1932

Abstract

We review the state of the art of alien plant research with emphasis on conceptual advances and knowledge gains on general patterns and drivers, biotic interactions, and evolution. Major advances include the identification of different invasion stages and invasiveness dimensions (geographic range, habitat specificity, local abundance) and the identification of appropriate comparators while accounting for propagule pressure and year of introduction. Developments in phylogenetic and functional trait research bear great promise for better understanding of the underlying mechanisms. Global patterns are emerging with propagule pressure, disturbance, increased resource availability, and climate matching as major invasion drivers, but species characteristics also play a role. Biotic interactions with resident communities shape invasion outcomes, with major roles for species diversity, enemies, novel weapons, and mutualists. Mounting evidence has been found for rapid evolution of invasive aliens and evolutionary responses of natives, but a mechanistic understanding requires tighter integration of molecular and phenotypic approaches. We hope the open questions identified in this review will stimulate further research on the ecology and evolution of alien plants.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110617-062654
2018-11-02
2024-10-12
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/es/49/1/annurev-ecolsys-110617-062654.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110617-062654&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Agrawal AA, Hastings AP, Johnson MTJ, Maron JL, Salminen JP 2012. Insect herbivores drive real-time ecological and evolutionary change in plant populations. Science 338:113–16
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aikio S, Duncan RP, Hulme PE 2010. Lag-phases in alien plant invasions: separating the facts from the artefacts. Oikos 119:370–78
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Alpert P, Bone E, Holzapfel C 2000. Invasiveness, invasibility and the role of environmental stress in the spread of non-native plants. Perspect. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst. 3:52–66
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Atwater DZ, Ervine C, Barney JN 2018. Climatic niche shifts are common in introduced plants. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2:34–43
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Baker HG. 1965. Characteristics and modes of origins of weeds. The Genetics of Colonizing Species HG Baker, GL Stebbins 147–72 New York: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Baker HG, Stebbins GL 1965. The Genetics of Colonizing Species New York: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Barker BS, Andonian K, Swope SM, Luster DG, Dlugosch KM 2017. Population genomic analyses reveal a history of range expansion and trait evolution across the native and invaded range of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis). Mol. Ecol. 26:1131–47
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Binggeli P. 2000. Time-lags between introduction, establishment and rapid spread of introduced environmental weeds Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Third International Weed Science Congress, Foz do Iguassu Brazil: June 6–11
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Blossey B, Nötzold R 1995. Evolution of increased competitive ability in invasive nonindigenous plants: a hypothesis. J. Ecol. 83:887–89
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Borer ET, Harpole WS, Adler PB, Lind EM, Orrock JL et al. 2014. Finding generality in ecology: a model for globally distributed experiments. Methods Ecol. Evol. 5:65–73
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bossdorf O, Auge H, Lafuma L, Rogers WE, Siemann E, Prati D 2005. Phenotypic and genetic differentiation between native and introduced plant populations. Oecologia 144:1–11
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Brown AHD, Marshall DR 1981. Evolutionary changes accompanying colonization in plants. Evolution Today: Proceedings of the Second International Congress of Systematic and Evolutionary Biology GCE Scudder, JL Reveal 351–63 Pittsburgh, PA: Hunt Inst., Carnegie-Mellon Univ.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Caley P, Groves RH, Barker R 2008. Estimating the invasion success of introduced plants. Divers. Distrib. 14:196–203
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Callaway RM, Ridenour WM 2004. Novel weapons: invasive success and the evolution of increased competitive ability. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2:436–43
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Callaway RM, Ridenour WM, Laboski T, Weir T, Vivanco JM 2005. Natural selection for resistance to the allelopathic effects of invasive plants. J. Ecol. 93:576–83
