4.7 Article

Impact of plant invasions on local arthropod communities: a meta-analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF ECOLOGY
卷 102, 期 1, 页码 4-11

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1365-2745.12176

关键词

alien species; arthropods; exotic species; insects; invasion ecology; species richness; woodiness

资金

  1. Dutch Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) as part of the ERGO programme [838.06.111]
  2. Natural Environment Research Council [CEH010021] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Invasive plants can have a major impact on local plant and animal communities. However, effects of plant invasions on arthropod communities and the potential drivers have rarely been studied. We present a meta-analysis of 56 studies on the impact of plant invasions on abundance and richness of local arthropod communities. Moreover, we study the role of five invader and habitat attributes to assess their influence on the direction and magnitude of effect on arthropod communities: the time since introduction; woody vs. herbaceous invaders; presence of native congeners; canopy cover of the invader; and single vs. multiple invaders. We found that overall invaded habitats had a 29% lower arthropod abundance and a 17% lower taxonomic richness compared with non-invaded habitats. Woody invaders had a stronger negative impact on arthropod communities than herbaceous invaders, reducing abundance and richness by as much as 55% and 21%, respectively.Synthesis. Our study demonstrates that arthropod communities are negatively affected by plant invasions, which may have substantial effects on other ecosystem features, such as pollination, food web dynamics, decomposition as well as habitat heterogeneity. Loss of arthropod diversity is generally directly associated with loss of plant species richness. Therefore, the reduction we see could be causally connected to the effect of the invader on the habitat. The physical dominance of woody invaders compared with herbaceous invaders could be a main driver for this effect.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据