What makes a species invasive?
Download
1 / 54

What makes a species invasive? - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 207 Views
  • Updated On :

What makes a species invasive?. Required readings: Strauss, S., C. Webb, and N. Salamin. 2006. Exotic taxa less related to native species are more invasive. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 103 :5841-5845.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'What makes a species invasive?' - kamin


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Slide1 l.jpg

What makes a species invasive?

Required readings:

Strauss, S., C. Webb, and N. Salamin. 2006. Exotic taxa less related to native species are more invasive. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 103:5841-5845.

Alpert, P. 2006. The advantages and disadvantages of being introduced. Biological Invasions 8:1523-1534.

Cappuccino, N. and J. T. Arnason. 2006. Novel chemistry of invasive exotic plants. Biology Letters 2:189-193.

(Handout) Callaway, R. and E. Aschehoug. 2000. Invasive plants versus their new and old neighbors: a mechanism for exotic invasion. Science 290:521-523.


Slide2 l.jpg

Is it characteristics of the species or characteristics of the environment?


Slide3 l.jpg

  • Species characteristics: Plant Life History Traits (Chapter 3 of NRC 2002)

  • Reproductive system

  • Dioecious (male & female flowers on separate plants) vs. Monoecious (on same plant)


Slide4 l.jpg

  • Species characteristics: Plant Life History Traits (Chapter 3 of NRC 2002)

  • Reproductive system

  • Dioecious vs. Monoecious

  • Self-incompatible pollen vs. Self-compatible pollen


Slide5 l.jpg

  • Species characteristics: Plant Life History Traits (Chapter 3 of NRC 2002)

  • Reproductive system

  • Dioecious vs. Monoecious

  • Self-incompatible pollen vs. Self-compatible pollen

  • Some type of asexual reproduction

    • Apomixis – produce viable seed without fertilization

    • Vegetative reproduction – regenerate from stem or root fragments

    • Clonal propagation – new individuals produced through rhizomes


Slide6 l.jpg

  • Species characteristics: Plant Life History Traits (Chapter 3 of NRC 2002)

  • Reproductive system (tend to be: self-compatible monoecious w/ asexual reproduction)

  • Flowering & fruiting periods

  • Short vs. Long flowering period


Slide7 l.jpg

  • Species characteristics: Plant Life History Traits (Chapter 3 of NRC 2002)

  • Reproductive system (tend to be: self-compatible monoecious w/ asexual reproduction)

  • Flowering & fruiting periods

  • Short vs. Long flowering period

  • Short vs. Long fruiting period


Slide8 l.jpg

  • Species characteristics: Plant Life History Traits (Chapter 3 of NRC 2002)

  • Reproductive system (tend to be: self-compatible & monoecious w/ asexual reproduction)

  • Flowering & fruiting periods (tend to be: long)

  • Juvenile period

  • Short vs. long


Slide9 l.jpg

  • Species characteristics: Plant Life History Traits (Chapter 3 of NRC 2002)

  • Reproductive system (tend to be: self-compatible & monoecious w/ asexual reproduction)

  • Flowering & fruiting periods (tend to be: long)

  • Juvenile period (tend to be: short)

  • Seed production

  • Low vs. high


Slide10 l.jpg

  • Species characteristics: Plant Life History Traits (Chapter 3 of NRC 2002)

  • Reproductive system (tend to be: self-compatible & monoecious w/ asexual reproduction)

  • Flowering & fruiting periods (tend to be: long)

  • Juvenile period (tend to be: short)

  • Seed production (tend to be: high)

  • Germination cues

  • Present vs. Absent


Slide11 l.jpg

  • Species characteristics: Plant Life History Traits (Chapter 3 of NRC 2002)

  • Reproductive system (tend to be: self-compatible & monoecious w/ asexual reproduction)

  • Flowering & fruiting periods (tend to be: long)

  • Juvenile period (tend to be: short)

  • Seed production (tend to be: high)

  • Germination cues (tend to be: present)

  • Light requirements

  • Low vs. High ability to capture and efficiently use


Slide12 l.jpg

  • Species characteristics: Plant Life History Traits (Chapter 3 of NRC 2002)

  • Reproductive system (tend to be: self-compatible & monoecious w/ asexual reproduction)

  • Flowering & fruiting periods (tend to be: long)

  • Juvenile period (tend to be: short)

  • Seed production (tend to be: high)

  • Germination cues (tend to be: present)

  • Light requirements

  • Low vs. High ability to capture and efficiently use

  • High phenotypic plasticity for light & other resources

  • High competitive ability for light & other resources


Slide13 l.jpg

  • Species characteristics: Plant Life History Traits (Chapter 3 of NRC 2002)

  • Reproductive system (tend to be: self-compatible & monoecious w/ asexual reproduction)

  • Flowering & fruiting periods (tend to be: long)

  • Juvenile period (tend to be: short)

  • Seed production (tend to be: high)

  • Germination cues (tend to be: present)

  • Light requirements (tend to be: highly efficient, plastic, & competitive)


Slide14 l.jpg

X

SUMMARY: Is it characteristics of the species or characteristics of the environment?