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Cappuccino N, Arnason JT 2006. Novel chemistry of invasive exotic plants. Biol. Lett. 2:189–93
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Carboni M, Guéguen M, Barros C, Georges D, Boulangeat I et al. 2018. Simulating plant invasion dynamics in mountain ecosystems under global change scenarios. Glob. Change Biol. 24:e289–302
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Catford JA, Baumgartner JB, Vesk PA, White M, Buckley YM, McCarthy MA 2016. Disentangling the four demographic dimensions of species invasiveness. J. Ecol. 104:1745–58
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Catford JA, Jansson R, Nilsson C 2009. Reducing redundancy in invasion ecology by integrating hypotheses into a single theoretical framework. Divers. Distrib. 15:22–40
    [Google Scholar]
  20. CBD (Conv. Biol. Divers.) 2000. Alien species that threaten ecosystems, habitats or species Decision V/8 of the United Nations Environment Programme/Convention of Biological Diversity/Conference of the Parties 5, Secretariat of the CBD Nairobi, Kenya: https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=7150
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Chesson P. 2000. Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 31:343–66
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Chun YJ, van Kleunen M, Dawson W 2010. The role of enemy release, tolerance and resistance in plant invasions: linking damage to performance. Ecol. Lett. 13:937–46
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Colautti RI, Barrett SCH 2013. Rapid adaptation to climate facilitates range expansion of an invasive plant. Science 342:364–66
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Colautti RI, Grigorovich IA, MacIsaac HJ 2006. Propagule pressure: a null model for biological invasions. Biol. Invasions 8:1023–37
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Colautti RI, Lau JA 2015. Contemporary evolution during invasion: evidence for differentiation, natural selection, and local adaptation. Mol. Ecol. 24:1999–2017
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Colautti RI, Maron JL, Barrett SCH 2009. Common garden comparisons of native and introduced plant populations: Latitudinal clines can obscure evolutionary inferences. Evol. Appl. 2:187–99
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Cordeiro NJ, Patrick DAG, Munisi B, Gupta V 2004. Role of dispersal in the invasion of an exotic tree in an East African submontane forest. J. Trop. Ecol. 20:449–57
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Crooks JA. 2005. Lag times and exotic species: the ecology and management of biological invasions in slow-motion. Ecoscience 12:316–29
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Cummings JA, Parker IM, Gilbert GS 2012. Allelopathy: a tool for weed management in forest restoration. Plant Ecol 213:1975–89
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Daehler CC. 2009. Short lag times for invasive tropical plants: evidence from experimental plantings in Hawai'i. PLOS ONE 4:e4462
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Darwin C. 1859. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life London: Murray
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Davidson AM, Jennions M, Nicotra AB 2011. Do invasive species show higher phenotypic plasticity than native species and, if so, is it adaptive? A meta-analysis. Ecol. Lett. 14:419–31
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Davis MA, Grime JP, Thompson K 2000. Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invasibility. J. Ecol. 88:528–34
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Dawson W, Burslem D, Hulme PE 2009. Factors explaining alien plant invasion success in a tropical ecosystem differ at each stage of invasion. J. Ecol. 97:657–65
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Dawson W, Fischer M, van Kleunen M 2012a. Common and rare plant species respond differently to fertilisation and competition, whether they are alien or native. Ecol. Lett. 15:873–80
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Dawson W, Keser LH, Winter M, Pyšek P, Kartesz J et al. 2013. Correlations between global and regional measures of invasiveness vary with region size. NeoBiota 16:59–80
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Dawson W, Moser D, van Kleunen M, Kreft H, Pergl J et al. 2017. Global hotspots and correlates of alien species richness across taxonomic groups. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1:0186
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Dawson W, Rohr RP, van Kleunen M, Fischer M 2012b. Alien plant species with a wider global distribution are better able to capitalize on increased resource availability. New Phytol 194:859–67
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Dawson W, Schrama M 2016. Identifying the role of soil microbes in plant invasions. J. Ecol. 104:1211–18
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Dehnen-Schmutz K, Touza J, Perrings C, Williamson M 2007. A century of the ornamental plant trade and its impact on invasion success. Divers. Distrib. 13:527–34
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Dietz H, Edwards PJ 2006. Recognition that causal processes change during plant invasion helps explain conflicts in evidence. Ecology 87:1359–67
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Diez JM, Dickie I, Edwards G, Hulme PE, Sullivan JJ, Duncan RP 2010. Negative soil feedbacks accumulate over time for non-native plant species. Ecol. Lett. 13:803–9
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Dlugosch KM, Parker IM 2008. Founding events in species invasions: genetic variation, adaptive evolution, and the role of multiple introductions. Mol. Ecol. 17:431–49
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Doorduin LJ, Vrieling K 2011. A review of the phytochemical support for the shifting defence hypothesis. Phytochem. Rev. 10:99–106
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Elton CS. 1958. The Ecology of Invasions by Animals and Plants London: Methuen
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Essl F, Dullinger S, Rabitsch W, Hulme PE, Hulber K et al. 2011. Socioeconomic legacy yields an invasion debt. PNAS 108:203–7
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Felker-Quinn E, Schweitzer JA, Bailey JK 2013. Meta-analysis reveals evolution in invasive plant species but little support for Evolution of Increased Competitive Ability (EICA). Ecol. Evol. 3:739–51
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Feng YH, Maurel N, Wang ZH, Ning L, Yu FH, van Kleunen M 2016. Introduction history, climatic suitability, native range size, species traits and their interactions explain establishment of Chinese woody species in Europe. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 25:1356–66
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Funk JL. 2013. The physiology of invasive plants in low-resource environments. Conserv. Physiol. 1:cot026
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Gallien L, Carboni M 2016. The community ecology of invasive species: Where are we and what's next. Ecography 40:335–52
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Gao LX, Geng YP, Li B, Chen JK, Yang J 2010. Genome-wide DNA methylation alterations of Alternanthera philoxeroides in natural and manipulated habitats: implications for epigenetic regulation of rapid responses to environmental fluctuation and phenotypic variation. Plant Cell Environ 33:1820–27
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Good RDO. 1931. A theory of plant geography. New Phytol 30:149–71
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Gould BA, Stinchcombe JR 2017. Population genomic scans suggest novel genes underlie convergent flowering time evolution in the introduced range of Arabidopsis thaliana. Mol. Ecol 26:92–106
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Guisan A, Petitpierre B, Broennimann O, Daehler C, Kueffer C 2014. Unifying niche shift studies: insights from biological invasions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 29:260–69
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Gurevitch J, Fox GA, Wardle GM, Inderjit, Taub D 2011. Emergent insights from the synthesis of conceptual frameworks for biological invasions. Ecol. Lett. 14:407–18
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Harvey JA, Bukovinszky T, van der Putten WH 2010. Interactions between invasive plants and insect herbivores: a plea for a multitrophic perspective. Biol. Conserv. 143:2251–59
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Hayward J, Horton TR, Pauchard A, Nuñez MA 2015. A single ectomycorrhizal fungal species can enable a Pinus invasion. Ecology 96:1438–44
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Hobbs RJ, Huenneke LF 1992. Disturbance, diversity, and invasion - implications for conservation. Conserv. Biol. 6:324–37
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Hovick SM, Whitney KD 2014. Hybridisation is associated with increased fecundity and size in invasive taxa: meta-analytic support for the hybridisation-invasion hypothesis. Ecol. Lett. 17:1464–77
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Hufbauer R, Torchin M 2007. Integrating ecological and evolutionary theory of biological invasions. Biological Invasions W Nentwig 79–96 Berlin: Springer-Verlag
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Hyndman RJ, Mesgaran MB, Cousens RD 2015. Statistical issues with using herbarium data for the estimation of invasion lag-phases. Biol. Invasions 17:3371–81
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Joshi J, Vrieling K 2005. The enemy release and EICA hypothesis revisited: incorporating the fundamental difference between specialist and generalist herbivores. Ecol. Lett. 8:704–14
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Keane RM, Crawley MJ 2002. Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17:164–70
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Keller SR, Taylor DR 2008. History, chance and adaptation during biological invasion: separating stochastic phenotypic evolution from response to selection. Ecol. Lett. 11:852–66
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Keller SR, Taylor DR 2010. Genomic admixture increases fitness during a biological invasion. J. Evol. Biol. 23:1720–31
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Kempel A, Chrobock T, Fischer M, Rohr RP, van Kleunen M 2013. Determinants of plant establishment success in a multispecies introduction experiment with native and alien species. PNAS 110:12727–32
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Kowarik I. 1995. Time lags in biological invasions with regard to the success and failure of alien species. Plant Invasions: General Aspects and Special Problems P Pyšek, K Prach, M Rejmánek, M Wade 15–38 Amsterdam: SPB Academic
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Lankau RA. 2012. Coevolution between invasive and native plants driven by chemical competition and soil biota. PNAS 109:11240–45
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Lankau RA, Nuzzo V, Spyreas G, Davis AS 2009. Evolutionary limits ameliorate the negative impact of an invasive plant. PNAS 106:15362–67
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Larkin DJ. 2012. Lengths and correlates of lag phases in upper-Midwest plant invasions. Biol. Invasions 14:827–38
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Lau JA. 2006. Evolutionary responses of native plants to novel community members. Evolution 60:56–63
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Lau JA. 2008. Beyond the ecological: Biological invasions alter natural selection on a native plant species. Ecology 89:1023–31
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Le Roux JJ, Hui C, Keet JH, Ellis AG 2017. Co-introduction versus ecological fitting as pathways to the establishment of effective mutualisms during biological invasions. New Phytol 215:1354–60
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Levine JM, Adler PB, Yelenik SG 2004. A meta-analysis of biotic resistance to exotic plant invasions. Ecol. Lett. 7:975–89
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Liao ZY, Zheng YL, Lei YB, Feng YL 2014. Evolutionary increases in defense during a biological invasion. Oecologia 174:1205–14
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Lind EM, Parker JD 2010. Novel weapons testing: Are invasive plants more chemically defended than native plants. PLOS ONE 5:e10429
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Liu Y, van Kleunen M 2017. Responses of common and rare aliens and natives to nutrient availability and fluctuations. J. Ecol. 105:1111–22
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Lockwood JL, Cassey P, Blackburn T 2005. The role of propagule pressure in explaining species invasions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20:223–28
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Lockwood JL, Hoopes MF, Marchetti MP 2007. Invasion Ecology Malden, MA: Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  80. MacDougall AS, Gilbert B, Levine JM 2009. Plant invasions and the niche. J. Ecol. 97:609–15
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Macel M, de Vos RCH, Jansen JJ, van der Putten WH, van Dam NM 2014. Novel chemistry of invasive plants: Exotic species have more unique metabolomic profiles than native congeners. Ecol. Evol. 4:2777–86
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Mangla S, Inderjit, Callaway RM 2008. Exotic invasive plant accumulates native soil pathogens which inhibit native plants. J. Ecol. 96:58–67
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Maron JL, Klironomos J, Waller L, Callaway RM 2014. Invasive plants escape from suppressive soil biota at regional scales. J. Ecol. 102:19–27
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Maron JL, Vila M, Bommarco R, Elmendorf S, Beardsley P 2004. Rapid evolution of an invasive plant. Ecol. Monogr. 74:261–80
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Maurel N, Hanspach J, Kühn I, Pyšek P, van Kleunen M 2016. Introduction bias affects relationships between the characteristics of ornamental alien plants and their naturalization success. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 25:1500–9
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Mayer K, Haeuser E, Dawson W, Essl F, Kreft H et al. 2017. Naturalization of ornamental plant species in public green spaces and private gardens. Biol. Invasions 19:3613–27
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Mayfield MM, Levine JM 2010. Opposing effects of competitive exclusion on the phylogenetic structure of communities. Ecol. Lett. 13:1085–93
    [Google Scholar]
  88. McKinney CL. 2001. Effects of human population, area, and time on non-native plant and fish diversity in the United States. Biol. Conserv. 100:243–52
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Meijer K, Schilthuizen M, Beukeboom L, Smit C 2016. A review and meta-analysis of the enemy release hypothesis in plant-herbivorous insect systems. PeerJ 4:e2560v1
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Menzel A, Hempel S, Klotz S, Moora M, Pyšek P et al. 2017. Mycorrhizal status helps explain invasion success of alien plant species. Ecology 98:92–102
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Mitchell CE, Power AG 2003. Release of invasive plants from fungal and viral pathogens. Nature 421:625–27
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Müller-Schärer H, Schaffner U, Steinger T 2004. Evolution in invasive plants: implications for biological control. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19:417–22
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Oduor AMO. 2013. Evolutionary responses of native plant species to invasive plants: a review. New Phytol 200:986–92
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Oduor AMO, Leimu R, van Kleunen M 2016. Invasive plant species are locally adapted just as frequently and at least as strongly as native plant species. J. Ecol. 104:957–68
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Ollerton J, Watts S, Connerty S, Lock J, Parker L et al. 2012. Pollination ecology of the invasive tree tobacco Nicotiana glauca: comparisons across native and non-native ranges. J. Pollinat. Ecol. 9:85–95
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Ollerton J, Winfree R, Tarrant S 2011. How many flowering plants are pollinated by animals. Oikos 120:321–26
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Orians CM, Ward D 2010. Evolution of plant defenses in nonindigenous environments. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 55:439–59
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Pandit MK, White SM, Pocock MJO 2014. The contrasting effects of genome size, chromosome number and ploidy level on plant invasiveness: a global analysis. New Phytol 203:697–703
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Panetta FD, Mitchell ND 1991. Homoclime analysis and the prediction of weediness. Weed Res 31:273–84
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Parepa M, Fischer M, Bossdorf O 2013. Environmental variability promotes plant invasion. Nat. Commun. 4:1604
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Parepa M, Fischer M, Krebs C, Bossdorf O 2014. Hybridization increases invasive knotweed success. Evol. Appl. 7:413–20
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Parker JD, Torchin ME, Hufbauer RA, Lemoine NP, Alba C et al. 2013. Do invasive species perform better in their new ranges. Ecology 94:985–94
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Prior KM, Saxena K, Frederickson ME 2014. Seed handling behaviours of native and invasive seed-dispersing ants differentially influence seedling emergence in an introduced plant. Ecol. Entomol. 39:66–74
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Pyšek P, Jarošík V, Chytrý M, Danihelka J, Kühn I et al. 2011. Successful invaders co-opt pollinators of native flora and accumulate insect pollinators with increasing residence time. Ecol. Monogr. 81:277–93
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Pyšek P, Pergl J, Essl F, Lenzner B, Dawson W et al. 2017. Naturalized alien flora of the world: species diversity, taxonomic and phylogenetic patterns, geographic distribution and global hotspots of plant invasion. Preslia 89:203–74
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Pyšek P, Richardson DM 2007. Traits associated with invasiveness in alien plants: Where do we stand. Biological Invasions W Nentwig 97–125 Berlin: Springer-Verlag
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Pyšek P, Richardson DM, Rejmánek M, Webster GL, Williamson M, Kirschner J 2004. Alien plants in checklists and floras: towards better communication between taxonomists and ecologists. Taxon 53:131–43
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Rabinowitz D. 1981. Seven forms of rarity. The Biological Aspects of Rare Plant Conservation H Synge 205–17 Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Razanajatovo M, Maurel N, Dawson W, Essl F, Kreft H et al. 2016. Plants capable of selfing are more likely to become naturalized. Nat. Commun. 7:13313
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Razanajatovo M, van Kleunen M 2016. Non-invasive naturalized alien plants were not more pollen-limited than invasive aliens and natives in a common garden. Funct. Ecol. 30:1511–20
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Reinhart KO, Tytgat T, van der Putten WH, Clay K 2010. Virulence of soil-borne pathogens and invasion by Prunus serotina. New Phytol 186:484–95
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Rejmánek M. 1996. A theory of seed plant invasiveness: the first sketch. Biol. Conserv. 78:171–81
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Rejmánek M. 2000. Invasive plants: approaches and predictions. Austral Ecol 25:497–506
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Rejmánek M, Richardson DM 2013. Trees and shrubs as invasive alien species—2013 update of the global database. Divers. Distrib. 19:1093–94
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Richards CL, Alonso C, Becker C, Bossdorf O, Bucher E et al. 2017. Ecological plant epigenetics: evidence from model and non-model species, and the way forward. Ecol. Lett. 20:1576–90
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Richardson DM, Pyšek P 2006. Plant invasions: merging the concepts of species invasiveness and community invasibility. Prog. Phys. Geog. 30:409–31
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Richardson DM, Pyšek P, Rejmánek M, Barbour MG, Panetta FD, West CJ 2000. Naturalization and invasion of alien plants: concepts and definitions. Divers. Distrib. 6:93–107
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Sax DF, Stachowicz JJ, Brown JH, Bruno JF, Dawson MN et al. 2007. Ecological and evolutionary insights from species invasions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22:465–71
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Seabloom EW, Borer ET, Buckley YM, Cleland EE, Davies KF et al. 2015. Plant species’ origin predicts dominance and response to nutrient enrichment and herbivores in global grasslands. Nat. Commun. 6:7710
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Seabloom EW, Williams JW, Slayback D, Stoms DM, Viers JH, Dobson AP 2006. Human impacts, plant invasion, and imperiled, plant species in California. Ecol. Appl. 16:1338–50
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Seebens H, Blackburn TM, Dyer EE, Genovesi P, Hulme PE et al. 2017. No saturation in the accumulation of alien species worldwide. Nat. Commun. 8:14435
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Seebens H, Essl F, Dawson W, Fuentes N, Moser D et al. 2015. Global trade will accelerate plant invasions in emerging economies under climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 21:4128–40
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Shea K, Possingham HP 2000. Optimal release strategies for biological control agents: an application of stochastic dynamic programming to population management. J. Appl. Ecol. 37:77–86
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Shelby N, Duncan RP, van der Putten WH, McGinn KJ, Weser C, Hulme PE 2016. Plant mutualisms with rhizosphere microbiota in introduced versus native ranges. J. Ecol. 104:1259–70
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Shipley B. 2000. Cause and Correlation in Biology. A User's Guide to Path Analysis, Structural Equations and Causal Inference Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Simberloff D. 2009. The role of propagule pressure in biological invasions. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 40:81–102
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Sinclair JS, Arnott SE 2016. Strength in size not numbers: propagule size more important than number in sexually reproducing populations. Biol. Invasions 18:497–505
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Stinson KA, Campbell SA, Powell JR, Wolfe BE, Callaway RM et al. 2006. Invasive plant suppresses the growth of native tree seedlings by disrupting belowground mutualisms. PLOS Biol 4:727–31
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Stohlgren TJ, Barnett DT, Kartesz JT 2003. The rich get richer: patterns of plant invasions in the United States. Front. Ecol. Environ. 1:11–14
    [Google Scholar]
  130. Stout JC, Parnell JAN, Arroyo J, Crowe TP 2006. Pollination ecology and seed production of Rhododendron ponticum in native and exotic habitats. Biodivers. Conserv. 15:755–77
