Testing the enemy release hypothesis: a review and meta-analysis

By Hong Liu, P. Stiling. Biological Invasions, 2006

607 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Insect Science, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1b3b34880abe43fcc7d84059e6eeae0b69605765

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

In Insect Science

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Experimental plant invasion reduces arthropod abundance and richness across multiple trophic levels (2010, background): “Invasions have been documented to succeed due to their release from natural enemies in the novel habitat (Keane and Crawley 2002, Colautti et al. 2004, Liu and Stiling 2006).”
Support for major hypotheses in invasion biology is uneven and declining (2012, background): “Meta-analyses exist on the biotic resistance and enemy release hypotheses, but to our knowledge only for exotic plants (Liu and Stiling 2006; Levine et al. 2004).”
Tree invasions: a comparative test of the dominant hypotheses and functional traits (2011, result): “2009), which is consistent with previous meta-analyses on herbivore loads and invasive plant species (Maron and Vila 2001; Liu and Stiling 2006).”
Escape from natural enemies during climate‐driven range expansion: a case study (2008, background): “Invading species may be attacked by fewer enemies, and suffer reduced levels of mortality in newly colonised areas, increasing the rate of expansion (see Colautti et al. , 2004; Liu & Stiling, 2006 for a review).”
The Interaction Between Propagule Pressure, Habitat Suitability and Density‐Dependent Reproduction in Species Invasion (2012, background): “…of propagule pressure than habitat quality on M. vimineum recruitment fits with the theoretical expectations (Lonsdale 1999, Lockwood et al. 2005, Liu and Stiling 2006) and empirical results (Von Holle and Simberloff 2005, Eschtruth and Battles 2009, Tanentzap and Bazely 2009) for invasive…”
General hypotheses in invasion ecology (2014, result): “These mixed results are similar to other empirical tests of the enemy release hypothesis (Colautti et al., 2004; Liu & Stiling, 2006; Hawkes, 2007; Chun et al., 2010; Jeschke et al., 2012a; Heger & Jeschke, 2014).”
Seasonal priority effects: implications for invasion and restoration in a semi-arid system. (2012, background): “…pulses (Davis, Grime & Thompson 2000), high propagule pressure (Lonsdale 1999; Colautti, Grigorovich &MacIsaac 2006), release from natural enemies (Liu & Stiling 2006), or novel weapons (Callaway & Ridenour 2004) all may contribute to the establishment and subsequent success of invasive species.”
Identifying the role of soil microbes in plant invasions (2016, unknown): “1; Keane & Crawley 2002; Liu & Stiling 2006).”
Host range expansion of native insects to exotic trees increases with area of introduction and the presence of congeneric native trees (2015, background): “…supports the hypothesis of higher richness of insect herbivores feeding on a given tree species in its native range than in its introduced area, the effect of enemy release on the extent of herbivory is more controversial (Colautti et al. 2004; Liu & Stiling 2006; Carrillo-Gavil an et al. 2012).”
The significance of the sub-Antarctic Kerguelen Islands for the assessment of the vulnerability of native communities to climate change, alien insect invasions and plant viruses (2011, background): “…of native species to a wide range of aliens (Gillespie 1999; Gillespie and Roderick 2002), and (2) the establishment and spread of human-introduced species without being controlled by natural enemies (see Colautti et al. 2004; Liu and Stiling 2006 for more details on the Enemy Release Hypothesis).”
Marine range shifts and species introductions: comparative spread rates and community impacts (2010, background): “The ERH states that introduced species are successful because they have left their coevolved natural enemies behind in the donor community and are ‘safe’, relative to native prey, from naïve predators in the recipient community (see meta-analyses by Colautti et al., 2004, and Liu & Stiling, 2006).”
Reduced plant–soil feedback of plant species expanding their range as compared to natives (2007, background): “New introductions may affect biotic interactions (Liu & Stiling 2006), but whether this is also true for gradual shifts in distribution as a result of climate change is currently unknown.”