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

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.

References

  1. Adams, D.C., J. Gurevitch and M.S. Rosenberg. 1997. Resampling tests for meta-analysis of ecological data. Ecology 78: 1277–1283.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    CAS  Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

  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.

  12. Drake, D.R. 1998. Relationships among the seed rain, seed bank and vegetation of a Hawaiian forest. J. Veg. Sci. 9: 103–112.

  13. Elton, C. 1958. The Ecology of Invasions by Animals and Plants. Methuen.

  14. Fang, W. 2005. Spatial analysis of an invasion front of Acer platanoides: dynamic inferences from static data. Ecography. 28: 283–294.

  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.

  16. Gates, S. 2002. Review of methodology of quantitative reviews using meta-analysis in ecology. J. Anim. Ecol. 71: 547–557.

  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.

  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.

  19. Gunton, R.M. and W.E. Kunin. 2009. Density-dependence at multiple scales in experimental and natural plant populations. J. Ecol. 97: 567–580

  20. Guo, Q. and A. Symstad. 2008. A two-part measure of degree of invasion for cross-community comparisons. Conserv. Biol. 22: 666–672.

  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.

  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.

  24. Jones, C.G., J.H. Lawton and M. Shachak. 1994. Organisms as ecosystem engineers. Oikos 69: 373–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Jones, R.B. 1998. TechDig. W. Digitizer (ed.),Version 2.0.

  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.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kneitel, J. M. and D. Perrault. 2006. Disturbance-induced changes in community composition increase species invasion success. Community Ecol. 7: 245–252.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

  30. Levine, J.M. and C.M. D’Antonio. 1999. Elton revisited: a review of evidence linking diversity and invasibility. Oikos 87: 15–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Levine, J.M. 2000. Species diversity and biological invasions: relating local process to community pattern. Science 288: 852–54.

    CAS  Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  40. Mason, T.J. and K. French. 2008. Impacts of a woody invader vary in different vegetation communities. Divers. Distrib. 14: 829–838.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  47. Shea, K. and P. Chesson. 2002. Community ecology theory as a framework for biological invasions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17: 170–176.

    Article  Google 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.

    CAS  Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. White, T.C.R. 2001. Opposing paradigms: regulation or limitation of populations? Oikos 93: 148–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. E. L. Delmas.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

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.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Delmas, C.E.L., Delzon, S. & Lortie, C.J. A meta-analysis of the ecological significance of density in tree invasions. COMMUNITY ECOLOGY 12, 171–178 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1556/ComEc.12.2011.2.4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Density
  • Invasive impact
  • Invasibility
  • Meta-analysis
  • Native community