Periphyton density is similar on native and non‐native plant species

相似文献   

The importance of factors controlling species abundance and distribution varies in native and non‐native ranges

How variation in factors controlling species abundance and distribution between native and non‐native ranges compares to that within ranges remains poorly understood. We used a globally distributed ruderal, Centaurea solstitialis (Centaurea), to explore the possibility that the importance of those factors exhibits great variation between and within ranges. To test our hypothesis, we established seed addition experiments with soil disturbance (turnover and control) and biocide (fungicides, insecticide, and control) treatments in two regions within native (the Caucasus and south‐western Turkey) and non‐native (the western United States – US – and central Argentina) distributions. Also, we estimated the rate of vegetation recovery after disturbance (resilience) and related it to Centaurea density in experimental plots. Disturbance strongly increased Centaurea density in all regions. Density was similar between the native Caucasus and non‐native Argentina and much greater in those regions than in the native Turkey and non‐native US in biocide‐free plots. Fungicides had positive effects on density in the US and negative ones in the Caucasus and Argentina, resulting in no differences between those three regions and greater density in the US than Turkey. Insecticide applications promoted Centaurea density in Turkey and Argentina, but inter‐regional comparisons of density in treated plots were comparable to those in biocide‐free plots. Overall, plants were smaller and less fecund in Turkey than the other regions, except the US. The greatest fungal attack was documented in Turkey, and herbivory was stronger there and in Argentina than in the Caucasus and US. The resilience of the local community explained a large proportion of variation in Centaurea density. These results support our hypothesis, and reveal that the speed at which competition is re‐gained after disturbance may influence global variation in Centaurea abundance. Because many ruderals exhibit native and non‐native distributions, our results are likely to be generalized to other systems.     

Phenology in a warming world: differences between native and non‐native plant species

Phenology is a harbinger of climate change, with many species advancing flowering in response to rising temperatures. However, there is tremendous variation among species in phenological response to warming, and any phenological differences between native and non‐native species may influence invasion outcomes under global warming. We simulated global warming in the field and found that non‐native species flowered earlier and were more phenologically plastic to temperature than natives, which did not accelerate flowering in response to warming. Non‐native species' flowering also became more synchronous with other community members under warming. Earlier flowering was associated with greater geographic spread of non‐native species, implicating phenology as a potential trait associated with the successful establishment of non‐native species across large geographic regions. Such phenological differences in both timing and plasticity between native and non‐natives are hypothesised to promote invasion success and population persistence, potentially benefiting non‐native over native species under climate change.     

Niche shift in four non‐native estrildid finches and implications for species distribution models

Non‐native species can have severe impacts on ecosystems. Therefore, predictions of potentially suitable areas that are at risk of the establishment of non‐native populations are desirable. In recent years, species distribution models (SDMs) have been widely applied for this purpose. However, the appropriate selection of species records, whether from the native area alone or also from the introduced range, is still a matter of debate. We combined analyses of native and non‐native realized climate niches to understand differences between models based on all locations, as well as on locations from the native range only. Our approach was applied to four estrildid finch species that have been introduced to many regions around the world. Our results showed that SDMs based on location data from native areas alone may underestimate the potential distribution of a given species. The climatic niches of species in their native ranges differed from those of their non‐native ranges. Niche comparisons resulted in low overlap values, indicating considerable niche shifts, at least in the realized niches of these species. All four species have high potential to spread over many tropical and subtropical areas. However, transferring these results to temperate areas has a high degree of uncertainty, and we urge caution when assessing the potential spread of tropical species that have been introduced to higher latitudes.     

Smells from the desert: Microbial volatiles that affect plant growth and development of native and non‐native plant species

The plant microbiota can affect host fitness via the emission of microbial volatile organic compounds (mVOCs) that influence growth and development. However, evidence of these molecules and their effects in plants from arid ecosystems is limited. We screened the mVOCs produced by 40 core and representative members of the microbiome of agaves and cacti in their interaction with Arabidopsis thaliana and Nicotiana benthamiana. We used SPME‐GC‐MS to characterize the chemical diversity of mVOCs and tested the effects of selected compounds on growth and development of model and host plants. Our study revealed that approximately 90% of the bacterial strains promoted plant growth both in A. thaliana and N. benthamiana. Bacterial VOCs were mainly composed of esters, alcohols, and S‐containing compounds with 25% of them not previously characterized. Remarkably, ethyl isovalerate, isoamyl acetate, 3‐methyl‐1‐butanol, benzyl alcohol, 2‐phenylethyl alcohol, and 3‐(methylthio)‐1‐propanol, and some of their mixtures, displayed beneficial effects in A. thaliana and also improved growth and development of Agave tequilana and Agave salmiana in just 60 days. Volatiles produced by bacteria isolated from agaves and cacti are promising molecules for the sustainable production of crops in arid and semi‐arid regions.     

Long‐term plant community trajectories suggest divergent responses of native and non‐native perennials and annuals to vegetation removal and seeding treatments

Land managers frequently apply vegetation removal and seeding treatments to restore ecosystem function following woody plant encroachment, invasive species spread, and wildfire. However, the long‐term outcome of these treatments is unclear due to a lack of widespread monitoring. We quantified how vegetation removal (via wildfire or management) with or without seeding and environmental conditions related to plant community composition change over time in 491 sites across the intermountain western United States. Most community metrics took over 10 years to reach baseline conditions posttreatment, with the slowest recovery observed for native perennial cover. Total cover was initially higher in sites with seeding after vegetation removal than sites with vegetation removal alone, but increased faster in sites with vegetation removal only. Seeding after vegetation removal was associated with rapidly increasing non‐native perennial cover and decreasing non‐native annual cover. Native perennial cover increased in vegetation removal sites irrespective of seeding and was suppressed by increasing non‐native perennial cover. Seeding was associated with higher non‐native richness across the monitoring period as well as initially higher, then declining, total and native species richness. Several cover and richness recovery metrics were positively associated with mean annual precipitation and negatively associated with mean annual temperature, whereas relationships with weather extremes depended on the lag time and season. Our results suggest that key plant groups, such as native perennials and non‐native annuals, respond to restoration treatments at divergent timescales and with different sensitivities to climate and weather variation.     

The distribution and habitat associations of non‐native plant species in urban riparian habitats

Questions: 1. What are the distribution and habitat associations of non‐native (neophyte) species in riparian zones? 2. Are there significant differences, in terms of plant species diversity, composition, habitat condition and species attributes, between plant communities where non‐natives are present or abundant and those where non‐natives are absent or infrequent? 3. Are the observed differences generic to non‐natives or do individual non‐native species differ in their vegetation associations? Location: West Midlands Conurbation (WMC), UK. Methods: 56 sites were located randomly on four rivers across the WMC. Ten 2 m × 2 m quadrats were placed within 15 m of the river to sample vegetation within the floodplain at each site. All vascular plants were recorded along with site information such as surrounding land use and habitat types. Results: Non‐native species were found in many vegetation types and on all rivers in the WMC. There were higher numbers of non‐natives on more degraded, human‐modified rivers. More non‐native species were found in woodland, scrub and tall herb habitats than in grasslands. We distinguish two types of communities with non‐natives. In communities colonized following disturbance, in comparison to quadrats containing no non‐native species, those with non‐natives had higher species diversity and more forbs, annuals and shortlived monocarpic perennials. Native species in quadrats containing non‐natives were characteristic of conditions of higher fertility and pH, had a larger specific leaf area and were less stress tolerant or competitive. In later successional communities dominated by particular non‐natives, native diversity declined with increasing cover of non‐natives. Associated native species were characteristic of low light conditions. Conclusions: Communities containing non‐natives can be associated with particular types of native species. Extrinsic factors (disturbance, eutrophication) affected both native and non‐native species. In disturbed riparian habitats the key determinant of diversity is dominance by competitive invasive species regardless of their native or non‐native origin.     

Retention of gene diversity during the spread of a non‐native plant species

Spatial expansion, which is a crucial stage in the process to successful biological invasion, is anticipated to profoundly affect the magnitude and spatial distribution of genetic diversity in novel colonized areas. Here, we show that, contrasting common expectations, Pyrenean rocket (Sisymbrium austriacum), retained SNP diversity as this introduced plant species descended in the Meuse River Basin. Allele frequencies did not mirror between‐population distances along the predominant expansion axis. Reconstruction of invasion history based on the genotypes of historical herbarium specimens indicated no influence of additional introductions or multiple points of entry on this nongradual pattern. Assignment analysis suggested the admixture of distant upstream sources in recently founded downstream populations. River dynamics seem to have facilitated occasional long‐distance dispersal which brought diversity to the expansion front and so maintained evolutionary potential. Our findings highlight the merit of a historical framework in interpreting extant patterns of genetic diversity in introduced species and underscore the need to integrate long‐distance dispersal events in theoretical work on the genetic consequences of range expansion.     

Flexible dispersal strategies in native and non‐native ranges: environmental quality and the ‘good–stay,bad–disperse’ rule

Dispersal strategies are one of the most important determinants of range dynamics and a surrogate for invasiveness. We tested three inter‐related hypotheses derived from demographic and ecological models: (H₁) short‐distance dispersal strategies arise at native range margins due to their demographic advantage; (H₂) in non‐native areas a high diffusion rate is favoured at the advancing range front for niche filling; (H₃) environmental deterioration can increase dispersal and lead to a ‘good–stay, bad–disperse’ strategy. Spatially and temporally explicit rates of spread and dispersal kernels of the European starling Sturnus vulgaris were generated for its native range (Britain) using ringing records from 1909 to 2008, and for a non‐native area (South Africa) using ringing data and distributional records since its introduction in 1897. There was a marked spatial and temporal variation in the rate of spread within both native and non‐native ranges. In the native range the rate of spread declined with increasing distance from the species’ European distribution (contradicting H₁). In the non‐native range the rate of spread increased with distance from the introduction locality (supporting H₂). The annual rate of spread in the native range also increased significantly when environmental conditions were deteriorating as indicated by marked population declines and relatively low abundance (H₃), providing clear evidence for flexible dispersal strategies based on a ‘good–stay, bad–disperse’ rule. Starlings’ dispersal kernel followed an inverse power law and showed strong anisotropy and significant divergence between native and invasive populations, suggesting a flexible strategy comprising a dynamic response to spatial and temporal environmental variation with implications for predicting dispersal and range dynamics arising from environmental change.     

No evidence for local adaptation and an epigenetic underpinning in native and non‐native ruderal plant species in Germany

相似文献   

Effects of desiccation on native and non‐native molluscs in rivers

相似文献   

Landscape‐scale determinants of non‐native fish communities

Aim Predicting and preventing invasions depends on knowledge of the factors that make ecosystems susceptible to invasion. Current studies generally rely on non‐native species richness (NNSR) as the sole measure of ecosystem invasibility; however, species identity is a critical consideration, given that different ecosystems may have environmental characteristics suitable to different species. Our aim was to examine whether non‐native freshwater fish community composition was related to ecosystem characteristics at the landscape scale. Location United States. Methods We described spatial patterns in non‐native freshwater fish communities among watersheds in the Mid‐Atlantic region of the United States based on records of establishment in the U.S. Geological Survey’s Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database. We described general relationships between non‐native species and ecosystem characteristics using canonical correspondence analysis. We clustered watersheds by non‐native fish community and described differences among clusters using indicator species analysis. We then assessed whether non‐native communities could be predicted from ecosystem characteristics using random forest analysis and predicted non‐native communities for uninvaded watersheds. We estimated which ecosystem characteristics were most important for predicting non‐native communities using conditional inference trees. Results We identified four non‐native fish communities, each with distinct indicator species. Non‐native communities were predicted based on ecosystem characteristics with an accuracy of 80.6%, with temperature as the most important variable. Relatively uninvaded watersheds were predicted to be invasible by the most diverse non‐native community. Main conclusions Non‐native species identity is an important consideration when assessing ecosystem invasibility. NNSR alone is an insufficient measure of invasibility because ecosystems with equal NNSR may not be equally invasible by the same species. Our findings can help improve predictions of future invasions and focus management and policy decisions on particular species in highly invasible ecosystems.