Insights from community ecology into the role of enemy release in causing invasion success: the importance of native enemy effects
- 987 Downloads
The enemy release hypothesis (ERH) predicts that the success of invasive species is caused by reduced enemy pressure in species’ introduced ranges. The ERH is a highly-cited explanation for invasion success, yet rigorous evidence is lacking for most species and ecosystems. Most evidence comes from observations of enemies in native and introduced ranges. These studies assess one aspect of the ERH—“enemy loss.” They do not provide a direct test of the ERH and overlook the assumption of “native enemy effects.” This is a critical limitation as enemy release will not occur if enemies do not affect species in their native ranges, even if enemy loss occurs. Biogeographical experiments, providing a direct test of the ERH, are largely restricted to terrestrial plants. We present a synthesis of community ecology and invasion biology studies, including a novel meta-analysis of native enemy effects, to assess the potential for release for species in different taxonomic groups and ecosystems. We suggest that species that are subject to strong enemy effects in their native range will have a high potential for enemy release. We found that native enemy effects were stronger in aquatic systems than in terrestrial systems. They were particularly weak for terrestrial plants; and strong for marine organisms, and freshwater plants. Studies are needed for species that have strong potential for release, such as for aquatic invasive species. Alternative explanations should be explored for invasive species that are not affected by enemies in their native range, and future studies should emphasize native enemy effects rather than only enemy loss.
KeywordsCommunity interactions Enemy release hypothesis Invasion success Invasive species Top-down effects Native and introduced range
We thank G. Belovsky, D. Lodge and J. McLachlan for informative discussions. A.L. Joseph and T.H.Q. Powell were supported by GLOBES (NSF-IGERT 0504495). K.M. Prior received support from a Bayer Fellowship from the Center for Environmental Sciences and Technology at the University of Notre Dame, and a Departmental Postdoctoral Fellowship from the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Toronto.
- Atlegrim O (1998) Exclusion of birds from bilberry stands: impact on insect larval density and damage to the bilberry. Oecologia 7:136–139Google Scholar
- Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
- D’Antonio CM, Vitousek PM (1992) Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, and global change. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 23:63–87Google Scholar
- DeBach P, Rosen D (1991) Biological control by natural enemies. University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Hunter MD, Price PW (1992) Playing chutes and ladders: heterogeneity and the relative roles of bottom-up and top-down forces in natural communities. Ecology 73:724–732Google Scholar
- Pimm SL (1991) The balance of nature?. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- Prior KM, Hellmann JJ (2015) Does enemy release contribute to the success of invasive species? A review of the enemy release hypothesis. In: Keller R, Cadotte M, Sandiford G (eds) Invasive species in a globalized world. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- Rosenberg MS, Adams DC, Gurevitch, J (2000) MetaWin: statistical software for meta-analysis, Version 2.0. Sinauer Associates, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
- Thompson JN (2005) The geographic mosaic of coevolution. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- Van der Putten WH, Yeates GW, Duyts H, Schreck Reis C, Karssen G (2005) Invasive plants and their escape from root herbivory: a worldwide comparison of the root-feeding nematode communities of the dune grass Ammophila arenaria in natural and introduced ranges. Biol Invasions 7:733–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Vos M, Vet LEM (2004) Geographic variation in host acceptance by an insect parasitoid: genotype versus experience. Evol Ecol Res 6:1021–1035Google Scholar