Diverse effects of invasive ecosystem engineers on marine biodiversity and ecosystem functions: A global review and meta‐analysis

Guy‐Haim, Tamar; Lyons, Devin A.; Kotta, Jonne; Ojaveer, Henn; Queirós, Ana M.; Chatzinikolaou, Eva; Arvanitidis, Christos; Como, Serena; Magni, Paolo; Blight, Andrew J.; Orav‐Kotta, Helen; Somerfield, Paul J.; Crowe, Tasman P.; Rilov, Gil

doi:10.1111/gcb.14007

Cited by 98 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 81 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moore, ; Polvi & Sarneel, ); or invasive ecosystem engineers in marine systems (e.g. Guy‐Haim et al, ; Katsanevakis et al, ). However, there has yet to be a synthesis of invasive ecosystem engineers in freshwaters.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impacts of invasive ecosystem engineers in freshwaters: A review

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Invasive species are a key stressor in freshwater ecosystems. When these species are also ecosystem engineers, their impacts are exacerbated because they modulate resource availability for a wide range of other species. The aim of this review is to synthesise existing knowledge of the impacts of invasive ecosystem engineers in freshwaters and identify knowledge gaps requiring further research. The four questions explored in this review are: (1) What are the trends in research into invasive ecosystem engineers? (2) What are common negative effects of invasive ecosystem engineers in freshwater? (3) Do all impacts of invasive ecosystem engineers have negative consequences for biodiversity? (4) What happens when multiple ecosystem engineers interact? Four literature searches in Web of Science have been used to identify articles for the review and to estimate relative research effort between terrestrial, marine and freshwater ecosystems. The number of research articles focusing on ecosystem engineers across all ecosystem types is increasing. Despite well‐known examples of ecosystem engineer species in freshwaters (e.g. beaver), more research has focussed on terrestrial environments and invasive species. The effects of invasive ecosystem engineers in freshwater systems are varied and often context dependent. Their effects on biodiversity or native ecosystem engineers are often shown to be negative; however, not all effects associated with these species are deleterious to native species. For instance, some invasive ecosystem engineers support native species through the provision of food or refuges. Although freshwater ecosystems are often influenced by multiple species of ecosystem engineers (including native, invasive or both), little is known about interactions between these species or the combined effects of multiple ecosystem engineers. More research is also needed that relates the results of laboratory experiments to the field and develops methods for measuring factors that govern the impact of engineers on ecosystems. Understanding the spatial variability of the impacts of invasive ecosystem engineers as well as their interaction with anthropogenic stressors (e.g. hydrologic modification) is also necessary. The lag in research surrounding invasive ecosystem engineers in freshwater compared to other biomes is concerning, as freshwater ecosystems support biodiversity disproportionate to the area they occupy. Creating predictive models of the impacts of freshwater ecosystem engineers would help anticipate the effects of invasive ecosystem engineers in freshwater and add to the broader understanding of their effects in other biomes.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impacts of invasive ecosystem engineers in freshwaters: A review

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, the relative contribution of negative and positive effects is dependent on the context in which the ecosystem engineer is introduced (Guy‐Haim et al. ). For example, in southeastern Appalachian forests, the invasion of herbaceous understory communities by Japanese stilt grass ( Microstegium vinineum ) has mixed effects on some native community members.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mixed effects of an introduced ecosystem engineer on the foraging behavior and habitat selection of predators

Haram

Kinney

Sotka

et al. 2018

Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Invasive ecosystem engineers both positively and negatively affect their recipient ecosystems by generating novel habitats. Many studies have focused on alterations to ecosystem properties and to native species diversity and abundance caused by invasive engineers. However, relatively few studies have documented the extent to which behaviors of native species are affected. The red seaweed Gracilaria vermiculophylla (Rhodophyta) invaded estuaries of the southeastern United States within the last few decades and now provides abundant aboveground vegetative cover on intertidal mudflats that were historically devoid of seaweeds. We hypothesized that G. vermiculophylla would affect the foraging behavior of native shorebirds positively for birds that target seaweed‐associated invertebrates or negatively for birds that target prey on or within the sediment now covered with seaweed. Visual surveys of mudflats >1 ha in size revealed that more shorebirds occurred on mudflats with G. vermiculophylla relative to mudflats without G. vermiculophylla. This increased density was consistent across 7 of 8 species, with the one exception being the semipalmated plover Charadrius semipalmatus. A regression‐based analysis indicated that while algal presence predicted shorebird density, densities of some bird species depended on sediment composition and infaunal invertebrate densities. At smaller spatial scales (200 m2 and <1 m2), experimental removals and additions of G. vermiculophylla and focal observations showed strong variation in behavioral response to G. vermiculophylla among bird species. Birds preferentially foraged in bare mud (e.g., C. semipalmatus), in G. vermiculophylla (e.g., Arenaria interpres), or displayed no preference for either habitat (e.g., Tringa semipalmata). Thus, while the presence of the invasive ecosystem engineer on a mudflat appeared to attract greater numbers of these predators, shorebird species differed in their behavioral responses at the smaller spatial scales that affect their foraging. Our research illuminates the need to account for species identity, individual behavior, and scale when predicting the impacts of invasive species on native communities.

show abstract

“…In this respect, meta-analyses employing quantitative methods are conceivably more objective than review articles, because they should be less susceptible to preconceived notions. Although some meta-analyses concluded that the impacts of NIS are stronger and/ or more detrimental than those of indigenous species (Ferlian et al, 2018;Paolucci, MacIsaac, & Ricciardi, 2013;Salo, Korpimaki, Banks, Nordstrom, & Dickman, 2007;Simberloff, Souza, Nuñez, Barrios-Garcia, & Bunn, 2012;van Hengstum, Hooftman, Oostermeijer, Tienderen, & Mack, 2014;Vilá et al, 2011;Wood et al, 2017;Yoon & Read, 2016), many suggested positive influences and/or that the purported negative effects of NIS are not supported by evidence (Charlebois, Sargent, & Maherali, 2017;Gurevitch & Padilla, 2004;Norkko et al, 2011;Pintor, Byers, & Anderson, 2015;Radville, Gonda-King, Gómez, Kaplan, & Preisser Evan, 2014;Reise, Olenin, & Thieltges, 2006), and most found variable and context-dependent impacts (Cameron, Vilà, Cabeza, & Sykes, 2016;Guy-Haim et al, 2018;Higgins & Vander Zanden, 2010;Howard, Therriault, & Côté, 2017;Martin, Newton, & Bullock, 2017;Nelson et al, 2017;Potgieter et al, 2017;Pysek et al, 2008;Qiu, 2015;Thomsen et al, 2014;Twardochleb, Olden, & Larson, 2013;Vaz et al, 2018;Ward & Ricciardi, 2007), thus hindering broad generalizations.…”

Section: Interpre Ting and Recon Ciling D Iss Entmentioning

confidence: 99%

Invasive species denialism: Sorting out facts, beliefs, and definitions

Boltovskoy

Sylvester

Paolucci

2018

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the last decades, thousands of investigations confirmed the detrimental effects of species translocated by man outside of their native ranges (nonindigenous species, or NIS). However, results concluding that many NIS have null, neutral, or positive impacts on the biota and on human interests are as common in the scientific literature as those that point at baneful impacts. Recently, several scholars confronted the stand that origin per se is not a reliable indicator of negative effects, suggesting that such conclusions are the expression of scientific denialism, often led by spurious purposes, and that their numbers are increasing. When assessed in the context of the growing interest in introduced species, the proportion of academic publications claiming that NIS pose no threats to the environment and to social and economic interests is extremely low, and has not increased since 1990. The widely prevailing notion that many NIS are effectively or potentially harmful does not conflict with the fact that most have mixed (negative, neutral, and positive) impacts. When based on solid grounds, reports of positive or neutral impacts should not be labeled as manipulative or misleading unless proven otherwise, even if they may hamper interest in‐ and funding of research and control bioinvasion programs.

show abstract

Diverse effects of invasive ecosystem engineers on marine biodiversity and ecosystem functions: A global review and meta‐analysis

Cited by 98 publications

References 81 publications

The impacts of invasive ecosystem engineers in freshwaters: A review

The impacts of invasive ecosystem engineers in freshwaters: A review

Mixed effects of an introduced ecosystem engineer on the foraging behavior and habitat selection of predators

Invasive species denialism: Sorting out facts, beliefs, and definitions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About