Testing Darwin's Naturalization Conundrum using phylogenetic relationships: Generalizable patterns across disparate communities?

Abstract

Aim Alternative hypotheses of Darwin's Naturalization Conundrum (DNC) predict that the non‐native species that successfully establish within a community are those either more closely or more distantly related to the resident native species. Despite the increasing number of studies using phylogenetic data to test DNC and evaluate community assembly, it remains unknown whether phylogenetic relationships alone can be used to predict invasion susceptibility across communities differing environmentally and in disturbance history. In this study, we evaluate whether phylogenetic structure of diverse native communities predicts the occurrence of non‐native species and offers insight into community assembly. Location Eastern United States of America. Methods We examine multiple communities across a north–south transect of the eastern United States to test whether non‐native species richness and abundance are associated with phylogenetic diversity measures of the native community. We also test whether non‐native species are consistently closely or distantly related to native species using two approaches differing in phylogenetic scale and whether this differs with ecologically successful species. Results Our analyses did not unambiguously resolve DNC. Non‐native species richness and abundance decreased with increasing native species phylogenetic diversity. Within some communities, non‐native species were significantly more closely related to native species than expected by chance, and tended to be more often closely related to a native species than that native species was to other native relatives. When considering species abundance, only one community showed that ecologically successful non‐native species were closely related to resident species. Main conclusions Phylogenetic relationships can reveal important details about community assembly in diverse ecological settings. However, given the multifaceted nature of community assembly, phylogenetic metrics alone have limited utility as a general predictive tool for community invasion. Our study highlights a need to incorporate additional types of data to better understand why some communities are more susceptible to non‐native species establishment.

Darwin’s naturalization conundrum can be explained by spatial scale

“…34 and 35), or nonexistent/ variable (e.g., refs. [36][37][38]. In an effort to reconcile these findings, it has been increasingly suggested that Darwin's two opposing hypotheses need not be mutually exclusive (39)(40)(41)(42).…”

LeafMachine: Using machine learning to automate leaf trait extraction from digitized herbarium specimens

“…The millions of plant specimens stored in herbaria around the world serve as priceless historical records of global biodiversity (Funk, 2003). The careful study and use of these specimens have been crucial in answering an assortment of evolutionary and ecological questions (Pyke and Ehrlich, 2010;Lavoie, 2013), such as the resolution of taxonomic puzzles and phylogenetic relationships (Ames and Spooner, 2008;Ng and Smith, 2016;Ng et al, 2019), phenological and species distribution responses to climate change (reviewed in Willis et al, 2017;Jones and Daehler, 2018;Lang et al, 2019), and plant-insect interactions through time (Lees et al, 2011;Meineke and Davies, 2018). Despite the clear value of herbaria, many collections have been neglected in recent decades as funding and curatorial expertise have waned (Dalton, 2003;Prather et al, 2004).…”

Reconciling Darwin’s naturalization and pre‐adaptation hypotheses: An inference from phylogenetic fields of exotic plants in Japan

“…Ricotta et al, ). The phylogenetic structure of recipient native assemblages represents site invasibility, which also influences species invasiveness mediated through the properties of an exotic species (Lososová et al, ; Ng et al, ). Therefore, the phylogenetic field approach bridges these two viewpoints, characterizing the invasiveness of exotics with respect to recipient natives structure (invasibility).…”

“…Red and blue circles represent statistically significant over-dispersion and clustering of the phylogenetic field, respectively (α = 0.05). The grey-shaded area represents the 95% interval of random expectation for MPD through the properties of an exotic species (Lososová et al, 2015;Ng et al, 2018). Therefore, the phylogenetic field approach bridges these two viewpoints, characterizing the invasiveness of exotics with respect to recipient natives structure (invasibility).…”