The impact of failure: unsuccessful bacterial invasions steer the soil microbial community away from the invader’s niche

  • The ISME Journalvolume 12pages728741 (2018)
  • doi:10.1038/s41396-017-0003-y
  • Download Citation
Published online:


Although many environments like soils are constantly subjected to invasion by alien microbes, invaders usually fail to succeed, succumbing to the robust diversity often found in nature. So far, only successful invasions have been explored, and it remains unknown to what extent an unsuccessful invasion can impact resident communities. Here we hypothesized that unsuccessful invasions can cause impacts to soil functioning by decreasing the diversity and niche breadth of resident bacterial communities, which could cause shifts to community composition and niche structure—an effect that is likely exacerbated when diversity is compromised. To examine this question, diversity gradients of soil microbial communities were subjected to invasion by the frequent, yet oft-unsuccessful soil invader, Escherichia coli, and evaluated for changes to diversity, bacterial community composition, niche breadth, and niche structure. Contrary to expectations, diversity and niche breadth increased across treatments upon invasion. Community composition and niche structure were also altered, with shifts of niche structure revealing an escape by the resident community away from the invader’s resources. Importantly, the extent of the escape varied in response to the community’s diversity, where less diverse communities experienced larger shifts. Thus, although transient and unsuccessful, the invader competed for resources with resident species and caused tangible impacts that modified both the diversity and functioning of resident communities, which can likely generate a legacy effect that influences future invasion attempts.

  • Subscribe to The ISME Journal for full access:



Additional access options:

Already a subscriber?  Log in  now or  Register  for online access.


  1. 1.

    Mack MC, D’Antonio CM. Impacts of biological invasions on disturbance regimes. Trends Ecol Evol. 1998;13:195–8.

  2. 2.

    Stuart YE, Campbell TS, Hohenlohe PA, Reynolds RG, Revell LJ, Losos JB. Rapid evolution of a native species following invasion by a congener. Science. 2014;346:463–6.

  3. 3.

    Kumschick S, Gaertner M, Vilà M, Essl F, Jeschke JM, Pyšek P, et al. Ecological impacts of alien species: quantification, scope, caveats, and recommendations. Bioscience. 2014;65:55–63.

  4. 4.

    Bradley BA, Blumenthal DM, Wilcove DS, Ziska LH. Predicting plant invasions in an era of global change. Trends Ecol Evol. 2010;25:310–8.

  5. 5.

    Elton C. Ecology of Invasions by Animals and Plants. US: Springer; 1958.

  6. 6.

    Tilman D. Niche tradeoffs, neutrality, and community structure: a stochastic theory of resource competition, invasion, and community assembly. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2004;101:10854–61.

  7. 7.

    Mallon CA, van Elsas JD, Salles JF. Microbial invasions: the process, patterns, and mechanisms. Trends Microbiol. 2015b;23:719.

  8. 8.

    Wei Z, Yang T, Friman V, Xu Y, Shen Q, Jousset A. Trophic network architecture of root-associated bacterial communities determines pathogen invasion and plant health. Nat Commun. 2015;6:8413.

  9. 9.

    Flory SL, Clay K. Non-native grass invasion alters native plant composition in experimental communities. Biol Invasions. 2010;12:1285–94.

  10. 10.

    Hejda M, Pysek P, Jarosik V. Impact of invasive plants on the species richness, diversity and composition of invaded communities. J Ecol. 2009;97:393–403.

  11. 11.

    Maron JL, Marler M. Effects of native species diversity and resource additions on invader impact. Am Nat. 2008;172:S18–S33.

  12. 12.

    Zavaleta E, Hulvey K. Realistic species losses disproportionately reduce grassland resistance to biological invaders. Science. 2004;306:1175–7.

  13. 13.

    Melgoza G, Nowak RS, Tausch RJ. Soil water exploitation after fire: competition between Bromus tectorum (cheatgrass) and two native species. Oecologia. 1990;83:7–13.

  14. 14.

    D’Antonio CM, Mahall BE. Root profiles and competition between the invasive, exotic perennial, Carpobrotus edulis, and two native shrub species in California coastal scrub. Am J Bot. 1991;78:885–94.

  15. 15.

    Jousset A, Schulz W, Scheu S, Eisenhauer N. Intraspecific genotypic richness and relatedness predict the invasibility of microbial communities. Isme J. 2011;5:1108–14.

  16. 16.

    Mallon CA, Poly F, Le Roux X, Marring I, van Elsas JD, Salles JF. Resource pulses can alleviate the biodiversity-invasion relationship in soil microbial communities. Ecology. 2015a;96:915.

  17. 17.

    Stecher B, Chaffron S, Kaeppeli R, Hapfelmeier S, Freedrich S, Weber TC, et al. Like will to like: abundances of closely related species can predict susceptibility to intestinal colonization by pathogenic and commensal bacteria. PLoS Pathog. 2010;6:e1000711.

  18. 18.

    van Elsas JD, Chiurazzi M, Mallon CA, Elhottova D, Kristufek V, Salles JF. Microbial diversity determines the invasion of soil by a bacterial pathogen. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012;109:1159–64.

  19. 19.

    Vivant A, Garmyn D, Maron P, Nowak V, Piveteau P. Microbial diversity and structure are drivers of the biological barrier effect against listeria monocytogenes in soil. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e76911.

  20. 20.

    De Roy K, Marzorati M, Negroni A, Thas O, Balloi A, Fava F, et al. Environmental conditions and community evenness determine the outcome of biological invasion. Nat Commun. 2013;4:1383.

  21. 21.

    Eisenhauer N, Schulz W, Scheu S, Jousset A. Niche dimensionality links biodiversity and invasibility of microbial communities. Funct Ecol. 2013;27:282–8.

  22. 22.

    Saison C, Degrange V, Oliver R, Millard P, Commeaux C, Montange D, et al. Alteration and resilience of the soil microbial community following compost amendment: effects of compost level and compost‐borne microbial community. Environ Microbiol. 2006;8:247–57.

  23. 23.

    Savageau MA. Escherichia-Coli habitats, cell-types, and molecular mechanisms of gene-control. Am Nat. 1983;122:732–44.

  24. 24.

    Ishii S, Ksoll WB, Hicks RE, Sadowsky MJ. Presence and growth of naturalized Escherichia coli in temperate soils from lake superior watersheds. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006;72:612–21.

  25. 25.

    Franz E, Semenov AV, Termorshuizen AJ, De Vos O, Bokhorst JG, Van Bruggen AH. Manure‐amended soil characteristics affecting the survival of E. coli O157: H7 in 36 Dutch soils. Environ Microbiol. 2008;10:313–27.

  26. 26.

    van Elsas JD, Hill P, Chronakova A, Grekova M, Topalova Y, Elhottova D, et al. Survival of genetically marked Escherichia coli O157: H7 in soil as affected by soil microbial community shifts. Isme J. 2007;1:204–14.

  27. 27.

    Fukushima H, Seki R. High numbers of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli found in bovine faeces collected at slaughter in Japan. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2004;238:189–97.

  28. 28.

    Oksanen J, Kindt R, Legendre P, O’Hara B, Stevens MHH, Oksanen MJ, et al. (2007). The vegan package. Community ecology package.

  29. 29.

    Team RC. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2014. Available at: 2012.

  30. 30.

    Levine J, Adler P, Yelenik S. A meta-analysis of biotic resistance to exotic plant invasions. Ecol Lett. 2004;7:975–89.

  31. 31.

    Tenaillon O, Skurnik D, Picard B, Denamur E. The population genetics of commensal Escherichia coli. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2010;8:207–17.

  32. 32.

    Theoharides KA, Dukes JS. Plant invasion across space and time: factors affecting nonindigenous species success during four stages of invasion. New Phytol. 2007;176:256–73.

  33. 33.

    Hornak K, Corno G. Every coin has a back side: invasion by limnohabitans planktonicus promotes the maintenance of species diversity in bacterial communities. Plos ONE. 2012;7:e51576.

  34. 34.

    Gómez P, Paterson S, De Meester L, Liu X, Lenzi L, Sharma M, et al. Local adaptation of a bacterium is as important as its presence in structuring a natural microbial community. Nat Commun. 2016;7.

  35. 35.

    Krause S, Le Roux X, Niklaus PA, Van Bodegom PM, Lennon JT, Bertilsson S, et al. Trait-based approaches for understanding microbial biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Front Microbiol. 2014;5:251.

  36. 36.

    Semenov AV, Franz E, van Overbeek L, Termorshuizen AJ, van Bruggen AHC. Estimating the stability of Escherichia coli O157: H7 survival in manure-amended soils with different management histories. Environ Microbiol. 2008;10:1450–9.

  37. 37.

    Wang H, Ibekwe AM, Ma J, Wu L, Lou J, Wu Z, et al. A glimpse of Escherichia coli O157:H7 survival in soils from eastern China. Sci Total Environ. 2014;476:49–56.

  38. 38.

    Ma C, Liu M, Wang H, Chen C, Fan W, Griffiths B, et al. Resource utilization capability of bacteria predicts their invasion potential in soil. Soil Biol Biochem. 2015;81:287–90.

  39. 39.

    Ferenci T. Maintaining a healthy SPANC balance through regulatory and mutational adaptation. Mol Microbiol. 2005;57:1–8.

  40. 40.

    Alves BJ, Boddey RM, Urquiaga S. The success of BNF in soybean in Brazil. Plant Soil. 2003;252:1–9.

  41. 41.

    Chanway C, Radley R, Holl F. Inoculation of conifer seed with plant growth promoting Bacillus strains causes increased seedling emergence and biomass. Soil Biol Biochem. 1991;23:575–80.

  42. 42.

    Filho-Lima J, Vieira E, Nicoli J. Antagonistic effect of Lactobacillus acidophilus, Saccharomyces boulardii and Escherichia coli combinations against experimental infections with Shigella flexneri and Salmonella enteritidis subsp. typhimurium in gnotobiotic mice. J Appl Microbiol. 2000;88:365–70.

Download references


We thank Irene Marring, Nadine Guillaumaud, Denis Warshan, and Giovanni Laudanno for their help in the laboratory and with data analyses. Funding was provided by Ecologie Microbienne Lyon (UMR INRA 1418, UMR CNRS 5557) and personal grant to JFS from the University of Groningen. G.S.v.D. was supported by Starting Independent Researcher Grant #309555 of the European Research Council and Vidi Grant 864.11.012 of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO).

Author information


  1. Groningen Institute for Evolutionary Life Sciences (GELIFES), University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

    • C. A. Mallon
    • , G. S. van Doorn
    • , F. Dini-Andreote
    •  & J. F. Salles
  2. INRA, CNRS, Université Lyon 1, Université de Lyon, Laboratory of Microbial Ecology (LEM), Villeurbanne, France

    • X. Le Roux
    •  & F. Poly


  1. Search for C. A. Mallon in:

  2. Search for X. Le Roux in:

  3. Search for G. S. van Doorn in:

  4. Search for F. Dini-Andreote in:

  5. Search for F. Poly in:

  6. Search for J. F. Salles in:

Conflict of interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. A. Mallon.

Electronic supplementary material