Biological Invasions

, Volume 17, Issue 11, pp 3125–3131 | Cite as

Synergistic effects of propagule pressure and trophic subsidies overcome biotic resistance to a non-native fish

  • J. Robert Britton
  • Thi Nhat Quyen Tran
  • Ana Ruiz-Navarro
Original Paper


A central question in invasion ecology is how non-native species develop sustainable populations from small numbers of introduced founders. As biotic resistance, propagule pressure and trophic subsidises affect the outcomes of introductions of non-native fish, their individual and combined effects were tested in experimental mesocosms using the model species Pseudorasbora parva, a highly invasive fish in Europe. Their effects were measured as the number of 0+ P. parva present per treatment at the end of one reproductive season. The control started with 8 mature individuals (equal sex ratio). There were seven treatments, comprising propagule pressure (16 individuals), biotic resistance (presence of a coexisting fish) and trophic subsidies (daily release of fishmeal pellets), and their combinations. Compared to the control, biotic resistance resulted in significantly reduced 0+ fish numbers, with stable isotope analysis (δ13C, δ15N; SIA) suggesting this was due to facultative piscivory by the coexisting fish. There were significantly elevated 0+ fish numbers in the trophic subsidy, with SIA suggesting the diet of co-existing fish now primary comprised the subsidy. There was no significant difference in 0+ fish number between the control and propagule pressure treatment. Whilst the effect of biotic resistance on 0+ fish number was reduced slightly with propagule pressure and also when the trophic subsidy was available, there were significantly increased numbers of 0+ fish present in the treatment where they acted in combination. Thus, their effects appeared synergistic, overcoming the biotic resistance and enabling greater numbers of 0+ P. parva to survive until the end of the reproductive season.


Invasion Global change Pseudorasbora parva Propagule pressure 



ARN and JRB were supported by the ‘RINSE’ project (Interreg IVA 2 Seas Programme); TNQT was supported by TECHNO, an EU Erasmus Mundus programme.


  1. Andreou D, Feist SW, Stone D, Bateman K, Gozlan RE (2011) First occurrence and associated pathology of Sphaerothecum destruens in cyprinids. Dis Aquat Org 95:145–151CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Barney JN, Whitlow TH (2008) A unifying framework for biological invasions: the state factor model. Biol Invasions 10:259–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Basic T, Britton JR, Jackson MC, Reading P, Grey J (2014) Angling baits and invasive crayfish as important trophic subsidies for a large cyprinid fish. Aquat Sci. doi: 10.1007/s0002701403707
  4. Britton JR (2012) Testing strength of biotic resistance against an introduced fish: interspecific competition or predation through facultative piscivory. PLoS ONE 7:e31707PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Britton JR, Gozlan RE (2013) How many founders for a biological invasion? Predicting introduction outcomes from propagule pressure. Ecology 94:2558–2566CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Britton JR, Pegg J, Gozlan RE (2011) Quantifying imperfect detection in an invasive pest fish and the implications for conservation management. Biol Conserv 144:2177–2181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown JE, Stepien CA (2008) Ancient divisions, recent expansions: phylogeography and population genetics of the round goby Apollonia melanostoma. Mol Ecol 17:2598–2615CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Byun C, de Blois S, Brisson J (2014) Interactions between abiotic constraint, propagule pressure, and biotic resistance regulate plant invasion. Oecologia. doi: 10.1007/s004420143188z PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Catford JA, Jansson R, Nilsson C (2009) Reducing redundancy in invasion ecology by integrating hypotheses into a single theoretical framework. Divers Distrib 15:22–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark GF, Johnston EL (2009) Propagule pressure and disturbance interact to overcome biotic resistance of marine invertebrate communities. Oikos 118:1679–1686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clark GF, Johnston EL (2011) Temporal change in the diversity invasibility relationship in the presence of a disturbance regime. Ecol Lett 14:52–57CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Dossena M, Yvon-Durocher G, Grey J, Montoya JM, Perkins DM, Trimmer M, Woodard G (2012) Warming alters community size structure and ecosystem functioning. Proc R Soc Lond B Bio 279:3011–3019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gozlan RE, St-Hilaire S, Feist SW, Martin P, Kent ML (2005) Biodiversity: disease threat to European fish. Nature 435:1046CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Gozlan RE, Whipps C, Andreou D, Arkush K (2009) Identification of a rosette-like agent as Sphaerothecum destruens, a multi-host fish pathogen. Int J Parasitol 39:1055–1058CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Gozlan RE, Andreou D, Asaeda T, Beyer K, Bouhadad R, Burnard D, Caiola N, Cakic P, Djikanovic V, Esmaeili HR et al (2010) Pancontinental invasion of Pseudorasbora parva: towards a better understanding of freshwater fish invasions. Fish Fish 11:315–340Google Scholar
  16. Grey J, Waldron S, Hutchinson R (2004) The utility of carbon and nitrogen isotope analyses to trace contributions from fish farms to the receiving communities of freshwater lakes: a Pilot Study in Esthwaite Water, UK. Hydrobiologia 524:253–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jackson M, Allen R, Pegg J, Britton JR (2013) Do trophic subsidies affect the outcome of introductions of a nonnative freshwater fish? Freshw Biol 58:2144–2153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Korsu K, Huusko A, Muotka T (2009) Does the introduced brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) affect growth of the native brown trout (Salmo trutta)? Naturwissenschaften 96:347–353CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Leung B, Mandrak NE (2007) The risk of establishment of aquatic invasive species: joining invasibility and propagule pressure. Proc R Soc Biol 274:2603–2609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Levine JM, Adler PB, Yelenik SG (2004) A meta-analysis of biotic resistance to exotic plant invasions. Ecol Lett 7:975–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lockwood JL, Cassey P, Blackburn T (2005) The role of propagule pressure in explaining species invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 20:223–228CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Lockwood JL, Cassey P, Blackburn T (2009) The more you introduce the more you get: the role of colonization pressure and propagule pressure in invasion ecology. Divers Distrib 15:904–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Olsson K, Stenroth P, Nyström P, Graneli W (2009) Invasions and niche width: does niche width of an introduced crayfish differ from a native crayfish? Freshw Biol 54:1731–1740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pollux BJA, Korosi A (2006) On the occurrence of the Asiatic cyprinid Pseudorasbora parva in the Netherlands. J Fish Biol 69:1575–1580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Post DM (2002) Using stable isotopes to estimate trophic position: models, methods, and assumptions. Ecology 83:703–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. R Development Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3900051070, URL
  27. Simberloff D (2009) The role of propagule pressure in biological invasions. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Sys 40:91–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Simon A, Britton JR, Gozlan RE, van Oosterhout C, Volckaert FAP, Hänfling B (2011) Invasive Pseudorasbora parva in Europe originate from the single introduction of an admixed source population followed by long-distance dispersal. PLoS ONE 6:e18560PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Simon A, Britton JR, Gozlan RE, van Oosterhout C, Volckaert FAP, Hänfling B (2014) Human induced stepping stone colonisation of an admixed founder population: the spread of topmouth gudgeon (Pseudorasbora parva) in Europe. Aquat Sci 77:17–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Spivak AC, Vanni MJ, Mette EM (2011) Moving on up: can results from simple aquatic mesocosm experiments be applied across broad spatial scales? Freshw Biol 56:279–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Villéger S, Blanchet S, Beauchard O, Oberdorff T, Brosse S (2011) Homogenization patterns of the world’s freshwater fish fauna. Proc Nat Acad Sci 108:18003–18008PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Warren RJ, Bahn V, Bradford MA (2012) The interaction between propagule pressure, habitat suitability and density-dependent reproduction in species invasion. Oikos 121:874–881CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Robert Britton
    • 1
  • Thi Nhat Quyen Tran
    • 1
  • Ana Ruiz-Navarro
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Life and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science and TechnologyBournemouth UniversityDorsetUK
  2. 2.Departamento de Zoología y Antropología FísicaUniversidad de MurciaMurciaSpain

Personalised recommendations