Native and naturalized range size in Pinus: relative importance of biogeography, introduction effort and species traits

Aim  Pine trees (genus Pinus) represent an ancient lineage, naturally occurring almost exclusively in the Northern Hemisphere, but introduced and widely naturalized in both hemispheres. As large trees of interest to forestry, they attract much attention and their distribution is well documented in both indigenous and naturalized ranges. This creates an opportunity to analyse the relationship between indigenous and naturalized range sizes in the context of different levels of human usage, biological traits and the characteristics of the environments of origin. Location  Global. Methods  We combined and expanded pre-existing data sets for pine species distributions and pine species traits, and used a variety of regression techniques (including generalized additive models and zero-inflated Poisson models) to assess which variables explained naturalized and indigenous range sizes. Results  Indigenous and naturalized range sizes are positively correlated but there are many notable exceptions. Some species have large indigenous ranges but small or no naturalized ranges, whereas others have small indigenous ranges, but have naturalized in many regions. Indigenous range is correlated to factors such as seed size (−), age at first reproduction (−), and latitude (+, supporting Rapoport's rule), but also to the extent of coverage of species in the forestry literature (+). Naturalized range size is strongly influenced by the extent of coverage of species in the forestry literature (+), a proxy for propagule pressure. Naturalization was also influenced by average elevation in the indigenous range (−) and age at first reproduction (−). Main conclusions  The macroecological and evolutionary pressures facing plant groups are not directly transferable between indigenous and naturalized ranges. In particular, there are strong biases in species naturalization and expansion in invasive ranges that are unrelated to factors determining indigenous range size. At least for Pinus, a new set of macroecological patterns are emerging which are profoundly influenced by humans.

[1]  D. Richardson,et al.  Predicting invasiveness of Australian acacias on the basis of their native climatic affinities, life history traits and human use , 2011 .

[2]  D. Richardson,et al.  Macroecology meets invasion ecology: linking the native distributions of Australian acacias to invasiveness , 2011 .

[3]  Martin A. Nuñez,et al.  Pine invasions: climate predicts invasion success; something else predicts failure , 2011 .

[4]  J. Drake,et al.  Time since Introduction, Seed Mass, and Genome Size Predict Successful Invaders among the Cultivated Vascular Plants of Hawaii , 2011, PloS one.

[5]  M. Fischer,et al.  The maximum relative growth rate of common UK plant species is positively associated with their global invasiveness , 2011 .

[6]  M. Austin,et al.  Improving species distribution models for climate change studies: variable selection and scale , 2011 .

[7]  D. Moser,et al.  Selection for commercial forestry determines global patterns of alien conifer invasions , 2010 .

[8]  M. Vilà,et al.  Little evidence of invasion by alien conifers in Europe , 2010 .

[9]  J. Suda,et al.  Naturalized plants have smaller genomes than their non-invading relatives: a flow cytometric analysis of the Czech alien flora. , 2010 .

[10]  W. Willner,et al.  Phytogeographical evidence for post‐glacial dispersal limitation of European beech forest species , 2009 .

[11]  Martin A. Nuñez,et al.  Spread and impact of introduced conifers in South America: Lessons from other southern hemisphere regions , 2009 .

[12]  Petr Pysek,et al.  Planting intensity, residence time, and species traits determine invasion success of alien woody species. , 2009, Ecology.

[13]  Martin A. Nuñez,et al.  Lack of belowground mutualisms hinders Pinaceae invasions. , 2009, Ecology.

[14]  N. Colbach,et al.  Which model species for weed seedbank and emergence studies? A review , 2009 .

[15]  D. Richardson,et al.  Something in the way you move: dispersal pathways affect invasion success. , 2009, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[16]  M. van Kleunen,et al.  Introduction history and species characteristics partly explain naturalization success of North American woody species in Europe , 2009 .

[17]  M. Hill,et al.  The distribution of range sizes of native and alien plants in four European countries and the effects of residence time , 2009 .

[18]  Hong Liu,et al.  Marketing time predicts naturalization of horticultural plants. , 2009, Ecology.

[19]  A. Zeileis,et al.  Regression Models for Count Data in R , 2008 .

[20]  A. Moro,et al.  Alien flora of Europe: species diversity, temporal trends, geographical patterns and research needs. , 2008 .

[21]  Bo Li,et al.  Invasive alien plants in China: diversity and ecological insights , 2008, Biological Invasions.

[22]  Robert O. Teskey,et al.  Human Impacts in Pine Forests: Past, Present, and Future* , 2007 .

[23]  David M. Richardson,et al.  The (bio)diversity of science reflects the interests of society , 2007 .

[24]  L. Underhill,et al.  A changing climate is eroding the geographical range of the Namib Desert tree Aloe through population declines and dispersal lags , 2007 .

[25]  D. Richardson,et al.  Home away from home — objective mapping of high‐risk source areas for plant introductions , 2007 .

[26]  D. Richardson,et al.  Residence time and potential range: crucial considerations in modelling plant invasions , 2007 .

[27]  J. Maron The relative importance of latitude matching and propagule pressure in the colonization success of an invasive forb , 2006 .

[28]  D. Richardson,et al.  Pinus: a model group for unlocking the secrets of alien plant invasions? , 2006 .

[29]  Ş. Procheş Latitudinal and longitudinal barriers in global biogeography , 2006, Biology Letters.

[30]  Ş. Procheş,et al.  The world's biogeographical regions: cluster analyses based on bat distributions , 2005 .

[31]  D. Richardson,et al.  Species richness of alien plants in South Africa: Environmental correlates and the relationship with indigenous plant species richness , 2005 .

[32]  K. Gaston,et al.  Hemispheric Asymmetries in Biodiversity—A Serious Matter for Ecology , 2004, PLoS biology.

[33]  David M. Richardson,et al.  Conifers as invasive aliens: a global survey and predictive framework , 2004 .

[34]  Michael J. Sanderson,et al.  EVOLUTION OF GENOME SIZE IN PINES (PINUS) AND ITS LIFE‐HISTORY CORRELATES: SUPERTREE ANALYSES , 2004, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[35]  J. Svenning,et al.  Limited filling of the potential range in European tree species , 2004 .

[36]  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.

[37]  Colwell,et al.  The mid-domain effect: geometric constraints on the geography of species richness. , 2000, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[38]  M Rejmánek,et al.  Plant invasions — the role of mutualisms , 2000, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[39]  D. Richardson Forestry Trees as Invasive Aliens , 1998 .

[40]  J. Lawton,et al.  Interspecific abundance-range size relationships: An appraisal of mechanisms , 1997 .

[41]  M. Rejmánek A theory of seed plant invasiveness: The first sketch , 1996 .

[42]  D. Richardson,et al.  What attributes make some plant species more invasive , 1996 .

[43]  D. Richardson,et al.  Pine invasions in the Southern Hemisphere: Determinants of spread and invadability , 1994 .

[44]  M. Williamson,et al.  Population biology and rates of invasion of three introduced Impatiens species in the British Isles , 1993 .

[45]  D. Richardson,et al.  Determinants of Plant Distribution: Evidence from Pine Invasions , 1991, The American Naturalist.

[46]  Richard M. Cowling,et al.  Assessing the risk of invasive success in Pinus and Banksia in South African mountain fynbos , 1990 .

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