weed status of southern African plants. Journal of Biogeography 20: 87–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Shrader-Frechette K (2001). Non-indigenous species and ecological explanation. Biology and Philosophy 16: 507–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sokal RR and Rohlf FJ (1994). Biometry: Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research, 3rd edn. W. H. Freeman and Co., New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  80. Simberloff D (2000). What do we really know about habitat fragmentation?. Texas Journal of Science 52: 5–22Google Scholar
  81. Thébaud C and Simberloff D (2001). Are plants really larger in their introduced ranges?. American Naturalist 157: 231–236CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Thompson K, Hodgson JG and Rich TCG (1995). Native and alien invasive plants: more of the same?. Ecography 18: 390–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Trzcinski MK, Fahrig L and Merriam G (1999). Independent effects of forest cover and fragmentation on the distribution of forest breeding birds?. Ecological Applications 9: 586–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Warming E (1909). Oecology of Plants: An Introduction to the Study of Plant Communities. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  85. Watt AS (1947). Pattern and process in the plant community. Journal of Ecology 35: 1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Westoby M, Cunningham SA, Fonseca CR, Overton JMC and Wright I (1998). Phylogeny and variation in light capture area deployed per unit investment in leaves: designs for selecting study species with a view to generalising. In: Lambers, H, Poorter, H, and Van Vuuren, MMI (eds) Inherent Variation in Plant Growth: Physiological Mechanisms and Ecological Consequences, Backhuys Publishers, Leiden 539–566Google Scholar
  87. Westoby M, Leishman M and Lord J (1995). On misinterpreting the ‘phylogenetic correction’. Journal of Ecology 83: 531–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Westoby M, Leishman M and Lord J (1996). Comparative ecology of seed size and dispersal. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London, Series B 351: 1309–1318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Williamson M (1999). Invasions. Ecography 22: 5–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Williamson MH and Fitter A (1996). The characters of successful invaders. Biological Conservation 78: 163–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Zar JH (1998). Biostatistical Analyses, 4th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marc W. Cadotte
    • 1
  • Brad R. Murray
    • 2
  • Jon Lovett-Doust
    • 3
  1. 1.Complex Systems Group, Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA
  2. 2.Institute for Water and Environmental Resource ManagementUniversity of Technology SydneyGore HillAustralia
  3. 3.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of WindsorWindsorCanada

Personalised recommendations