Biotic interactions drive ecosystem responses to exotic plant invaders

Waller, Lauren P.; Allen, Warwick J.; Barratt, B. I. P.; Condron, L. M.; França, Filipe; Hunt, John E.; Koele, Nina; Orwin, Kate H.; Steel, Georgia; Tylianakis, Jason M.; Wakelin, Steve; Dickie, Ian A.

doi:10.1126/science.aba2225

Cited by 68 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 64 publications

(51 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Aboveground, our findings of greater hare browsing on exotic than native plants and no difference in arthropod herbivore damage both conflict with the enemy release hypothesis, which posits that exotic species are successful because they suffer less damage from enemies relative to native species (Elton, 1958; Keane & Crawley, 2002). However, our results are consistent with evidence suggesting that exotic plants can suffer greater herbivory than natives (Parker, Burkepile, & Hay, 2006; Parker & Hay, 2005; Waller et al., 2020), supporting the biotic resistance hypothesis (Elton, 1958). Interestingly, broom, hares and nine of the eleven exotic plant species were all introduced from Europe to New Zealand, where they also regularly co‐occur, suggesting that coevolutionary history in both their native and introduced ranges could contribute to the stronger direct and indirect impacts that we observed for the exotic than native plant species.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…A meta-analysis by Kuebbing and Nuñez (2016) (Elton, 1958;Keane & Crawley, 2002). However, our results are consistent with evidence suggesting that exotic plants can suffer greater herbivory than natives (Parker, Burkepile, & Hay, 2006;Parker & Hay, 2005;Waller et al, 2020), supporting the biotic resistance hypothesis (Elton, 1958). Interestingly, broom, hares and nine of the eleven exotic plant species were all introduced from Europe to New Zealand,…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Community‐level direct and indirect impacts of an invasive plant favour exotic over native species

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. Indirect interactions mediated by shared enemies or mutualists (i.e. apparent competition) can influence whether invasive plants harm or benefit co-occurring species. However, studies to date have largely examined single pairwise interactions, limiting our understanding of the interplay among different types of interac-Plant species Common name Provenance Carmichaelia appressa Prostrate broom Native Carmichaelia australis Common native broom Native Carmichaelia stevensonii Weeping broom Native Carmichaelia williamsii William's broom Native Clianthus maximus Kākābeak Native Clianthus puniceus Kākābeak Native Sophora longicarinata Limestone kōwhai Native Sophora microphylla Small-leaved kōwhai Native Sophora prostrata Prostrate kōwhai Native Sophora tetraptera Large-leaved kōwhai Native Cytisus proliferus Tree lucerne Exotic Cytisus multiflorus Portuguese broom Exotic Cytisus scoparius Scotch broom Exotic Genista monspessulana Montpellier broom Exotic Lupinus arboreus Tree lupin Exotic Lupinus polyphyllus Russell lupin Exotic Medicago sativa Lucerne Exotic Spartium junceum Spanish broom Exotic Trifolium pratense Red clover Exotic Trifolium repens White clover Exotic Ulex europaeus Gorse Exotic

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Community‐level direct and indirect impacts of an invasive plant favour exotic over native species

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The disruption of soil microbial communities is thought to be a major contributor to the expansion of invasive plants (Callaway, Thelen, Rodriguez & Holben, 2004; Klironomos, 2002; Wolfe & Klironomos, 2005; Waller et al, 2020; Zobel & Öpik, 2014). Although not all invasive species are drivers of ecosystem changes (see Bauer, 2012; MacDougall & Turkington 2005), some can selectively disrupt microbes to gain an advantage over their native competitors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Functional shifts of soil microbial communities associated with Alliaria petiolata invasion

Duchesneau

Antunes

Colautti

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Soil feedback is thought to be an important contributor to the success of invasive plants. Despite evidence that invasive plants change soil microbial diversity, the functional roles of microbes impacted by invasion are still unclear. This knowledge is a critical component of our understanding of ecological mechanisms of plant invasion. Mounting evidence suggests Alliaria petiolata can suppress arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) to disrupt native plant communities in controlled laboratory and greenhouse experiments, though it is less clear if allelochemicals persist under natural field conditions. Alternatively, invasive plants may accumulate pathogens that are more harmful to competitors as predicted by the Enemy of my Enemy Hypothesis (EEH). We examined changes in functional groups of soil bacteria and fungi associated with ten naturally occurring populations of A. petiolata using amplicon sequences (16S and ITS rRNA). To relate soil microbial communities to impacts on co-occurring plants, we measured root infections and AMF colonization. We found no changes in the diversity and abundance of AMF in plants co-occurring with A. petiolata, suggesting that mycorrhizal suppression in the field may not be as critical to the invasion of A. petiolata as implied by more controlled experiments. Instead, we found changes in pathogen community composition and marginal evidence of increase in root lesions of plants growing with A. petiolata, lending support to the EEH. In addition to these impacts on plant health, changes in ectomycorrhiza, and other nutrient cycling microbes may be important forces underlying the invasion of A. petiolata and its impact on ecosystem function.

show abstract

“…In fact, at nutrient-poor sites, the higher Gram + /Gram − bacteria ratio in coniferous and mixed forests suggests lower supply of labile carbon than in beech forests (Fanin et al, 2019). Labile carbon compounds have been suggested to favor Gram − bacteria, whereas Gram + bacteria better cope with recalcitrant carbon resources (Kramer and Gleixner, 2008; Fanin et al, 2019; Waller et al, 2020). Among the forest types studied, Douglas-fir forests were particularly limited by labile carbon as further supported by its lower microbial specific respiration, which was largely due to lower microbial basal respiration compared to beech stands (Anderson and Domsch, 2010).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These resources are likely to shape the community structure of soil microorganisms as dissimilar carbon resources favor different guilds of microorganisms (Ekblad and Nordgren, 2002; Fierer et al, 2003; Fanin et al, 2019). For example, Gram − bacteria are benefiting in particular from labile carbon compounds, whereas Gram + bacteria are adapted to use more recalcitrant carbon resources (Fierer et al, 2003; Fanin et al, 2019; Waller et al, 2020). Similarly, niches vary between fungal groups.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Response of soil microbial communities to mixed forests of European beech and conifers: Variations with site conditions

Scheu

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coniferous and deciduous trees growing in pure and mixed forests are likely to supply different resources to soil microorganisms thereby shaping microbial communities. However, effects of forest type on microorganisms and their variations with site conditions remain poorly studied. We investigated microbial basal respiration, microbial biomass (substrate-induced respiration method) and phospholipid-derived fatty acids (PLFAs) in the litter and soil at four nutrient-rich and four nutrient-poor sites in Lower Saxony, Germany. At each site, pure stands of European beech (Fagus sylvatica), Norway spruce (Picea abies) and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), as well as mixed species stands of beech and spruce, and beech and Douglas-fir were investigated, i.e. a total of 40 forest stands. Forest type only affected soil microorganisms at nutrient-poor sites, but not at nutrient-rich sites. In coniferous and mixed forests at nutrient-poor sites, basal respiration and microbial biomass was lower and stress indicators were higher than in beech forests. Compared to beech, microbial biomass (−59%) and stress indicators (+46 – +87%) in Douglas-fir forests were particularly affected both in litter and in soil at nutrient-poor sites. The results suggest that higher resources in beech forests beneficially affect microorganisms in litter and soil at nutrient-poor sites, whereas Douglas-fir forests are characterized by low resources as indicated by low microbial specific respiration and fungal PLFA. The results indicate that in particular at nutrient-poor sites long-term effects of planting non-native tree species such as Douglas-fir on ecosystem functioning need further attention before planting pure or mixed forests of Douglas-fir with beech at large spatial scale. By contrast, from the perspective of microbial communities and their functioning planting Douglas-fir at nutrient-rich sites appear of little concern. Overall, the results highlight the importance of resources in determining microbial community structure and functioning, and document the sensitivity of soil microorganisms to planting non-native tree species differing in the provisioning of these resources from native species.

show abstract

Biotic interactions drive ecosystem responses to exotic plant invaders

Cited by 68 publications

References 64 publications

Community‐level direct and indirect impacts of an invasive plant favour exotic over native species

Community‐level direct and indirect impacts of an invasive plant favour exotic over native species

Functional shifts of soil microbial communities associated with Alliaria petiolata invasion

Response of soil microbial communities to mixed forests of European beech and conifers: Variations with site conditions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About