Featured Research

from universities, journals, and other organizations

Invasive species: 'Away-field advantage' weaker than ecologists thought

Date:
May 17, 2013
Source:
Smithsonian Institution
Summary:
For decades, ecologists have assumed the worst invasive species—such as brown tree snakes and kudzu—have an “away-field advantage.” They succeed because they do better in their new territories than they do at home. A new study reveals that this fundamental assumption is not nearly as common as people might think.

European green crab.
Credit: Photo courtesy of Smithsonian Environmental Research Center

For decades, ecologists have assumed the worst invasive species -- such as brown tree snakes and kudzu -- have an "away-field advantage." They succeed because they do better in their new territories than they do at home. A new study led by the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center reveals that this fundamental assumption is not nearly as common as people might think.

Related Articles


The away-field advantage hypothesis hinges on this idea: Successful invaders do better in a new place because the environment is more hospitable to them. They escape their natural enemies, use novel weapons on unsuspecting natives and generally outcompete natives on their own turf by disrupting the balance of nature in their new ecosystems.

"They've been presumed to be good citizens at home and bad citizens away," said ecologist John Parker, lead author of the paper published in the May issue of the journal Ecology. But when researchers investigated it on a large scale, they discovered the assumption was not true for all, or even most, of the species they looked at.

The research team, which included 24 invasion biologists from the National Science Foundation-funded Global Invasions Network, compiled data on 53 different plant and animal invaders. They pulled 37 from the list of "100 of the World's Worst Invasive Alien Species," and 16 from an exhaustive search of the published literature. They ended up with a list that included European green crabs, Asian kelp, nutria, brown tree snakes, garlic mustard and other common suspects. After combing through hundreds to thousands of papers to find published demographic data, they were able to do a statistical analysis of whether invaders were bigger, more reproductively successful and thus more abundant in their introduced ranges.

On the surface the assumption seemed to hold true. Across all 53 species, there was a 96 percent probability invaders would do better in their adopted ecosystems. But closer inspection revealed some surprising weaknesses within the paradigm. When they looked at individual species, they discovered a handful of extremely successful invaders were driving up the average. In reality, more than half of the species performed roughly the same at home versus abroad, and a few were even likely to perform worse in foreign territory.

This suggests that the key to a successful invasion depends less on the environment and more on the individual species doing the invading. Plants, for example, were more likely than animals to thrive abroad in this study. But even the plants showed a wide range of variability, with many (like garlic mustard) performing equally well in both their introduced and home ranges.

"The general notion that invasive species are doing something fundamentally different in their new versus their old ranges may be a fair starting point overall, but there is a lot of grey area even for the worst-case invaders," Parker said. "These findings might also have applications for management. Some species might be invasive regardless of novel conditions, whereas others thrive only because of their new environment. If this 'newfound' success is reversible, it's these latter


Story Source:

The above story is based on materials provided by Smithsonian Institution. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.


Journal Reference:

  1. John D. Parker, Mark E. Torchin, Ruth A. Hufbauer, Nathan P. Lemoine, Christina Alba, Dana M. Blumenthal, Oliver Bossdorf, James E. Byers, Alison M. Dunn, Robert W. Heckman, Martin Hejda, Vojtěch Jarošνk, Andrew R. Kanarek, Lynn B. Martin, Sarah E. Perkins, Petr Pyšek, Kristina Schierenbeck, Carmen Schlφder, Rieks van Klinken, Kurt J. Vaughn, Wyatt Williams, Lorne M. Wolfe. Do invasive species perform better in their new ranges? Ecology, 2013; 94 (5): 985 DOI: 10.1890/12-1810.1

Cite This Page:

Smithsonian Institution. "Invasive species: 'Away-field advantage' weaker than ecologists thought." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 17 May 2013. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130517152352.htm>.
Smithsonian Institution. (2013, May 17). Invasive species: 'Away-field advantage' weaker than ecologists thought. ScienceDaily. Retrieved January 30, 2015 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130517152352.htm
Smithsonian Institution. "Invasive species: 'Away-field advantage' weaker than ecologists thought." ScienceDaily. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130517152352.htm (accessed January 30, 2015).

Share This


More From ScienceDaily



More Earth & Climate News

Friday, January 30, 2015

Featured Research

from universities, journals, and other organizations


Featured Videos

from AP, Reuters, AFP, and other news services

Raw: Rare Clouds Fill Grand Canyon

Raw: Rare Clouds Fill Grand Canyon

AP (Jan. 29, 2015) — For the second time in two months, a rare weather phenomenon filled the Grand Canyon with thick clouds just below the rim on Wednesday. (Jan. 29) Video provided by AP
Powered by NewsLook.com
Senate Passes Bill for Keystone XL Pipeline

Senate Passes Bill for Keystone XL Pipeline

AP (Jan. 29, 2015) — The Republican-controlled Senate has passed a bipartisan bill approving construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline. (Jan. 29) Video provided by AP
Powered by NewsLook.com
"Cloud Inversion" In Grand Canyon

"Cloud Inversion" In Grand Canyon

Reuters - US Online Video (Jan. 29, 2015) — Time lapse video captures a blanket of clouds amassing in the Grand Canyon -- the result of a rare meteorological process called "cloud inversion." Rough Cut (no reporter narration). Video provided by Reuters
Powered by NewsLook.com
Why Researchers Say We Should Cut Back On Biofuels

Why Researchers Say We Should Cut Back On Biofuels

Newsy (Jan. 29, 2015) — Biofuels aren&apos;t the best alternative to fossil fuels, according to a new report. In fact, they&apos;re quite a bad one. Video provided by Newsy
Powered by NewsLook.com

Search ScienceDaily

Number of stories in archives: 140,361

Find with keyword(s):
 
Enter a keyword or phrase to search ScienceDaily for related topics and research stories.

Save/Print:
Share:  

Breaking News:

Strange & Offbeat Stories

 

Plants & Animals

Earth & Climate

Fossils & Ruins

In Other News

... from NewsDaily.com

Science News

Health News

Environment News

Technology News



Save/Print:
Share:  

Free Subscriptions


Get the latest science news with ScienceDaily's free email newsletters, updated daily and weekly. Or view hourly updated newsfeeds in your RSS reader:

Get Social & Mobile


Keep up to date with the latest news from ScienceDaily via social networks and mobile apps:

Have Feedback?


Tell us what you think of ScienceDaily -- we welcome both positive and negative comments. Have any problems using the site? Questions?
Mobile iPhone Android Web
Follow Facebook Twitter Google+
Subscribe RSS Feeds Email Newsletters
Latest Headlines Health & Medicine Mind & Brain Space & Time Matter & Energy Computers & Math Plants & Animals Earth & Climate Fossils & Ruins