Biological Invasions

, Volume 12, Issue 7, pp 2001–2012 | Cite as

Differences in the trait compositions of non-indigenous and native plants across Germany

  • Eva C. Küster
  • Walter Durka
  • Ingolf Kühn
  • Stefan Klotz
Original Paper


This paper explores the differences in the trait compositions of non-indigenous (neophytic) and native plant species for selected traits in Germany. Our set of functional traits addresses species’ reproductive biology, life history, morphology and ecophysiology. To take account of broad-scale heterogeneity across the country we compared the relative frequencies of neophytes and natives with particular trait attributes at the scale of grid cells (c. 130 km2 each). Subsequently, we compared the differences at the grid cell scale to the differences in the corresponding comparisons at the scale of the entire country. Finally, we explored how variation in the trait compositions of the non-indigenous species across the country relates to variation in the trait compositions of the natives. We found remarkable differences in the trait compositions of neophytes and natives at the grid cell scale. Neophytes were over-represented in insect- and self-pollinated species and in species with a later and longer flowering season. Furthermore, the proportions of species with mesomorphic or hygromorphic leaf anatomy, of annual herbs and of trees as well as of non-clonals and polyploids were significantly higher in neophytes than in natives. These differences at the grid cell scale could vary distinctly from the corresponding differences observed at the country scale. This result highlights the complexity of the invasion process and suggests an importance of spatial scale for the comparisons. Correlation analysis indicated, that for traits relating to plant morphology and ecophysiology, the relative frequencies of the non-indigenous species increased with those of the natives. This suggests that favourable environments for natives with particular attributes constitute an increased suitability for neophytes with these attributes as well. Our study provides a step forward towards an integrated understanding of traits in plant invasions across spatial scales and broad-scale heterogeneity and underlines the necessity to understand the role of functional traits in plant invasions with reference to spatial scale and in the context of the environment.


Biological invasions Broad-scale heterogeneity Spatial scale Invasion ecology Functional traits Environment 


  1. Aarssen LW (2000) Why are most selfers annuals? A new hypothesis for the fitness benefit of selfing. Oikos 89:606–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aitchison J (1982) The statistical analysis of compositional data. J Roy Stat Soc B Met 44:139–177Google Scholar
  3. Aitchison J (1986) The statistical analysis of compositional data. Chapman & Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker HG (1955) Self-compatibility and establishment after ‘long-distance’ dispersal. Evolution 9:347–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker HG (1967) Support for Baker’s law–as a rule. Evolution 21:853–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Becker T, Dietz H, Billeter R, Buschmann H, Edwards PJ (2005) Altitudinal distribution of alien plant species in the Swiss Alps. Perspect Plant Ecol 7:173–183Google Scholar
  7. Bucharova A, van Kleunen M (2009) Introduction history and species characteristics partly explain naturalization success of North American woody species in Europe. J Ecol 97:230–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cabido M, González C, Acosta A, Díaz S (1993) Vegetation changes along a precipitation gradient in Central Argentina. Vegetatio 109:5–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cadotte MW, Lovett-Doust J (2001) Ecological and taxonomic differences between native and introduced plants of southwestern Ontario. Ecoscience 8:230–238Google Scholar
  10. Cadotte MW, Murray BR, Lovett-Doust J (2006) Evolutionary and ecological influences of plant invader success in the flora of Ontario. Ecoscience 13:388–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Catford JA, Jansson R, Nilsson C (2009) Reducing redundancy in invasion ecology by integrating hypotheses into a single theoretical framework. Divers Distrib 15:22–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chazdon RL, Careaga S, Webb C, Vargas O (2003) Community and phylogenetic structure of reproductive traits of woody species in wet tropical forests. Ecol Monogr 73:331–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chytrý M, Jarošík V, Pyšek P, Hájek O, Knollová I, Tichý L, Danihelka J (2008) Separating habitat invasibility by alien plants from the actual level of invasion. Ecology 89:1541–1553CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Crawley MJ, Harvey PH, Purvis A (1996) Comparative ecology of the native and alien floras of the British Isles. Philos T R Soc B 351:1251–1259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Daehler CC (2001) Darwin’s naturalization hypothesis revisited. Am Nat 158:324–330CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Darwin C (1859) On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Darwin CR (1876) The effects of cross and self fertilization in the vegetable kingdom. Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Davies KF, Chesson P, Harrison S, Inouye BD, Melbourne BA, Rice KJ (2005) Spatial heterogeneity explains the scale dependence of the native-exotic diversity relationship. Ecology 86:1602–1610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Diez JM, Sullivan JJ, Hulme PE, Edwards G, Duncan RP (2008) Darwin’s naturalization conundrum: dissecting taxonomic patterns of species invasions. Ecol Lett 11:674–681CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Dutilleul P (1993) Modifying the t test for assessing the correlation between two spatial processes. Biometrics 49:305–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ellenberg H (1996) Vegetation Mitteleuropas mit den Alpen in ökologischer. dynamischer und historischer Sicht, Ulmer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  22. Fridley JD, Stachowicz JJ, Naeem S, Sax DF, Seabloom EW, Smith MD, Stohlgren TJ, Tilman D, Von Holle B (2007) The invasion paradox: reconciling pattern and process in species invasions. Ecology 88:3–17CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Hanspach J, Kühn I, Pyšek P, Boos E, Klotz S (2008) Correlates of naturalization and occupancy of introduced ornamentals in Germany. Perspect Plant Ecol 10:241–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hulme PE (2003) Biological invasions: winning the science battles but losing the conservation war? Oryx 37:178–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Huston MA (1999) Local processes and regional patterns: appropriate scales for understanding variation in the diversity of plants and animals. Oikos 86:393–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Klotz S, Kühn I, Durka W (2002) BIOLFLOR–Eine Datenbank mit biologisch-ökologischen Merkmalen zur Flora von Deutschland. Schriftenreihe für Vegetationskunde 38:1–334Google Scholar
  27. Kochmer JP, Handel SN (1986) Constraints and competition in the evolution of flowering phenology. Ecol Monogr 56:303–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Krause A (1998) Floras Alltagskleid oder Deutschlands 100 häufigste Pflanzenarten. Natur und Landschaft 73:486–491Google Scholar
  29. Kühn I, Klotz S (2007) From ecosystem invasibility to local, regional and global patterns of invasive species. In: Nentwig W (ed) Biological invasions. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 181–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kühn I, Brandl R, May R, Klotz S (2003) Plant distribution patterns in Germany–Will aliens match natives? Feddes Repert 114:559–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kühn I, Bierman SM, Durka W, Klotz S (2006) Relating geographical variation in pollination types to environmental and spatial factors using novel statistical methods. New Phytol 172:127–139CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Kühner A, Kleyer M (2008) A parsimonious combination of functional traits predicting plant response to disturbance and soil fertility. J Veg Sci 19:681–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Küster EC, Kühn I, Bruelheide H, Klotz S (2008) Trait interactions help explain plant invasion success in the German flora. J Ecol 96:860–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lake JC, Leishman MR (2004) Invasion success of exotic plants in natural ecosystems: the role of disturbance, plant attributes and freedom from herbivores. Biol Conserv 117:215–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lambdon PW, Lloret F, Hulme PE (2008) Do alien plants on Mediterranean islands tend to invade different niches from native species? Biol Invasions 10:703–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lavorel S, Garnier E (2002) Predicting changes in community composition and ecosystem functioning from plant traits: revisiting the Holy Grail. Funct Ecol 16:545–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Legendre P, Dale MRT, Fortin M, Gurevitch J, Hohn M, Myers D (2002) The consequences of spatial structure for the design and analysis of ecological field surveys. Ecography 25:601–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Leishman MR, Haslehurst T, Ares A, Baruch Z (2007) Leaf trait relationships of native and invasive plants: community- and global-scale comparisons. New Phytol 176:635–643CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Levin DA (2002) The role of chromosomal change in plant evolution. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Levin DA (2006) Flowering phenology in relation to adaptive radiation. Syst Bot 31:239–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lockwood JL, Cassey P, Blackburn T (2005) The role of propagule pressure in explaining species invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 20:223–228CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Lososová Z, Chytrý M, Kühn I, Hájek O, Horáková V, Pyšek P, Tichý L (2006) Patterns of plant traits in annual vegetation of man-made habitats in central Europe. Perspect Plant Ecol 8:69–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Manly BFJ (1998) Randomization, bootstrap and Monte Carlo methods in biology. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  44. Maskell LC, Firbank LG, Thompson K, Bullock JM, Smart SM (2006) Interactions between non-native plant species and the floristic composition of common habitats. J Ecol 94:1052–1060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Melbourne BA, Cornell HV, Davies KF, Dugaw CJ, Elmendorf S, Freestone AL, Hall RJ, Harrison S, Hastings A, Holland M, Holyoak M, Lambrinos J, Moore K, Yokomizo H (2007) Invasions in a heterogeneous world: resistance, coexistence or hostile takeover? Ecol Lett 10:77–94CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Mitchell CE, Agrawal AA, Bever JD, Gilbert GS, Hufbauer RA, Klironomos JN, Maron JL, Morris WF, Parker IM, Power AG, Seabloom EW, Torchin ME, Vázquez DP (2006) Biotic interactions and plant invasions. Ecol Lett 9:726–740CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Moles AT, Gruber MAM, Bonser SP (2008) A new framework for predicting invasive plant species. J Ecol 96:13–17Google Scholar
  48. Mwangi PN, Schmitz M, Scherber C, Rocher C, Schumacher J, Scherer-Lorenzen M, Weisser WW, Schmid B (2007) Niche pre-emption increases with species richness in experimental plant communities. J Ecol 95:65–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Noble IR (1989) Attributes of invaders and the invading process: terrestrial and vascular plants. In: Drake JA, Mooney HA, di Castri F, Groves RH, Kruger FJ, Rejmánek M, Williamson M (eds) Biological invasions: a global perspective. Wiley, Chichester, pp 301–313Google Scholar
  50. Pandit MK (2006) Continuing the search for pattern among rare plants: are diploid species more likely to be rare? Evol Ecol Res 8:543–552Google Scholar
  51. Pauchard A, Shea K (2006) Integrating the study of non-native plant invasions across spatial scales. Biol Invasions 8:399–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Prinzing A, Durka W, Klotz S, Brandl R (2002) Which species become aliens? Evol Ecol Res 4:385–405Google Scholar
  53. Procheş Ş, Wilson JRU, Richardson DM, Rejmánek M (2008) Searching for phylogenetic pattern in biological invasions. Global Ecol Biogeogr 17:5–10Google Scholar
  54. Pyšek P, Richardson DM (2007) Traits associated with invasiveness in alien plants: where do we stand? In: Nentwig W (ed) Biological invasions. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 97–126Google Scholar
  55. Pyšek P, Jarošík V, Chytrý M, Kropáč Z, Tichý L, Wild J (2005) Alien plants in temperate weed communities: prehistoric and recent invaders occupy different habitats. Ecology 86:772–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Richardson DM, Pyšek P, Rejmánek M, Barbour MG, Panetta FD, West CJ (2000) Naturalization and invasion of alien plants: concepts and definitions. Divers Distrib 6:93–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Richardson DM, Rouget M, Ralston SJ, Cowling RM, van Rensburg BJ, Thuiller W (2005) Species richness of alien plants in South Africa: environmental correlates and the relationship with indigenous plant species richness. Ecoscience 12:391–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. R Development Core Team (2008) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL
  59. Shea K, Chesson P (2002) Community ecology theory as a framework for biological invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 17:170–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Snell R, Aarssen LW (2005) Life history traits in selfing versus outcrossing annuals: exploring the ‘time-limitation’ hypothesis for the fitness benefit of self-pollination. BMC Ecol 5:2CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Soltis PS, Soltis DE (2000) The role of genetic and genomic attributes in the success of polyploids. P Natl Acad Sci USA 97:7051–7057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Theoharides KA, Dukes JS (2007) Plant invasion across space and time: factors affecting nonindigenous species success during four stages of invasion. New Phytol 176:256–273CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Thompson K, Hodgson JG, Rich TCG (1995) Native and alien invasive plants: more of the same? Ecography 18:390–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Thuiller W, Richardson DM, Rouget M, Procheş Ş, Wilson JRU (2006) Interactions between environment, species traits, and human uses describe patterns of plant invasions. Ecology 87:1755–1769CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. van Kleunen M, Johnson SD (2007) Effects of self-compatibility on the distribution range of invasive European plants in North America. Conserv Biol 21:1537–1544PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. van Kleunen M, Manning JC, Pasqualetto V, Johnson SD (2008) Phylogenetically independent associations between autonomous self-fertilization and plant invasiveness. Am Nat 171:195–201CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Webb CO, Gilbert GS, Donoghue MJ (2006) Phylodiversity-dependent seedling mortality, size structure, and disease in a Bornean rain forest. Ecology 87:S123–S131CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Westoby M, Wright I (2006) Land-plant ecology on the basis of functional traits. Trends Ecol Evol 21:261–268CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Williamson M (1999) Invasions. Ecography 22:5–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Williamson MH, Fitter A (1996) The characters of successful invaders. Biol Conserv 78:163–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Williamson M, Dehnen-Schmutz K, Kühn I, Hill M, Klotz S, Milbeau A, Stout J, Pyšek P (2009) The distribution of range sizes of native and alien plants in four European countries and the effects of residence time. Divers Distrib 15:158–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wright IJ, Westoby M, Reich PB (2002) Convergence towards higher leaf mass per area in dry and nutrient-poor habitats has different consequences for leaf life span. J Ecol 90:534–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wright IJ, Reich PB, Cornelissen JHC, Falster DS, Groom PK, Hikosaka K, Lee W, Lusk CH, Niinemets Ü, Oleksyn J, Osada N, Poorter H, Warton DI, Westoby M (2005) Modulation of leaf economic traits and trait relationships by climate. Global Ecol Biogeogr 14:411–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eva C. Küster
    • 1
    • 2
  • Walter Durka
    • 1
  • Ingolf Kühn
    • 1
  • Stefan Klotz
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Community EcologyUFZ—Helmholtz Centre for Environmental ResearchHalleGermany
  2. 2.Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystems Analysis, Geobiosphere Science CentreLund University223 62 LundSweden

Personalised recommendations