Slide15 l.jpg

  • Australian WRA (Weed Risk Assessment) model (Pheloung et al 1999)

  • Uses 49 questions based on main attributes and impacts of weeds

  • Answers are combined into a ‘weediness risk’ score

  • Questions are based on

    • history/biogeography (domestication, climate and distribution, weediness elsewhere)

    • biology/ecology (undesirable traits, type of plant, reproduction, dispersal, persistence)

  • History and origin give more information but still aren’t the whole story.


Slide16 l.jpg

“Niche” concept first developed by Grannell in 1917. Found that could differentiate species of thrushes on the basis of a resource (in his case, microhabitats)


Slide17 l.jpg

  • Fundamental niche formalized by Hutchinson in 1957.

    • = theoretical limits of existence for a species along n resource axes


Slide18 l.jpg

  • Fundamental niche formalized by Hutchinson in 1957.

    • = theoretical limits of existence for a species along n resource axes

  • Realized niche = actual limits of existence for a species


Slide19 l.jpg

Fundamental niche – Species A

Success

Resource axis #1


Slide20 l.jpg

Fundamental niche – Species A

Success

Success

Resource axis #1

Resource axis #2


Slide21 l.jpg

Fundamental niche – Species A

Resource axis #2

Resource axis #1


Slide22 l.jpg

Fundamental niche – Species A

Resource axis #2

Resource axis #1


Slide23 l.jpg

Fundamental niche – Species A, Species B

Resource axis #2

Resource axis #1


Slide24 l.jpg

Fundamental niche – Species A, Species B

Resource axis #2

Resource axis #1


Slide25 l.jpg

Fundamental niche – Species A, Species B

Resource axis #2

Resource axis #1


Slide26 l.jpg

Realized niche – Species A, Species B

Resource axis #2

Resource axis #1


Slide27 l.jpg

Realized niche – Species A, Species B

Fundamental niche: Invader – Species C

Resource axis #2

Resource axis #1


Slide28 l.jpg

Realized niche – Species A, Species B

Fundamental niche: Invader – Species C

Resource axis #2

Resource axis #1

  • What makes a species invasive?

    • a) Vacant Niche Hypothesis


Slide29 l.jpg

New realized niche – Species A, Species B

Realized niche: Invader – Species C

Resource axis #2

Resource axis #1


Slide30 l.jpg

Realized niche – Species A, Species B

Realized niche: Invader – Species C

Fundamental niche: Invader –Species D

Resource axis #2

Resource axis #1


Slide31 l.jpg

Realized niche – Species A, Species B

Realized niche: Invader – Species C

Fundamental niche: Invader –Species D

Resource axis #2

Resource axis #1


Slide32 l.jpg

New realized niche – Species A, Species B

Realized niche: Invader – Species C

Realized niche: Invader –Species D

Resource axis #2

Resource axis #1


Slide33 l.jpg

  • SUMMARY:Vacant niches

  • May have some utility for tropical oceanic islands

  • BUT

  • Many potential invaders lack pollinators, symbionts, etc.

  • Actual demonstration of “vacant” niche is nearly impossible


Slide34 l.jpg

But don’t discard it yet!

1. Darwin (1849): ‘novel’ genera should naturalize more easily

2. Natural enemies should shift on to more similar new species more easily (enemy escape hypothesis)

3. New life forms can be very successful (annual grasses in NV)

So – species DIFFERENT from those in an ecosystem should be more successful invaders.

Strauss et al. 2006. ‘Exotic taxa less related to native species are more invasive’. PNAS 103:5841-5845.


Slide35 l.jpg

Allelopathy = one plant releases chemicals that are toxic to another


Slide36 l.jpg

  • Allelopathy = one plant releases chemicals that are toxic to another

  • In natural environment, invader releases allelochemicals:

    • But the other members of the plant community have evolved with the invader

    • Thus other plants are relatively immune to the allelochemicals


Slide37 l.jpg

  • Allelopathy = one plant releases chemicals that are toxic to another

  • In natural environment, invader releases allelochemicals:

    • But the other members of the plant community have evolved with the invader

    • Thus other plants are relatively immune to the allelochemicals

  • In new invaded environment, invader releases allelochemicals:

    • Now the allelochemicals are novel to the other members of the plant community

    • Thus other plants are susceptible to damage by the allelochemicals


Slide38 l.jpg

  • Experimental design:

  • North American invader: Diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa)

  • 3 grass species from new C. diffusa habitat in Montana

  • 3 grass species of same or closely-related genera from C. diffusa native habitat in Caucasus


Slide39 l.jpg

  • Experimental design:

  • North American invader: Diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa)

  • 3 grass species from new C. diffusa habitat in Montana

  • 3 grass species of same or closely-related genera from C. diffusa native habitat in Caucasus

  • Expectations:

  • (1) Caucasus grasses do better than Montana grasses when grown with C. diffusa


Slide40 l.jpg

  • Experimental design:

  • North American invader: Diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa)

