Advertisement

Biological Invasions

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 1–12 | Cite as

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

  • Gabrielle Thiébaut
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

biological traits... France invasive plants North America 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

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.

References

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. Barrett CH, Echert CG and Husband BC (1993) Evolutionary processes in aquatic plant populations. Aquatic Botany 44: 105–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blossey B and Nötzold R (1995) Evolution of increased competitive ability in invasive nonindigenous plants: a hypothesis. Journal of Ecology 83: 887–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bornette G, Henry CP, Barrat M-H and Amoros C (1994) Theorical habitat templets, species traits, and species richness: aquatic macrophytes in the Upper Rhône River and its floodplain. Freshwater Biology 31: 487–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carpenter SR and Lodge DM (1986) Effects of submersed macrophytes on ecosystem processes. Aquatic Botany 26: 341–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chevenet F, Doledec S and Chessel D (1994). A fuzzy coding approach for the analysis of long-term ecological data. Freshwater Biology 31: 295–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Flora of North America (1993) Editorial Committee eds. 1993. New York and OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Garbey C, Thiébaut G and Muller S (2004) Morphological plasticity of a spreading aquatic macrophyte, Ranunculus peltatus, in the NE of France. Plant Ecology 173: 125–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grime JP (2001) Plants strategies, Vegetation processes and Ecosystem properties. Second edition. Wiley, ChischesterGoogle Scholar
  12. Kareiva P (1996) Developing a predictive ecology for non-indigenous species and ecological invasions. Ecology 77: 1651–1652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lodge DM (1993) Biological invasions: lessons for ecology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8: 133–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lonsdale WM, (1999) Global patterns of plant invasions and the concept of invasibility. Ecology 80: 1522–1536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lui K, Thompson FL and Eckert CG (2005) Causes and consequences of extreme variation in reproductive strategy and vegetative growth among invasive populations of a clonal aquatic plant, Butomus umbellatus L. (Butomaceae). Biological Invasions 7(3): 427–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Müller-Schärer H, Schaffner U and Steinger T (2004) Evolution in invasive plants: implications for biological control. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19(8): 417–422PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pysek P, Richardson DM, Rejmanek M, Webster GL, Williamson W and Kirschner J, (2004) Alien plants in checklists and floras: toward better communication between taxonomists and ecologists. Taxon 53(1): 131–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sculthorpe CD (1967) The Biology of Aquatic Vascular Plants. Edward Arnold Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Stuckey RL (1993) Phytogeographical outline of aquatic and wetland angiosperms in continental eastern North America. Aquatic Botany 44: 259–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sutherland S (2004) What makes a weed a weed: life history traits of native and non indigenous plants in the USA. Oecologia 141: 24–39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Thebaud C and Simberloff D (2001) Are plants really larger in their introduced ranges? The American Naturalist 157(2): 231–236CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Thiébaut G (2005) Does competition for phosphate supply explain the invasion pattern of Elodea species? Water Research 39: 3385–3393PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Usseglio-Polatera P (1994) Theoretical habitat templets, species traits, and species richness: aquatic insects in the Upper Rhône River and its floodplain. Freshwater Biology 31: 417–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Williamson M. (1996) Biological Invasions. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université de Metz, UFR Sci FA, Laboratoire Biodiversité & Fonctionnement des EcosystèmesMetzFrance

Personalised recommendations