Biological Invasions

, Volume 12, Issue 9, pp 3333–3342 | Cite as

Phylogenetically structured damage to Asteraceae: susceptibility of native and exotic species to foliar herbivores

Original Paper

Abstract

Invasive plants often lose natural enemies while moving to new regions; however, once established in a new area, these invaders may be susceptible to attack by locally occurring enemies. Such damage may be more likely for exotics with close native relatives in the invaded area, since shifts of enemies should be more likely among closely related hosts. In this study, we evaluated whether exotics experience less herbivore damage than natives, and whether phylogenetically novel exotics experience less damage that those that are more closely related to locally occurring family members. Foliar damage was measured on 20 native and 15 exotic Asteraceae that co-occur locally in southern Ontario, Canada. The phylogenetic structure of this damage was quantified using an eigenvector decomposition method, and the relationship between damage and phylogenetic novelty of exotics was evaluated based on phylogenetic distances to other locally occurring Asteraceae. Our results show that 32% of the variation in damage was explained by phylogenetic relationship; similarity in damage tended to be associated with tribes. As predicted, exotics experienced lower damage than native species, even when the dataset was corrected for phylogenetic nonindependence. Contrary to our prediction, however, exotics that were more phylogenetically isolated from locally occurring relatives did not experience less damage. These results suggest that, though exotic Asteraceae may escape many of their natural enemies, this is not in general more likely for species phylogenetically distant from locally occurring native confamilials.

Keywords

Asteraceae Community phylogenetics Enemy release hypothesis Exotic species Invasion biology 

References

  1. Agrawal AA, Kotanen PM (2003) Herbivores and the success of exotic plants: a phylogenetically controlled experiment. Ecol Lett 6:712–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agrawal AA, Kotanen PM, Mitchell CE, Power AG, Godsoe W, Klironomos J (2005) Enemy release? An experiment with congeneric plant pairs and diverse above- and belowground enemies. Ecology 86:2979–2989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernays EA, Chapman RF (1994) Host plant selection by phytophagous insects. Chapman and Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Cappuccino N, Carpenter D (2005) Invasive exotic plants suffer less herbivory than non-invasive exotic plants. Biol Lett 1:435–438CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Colautti RI, Ricciardi A, Grigorovich IA, MacIsaac HJ (2004) Is invasion success explained by the enemy release hypothesis? Ecol Lett 7:721–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Connor EF, Faeth SH, Simberloff D, Opler PA (1980) Taxonomic isolation and the accumulation of herbivorous insects—a comparison of introduced and native trees. Ecol Entomol 5:205–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dawson W, Burslem D, Hulme PE (2009) Herbivory is related to taxonomic isolation, but not to invasiveness of tropical alien plants. Divers Distrib 15:141–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Desdevises Y, Legendre P, Azouzi L, Morand S (2003) Quantifying phylogenetically structured environmental variation. Evolution 57:2647–2652PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Diniz-Filho JAF, de Sant’Ana CER (1998) An eigenvector method for estimating phylogenetic inertia. Evolution 52:1247–1262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fargione JE, Tilman D (2005) Diversity decreases invasion via both sampling and complementarity effects. Ecol Lett 8:604–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Felsenstein J (1985) Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am Nat 125:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Funk VA, Bayer RJ, Kelley S, Chan R, Watson L, Gemeinholzer B, Schilling E, Panero JL, Baldwin BG, Garcia-Jacas N, Susanna A, Jansen RK (2005) Everywhere but Antarctica: using a supertree to understand the diversity and distribution of the Compositae. Biol Skr 55:343–374Google Scholar
  13. Futuyma DJ, Mitter C (1996) Insect-plant interactions: the evolution of component communities. Philos Trans R Soc B 351:1361–1366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. García-Berthou E (2001) On the misuse of residuals in ecology: testing regression residuals vs. the analysis of covariance. J Anim Ecol 70:708–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gaskin JF, Wilson LM (2007) Phylogenetic relationships among native and naturalized Hieracium (Asteraceae) in Canada and the United States based on plastid DNA sequences. Syst Bot 32:478–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gossner MM, Chao A, Bailey RI, Prinzing A (2009) Native fauna on exotic trees: phylogenetic conservatism and geographic contingency in two lineages of phytophages on two lineages of trees. Am Nat 173:599–614CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Hawkes CV (2007) Are invaders moving targets? The generality and persistence of advantages in size, reproduction, and enemy release in invasive plant species with time since introduction. Am Nat 170:832–843CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Hill SB, Kotanen PM (2009) Evidence that phylogenetically novel non-indigenous plants experience less herbivory. Oecologia 161:581–590CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hokkanen HMT, Pimentel D (1989) New associations in biological control: theory and practice. Can Entomol 121:829–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Keane RM, Crawley MJ (2002) Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. Trends Ecol Evol 17:164–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kim KJ, Choi KS, Jansen RK (2005) Two chloroplast DNA inversions originated simultaneously during the early evolution of the sunflower family (Asteraceae). Mol Biol Evol 22:1783–1792CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Levine JM, Adler PB, Yelenik SG (2004) A meta-analysis of biotic resistance to exotic plant invasions. Ecol Lett 7:975–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lewinsohn TM, Novotny V, Basset Y (2005) Insects on plants: diversity of herbivore assemblages revisited. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 36:597–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Liu H, Stiling P (2006) Testing the enemy release hypothesis: a review and meta-analysis. Biol Invasions 8:1535–1545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maron JL, Vila M (2001) When do herbivores affect plant invasion? Evidence for the natural enemies and biotic resistance hypotheses. Oikos 95:361–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mason PG, Huber JT (2002) Biological control programmes in Canada 1981–2000. CABI, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  27. Mitchell CE, Power AG (2003) Release of invasive plants from fungal and viral pathogens. Nature 421:625–627CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Mitchell CE, Agrawal AA, Bever JD, Gilbert GS, Hufbauer RA, Klironomos JN, Maron JL, Morris WF, Parker IM, Power AG, Seabloom EW, Torchin ME, Vazquez DP (2006) Biotic interactions and plant invasions. Ecol Lett 9:726–740CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Naeem S, Knops JMH, Tilman D, Howe KM, Kennedy T, Gale S (2000) Plant diversity increases resistance to invasion in the absence of covarying extrinsic factors. Oikos 91:97–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Novotny V, Basset Y (2005) Host specificity of insect herbivores in tropical forests. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 272:1083–1090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Novotny V, Basset Y, Miller SE, Weiblen GD, Bremer B, Cizek L, Drozd P (2002) Low host specificity of herbivorous insects in a tropical forest. Nature 416:841–844CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Noyes RD (2000) Biogeographical and evolutionary insights on Erigeron and allies (Asteraceae) from ITS sequence data. Plant Syst Evol 220:93–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Odegaard F, Diserud OH, Ostbye K (2005) The importance of plant relatedness for host utilization among phytophagous insects. Ecol Lett 8:612–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Parker IM, Gilbert GS (2007) When there is no escape: the effects of natural enemies on native, invasive, and noninvasive plants. Ecology 88:1210–1224CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Parker JD, Hay ME (2005) Biotic resistance to plant invasions? Native herbivores prefer non-native plants. Ecol Lett 8:959–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Parker JD, Burkepile DE, Hay ME (2006) Opposing effects of native and exotic herbivores on plant invasions. Science 311:1459–1461CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Ricciardi A, Ward JM (2006) Comment on “Opposing effects of native and exotic herbivores on plant invasions”. Science 313:298CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Richardson DM, Allsopp N, D’Antonio C, Milton SJ, Rejmánek M (2000) Plant invasions—the role of mutualisms. Biol Rev 75:65–93CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Semple JC, Cook RE (2006) Solidago. In: Committee FNAE (ed) Flora of North America. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 107–166Google Scholar
  40. Strong DR, Lawton JH, Southwood R (1984) Insects on plants. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  41. R Development Core Team (2009) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, URL: http://wwwR-projectorg
  42. Torchin ME, Lafferty KD, Dobson AP, McKenzie VJ, Kuris AM (2003) Introduced species and their missing parasites. Nature 421:628–630CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Verhoeven KJF, Biere A, Harvey JA, van der Putten WH (2009) Plant invaders and their novel natural enemies: who is naive? Ecol Lett 12:107–117CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Webb CO, Ackerly DD, Kembel SW (2008) Phylocom: software for the analysis of phylogenetic community structure and trait evolution. Bioinformatics 24:2098–2100CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Weiblen GD, Webb CO, Novotny V, Basset Y, Miller SE (2006) Phylogenetic dispersion of host use in a tropical insect herbivore community. Ecology 87:S62–S75CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Whitton J, Wallace RS, Jansen RK (1995) Phylogenetic-relationships and patterns of character change in the tribe Lactuceae (Asteraceae) based on chloroplast DNA restriction site variation. Can J Bot 73:1058–1073CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of Toronto MississaugaMississaugaCanada

Personalised recommendations