Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Invaders are not a random selection of species

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biological Invasions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We assembled information on 119 species of freshwater macroinvertebrate invaders in North America and Europe, and compared them to all native freshwater species in North America and Europe. We tested whether the invaders were a random or selected group among taxa (phylum or class), water quality requirements, and feeding habit. We found that freshwater macroinvertebrate invaders are not a random selection of species, and are over-represented by molluscs and crustaceans, while taxa richness of native communities are dominated by insects. Over 35% of native species of aquatic invertebrates in North America are only able to live in areas with excellent or very good water quality, and are intolerant of organic pollution. In contrast, all invaders are tolerant of at least moderate amounts of organic pollution. There was a significant difference in the distribution of feeding habits between native species and invaders: collector-filterers (including suspension feeders) were 2.5–3 times more abundant, and predators were 3–4 times less abundant among invaders than among native invertebrates. The ongoing spread of exotic species affects the biodiversity of selected taxa, shifts communities toward greater tolerance of organic pollution and increases the numbers of suspension feeders, thereby enhancing benthic pelagic coupling in waterbodies with high densities of invaders. Because these processes are very similar in Europe and North America, we suggest that the observed patterns may have a common global effect.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bailey SA, Duggan IC, Jenkins PT et al (2005) Invertebrate resting stages in residual ballast sediment of transoceanic ships. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 62:1090–1103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker HG (1965) Characteristics and modes of origin of weeds. In: Baker HG, Stebbins GL (eds) The genetics of colonizing species. Academic Press, London, pp 147–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Boltovskoy D, Correa N, Cataldo D et al (2006) Dispersion and ecological impact of the invasive freshwater bivalve Limnoperna fortunei in the Río de la Plata watershed and beyond. Biol Invasions 8:974–983

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brockerhoff EG, Liebhold AM, Jactel H (2006) The ecology of forest insect invasions and advances in their management. Can J For Res 36:263–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlton JT (1985) Transoceanic and interoceanic dispersal of costal marine organisms: the biology of ballast water. Oceanogr Mar Biol Ann Rev 23:313–371

    Google Scholar 

  • Casal CMV (2006) Global documentation of fish introductions: the growing crisis and recommendations for action. Biol Invasions 8:3–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Causton CE, Peck SB, Sinclair BJ et al (2006) Alien insects: threats and implications for conservation of Galápagos Islands. Ann Entomol Soc Am 99:121–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chase JM (2003) Community assembly: when does history matter? Oecologia 136:489–498

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Çinar ME, Ergen Z, Dagli E et al (2005) Alien species of spionid polychaetes (Streblospio gynobranchiata and Polydora cornuta) in Izmir Bay, eastern Mediterranean. J Marine Biol Assoc UK 85:821–827

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connell JH, Slatyer RO (1977) Mechanisms of succession in natural communities and their role in community stability and organization. Am Nat 111:1119–1144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Den Hartog C, van den Brink FWB, van der Velde G (1992) Why was the invasion of the River Rhine by Corophium curvispinum and Corbicula species so successful? J Nat Hist 26:1121–1129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duggan IC, Bailey SA, van Overdijk CDA et al (2006) Invasion risk of active and diapausing invertebrates from residual ballast in ships entering Chesapeake Bay. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 324:57–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elton CS (1958) The ecology of invasions by animals and plants. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Fargione J, Brown CS, Tilman D (2003) Community assembly and invasion: an experimental test of neutral versus niche processes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:8916–8920

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman GH, Halton JH (1951) Note on an exact treatment of contingency, goodness of fit and other problems of significance. Biometrika 38:141–149

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Grabowski M, Bacela K, Konopacka A (2007) How to be an invasive gammarid (Amphipoda: Gammaroidea)—comparison of life history traits. Hydrobiologia 590:75–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hershey AE, Lamberti GA (2001) Aquatic insect ecology. In: Thorp JH, Covich AP (eds) Ecology and classification of North American freshwater invertebrates, 2nd edn. Academic Press, London, pp 733–775

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilsenhoff WL (1987) An improved biotic index of organic stream pollution. Great Lakes Entomol 20:31–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Illies J (1978) Limnofauna Europea. Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Karatayev AY, Padilla DK, Minchin D et al (2007) Changes in global economies and trade: the potential spread of exotic freshwater bivalves. Biol Invasions 9:161–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller RP, Lodge DM, Finnoff DC (2007a) Risk assessment for invasive species produces net bioeconomic benefits. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:203–207

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Keller RP, Drake JM, Lodge DM (2007b) Fecundity as a basis for risk assessment of nonindigenous freshwater molluscs. Conserv Biol 21:191–200

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kolar CS, Lodge DM (2001) Progress in invasion biology: predicting invaders. Trends Ecol Evol 16:199–204

