Invasion success of non-indigenous aquatic and semi-aquatic plants in their native and introduced ranges. A comparison between their invasiveness in North America and in France
Aquatic and semi-aquatic plants comprise few species worldwide, yet the introduction of non-indigenous plants represents one of the most severe examples of biological invasions.
My goal is to compare the distribution and the biology of aquatic and semi-aquatic plants in their introduced ranges and in their native ranges. The primary objective of this study is to test the hypothesis that invasive species have evolved traits likely to increase their success in the new range. I made two reciprocal comparisons, i.e. I compared European species in France and in North America, and North American species in France and in North America. Twenty-seven species were classified according to their invasiveness in their introduced area. I␣found six invasive macrophyte species in France native to North America and 17 invasive species in North America native to Europe. Four species are invasive in both areas. There is no general tendency for macrophytes to be more vigorous in their introduced ranges. Most non-indigenous aquatic and semi-aquatic species are potentially invasive or widespread and well-established in their introduced country, while few species seem to be restricted in their distribution.
Keywordsbiological traits... France invasive plants North America
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Jean-Nicolas Beisel (LBFE, University of Metz) is gratefully acknowledged for helpful assistance in statistical analysis. I thank two anonymous referees for their constructive comments on a early draft of this manuscript.
- Aboucaya A (1999) Premier bilan d’une enquête nationale destinée à identifier les xénophytes invasifs sur le territoire métropolitain français (Corse comprise). Bulletin de la société botanique du centre-ouest, NS 19: 463–482Google Scholar
- Barrat-Segretain MH (2001) Invasive species in the Rhône river floodplain (France): replacement of Elodea canadensis Michaux by Elodea nuttallii St John in two former river channels. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 152: 237–251Google Scholar
- Crawley MJ (1987) What makes a community invasible?. In: Gray AJ, Crawley MJ and Edwards KR (eds) Colonization, Succession and Stability. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp 429–453Google Scholar
- Flora of North America (1993) Editorial Committee eds. 1993. New York and OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Grime JP (2001) Plants strategies, Vegetation processes and Ecosystem properties. Second edition. Wiley, ChischesterGoogle Scholar
- Muller et coll. (2004). Plantes invasives en France. Etat des connaissances et propositions d’actions. Paris, Museum national d’Histoire naturelle, 2004. (Patrimoines naturels, 62)Google Scholar
- Sculthorpe CD (1967) The Biology of Aquatic Vascular Plants. Edward Arnold Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Thiébaut G, Rolland T, Robach F, Trémolières M and Muller S, (1997) Quelques conséquences de l’introduction de deux espèces de macrophytes, Elodea canadensis Michaux et Elodea nuttallii (Planch.) St. John dans les écosystèmes aquatiques continentaux: exemples de la plaine d’Alsace et des Vosges du Nord (Nord-Est de la France). Bulletin Français de la Pêche et de la Pisciculture 344/345: 441–452Google Scholar
- Wallentinus I (2002) Introduced marine algae and vascular plant in European aquatic environments. In: E. Leppäkoski et al. (eds) “Invasive Aquatic Species of Europe”, pp. 27–52. Kluwer Academic Publisher, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
- Williamson M. (1996) Biological Invasions. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar