Comparing species–area relationships of native and exotic species

Abstract

The species–area relationship (SAR) is one of the most general patterns in ecology. Recently, SARs have been employed as tools for comparing the ecology and biogeography of native and exotic species across spatial scales and exploring the influence of invasive species on native biodiversity. Here, we assess published studies to determine if SARs differ between native and exotic assemblages. We conducted a literature search to find studies that estimated the exponent (z) of the power-law SAR for native and exotic species across the same set of locales. We also compiled intercepts (c) of SARs where available. We used linear mixed models to test if z and c differed between native and exotic SARs and if this relationship differed across taxa. Our literature search produced 36 native-exotic pairs from 23 studies with which to compare the exponent of the power-law SAR. Further, SAR intercepts were available for 21 native-exotic pairs. Overall, exotic SAR exponents (z) did not differ from those of natives. However, this pattern did not hold across all taxonomic groups. Plant assemblages, which are best represented in our data (61% of total), mirrored the overall pattern showing no differences in exponents between native and exotic SARs. On the other hand, SAR exponents were greater for both native bird and animal assemblages. The intercepts (c) of native SARs were significantly greater than those of exotics for all taxa combined and for each individual taxonomic grouping. Our results suggest processes driving the increase in species richness with area are similar for native and exotic plant species, but not for animals. Expanding studies that compare SARs of native and exotic species to more taxonomic groups and different types of SARs (e.g., nested, contiguous, non-contiguous) will facilitate a better understanding of how native and exotic species richness scale with area.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Ackerman JD, Tremblay RL, Rojas-Sandoval J, Hernández-Figueroa E (2017) Biotic resistance in the tropics: patterns of seed plant invasions within an island. Biol Invasions 19:315–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Arrhenius O (1921) Species and area. J Ecol 9:95–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67:1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bennett JR, Dunwiddie PW, Giblin DE, Arcese P (2012) Native versus exotic community patterns across three scales: roles of competition, environment and incomplete invasion. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 14:381–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bernard-Verdier M, Hulme PE (2015) Alien and native plant species play different roles in plant community structure. J Ecol 103:143–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Blackburn TM, Cassey P, Lockwood J et al (2008) The island biogeography of exotic bird species. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 17:246–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Blackburn TM, Cassey P, Lockwood JL (2009) The role of species traits in the establishment success of exotic birds. Glob Change Biol 15:2852–2860

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Blackburn TM, Lockwood JL, Cassey P (2015) The influence of numbers on invasion success. Mol Ecol 24:1942–1953

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Blackburn TM, Delean S, Pyšek P, Cassey P (2016) On the island biogeography of aliens: a global analysis of the richness of plant and bird species on oceanic islands. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 25:859–868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Burns KC (2015) A theory of island biogeography for exotic species. Am Nat 186:441–451

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Carpio A, Barasona J, Guerrero-Casado J et al (2017) An assessment of conflict areas between alien and native species richness of terrestrial vertebrates on a macro-ecological scale in a mediterranean hotspot. Anim Conserv 20:433–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chase JM, Powell KI, Knight TM (2015) ‘Bigger data’on scale-dependent effects of invasive species on biodiversity cannot overcome confounded analyses: a comment on stohlgren & rejmánek (2014). Biol Let 11:20150103

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Chiarucci A, Fattorini S, Foggi B et al (2017) Plant recording across two centuries reveals dramatic changes in species diversity of a mediterranean archipelago. Sci Rep 7:5415

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Chown S, Gremmen N, Gaston K (1998) Ecological biogeography of southern ocean islands: species–area relationships, human impacts, and conservation. Am Nat 152:562–575

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Connor EF, McCoy ED (1979) The statistics and biology of the species–area relationship. Am Nat 113:791–833

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Daehler CC (2003) Performance comparisons of co-occurring native and alien invasive plants: implications for conservation and restoration. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:183–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Davidson AM, Jennions M, Nicotra AB (2011) Do invasive species show higher phenotypic plasticity than native species and if so, is it adaptive? A meta-analysis. Ecol Lett 14:419–431

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Davies KF, Chesson P, Harrison S et al (2005) Spatial heterogeneity explains the scale dependence of the native–exotic diversity relationship. Ecology 86:1602–1610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Dengler J (2009) Which function describes the species–area relationship best? A review and empirical evaluation. J Biogeogr 36:728–744

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Denslow MW, Palmer MW, Murrell ZE (2010) Patterns of native and exotic vascular plant richness along an elevational gradient from sea level to the summit of the appalachian mountains, usa. J Torrey Bot Soc 137:67–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Drakare S, Lennon JJ, Hillebrand H (2006) The imprint of the geographical, evolutionary and ecological context on species–area relationships. Ecol Lett 9:215–227

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Dyer EE, Franks V, Cassey P et al (2016) A global analysis of the determinants of alien geographical range size in birds. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 25:1346–1355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Flaspohler DJ, Giardina CP, Asner GP et al (2010) Long-term effects of fragmentation and fragment properties on bird species richness in hawaiian forests. Biol Cons 143:280–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Flores-Moreno H, Thomson FJ, Warton DI, Moles AT (2013) Are introduced species better dispersers than native species? A global comparative study of seed dispersal distance. PLoS ONE 8:e68541

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Fridley J, Stachowicz J, Naeem S et al (2007) The invasion paradox: reconciling pattern and process in species invasions. Ecology 88:3–17

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Funk JL (2008) Differences in plasticity between invasive and native plants from a low resource environment. J Ecol 96:1162–1173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Gao D, Perry G (2016) Species–area relationships and additive partitioning of diversity of native and nonnative herpetofauna of the west indies. Ecol Evol 6:7742–7762

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Gelbard JL, Belnap J (2003) Roads as conduits for exotic plant invasions in a semiarid landscape. Conserv Biol 17:420–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Gilbert B, Lechowicz MJ (2005) Invasibility and abiotic gradients: the positive correlation between native and exotic plant diversity. Ecology 86:1848–1855

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Gould SJ (1979) An allometric interpretation of species–area curves: the meaning of the coefficient. Am Nat 114:335–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Gram WK, Borer ET, Cottingham KL et al (2004) Distribution of plants in a california serpentine grassland: Are rocky hummocks spatial refuges for native species? Plant Ecol 172:159–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. He F, Legendre P (2002) Species diversity patterns derived from species–area models. Ecology 83:1185–1198

    Google Scholar 

  33. Herben T, Mandák B, Bímová K, Münzbergová Z (2004) Invasibility and species richness of a community: a neutral model and a survey of published data. Ecology 85:3223–3233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Holle BV, Simberloff D (2005) Ecological resistance to biological invasion overwhelmed by propagule pressure. Ecology 86:3212–3218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Houlahan JE, Keddy PA, Makkay K, Findlay CS (2006) The effects of adjacent land use on wetland species richness and community composition. Wetlands 26:79–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Hulme PE (2008) Contrasting alien and native plant species–area relationships: the importance of spatial grain and extent. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 17:641–647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kuznetsova A, Brockhoff PB, Christensen RHB (2017) lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. J Stat Softw 82:1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Leffler AJ, James JJ, Monaco TA, Sheley RL (2014) A new perspective on trait differences between native and invasive exotic plants. Ecology 95:298–305

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Lemoine NP, Burkepile DE, Parker JD (2016) Quantifying differences between native and introduced species. Trends Ecol Evol 31:372–381

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Li D, Monahan WB, Baiser B (2018) Species richness and phylogenetic diversity of native and non-native species respond differently to area and environmental factors. Divers Distrib 24:853–864

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Lockwood JL, Cassey P, Blackburn T (2005) The role of propagule pressure in explaining species invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 20:223–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Lomolino MV (2000) Ecology’s most general, yet protean pattern: the species–area relationship. J Biogeogr 27:17–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Lomolino MV (2001) The species–area relationship: new challenges for an old pattern. Prog Phys Geogr 25:1–21

    Google Scholar 

  44. Long JD, Trussell GC, Elliman T (2009) Linking invasions and biogeography: isolation differentially affects exotic and native plant diversity. Ecology 90:863–868

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Lososová Z, Chytry M, Tichy L et al (2012) Biotic homogenization of central european urban floras depends on residence time of alien species and habitat types. Biol Cons 145:179–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Malkinson D, Kopel D, Wittenberg L (2018) From rural-urban gradients to patch–matrix frameworks: plant diversity patterns in urban landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 169:260–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Martin LM, Wilsey BJ (2015) Differences in beta diversity between exotic and native grasslands vary with scale along a latitudinal gradient. Ecology 96:1042–1051

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. McKinney ML (2002) Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation: the impacts of urbanization on native species are poorly studied, but educating a highly urbanized human population about these impacts can greatly improve species conservation in all ecosystems. Bioscience 52:883–890

