Biological Invasions

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 1101–1114 | Cite as

Relative performance of co-occurring alien plant invaders depends on traits related to competitive ability more than niche differences

  • Christine S. SheppardEmail author
Original Paper


Although conservation managers usually have to deal with multiple invaders that co-occur in native ecosystems, research to date has concentrated on the study of single highly invasive species. Consequently, this study aims to better understand the interactions among co-occurring alien plants. Specifically, I aim to determine how relative performance in mixture (compared to monoculture) depends on phylogenetic relatedness and similarity in functional traits. I investigated interactions among 18 alien annual plant species in Germany from six families in a multi-species common garden experiment, where plant individuals were grown in all pairwise species combinations. I measured growth, reproductive output and functional traits of the species, and determined phylogenetic and multivariate trait distances (representing niche differences) and individual trait hierarchies (representing average fitness differences that determine competitive superiority) between pairs. Across the 153 interspecific species combinations, individuals equally often experienced higher intraspecific or interspecific competition, with competitive responses varying greatly depending on species. Hierarchical differences in individual traits affected growth and seed production: being taller, having larger seed mass and higher specific leaf area benefitted relative performance of alien species when co-occurring with other aliens. Multivariate trait distance also had a positive effect on relative aboveground biomass production in mixture. Overall, hierarchical trait differences related to competitive ability appear to be more important than niche differences in determining performance for co-occurring alien plants. A better understanding on interaction type and strength among multiple plant invaders is crucial to determine appropriate management actions and contributes to ecological theory of community assembly.


Alien interaction Competitive ability Functional traits Multi-species experiment Niche differences 



This research was financially supported by the German Research foundation (grant SH 924/1-1) and the Baden-Württemberg Stiftung within the Eliteprogramme for Postdocs. I am grateful to B. Springer and A. Doeker for their assistance with the common garden experiment. Thanks to the botanical gardens of the Universities of Konstanz, Gießen, Halle-Wittenberg, Hohenheim and Mainz for providing seed materials used in this experiment.

Supplementary material

10530_2018_1884_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (656 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 657 kb)


  1. Adler PB, Smull D, Beard KH, Choi RT, Furniss T, Kulmatiski A, Meiners JM, Tredennick AT, Veblen KE (2018) Competition and coexistence in plant communities: intraspecific competition is stronger than interspecific competition. Ecol Lett 21:1319–1329. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aschehoug ET, Brooker R, Atwater DZ, Maron JL, Callaway RM (2016) The mechanisms and consequences of interspecific competition among plants. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 47:263–281. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett JA, Riibak K, Tamme R, Tamme R, Lewis RJ, Pärtel M (2016) The reciprocal relationship between competition and intraspecific trait variation. J Ecol 104:1410–1420. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bradley BA, Blumenthal DM, Early R et al (2012) Global change, global trade, and the next wave of plant invasions. Front Ecol Environ 10:20–28. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brooker RW, Maestre FT, Callaway RM et al (2008) Facilitation in plant communities: the past, the present, and the future. J Ecol 96:18–34. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brooks SP, Gelman A (1998) General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations. J Comput Graph Stat 7:434–455. Google Scholar
  7. Bruno JF, Stachowicz JJ, Bertness MD (2003) Inclusion of facilitation into ecological theory. Trends Ecol Evol 18:119–125. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cadotte MW (2017) Functional traits explain ecosystem function through opposing mechanisms. Ecol Lett 20:989–996. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Callaway RM, Walker LR (1997) Competition and facilitation: a synthetic approach to interactions in plant communities. Ecology 78:1958–1965.;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chesson P (2000) Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 31:343–366. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Conti L, Block S, Parepa M et al (2018) Functional trait differences and trait plasticity mediate biotic resistance to potential plant invaders. J Ecol 106:1607–1620. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Darwin CR (1859) The origin of species. John Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. de Villemereuil P, Nakagawa S (2014) General quantitative genetic methods for comparative biology. In: Garamaszegi LZ (ed) Modern phylogenetic comparative methods and their application in evolutaionry biology. Springer, Berlin, pp 287–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Durka W, Michalski SG (2012) Daphne: a dated phylogeny of a large European flora for phylogenetically informed ecological analyses. Ecology 93:2297. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Essl F, Dullinger S, Rabitsch W et al (2011) Socioeconomic legacy yields an invasion debt. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:203–207. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Feng Y, van Kleunen M (2016) Phylogenetic and functional mechanisms of direct and indirect interactions among alien and native plants. J Ecol 104:1136–1148. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Flory SL, Bauer JT (2014) Experimental evidence for indirect facilitation among invasive plants. J Ecol 102:12–18. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fort F, Cruz P, Jouany C (2014) Hierarchy of root functional trait values and plasticity drive early-stage competition for water and phosphorus among grasses. Funct Ecol 28:1030–1040. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Freckleton RP, Harvey PH, Pagel M (2002) Phylogenetic analysis and comparative data: a test and review of evidence. Am Nat 160:712–726. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fritschie KJ, Cardinale BJ, Alexandrou MA, Oakley TH (2014) Evolutionary history and the strength of species interactions: testing the phylogenetic limiting similarity hypothesis. Ecology 95:1407–1417. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Funk JL, Wolf AA (2016) Testing the trait-based community framework: do functional traits predict competitive outcomes? Ecology 97:2206–2211. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gause GF (1934) The struggle for existence. Williams & Wilkins, BaltimoreCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gelman A, Rubin DB (1992) Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Stat Sci 7:457–472. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gerhold P, Cahill JF Jr, Winter M, Bartish IV, Prinzing A (2015) Phylogenetic patterns are not proxies of community assembly mechanisms (they are far better). Funct Ecol 29:600–614. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Germain RM, Weir JT, Gilbert B (2016) Species coexistence: macroevolutionary relationships and the contingency of historical interactions. Proc R Soc B 283:20160047. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gibson DJ, Connolly J, Hartnett DC, Weidenhamer JD (1999) Designs for greenhouse studies of interactions between plants. J Ecol 87:1–16. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Godoy O, Kraft NJB, Levine JM (2014) Phylogenetic relatedness and the determinants of competitive outcomes. Ecol Lett 17:836–844. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Golivets M, Wallin KF (2018) Neighbour tolerance, not suppression, provides competitive advantage to non-native plants. Ecol Lett 21:745–759. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gross N, Liancourt P, Butters R, Duncan RP, Hulme PE (2015) Functional equivalence, competitive hierarchy and facilitation determine species coexistence in highly invaded grasslands. New Phytol 206:175–186. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hadfield JD (2010) MCMC methods for multi-response generalized linear mixed models: the MCMCglmm R package. J Stat Softw 33:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hedges LV, Gurevitch J, Curtis PS (1999) The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology. Ecology 80:1150–1156.;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Keane RM, Crawley MJ (2002) Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. Trends Ecol Evol 17:164–170. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kembel SW, Cowan PD, Helmus MR, Cornwell WK, Morlon H, Ackerly DD, Blomberg SP, Webb CO (2010) Picante: R tools for integrating phylogenies and ecology. Bioinformatics 26:1463–1464. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kleyer M, Bekker RM, Knevel IC et al (2008) The LEDA Traitbase: a database of life-history traits of the Northwest European flora. J Ecol 96:1266–1274. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kraft NJB, Godoy O, Levine JM (2015) Plant functional traits and the multidimensional nature of species coexistence. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112:797–802. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kuebbing SE, Nuñez MA (2015) Negative, neutral, and positive interactions among nonnative plants: patterns, processes, and management implications. Glob Change Biol 21:926–934. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kuebbing SE, Nuñez MA (2016) Invasive non-native plants have a greater effect on neighbouring natives than other non-natives. Nat Plants 2:16134. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kuebbing SE, Nuñez MA, Simberloff D (2013) Current mismatch between research and conservation efforts: the need to study co-occurring invasive plant species. Biol Conserv 160:121–129. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kunstler G, Lavergne S, Courbaud B et al (2012) Competitive interactions between forest trees are driven by species’ trait hierarchy, not phylogenetic or functional similarity: implications for forest community assembly. Ecol Lett 15:831–840. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lavorel S, Garnier E (2002) Predicting changes in community composition and ecosystem functioning from plant traits: revisiting the Holy Grail. Funct Ecol 16:545–556. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Li S, Guo T, Cadotte MW et al (2015) Contrasting effects of phylogenetic relatedness on plant invader success in experimental grassland communities. J Appl Ecol 52:89–99. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. MacArthur R, Levins R (1967) The limiting similarity, convergence, and divergence of coexisting species. Am Nat 101:377–385. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. MacDougall AS, Gilbert B, Levine JM (2009) Plant invasions and the niche. J Ecol 97:609–615. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Maechler M, Rousseeuw P, Struyf A, Hubert M, Hornik K (2015) Cluster: cluster analysis basics and extensions. R package version 2.0.3. Accessed Sept 2018
  45. Mangan SA, Schnitzer SA, Herre EA, Mack KML, Valencia MC, Sanchez EI, Bever JD (2010) Negative plant–soil feedback predicts tree-species relative abundance in a tropical forest. Nature 466:752–755. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mayfield MM, Levine JM (2010) Opposing effects of competitive exclusion on the phylogenetic structure of communities. Ecol Lett 13:1085–1093. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McGill BJ, Enquist BJ, Weiher E, Westoby M (2006) Rebuilding community ecology from functional traits. Trends Ecol Evol 21:178–185. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McIntire EJB, Fajardo A (2014) Facilitation as a ubiquitous driver of biodiversity. New Phytol 201:403–416. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mitchell CE, Agrawal AA, Bever JD et al (2006) Biotic interactions and plant invasions. Ecol Lett 9:726–740. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mouquet N, Devictor V, Meynard CN et al (2012) Ecophylogenetics: advances and perspectives. Biol Rev 87:769–785. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H (2013) A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods Ecol Evol 4:133–142. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Narwani A, Alexandrou MA, Oakley TH, Carroll IT, Cardinale BJ (2013) Experimental evidence that evolutionary relatedness does not affect the ecological mechanisms of coexistence in freshwater green algae. Ecol Lett 16:1373–1381. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Narwani A, Matthews B, Fox J, Venail P (2015) Using phylogenetics in community assembly and ecosystem functioning research. Funct Ecol 29:589–591. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Paradis E, Claude J, Strimmer K (2004) APE: analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Bioinformatics 20:289–290. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. R Core Team (2018) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria. Accessed Sept 2018
  56. Rouget M, Robertson MP, Wilson JRU, Hui C, Essl F, Renteria JL, Richardson DM (2016) Invasion debt—quantifying future biological invasions. Divers Distrib 22:445–456. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schneider CA, Rasband WS, Eliceiri KW (2012) NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat Methods 9:671–675. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Seebens H, Essl F, Dawson W et al (2015) Global trade will accelerate plant invasions in emerging economies under climate change. Glob Change Biol 21:4128–4140. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Seebens H, Blackburn TM, Dyer EE et al (2017) No saturation in the accumulation of alien species worldwide. Nat Commun 8:14435. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sheppard CS, Schurr FM (2018) Biotic resistance or introduction bias? Immigrant plant performance decreases with residence times over millennia. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. Google Scholar
  61. Sheppard CS, Burns BR, Stanley MC (2014) Predicting plant invasions under climate change: are species distribution models validated by field trials? Glob Change Biol 20:2800–2814. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sheppard CS, Carboni M, Essl F, Seebens H, DivGrass Consortium, Thuiller W (2018) It takes one to know one: similarity to resident alien species increases establishment success of new invaders. Divers Distrib 24:680–691. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Simberloff D (2006) Invasional meltdown 6 years later: important phenomenon, unfortunate metaphor, or both? Ecol Lett 9:912–919. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Simberloff D, Gibbons L (2004) Now you see them, now you don’t!—population crashes of established introduced species. Biol Invasions 6:161–172. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Simberloff D, Von Holle B (1999) Positive interactions of nonindigenous species: invasional meltdown? Biol Invasions 1:21–32. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Strayer DL, D’Antonio CM, Essl F et al (2017) Boom-bust dynamics in biological invasions: towards an improved application of the concept. Ecol Lett 20:1337–1350. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Thuiller W, Gallien L, Boulangeat I, De Bello F, Münkemüller T, Roquet C, Lavergne S (2010) Resolving Darwin’s naturalization conundrum: a quest for evidence. Divers Distrib 16:461–475. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. van Kleunen M, Dawson W, Bossdorf O, Fischer M (2014) The more the merrier: multi-species experiments in ecology. Basic Appl Ecol 15:1–9. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. van Kleunen M, Dawson W, Essl F et al (2015) Global exchange and accumulation of non-native plants. Nature 525:100–103. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Walther GR, Roques A, Hulme PE et al (2009) Alien species in a warmer world: risks and opportunities. Trends Ecol Evol 24:686–693. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Webb CO, Ackerly DD, McPeek MA, Donoghue MJ (2002) Phylogenies and community ecology. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 33:475–505. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Weigelt A, Jolliffe P (2003) Indices of plant competition. J Ecol 91:707–720. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Westoby M (1998) A leaf-height-seed (LHS) plant ecology strategy scheme. Plant Soil 199:213–227. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Westoby M, Falster DS, Moles AT, Vesk PA, Wright IJ (2002) Plant ecological strategies: some leading dimensions of variation between species. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 33:125–159. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wright IJ, Reich PB, Westoby M et al (2004) The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Nature 428:821–827. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Yang S, Ferrari MJ, Shea K (2011) Pollinator behavior mediates negative interactions between two congeneric invasive plant species. Am Nat 177:110–118. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Yannelli FA, Koch C, Jeschke JM, Kollmann J (2017) Limiting similarity and Darwin’s naturalization hypothesis: understanding the drivers of biotic resistance against invasive plant species. Oecologia 183:775–784. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Landscape and Plant EcologyUniversity of HohenheimStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations