Find research datasets worth reusing

opencc-by-4.0Aug 2006View details →

Fig. 2 in Potential Global Range Expansion Of A New Invasive Species, The Erythrina Gall Wasp, Quadrastichus Erythrinae Kim (Insecta: Hymenoptera: Eulophidae)

Fig. 2. Potential expansion areas of erythrina gall wasp in Asia and Australia.

opennotspecifiedAug 2024View details →

Occurrence filtered by invasive species list: occurrence-filtered-by-invasive-species v2

Data snapshot, invasive species From [DATA-1682](https://eol-jira.bibalex.org/browse/DATA-1682) Total rows = 10,826

opencc-by-4.0Aug 2018View details →

Figure 1 in First occurrence of the invasive alien species Streblospio gynobranchiata (Rice & Levin, 1998) and Polydora cornuta Bosc, 1802 (Polychaeta: Spionidae) on the coast of Abkhazia (Sukhum Bay, Black Sea)

Figure 1. Location of the stations where specimens of alien spionid polychaete were found.

Table 3 in Mowing inhibits the invasion of the alien species Solidago altissima and is an effective management strategy

Table 3. Heights of S. altissima before mowing in September 2019.<table><tbody><tr><th>Site</th><th>Control</th><th>Mowing 1</th><th>Mowing 2</th><th>Mowing 3</th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th>Site 1</th><td>168.0 ± 3.27a</td><td>64.0 ± 3.32c</td><td>100.5 ± 9.14b</td><td>67.5 ± 3.1c</td></tr><tr><th>Site 2</th><td>192.0 ± 11.3a</td><td>79.0 ± 4.07c</td><td>111.0 ± 6.9b</td><td>73.0 ± 7.61c</td></tr><tr><th>Site 3</th><td>159.0 ± 4.99a</td><td>123.0 ± 7.12b</td><td>84.5 ± 5.89c</td><td>47.0 ± 2.71d</td></tr><tr><th>Site 4</th><td>190.0 ± 2.98a</td><td>102.0 ± 3.89b</td><td>112.5 ±8.07b</td><td>62.0 ± 5.33c</td></tr><tr><th>Site 5</th><td>217.0 ±10.23a</td><td>87.5 ± 4.9c</td><td>137.0 ± 4.96b</td><td>62.5 ± 3.1d</td></tr><tr><th>Site 6</th><td>177.5 ± 6.76a</td><td>97.5 ± 5.44c</td><td>120.5 ± 4.97b</td><td>60.0 ± 2.58d</td></tr><tr><th>Site 7</th><td>143.5 ± 12.2a</td><td>81.0 ± 2.77b</td><td>138.5 ± 3.5a</td><td>62.0 ± 4.67b</td></tr></tbody></table>* Mowing 1: mowed once in July; Mowing 2: mowed twice in May and September; Mowing 3: mowed three times in May, July, and September. Data are presented as means ± standard errors of 10 replicates. Means within a row followed by different letters are significantly different at p <0.05 (ANOVA with post hoc Tukey’s test). Units: cm.

Table 2 in Mowing inhibits the invasion of the alien species Solidago altissima and is an effective management strategy

Table 2. Heights of S. altissima before mowing treatment in May 2019.<table><tbody><tr><th>Site</th><th>Control</th><th>Mowing 1</th><th>Mowing 2</th><th>Mowing 3</th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th>Site 1</th><td>101.0 ± 3.2a</td><td>101.0 ± 3.0a</td><td>81.1 ± 2.6b</td><td>64.9 ± 3.1c</td></tr><tr><th>Site 2</th><td>116.5 ± 4.7a</td><td>111.8 ± 4.7a</td><td>82.9 ± 4.1b</td><td>72.5 ± 6.6b</td></tr><tr><th>Site 4</th><td>89.1 ± 2.2a</td><td>74.8 ± 2.2b</td><td>49.5 ± 3.1d</td><td>59.8 ± 1.6c</td></tr><tr><th>Site 5</th><td>93.5 ± 2.5a</td><td>99.5 ± 2.3a</td><td>78.0 ± 2.0b</td><td>77.1 ± 2.0b</td></tr><tr><th>Site 6</th><td>125.3 ± 5.2a</td><td>117.0 ± 3.0a</td><td>86.5 ± 3.0c</td><td>105.0 ± 3.4b</td></tr><tr><th>Site 7</th><td>123.3 ± 3.3a</td><td>119.3 ± 2.9ab</td><td>111.3 ± 2.8bc</td><td>110.3 ± 3.1c</td></tr><tr><th>Site 8</th><td>96.0 ± 4.0a</td><td>94.5 ± 4.1ab</td><td>84.5 ± 3.3bc</td><td>81.0 ± 3.1c</td></tr></tbody></table>* Mowing 1: mowed once in July; Mowing 2: mowed twice in May and September; Mowing 3: mowed three times in May, July, and September. Data are presented as means ± standard errors of 10 replicates. Means within a row followed by different letters are significantly different at p <0.05 (ANOVA with post hoc Tukey’s test). Units: cm.

Table 1 in Mowing inhibits the invasion of the alien species Solidago altissima and is an effective management strategy

Table 1. Heights of dead shoots of S. altissima after 1 year of treatment in April 2019.<table><tbody><tr><th>Site</th><th>Control</th><th>Mowing 1</th><th>Mowing 2</th><th>Mowing 3</th><th>Eco 200</th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th>Site 1</th><td>162.8 ± 6.62a</td><td>85.7 ± 5.52b</td><td>29.5 ± 2.74c</td><td>21.3 ± 2.09c</td><td>77.9 ± 8.94b</td></tr><tr><th>Site 2</th><td>213.2 ± 12.08a</td><td>87.1 ± 7.33c</td><td>38.4 ± 2.17d</td><td>29.0 ± 2.01d</td><td>144.8 ± 9.57b</td></tr><tr><th>Site 3</th><td>163.4 ± 7.31a</td><td>66.3 ± 4.55c</td><td>40.7 ± 2.57d</td><td>33.4 ± 2.11d</td><td>143.4 ± 7.13b</td></tr><tr><th>Site 4</th><td>191.6 ± 3.84a</td><td>160.8 ± 7.90b</td><td>59.2 ± 1.66d</td><td>81.9 ± 6.50c</td><td>166.9 ± 12.33b</td></tr><tr><th>Site 5</th><td>181.7 ± 4.76a</td><td>114.7 ± 2.90b</td><td>89.5 ± 10.23c</td><td>46.6 ± 5.12d</td><td>183.8 ± 9.00a</td></tr><tr><th>Site 6</th><td>174.8 ± 4.34a</td><td>82.9 ± 4.49c</td><td>39.7 ± 2.51d</td><td>31.6 ± 2.47d</td><td>153.3 ± 3.12b</td></tr><tr><th>Site 7</th><td>165.5 ± 4.79a</td><td>91.2 ± 6.02b</td><td>64.7 ± 3.24c</td><td>44.0 ± 3.67d</td><td>153.8 ± 7.25a</td></tr></tbody></table>* Mowing 1: mowed once in July; Mowing 2: mowed twice in May and September; Mowing 3: mowed three times in May, July, and September; Eco 200: 30% of shoots in the quadrats were cut near the ground, and the cut surfaces were covered with the Eco 200 block. Data are presented as means ± standard errors of 20 replicates. Means within a row followed by different letters are significantly different at p <0.05 (ANOVA with post hoc Tukey’s test). Units: cm.

Table 4 in Mowing inhibits the invasion of the alien species Solidago altissima and is an effective management strategy

Table 4. Change in areas occupied by S. altissima in patch-type communities from March 2018 to March 2019.<table><tbody><tr><th>Control</th><th>Mowing 3</th><th>Eco 20%</th><th>Eco 100%</th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th>205.2 ± 107.3</th><td>24.7 ± 44.0</td><td>104.5 ± 85.2</td><td>− 31.7 ± 13.0</td></tr></tbody></table>Mowing 3: mowed three times in May, July, and September; Eco 20%: 20% of shoots were mowed and treated with Eco 200; Eco 100%: 100% of shoots were mowed and treated with Eco 200. Data are presented as means ± standard errors of six replicates.

opencc-by-4.0Dec 2023View details →

Table 1 in America's Most Wanted Fishes: cataloging risk assessments to prioritize invasive species for management action

Table 1. List of fish species with high-risk statuses in the conterminous U.S., in the Great Lakes region, and in the state of Florida. Horizontal lines separate families and species for clarity.<table><tbody><tr><th>Family Name</th><th>Fish species name</th><th>Conterminous U.S.</th><th>Great Lakes</th><th>Florida</th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th>Atherinidae</th><td>Atherina boyeri (Risso, 1810)</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Atherinopsidae</th><td>Menidia beryllina (Cope, 1867)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Odontesthes bonariensis (Valenciennes, 1835)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Callichthyidae</th><td>Hoplosternum littorale (Hancock, 1828)</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><th>Centrarchidae</th><td>Lepomis microlophus (Günther, 1859)</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Micropterus dolomieu (Lacepède, 1802)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Micropterus salmoides (Lacepède, 1802)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Centropomidae</th><td>Lates niloticus (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Channidae</th><td>Channa argus (Cantor, 1842)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Channa marulius (Hamilton, 1822)</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><th>Characidae</th><td>Pygocentrus nattereri (Kner, 1858)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Cichlidae</th><td>Amatitlania nigrofasciata (Günther, 1867)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Astronotus ocellatus (Agassiz, 1831)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cichla kelberi (Kullander & Ferreira, 2006)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cichla ocellaris (Bloch & Schneider, 1801)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Cichlasoma uropthalma (Günther, 1862)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Coptodon rendalli (Boulenger, 1897)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Coptodon zilli (Gervais, 1848)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Hemichromis letourneuxi (Sauvage, 1880)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Herichthys cyanoguttatus (Baird & Girard, 1854)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Oreochromis aureus (Steindachner, 1864)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Oreochromis mossambicus (Peters, 1852)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Oreochromis niloticus (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Parachromis managuensis (Günther, 1862)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Pelmatotilapia mariae (Boulenger, 1899)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sarotherodon melanotheron (Rüppell, 1852)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Serranochromis robustus (Günther, 1864)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Clariidae</th><td>Clarias batrachus (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Clarias fuscus (Lacepède, 1803)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Clarias gariepinus (Burchell, 1822)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Clupeidae</th><td>Alosa aestivalis (Mitchell, 1814)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Alosa pseudoharengus (Wilson, 1811)</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Cobitidae</th><td>Misgurnus anguillicaudatus (Cantor, 1842)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><th>Cyprinidae</th><td>Abramis brama (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Alburnus alburnus (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Barbus barbus (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Carassius auratus (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Carassius gibelio (Bloch, 1782)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Ctenopharyngodon idella (Valenciennes, 1844)</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Culter alburnus (Basilewsky, 1855)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cyprinella lutrensis (Baird & Girard, 1853)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cyprinus carpio (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Gobio gobio (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Hypophthalmichthys molitrix (Valenciennes, 1844)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Hypophthalmichthys nobilis (Richardson, 1845)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Leuciscus idus (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Mylopharyngodon piceus (Richardson, 1846)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Opsariichthys uncirostris (Temminck & Schlegel, 1846)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Pimephales promelas (Rafinsque, 1820)</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Phoxinus phoxinus (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Protochondrostoma genei (Bonaparte, 1839)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Pseudorasbora parva (Temminck & Schlegel, 1846)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Rhodeus amarus (Bloch, 1782)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Rutilus aula (Bonparte,1841)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Rutilus rutilus (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Scardinius erythrophthalmus (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Tinca tinca (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Esocidae</th><td>Esox lucius (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Esox masquinongy (Mitchill, 1824)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Gasterosteidae</th><td>Gasterosteus aculeatus (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Gobiidae</th><td>Neogobius melanostomus (Pallas, 1814)</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Ponticola platyrostris (Pallas, 1814)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Proterorhinus semilunaris (Heckel, 1837)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Heteropneustidae</th><td>Heteropneustes fossilis (Bloch, 1794)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Ictaluridae</th><td>Ictalurus furcatus (Valenciennes, 1840)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Pylodictis olivaris (Rafinesque, 1818)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Loricariidae</th><td>Hypostomus plecostomus (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Pterygoplichthys anisitsi (Eigenmann & Kennedy, 1903)</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Pterygoplichthys disjunctivus (Weber, 1991)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Pterygoplichthys multiradiatus (Hancock, 1828)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Pterygoplichthys pardalis (Castelnau, 1855)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Moronidae</th><td>Morone americana (Gmelin, 1789)</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Notopteridae</th><td>Chitala ornata (Gray, 1831)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Odontobutidae</th><td>Perccottus glenii (Dybowski, 1877)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Osmeridae</th><td>Hypomesus nipponensis (McAllister, 1963)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Osmerus eperlanus (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Osmerus mordax (Mitchill, 1814)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Osphronemidae</th><td>Trichogaster lalius (Hamilton, 1822)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Trichopodus trichopterus (Pallas, 1770)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Percidae</th><td>Gymnocephalus cernua (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Perca flavescens (Mitchill, 1814)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Perca fluviatilis (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sander lucioperca (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sander vitreus (Mitchill, 1818)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Petromyzontidae</th><td>Petromyzon marinus (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Poeciliidae</th><td>Belonesox belizanus (Kner, 1860)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Gambusia affinis (Baird & Girard, 1853)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Gambusia holbrooki (Girard, 1859)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Poecilia latipinna (Lesueur, 1821)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Poecilia reticulata (Peters, 1859)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Poecilia sphenops (Valciennes, 1846)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Xiphophorus helleri (Heckel, 1848)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Xiphophorus variatus (Meek, 1904)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Polypteridae</th><td>Polypterus delhezi (Boulenger, 1899)</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><th>Pomacentridae</th><td>Neopomacentrus cyanomos (Bleeker, 1856)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Potamotrygonidae</th><td>Potamotrygon falkneri (Castex & Maciel, 1963)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Potamotrygon motoro (Müller & Henle, 1841)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Potamotrygon schuhmacheri (Castex, 1964)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Salmonidae</th><td>Coregonus albula (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Coregonus lavaretus (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Coregonus maraena (Bloch, 1779)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Coregonus peled (Gmelin, 1789)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Hucho hucho (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Oncorhynchus kisutch (Walbaum, 1792)</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum, 1792)</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (Walbaum, 1792)</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Salmo trutta (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Scorpaenidae</th><td>Pterois miles (Bennett, 1828)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Pterois volitans (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Siluridae</th><td>Silurus glanis (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

opencc-by-4.0Nov 2021View details →

IPBES Invasive Alien Species Assessment, database for Chapter 4. Impact Evidence Database

This is a database described in the data management report for chapter 4 of IPBES thematic assessment on invasive alien species and their control. Data were gathered on direct observations of impacts from published literature, including grey literature, in order to form a database on the evidence to which invasive alien species impact, negatively and positively, nature, nature's contributions to people and good quality of life for Chapter 4 of IPBES thematic assessment of invasive alien species and their control. The criteria for inclusion were a published direct evidence of an impact on native species, a change in ecosystem properties, nature's contributions to people and the extent to which humans were affected through changes in their constituents of well-being.   Updates to version 3: 1) Assessor “EAM” has been replaced by “Ester Mostert”, 2) There were 50 Unique IDs that were paired. These are now differentiated by adding an a and b to the end of these to make them truly unique, 3) Removed 40 duplicates 4) RowID were re-numbered to reflect the unique number of rows

opencc-by-4.0Feb 2024View details →

Table 2 in Invasive neo-species and how to name them

Table 2. Decision table based on the presence of reproductive barriers and phenotypic differentiation using the term “neo”.<table><tbody><tr><th></th><th></th><th>Substantial reproductive isolation</th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th></th><td></td><td>Yes</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><th>Substantial phenotypic differentiation</th><td>Yes</td><td>New neo-species (neo)</td><td>New subspecies (subsp.)</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>New neo-species (neo)</td><td>No changes</td></tr></tbody></table>

opencc-by-4.0Feb 2024View details →

Table 1 in Invasive neo-species and how to name them

Table 1. Decision table based on the presence of reproductive barriers and phenotypic differentiation using the current nomenclature.<table><tbody><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th>Substantial reproductive isolation</th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th></th><td></td><td></td><td>Yes</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><th>Substantial phenotypic differentiation</th><td>Yes</td><td>New</td><td>species within genus</td><td>New subspecies (subsp.)</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>New</td><td>species within genus</td><td>No changes</td></tr></tbody></table>

opencc-zeroDec 2016View details →

Data from: Selection for life-history traits to maximize population growth in an invasive marine species

Species establishing outside their natural range, negatively impacting local ecosystems, are of increasing global concern. They often display life-history features characteristic for r-selected populations with fast growth and high reproduction rates to achieve positive population growth rates (r) in invaded habitats. Here, we demonstrate substantially earlier maturation at a 2 orders of magnitude lower body mass at first reproduction in invasive compared to native populations of the comb jelly Mnemiopsis leidyi. Empirical results are corroborated by a theoretical model for competing life-history traits that predicts maturation at the smallest possible size to optimize r, while individual lifetime reproductive success (R0), optimized in native populations, is near constant over a large range of intermediate maturation sizes. We suggest that high variability in reproductive tactics in native populations is an underappreciated determinant of invasiveness, acting as substrate upon which selection can act during the invasion process.

opencc-zeroJun 2021View details →

Native plant species show evolutionary responses to invasion by Parthenium hysterophorus in an African savanna

Invasive plant species often competitively displace native plant species but some populations of native plant species can evolve adaptation to competition from invaders and persist in invaded habitats. However, studies are lacking that examine how variation in abiotic conditions in invaded landscapes may affect fitness of native plants that have adapted to compete with invasive plants. I tested whether invasion by Parthenium hysterophorus in an African savanna may have selected for native plant individuals with greater competitive ability than conspecific naïve natives in nutrient-rich and mesic soil conditions. I compared vegetative growth and seed yields of invader-experienced and conspecific naïve native individuals. Invader-experienced natives grew shorter than naïve natives regardless of growth conditions. Nevertheless, the two groups of native plants also exhibited treatment-specific differences in competitive ability. Invader-experienced natives displayed plasticity in seed yield under drought treatment, while naïve natives did not. Moreover, drought treatment enhanced competitive effects of invader-experienced natives on P. hysterophorus, while nutrient enrichment relaxed competitive effects of experienced natives on the invader. The results suggest that P. hysterophorus may have selected for shorter native plant genotypes that also exhibit plasticity in competitive ability under drought conditions.

opencc-zeroApr 2020View details →

Data from: Simulating effects of fitness and dispersal on the use of Trojan sex chromosomes for invasive species management

<ol> <li>The use of Trojan Y Chromosomes (TYC) for controlling invasive species involves manipulating the sex chromosomes of captive-raised individuals. Once released, the offspring of these individuals consist of only one sex, thereby skewing the sex-ratio of the invasive population and potentially leading to eradication. Simulation models are needed that can inform managers on how to maximize the likelihood of species eradication, since implementation of this novel management approach in the field is still rare.</li> <li>Here, we present the first spatially explicit, mechanistic simulation model of a real-world TYC program for invasive species eradication. Using a brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) system model, we investigated the effects of competitive and reproductive fitness of the captive-raised YY males, dispersal behavior upon their release, and landscape heterogeneity on eradication success.</li> <li>Likelihood of eradication was dependent on both the competitive and reproductive fitness of the Trojan individuals. Competitive fitness (i.e., survival) had a higher threshold for eradication, below which populations failed to be eradicated.</li> <li>Movement ecology of both the wild and YY male populations was important for eradication. Under a restricted dispersal scenario for YY males following their release, the wild population was not extirpated but maintained a stable, yet reduced, population size. In terms of landscape configuration, time to eradication of local patches increased with greater connectivity within the stream network.</li> <li>In addition to sex ratio distortion, density-dependent mortality resulting from outplantings made an important contribution to eradication and therefore may also affect native competitors.</li> <li>While our results indicate that eradication is possible, maximizing its likelihood requires an understanding of the fitness and movement ecology of both the wild and YY male populations of the invasive species. Both our model and the principles derived from this study related to fitness and behavioral landscape ecology can be broadly applied to other invaded species and systems.</li> </ol>

opencc-zeroJul 2021View details →

Data from: Chemical novelty facilitates herbivore resistance and biological invasions in some introduced plant species

Ecological release from herbivory due to chemical novelty is commonly predicted to facilitate biological invasions by plants, but has not been tested on a community scale. We used metabolomics based on mass spectrometry molecular networks to assess the novelty of foliar secondary chemistry of 15 invasive plant species compared to 46 native species at a site in eastern North America. Locally, invasive species were more chemically distinctive than natives. Among the 15 invasive species, the more chemically distinct were less preferred by insect herbivores and less browsed by deer. Finally, an assessment of invasion frequency in 2,505 forest plots in the Atlantic coastal plain revealed that, regionally, invasive species that were less preferred by insect herbivores, less browsed by white-tailed deer, and chemically distinct relative to the native plant community occurred more frequently in survey plots. Our results suggest that chemically-mediated release from herbivores contributes to many successful invasions.

opencc-zeroJul 2021View details →

Arresting the spread of invasive species in continental systems

Invasive species are a primary threat to biodiversity and are challenging to manage once populations become established. But removing them is further complicated when invasions occur in continental, mixed-ownership systems. We demonstrate a rare conservation success: the regional-scale removal of an invasive predator – the barred owl (Strix varia) – to benefit the spotted owl (S. occidentalis) in California, USA. Barred owl site occupancy declined six-fold from 0.19 to 0.03 following one year of removals, and site extinction (0.92) far exceeded colonization (0.02). Spotted owls recolonized 56% of formerly occupied territories within one year, contrasting starkly with removals conducted after barred owls achieved high densities in the Pacific Northwest. Thus, our study averted the otherwise likely extirpation of California spotted owls by barred owl competition. Collectively, leveraging technological advances in population monitoring, early intervention, targeting defensible biogeographic areas, and fostering public-private partnerships will reduce invasive species-driven extinction of native fauna in continental systems.

opencc-zeroJul 2021View details →

Predicting the competitive interactions and trophic niche consequences of a globally invasive fish with threatened native species

1. Novel trophic interactions between invasive and native species potentially increase levels of inter-specific competition in the receiving environment. However, theory on the trophic impacts of invasive fauna on native competitors is ambiguous, as while increased inter-specific competition can result in the species having constricted and diverged trophic niches, the species might instead increase their niche sizes, especially in omnivorous species. 2. The competitive interactions between an omnivorous invasive fish, common carp Cyprinus carpio, and a tropically analogous native and threatened fish, crucian carp Carassius carassius, were tested using comparative functional responses (CFRs). A natural pond experiment then presented the species in allopatry and sympatry, determining the changes in their trophic (isotopic) niche sizes and positions over four years. These predictive approaches were complemented by assessing their trophic relationships in wild populations. 3. CFRs revealed that compared to crucian carp, carp had a significantly higher maximum consumption rate. Coupled with a previous cohabitation growth study, these results predicted that competition between the species is asymmetric, with carp the superior competitor. 4. The pond experiment used stable isotope metrics to quantify shifts in the trophic (isotopic) niche sizes of the fishes. In allopatry, the isotopic niches of the two species were similar sized and diverged. Conversely, in sympatry, carp isotopic niches were always considerably larger than those of crucian carp and were strongly partitioned. Sympatric crucian carp had larger isotopic niches than allopatric conspecifics, a likely response to asymmetric competition from carp. However, carp isotopic niches were also larger in sympatry than allopatry. In the wild populations, the carp isotopic niches were always larger than crucian carp niches, and were highly divergent. 5. The superior competitive abilities of carp predicted in aquaria experiments were considered to be a process involved in sympatric crucian carp having larger isotopic niches than in allopatry. However, as sympatric carp also had larger niches than in allopatry, this suggests other ecological processes were also likely to be involved, such as those relating to fish prey resources. These results highlight the inherent complexity in determining how omnivorous invasive species integrate into food-webs and alter their structure.

opencc-by-4.0Jun 2021View details →

Potential distributional shifts in North America of allelopathic invasive plant species under climate change models

Occurrence data for invaive species used in ecological niche modeling for predictive studies. These data are cleaned to removed data with duplicates, incomplete coordinates, unlikely coordinates (e.g., 0,0), or those lacking environmental data were removed using the scrubr v.0.1.1 package in R (Chamberlain, 2016). Points falling outside of the respective training region for each species were also removed. These data represent downloads from iDigBio and GBIF.

opencc-zeroAug 2021View details →

Role of species richness and human-impacts in resisting invasive species in tropical forests

The biotic resistance hypothesis suggests that biodiversity rich areas should be resistant to biological invasions. Globally, conservationists use this hypothesis to protect diverse ecosystems. However, supporting data are often contradictory, possibly due to several confounding factors. Complexity in inferences increase in the tropics, which are sparsely studied. We hypothesize that human impacts, forest type and climate would modulate the relationship between native and invasive plant richness. To understand these interacting and varying effects of native richness and human disturbance on plant invasions, we sampled 354 grids of 25 km2 with equal representation of protected areas and multi-use areas to record abundance of native and non-native plants from 34 protected areas across five forest types in tropical India. We used linear mixed effect models to investigate occurrence and abundance of invasive plants with respect to varying native richness, human impacts, forest types and climate. Human use of forests increased richness and abundance of invasive plants across all forest types. After accounting for human-use, native species richness of tropical wet forests had a negative relationship with invasive plants richness and abundance, while the relationship reversed with increasing aridity and temperature. Human infrastructure facilitated invasions within protected areas. Synthesis. The biotic resistance hypothesis explained a lower number of invasions within protected tropical wet forests but not within dry forests. Human-free protected areas had lower richness and abundance of invasive plants across all systems, especially in wet tropical forests. Our results support the contextual importance of the biotic resistance hypothesis, while stressing the importance of protected areas, insulated from human impacts, to preserve the integrity of vulnerable natural systems.