Martin A. Nuñez

Lack of belowground mutualisms hinders Pinaceae invasions.

Why particular invasions succeed and others fail is not well understood. The role of soil biota has been proposed as important. However, the role of mutualists has received much less attention than that of pathogens. Here we report that lack of adequate ectomycorrhizal fungi hinders invasion by exotic Pinaceae on Isla Victoria, Argentina, by reducing both the probability of establishment and growth of invading individuals. More than one hundred exotic tree species were introduced to this island ca. 80 years ago, but invasive trees are found in high densities only in areas adjacent to plantations. With a series of greenhouse and field experiments we found lower mycorrhizal colonization levels and few fungal species far from original plantings, and key fungal mutualists are confined to areas near plantations, probably owing to dispersal limitations. Low inoculum levels far from the plantations are retarding the invasion. Our experiments indicate that positive interactions belowground can play a key but underappreciated role in invasion dynamics.

Biological invasions in developing and developed countries: does one model fit all?

There is a strong bias concerning the regions of the globe where research on biological invasions is conducted, with notably lower representation of developing countries. However, in developing countries, effective management strategies to control invasions could be more beneficial in conserving global biodiversity since these countries tend to have larger, highly diverse natural habitats. Lower levels of development are seen as an obstacle to tackling biological invasions, but little thought is given to the advantages of developing countries in dealing with invasive species. We analyzed differences between developed and developing countries regarding the problem of invasive species and their historical and current patterns of international trade, disturbance levels and land use, research and monitoring, control and mitigation, and social awareness. Developed nations have some advantages, especially in levels of social awareness and means for controlling and studying exotics, but developing nations also enjoy important advantages given their lower levels of international trade and the availability of low-cost labor. Also, there is evidence that the process of economic development, which results in more efficient ways to transform landscapes and increases international trade, is strongly associated with increasing rates of biological invasion. Differences in data quality and availability between developed and developing countries make comparative analyses of biological invasions a difficult task. Thus, these differences creates a challenge in forming global strategies to deal with invasions. There have been calls for creating international plans to deal with invasive species, but we believe that it is important first to acknowledge the challenges and understand both the advantages and disadvantages of developing countries.

The natives are restless, but not often and mostly when disturbed

The argument that the threat posed by introduced species is overblown is often buttressed by the observation that native species sometimes also become invasive. An examination of the literature on plant invasions in the United States shows that six times more nonnative species have been termed invasive than native species, and that a member of the naturalized nonnative pool is 40 times more likely than a native species to be perceived as invasive. In the great majority of instances in which a native plant species is seen as invasive, the invasion is associated with an anthropogenic disturbance, especially changed fire or hydrological regime, livestock grazing, and changes wrought by an introduced species. These results suggest that natives are significantly less likely than nonnatives to be problematic for local ecosystems.

Conflicting values: ecosystem services and invasive tree management

Abstract Tree species have been planted widely beyond their native ranges to provide or enhance ecosystem services such as timber and fibre production, erosion control, and aesthetic or amenity benefits. At the same time, non-native tree species can have strongly negative impacts on ecosystem services when they naturalize and subsequently become invasive and disrupt or transform communities and ecosystems. The dichotomy between positive and negative effects on ecosystem services has led to significant conflicts over the removal of non-native invasive tree species worldwide. These conflicts are often viewed in only a local context but we suggest that a global synthesis sheds important light on the dimensions of the phenomenon. We collated examples of conflict surrounding the control or management of tree invasions where conflict has caused delay, increased cost, or cessation of projects aimed at invasive tree removal. We found that conflicts span a diverse range of taxa, systems and countries, and that most conflicts emerge around three areas: urban and near-urban trees; trees that provide direct economic benefits; and invasive trees that are used by native species for habitat or food. We suggest that such conflict should be seen as a normal occurrence in invasive tree removal. Assessing both positive and negative effects of invasive species on multiple ecosystem services may provide a useful framework for the resolution of conflicts.

Gringos en el bosque: introduced tree invasion in a native Nothofagus/Austrocedrus forest

We studied invasion into native Nothofagus/Austrocedrus forest by many introduced tree species planted between 1910 and 1940 in plantations near the center of Isla Victoria, in northern Patagonia. We located virtually all individuals of these species in 30 ha of forest in two series of transects at increasing distances from the plantations. Although these species included many reported as highly invasive elsewhere, we found little evidence for invasion on Isla Victoria, with many ‘invasive’ species utterly failing to invade native forest. There was a notable decline with distance in number of introduced individuals, but wind direction appeared to be unimportant. Pseudotsuga menziesii and Juniperus communis were the only 2 species represented by many individuals, while 4 pine species plus Araucaria araucana were far less numerous and 6 other species were found fewer than 10 times each. Even those species found repeatedly were represented overwhelmingly by small individuals, and the great majority of introduced individuals were found not in native forest proper, but in somewhat open areas such as road verges, small remnant pastures, and deer trails. Invasion may be occurring, but too slowly to be clearly evidenced yet because of the longevity of the dominant native trees. Factors that may be stopping or slowing invasion include competition in gaps with native species, browsing by introduced deer, unfavorable soil, allelopathy, and natural enemies or other idiosyncratic factors for particular species. The absence of substantial invasion so far is no guarantee against future invasion, particularly if some major natural or anthropogenous disturbance were to occur.