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lee T, Siripattrawan S, Ituarte CF et al (2005) Invasion of the clonal clams: Corbicula in the new world. Am Malacol Bull 20:113–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine JM, D’Antonio CM (1999) Elton revisited: review of evidence linking diversity and invasibility. Oikos 87:15–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lodge DM (1993) Biological invasions—lessons for ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 8:133–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loreau M, Mouquet N (1999) Immigration and the maintenance of local species diversity. Am Nat 154:424–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lozon JD, MacIsaac HJ (1997) Biological invasions: are they dependent on disturbance? Environ Rev 5:131–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur RH, Wilson EO (1967) The theory of island biogeography. In: MacArthur RH (ed) Monographs in population biology, vol 1. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Mack RN (1996) Predicting the identity and fate of plant invaders: emergent and emerging approaches. Biol Conserv 78:107–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mack RN, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM et al (2000) Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol Appl 10:689–710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandaville SM (2002) Benthic macroinvertebrates in freshwaters—taxa tolerance values, metrics, and protocols. Project H-1, Soil & Water Conservation Society of Metro Halifax. xviii, 48 p, Appendices A–B, 120 p

  • Merritt RW, Cummins KW (1996) An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America, 3rd edn. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co, Dubuque

    Google Scholar 

  • Morton B (1997) The aquatic nuisance species problem: a global perspective and review. In: D’Itri FM (ed) Zebra mussels and aquatic nuisance species. Ann Arbor Press Inc., Chelsea, pp 1–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Moyle PB, Light T (1996) Biological invasions of fresh water: empirical rules and assembly theory. Biol Conserv 78:149–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olenin S, Daunys D (2005) Invaders in suspension-feeder systems: variations along the regional environmental gradient and similarities between large basins. In: Dame R, Olenin S (eds) The comparative roles of suspension-feeders in ecosystems. NATO science series. Earth and environmental series, vol 47. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 221–237

    Google Scholar 

  • Pellizzari G, Dalla Monta L (1997) 1945–1995: fifty years of incidental insect pest introduction to Italy. Acta Phytopathol Acad Sci Hung 32:171–183

    Google Scholar 

  • Pimentel D, Zuniga R, Morrison D (2005) Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecol Econ 52:273–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piola RF, Johnston EL (2006) Differential tolerance to metals among populations of bryozoan Bugula neritina. Mar Biol 148:997–1010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rajagopal S, Venugopalan VP, van der Velde G et al (2006) Greening of the coasts: a review of Perna viridis success story. Aquat Ecol 40:273–297

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Reichard SH (1996) What traits distinguish invasive plants from non-invasive plants? In: Proceedings of the California Exotic Pest Plant Council, 4–6 October 1996, San Diego

  • Rejmanek M, Richardson DM (1996) What attributes make some plant species more invasive? Ecology 77:1655–1661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricciardi A, Atkinson SK (2004) Distinctiveness magnifies the impact of biological invaders in aquatic ecosystems. Ecol Lett 7:781–784

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricklefs RE, Schluter D (1993) Species diversity: regional and historical influences. In: Ricklefs RE, Schluter D (eds) Species diversity in ecological communities: historical and geographical perspectives. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, USA, pp 350–363

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorp JH, Covich AP (2001) Ecology and classification of North American freshwater invertebrates, 2nd edn. Academic Press, San Diego, California, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Velde G, Rajagopal S, Kelleher B et al (2000) Ecological impact of crustacean invaders: general considerations and examples from the Rhine River. Crustac Issues 12:3–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Vila-Gispert A, Alcaraz C, García-Berthou E (2005) Life-history traits of invasive fish in small Mediterranean streams. Biol Invasions 7:107–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villar C, Stripeikis J, D’Huicque L et al (1999) Cd, Cu and Zn concentrations in sediments and the invasive bivalves Limnoperna fortunei and Corbicula fluminea at the Río de la Plata basin, Argentina. Hydrobiologia 416:41–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson M (1996) Biological invasions. Chapman & Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson M (1999) Invasions. Ecogeography 22:5–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wonham M (2006) Species invasions. In: Groom MJ, Meffe GK, Carroll CR (eds) Principles of conservation biology. Sinauer Associates Inc., Sunderland, USA, pp 333–374

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaiko A, Olenin S, Daunys D et al (2007) Vulnerability of benthic habitats to the aquatic invasive species. Biol Invasions 9(6):703–714

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the Army Corps of Engineers for support for a workshop that initiated this project. For DKP, this paper was based on work supported by the National Science Foundation, while working at the Foundation. Any opinion, finding, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. SEM and SO were supported by the EU Framework 6th Integrated Project ALARM ‘Assessing large-scale environmental risks with tested methods’ (contract GOCE-CT-2003-506675).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Great Lakes Center, Science Building 261, Buffalo State College, 1300 Elmwood Avenue, Buffalo, NY, 14222, USA

    Alexander Y. Karatayev, Lyubov E. Burlakova & Sergey E. Mastitsky

  2. Department of Ecology and Evolution, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, 11794-5245, USA

    Dianna K. Padilla

  3. Coastal Research and Planning Institute, Klaipeda University, H. Manto 84, 92294, Klaipeda, Lithuania

    Sergej Olenin

Authors
  1. Alexander Y. Karatayev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lyubov E. Burlakova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dianna K. Padilla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sergey E. Mastitsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sergej Olenin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander Y. Karatayev.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Karatayev, A.Y., Burlakova, L.E., Padilla, D.K. et al. Invaders are not a random selection of species. Biol Invasions 11, 2009–2019 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-009-9498-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-009-9498-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation