Biological Invasions

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 483–506 | Cite as

Are there any consistent predictors of invasion success?

Original Paper

Abstract

This article summarises the results of 49 studies that together test the significance of 115 characteristics in 7 biological groups: birds, finfish, insects, mammals, plants, reptiles/amphibians and shellfish. Climate/habitat match, history of invasive success and number of arriving/released individuals are associated with establishment success in at least four independent data sets, both within and across biological groups, and none are contraindicated by other studies. In the introduced-invasive control group, two species level characteristics—taxon and geographic range size—were significantly associated with establishment success across two biological groups. These characteristics, however, were not supported by independent data sets, or were contraindicated by these data sets, within the biological groups examined here. In the introduced-native control group, three species level characteristics—geographic range size, leaf surface area and fertilisation system (monoecious, hermaphroditic or dioecious)—were consistently supported within plants but were either not supported by independent data sets or contraindicated by datasets within or across other biological groups. Climate/habitat match is the only characteristic that is consistently significantly associated with invasive behaviour (in this case exotic range size) across biological groups. This finding, however, is not supported by two or more independent data sets within any of the biological groups examined here. Within plants there are a suite of characteristics, predominately associated with reproduction, that are significantly associated with a range of invasion metrics, predominately abundance in the invaded range. None of these characteristics, however, are supported across any other biological groups. We note the confounding effects of phylogeny, residence time and propagule pressure and suggest that site- and taxa-specific analysis will provide further useful insights.

