4.5 Article

Evidence of ecological niche shift in Rhododendron ponticum (L.) in Britain: Hybridization as a possible cause of rapid niche expansion

Journal

ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
Volume 10, Issue 4, Pages 2040-2050

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ece3.6036

Keywords

biological invasion; hybridization; invasive species; niche shift; Rhododendron ponticum

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Biological invasions threaten global biodiversity and natural resources. Anticipating future invasions is central to strategies for combating the spread of invasive species. Ecological niche models are thus increasingly used to predict potential distribution of invasive species. In this study, we compare ecological niches of Rhododendron ponticum in its native (Iberian Peninsula) and invasive (Britain) ranges. Here, we test the conservation of ecological niche between invasive and native populations of R. ponticum using principal component analysis, niche dynamics analysis, and MaxEnt-based reciprocal niche modeling. We show that niche overlap between native and invasive populations is very low, leading us to the conclusion that the two niches are not equivalent and are dissimilar. We conclude that R. ponticum occupies novel environmental conditions in Britain. However, the evidence of niche shift presented in this study should be treated with caution because of nonanalogue climatic conditions between native and invasive ranges and a small population size in the native range. We then frame our results in the context of contradicting genetic evidence on possible hybridization of this invasive species in Britain. We argue that the existing contradictory studies on whether hybridization caused niche shift in R. ponticum are not sufficient to prove or disprove this hypothesis. However, we present a series of theoretical arguments which indicate that hybridization is a likely cause of the observed niche expansion of R. ponticum in Britain.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available