|
Organism | Description | Reference |
|
Question 1: Are invasive species plastic for functional traits? |
Cyanobacteria | Growth rate and morphology were altered by temperature. | [131] |
Plant | Physiological plasticity permitted savannah-adapted trees to survive floodwaters throughout their invaded range. | [132] |
Plant | Climate variation induced plasticity in several phenotypes. | [133] |
Plant | Different growth strategies in different habitats kept population growth stable. | [134] |
Plant | Reciprocal transplant of 15 invasive populations showed that all populations were similarly plastic. | [135] |
Plant | Plasticity was induced by water depth and light quality. | [136] |
Plant | Different populations of invasive species differed in plasticity to changing water conditions. | [137] |
Plant | Growth was altered by nitrogen concentrations. | [138] |
Mollusc | Size-at-maturity changed with temperature, permitted survival during El Niño. | [139] |
Mollusc | Shell shape plasticity induced by water flow velocity. | [140] |
Crustacean | Reproductive plasticity detected as facultative parthenogenesis. | [141] |
Insect | Acclimation to cool temperatures increased performance. | [142] |
Insect | Physiological plasticity enabled salt tolerance in invaded island habitats. | [143] |
Fish | Plasticity found in length of spawning season. | [144] |
Amphibian | Hydroperiod did not affect growth or development (no plasticity detected). | [145] |
Bird | Epigenetic modifications higher in populations with less genetic diversity. | [146] |
|
Question 2: Are invasive species as or more invasive than their ancestors? |
Plant | Invasive populations more plastic than populations from the ancestral range. | [147] |
Plant | 8 invasive populations were as plastic as 8 populations from the ancestral range for 20 highly plastic traits. | [148] |
Plant | 2 invasive populations had evolved increased and decreased plasticity for different traits, in comparison to 18 populations from the ancestral range. | [149] |
Plant | Plasticity increased in the invasive population relative to their resurrected ancestors. | [48] |
Fish | Invasive populations were less plastic than populations from their ancestral range. | [150] |
|
Question 3: Is plasticity higher in invasive species than in the competitors they are displacing? |
Plant | Germination of invasive species was not affected by salinity, presumably implying physiological plasticity; one native species performed even better. | [151] |
Plant | Invasive species were more plastic than native species and were better competitors, but this varied with the invasive success of the species. | [152] |
Nematode | Plasticity in the reproductive traits of an invasive species gave it a competitive advantage. | [153] |
Insect | Physiological plasticity to temperature was higher in an invasive species. | [154] |
|
Question 4: Is plasticity higher in invasive species than in noninvasive species? |
Insect | An invasive species with a large range was compared to an invasive species with a small range on the same island; the large-range species was more resistant to temperature, implying physiological plasticity. | [45] |
|
Question 5: Does plasticity permit persistence of native species in the face of invaders? (native/invader) |
Crustacean/ Crustacean | Invaders were only present in ion-rich waters, natives in ion-poor and ion-rich waters. Plasticity in natives allowed ion-poor populations to migrate to ion-rich waters, supplementing a dwindling ion-rich native population. | [155] |
Insect/Insect | Parasitoid wasps ably preyed upon an invading moth, irrespective of moth’s host plant. | [156] |
Amphibian/Insect, Fish, Crustacean | Both native and invasive amphibians exhibited behavioural and/or morphological plasticity in the face of both native and invasive predators, although the magnitude of the plastic response was smaller towards invasive predators. | [157] |
|