Climate change and elevational diversity capacity: do weedy species take up the slack?

Chown, Steven Loudon; Roux, Peter C. le; Ramaswiela, Tshililo; Kalwij, Jesse M.; Shaw, Justine; McGeoch, Mélodie A.

doi:10.1098/rsbl.2012.0806

Cited by 30 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This may also favour range expansions of invasive species to higher altitudes from which they are currently excluded because of low‐temperature extremes (le Roux et al., ). Indeed, there is already evidence of range expansions of invasive species to higher altitudes since 1965 (Chown et al., ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Invasive species differ in key functional traits from native and non‐invasive alien plant species

Mathakutha

Steyn

Roux

et al. 2019

J Vegetation Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Questions Invasive species establish either by possessing traits, or trait trade‐offs similar to native species, suggesting pre‐adaptation to local conditions; or by having a different suite of traits and trait trade‐offs, which allow them to occupy unfilled niches. The trait differences between invasives and non‐invasives can inform on which traits confer invasibility. Here, we ask: (a) are invasive species functionally different or similar to native species? (b) which traits of invasives differ from traits of non‐invasive aliens and thus confer invasibility? and (c) do results from the sub‐Antarctic region, where this study was conducted, differ from findings from other regions? Location Sub‐Antarctic Marion Island. Methods We measured 13 traits of all terrestrial native, invasive and non‐invasive alien plant species. Using principal components analysis and phylogenetic generalized least‐squares models, we tested for differences in traits between invasive (widespread alien species) and native species. Bivariate trait relationships between invasive and native species were compared using standardized major axis regressions to test for differences in trait trade‐offs between the two groups. Second, using the same methods, we compared the traits of invasive species to non‐invasive aliens (alien species that have not spread). Results Between invasive and native species, most traits differed, suggesting that the success of invasive species is mediated by being functionally different to native species. Additionally, most bivariate trait relationships differed either in terms of their y‐intercept or their position on the axes, highlighting that plants are positioned differently along a spectrum of shared trait trade‐offs. Compared to non‐invasive aliens, invasive species had lower plant height, smaller leaf area, lower frost tolerance, and higher specific leaf area, suggesting that these traits are associated with invasiveness. The findings for the sub‐Antarctic corresponded to those of other regions, except lower plant height which provides a competitive advantage to invaders in the windy sub‐Antarctic context. Conclusion Our findings support the expectation that trait complexes of invasive species are predominantly different to those of coexisting native species, and that high resource acquisition and low defence investment are characteristic of invasive plant species.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Invasive species differ in key functional traits from native and non‐invasive alien plant species

Mathakutha

Steyn

Roux

et al. 2019

J Vegetation Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies occurring along the same elevational gradients and across multiple sampling periods will be particularly beneficial (Fig. S2; Seipel et al., ; Chown et al., ; Marini et al., ). For example, in this study, despite similar sampling approaches (methods, time and location), non‐native and native plants exhibit clearly different elevational diversity patterns.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second, evidence is mounting of the upward spread of non‐native species (e.g. Alexander, Naylor, Poll, Edwards, & Dietz, ; Alexander et al., ; Arevalo et al., ; Averett et al., ; Chown et al., ; Loarie et al., ; Pauchard et al., ; Seipel et al., ; Zhang et al., ), likely a consequence both of climate change and of changing land use associated with growth in human activities (Alexander et al., ; Jakobs, Kueffer, & Daehler, ; Marini, Gaston, Prosser, & Hulme, ). Therefore, much interest exists in understanding how these changes in non‐native elevational ranges may impact native species and communities.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A global analysis of elevational distribution of non‐native versus native plants

Guo

Fei

Shen

et al. 2018

Journal of Biogeography

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim Much is known about the elevational diversity patterns of native species and about the mechanisms that drive these patterns. A similar level of understanding is needed for non‐native species. Using published data, we examine elevational diversity patterns of non‐native plants and compare the resulting patterns with those observed for native plants. Location Global. Methods We compiled data from 65 case studies on elevational diversity patterns of non‐native plants around the world (including 32 cases in which both non‐native and native plants were sampled). We compared the elevational distributions (upper and lower limits, and extents) and diversity patterns of non‐native and native species. Results Compared to native plant species, the elevational diversity patterns of non‐native plant species were more negative (47% vs. 13%) and less unimodal (44% vs. 84%). That is, non‐native species richness tended to be highest at lower elevations, whereas native species richness peaked at mid‐elevations. In cases where species richness for both non‐native and native species on the same mountains showed unimodal patterns in relation to elevation, maximum values in species richness occurred at lower elevations for non‐native species. Main conclusions At present levels of invasion, non‐native and native species show different patterns in both distribution and diversity along elevational gradients worldwide. However, our observations constitute a snapshot of ongoing, long‐term invasion processes. As non‐native species typically show strong associations with human activities, future changes in human population (e.g. growth and migration), land use and climate change may promote upward spread of non‐native species and may thus increase risks of impact on native species and communities.

show abstract

“…An emphasis is now on sustainable use of water, equitable allocation and protection of water resources at global scales (Bogardi et al ., ), indicating the importance of water accounting and water savings projects. Recent research also suggests that in non‐water‐limited environments (perennial streams and rivers) the rate of spread of non‐native, invasive weed species will increase (Chown et al ., ). The research reported here provides water resource managers with a method to improve basin‐wide accounting of water losses from riparian systems resulting from the introduction and spread of invasive weeds.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Development of pan coefficients for estimating evapotranspiration from riparian woody vegetation

Doody

Benyon

Theiveyanathan

et al. 2013

Hydrological Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The long‐term ‘Millennium Drought’ has put significant pressure on water resources across Australia. In southeastern Australia and in particular the Murray‐Darling Basin, removal of exotic, high‐water‐use Salix trees may provide a means to return water to the environment. This paper describes a simple model to estimate evapotranspiration of two introduced Salix species under non‐water‐limited conditions across seven biogeoclimatic zones in Australia. In this study, Salix evapotranspiration was calculated using the Penman–Monteith model. Field measurements of leaf area index and stomatal conductance for Salix babylonica and Salix fragilis were used to parameterize the models. Each model was validated using extensive field estimates of evapotranspiration from a semi‐arid (S. babylonica, r2 = 0.88) and cool temperate (S. fragilis, r2 = 0.99) region. Modelled mean annual evapotranspiration showed strong agreement with field measurements, being within 32 and 2 mm year−1 for S. babylonica and S. fragilis, respectively. Monthly pan coefficients (the ratio of mean evapotranspiration to mean pan evaporation) were developed from 30 years of meteorological data, for 30 key reference sites across Australia for both species using the validated Penman–Monteith models. Open‐water evaporation was estimated from field measurements and was used to develop a simple linear regression model for open‐water evaporation across the 30 reference sites. Differences between modelled evapotranspiration and open‐water evaporation at each site provide an indication of the amount of water that might be returned to the environment from removal of in‐stream Salix species. The monthly pan coefficient method reported has application across riparian environments worldwide where measured evapotranspiration is available for model validation. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Climate change and elevational diversity capacity: do weedy species take up the slack?

Cited by 30 publications

References 18 publications

Invasive species differ in key functional traits from native and non‐invasive alien plant species

Invasive species differ in key functional traits from native and non‐invasive alien plant species

A global analysis of elevational distribution of non‐native versus native plants

Development of pan coefficients for estimating evapotranspiration from riparian woody vegetation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About