Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Brief Communication
  • Published:

Ecology

Darwin's naturalization hypothesis challenged

Abstract

Naturalized plants can have a significant ecological and economic impact1, yet they comprise only a fraction of the plant species introduced into new areas by humans2. Darwin proposed3 that introduced plant species will be less likely to establish a self-sustaining wild population in places with congeneric native species because the introduced plants have to compete with their close native relatives, or are more likely to be attacked by native herbivores or pathogens4,5, a theory known as Darwin's naturalization hypothesis6. Here we analyse a complete list of seed-plant species that have been introduced to New Zealand and find that those with congeneric relatives are significantly more, not less, likely to naturalize — perhaps because they share with their native relatives traits that pre-adapt them to their new environment.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Vitousek, P. M., D'Antonio, C. M., Loope, L. L., Rejmánek, M. & Westbrooks, R. NZ J. Ecol. 21, 1–16 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Williamson, M. Biological Invasions (Chapman & Hall, London, 1996).

  3. Darwin, C. On the Origin of Species (Murray, London, 1859).

  4. Rejmánek, M. in Invasive Species and Biodiversity Management (eds Sandlund, O. T., Schei, P. J. & Viken, A.) 79–102 (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1999).

  5. Mack, R. N. in Weeds in a Changing World (ed. Stirton, C. H.) 65–76 (British Crop Protection Council Symp. Proc. 64, Farnham, 7 1995).

  6. Daehler, C. C. Am. Nat. 158, 324–330 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Jackson, B. D. et al. Index Kewensis Plantarum Phanerogamarum (Clarendon, Oxford, 1895).

  8. Mabberley, D. J. The Plant Book: A Portable Dictionary of the Higher Plants (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1987).

  9. Heenan, P. B., Breitwieser, I., Glenny, D. S., de Lange, P. J. & Brownsey, P. J. NZ J. Bot. 36, 155–162 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. SAS Institute. SAS/STAT Version 8 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, 1999).

  11. Webb, C. O. Am. Nat. 156, 145–155 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Williams, C. B. J. Anim. Ecol. 16, 11–18 (1947).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard P. Duncan.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Duncan, R., Williams, P. Darwin's naturalization hypothesis challenged. Nature 417, 608–609 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1038/417608a

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/417608a

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing