The influence of interspecific interactions on species range expansion rates

Abstract

Ongoing and predicted global change makes understanding and predicting species' range shifts an urgent scientific priority. Here, we provide a synthetic perspective on the so far poorly understood effects of interspecific interactions on range expansion rates. We present theoretical foundations for how interspecific interactions may modulate range expansion rates, consider examples from empirical studies of biological invasions and natural range expansions as well as process‐based simulations, and discuss how interspecific interactions can be more broadly represented in process‐based, spatiotemporally explicit range forecasts. Theory tells us that interspecific interactions affect expansion rates via alteration of local population growth rates and spatial displacement rates, but also via effects on other demographic parameters. The best empirical evidence for interspecific effects on expansion rates comes from studies of biological invasions. Notably, invasion studies indicate that competitive dominance and release from specialized enemies can enhance expansion rates. Studies of natural range expansions especially point to the potential for competition from resident species to reduce expansion rates. Overall, it is clear that interspecific interactions may have important consequences for range dynamics, but also that their effects have received too little attention to robustly generalize on their importance. We then discuss how interspecific interactions effects can be more widely incorporated in dynamic modeling of range expansions. Importantly, models must describe spatiotemporal variation in both local population dynamics and dispersal. Finally, we derive the following guidelines for when it is particularly important to explicitly represent interspecific interactions in dynamic range expansion forecasts: if most interacting species show correlated spatial or temporal trends in their effects on the target species, if the number of interacting species is low, and if the abundance of one or more strongly interacting species is not closely linked to the abundance of the target species.

References 107

1. 1.

   Ackerly D. Community assembly, niche conservatism, and adaptive evolution in changing environments. Int. J. Plant Sci. 2003;164(3 Suppl.):S165-S184.

   Not in our library

2. 2.

   Barton N, Silvertown J, Antonovics J. Adaptation at the edge of a species’ range. Integrating ecology and evolution in a spatial context. 2001;365-392.

   Not in our library

3. 3.

   Bascompte J, Jordano P. Plant–animal mutualistic networks: the architecture of biodiversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2007;38:567-593.

   Not in our library

4. 4.

   Belyea LR, Lancaster J. Assembly rules within a contingent ecology. Oikos. 1999;86:402-416.

   Not in our library

5. 5.

   Bossdorf O, et al. Selection of preadapted populations allowed Senecio inaequidens to invade central Europe. Divers. Distrib. 2008;14:676-685.

   Not in our library

6. 6.

   Bradshaw RHW, et al. Factors influencing the Holocene history of Fagus. For. Ecol. Manage. 2010;259:2204-2212.

   Not in our library

7. 7.

   Callaway RM, Ridenour WM. Novel weapons: invasive success and the evolution of increased competitive ability. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2004;2:436-443.

   Not in our library

8. 8.

   Campos-Arceiz A, Blake S. Megagardeners of the forests – the role of elephants in seed dispersal. Acta Oecol. 2011;37:542-553.

   Not in our library

9. 9.

   Caño L, et al. Factors affecting the invasion success of Senecio inaequidens and S. pterophorus in Mediterranean plant communities. J. Veg. Sci. 2007;18:281-288.

   Not in our library

10. 10.

    Caño L, et al. Palatability to a generalist herbivore, defence and growth of invasive and native Senecio species: testing the evolution of increased competitive ability hypothesis. Oecologia. 2009;159:95-106.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00442-008-1182-z

11. 11.

    Cantrell RS, Cosner C. Spatial ecology via reaction–diffusion equations. 2003.

    Not in our library

12. 12.

    Cantrell RS, et al. Advection-mediated coexistence of competing species. Proc. R. Soc. Edinburgh. 2007;137A:497-518.

    Not in our library

13. 13.

    Carboni M, et al. Darwin’s naturalization hypothesis: scale matters in coastal plant communities. Ecography. 2013;36:560-568.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1600-0587.2012.07479.x

14. 14.

    Case TJ, et al. The community context of species’ borders: ecological and evolutionary perspectives. Oikos. 2005;108:28-46.

    Not in our library

15. 15.

    Caswell H, et al. Demography and dispersal: invasion speeds and sensitivity analysis in periodic and stochastic environments. Theor. Ecol. 2011;4:407-421.

    Not in our library

16. 16.

    Caughlin T, et al. Urbanized landscapes favored by fig-eating birds increase invasive but not native juvenile strangler fig abundance. Ecology. 2012;93:1571-1580.

    Not in our library10.1890/11-1694.1

17. 17.
    Biodiversity Loss Threatens Human Well-Being · 2006

    No notice
18. 18.

    Dickie IA, et al. Co-invasion by Pinus and its mycorrhizal fungi. New Phytol. 2010;187:475-484.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03277.x

19. 19.

    Ellner SP, Schreiber SJ. Temporally variable dispersal and demography can accelerate the spread of invading species. Theor. Popul. Biol. 2012;82:283-298.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.tpb.2012.03.005

20. 20.

    Enge S, et al. Native generalist herbivores promote invasion of a chemically defended seaweed via refuge-mediated apparent competition. Ecol. Lett. 2013;16:487-492.

    Not in our library10.1111/ele.12072

21. 21.

    Fagan WF, et al. When can herbivores slow or reverse the spread of an invading plant? A test case from Mount St. Helens. Am. Nat. 2005;166:669-685.

    Not in our library10.1086/497621

22. 22.

    Fisher RA. The wave of advance of advantageous genes. Ann. Eugenics. 1937;7:353-369.

    Not in our library

23. 23.

    Galetti M, et al. Functional extinction of birds drives rapid evolutionary changes in seed size. Science. 2013;340:1086-1090.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.1233774

24. 24.

    Gilliam JF, Fraser DF. Movement in corridors: enhancement by predation threat, disturbance, and habitat structure. Ecology. 2001;82:258-273.

    Not in our library

25. 25.

    Gilman SE, et al. A framework for community interactions under climate change. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2010;25:325-331.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.tree.2010.03.002

26. 26.

    Gosper CR, et al. Seed dispersal of fleshy-fruited invasive plants by birds: contributing factors and management options. Divers. Distrib. 2005;11:549-558.

    Not in our library

27. 27.

    Gravel D, et al. Trophic theory of island biogeography. Ecol. Lett. 2011;14:1010-1016.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01667.x

28. 28.

    Hastings A, et al. The spatial spread of invasive species: new developments in theory and evidence. Ecol. Lett. 2005;8:91-101.

    Not in our library

29. 29.

    Higgins SI, et al. Estimating plant migration rates under habitat loss and fragmentation. Oikos. 2003a;101:354-366.

    Not in our library

30. 30.

    Higgins SI, et al. Forecasting plant migration rates: managing uncertainty for risk assessment. J. Ecol. 2003b;91:341-347.

    Not in our library

31. 31.

    Higgins SI, et al. Costs of persistence and the spread of competing seeders and sprouters. J. Ecol. 2008;96:679-686.

    Not in our library

32. 32.

    Higgins SI, et al. A physiological analogy of the niche for projecting the potential distribution of plants. J. Biogeogr. 2012;39:2132-2145.

    Not in our library

33. 33.

    Holt RD, Sax D, et al. Theories of niche conservatism and evolution: could exotic species be potential tests? Species invasions: insights into ecology, evolution, and biogeography. 2005;259-290.

    Not in our library

34. 34.

    Holt RD. Bringing the Hutchinsonian niche into the 21st century: ecological and evolutionary perspectives. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2009;106:19659-19665.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.0905137106

35. 35.

    Holt RD, Losos JB, Ricklefs RE. Towards a trophic island biogeography: reflections on the interface of island biogeography and food web ecology. The theory of island biogeography revisited. 2010;143-185.

    Not in our library

36. 36.

    Holt RD, et al. Predation and the evolutionary dynamics of species ranges. Am. Nat. 2011;178:488-500.

    Not in our library10.1086/661909

37. 37.

    Huang W, et al. Interactive effects of herbivory and competition intensity determine invasive plant performance. Oecologia. 2012;170:373-382.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00442-012-2328-6

38. 38.

    Janzen DH, Martin PS. Neotropical anachronisms: the fruits the gomphotheres ate. Science. 1982;215:19-27.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.215.4528.19

39. 39.

    Jeltsch F, et al. Pattern formation triggered by rare events: lessons from the spred of rabies. Proc. R. Soc. B. 1997;264:495-503.

    Not in our library10.1098/rspb.1997.0071

40. 40.

    Keane RM, Crawley MJ. Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2002;17:164-170.

    Not in our library

Reads

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.