Invasive belowground mutualists of woody plants

Most plants require mutualistic associations to survive, which can be an important limitation on their ability to become invasive. There are four strategies that permit plants to become invasive without being limited by a lack of mutualists. One is to not be dependent on mutualists. The other three strategies are to form novel mutualisms, form associations with cosmopolitan species, or co-invade with mutualists from their native range. Historically there has been a bias to study mutualisms from a plant perspective, with little consideration of soil biota as invasive species in their own right. Here we address this by reviewing the literature on belowground invasive mutualists of woody plants. We focus on woody invaders as ecosystem-transforming plants that frequently have a high dependence on belowground mutualists. We found that co-invasions are common, with many ectomycorrhizal plant species and N-fixing species co-invading with their mutualists. Other groups, such as arbuscular mycorrhizal plants, tend to associate with cosmopolitan fungal species or to form novel associations in their exotic range. Only limited evidence exists of direct negative effects of co-invading mutualists on native mutualist communities, and effects on native plants appear to be largely driven by altered environmental conditions rather than direct interactions. Mutualists that introduce novel ecosystem functions have effects greater than would be predicted based solely on their biomass. Focusing on the belowground aspects of plant invasions provides novel insights into the impacts, processes and management of invasions of both soil organisms and woody plant species.

Alien conifer invasions in South America: short fuse burning?

Alien conifers have been widely planted in the Southern Hemisphere. Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, all with long histories of alien conifer planting, have major problems with invasive conifers (“wildings”). Widespread planting of alien conifers has a much shorter history in South America, and invasions are a recent phenomenon. A workshop was convened in Argentina in May 2007 to discuss the rapid emergence of problems with invasive conifers in South America. Workshop delegates agreed that: the problem is likely to increase substantially and rapidly in many parts of the continent; the problem is not widely recognized; lessons from elsewhere can be transferred; and collaboration can bring benefits. The need was expressed: for an accurate assessment of the dimensions of the problem; to raise awareness of the problem; for a common research agenda; to initiate management interventions. This paper summarizes the key aims, deliberations, and planned outcomes of the workshop.

Tree invasions: patterns, processes, challenges and opportunities

Tree invasions have escalated in importance in the last few decades (more species, greater area invaded, more types of impacts, increasing complexity of management challenges), and are increasingly studied from many perspectives. This research spans many disciplines, including ecology, population biology, genetics, remote sensing, ecological modelling, risk analysis, resource economics and, increasingly, the humanities. There has been substantial progress in understanding patterns and processes, but many unanswered questions remain. Only a few invasive trees have been well studied, many of them in only a small part of their invasive range. Invasive trees often have substantial impacts, especially when they invade formerly treeless vegetation. Trees have several features that make them useful for understanding key aspects of biological invasions (the determinants of invasiveness and invasibility), but also the full spectrum of human perceptions and values that frames biological invasions as an environmental problem. This editorial provides background and summarizes the main outputs from a workshop held in Argentina in September 2012 that set out to summarize current knowledge on key topics and to determine the most important challenges facing researchers and managers. The sixteen papers in the special issue of Biological Invasions span disciplines, geographic regions and taxa and provide novel insights on pathways and historical perspectives, detection and monitoring, determinants of invasiveness, function and impact, and the many challenges that face managers.

Negative, neutral, and positive interactions among nonnative plants: patterns, processes, and management implications

The movement of species is one of the most pervasive forms of global change, and few ecosystems remain uninvaded by nonnative species. Studying species interactions is crucial for understanding their distribution and abundance, particularly for nonnative species because interactions may influence the probability of invasion and consequent ecological impact. Interactions among nonnatives are relatively understudied, though the likelihood of nonnative species co-occurrence is high. We quantify and describe the types of interactions among nonnative plants and determine what factors affect interaction outcomes for ecosystems globally. We reviewed 65 studies comprising 201 observations and recorded the interaction type, traits of the interacting species, and study characteristics. We conducted a census of interaction types and a meta-analysis of experiments that tested nonnative competition intensity. Both methods showed that negative and neutral interactions prevailed, and a number of studies reported that the removal of a dominant nonnative led to competitive release of other nonnatives. Positive interactions were less frequently reported and positive mean effect sizes were rare, but the plant characteristics nitrogen fixation, life cycle (annual or perennial), and functional group significantly influenced positive interactions. Positive interactions were three times more frequent when a neighboring nonnative was a nitrogen fixer and 3.5 times lower when a neighboring nonnative was an annual. Woody plants were two or four times more likely to have positive interactions relative to grasses or herbs, respectively. The prevalence of negative interactions suggests that managers should prepare for reinvasion of sites when treating dominant nonnatives. Though positive interactions were infrequent, managers may be able to anticipate positive interactions among nonnatives based upon traits of the co-occurring invaders. Predicting positive nonnative interactions is an important tool for determining habitat susceptibility to a particular invasion and for prioritizing management of nonnatives with a higher likelihood of positive interactions.

Revisiting the potential conservation value of non-native species.

JEAN RICARDO SIMOES VITULE,∗ CAROLINA A. FREIRE,† DIEGO P. VAZQUEZ,‡ MARTIN A. NUNEZ,§ AND DANIEL SIMBERLOFF§ ** ∗Laboratorio de Ecologia e Conservacao, Departamento de Engenharia Ambiental, Setor de Tecnologia, Universidade Federal do Parana, 81531, 980, Curitiba, Parana, Brazil †Departamento de Fisiologia, Setor de Ciencias Biologicas, Centro Politecnico, Universidade Federal do Parana, 81531, 980, Curitiba, Parana, Brazil ‡Instituto Argentino de Investigaciones de las Zonas Aridas, CONICET; Instituto de Ciencias Basicas, Universidad Nacional de Cuyo, Mendoza, Argentina §Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, 1610, U.S.A.