School of BioSciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, 3010, Australia.
Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, Heidelberg, Victoria, 3084, Australia.
Ecology. 2021 May;102(5):e03317. doi: 10.1002/ecy.3317. Epub 2021 Apr 20.
Trait-based invasiveness studies typically categorize exotic species as invasive or noninvasive, implicitly assuming species form two homogenous groups. However, species can become invasive in different ways (e.g., high abundance, fast spread), likely relying on different functional traits to do so. As such, binary classification may obscure traits associated with invasiveness. We tested whether (1) the way in which invasiveness is quantified influences its correlation with functional traits and (2) different demography-based metrics are related to different sets of traits. Using a case study of 251 herbs exotic to Victoria, Australia, we quantified species' invasiveness using 10 metrics: four continuous, demography-based dimensions of invasiveness (spread rate, local abundance, geographic and environmental range sizes) and six binary classifications of invasiveness (based on alternative sources and invasion criteria). We examined the correlation between species' invasiveness and a set of four traits known to relate to plant demography and invasion. Then, we examined whether different demographic dimensions of invasiveness were better explained by different sets of traits. We found that the way invasiveness was quantified was important: different traits were linked with different invasiveness metrics, and some traits showed opposite effects across metrics. Species with fast spread were either tall with small seeds (i.e., good colonizers), or had heavy, animal-dispersed seeds. Plants with a large environmental range had greater plasticity for some traits. Locally abundant plants had low SLA and heavy seeds (i.e., strong competitors). Animal dispersal was also key to reach a large geographic range. No traits were consistently related to the six binary classifications. Our results indicate that exotic plants are invasive in different ways and rely on different combinations of traits to be so. Some traits (e.g., seed mass) had complex relationships with invasion: they apparently promote, hampered, or had no influence on different dimensions of invasiveness. Our findings are consistent with the notion that plant species use strategies that may be near optimal under some, but not all, ecological conditions. Compared to binary classifications of invasiveness, the use of invasiveness dimensions advances clearer hypothesis testing in invasion science.
基于性状的入侵性研究通常将外来物种分为入侵种和非入侵种,隐含地假设物种形成两个同质群体。然而,物种可能以不同的方式变得具有入侵性(例如,高丰度、快速传播),可能依赖于不同的功能性状来实现。因此,二元分类可能会掩盖与入侵性相关的性状。我们测试了(1)入侵性的量化方式是否会影响其与功能性状的相关性,以及(2)不同的基于种群的度量是否与不同的性状集相关。使用澳大利亚维多利亚州的 251 种外来草本植物的案例研究,我们使用 10 种度量标准来量化物种的入侵性:4 种基于种群的入侵性连续维度(传播速度、本地丰度、地理和环境范围大小)和 6 种入侵性的二元分类(基于替代来源和入侵标准)。我们检验了物种的入侵性与一组已知与植物种群和入侵有关的四个性状之间的相关性。然后,我们检验了不同的入侵性种群维度是否由不同的性状集更好地解释。我们发现,入侵性的量化方式很重要:不同的性状与不同的入侵性度量标准相关,而一些性状在不同的度量标准下表现出相反的效果。传播速度快的物种要么是高大的,种子小(即良好的殖民者),要么是重的、动物传播的种子。具有大环境范围的植物在某些性状上具有更大的可塑性。本地丰度高的植物具有较低的 SLA 和重的种子(即强竞争者)。动物传播也是达到大地理范围的关键。没有任何性状与 6 种二元分类始终相关。我们的结果表明,外来植物以不同的方式具有入侵性,并且依赖于不同的性状组合来实现入侵性。一些性状(例如,种子质量)与入侵性的关系复杂:它们显然促进、阻碍或对不同的入侵性维度没有影响。我们的发现与植物物种在某些但不是所有生态条件下使用可能接近最优的策略的观点一致。与入侵性的二元分类相比,入侵性维度的使用在入侵科学中推进了更清晰的假设检验。