Contrasting the effects of environment, dispersal and biotic interactions to explain the distribution of invasive plants in alpine communities

Despite considerable efforts devoted to investigate the community assembly processes driving plant invasions, few general conclusions have been drawn so far. Three main processes, generally acting as successive filters, are thought to be of prime importance. The invader has to disperse (1st filter) into a suitable environment (2nd filter) and succeed in establishing in recipient communities through competitive interactions (3rd filter) using two strategies: competition avoidance by the use of different resources (resource opportunity), or competitive exclusion of native species. Surprisingly, despite the general consensus on the importance of investigating these three processes and their interplay, they are usually studied independently. Here we aim to analyse these three filters together, by including them all: abiotic environment, dispersal and biotic interactions, into models of invasive species distributions. We first propose a suite of indices (based on species functional dissimilarities) supposed to reflect the two competitive strategies (resource opportunity and competition exclusion). Then, we use a set of generalised linear models to explain the distribution of seven herbaceous invaders in natural communities (using a large vegetation database for the French Alps containing 5,000 community-plots). Finally, we measure the relative importance of competitive interaction indices, identify the type of coexistence mechanism involved and how this varies along environmental gradients. Adding competition indices significantly improved model’s performance, but neither resource opportunity nor competitive exclusion were common strategies among the seven species. Overall, we show that combining environmental, dispersal and biotic information to model invasions has excellent potential for improving our understanding of invader success.

[1]  Sean C. Thomas,et al.  The worldwide leaf economics spectrum , 2004, Nature.

[2]  W. Verstraete,et al.  Environmental conditions and community evenness determine the outcome of biological invasion , 2013, Nature Communications.

[3]  M. Vilà,et al.  Land-use and socio-economic correlates of plant invasions in European and North African countries , 2001 .

[4]  Mark Westoby,et al.  Land-plant ecology on the basis of functional traits. , 2006, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[5]  D. Richardson,et al.  Naturalization of introduced plants: ecological drivers of biogeographical patterns. , 2012, The New phytologist.

[6]  K. Gross,et al.  Functional- and abundance-based mechanisms explain diversity loss due to N fertilization. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[7]  J. Travis,et al.  Facilitation in plant communities: the past, the present, and the future , 2007 .

[8]  R. Duncan,et al.  Ecology: Darwin's naturalization hypothesis challenged , 2002, Nature.

[9]  P. D. Körner.  Alpine Plant Life , 2003, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[10]  Wilfried Thuiller,et al.  Predicting potential distributions of invasive species: where to go from here? , 2010 .

[11]  J. HilleRisLambers,et al.  Rethinking Community Assembly through the Lens of Coexistence Theory , 2012 .

[12]  Mark Westoby,et al.  A leaf-height-seed (LHS) plant ecology strategy scheme , 1998, Plant and Soil.

[13]  A. Agrawal,et al.  Biotic interactions and plant invasions. , 2006, Ecology letters.

[14]  M. Vilà,et al.  Ecological niche and species traits: key drivers of regional plant invader assemblages , 2012, Biological Invasions.

[15]  M. Cadotte,et al.  Life‐history correlates of plant invasiveness at regional and continental scales , 2005 .

[16]  Cynthia S. Brown,et al.  Community assembly and invasion: An experimental test of neutral versus niche processes , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[17]  R. Bivand.  Spatial Dependence: Weighting Schemes, Statistics and Models , 2015 .

[18]  S. Lavorel,et al.  On the importance of intraspecific variability for the quantification of functional diversity , 2012 .

[19]  Wilfried Thuiller,et al.  From introduction to equilibrium: reconstructing the invasive pathways of the Argentine ant in a Mediterranean region , 2009 .

[20]  B. Gilbert,et al.  Plant invasions and the niche , 2009 .

[21]  H. Akaike.  A new look at the statistical model identification , 1974 .

[22]  Wilfried Thuiller,et al.  Niche breadth, rarity and ecological characteristics within a regional flora spanning large environmental gradients , 2012 .

[23]  Achim Zeileis,et al.  Bias in random forest variable importance measures: Illustrations, sources and a solution , 2007, BMC Bioinformatics.

[24]  R. G. Davies,et al.  Methods to account for spatial autocorrelation in the analysis of species distributional data : a review , 2007 .

[25]  Wilfried Thuiller,et al.  Hierarchical effects of environmental filters on the functional structure of plant communities: a case study in the French Alps , 2013 .

[26]  F. J. Gallego,et al.  A population density grid of the European Union , 2010 .

[27]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[28]  Wolfgang Nentwig,et al.  Disentangling the role of environmental and human pressures on biological invasions across Europe , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[29]  M. Fischer,et al.  Preadapted for invasiveness: do species traits or their plastic response to shading differ between invasive and non‐invasive plant species in their native range? , 2011 .

[30]  M. Westoby,et al.  ECOLOGICAL STRATEGIES : Some Leading Dimensions of Variation Between Species , 2002 .

[31]  H. Mooney.  Invasive alien species : a new synthesis , 2005 .

[32]  D. Coomes,et al.  Competitive interactions between forest trees are driven by species' trait hierarchy, not phylogenetic or functional similarity: implications for forest community assembly. , 2012, Ecology letters.

[33]  Anna Traveset,et al.  A meta-analysis of impacts of alien vs. native plants on pollinator visitation and reproductive success of co-flowering native plants. , 2009, Ecology letters.

[34]  Steven I. Higgins,et al.  USING A DYNAMIC LANDSCAPE MODEL FOR PLANNING THE MANAGEMENT OF ALIEN PLANT INVASIONS , 2000 .

[35]  P. Chesson,et al.  Community ecology theory as a framework for biological invasions , 2002 .

[36]  G. Goudswaard,et al.  Introduction to Econometrics , 1961 .

[37]  W. D. Kissling,et al.  The role of biotic interactions in shaping distributions and realised assemblages of species: implications for species distribution modelling , 2012, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[38]  Niklaus E. Zimmermann,et al.  Co‐occurrence patterns of trees along macro‐climatic gradients and their potential influence on the present and future distribution of Fagus sylvatica L. , 2011 .

[39]  C. Lortie,et al.  Positive interactions among alpine plants increase with stress , 2002, Nature.

[40]  W. Thuiller,et al.  Resolving Darwin’s naturalization conundrum: a quest for evidence , 2010 .

[41]  T. Seastedt,et al.  Mechanisms of Plant Invasions of North American and European Grasslands , 2011 .

[42]  C. Plutzar,et al.  Extinction debt of high-mountain plants under twenty-first-century climate change , 2012 .

[43]  P. Edwards,et al.  Introduced plants of the invasive Solidago gigantea (Asteraceae) are larger and grow denser than conspecifics in the native range , 2004 .

[44]  Wilfried Thuiller,et al.  Intraspecific functional variability: extent, structure and sources of variation , 2010 .

[45]  D. Richardson,et al.  Plant invasions: merging the concepts of species invasiveness and community invasibility , 2006 .

[46]  C. Daehler.  Darwin's Naturalization Hypothesis Revisited , 2001, The American Naturalist.

[47]  M. Araújo,et al.  Validation of species–climate impact models under climate change , 2005 .

[48]  J A Swets,et al.  Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. , 1988, Science.

[49]  J. Ord,et al.  Spatial Processes. Models and Applications , 1982 .

[50]  M. Araújo,et al.  21st century climate change threatens mountain flora unequally across Europe , 2011 .

[51]  L. Walker,et al.  Competition and facilitation: a synthetic approach to interactions in plant communities , 1997 .

[52]  W. Cramer,et al.  A global biome model based on plant physiology and dominance, soil properties and climate , 1992 .

[53]  J. Cavender-Bares,et al.  Native communities determine the identity of exotic invaders even at scales at which communities are unsaturated , 2011 .

[54]  David M. Richardson,et al.  Is phylogenetic relatedness to native species important for the establishment of reptiles introduced to California and Florida? , 2011 .

[55]  D. Richardson,et al.  Niche‐based modelling as a tool for predicting the risk of alien plant invasions at a global scale , 2005, Global change biology.

[56]  J. L. Parra,et al.  Phylogenetic structure in tropical hummingbird communities , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[57]  R. Brooker,et al.  Importance versus intensity of ecological effects: why context matters. , 2011, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[58]  D. Richardson,et al.  Searching for phylogenetic pattern in biological invasions , 2007 .

[59]  P. Hulme,et al.  Learning from failures: testing broad taxonomic hypotheses about plant naturalization. , 2009, Ecology letters.

[60]  C. Daehler.  PERFORMANCE COMPARISONS OF Co-OCCURRING NATIVE AND ALIEN INVASIVE PLANTS: Implications for Conservation and Restoration , 2003 .

[61]  R. Brooker,et al.  Importance: an overlooked concept in plant interaction research , 2008 .

[62]  Renée M. Bekker,et al.  Life-history traits of the Northwest European flora: The LEDA database , 2003 .

[63]  N. Zimmermann,et al.  Predicting future distributions of mountain plants under climate change: does dispersal capacity matter? , 2009 .

[64]  M. Rejmánek,et al.  Toward a Causal Explanation of Plant Invasiveness: Seedling Growth and Life‐History Strategies of 29 Pine (Pinus) Species , 2002, The American Naturalist.

[65]  Jonathan M. Levine,et al.  Elton revisited: a review of evidence linking diversity and invasibility , 1999 .

[66]  Harold A. Mooney,et al.  Ecology of invasive plants: state of the art. , 2005 .

[67]  N. Swenson.  Gis‐based niche models reveal unifying climatic mechanisms that maintain the location of avian hybrid zones in a North American suture zone , 2006, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[68]  J. Gower.  A General Coefficient of Similarity and Some of Its Properties , 1971 .

[69]  W. Thuiller,et al.  Darwin's naturalization hypothesis: scale matters in coastal plant communities. , 2013, Ecography.

[70]  C. Welden,et al.  The Intensity of Competition Versus its Importance: An Overlooked Distinction and Some Implications , 1986, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[71]  E. Sanderson,et al.  The Human Footprint and the Last of the Wild , 2002 .

[72]  Eliot J. B. McIntire,et al.  Facilitation as a ubiquitous driver of biodiversity. , 2014, The New phytologist.

[73]  Daniel Simberloff,et al.  Invasional meltdown 6 years later: important phenomenon, unfortunate metaphor, or both? , 2006, Ecology letters.

[74]  J. Dukes,et al.  Plant invasion across space and time: factors affecting nonindigenous species success during four stages of invasion. , 2007, The New phytologist.

[75]  Luís Silva,et al.  Testing Darwin's naturalization hypothesis in the Azores. , 2011, Ecology letters.

[76]  W. M. Lonsdale,et al.  GLOBAL PATTERNS OF PLANT INVASIONS AND THE CONCEPT OF INVASIBILITY , 1999 .

[77]  P. Chesson.  Mechanisms of Maintenance of Species Diversity , 2000 .

[78]  Michelle R. Leishman,et al.  Invasion success of exotic plants in natural ecosystems: the role of disturbance, plant attributes and freedom from herbivores , 2004 .

[79]  P. Bénichou,et al.  Prix Norbert Gerbier 1986: prise en compte de la topographie pour la cartographie des champs pluviométriques statistiques , 1987 .

[80]  D. Simberloff.  The Role of Propagule Pressure in Biological Invasions , 2009 .

[81]  J. P. Grime,et al.  Benefits of plant diversity to ecosystems: immediate, filter and founder effects , 1998 .

[82]  Peter Chesson,et al.  Functional tradeoffs determine species coexistence via the storage effect , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[83]  S. T. Buckland,et al.  An autologistic model for the spatial distribution of wildlife , 1996 .

[84]  M. Mayfield,et al.  Opposing effects of competitive exclusion on the phylogenetic structure of communities. , 2010, Ecology letters.