Advertisement

Community Ecology

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 171–178 | Cite as

A meta-analysis of the ecological significance of density in tree invasions

  • C. E. L. DelmasEmail author
  • S. Delzon
  • C. J. Lortie
Article

Abstract

Species richness, resource availability, and disturbance are the primary factors considered in assessing the invasibility of plant communities. Nonetheless, the density of individuals in a community is a common and easy trait to measure. The ecological significance of the density of both native and invasive tree species was assessed using a systematic review and formal meta-analysis. The densities of recipient communities and invasive exotic tree species in novel ranges were identified in the published literature. In addition, we compared by means of a meta-analysis: (i) densities of invasive versus native species in invaded communities; (ii) densities of native species in invaded versus uninvaded communities; and (iii) densities of invasive species along distance gradients from initial locus of invasion. Invasive trees were found at higher densities than native species in recipient communities. Invasions by woody species were also recorded in communities with relatively low densities of natives suggesting that (i) low density forests may be more susceptible to invasion and/or (ii) density of the recipient community may be reduced during the invasion process. In addition, comparison of native species densities between invaded and uninvaded stands from the same community suggests that invasive trees negatively affect density of native trees once established. Therefore, the widely reported low density and often richness of native plants in invaded communities cannot be directly linked to ecosystem susceptibility to invasion without considering concomitant impacts. These findings suggest that density is a key preliminary determinant or factor which should be considered when assessing tree invasion dynamics.

Keywords

Density Invasive impact Invasibility Meta-analysis Native community 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

42974_2011_1202171_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (25 kb)
Supplementary material, approximately 25 KB.

