Advertisement

A comparison of the establishment success, response to competition, and community impact of invasive and non-invasive Gambusia species

  • J. Schopt Rehage
  • L. K. LopezEmail author
  • A. Sih
Original Paper
  • 8 Downloads

Abstract

How an invader responds to the novel biotic elements of a new community will affect its ability to invade. Species that are able to cope well with novel competitors might be expected to achieve greater establishment success. We compared the population-level responses of two mosquitofish species, the widespread invader Gambusia affinis and non-invasive G. geiseri to competition from each other and a non-invasive competitor. We simulated the invasion of a simplified pond community by introducing different combinations of the Gambusia spp. into communities already inhabited by a novel competitor, the red shiner Cyprenella lutrensis. We measured the effect of competition on establishment success by comparing population abundances achieved by each Gambusia species in all treatments, and examined whether the invasive and non-invasive Gambusia differed in their community impact by comparing their effects on the abundances of pond fauna. We also used N and C stable isotope analysis to compare their trophic roles. Both novel and intrageneric competition negatively affected both Gambusia spp.’s abundances, but the invasive G. affinis managed to remain more abundant than G. geiseri regardless of competition treatment. Stable isotope analysis revealed the Gambusia spp. to have similar trophic placement and showed competition to cause significant trophic shifts only in G. geiseri. A cascading effect (reduced phytoplankton abundances) was detected only when G. affinis was present. These results suggest that a higher vulnerability to novel competition along with life history traits contributes to the limited spread of G. geiseri in comparison to the widespread G. affinis.

Keywords

Invasive species Gambusia Competition Trophic impact Cyprenella lutrensis 

Notes

Funding

This work was supported by an NSF graduate research fellowship to JSR, NSF DDIG DEB-0206542 to J.S.R, A.S. and an Australia Awards Endeavour fellowship to L.K.L.

References

  1. Alcaraz C, Vila-Gispert A, Garcia-Berthou E (2005) Profiling invasive fish species: the importance of phylogeny and human use. Divers Distrib 11:289–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baiser B, Valle D, Zelazny Z et al (2018) Non-random patterns of invasion and extinction reduce phylogenetic diversity in island bird assemblages. Ecography 41:361–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Britton AW, Murrell DJ, McGill RAR et al (2019) The effects of land use disturbance vary with trophic position in littoral cichlid fish communities from Lake Tanganyika. Freshw Biol 64:1114–1130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Byers JE (2000) Competition between two estuarine snails: implications for invasions of exotic species. Ecology 81:1225–1239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Callaway RM, Aschehoug ET (2000) Invasive plants versus their new and old neighbors: a mechanism for exotic invasion. Science 290:521–523PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Carvalheiro LG, Buckley YM, Memmott J (2010) Diet breadth influences how the impact of invasive plants is propagated through food webs. Ecology 91:1063–1074PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Chesson P (2000) Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 31:343–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Church K, Iacarella JC, Ricciardi A (2017) Aggressive interactions between two invasive species: the round goby (Neogobius melanostomus) and the spinycheek crayfish (Orconectes limosus). Biol Invasions 19:425–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Copp GH, Britton JR, Guo ZQ et al (2017) Trophic consequences of non-native pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus for native pond fishes. Biol Invasions 19:25–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Daehler CC (2003) Performance comparisons of co-occurring native and alien invasive plants: implications for conservation and restoration. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:183–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dick JTA, Alexander ME, Ricciardi A et al (2017) Functional responses can unify invasion ecology. Biol Invasions 19:1667–1672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Duncan RP, Bomford M, Forsyth DM et al (2001) High predictability in introduction outcomes and the geographical range size of introduced Australian birds: a role for climate. J Anim Ecol 70:621–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fausch KD (1998) Interspecific competition and juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar): on testing effects and evaluating the evidence across scales. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 55:218–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Foelker CJ, Parry D, Fierke MK (2018) Biotic resistance and the spatiotemporal distribution of an invading woodwasp, Sirex noctilio. Biol Invasions 20:1991–2003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fridley JD, Stachowicz JJ, Naeem S et al (2007) The invasion paradox: reconciling pattern and process in species invasions. Ecology 88:3–17PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Fry B (1988) Food web structure on Georges Bank from stable C, N, and S isotopic compositions. Limnol Oceanogr 33:1182–1190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fryxell DC, Arnett HA, Apgar TM et al (2015) Sex ratio variation shapes the ecological effects of a globally introduced freshwater fish. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 282:20151970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fuller PL, Nico LG, Williams JD (1999) Nonindigenous fishes introduced into inlands waters of the United States. American Fisheries Society, BethesdaGoogle Scholar
  19. Gallagher RV, Randall RP, Leishman MR (2015) Trait differences between naturalized and invasive plant species independent of residence time and phylogeny. Conserv Biol 29:360–369PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Garcia-Berthou E (2007) The characteristics of invasive fishes: what has been learned so far? J Fish Biol 71:33–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Giller PS (1984) Community structure and the niche. Chapman and Hall, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grether GF, Peiman KS, Tobias JA et al (2017) Causes and consequences of behavioral interference between species. Trends Ecol Evol 32:760–772PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Hacker SD, Zarnetske P, Seabloom E et al (2012) Subtle differences in two non-native congeneric beach grasses significantly affect their colonization, spread, and impact. Oikos 121:138–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hairston NG (1949) The local distribution and ecology of the plethodontid salamanders of the southern Appalachians. Ecol Monogr 19:47–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hanfling B, Kollman J (2002) An evolutionary perspective of biological invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 17:545–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harris PM (1995) Are autecologically similar species also functionally similar—a test in pond communities. Ecology 76:544–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Heard MJ, Sax DF (2013) Coexistence between native and exotic species is facilitated by asymmetries in competitive ability and susceptibility to herbivores. Ecol Lett 16:206–213PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Hecky RE, Hesslein RH (1995) Contributions of benthic algae to lake food webs as revealed by stable isotope analysis. J N Am Benthol Soc 14:631–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Holway DA (1999) Competitive mechanisms underlying the displacement of native ants by the invasive Argentine ant. Ecology 80:238–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Holway DA, Suarez AV (2006) Homogenization of ant communities in mediterranean California: the effects of urbanization and invasion. Biol Conserv 127:319–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hubbs C (1995) Springs and spring runs as unique aquatic systems. Copeia 1995:989–991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hubbs C (1996) Geographic variation in life history traits of Gambusia species. Proc Desert Fishes Counc 27:1–21Google Scholar
  33. Hubbs C (1998) Large spring Gambusia (Gambusia geiseri) produces young in all seasons. Tex J Sci 50:343–344Google Scholar
  34. Hubbs C, Springer VG (1957) A revision of the Gambusia nobilis species group, with descriptions of three new species, and notes on their variation, ecology and evolution. Tex J Sci 9:299–326Google Scholar
  35. Hudina S, Galic N, Roessink I et al (2011) Competitive interactions between co-occurring invaders: identifying asymmetries between two invasive crayfish species. Biol Invasions 13:1791–1803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hudina S, Hock K, Zganec K (2014) The role of aggression in range expansion and biological invasions. Curr Zool 60:401–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hurlbert SH, Mulla MS (1981) Impacts of mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) predation on plankton communities. Hydrobiologia 83:125–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hurlbert SH, Zedler J, Fairbanks D (1972) Ecosystem altertion by mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) predation. Science 175:639–641PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Huston M, Smith T (1987) Plant succession—life history and competition. Am Nat 130:168–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. ISSG (2000) 100 of the world’s worst invasive alien species: a selection from the global invasive species database. Global Invasive Species Programme, University of Auckland, AucklandGoogle Scholar
  41. Keane RM, Crawley MJ (2002) Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. Trends Ecol Evol 17:164–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kovalenko KE, Dibble ED (2011) Effects of invasive macrophyte on trophic diversity and position of secondary consumers. Hydrobiologia 663:167–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lau JA (2013) Trophic consequences of a biological invasion: do plant invasions increase predator abundance? Oikos 122:474–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Laverty C, Green KD, Dick JTA et al (2017) Assessing the ecological impacts of invasive species based on their functional responses and abundances. Biol Invasions 19:1653–1665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Levine JM, Adler PB, Yelenik SG (2004) A meta-analysis of biotic resistance to exotic plant invasions. Ecol Lett 7:975–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Liu CL, Comte L, Olden JD (2017) Heads you win, tails you lose: life-history traits predict invasion and extinction risk of the world’s freshwater fishes. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 27:773–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lodge DM (1993) Biological invasions—lessons for ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 8:133–137PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. MacArthur RH (1972) Geographical ecology. Harper and Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. Mack RN (1996) Predicting the identity and fate of plant invaders: emergent and emerging approaches. Biol Conserv 78:107–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Melbourne BA, Cornell HV, Davies KF et al (2007) Invasion in a heterogeneous world: resistance, coexistence or hostile takeover? Ecol Lett 10:77–94PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. Miller JT, Murphy DJ, Brown GK et al (2011) The evolution and phylogenetic placement of invasive Australian Acacia species. Divers Distrib 17:848–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Miller JT, Hui C, Thornhill AH et al (2017) Is invasion success of Australian trees mediated by their native biogeography, phylogenetic history, or both? AoB Plants 9:8Google Scholar
  53. Moyle PB (2002) Inland fishes of California. University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  54. Parker IM, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM et al (1999) Impact: assessing the ecological effects of invaders. Biol Invasions 1:3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Peterson AT (2003) Predicting the geography of species’ invasions via ecological niche modeling. Q Rev Biol 78:419–433PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  56. Peterson DP, Fausch KD, White GC (2004) Population ecology of an invasion: effects of brook trout on native cutthroat trout. Ecol Appl 14:754–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pintor LM, Sih A (2009) Differences in growth and foraging behavior of native and introduced populations of an invasive crayfish. Biol Invasions 11:1895–1902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pintor LM, Sih A, Bauer ML (2008) Differences in aggression, activity and boldness between native and introduced populations of an invasive crayfish. Oikos 117:1629–1636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Poulos HM, Chernoff B, Fuller PL et al (2012) Mapping the potential distribution of the invasive red shiner, Cyprinella lutrensis (Teleostei: Cyprinidae) across waterways of the conterminous United States. Aquat Invasions 7:377–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pyke GH (2005) A review of the biology of Gambusia affinis and G. holbrooki. Rev Fish Biol Fish 15:339–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pyke GH (2008) Plague minnow or mosquito fish? A review of the biology and impacts of introduced Gambusia species. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 39:171–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Radny J, Meyer KM (2018) The role of biotic factors during plant establishment in novel communities assessed with an agent-based simulation model. PeerJ 6:e5342PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rehage JS, Barnett BK, Sih A (2005a) Behavioral responses to a novel predator and competitor of invasive mosquitofish and their non-invasive relatives (Gambusia sp.). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 57:256–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rehage JS, Barnett BK, Sih A (2005b) Foraging behaviour and invasiveness: do invasive Gambusia exhibit higher feeding rates and broader diets than their noninvasive relatives? Ecol Freshw Fish 14:352–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Ribeiro F, Elvira B, Collares-Pereira MJ et al (2008) Life-history traits of non-native fishes in Iberian watersheds across several invasion stages: a first approach. Biol Invasions 10:89–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sanchez JL, Stoops SB, Allan NL et al (2013) Current distribution of the introduced largespring Gambusia, Gambusia geiseri, in Texas. Southwest Nat 58:497–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Schmidt SN, Olden JD, Solomon CT et al (2007) Quantitative approaches to the analysis of stable isotope food web data. Ecology 88:2793–2802PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  68. Schoener TW (1975) Presence and absence of habitat shift in some widespread lizard species. Ecol Monogr 45:233–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Schooler SS, McEvoy PB, Hammond P et al (2009) Negative per capita effects of two invasive plants, Lythrum salicaria and Phalaris arundinacea, on the moth diversity of wetland communities. Bull Entomol Res 99:229–243PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  70. Shea K, Chesson P (2002) Community ecology theory as a framework for biological invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 17:170–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Simberloff D (1981) Community effects of introduced species. In: Nitecki MH (ed) Biotic crises in ecological and evolutionary time. Academic Press, New York, pp 53–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Simberloff D, Martin J-L, Genovesi P et al (2013) Impacts of biological invasions: what’s what and the way forward. Trends Ecol Evol 28:58–66PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  73. Strauss SY, Lau JA, Carroll SP (2006) Evolutionary responses of natives to introduced species: what do introductions tell us about natural communities? Ecol Lett 9:354–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Strecker AL, Olden JD (2014) Fish species introductions provide novel insights into the patterns and drivers of phylogenetic structure in freshwaters. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 281:9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Tran TNQ, Jackson MC, Sheath D et al (2015) Patterns of trophic niche divergence between invasive and native fishes in wild communities are predictable from mesocosm studies. J Anim Ecol 84:1071–1080PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Vander Zanden MJ, Rasmussen JB (1999) Primary consumer delta C-13 and delta N-15 and the trophic position of aquatic consumers. Ecology 80:1395–1404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Vitousek PM (1990) Biological invasions and ecosystem processes: toward an integration of population biology and ecosystem studies. Oikos 57:7–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Vitousek PM, Walker LR (1989) Biological invasion by Myrica faya in Hawaii-plant demography, nitrogen fixation, ecosystem effects. Ecol Monogr 59:247–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Werner EE (1986) Species interactions in freshwater fish communities. In: Diamond J, Case TJ (eds) Community ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 344–357Google Scholar
  80. Werner EE, Hall DJ (1974) Optimal foraging and size selection of prey by the bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). Ecology 55:1042–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Williamson MH (1996) Biological invasions. Population and community biology series, vol 15. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  82. Wood ZT, Palkovacs EP, Kinnison MT (2018) Eco-evolutionary feedbacks from non-target species influence harvest yield and sustainability. Sci Rep 8:6389PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Yildirim A, Peters EJ (2006) Life history characteristics of red shiner, Cyprinella lutrensis, in the lower Platte River, Nebraska, USA. J Freshw Ecol 21:307–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Zavorka L, Buoro M, Cucherousset J (2018) The negative ecological impacts of a globally introduced species decrease with time since introduction. Glob Change Biol 24:4428–4437CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Biological SciencesFlorida International UniversityUniversity Park, MiamiUSA
  2. 2.Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  3. 3.Environmental Science and PolicyUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations