Biological mechanisms of marine invasions

Papacostas, Katherine J.; Rielly-Carroll, Elizabeth; Georgian, Samuel E.; Long, Dustin J.; Princiotta, Sarah D.; Quattrini, Andrea M.; Reuter, Kim E.; Freestone, Amy L.

doi:10.3354/meps12001

Cited by 59 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 164 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Further evaluation of combined indirect and direct effects of competitors and consumers on populations of NIS via interactions throughout complex natural trophic webs is needed (Papacostas et al . ). Furthermore, few studies have examined the cascading effects of marine management strategies on invasions, despite promises of increased resilience in ‘healthier’ well‐managed ecosystems (Burfeind et al .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Marine management affects the invasion success of a non‐native species in a temperate reef system in California, USA

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite promises that 'healthy' marine systems show increased resilience, the effects of ecosystem management strategies on invasion success in marine systems is still unclear. We show that resistance to the invasive alga, Sargassum horneri, in a temperate reef system occurs through alternate mechanisms in different ecosystem states. In an old marine protected area (MPA), invasion of S. horneri was suppressed, likely due to competitive pressure from native algae, resulting from protection of urchin predators. In a nearby fished urchin barren, invasion of S. horneri was also suppressed, due to herbivory by urchins whose predators are fished. Within newer MPAs with intermediate levels of interacting species, S. horneri was abundant. Here, neither competition from native algae nor herbivory was sufficient to prevent invasion. We confirm that invasion in marine systems is complex and show that multiple mechanisms in single systems must be considered when investigating biotic resistance hypotheses.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Papacostas et al . () found that among studies describing negative interactions (comprising the majority of studies in the analysis), most showed an increase in invasion success with release from competitors and consumers (i.e. biotic resistance), but among those, predation was found to limit invasion success more often than competition.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Marine management affects the invasion success of a non‐native species in a temperate reef system in California, USA

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ultimately, the absence of co‐occurrence‐linked mortality suggests that both species could co‐exist and suggests that weaker competitive interactions prevail in this system, which prevent the total exclusion of native or invasive species (Papacostas et al, ). This would suggest that the presence of M. gigas would only affect the recovery of native oyster populations under specific environmental context (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Competition between co‐occurring invasive and native consumers switches between habitats

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The introduction of a non‐native species frequently has adverse direct effects on native species. The underlying mechanisms, however, often remain unclear, in particular where native and invasive species are taxonomically similar. We found evidence of direct competitive interactions between a globally distributed invasive species (the Pacific oyster, Magallana gigas) and its native counterpart (the European oyster, Ostrea edulis). We also discovered that the competitive outcome differed between different habitat types and orientation by identifying context‐dependent responses driven by environmental conditions and stress (i.e. intertidal compared to subtidal habitats; and vertical versus horizontal substratum). This is particularly important because the European oyster is threatened, or in decline, throughout most of its range, and restoration efforts are underway in many regions. We combined experimental manipulations and stable isotope analysis (SIA) to identify the direct effects of competition and the mechanisms by which the invasive and native species compete. We identified negative effects of the invasive species on the native oyster, but these were limited to the subtidal habitat (lower stress environment) and determined by substratum orientation (habitat structure). Crucially, we found that effects of the invasive species on the native species were not always negative and under certain conditions (e.g. on vertical substrata) were positive. Shifts in isotopic niches of both species when co‐occurring, alongside mixing models, indicate that exploitative competition for food is most likely to underpin niche partitioning between both species. We have identified different foraging strategies under different contexts, and our findings highlight the importance of exploitative competition as a driving mechanism behind the co‐occurrence of two seemingly functionally similar consumers. The combination of experimental manipulations with SIA is a powerful tool, and we illustrate how this approach should be incorporated, into multiple environmental contexts at appropriate scales, to more accurately predict impacts of the spread of invasive species on native communities.

show abstract

“…, Saul and Jeschke ), but the relative importance of biotic mechanisms in this process is context dependent (e.g., terrestrial and marine systems; Papacostas et al. ), making it difficult to identify generalities (but see Hui and Richardson ). In addition, the introduction of some species can modify the receiving environment, making it more suitable for further invasions through positive feedbacks (Gaertner et al.…”

Section: Third Component: Mechanistic Understanding Of the Spread Of mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Alien species can modify species interactions (Papacostas et al. ) or the environment (Bax et al. ) in ways that might only lead to loss of biodiversity in the future (Essl et al.…”

Section: Fourth Component: Mechanistic Understanding Of the Impact Ofmentioning

confidence: 99%

A four‐component classification of uncertainties in biological invasions: implications for management

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although uncertainty is an integral part of any science, it raises doubts in public perception about scientific evidence, is exploited by denialists, and therefore potentially hinders the implementation of management actions. As a relatively young field of study, invasion science contains many uncertainties. This may explain why, despite international policies aimed at mitigating biological invasions, the implementation of national‐ and regional‐scale measures to prevent or control alien species has done little to slow the increase in extent of invasions and the magnitude of impacts. Uncertainty is therefore a critical aspect of invasion science that should be addressed to enable the field to progress further. To improve how uncertainties in invasion science are captured and characterized, we propose a framework, which is also applicable to other applied research fields such as climate and conservation science, divided into four components: the need (1) to clearly circumscribe the phenomenon, (2) to measure and provide evidence for the phenomenon (i.e., confirmation), (3) to understand the mechanisms that cause the phenomenon, and (4) to understand the mechanisms through which the phenomenon results in consequences. We link these issues to three major types of uncertainty: linguistic, psychological, and epistemic. The application of this framework shows that the four components tend to be characterized by different types of uncertainty in invasion science. We explain how these uncertainties can be detrimental to the implementation of management measures and propose ways to reduce them. Since biological invasions are increasingly tightly embedded in complex socio‐ecological systems, many problems associated with these uncertainties have convoluted solutions. They demand the consensus of many stakeholders to define and frame the dimensions of the phenomenon, and to decide on appropriate actions. While many of the uncertainties cannot be eliminated completely, we believe that using this framework to explicitly identify and communicate them will help to improve collaboration between researchers and managers, increase scientific, political, and public support for invasion research, and provide a stronger foundation for sustainable management strategies.

show abstract

Biological mechanisms of marine invasions

Cited by 59 publications

References 164 publications

Marine management affects the invasion success of a non‐native species in a temperate reef system in California, USA

Marine management affects the invasion success of a non‐native species in a temperate reef system in California, USA

Competition between co‐occurring invasive and native consumers switches between habitats

A four‐component classification of uncertainties in biological invasions: implications for management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About