References

  1. Adams, D.C., J. Gurevitch and M.S. Rosenberg. 1997. Resampling tests for meta-analysis of ecological data. Ecology 78: 1277–1283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aguilar, R., L. Ashworth, L. Galetto and M.A. Aizen. 2006. Plant reproductive susceptibility to habitat fragmentation: review and synthesis through a meta-analysis. Ecol. Lett. 9: 968–980.Google Scholar
  3. Avalos, G., K. Hoell, J. Gardner, S. Anderson and C. Lee. 2006. Impact of the invasive plant Syzigium jambos (Myrtaceae) on patterns of understory seedling abundance in a Tropical Pre-montane Forest, Costa Rica. Rev. Biol. Trop. 54: 415–421.Google Scholar
  4. Berryman, A.A., M.L. Arce and B.A. Hawkins. 2002. Population regulation, emergent properties, and a requiem for density dependence. Oikos 99: 600–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruce, K.A., G.N. Cameron and P.A. Harcombe. 1995. Initiation of a New Woodland Type on the Texas Coastal Prairie by the Chinese Tallow Tree (Sapium sebiferum (L.) Roxb.). J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 122: 215–225.Google Scholar
  6. Chapin, F.S., E.S. Zavaleta, V.T. Eviner, R.L. Naylor, P.M. Vitousek, , H.L. Reynolds, D.U. Hooper, S. Lavorel, O.E. Sala, S.E. Hobbie, M.C. Mack and S. Diaz. 2000. Consequences of changing biodiversity. Nature 405: 234–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Colautti, R. I., I. A. Grigorovich and H. J. MacIsaac. 2006. Propagule pressure: A null model for biological invasions. Biol. Invasions 8: 1023–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cooper, H. 1998. Synthesizing Research: A Guide for Literature Reviews. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
  9. D’Antonio, C.M. and P.M. Vitousek. 1992. Biological Invasions by Exotic Grasses, the Grass Fire Cycle, and Global Change. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 23: 63–87.Google Scholar
  10. Davis, M.A., J.P. Grime and K. Thompson. 2000. Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invasibility. J. Ecol. 88: 528–534.Google Scholar
  11. Dovciak, M., R. Hrivnak, K. Ujhazy and D. Gomory. 2008. Seed rain and environmental controls on invasion of Picea abies into grassland. Plant Ecol. 194: 135–148.Google Scholar
  12. Drake, D.R. 1998. Relationships among the seed rain, seed bank and vegetation of a Hawaiian forest. J. Veg. Sci. 9: 103–112.Google Scholar
  13. Elton, C. 1958. The Ecology of Invasions by Animals and Plants. Methuen.Google Scholar
  14. Fang, W. 2005. Spatial analysis of an invasion front of Acer platanoides: dynamic inferences from static data. Ecography. 28: 283–294.Google Scholar
  15. Gareca, E.E., Y.Y. Martinez, R.O. Bustamante, L.F. Aguirre and M.M. Siles. 2007. Regeneration patterns of Polylepis subtusal-bida growing with the exotic trees Pinus radiata and Eucalyptus globulus at Parque Nacional Tunari, Bolivia. Plant Ecol. 193: 253–263.Google Scholar
  16. Gates, S. 2002. Review of methodology of quantitative reviews using meta-analysis in ecology. J. Anim. Ecol. 71: 547–557.Google Scholar
  17. Gómez-Aparicio, L., C.D. Canham and P.H. Martin. 2008. Neigh-bourhood models of the effects of the invasive Acer platanoides on tree seedling dynamics: linking impacts on communities and ecosystems. J. Ecol. 96: 78–90.Google Scholar
  18. Goodenough, A.E. 2010. Are the ecological impacts of alien species misrepresented? A review of the “native good, alien bad” philosophy. Community Ecol. 11: 13–21.Google Scholar
  19. Gunton, R.M. and W.E. Kunin. 2009. Density-dependence at multiple scales in experimental and natural plant populations. J. Ecol. 97: 567–580Google Scholar
  20. Guo, Q. and A. Symstad. 2008. A two-part measure of degree of invasion for cross-community comparisons. Conserv. Biol. 22: 666–672.Google Scholar
  21. Gurevitch, J. and L.V. Hedges. 2001. Meta-analysis: combining the results of independent experiments. In: S.M. Scheiner, and J. Gurevitch (eds.), Design and Analysis of Ecological Experiments. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. pp. 378–398.Google Scholar
  22. Hedges, L.V. and I. Olkin. 1985. Statistical Methods for Meta-analysis. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  23. Hughes, R.F. and J.S. Denslow. 2005. Invasion by a N-2-fixing tree alters function and structure in wet lowland forests of Hawaii. Ecol. Appl. 15: 1615–1628.Google Scholar
  24. Jones, C.G., J.H. Lawton and M. Shachak. 1994. Organisms as ecosystem engineers. Oikos 69: 373–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jones, R.B. 1998. TechDig. W. Digitizer (ed.),Version 2.0.Google Scholar
  26. Kennedy, T.A., S. Naeem, K.M. Howe, J.M.H. Knops, D. Tilman and P. Reich. 2002. Biodiversity as a barrier to ecological invasion. Nature 417: 636–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kneitel, J. M. and D. Perrault. 2006. Disturbance-induced changes in community composition increase species invasion success. Community Ecol. 7: 245–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Knops, J.M.H., D. Tilman, N.M. Haddad, S. Naeem, C.E.J. Mitchell, M. Haarstad, E. Ritchie, K.M. Howe, P.B. Reich, E. Siemann and J. Groth. 1999. Effects of plant species richness on invasion dynamics, disease outbreaks, insect abundances and diversity. Ecol. Lett. 2: 286–93.Google Scholar
  29. Kowarik, I. 1995. Time lags in biological invasions with regard to the success and failure of alien species. In: P. Pysek, K. Prach, M. Rejmánek and M. Wade (eds.), Plant Invasions, General Aspects and Special Problems. SPB Academic Publishers, Amsterdam. pp. 15–38.Google Scholar
  30. Levine, J.M. and C.M. D’Antonio. 1999. Elton revisited: a review of evidence linking diversity and invasibility. Oikos 87: 15–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Levine, J.M. 2000. Species diversity and biological invasions: relating local process to community pattern. Science 288: 852–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Levine, J.M., Adler, P.B., Yelenik, S.G. 2004. A meta-analysis of biotic resistance to exotic plant invasions. Ecol. Lett. 7: 975–989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lortie, C.J. and R.M. Callaway. 2006. Re-analysis of meta-analysis: a test of the stress-gradient hypothesis. J. Ecol. 94: 7–16.Google Scholar
  34. Lortie, C.J., M. Munshaw, J. DiTomaso and J.L. Hierro. 2010. The small-scale spatiotemporal pattern of the seedbank and vegetation of a highly invasive weed, Centaurea solstitialis: strength in numbers. Oikos 119: 428–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lortie, C.J., M. Munshaw, A. Zikovitz and J.L. Hierro. 2009. Cage matching: head to head competition experiments of an invasive plant species from different regions as a means to test for differentiation. PlosOne 4: 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lortie, C.J. and R. Turkington. 2002. The effect of initial seed density on the structure of a desert annual plant community. J. Ecol. 90: 435–445.Google Scholar
  37. Mack, R.N., D. Simberloff, W.M. Lonsdale, H. Evans, M. Clout and F.A. Bazzaz. 2000. Biotic invasions: Causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol. Appl. 10: 689–710.Google Scholar
  38. Martin, M.R., P.W. Tipping and J.O. Sickman. 2009. Invasion by an exotic tree alters above and belowground ecosystem components. Biol. Inv. 11: 1883–1894.Google Scholar
  39. Martin, P.H., C.D. Canham and P.L. Marks. 2008. Why forests appear resistant to exotic plant invasions: intentional introductions, stand dynamics, and the role of shade tolerance. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7: 142–149.Google Scholar
  40. Mason, T.J. and K. French. 2008. Impacts of a woody invader vary in different vegetation communities. Divers. Distrib. 14: 829–838.Google Scholar
  41. Pysek, P., D.M. Richardson, J. Pergl, V. Jarosýk, Z. Sixtova and E. Weber. 2008. Geographical and taxonomic biases in invasion ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23: 237–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Raudenbush S.W. 1994. Random effects models. In: H. Cooper and L.V. Hedges (eds.), The Handbook of Research Synthesis. Russell Sage Foundation, New York. pp. 301–321.Google Scholar
  43. Rejmánek, M. 1989. Invasibility of plant communities. In: J.A. Drake, H. Mooney, F. di Castri, R. Groves, F. Kruger, M. Rejmánek and M. Williamson (eds.), Biological Invasions. A Global Perspective. Wiley, Chichester. pp. 369–388.Google Scholar
  44. Rosenberg, M.S. 2005. The file-drawer problem revisited: A general weighted method for calculating fail-safe numbers in meta-analysis. Evolution 59: 464–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rosenberg, M.S., D.C. Adams and J. Gurevitch. 2000. MetaWin: Statistical Sofware for Meta-analysis. (ed V. 2.0). Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.Google Scholar
  46. Rosenthal, R. 1991. Meta-analytic Procedures for Social Research. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shea, K. and P. Chesson. 2002. Community ecology theory as a framework for biological invasions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17: 170–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tilman, D. 2004. Niche tradeoffs, neutrality, and community structure: A stochastic theory of resource competition, invasion, and community assembly. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 101: 10854–10861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Valery, L., H. Fritz, J.C. Lefeuvre and D. Simberloff. 2008. In search of a real definition of the biological invasion phenomenon itself. Biol.Inv. 10: 1345–1351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vitousek, P.M., C.M. D’Antonio, L.L. Loope and R. Westbrooks. 1996. Biological invasions as global environmental change. Am. Sci. 84: 468–478.Google Scholar
  51. Vitousek, P.M. 1990. Biological invasions and ecosystem processes: toward an integration of population biology and ecosystem studies. Oikos 57: 7–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Webb, S.L., T.H. Pendergast and M.E. Dwyer. 2001. Response of native and exotic maple seedling banks to removal of the exotic, invasive Norway maple (Acer platanoides). J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 128: 141–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. White, T.C.R. 2001. Opposing paradigms: regulation or limitation of populations? Oikos 93: 148–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2019

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université de Toulouse, UPS, ENFA; UMR5174 EDB (Laboratoire Évolution et Diversité Biologique)ToulouseFrance
  2. 2.CNRSToulouseFrance
  3. 3.UMR BIOGECOUniversity of Bordeaux - INRA, Bat B8TalenceFrance
  4. 4.Department of BiologyYork UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations