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.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Successful range-expanding plants experience less above-ground and below-ground enemy impact

Nature volume 456, pages 946–948 (2008)Cite this article

Abstract

Many species are currently moving to higher latitudes and altitudes1,2,3. However, little is known about the factors that influence the future performance of range-expanding species in their new habitats. Here we show that range-expanding plant species from a riverine area were better defended against shoot and root enemies than were related native plant species growing in the same area. We grew fifteen plant species with and without non-coevolved polyphagous locusts and cosmopolitan, polyphagous aphids. Contrary to our expectations, the locusts performed more poorly on the range-expanding plant species than on the congeneric native plant species, whereas the aphids showed no difference. The shoot herbivores reduced the biomass of the native plants more than they did that of the congeneric range expanders. Also, the range-expanding plants developed fewer pathogenic effects4,5 in their root-zone soil than did the related native species. Current predictions forecast biodiversity loss due to limitations in the ability of species to adjust to climate warming conditions in their range6,7,8. Our results strongly suggest that the plants that shift ranges towards higher latitudes and altitudes may include potential invaders, as the successful range expanders may experience less control by above-ground or below-ground enemies than the natives.

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

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

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

Figure 1: Effects of shoot herbivores and soil feedback on plant biomass.
Figure 2: Relative change in plant biomass due to shoot herbivores and soil feedback.
Figure 3: Performance of herbivores on native and non-native plants.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Walther, G. R. et al. Ecological responses to recent climate change. Nature 416, 389–395 (2002)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Parmesan, C. & Yohe, G. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421, 37–42 (2003)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Pearson, R. G. & Dawson, T. P. Predicting the impacts of climate change on the distribution of species: are bioclimate envelope models useful? Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 12, 361–371 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Klironomos, J. N. Feedback with soil biota contributes to plant rarity and invasiveness in communities. Nature 417, 67–70 (2002)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Van Grunsven, R. H. A. et al. Reduced plant-soil feedback of plant species expanding their range as compared to natives. J. Ecol. 95, 1050–1057 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Warren, M. S. et al. Rapid responses of British butterflies to opposing forces of climate and habitat change. Nature 414, 65–69 (2001)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Thomas, C. D. et al. Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427, 145–148 (2004)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Thomas, J. A. et al. Comparative losses of British butterflies, birds, and plants and the global extinction crisis. Science 303, 1879–1881 (2004)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Lovejoy, T. E. & Hannah, L. Climate Change and Biodiversity. (Yale Univ. Press, 2005)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Brinkhuis, H. et al. Episodic fresh surface waters in the Eocene Arctic Ocean. Nature 441, 606–609 (2006)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Tamis, W. L. M. et al. Changes in vascular plant biodiversity in the Netherlands in the 20th century explained by their climatic and other environmental characteristics. Clim. Change 72, 37–56 (2005)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  12. Levine, J. M. et al. Plant-soil feedbacks and invasive spread. Ecol. Lett. 9, 1005–1014 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Keane, R. M. & Crawley, M. J. Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17, 164–170 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Menendez, R. et al. Escape from natural enemies during climate-driven range expansion: a case study. Ecol. Entomol. 33, 413–421 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. van der Putten, W. H. et al. Linking above- and belowground multitrophic interactions of plants, herbivores, pathogens, and their antagonists. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16, 547–554 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Maron, J. L. & Vila, M. When do herbivores affect plant invasion? Evidence for the natural enemies and biotic resistance hypotheses. Oikos 95, 361–373 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Callaway, R. M. et al. Soil biota and exotic plant invasion. Nature 427, 731–733 (2004)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Reinhart, K. O. et al. Plant-soil biota interactions and spatial distribution of black cherry in its native and invasive ranges. Ecol. Lett. 6, 1046–1050 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Mitchell, C. E. & Power, A. G. Release of invasive plants from fungal and viral pathogens. Nature 421, 625–627 (2003)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. van der Putten, W. H. et al. Invasive plants and their escape from root herbivory: a worldwide comparison of the root-feeding nematode communities of the dune grass Ammophila arenaria in natural and introduced ranges. Biol. Invasions 7, 733–746 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Agrawal, A. A. et al. Enemy release? An experiment with congeneric plant pairs and diverse above- and belowground enemies. Ecology 86, 2979–2989 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bever, J. D., Westover, K. M. & Antonovics, J. Incorporating the soil community into plant population dynamics: the utility of the feedback approach. J. Ecol. 85, 561–573 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Parker, J. D., Burkepile, D. E. & Hay, M. E. Opposing effects of native and exotic herbivores on plant invasions. Science 311, 1459–1461 (2006)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Funk, J. L. & Vitousek, P. M. Resource-use efficiency and plant invasion in low-resource systems. Nature 446, 1079–1081 (2007)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Davis, A. J. et al. Making mistakes when predicting shifts in species range in response to global warming. Nature 391, 783–786 (1998)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Both, C. & Visser, M. E. Adjustment to climate change is constrained by arrival date in a long-distance migrant bird. Nature 411, 296–298 (2001)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Guisan, A. & Thuiller, W. Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol. Lett. 8, 993–1009 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. van der Putten, W. H. et al. Soil feedback of exotic savanna grass relates to pathogen absence and mycorrhizal selectivity. Ecology 88, 978–988 (2007)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Staatsbosbeheer Regio Oost for giving us permission to work in Millingerwaard; B. Odé, K. Groen, R. van Grunsven, P. Brinkman and the late R. van der Meijden for discussions; M. Houtekamer for carbon and nitrogen determination; T. Vos, M. Vlag, A. Weerheijm and W. Smant for assistance; L. Koopman for providing the locusts; and L. Young and E. J. Bakker for advice on statistics. This study was funded by an ALW-VICI grant to W.H.v.d.P.

Author Contributions T.E., E.M., T.M.B., J.A.H. and W.H.v.d.P. designed and analysed the experiment and wrote the manuscript; T.E. and E.M. performed the experiment; W.L.M.T. analysed the long-term floristic dataset and provided the data for selecting plant species; and K.J.F.V., L.M.McI. and A.B. carried out the data analysis and were involved in the writing.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Multitrophic Interactions, Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW), PO Box 40, 6666 ZG Heteren, The Netherlands,

    Tim Engelkes, Elly Morriën, Koen J. F. Verhoeven, T. Martijn Bezemer, Arjen Biere, Jeffrey A. Harvey & Wim H. van der Putten

  2. Laboratory of Nematology, Wageningen University and Research Centre, PO Box 8123, 6700 ES Wageningen, The Netherlands ,

    T. Martijn Bezemer & Wim H. van der Putten

  3. Departments of Molecular Genetics and Microbiology and Statistics, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32610-1399, USA,

    Lauren M. McIntyre

  4. Nationaal Herbarium Nederland, Leiden University Branch, PO Box 9514, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands ,

    Wil L. M. Tamis

Authors
  1. Tim Engelkes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elly Morriën
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Koen J. F. Verhoeven
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. T. Martijn Bezemer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Arjen Biere
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jeffrey A. Harvey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Lauren M. McIntyre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Wil L. M. Tamis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Wim H. van der Putten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wim H. van der Putten.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

This file contains Supplementary Notes, Supplementary Table 1 and Supplementary Figures 1-5 with Legends. (PDF 1750 kb)

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Engelkes, T., Morriën, E., Verhoeven, K. et al. Successful range-expanding plants experience less above-ground and below-ground enemy impact. Nature 456, 946–948 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07474

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07474

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

Advanced 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