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. McKinney ML (2004) Do exotics homogenize or differentiate communities? Roles of sampling and exotic species richness. Biol Invasions 6:495–504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. McKinney ML (2006) Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biol Cons 127:247–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the prisma statement. PLoS Med 6:e1000097

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Nichols WF, Nichols VC (2008) The land use history, flora, and natural communities of the isles of shoals, rye, new hampshire and kittery, maine. Rhodora 110:245–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. O’Connor R, Usher M, Gibbs A, Brown K (1986) Biological characteristics of invaders among bird species in britain. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 314:583–598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Ordonez A, Wright IJ, Olff H (2010) Functional differences between native and alien species: a global-scale comparison. Funct Ecol 24:1353–1361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Palacio-López K, Gianoli E (2011) Invasive plants do not display greater phenotypic plasticity than their native or non-invasive counterparts: a meta-analysis. Oikos 120:1393–1401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Poisot T (2011) The digitize package: extracting numerical data from scatterplots. R J 3:25–26

    Google Scholar 

  57. Powell KI, Chase JM, Knight TM (2013) Invasive plants have scale-dependent effects on diversity by altering species–area relationships. Science 339:316–318

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Preston FW (1962) The canonical distribution of commonness and rarity: part i. Ecology 43:185–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Pyšek P (1998) Alien and native species in central european urban floras: a quantitative comparison. J Biogeogr 25:155–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Rejmánek M, Stohlgren TJ (2015) Scale-dependent impacts of invasive species: a reply to chase. Biol Lett 11:20150402

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Ricklefs RE, Lovette IJ (1999) The roles of island area per se and habitat diversity in the species–area relationships of four lesser antillean faunal groups. J Anim Ecol 68:1142–1160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Rosenzweig ML (1995) Species diversity in space and time. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  63. Rosindell J, Cornell SJ (2009) Species–area curves, neutral models, and long-distance dispersal. Ecology 90:1743–1750

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Roura-Pascual N, Sanders NJ, Hui C (2016) The distribution and diversity of insular ants: do exotic species play by different rules? Glob Ecol Biogeogr 25:642–654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Sakai AK, Allendorf FW, Holt JS et al (2001) The population biology of invasive species. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 32:305–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Sax DF, Gaines SD (2006) The biogeography of naturalized species and the species–area relationship: reciprocal insights to biogeography ans invasion biology. In: Conceptual ecology and invasion biology: Reciprocal approaches to nature. Springer, pp 449–480

  67. Scheiner SM (2003) Six types of species–area curves. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 12:441–447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Stark SC, Bunker DE, Carson WP (2006) A null model of exotic plant diversity tested with exotic and native species–area relationships. Ecol Lett 9:136–141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Stohlgren TJ, Rejmánek M (2014) No universal scale-dependent impacts of invasive species on native plant species richness. Biol Let 10:20130939

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Stohlgren TJ, Binkley D, Chong GW et al (1999) Exotic plant species invade hot spots of native plant diversity. Ecol Monogr 69:25–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Stohlgren TJ, Barnett DT, Kartesz JT (2003) The rich get richer: patterns of plant invasions in the united states. Front Ecol Environ 1:11–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Tarasi DD, Peet RK (2017) The native-exotic species richness relationship varies with spatial grain of measurement and environmental conditions. Ecology 98:3086–3095

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Tittensor DP, Micheli F, Nyström M, Worm B (2007) Human impacts on the species–area relationship in reef fish assemblages. Ecol Lett 10:760–772

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Triantis KA, Guilhaumon F, Whittaker RJ (2012) The island species–area relationship: biology and statistics. J Biogeogr 39:215–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Turner WR, Tjørve E (2005) Scale-dependence in species–area relationships. Ecography 28:721–730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Van Kleunen M, Weber E, Fischer M (2010) A meta-analysis of trait differences between invasive and non-invasive plant species. Ecol Lett 13:235–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Whittaker RJ, Rigal F, Borges PA et al (2014) Functional biogeography of oceanic islands and the scaling of functional diversity in the azores. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111:13709–13714

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Williams C (1964) Patterns in the balance of nature: and related problems in quantitative ecology. Academic Press, Cambridege

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Edward F. Connor, Sara Kuebbing, and two anonymous reviewers for their feedback on earlier versions of this manuscript. This project was supported by NSF Grant ABI#1458034 to BB.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benjamin Baiser.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 52 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Baiser, B., Li, D. Comparing species–area relationships of native and exotic species. Biol Invasions 20, 3647–3658 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-018-1802-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Birds
  • Exotic
  • Invasive species
  • Non-native species
  • Plants
  • Species area relationship