Earth to Oceans Research Group, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, V5A 1S6, Canada.
Ecology. 2019 Feb;100(2):e02573. doi: 10.1002/ecy.2573. Epub 2019 Jan 4.
The diversity-invasibility hypothesis and ecological theory predict that high-diversity communities should be less easily invaded than species-poor communities, but empirical evidence does not consistently support this prediction. While fine-scale experiments tend to yield the predicted negative association between diversity and invasibility, broad-scale observational surveys generally report a positive correlation. This conflicting pattern between experiments and observational studies is referred to as the invasion paradox and is thought to arise because different processes control species composition at different spatial scales. Here, we test empirically the extent to which the strength and direction of published diversity-invasibility relationships depend on spatial scale and on the metrics used to measure invasibility. Using a meta-analytic framework, we explicitly separate the two components of spatial scale: grain and extent, by focusing on fine-grain studies that vary in extent. We find evidence of multiple drivers of the paradox. When we consider only fine-grain studies, we still observe conflicting patterns between experiments and observational studies. In contrast, when we examine studies that are conducted at both a fine grain and fine extent, there is broad overlap in effect sizes between experiments and observation, suggesting that comparing studies with similar extents resolves the paradox at local scales. However, we uncover systematic differences in the metrics used to measure invasibility between experiments, which use predominantly invader performance, and observational studies, which use mainly invader richness. When we consider studies with the same metric (i.e., invader performance), the contrasting associations between study types also disappear. It is not possible, at present, to fully disentangle the effect of spatial extent and metric on the paradox because both variables are systematically associated in different directions with study type. There is therefore an urgent need to conduct experiments and observational studies that incorporate the full range of variability in spatial extent and invasibility metric.
多样性入侵假说和生态理论预测,高多样性的群落应该比物种贫乏的群落更不容易被入侵,但实证证据并不一致支持这一预测。虽然微观尺度的实验往往会产生多样性与入侵性之间负相关的预测结果,但宏观尺度的观测调查通常报告出正相关。这种实验和观测研究之间的冲突模式被称为入侵悖论,被认为是由于不同的过程在不同的空间尺度上控制着物种组成。在这里,我们通过实证检验来确定已发表的多样性入侵关系的强度和方向在多大程度上取决于空间尺度以及用于测量入侵性的度量标准。我们使用元分析框架,通过关注在范围上变化的细粒度研究,明确分离空间尺度的两个组成部分:粒度和范围。我们发现了悖论的多种驱动因素的证据。当我们只考虑细粒度的研究时,我们仍然观察到实验和观测研究之间存在相互矛盾的模式。相比之下,当我们研究在细粒度和细范围上进行的研究时,实验和观测之间的效应大小有广泛的重叠,这表明在本地尺度上比较具有相似范围的研究可以解决悖论。然而,我们发现实验和观测研究在用于测量入侵性的度量标准上存在系统性差异,实验主要使用入侵者的表现,而观测研究主要使用入侵者的丰富度。当我们考虑使用相同度量标准(即入侵者表现)的研究时,研究类型之间的对比关联也消失了。目前,由于空间范围和度量标准这两个变量都以不同的方向与研究类型系统地相关联,因此无法完全厘清它们对悖论的影响。因此,迫切需要进行实验和观测研究,纳入空间范围和入侵性度量标准的全部变化。