Reduced competitive ability in an invasive plant

By O. Bossdorf, D. Prati, H. Auge, Barbara C. Schmid. 2004

207 citations recorded by the source corpus.

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

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/283bd0bdddd6e3fc991ede507b4b1481bdfc9c3d

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecology

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Novel Weapons: Invasive Success and the Evolution of Increased Competitive Ability (2004, background): “There is evidence for EICA (Daehler and Strong 1997; Willis and Blossey 1999; Siemann and Rogers 2001; 2003a,b; Leger and Rice 2003) and against it (Willis et al. 2000; Vilá et al. 2003; van Kleunen and Schmid 2003; Bossdorf et al. 2004; Maron et al. 2004).”
The advantages and disadvantages of being introduced (2006, background): “First, work with the understorey invasive Alliaria petiolata suggests that introduced species may escape from specialized competitors and be selected for ‘‘evolution of reduced competitive ability’’, ERCA (Bossdorf et al. 2004).”
Ecological Genetics of Plant Invasion: What Do We Know? (2008, result): “…have attempted to test these hypotheses; however, not all results support the claim of greater vigor or competitive ability in the invaded range (see Bossdorf et al. 2004; Goldberg 1996; Thebaud and Simberlofff 2001; Vila et al. 2003, 2005; Williamson and Fitter 1996; and Willis and Blossey 1999).”
Phenotypic and genetic differentiation between native and introduced plant populations (2005, background): “Baker 1974; Brown and Marshall 1981; Bossdorf et al. 2004a; Callaway and Ridenour 2004; Müller-Schärer and Steinger 2004). Genetic differentiation in introduced populations may occur for any trait that is favored under the novel selection conditions given that there is genetic variation for it. For ”
Is rapid evolution common in introduced plant species? (2011, background): “2006), size (Blossey & Notzold 1995; Siemann & Rogers 2001; Bossdorf et al. 2004), vegetative reproduction (Lavergne & Molofsky 2007), *Correspondence author.”
Using invasive species to study evolution. Case studies with Drosophila and salmon (2005, background): “If local adaptation has enhanced competitive ability since the introductions (see Bossdorf et al. 2004), then high-latitude subob-scura should fare better in competition with native high-latitude congeners than should subobscura either from California or from the Mediterranean.”
A unifying framework for biological invasions: the state factor model (2008, background): “…versus introduced s = eight native & six introduced pops in greenhouse (no choice using EU insects: specialist weevil & generalist catepillar) Experimental Bossdorf et al. 2004b s · h Plant fitness (stems, siliques, silique mass, total mass, reproductive allocation) s = 13 native & 16 introduced…”
NO EVIDENCE FOR TRADE‐OFFS: CENTAUREA PLANTS FROM AMERICA ARE BETTER COMPETITORS AND DEFENDERS (2008, background): “Bossdorf et al. (2004) hypothesized that if competition were less in the invaded range and competitive ability involves traits with a fitness cost, then selection might act against competitive ability: the ‘‘evolutionary reduced competitive ability’’ or ERCA hypothesis.”
Plant invasions: merging the concepts of species invasiveness and community invasibility (2006, result): “However, only a few studies provided a full test of the EICA hypothesis by addressing both growth and defence in the same species (Bossdorf et al., 2005).”
Jack of all trades, master of some? On the role of phenotypic plasticity in plant invasions. (2006, background): “There are a number of additional studies that tested for differences in plasticity between native and introduced populations without emphasizing this component of their results (e.g. van Kleunen & Schmid 2003; Leger & Rice 2003; Vila et al. 2003; Blair & Wolfe 2004; Bossdorf et al. 2004a).”
Plant–soil feedback induces shifts in biomass allocation in the invasive plant Chromolaena odorata (2009, background): “This is core to the evolution of reduced competitive ability hypothesis; reduced competitive ability can be beneficial for invasive species that mainly have intraspecific competitive interactions (Bossdorf et al. 2004).”
Cultivar selection prior to introduction may increase invasiveness: evidence from Ardisia crenata (2006, background): “However, many other invasive plants fail to show such ecotypic differences between the native and introduced ranges (Willis et al. 2000; Thebaud and Simberloff 2001; van Kleunen and Schmid 2003; Vila et al. 2003; Bossdorf et al. 2004).”
Warming changes plant competitive hierarchy in a temperate steppe in northern China (2008, background): “In comparison to monocultures, plant interactions in mixtures can exert positive or negative impacts on the growth of some species (Bossdorf et al. 2004; Callaway et al. 2002; Howard and Goldberg 2001; Silletti et al. 2004), which in turn may influence plant community structure and plant responses…”
Rethinking the common garden in invasion research. (2009, background): “Byers and Quinn (1998); Geng et al. (2007). Siemann and Rogers (2001); Siemann and Rogers (2003b); van Kleunen and Schmid (2003); Blair and Wolfe (2004); Buschmann et al.”
Increased competitive ability and herbivory tolerance in the invasive plant Sapium sebiferum (2008, background): “However, interspecific competitors from only one distributional range might give a biased picture ( Bossdorf et al. 2004a, 2005 ).”