4.5 Article

Landscape-scale patterns of biological invasions in shoreline plant communities

期刊

OIKOS
卷 107, 期 3, 页码 531-540

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.0030-1299.2004.13099.x

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Little is known about the patterns and dynamics of exotic species invasions at landscape to regional spatial scales. We quantified the presence (identity, abundance, and richness) and characteristics of native and exotic species in estuarine strandline plant communities at 24 sites in Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island, USA. Our results do not support several fundamental predictions of invasion biology. Established exotics (79 of 147 recorded plant species) were nearly indistinguishable from the native plant species (i.e. in terms of growth form, taxonomic grouping, and patterns of spatial distribution and abundance) and essentially represent a random sub-set of the current regional species pool. The cover and richness of exotic species varied substantially among quadrats and sites but were not strongly related to any site-level physical characteristics thought to affect invasibility (i.e. the physical disturbance regime, legal status, neighboring habitat type, and substrate characteristics). Native and exotic cover or richness were not negatively related within most sites. Across sites, native and exotic richness were positively correlated and exotic cover was unrelated to native richness. The colonization and spread of exotics does not appear to have been substantially reduced at sites with high native diversity. Furthermore, despite the fact that the Rhode Island strandline system is one of the most highly-invaded natural plant communities described to date, exotic species, both individually and as a group, currently appear to pose little threat to native plant diversity. Our findings are concordant with most recent, large-scale investigations that do not support the theoretical foundation of invasion biology and generally contradict small-scale experimental work.

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

4.5
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