4.4 Article

Widespread plant species: natives versus aliens in our changing world

Journal

BIOLOGICAL INVASIONS
Volume 13, Issue 9, Pages 1931-1944

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10530-011-0024-9

Keywords

Alien plants; Biotic homogenization; China; Europe; Globalization; North America; Plant invasions; South Africa; South America; Species distributions

Funding

  1. Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic [AV0Z60050516]
  2. Ministry of Education of the Czech Republic [MSM0021620828, LC06073]
  3. ICM [P05-002, PFB-23]
  4. U.S. Geological Survey
  5. USGS
  6. USDA CSREES/NRI [2008-35615-04666]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Estimates of the level of invasion for a region are traditionally based on relative numbers of native and alien species. However, alien species differ dramatically in the size of their invasive ranges. Here we present the first study to quantify the level of invasion for several regions of the world in terms of the most widely distributed plant species (natives vs. aliens). Aliens accounted for 51.3% of the 120 most widely distributed plant species in North America, 43.3% in New South Wales (Australia), 34.2% in Chile, 29.7% in Argentina, and 22.5% in the Republic of South Africa. However, Europe had only 1% of alien species among the most widespread species of the flora. Across regions, alien species relative to native species were either as well-distributed (10 comparisons) or more widely distributed (5 comparisons). These striking patterns highlight the profound contribution that widespread invasive alien plants make to floristic dominance patterns across different regions. Many of the most widespread species are alien plants, and, in particular, Europe and Asia appear as major contributors to the homogenization of the floras in the Americas. We recommend that spatial extent of invasion should be explicitly incorporated in assessments of invasibility, globalization, and risk assessments.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available