Empirical test of the native–nonnative distinction: Native and nonnative assemblages of Anolis lizards are similar in morphology and phylogeny

Abstract

Nonnative (“invasive,” “exotic,” “naturalized”) species frequently are vilified. However, some philosophers and ecologists have questioned whether nonnative species and assemblages are objectively, ahistorically identifiable as different entities relative to native species and assemblages, once selection biases are taken into account. We used an unprecedented dataset of morphology, phylogeny and assemblage content for 336 species of Anolis lizard to compare morphological and phylogenetic characteristics of variability and central tendency between native assemblages and those that include nonnative species. Equivalence tests demonstrated significant similarity between native and nonnative assemblages in trait variability, phylogenetic dispersion and mean trait values except for body size; logistic and zero‐inflated regression failed to distinguish native and nonnative assemblages. For most traits, similarity was not due to assemblages being structured randomly but rather to both native and nonnative assemblages including similar species. Without historical information, a naïve observer would be unable to identify Anolis assemblages as native or nonnative based on morphological assemblage structure or most mean assemblage trait values, but would have some success categorizing assemblages based on average body size of species in the assemblage. Significant phylogenetic and morphological clustering in native assemblages likely reflects source pools composed of close relatives that share traits, as well as some environmental filtering effects; the slightly less phylogenetically clustered but equally morphologically clustered nonnative assemblages are less constrained to proximal source pools but still probably subject to filtering. Differences between native and nonnative assemblages in mean body size likely reflect assemblage youth. The ontological status of nonnative species is discussed in the light of these results. A http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2435.13185/suppinfo is available for this article.

The existence and evolution of morphotypes inAnolislizards: coexistence patterns, not adaptive radiations, distinguish mainland and island faunas

“…However, for our data, our approach gives results that are nearly completely correlated with body size residuals (e.g., shown in Fig. S1 of Poe & Latella, in press). Therefore we adopt our approach for practical reasons (e.g., it is not necessary to perform a new regression every time new data are added).…”

Beyond ‘Native V. Alien’: Critiques of the Native/alien Paradigm in the Anthropocene, and Their Implications

“…The terms are relational, not describing species as such but populations of species deemed to be in the right or wrong place (Fall, 2014a;Van Dooren, 2011). Differentiating between native and alien assemblages of species is not possible using objective, ahistorical criteria (Peretti, 1998;Poe & Latella, 2018). Consequently, no species is intrinsically alien or native but only in relation to a particular area at a particular time, such that the spatial and temporal boundaries of that space can be -and are -constructed in many different ways (Boonman-Berson et al, 2014;Humair et al, 2014;Warren, 2007).…”

Fact and value in invasion biology

“…Poe and Latella (:2532) wrote that philosophers “have questioned whether nonnative species and assemblages are objectively, ahistorically identifiable as different entities relative to native species and assemblages ….” These authors (p. 2554) doubt there is an objective biological difference between native and non‐native and argue that no one can tell which is which except by determining historically how much human influence it bears.…”