  • 3 grass species from new C. diffusa habitat in Montana

  • 3 grass species of same or closely-related genera from C. diffusa native habitat in Caucasus

  • Expectations:

  • (1) Caucasus grasses do better than Montana grasses when grown with C. diffusa

  • (2) C. diffusa does better when grown with Montana grasses then when it is grown with Caucasus grasses


Slide41 l.jpg

Expectations:

(1) Caucasus grasses do better than Montana grasses when grown with C. diffusa

(1)


Slide42 l.jpg

  • Expectations:

  • Caucasus grasses do better than Montana grasses when grown with C. diffusa

    • Yes (bigger drops with Montana)

(1)


Slide43 l.jpg

Expectations:

(2) C. diffusa does better when grown with Montana grasses then when it is grown with Caucasus grasses

(2)


Slide44 l.jpg

  • Expectations:

  • (2) C. diffusa does better when grown with Montana grasses then when it is grown with Caucasus grasses

    • Yes (bigger drops with Caucasus)

(2)


Slide45 l.jpg

  • Experimental design:

  • North American invader: Diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa)

  • 3 grass species from new C. diffusa habitat in Montana

  • 3 grass species of same or closely-related genera from C. diffusa native habitat in Caucasus

  • Grew plants with and without activated charcoal

  • Expectations:

  • (1) Caucasus grasses do better than Montana grasses when grown with C. diffusa

  • (2) C. diffusa does better when grown with Montana grasses then when it is grown with Caucasus grasses

  • (3) Activated charcoal reduces the negative effects on Montana grasses but has little effect on Caucasus grasses


Slide46 l.jpg

Expectations:

(3) Activated charcoal reduces the negative effects on Montana grasses but has little effect on Caucasus grasses

(1)

(3)


Slide47 l.jpg

  • Expectations:

  • (3) Activated charcoal reduces the negative effects on Montana grasses but has little effect on Caucasus grasses

    • Montana recover as predicted. Continued decline for Caucasus unexpected

(1)

(3)


Slide48 l.jpg

  • Expectations:

  • (3) Activated charcoal reduces the negative effects on Montana grasses but has little effect on Caucasus grasses

    • Montana recover as predicted. Continued decline for Caucasus unexpected, but may be due to better performance of C. diffusa.

(3)

(1)

(3)

(2)


Slide49 l.jpg

  • Experimental design:

  • North American invader: Diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa)

  • 3 grass species from new C. diffusa habitat in Montana

  • 3 grass species of same or closely-related genera from C. diffusa native habitat in Caucasus

  • Grew plants with and without activated charcoal

  • Measured competition for P

  • Expectations:

  • (1) Caucasus grasses do better than Montana grasses when grown with C. diffusa

  • (2) C. diffusa does better when grown with Montana grasses then when it is grown with Caucasus grasses

  • (3) Activated charcoal reduces the negative effects on Montana grasses but has little effect on Caucasus grasses

  • (4) Activated charcoal reduced P uptake by C. diffusa when grown with Montana grasses, but increased P uptake by C. diffusa when grown with Caucasus grasses


Slide50 l.jpg

  • Allelopathy Hypothesis

  • Strong support from Callaway & Aschehoug (2000):

    • C. diffusa releases chemicals that are NOT toxic to species in native Caucasus habitat, but chemicals are toxic to species in new Montana habitat


Slide51 l.jpg

  • Allelopathy Hypothesis

  • Strong support from Callaway & Aschehoug (2000):

    • C. diffusa releases chemicals that are NOT toxic to species in native Caucasus habitat, but chemicals are toxic to species in new Montana habitat

  • Bais et al. (2003) Science 301:1377-1380

    • Identified the specific allelochemical: (–)-catechin

    • (A) Higher concentration in C. diffusa soils


Slide52 l.jpg

  • Allelopathy Hypothesis

  • Strong support from Callaway & Aschehoug (2000):

    • C. diffusa releases chemicals that are NOT toxic to species in native Caucasus habitat, but chemicals are toxic to species in new Montana habitat

  • Bais et al. (2003) Science 301:1377-1380

    • Identified the specific allelochemical: (–)-catechin

    • Higher concentration in C. diffusa soils

    • Inhibit germination of Montana grasses


Slide53 l.jpg

  • Allelopathy Hypothesis

  • Strong support from Callaway & Aschehoug (2000):

    • C. diffusa releases chemicals that are NOT toxic to species in native Caucasus habitat, but chemicals are toxic to species in new Montana habitat

  • Bais et al. (2003) Science 301:1377-1380

    • Identified the specific allelochemical: (–)-catechin

    • Higher concentration in C. diffusa soils

    • Inhibit germination of Montana grasses

    • Inhibit growth of Montana grasses


Slide54 l.jpg

  • SUMMARY:Allelopathy Hypothesis

  • Excellent support for C. diffusa

  • BUT

  • How many other species?

  • Evidence for novel secondary chemicals in invasive VS non-invasive plants: (Cappuccino and Arnason 2006)

  • Chemicals related to allelopathy and pathogen and herbivore resistance