NO EVIDENCE FOR AN EVOLUTIONARY INCREASED COMPETITIVE ABILITY IN AN INVASIVE PLANT

By M. van Kleunen, Barbara C. Schmid. 2003

143 citations recorded by the source corpus.

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

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c2ddbc2178c59fdc489b6fcb1b4a5be12f177336

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

Germination responses of an invasive species in native and non-native ranges (2009, background): “In fact, in reviewing the subject, Bossdorf and colleagues (2005) report only one case where such attempts were conducted (van Kleunen and Schmid 2003); since then, we have found only one additional example (Lavergne and Molofsky 2007).”
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).”
Is invasion success explained by the enemy release hypothesis (2004, background): “However, the generality of the latter ‘evolution 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd/CNRS of increased competitive ability’ (EICA; sensu Blossey & Nötzold 1995) has received conflicting support (Willis et al. 2000; van Kleunen & Schmid 2003 but see Leger & Rice 2003; Siemann & Rogers 2003a).”
Phenotypic and genetic differentiation between native and introduced plant populations (2005, background): “Except for van Kleunen and Schmid ( 2003 ) , none of the studies in Tables 3 and 4 controlled for such effects by pre - cultivating plants for one or several generations before the comparisons were made .”
Understanding the long-term effects of species invasions. (2006, background): “[ 18 ]), but it appears to be important in some species (e.g.”
Ecological and Evolutionary Consequences of Biological Invasion and Habitat Fragmentation (2005, background): “…in ranges with low incidence of a specialist grasshopper common to the native environment (Daehler and Strong 1997; Garcia-Rossi and others 2003) and for introduced Sapium populations in North America (Siemann and Rogers 2003) but not for introduced Solidago (Van Kleunen and Schmid 2003).”
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).”
Comparing Invasive Plants from Their Native and Exotic Range: What Can We Learn for Biological Control?1 (2004, background): “The authors concluded that introduction of biological control agents that reduce the reproductive output in combination with management practices, which increase interspecific plant competition, thereby reducing seedling establishment rates, might be the most effective control approach (Grigulis et ”
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).”
Do allelopathic compounds in invasive Solidago canadensis s.l. restrain the native European flora? (2008, background): “…range in Europe have smaller inflorescences, tend to have fewer vegetative offspring and do not grow as tall as plants from the native North American range (van Kleunen & Schmid 2003) where stem density is a key mechanism to limit colonization dynamics of competing plant species (Crutsinger et al .”
The advantages and disadvantages of being introduced (2006, background): “However, not all studies have found evidence for the EICA hypothesis (e.g., Van Kleunen and Schmid 2003) nor even that introduced species do tend to outcompete natives (Vilà and Weiner 2004).”
Rethinking the common garden in invasion research. (2009, background): “However, experimental tests of this hypothesis have shown a broad range of results, ranging from complete agreement (Garden D in Fig. 2B; e.g., Blossey and No ¨tzold, 1995; Siemann and Rogers, 2001; Wolfe et al., 2004), to equivocal results (Gardens B and C in Fig. 2B; e.g., Willis et al., 2000; va”
Pathogen accumulation and long‐term dynamics of plant invasions (2013, background): “…and escape their natural enemies, they may evolve greater competitive ability at the expense of reduced defences and become more susceptible to generalist pathogens (Evolution of Increased Competitive Ability (EICA); Blossey & Notzold 1995; but see van Kleunen & Schmid 2003; Gurevitch et al. 2011).”
Plant–soil feedback induces shifts in biomass allocation in the invasive plant Chromolaena odorata (2009, background): “Tests of the EICA hypothesis have yielded mixed results (Siemann & Rogers 2003; Van Kleunen & Schmid 2003; Bossdorf et al. 2005), and the majority of studies have focused only on plant size and fecundity as a proxy for competitive ability and fitness (Willis, Memmott & Forrester 2000; Siemann &…”