The enemy release hypothesis as a hierarchy of hypotheses

In ecology, a hypothesis is usually not discarded if a few studies reject it, as long as there are other studies supporting it. How to assess the usefulness of ecological hypotheses is therefore not straightforward. Using the enemy release hypothesis as an example, we show how creating a hierarchy of hypotheses (HoH) can help reviewing and evaluating evidence for and against an ecological hypothesis. In a HoH, a broad, overarching hypothesis branches into more specific and better testable sub‐hypotheses. The enemy release hypothesis is a major hypothesis in invasion ecology and posits that the absence of enemies in the exotic range of an alien species is a cause of its invasion success. Based on a systematic review of empirical tests of this hypothesis, we divided it into sub‐hypotheses, differentiating among 1) indicators for enemy release, 2) types of comparisons, and 3) types of enemies. We identified 176 empirical tests and weighted each test according to the number of alien species studied and the research method (experimental vs observational, field vs enclosure vs laboratory). For the broadly formulated enemy release hypothesis, we found nearly as much supporting (36%) as questioning evidence (43%). At the sub‐hypotheses level, however, we found that some sub‐hypotheses are strongly supported by empirical evidence, whereas others receive hardly any support. These differences are further emphasized for some types of habitat and focal taxonomic groups. Our findings suggest that several specific formulations (i.e. sub‐hypotheses) of the broad enemy release hypothesis are useful, whereas other formulations should be viewed more critically. In general, the approach outlined here can help evaluate major ecological hypotheses and their specific sub‐hypotheses. Our study also highlights the need for a scientific debate on how much supporting evidence is sufficient to consider an ecological hypothesis to be useful.     

Invasional meltdown: an experimental test and a framework to distinguish synergistic,additive, and antagonistic effects

The potential role of positive interactions among co-invaders is at the core of the invasional meltdown hypothesis. The interaction of non-native species could result in an exacerbation of each other’s effects. Thus, the resulting effect of multiple non-native species on ecosystems can be greater than the sum of their individual effects. We designed an analytical framework and a set of mesocosm experiments to assess the potential synergistic effects of three non-native species (Limnoperna fortunei, Astronotus crassipinnis, and Hydrilla verticillata) in a highly invaded floodplain in southern Brazil. We analyzed ecosystem, community, and population attributes in scenarios with non-natives. Our hypothesis of a synergistic effect was not supported. Even though effects of the invasive species were detected for all ecological levels, evidence indicated that these effects were additive. In addition to adding to the statement that origin (i.e., native vs. non-native status) does matter, we provide a tool to differentiate additive, synergistic, and antagonistic effects in situations with multiple invasions, and experimentally demonstrate additive effects of non-native species at different ecological levels.

     

Invasions: the perspective of diverse plant communities

Exotic plant invasions represent a threat to natural and managed ecosystems. Understanding of the mechanisms that determine why a given species may invade a given ecosystem, or why some biomes and regions seem more prone to invasions, is limited. One potential reason for this lack of progress may lie in how few studies have addressed invasion mechanisms from the point of view of the invaded community. On the other hand, the renewed debate about the relationship between ecological diversity and ecosystem stability offers the opportunity to revisit existing theory and empirical evidence, and to attempt to investigate which characteristics of plant communities, including their diversity, contribute to their invasibility. Empirical studies have shown both positive and negative relationships between species diversity of resident plant communities and their invasibility by external species. Rather than attempting to build a larger collection of case studies, research now needs to address the mechanisms underlying these relationships. Previous knowledge about the mechanisms favouring invasion needs to be coupled with community theory to form the basis of these new investigations. Modern community theory offers hypotheses and techniques to analyse the invasibility of communities depending on their diversity and other factors, such as species’ life histories and environmental variability. The body of knowledge accumulated in invasion ecology suggests that the role of disturbances, in interaction with fertility, and the importance of interactions with other trophic levels, are specific factors for consideration. In addition, it is essential for future studies to explicitly tease apart the effects of species richness per se from the effects of other components of ecological diversity, such as functional diversity (the number of functional groups) and trophic diversity (the number of interactions among trophic levels).     

Linking biodiversity to ecosystem function: implications for conservation ecology

We evaluate the empirical and theoretical support for the hypothesis that a large proportion of native species richness is required to maximize ecosystem stability and sustain function. This assessment is important for conservation strategies because sustenance of ecosystem functions has been used as an argument for the conservation of species. If ecosystem functions are sustained at relatively low species richness, then arguing for the conservation of ecosystem function, no matter how important in its own right, does not strongly argue for the conservation of species. Additionally, for this to be a strong conservation argument the link between species diversity and ecosystem functions of value to the human community must be clear. We review the empirical literature to quantify the support for two hypotheses: (1) species richness is positively correlated with ecosystem function, and (2) ecosystem functions do not saturate at low species richness relative to the observed or experimental diversity. Few empirical studies demonstrate improved function at high levels of species richness. Second, we analyze recent theoretical models in order to estimate the level of species richness required to maintain ecosystem function. Again we find that, within a single trophic level, most mathematical models predict saturation of ecosystem function at a low proportion of local species richness. We also analyze a theoretical model linking species number to ecosystem stability. This model predicts that species richness beyond the first few species does not typically increase ecosystem stability. One reason that high species richness may not contribute significantly to function or stability is that most communities are characterized by strong dominance such that a few species provide the vast majority of the community biomass. Rapid turnover of species may rescue the concept that diversity leads to maximum function and stability. The role of turnover in ecosystem function and stability has not been investigated. Despite the recent rush to embrace the linkage between biodiversity and ecosystem function, we find little support for the hypothesis that there is a strong dependence of ecosystem function on the full complement of diversity within sites. Given this observation, the conservation community should take a cautious view of endorsing this linkage as a model to promote conservation goals. Received: 2 September 1999 / Accepted: 26 October 1999     

Invasive pythons,not anthropogenic stressors,explain the distribution of a keystone species

Untangling the causes of native species loss in human-modified systems is difficult and often controversial. Evaluating the impact of non-native species in these systems is particularly challenging, as additional human perturbations often precede or accompany introductions. One example is the ongoing debate over whether mammal declines within Everglades National Park (ENP) were caused by either the establishment of non-native Burmese pythons (Python molurus bivittatus) or the effects of other anthropogenic stressors. We examined the influence of both pythons and a host of alternative stressors—altered hydrology and habitat characteristics, mercury contamination and development—on the distribution of the marsh rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris), a once common mammal in ENP. Distance from the epicenter of the python invasion best explained marsh rabbit occurrence in suitable habitat patches, whereas none of the alternative stressors considered could explain marsh rabbit distribution. Estimates of the probability of marsh rabbit occurrence ranged from 0 at the python invasion epicenter to nearly 1.0 150 km from the invasion epicenter. These results support the hypothesis that invasive pythons shape the distribution of marsh rabbits in southern Florida. The loss of marsh rabbits and similar species will likely alter trophic interactions and ecosystem function within the Everglades, an internationally important hotspot of biodiversity. Further, our results suggest that non-native species can have profound impacts on mainland biodiversity.     

Overestimation of establishment success of non-native birds in Hawaii and Britain

The tens rules states that 10 % of all introduced species establish and about 10 % of those species become invasive. Several studies have failed to support the tens rule. However, these studies are beset by a general weakness: many unsuccessful invasions are never reported, and without these data tests of the tens rules are inadequate. Here, using data on the establishment success of non-native birds in Hawaii and Britain and comparing these data with those from a previous study, we show that lack of information about failed species introductions, and the tendency to report species that have become invasive more than those that have not, result in an overestimate of the establishment success and invasion rates of non-native species.     

入侵植物的繁殖策略以及对本土植物繁殖的影响

理解入侵生物的繁殖策略是阐明生物入侵机制的一个重要方面。入侵植物常表现出一些共同的繁殖特征, 如以两性花为主的性系统、自动自交为主的繁育系统或不依赖传粉媒介的无融合生殖和无性繁殖以及高生殖投资的资源配置策略等。成功入侵的外来植物通过影响本土的传粉者, 在种群和群落水平上影响本土植物的有性繁殖, 甚至促使某些本土植物在繁殖对策和表型性状上发生快速转变。目前, 入侵植物繁殖策略及其生态效应的研究多侧重于入侵种的快速演化, 而有关外来植物与本土植物间的相互影响及其可能存在的协同适应研究还较为缺乏。探讨本土植物在外来种入侵压力下的繁殖对策和响应机制, 将丰富人们对物种间竞争、共存及群落构建等机制的深入了解。从繁殖和适应的角度探求入侵植物与本土植物之间的复杂关系, 将有助于解析生物入侵的机制及人类干扰下的物种演化规律, 也为预测和防控入侵植物提供科学依据。     

Competitive effects of non-native plants are lowest in native plant communities that are most vulnerable to invasion

Despite widespread acknowledgment that disturbance favors invasion, a hypothesis that has received little attention is whether non-native invaders have greater competitive effects on native plants in undisturbed habitats than in disturbed habitats. This hypothesis derives from the assumption that competitive interactions are more persistent in habitats that have not been recently disturbed. Another hypothesis that has received little attention is whether the effects of non-native plants on native plants vary among habitats that differ in soil fertility. We documented habitat occurrences of 27 non-native plant species and 377 native plant species encountered in numerous study plots in a broad sample of ecosystems in MS (USA). We then reviewed experimental and regression-based field studies in the scientific literature that specifically examined potential competitive (or facilitative) effects of these non-native species on native species and characterized the habitats in which effects were the greatest. As expected, the non-native species examined here in general were more likely to be associated with severely disturbed habitats than were the native species as a group. In contrast, we found that non-native species with competitive effects on natives were more likely to be associated with undisturbed habitats than with disturbed habitats. When longer term studies involving more resident species were given more weight in the analysis, competitive effects appeared to be the greatest in undisturbed habitats with low soil fertility. These results reinforce the notion that invasion is not synonymous with impact. The environmental conditions that promote invasion may limit competitive effects of invaders on native plant communities following invasion.     

The biodiversity impacts of non-native species should not be extrapolated from biased single-species studies

The presence, diversity and abundance of non-native plant species in natural vegetation are common condition indicators used to determine conservation status, with consequences for management strategies and investment. The rationale behind non-native species metrics as condition indicators is the assumption that non-natives have negative consequences on native biodiversity and habitat condition. The case against non-native species is not so clear-cut, with some studies reporting neutral or even facilitative interactions, often depending on spatial scale. Observational and experimental evaluations of the impact of particular non-native species on biodiversity provide a vital evidence-base for general conservation management strategies. Unintentionally though, many studies that quantify the impacts of non-native species have resulted in a publication bias in which species with known impacts are selected for investigation far more often than benign species. Here we argue that meta-analyses of the impacts of individual non-native species on natives, no matter how meticulous or objective, should not be generalized beyond the set of ‘training’ species. The likelihood of such extrapolation is increased when meta-analyses are reported with little qualification as to the skewed sampling towards problematic species, and because alternative findings such as non-native assemblages having positive interactions with native biodiversity, are under-reported. To illustrate, we discuss two meta-analyses that make general conclusions from impact studies skewed towards ‘transformers’, the most extreme invaders. We warn that if generic non-native species management strategies were to be based on these conclusions, they could not only fail to meet objectives but in some instances harm native biodiversity.     

Trait positions for elevated invasiveness in adaptive ecological networks

Our ability to predict the outcome of invasion declines rapidly as non-native species progress through intertwined ecological barriers to establish and spread in recipient ecosystems. This is largely due to the lack of systemic knowledge on key processes at play as species establish self-sustaining populations within the invaded range. To address this knowledge gap, we present a mathematical model that captures the eco-evolutionary dynamics of native and non-native species interacting within an ecological network. The model is derived from continuous-trait evolutionary game theory (i.e., Adaptive Dynamics) and its associated concept of invasion fitness which depicts dynamic demographic performance that is both trait mediated and density dependent. Our approach allows us to explore how multiple resident and non-native species coevolve to reshape invasion performance, or more precisely invasiveness, over trait space. The model clarifies the role of specific traits in enabling non-native species to occupy realised opportunistic niches. It also elucidates the direction and speed of both ecological and evolutionary dynamics of residing species (natives or non-natives) in the recipient network under different levels of propagule pressure. The versatility of the model is demonstrated using four examples that correspond to the invasion of (i) a horizontal competitive community; (ii) a bipartite mutualistic network; (iii) a bipartite antagonistic network; and (iv) a multi-trophic food web. We identified a cohesive trait strategy that enables the success and establishment of non-native species to possess high invasiveness. Specifically, we find that a non-native species can achieve high levels of invasiveness by possessing traits that overlap with those of its facilitators (and mutualists), which enhances the benefits accrued from positive interactions, and by possessing traits outside the range of those of antagonists, which mitigates the costs accrued from negative interactions. This ‘central-to-reap, edge-to-elude’ trait strategy therefore describes the strategic trait positions of non-native species to invade an ecological network. This model provides a theoretical platform for exploring invasion strategies in complex adaptive ecological networks.