Keywords

Invasion Establishment Consistent Prediction Risk assessment 

References

  1. Allen CR (2006) Predictors of introduction success in the south Florida avifauna. Biol Invasions 8:491–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alroth P, Alatalo RV, Holopainen A, Kumpulainen T, Suhonen J (2003) Founder population size and the number of source populations enhance colonisation success in water striders. Oecologia 137:617–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arim M, Abades SR, Neill PE, Lima M, Marquet PA (2006) Spread dynamics of invasive species. Proc Natl Acad Sci 103(2):374–378PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arthington AH, Mitchell DS (1986) Aquatic invading species, pp 34–53. In: Groves RH, Burden JJ (eds) Ecology of biological invasions: an Australian perspective. Australian Academy of Science, Canberra, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  5. Arthington AH, Kailola PJ, Woodland DJ, Zalucki JM (1999) Baseline environmental data relevant to an evaluation of quarantine risk potentially associated with the importation to Australia of ornamental finfish. Report to the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service, Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra, Australia, 444 ppGoogle Scholar
  6. Baker HG (1965) Characteristics and modes of origin of weeds. In: Baker HG, Stebbins CL (eds) The genetics of colonising species. Academic Press, New York, USA, pp 147–169Google Scholar
  7. Baker HG (1986) Patterns of plant invasion in North America. In: Mooney HA, Drake JA (eds) Ecological of Biological Invasions of North America and Hawaii. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 44–57Google Scholar
  8. Baruch Z, Goldstein G (1999) Leaf construction costs, nutrient concentration and net CO2 assimilation of native and invasive species in Hawaii. Oecologia 121:183–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bass DA, Crossman ND, Lawrie SL, Lethbridge MR (2006) The importance of population growth, seed dispersal and habitat suitability in determining plant invasiveness. Euphytica 148:97–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bazzaz FA (1986) Life history of colonising plants: some demographic, genetic and physiological features, pp 97–110. In Mooney HA, Drake JA (eds) Ecology of biological invasions of North America and Hawaii. Springer-Verlag, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  11. Beggren A (2001) Colonisation success in Roesel’s bush cricket Metrioptera roeseli: the effects of propagule size. Ecology 82(1):274–280Google Scholar
  12. Bellingham PJ, Duncan RP, Lee WG, Buxton RP (2004) Seedling growth rate and survival do not predict invasiveness in naturalised woody plants in New Zealand. Oikos 106:308–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Blackburn TM, Duncan RP (2001) Determinants of establishment success in introduced birds. Nature 414(8):195–197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bomford M, Kraus J, Braysher M, Walter L, Brown L (2005) Risk assessment model for the import and keeping of exotic reptiles and amphibians. Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra, Australia, 110 ppGoogle Scholar
  15. Bomford M, Glover J (2004) Risk assessment model for import and keeping of exotic freshwater and estuarine finfish. Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra, Australia, 125 ppGoogle Scholar
  16. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer-Verlag, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  17. Breslow N, Clayton D (1993) Approximate inference in generalized linear mixed models. J Am Stat Assoc 88:9–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Brooke RK, Lockwood JL, Moulton MP (1995) Patterns of success in passeriform bird introductions on Saint Helena. Oecologia 103:337–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bruton MN (1986) Life-history styles of invasive fishes in Southern Africa, pp 201–208. In: MacDonald IAW, Kruger FJ, Ferrar AA (eds) The ecology and management of biological invasions in Southern Africa. Oxford University Press, Cape Town, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
  20. Cadotte MW, Lovett-Doust J (2001) Ecological and taxonomic differences between native and introduced plants of southwestern Ontario. Ecoscience 8(2):230–238Google Scholar
  21. Cadotte MW, Murray BR, Lovett-Doust J (2006) Evolutionary and ecological influences of plant invader success in the flora of Ontario. Ecoscience 13(3):388–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Caley P, Kuhnert PM (2006) Application and evaluation of classification trees for screening unwanted plants. Aust Ecol 31:647–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Carlton JT (1996) Biological invasions and cryptogenic species. Ecology 77(6):1653–1655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cassey P (2001) Determining variation in the success of New Zealand land birds. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 10:161–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cassey P (2002) Life history and ecology influences establishment success of introduced land birds. Biol J Linn Soc 76:465–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cassey P, Blackburn TM, Sol D, Duncan RP, Lockwood JL (2004a) Global patterns of introduction effort and establishment success in birds. Proc R Soc Lond B (Suppl.) 271:S405–S408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Cassey P, Blackburn TM, Jones KE, Lockwood JL (2004b) Mistakes in the analysis of exotic species establishment: source pool designation and correlates of introduction success among parrots (Aves: Psittaciformes) of the world. J Biogeogr 31:277–284Google Scholar
  28. Cassey P, Blackburn TM, Duncan RP, Lockwood JL (2005) Lessons from the establishment of exotic species: a meta-analytical case study using birds. J Anim Ecol 74:250–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Cote IM, Reynolds JD (2002) Predictive ecology to the rescue? Science 298:1181–1182PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Crawley MJ (1987) What makes a community invasible? In: Gray AJ, Crawley MJ, Edwards PJ (eds) Colonization, succession and stability. The 26th Symposium of the British Ecological Society held Jointly with the Linnaean Society of London. Blackwell Science, Oxford, England, pp 429–453Google Scholar
  31. Crawley MJ, Harvey PH, Purvis A (1996) Comparative ecology of the native and alien floras of the British Isles. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 351:1251–1259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Daehler CC (1998) The taxonomic distribution of invasive angiosperm plants: ecological insights and comparison to agricultural weeds. Biol Conserv 84:167–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Dennis B (2002) Allee effects in stochastic populations. Oikos 96:389–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Duncan RP (1997) The role of competition and introduction effort in the success of passiform birds introduced to New Zealand. Am Nat 149:903–915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Duncan RP, Blackburn TM, Veltman CJ (1999) Determinants of geographical range sizes: a test using introduced New Zealand birds. J Anim Ecol 68:963–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Duncan RP, Bomford M, Forsyth DM, Conibear L (2001) High predictability in introduction outcomes and the geographical range size of introduced Australian birds: a role for climate. J Anim Ecol 70:621–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ehrlich PR (1989) Attributes of invaders and the invading process: vertebrates. In: Drake JA (ed) Biological invasions: a global perspective. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, England, pp 315–327Google Scholar
  38. Forsyth DM, Duncan RP (2001) Propagule size and the relative success of exotic ungulate and bird introductions to New Zealand. Am Nat 157(6):583–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Forsyth DM, Duncan RP, Bomford M, Moore G (2004) Climatic suitability, life-history traits, introduction effort, and the establishment and spread of introduced mammals in Australia. Conserv Biol 18(2):557–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Garcia-Berthou E, Alcaraz C, Pou-Rivira Q, Zamora L Coenders G, Feo C (2005) Introduction pathways and establishment rates of invasive aquatic species in Europe. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 62:453–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Goodwin BJ, McAllister AJ, Fahrig L (1999) Predicting invasiveness of plant species based on biological information. Conserv Biol 13(2):422–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Green RE (1997) The influence of numbers released on the outcome of attempts to introduce exotic bird species to New Zealand. J Anim Ecol 66:25–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Griffith B, Scott JM, Carpenter JW, Reed C (1989) Translocation as a species conservation tool: status and strategy. Science 245:477–480PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Grotkopp E, Rejmanek M, Rost TL (2002) Toward a causal explanation of plant invasiveness: seedling growth and life-history strategies of 29 pine (Pinus) species. Am Nat 159(4):396–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Greustad FS (1999) Experimental invasions using biological control introductions: the influence of release size on the chance of population establishment. Biol Invasions 1:313–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hamilton MA, Murray BR, Cadotte MW, Hose GC, Baker AC, Harris CJ, Licari D (2005) Life-history correlates of plant invasiveness at regional and continental scales. Ecol Lett 8:1066–1074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hee JJ, Holway DA, Suarez AV, Case TJ (2000) Role of propagule size in the success of incipient colonies of the invasive argentine ant. Conserv Biol 14(2):559–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Heger T, Trepl L (2003) Predicting biological invasions. Biol Invasions 5:313–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Holdgate MW (1986) Summary and conclusions: characteristics and consequences of biological invasions. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B314:733–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Holway DA, Suarez AV (1999) Animal behaviour: an essential component of invasion biology. Trends Ecol Evol 14(8):328–330PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kailola PJ (2000) Development of an alert list for non-native freshwater fishes. Final report to Environment Australia, Patricia Kailola, Consultant, Newnham, Tasmania, Australia, 43 ppGoogle Scholar
  52. Keller RP, Drake JM, Lodge DM (2007) Fecundity as a basis for risk assessment of non-indigenous freshwater molluscs. Conserv Biol 21(1):191–200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kolar CS, Lodge DM (2002) Ecological predictions and risk assessment for alien fishes in North America. Science 298:1233–1236PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kolar CS, Lodge DM (2001) Progress in invasion biology: predicting invaders. Trends Ecol Evol 16(4):199–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Krivanek M, Pysek P (2006) Predicting invasion by woody species in a temperate zone: a test of three risk assessment schemes in the Czech Republic (Central Europe). Divers Distrib 12:319–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lake JC, Lewisham MR (2004) Invasion success of exotic plants in natural ecosystems: the role of disturbance, plant attributes and freedom from herbivores. Biolo Conserv 117:215–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lester PJ (2005) Determinants for the successful establishment of exotic ants in New Zealand. Divers Distrib 11:279–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lloret F, Medial F, Brundu G, Camarda I, Moragues E, Rita J, Lambdon P, Hulme PE (2005) Species attributes and invasion success by alien plants on Mediterranean islands. J Ecol 93:512–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lockwood JL, Cassey P, Blackburn T (2005) The role of propagule pressure in explaining species invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 20(5):223–228PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lodge DM (1993) Biological invasions: lessons for ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 8:133–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lonsdale WM (1994) Inviting trouble: introduced pasture species in northern Australia. Aust J Ecol 19:345–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Maillet J, Lopez-Garcia C (2000) What criteria are relevant for predicting the invasive capacity of a new agricultural weed? The case of invasive American species in France. Weed Res 40:11–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Marchetti MP, Moyle PB, Levine R (2004) Invasive species profiling? Exploring the characteristics of non-native fishes across invasion stages in California. Freshw Biol 49:646–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Martinez-Ghersa MA, Ghersa CM (2006) The relationship of propagule pressure to invasion potential in plants. Euphytica 148:87–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Memmott J, Craze PG, Harman M, Syrett P, Fowler SV (2005) The effect of propagule size on the invasion of an alien insect. J Anim Ecol 74:50–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Miller AW, Hewitt CL, Ruiz GM (2002) Invasion success: does size really matter? Ecol Lett 5:159–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Morton B (1996) The aquatic nuisance species problem: a global perspective and review. In: D’itri F (ed) Zebra mussels and other aquatic nuisance species. Ann Arbor Press, New York, USA, pp 1–54Google Scholar
  68. Moulton MP, Pimm SL (1986) Species introductions to Hawaii. In: Mooney HA, Drake JA (eds) Ecology of biological invasions of North America and Hawaii. Springer-Verlag, New York, USA, pp 231–249Google Scholar
  69. Newsome AE, Noble IR (1986) Ecological and physiological characters of invading species. In: Groves RH, Burdon JJ (eds) Ecology of biological invasions: an Australian perspective. Australian Academy of Science, Canberra, Australia, pp 1–20Google Scholar
  70. Noble IR (1989) Attributes of invaders and the invading process: terrestrial and vascular plants. In: Drake JA (ed) Biological invasions: a global perspective. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, England, pp 301–313Google Scholar
  71. O’Connor RJ (1986) Biological characteristics of invaders among bird species in Britain. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B314:589–598Google Scholar
  72. Pattison RR, Goldstein G, Ares A (1998) Growth, biomass allocation and photosynthesis of invasive and native Hawaiian rainforest species. Oecologia 117:449–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Perrins J, Williamson W, Fitter A (1992) Do annual weeds have predictable characters? Acta Ecol 13(5):517–533Google Scholar
  74. Pysek P (1998) Is there a taxonomic pattern to plant invasions. Oikos 82:282–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Quinn GP, Keough MJ (2002) Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 556 ppGoogle Scholar
  76. Radford IJ, Cousens RD (2000) Invasiveness and comparative life-history traits of exotic and indigenous Senecio species in Australia. Oecologia 125:531–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Rehage JS, Sih A (2004) Dispersal behaviour, boldness, and the link to invasiveness: a comparison of four Gambusia species. Biol Invasions 6(3):379–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Reichard SH (2001) The search for patterns that enable prediction of invasion. In: Groves RH, Panetta FD, Virtue JG (eds) Weed risk assessment. CSIRO publishing, Canberra, Australia, pp 10–19Google Scholar
  79. Reichard SH, Hamilton CW (1997) Predicting invasions of woody plants introduced into North America. Conserv Biol 11:193–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Rejmanek M (1996) A theory of seed plant invasiveness: the first sketch. Biol Conserv 78:171–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Rejmanek M, Richardson DM (1996) What attributes make some plant species more invasive? Ecology 77:1655–1661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Ricciardi A, Cohon J (2007) The invasiveness of an introduced species does not predict its impact. Biol Invasions 9:309–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Richards CL, Bossdorf O, Muth NZ, Gurevitch J, Pigliucci M (2006) Jack of all trades, master of some? One the role of phenotypic plasticity in plant invasions. Ecol Lett 9:981–993PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Richardson DM, Cowling RM, Le Maitre DC (1990) Assessing the risk of invasive success in Pinus and Banksia in South African mountain fynbos. J Veg Sci 1:629–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Richardson DM, Pysek P (2006) Plant invasions: merging the concepts of species invasiveness and community invasibility. Prog Phys Geogr 30(3):409–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Rosecchi E, Thomas F, Crivelli AJ (2001) Can life history traits predict the fate of introduced species? A case study on two cyprinid fish in southern France. Freshw Biol 46:845–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Roy K, Jablonski D, Valentine JW (2002) Body size and invasion success in marine bivalves. Ecol Lett 5:163–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Ruesink JL, Parker IM, Groom MJ, Kareiva PM (1995) Reducing the risks of non-indigenous species introductions: guilty until proven innocent. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem 45(7):465–477Google Scholar
  89. Sakai AK, Allendorf FW, Holt JS, Lodge DM, Molofsky J, With KA, Baughman S, Cabin RJ, Cohen JE, Ellstrand NC, McCauley DE, O’Neil P, Parker IM, Thompson JN, Weller SG (2001) The population biology of invasive species. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 32:305–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Scott JK, Panetta FD (1993) Predicting the Australian weed status of southern African plants. J Biogeogr 20:87–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Simons AM (2003) Invasive aliens and sampling bias. Ecol Lett 6:278–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Sol D, Lefebvre L (2000) Behavioural flexibility predicts invasion success in birds introduced to New Zealand. Oikos 90:599–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Sol D, Timmermans S, Lefebvre L (2002) Behavioural flexibility and invasion success in birds. Anim Behav 63:495–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Sorci G, Moller AP, Clobert J (1998) Plumage dichromatism of birds predicts introduction success in New Zealand. J Anim Ecol 67:263–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Stohlgren TJ, Schnase JL (2006) Risk analysis for biological hazards: what we need to know about invasive species. Risk Anal 26(1):163–173PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Sutherland S (2004) What makes a weed a weed: life history traits of native and exotic plants in the USA. Oecologia 141:24–39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Thompson K, Hodgson JG, Rich TCG (1995) Native and alien invasive plants: more of the same? Ecography 18:390–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Thompson K, Hodgson JG, Grime PJ, Burke MJW (2001) Plant traits and temporal scale: evidence from a 5-year invasion experiment using native species. J Ecol 89(6):1054–1060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. van Belle G (2002) Statistical rules of thumb. Wiley, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  100. Veltman CJ, Nee S, Crawley MJ (1996) Correlates of introduction success in exotic New Zealand birds. Am Nat 147:542–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Williamson MH (1993) Invaders, weeds and the risk from genetically modified organisms. Experientia 49:219–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Williamson MH, Fitter A (1996) The characters of successful invaders. Biol Conserv 78:163–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Wolf CM, Griffith B, Reed C, Temple SA (1996) Avian and mammalian translocations: update and reanalysis of 1987 survey data. Conserv Biol 10(4):1142–1154CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric ResearchHobartAustralia
  2. 2.CSIRO Mathematical and Information SciencesCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations