, Volume 169, Issue 2, pp 553–564 | Cite as

The paradox of invasion in birds: competitive superiority or ecological opportunism?

  • Daniel SolEmail author
  • Ignasi Bartomeus
  • Andrea S. Griffin
Global change ecology - Original research


Why can alien species succeed in environments to which they have had no opportunity to adapt and even become more abundant than many native species? Ecological theory suggests two main possible answers for this paradox: competitive superiority of exotic species over native species and opportunistic use of ecological opportunities derived from human activities. We tested these hypotheses in birds combining field observations and experiments along gradients of urbanization in New South Wales (Australia). Five exotic species attained densities in the study area comparable to those of the most abundant native species, and hence provided a case for the invasion paradox. The success of these alien birds was not primarily associated with a competitive superiority over native species: the most successful invaders were smaller and less aggressive than their main native competitors, and were generally excluded from artificially created food patches where competition was high. More importantly, exotic birds were primarily restricted to urban environments, where the diversity and abundance of native species were low. This finding agrees with previous studies and indicates that exotic and native species rarely interact in nature. Observations and experiments in the field revealed that the few native species that exploit the most urbanized environments tended to be opportunistic foragers, adaptations that should facilitate survival in places where disturbances by humans are frequent and natural vegetation has been replaced by man-made structures. Successful invaders also shared these features, suggesting that their success is not a paradox but can be explained by their capacity to exploit ecological opportunities that most native species rarely use.


Colonization Ecological niche Behavioral flexibility Community assemblage Urbanization 



We are in debt towards Carme Pujol for her assistance in the field and encouragement during the entire project. The authors would like to thank Tim Blackburn, Richard Duncan, Jofre Carnicer and three anonymous referees for reviewing previous versions of the manuscript, and Richard Duncan for facilitating information. Financial support was provided by a travel grant from DURSI (Generalitat de Catalunya), a Proyecto de Investigación (CGL2007-66257) and a Consolider project “Montes” (CSD 2008-00040) from the Spanish government, and a New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife scientific licence nb s12304.

Supplementary material

442_2011_2203_MOESM1_ESM.doc (1 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 1056 kb)


  1. Anderies JM, Katti M, Shochat E (2007) Living in the city: resource availability, predation, and bird population dynamics in urban areas. J Theor Biol 247:36–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bando KJ (2006) The roles of competition and disturbance in a marine invasion. Biol Invasions 8:755–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrett G, Silcocks A, Barry S, Cunningham R, Poulter R (2003) The new atlas of Australian birds. Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  4. Bates D, Martin M (2009) Lme4: linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375-32.
  5. Blackburn TM, Duncan RP (2001) Establishment patterns of exotic birds are constrained by non-random patterns in introduction. J Biogeogr 28:927–939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blackburn TM, Lockwood JL, Cassey P (2009) Avian invasions: the ecology and evolution of exotic birds. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blair RB (2001) Birds and butterflies along urban gradients in two ecoregions of the U.S. In: Lockwood JL, McKinney ML (eds) Biotic homogenization. Kluwer, Norwell, pp 33–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blumstein DT (2006) Developing an evolutionary ecology of fear: how life history and natural history traits affect disturbance tolerance in birds. Anim Behav 71:389–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bolker BM et al (2009) Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 24:127–135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bonier F, Martin PR, Wingfield JC (2007) Urban birds have broader environmental tolerance. Biol Lett 3:670–673PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Case TJ (1996) Global patterns in the establishment and distribution of exotic birds. Biol Conserv 78:69–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cassey P, Blackburn TM, Sol D, Duncan RP, Lockwood JL (2004) Global patterns of introduction effort and establishment success in birds. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:S405–S408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crawley MJ (2002) Statistical computing: an introduction to data analysis using S-plus. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Diamond JM, Veitch CR (1981) Extinctions and introductions in the New Zealand avifauna: cause and effect? Science 211:499–501PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Duncan RP, Bomford M, Forsyth DM, Conibear L (2001) High predictability in introduction outcomes and the geograpical range size of introduced Australian birds: a role for climate. J Anim Ecol 70:621–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Duncan RP, Blackburn TM, Sol D (2003) The ecology of avian introductions. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:71–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fernández-Juricic E, Jimenez MD, Lucas E (2001) Bird tolerance to human disturbance in urban parks of Madrid, Spain. Management implications. In: Marzluff JM, Bowman R, Donnelly R (eds) Avian ecology and conservation in an urbanizing world. Kluwer, Norwell, pp 261–275Google Scholar
  18. Garden J, McAlpine C, Peterson A, Jones D, Possingham H (2006) Review of the ecology of Australian urban fauna: a focus on spatially explicit processes. Austral Ecol 31:126–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hadfield J (2010) MCMC methods for multi-response generalized linear mixed models: the MCMCglmm R package. J Stat Softw 33:1–22Google Scholar
  20. Hill AM, Sinars DM, Lodge DM (1993) Invasion of an occupied niche by the crayfish Orconectes rusticus: potential importance of growth and mortality. Oecologia 94:303–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Holway DA, Lach L, Suarez AV, Tsutsui ND, Case TJ (2002) The causes and consequences of ant invasions. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 33:181–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hothorn T, Hornik K, Zeileis A (2006) Unbiased recursive partitioning: a conditional inference framework. J Comp Graph Stat 15:651–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kark S, Iwaniuk AN, Schalimtzek A, Banker E (2007) Living in the city: can anyone become an ‘urban exploiter’? J Biogeogr 34:638–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lever C (2006) Naturalised birds of the world. Helm, London, pp 1–352Google Scholar
  25. Liker As, Bókony V (2009) Larger groups are more successful in innovative problem solving in house sparrows. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:7893–7898PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. MacLeod CJ, Newson SE, Blackwell G, Duncan RP (2009) Enhanced niche opportunities: can they explain the success of New Zealand’s introduced bird species? Divers Distrib 15:41–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Major RE, Christie FJ, Gowing G (2001) Influence of remnant and landscape attributes on Australian woodland bird communities. Biol Conserv 102:47–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marzluff JM (2001) Worldwide urbanization and its effects on birds. In: Marzluff JM, Bowman R, Donnelly R (eds) Avian ecology and conservation in an urbanizing world. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 19–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McKinney ML (2002) Urbanization, biodiversity and conservation. Bioscience 52:883–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mclain DK, Moulton MP, Redfearn TP (1995) Sexual selection and the risk of extinction of introduced birds on oceanic islands. Oikos 90:599–605Google Scholar
  31. Mclain DK, Moulton MP, Sanderson JG (1999) Sexual selection and extinction: the fate of plumage-dimorphic and plumage-monomorphic birds introduced onto islands. Evol Ecol Res 1:549–565Google Scholar
  32. Møller AP (2009) Successful city dwellers: a comparative study of the ecological characteristics of urban birds in the Western Palearctic. Oecologia 159:849–858PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Newsome AE, Noble IR (1986) Ecological and physiological characters of invading species. In: Groves RH, Burdon JJ (eds) Biological invasions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–20Google Scholar
  34. Paradis E (2006) Analysis of phylogenetics and evolution with R. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  35. Piper SD, Catterall CP (2006) Impacts of picnic areas on bird assemblages and nest predation activity within Australian eucalypt forests. Land Urban Plan 78:251–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sax DF, Brown JH (2000) The paradox of invasion. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 9:363–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Seiler SM, Keeley ER (2009) Competition between native and introduced salmonid fishes: cutthroat trout have lower growth rate in the presence of cutthroatrainbow trout hybrids. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 66:133–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shea K, Chesson P (2002) Community ecology theory as a framework for biological invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 17:170–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shochat E, Warren PS, Faeth SH, McIntyre NE, Hope D (2006) From patterns to emerging processes in mechanistic urban ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 21:186–191PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Simberloff D (1992) Extinction, survival, and effects of birds introduced to teh Mascarenes. Acta Oecol 13:663–678Google Scholar
  41. Smallwood KS (1994) Site invasibility by exotic birds and mammals. Biol Conserv 69:251–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sol D (2007) Do successful invaders exist? Pre-adaptations to novel environments in terrestrial vertebrates. In: Nentwig W (ed) Biological invasions, vol 193. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 127–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sol D, Timmermans S, Lefebvre L (2002) Behavioural flexibility and invasion success in birds. Anim Behav 63:495–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sol D, Duncan RP, Blackburn TM, Cassey P, Lefebvre L (2005) Big brains, enhanced cognition, and response of birds to novel environments. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:5460–5465PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sol D, Bacher S, Reader SM, Lefebvre L (2008) Brain size predicts the success of mammal species introduced into novel environments. Am Nat 172:S63–S71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sol D, Griffin AS, Bartomeus I, Boyce H (2011) Exploring or avoiding novel food resources? The novelty conflict in an invasive bird. PLoS One 6:e19535PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Steinberg G, Colla P (1995) CART: tree-structured non-parametric data analysis. Salford Systems, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  48. Tilman D (2004) A stochastic theory of resource competition, community assembly and invasions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:10854–10861PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. van Heezik Y, Smyth A, Mathieu R (2008) Diversity of native and exotic birds across an urban gradient in a New Zealand city. Land Urban Plan 87:223–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Veltman CJ, Nee S, Crawley MJ (1996) Correlates of introduction success in exotic New Zealand birds. Am Nat 147:542–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vilà M, Gómez A, Maron JL (2005) Are alien plants more competitive than their native conspecifics? A test using Hypericum perforatum L. (vol 137, pg 211, 2003). Oecologia 145:175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wauters LA, Gurnell J, Martinoli A, Tosi G (2002) Interspecific competition between native Eurasian red squirrels and alien grey squirrels: does resource partitioning occur? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 52:332–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. White JG, Antos MJ, Fitzsimons JA, Palmer GC (2005) Non-uniform bird assemblages in urban environments: the influence of streetscape vegetation. Land Urban Plan 71:123–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Williamson MH (1996) Biological invasions. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  55. Williamson MH, Fitter A (1996) The varying success of invaders. Ecology 77:1661–1666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yeh PJ, Price TD (2004) Adaptive phenotypic plasticity and the successful colonization of a novel environment. Am Nat 164:531–542PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zuur AF, Leno EN, Walker N, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Sol
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Ignasi Bartomeus
    • 1
  • Andrea S. Griffin
    • 3
  1. 1.Centre for Ecological Research and Forestry Applications (CREAF)Autonomous University of BarcelonaBellaterraSpain
  2. 2.Center for Advanced Studies of Blanes (CEAB)Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)BlanesSpain
  3. 3.School of PsychologyUniversity of NewcastleCallaghanAustralia

Personalised recommendations