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Stout JC, Tiedeken EJ 2017. Direct interactions between invasive plants and native pollinators: evidence, impacts and approaches. Funct. Ecol. 31:38–46
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Strauss SY, Lau JA, Carroll SP 2006. Evolutionary responses of natives to introduced species: What do introductions tell us about natural communities. Ecol. Lett. 9:354–71
    [Google Scholar]
  133. Strauss SY, Zangerl AR 2002. Plant-insect interactions in terrestrial ecosystems. Plant Animal Interactions: An Evolutionary Approach CM Herrera, O Pellmyr 77–106 Oxford, UK: Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Suchan T, Pitteloud C, Gerasimova NS, Kostikova A, Schmid S et al. 2016. Hybridization capture using RAD probes (hyRAD), a new tool for performing genomic analyses on collection specimens. PLOS ONE 11:e0151651
    [Google Scholar]
  135. Thorpe AS, Thelen GC, Diaconu A, Callaway RM 2009. Root exudate is allelopathic in invaded community but not in native community: field evidence for the novel weapons hypothesis. J. Ecol. 97:641–45
    [Google Scholar]
  136. Thuiller W, Gallien L, Boulangeat I, de Bello F, Munkemuller T et al. 2010. Resolving Darwin's naturalization conundrum: a quest for evidence. Divers. Distrib. 16:461–75
    [Google Scholar]
  137. Traveset A, Richardson DM 2014. Mutualistic interactions and biological invasions. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 45:89–113
    [Google Scholar]
  138. van Kleunen M, Dawson W, Bossdorf O, Fischer M 2014. The more the merrier: multi-species experiments in ecology. Basic Appl. Ecol. 15:1–9
    [Google Scholar]
  139. van Kleunen M, Dawson W, Essl F, Pergl J, Winter M et al. 2015a. Global exchange and accumulation of non-native plants. Nature 525:100–3
    [Google Scholar]
  140. van Kleunen M, Dawson W, Maurel N 2015b. Characteristics of successful alien plants. Mol. Ecol. 24:1954–68
    [Google Scholar]
  141. van Kleunen M, Dawson W, Schlaepfer D, Jeschke JM, Fischer M 2010a. Are invaders different? A conceptual framework of comparative approaches for assessing determinants of invasiveness. Ecol. Lett. 13:947–58
    [Google Scholar]
  142. van Kleunen M, Weber E, Fischer M 2010b. A meta-analysis of trait differences between invasive and non-invasive plant species. Ecol. Lett. 13:235–45
    [Google Scholar]
  143. Vandepitte K, De Meyer T, Helsen K, Van Acker K, Roldan-Ruiz I et al. 2014. Rapid genetic adaptation precedes the spread of an exotic plant species. Mol. Ecol. 23:2157–64
    [Google Scholar]
  144. Vilà M, Bartomeus I, Dietzsch AC, Petanidou T, Steffan-Dewenter I et al. 2009. Invasive plant integration into native plant–pollinator networks across Europe. Proc. R. Soc. B 276:3887–93
    [Google Scholar]
  145. Vitousek PM, Walker LR 1989. Biological invasion by Myrica faya in Hawai'i: plant demography, nitrogen fixation, ecosystem effects. Ecol. Monogr. 59:247–65
    [Google Scholar]
  146. Von Holle B, Simberloff D 2005. Ecological resistance to biological invasion overwhelmed by propagule pressure. Ecology 86:3212–18
    [Google Scholar]
  147. Wang B, Qiu YL 2006. Phylogenetic distribution and evolution of mycorrhizas in land plants. Mycorrhiza 16:299–363
    [Google Scholar]
  148. Wang XY, Shen DW, Jiao J, Xu NN, Yu S et al. 2012. Genotypic diversity enhances invasive ability of Spartina alterniflora. Mol. Ecol 21:2542–51
    [Google Scholar]
  149. White PS, Pickett ST 1985. Natural disturbance and patch dynamics: an introduction. The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and Patch Dynamics ST Pickett, PS White London: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
  150. Whitney KD, Broman KW, Kane NC, Hovick SM, Randell RA, Rieseberg LH 2015. Quantitative trait locus mapping identifies candidate alleles involved in adaptive introgression and range expansion in a wild sunflower. Mol. Ecol. 24:2194–211
    [Google Scholar]
  151. Williams JL, Auge H, Maron JL 2008. Different gardens, different results: native and introduced populations exhibit contrasting phenotypes across common gardens. Oecologia 157:239–48
    [Google Scholar]
  152. Zhang YY, Parepa M, Fischer M, Bossdorf O 2017. Epigenetics of colonizing species? A study of Japanese knotweed in Central Europe. Invasion Genetics: The Baker and Stebbins Legacy SCH Barrett, RI Colautti, KM Dlugosch, LH Rieseberg 328–40 Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons
    [Google Scholar]
  153. Zhang Z, Pan X, Blumenthal D, van Kleunen M, Liu M, Li B 2018. Contrasting effects of specialist and generalist herbivores on resistance evolution in invasive plants. Ecology 99:866–75
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110617-062654
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110617-062654
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error