Advertisement

Biological Invasions

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 651–659 | Cite as

Genetic variation in invasive species response to direct and indirect species interactions

  • Casey P. terHorstEmail author
  • Jennifer A. Lau
Original Paper

Abstract

Biotic resistance to invasion arises from strong species interactions that decrease the fitness and population growth rates of potential invaders. Strong, direct interactions such as predation and competition are typically thought to drive biotic resistance, but in diverse communities, indirect interactions among species may also affect biotic resistance. Further, genetic variation in traits of the invading species that affect species interactions may allow some genotypes to overcome biotic resistance. We investigated the direct and indirect effects of a native legume (Acmispon wrangelianus) and insect herbivores on the fitness of different genotypes of an invasive legume (Medicago polymorpha) in a California grassland. Insect herbivores decreased Medicago fitness, but only in the presence of Acmispon, suggesting that indirect interactions mediated through insects and Acmispon are important for deterring Medicago invasion. Some Medicago genotypes were less affected by interactions with other species, however. This genetic variance suggests that while biotic resistance reduced the reproductive success of most genotypes, a few genotypes were able to overcome these complex interactions. However, Medicago invasion was unsuccessful in all treatments at several of our sites, suggesting that factors beyond those manipulated here also play a key role at many sites. At sites where biotic resistance is important, spatial and temporal variation in community composition and the genetic composition of the invasion pool may explain the invasion success of Medicago into this community.

Keywords

Apparent competition Species diversity Genetic diversity Herbivory Indirect effects 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank C. Gomola for field assistance in work conducted at the University of California Natural Reserve System’s Donald and Sylvia McLaughlin Reserve. This manuscript was improved by comments from T. Bassett, R. Prunier, E. Schultheis, T. Suwa, K. Whitney, the Ecology Reading Group at Florida State University, and several anonymous reviewers. Funding was provided by awards from the National Science Foundation to JAL (DEB-0918963) and to CPt (DMS-132490). Data from this study are archived at Dryad (doi: 10.5061/dryad.s6n57). This is contribution #1707 from the W. K. Kellogg Biological Station.

Supplementary material

10530_2014_756_MOESM1_ESM.docx (191 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 191 kb)

References

  1. Abrams PA (1992) Predators that benefit prey and prey that harm predators: unusual effects of interacting foraging adaptation. Am Nat 140:573–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams MJ, Pearl CA, Bury RB (2003) Indirect facilitation of an anuran invasion by non-native fishes. Ecol Lett 6:343–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barney JN, Di Tommaso A, Weston LA (2005) Differences in invisibility of two contrasting habitats and invasiveness of two mugwort Artemisia vulgaris populations. J Appl Ecol 42:567–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Case TJ (1990) Invasion resistance arises in strongly interacting species-rich model competition communities. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 87:9610–9614PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crawford KM, Whitney KD (2010) Population genetic diversity influences colonization success. Mol Ecol 19:1253–1263PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dawson W, Burslem DFRP, Hulme PE (2009) Factors explaining alien plant invasion success in a tropical ecosystem differ at each stage of invasion. J Ecol 97:657–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. de Haan RL, Barnes DK (1998) Inheritance of pod type, stem color, and dwarf growth habit in Medicago polymorpha. Crop Sci 38:1558–1561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Elton CS (1958) The ecology of invasions by animals and plants. Metheuan and Co., Ltd., LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Epelbaum A, Pearce CM, Barker DJ, Paulson A, Therriault TW (2009) Susceptibility of non-indigenous ascidian species in British Columbia (Canada) to invertebrate predation. Mar Biol 156:1311–1320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fridley JD, Stachowicz JJ, Naeem S, Sax DF, Seabloom EW, Smith MD, Stohlgren TJ, Tilman D, Von Holle B (2007) The invasion paradox: reconciling patterns and process in species invasions. Ecology 88:3–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gordon DR, Onderdonk DA, Fox AM, Stocker RK (2008) Consistent accuracy of the Australia weed risk assessment system across varied geographies. Divers Distrib 14:234–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gruner DS (2005) Biotic resistance to an invasive spider conferred by generalist insectivorous birds on Hawai’I Island. Biol Invasion 7:541–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lau JA, Strauss SY (2005) Insect herbivores drive important indirect effects of exotic plants on native communities. Ecology 86:2990–2997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lee CE (2002) Evolutionary genetics of invasive species. Trends Ecol Evol 17:386–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Levine JM, Adler PB, Yelenik SG (2004) A meta-analysis of biotic resistance to exotic plant invasions. Ecol Lett 7:975–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Maron JL, Connors PG (1996) A native nitrogen-fixing shrub facilitates weed invasion. Oecologia 105:302–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. May RM, MacArthur RH (1972) Niche overlap as a function of environmental variability. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 69:1109–1113PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Menge BA (1995) Indirect effects in marine rocky intertidal interaction webs: patterns and importance. Ecol Monogr 65:21–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Miller TE, terHorst CP (2012) Indirect effects in communities and ecosystems. Oxford Bibliographies in Ecology. In: David Gibson (ed), http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/obo/page/ecology. Oxford University Press, New York
  21. Moulton MP, Pimm SL (1983) The introduced Hawiian avifauna: biogeographic evidence for competition. Am Nat 121:669–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Paini DR, Funderburk JE, Reitz SR (2008) Competitive exclusion of a worldwide invasive pest by a native: quantifying competition between two phytophagous insects on two host plant species. J Anim Ecol 77:184–190PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Parker JD, Hay ME (2005) Biotic resistance to plant invasions? Native herbivores prefer non-native plants. Ecol Lett 8:959–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Porter SS, Rice KJ (2013) Trade-offs, spatial heterogeneity, and the maintenance of microbial diversity. Evolution 67:599–608Google Scholar
  25. Strauss SY (1991) Indirect effects in community ecology: their definition, study, and importance. Trends Ecol Evol 6:206–210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Suwa T, Louda SM (2012) Combined effects of plant competition and insect herbivory hinder invasiveness of an introduced thistle. Oecologia 169:467–476PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. terHorst CP (2010) Evolution in response to direct and indirect effects in pitcher plant inquiline communities. Am Nat 176:675–685PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. terHorst CP, Lau JA (2012) Direct and indirect transgenerational effects alter plant-herbivore interactions. Evol Ecol 26:1469–1480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Theoharides KA, Dukes JS (2007) Plant invasion across space and time: factors affecting nonindigenous species success during four stages of invasion. New Phytol 176:256–273PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Van Kleunen M, Weber E, Fischer M (2010) A meta-analysis of trait differences between invasive and non-invasive plant species. Ecol Lett 13:235–245PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Violle C, Enquist BJ, McGill BJ, Jiang L, Albert CH, Hulshof C, Jung V, Messier J (2012) The return of the variance: intraspecific variability in community ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 332(27):244–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vitale M, Pupilli F, Labombarda P, Arcioni S (1998) RAPD analysis reveals a low rate of outcrossing in burr medic (Medicago polymorpha L.). Gen Res Crop Evol 45:337–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Williamson M, Fitter A (1996) The varying success of invaders. Ecology 77:1661–1666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wootton JT (1994) The nature and consequences of indirect effects in ecological communities. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 25:443–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyCalifornia State University, NorthridgeNorthridgeUSA
  2. 2.Kellogg Biological Station and Department of Plant BiologyMichigan State UniversityHickory CornersUSA

Personalised recommendations