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

41. 41.

    Kearney M, Porter W. Mechanistic niche modelling: combining physiological and spatial data to predict species’ ranges. Ecol. Lett. 2009;12:334-350.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01277.x

42. 42.

    Keitt TA, et al. Allee effects, invasion pinning, and species borders. Am. Nat. 2001;157:203-216.

    Not in our library10.1086/318633

43. 43.

    Kissling WD, et al. Towards novel approaches to modelling biotic interactions in multispecies assemblages at large spatial extents. J. Biogeogr. 2012;39:2163-2178.

    Not in our library

44. 44.

    Kot M, et al. Dispersal data and the spread of invading organisms. Ecology. 1996;77:2027-2042.

    Not in our library

45. 45.

    Küster H. The role of farming in the postglacial expansion of beech and hornbeam in the oak woodlands of central Europe. Holocene. 1997;7:239-242.

    Not in our library

46. 46.

    Lachmuth S, et al. Differentiation of reproductive and competitive ability in the invaded range of Senecio inaequidens: the role of genetic Allee-effects, adaptive and non-adaptive evolution. New Phytol. 2011;192:529-541.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1469-8137.2011.03808.x

47. 47.

    Lang G. Quartäre Vegetationsgeschichte Europas: Methoden und Ergebnisse. 1994.

    Not in our library

48. 48.

    Lenda M, et al. Plant establishment and invasions: an increase in a seed disperser combined with land abandonment causes an invasion of the non-native walnut in Europe. Proc. R. Soc. B. 2012;279:1491-1497.

    Not in our library10.1098/rspb.2011.2153

49. 49.

    Linder HP, et al. Biotic modifiers, environmental modulation and species distribution models. J. Biogeogr. 2012;39:2179-2190.

    Not in our library

50. 50.

    Lischke H, et al. TreeMig: a forest-landscape model for simulating spatio-temporal patterns from stand to landscape scale. Ecol. Model. 2006;199:409-420.

    Not in our library

51. 51.

    Loacker K, et al. Spread of walnut (Juglans regia L.) in an Alpine valley is correlated with climate warming. Flora. 2007;202:70-78.

    Not in our library

52. 52.

    Lopez-Garcia MC, Maillet S. Biological characteristics of an invasive South African Species. Biol. Invasions. 2005;7:181-194.

    Not in our library

53. 53.

    McLeod T, MacDonald G. Postglacial range expansion and population growth of Picea mariana, Picea glauca and Pinus banksiana in the western interior of Canada. J. Biogeogr. 1997;24:865-881.

    Not in our library

54. 54.

    Meier ES, et al. Climate, competition and connectivity affect future migration and ranges of European trees. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 2012;21:164-178.

    Not in our library

55. 55.

    Merow C, et al. Developing dynamic mechanistic species distribution models: predicting bird-mediated spread of invasive plants across northeastern North America. Am. Nat. 2011;178:30-43.

    Not in our library10.1086/660295

56. 56.

    Midgley GF, et al. BioMove – an integrated platform simulating the dynamic response of species to environmental change. Ecography. 2010;33:612-616.

    Not in our library

57. 57.

    Mitchell CE, Power AG. Release of invasive plants from fungal and viral pathogens. Nature. 2003;421:625-627.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature01317

58. 58.

    Moorcroft PR, et al. Potential role of natural enemies during tree range expansions following climate change. J. Theor. Biol. 2006;241:601-616.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jtbi.2005.12.019

59. 59.

    Mueller-Landau HC, et al. Theoretical perspectives on evolution of long-distance dispersal and the example of specialized pests. Ecology. 2003;84:1957-1967.

    Not in our library

60. 60.

    Münkemüller T, et al. Hutchinson revisited: patterns of density regulation and the coexistence of strong competitors. J. Theor. Biol. 2009;259:109-117.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jtbi.2009.03.010

61. 61.

    Murray JD. Mathematical biology: II. Spatial models and biomedical applications. 2001.

    Not in our library

62. 62.

    Nabel JEMS, et al. Interannual climate variability and population density thresholds can have a substantial impact on simulated tree species’ migration. Ecol. Model. 2013;257:88-100.

    Not in our library

63. 63.

    Nathan R, et al. Mechanisms of long-distance seed dispersal. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2008;23:638-647.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.tree.2008.08.003

64. 64.

    Neilson RP, et al. Forecasting regional to global plant migration in response to climate change. Bioscience. 2005;55:749-759.

    Not in our library

65. 65.

    Neubert MG, Parker IM. Projecting rates of spread for invasive species. Risk Analysis. 2004;24:817-831.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00481.x

66. 66.

    Neubert MG, et al. Invasion speeds in fluctuating environments. Proc. R. Soc. B. 2000;267:1603-1610.

    Not in our library10.1098/rspb.2000.1185

67. 67.

    Nuñez MA, et al. Lack of belowground mutualisms hinders Pinaceae invasions. Ecology. 2009;90:2352-2359.

    Not in our library10.1890/08-2139.1

68. 68.

    Okubo A, Levin SA. Diffusion and ecological problems: modern perspectives. 2001.

    Not in our library

69. 69.

    Okubo A, et al. On the spatial spread of the grey squirrel in Britain. Proc. R. Soc. B. 1989;238:113-125.

    Not in our library10.1098/rspb.1989.0070

70. 70.

    Pachepsky E, Levine JM. Density dependence slows invader spread in fragmented landscapes. Am. Nat. 2011;177:18-28.

    Not in our library10.1086/657438

71. 71.

    Pachzelt A, et al. Coupling a physiological grazer population model with a generalized model for vegetation dynamics. Ecol. Model. 2013;263:92-102.

    Not in our library

72. 72.

    Pagel J, Schurr FM. Forecasting species ranges by statistical estimation of ecological niches and spatial population dynamics. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 2012;21:293-304.

    Not in our library

73. 73.

    Perkins TA. Evolutionarily labile species interactions and spatial spread of invasive species. Am. Nat. 2012;179:E37-E54.

    Not in our library10.1086/663682

74. 74.

    Prakash S, de Roos AM. Habitat destruction in a simple predator-prey patch model: how predators enhance prey persistence and abundance. Theor. Popul. Biol. 2002;62:231-249.

    Not in our library10.1006/tpbi.2002.1611

75. 75.

    Richardson DM, Rejmánek M. Conifers as invasive aliens: a global survey and predictive framework. Divers. Distrib. 2004;10:321-331.

    Not in our library

76. 76.

    Richardson DM, et al. Plant invasions – the role of mutualisms. Biol. Rev. 2000;75:65-93.

    Not in our library10.1017/s0006323199005435

77. 77.

    Rodríguez-Echeverría S, et al. Differential effectiveness of novel and old legume-rhizobia mutualisms: implications for invasion by exotic legumes. Oecologia. 2012;170:253-261.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00442-012-2299-7

78. 78.

    Scheiter S, Higgins SI. How many elephants can you fit into a conservation area. Conserv. Lett. 2012;5:176-185.

    Not in our library

79. 79.

    Scheiter S, et al. Next generation dynamic global vegetation models: learning from community ecology. New Phytol. 2013;198:957-969.

    Not in our library10.1111/nph.12210

80. 80.

    Scheller R, Mladenoff D. Simulated effects of climate change, fragmentation, and inter-specific competition on tree species migration in northern Wisconsin, USA. Clim. Res. 2008;36:191-202.

    Not in our library

81. 81.

    Scherber C, et al. The effects of herbivory and competition on the invasive alien plant Senecio inaequidens (Asteraceae). Divers. Distrib. 2003;9:415-426.

    Not in our library

82. 82.

    Schiffers K, et al. Limited evolutionary rescue of locally adapted populations facing climate change. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 2013;368:20120083.

    Not in our library10.1098/rstb.2012.0083

83. 83.

    Schleuning M, et al. Specialization of mutualistic interaction networks decreases toward tropical latitudes. Curr. Biol. 2012;22:1925-1931.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cub.2012.08.015

84. 84.

    Schurr FM, et al. Plant fecundity and seed dispersal in spatially heterogeneous environments: models, mechanisms and estimation. J. Ecol. 2008;96:628-641.

    Not in our library

85. 85.

    Schurr FM, et al. How to understand species’ niches and range dynamics: a demographic research agenda for biogeography. J. Biogeogr. 2012;39:2146-2162.

    Not in our library

86. 86.

    Schweiger O, et al. Increasing range mismatching of interacting species under global change is related to their ecological characteristics. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 2012;21:88-99.

    Not in our library

87. 87.

    Shigesada N, Kawasaki K. Biological invasions: theory and practice. 1997.

    Not in our library

88. 88.

    Shigesada N, et al. Traveling periodic waves in heterogeneous environments. Theor. Popul. Biol. 1986;30:143-160.

    Not in our library

89. 89.

    Singer A, et al. Interspecific interactions affect species and community responses to climate shifts. Oikos. 2013;122:358-366.

    Not in our library

90. 90.

    Skellam JG. Random dispersal in theoretical populations. Biometrika. 1951;38:196-218.

    Not in our library

91. 91.

    Skov F, Svenning J-C. Potential impact of climatic change on the distribution of forest herbs in Europe. Ecography. 2004;27:366-380.

    Not in our library

92. 92.

    Soberón J. Grinnellian and Eltonian niches and geographic distributions of species. Ecol. Lett. 2007;10:1115-1123.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01107.x

93. 93.

    Stokes KE, et al. A modelling approach to estimate the effect of exotic pollinators on exotic weed population dynamics: bumblebees and broom in Australia. Divers. Distrib. 2006;12:593-600.

    Not in our library

94. 94.

    Svenning J-C, Sandel B. Disequilibrium vegetation dynamics under future climate change. Am. J. Bot. 2013;100:1266-1286.

    Not in our library10.3732/ajb.1200469

95. 95.

    Taylor CM, Hastings A. Allee effects in biological invasions. Ecol. Lett. 2005;8:895-908.

    Not in our library

96. 96.

    Thuiller W, et al. Resolving Darwin’s naturalization conundrum: a quest for evidence. Divers. Distrib. 2010;16:461-475.

    Not in our library

97. 97.

    Thuiller W, et al. A road map for integrating eco-evolutionary processes into biodiversity models. Ecol. Lett. 2013;16:94-105.

    Not in our library10.1111/ele.12104

98. 98.

    Travis JMJ, et al. The interplay of positive and negative species interactions across an environmental gradient: insights from an individual-based simulation model. Biol. Lett. 2005;1:5-8.

    Not in our library10.1098/rsbl.2004.0236

99. 99.

    Triviño M, et al. The contribution of vegetation and landscape configuration for predicting environmental change impacts on Iberian birds. PLoS One. 2011;6:e29373.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0029373

100. 100.

     Urban MC, De Meester L. Community monopolization: local adaptation enhances priority effects in an evolving metacommunity. Proc. R. Soc. B. 2009;276:4129-4138.

     Not in our library10.1098/rspb.2009.1382

101. 101.

     Urban MC, et al. On a collision course: competition and dispersal differences create no-analogue communities and cause extinctions during climate change. Proc. R. Soc. B. 2012;279:2072-2080.

     Not in our library10.1098/rspb.2011.2367

102. 102.

     van der Knaap WO, et al. Migration and population expansion of Abies, Fagus, Picea, and Quercus since 15000 years in and across the Alps, based on pollen-percentage threshold values. Quat. Sci. Rev. 2005;24:645-680.

     Not in our library

103. 103.

     Van der Veken S, et al. Garden plants get a head start on climate change. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2008;6:212-216.

     Not in our library

104. 104.

     Von Holle B, Simberloff D. Ecological resistence to biological invasion overwhelmed by propagule pressure. Ecology. 2005;86:3212-3218.

     Not in our library

105. 105.

     Who E. Invasion, dispersal and ecology of the South African neophyte Senecio inaequidens in the Netherlands: From wool alien to railway and road alien. Acta Bot. Neeralandica. 1998;47:131-151.

     Not in our library

106. 106.

     Wilkinson DM. Mycorrhizal fungi and Quaternary plant migrations. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. Lett. 1998;7:137-140.

     Not in our library

107. 107.
     The role of biotic interactions in shaping distributions and realised assemblages of species: implications for species distribution modelling · 2012

     No notice

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.