Biotic interactions and plant invasions.

By Charles E Mitchell, A. Agrawal, James D. Bever, Gregory S. Gilbert, R. Hufbauer, J. Klironomos, J. Maron, W. Morris, I. Parker, A. Power and 3 more. Ecology Letters, 2006

805 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Introduced plant populations lose interactions with enemies, mutualists and competitors from their native ranges, and gain interactions with new species, under new abiotic conditions. From a biogeographical perspective, differences in the assemblage of interacting species, as well as in abiotic conditions, may explain the demographic success of the introduced plant populations relative to conspecifics in their native range. Within invaded communities, the new interactions and conditions experienced by the invader may influence both its demographic success and its effects on native biodiversity. Here, we examine indirect effects involving enemies, mutualists and competitors of introduced plants, and effects of abiotic conditions on biotic interactions. We then synthesize ideas building on Darwin's idea that the kinds of new interactions gained by an introduced population will depend on its relatedness to native populations. This yields a heuristic framework to explain how biotic interactions and abiotic conditions influence invader success. We conclude that species introductions generally alter plants' interactions with enemies, mutualists and competitors, and that there is increasing evidence that these altered interactions jointly influence the success of introduced populations.

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

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/aed0ee5bc5d2ab547f7f99c02ea0fb5c2fe69250

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 Nature and Landscape Conservation

In Plant Science

Citations in the corpus

Identifying the most noxious invasive plants in China: role of geographical origin, life form and means of introduction (2009, background): “Less relatedness may translate into strong competitive ability through novel biotic interactions (Callaway and Ridenour 2004; Mitchell et al. 2006).”
Evidence of climatic niche shift during biological invasion. (2007, background): “…from biotic and abiotic constraints, such as the absence of competitors, predators or pathogens (Mitchell & Power 2003; Torchin et al. 2003; Callaway & Maron 2006; Mitchell et al. 2006) or the availability of empty niches (Hierro et al. 2005) may lead to a niche shift in the introduced range.”
Allelopathy and plant invasions: traditional, congeneric, and bio-geographical approaches (2008, background): “The challenge is to understand the multiple causes for the success of invasive organisms (Inderjit et al. 2005; Mitchell et al. 2006), and the potential role of novel chemicals produced by these species in the context of other ecosystem processes.”
Facilitation in plant communities: the past, the present, and the future (2007, background): “…most studies have focused on negative interactions as the main drivers of invasive success (e.g. Callaway & Aschehoug 2000; Colautti et al. 2004; Mitchell et al. 2006), a sizable number have also reported that facilitation by other exotics (Simberloff & Von Holle 1999) or by natives (Maron &…”
Effects of biological invasions on forest carbon sequestration (2010, background): “…set of functional traits that include relatively rapid growth and high foliar nutrient contents as well as the absence of enemies or pathogens from their home range (Sutherland, 2004; Mitchell et al., 2006; Vile et al., 2006; Leishman et al., 2007; Blumenthal et al., 2009; Peltzer et al., 2009).”
Pandora's Box Contained Bait : The Global Problem of Introduced Earthworms (2008, background): “What role do biotic interactions play in establishment (Mitchell et al. 2006)?”
Selection of preadapted populations allowed Senecio inaequidens to invade Central Europe (2008, background): “Our study indicates that tolerance may be an important defence mechanism against both specialist and generalist herbivores, and that the role of tolerance needs to be examined more thoroughly in the context of biological invasions (Müller-Schärer et al., 2004; Joshi & Vrieling, 2005; Mitchell et al.”
Experimental evidence for indirect facilitation among invasive plants (2014, background): “Facilitation among invasive species has received increasing attention as a mechanism for invasions (Simberloff & Von Holle 1999; Mitchell et al. 2006), but there have been few experimental demonstrations (Simberloff 2006).”
The role of eco-evolutionary experience in invasion success (2013, positive): “Our focus, on the contrary, lies on elucidating the role that evolutionary antecedents may play for invasion success (see e.g. Cox and Lima 2006, Kondoh 2006, Mitchell et al. 2006, Sih et al. 2010, Thuiller et al. 2010).”
Resolving Darwin’s naturalization conundrum: a quest for evidence (2010, background): “At small spatial scales, invaders very similar to native species are less likely to coexist with native species because of competitive exclusion (Gause, 1934; Chesson, 2000) and/or clustering of common enemies such as herbivores and pathogens (Levine et al., 2004; Mitchell et al., 2006).”
A unifying framework for biological invasions: the state factor model (2008, background): “Mitchell et al. (2006) attempt to integrate all biotic-related features of the invasion process into a single working hypothesis, but important aspects of invasion success—abiotic factors, propagule pressure, and time—were not considered.”
Searching for phylogenetic pattern in biological invasions (2007, background): “herbivores in the case of plants (Mack, 1996; Mitchell et al. , 2006 ).”
Natives adapting to invasive species: ecology, genes, and the sustainability of conservation (2007, background): “Other cases will often involve more complex, community-level interactions, including the presence of many indirect, ramifying interactions (sensu Mitchell et al. 2006).”