Controls over native perennial grass exclusion and persistence in California grasslands invaded by annuals.

Despite obvious impacts of nonnative species in many ecosystems, the long-term outcome of competition between native and exotic species often remains unclear. Demographic models can resolve the outcome of competition between native and exotic species and provide insight into conditions favoring exclusion vs. coexistence. California grasslands are one of the most heavily invaded ecosystems in North America. Although California native perennial bunchgrasses are thought to be restricted to a fraction of their original abundance, the eventual outcome of competition with invasive European annual grasses at a local scale (competitive exclusion, stable persistence, or priority effects) remains unresolved. Here, we used a two-species discrete time population growth model to predict the outcome of competition between exotic annual and native perennial grasses in California, and to determine the demographic traits responsible for the outcome. The model is parameterized with empirical data from several field experiments. We found that, once introduced, annual grasses persist stably with little uncertainty. Although perennial grasses are competitively excluded on average, the most likely range of model predictions also includes stable coexistence with annual grasses. As for many other perennial plants, native bunchgrass population growth is highly sensitive to the survival of adults. Management interventions that improve perennial adult survival are likely to be more effective than those that reduce exotic annual seed production or establishment, reduce competition, or increase perennial seedling establishment. Further empirical data on summer survival of bunchgrass adults and competitive effects of annuals on perennials would most improve model predictions because they contribute most to the uncertainty in the predicted outcome for the perennial grass. This work demonstrates how demographic approaches can clarify the outcome of competition between native and exotic species, identify key targets for future empirical work, and predict the effectiveness of management interventions. Such studies are critical both for understanding the impacts of invasion and for targeting management responses that maximize the benefit to native species.

Poised to prosper? A cross-system comparison of climate change effects on native and non-native species performance.

Climate change and biological invasions are primary threats to global biodiversity that may interact in the future. To date, the hypothesis that climate change will favour non-native species has been examined exclusively through local comparisons of single or few species. Here, we take a meta-analytical approach to broadly evaluate whether non-native species are poised to respond more positively than native species to future climatic conditions. We compiled a database of studies in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems that reported performance measures of non-native (157 species) and co-occurring native species (204 species) under different temperature, CO(2) and precipitation conditions. Our analyses revealed that in terrestrial (primarily plant) systems, native and non-native species responded similarly to environmental changes. By contrast, in aquatic (primarily animal) systems, increases in temperature and CO(2) largely inhibited native species. There was a general trend towards stronger responses among non-native species, including enhanced positive responses to more favourable conditions and stronger negative responses to less favourable conditions. As climate change proceeds, aquatic systems may be particularly vulnerable to invasion. Across systems, there could be a higher risk of invasion at sites becoming more climatically hospitable, whereas sites shifting towards harsher conditions may become more resistant to invasions.

The large genome constraint hypothesis: evolution, ecology and phenotype.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: If large genomes are truly saturated with unnecessary 'junk' DNA, it would seem natural that there would be costs associated ith accumulation and replication of this excess DNA. Here we examine the available evidence to support this hypothesis, which we term the 'large genome constraint'. We examine the large genome constraint at three scales: evolution, ecology, and the plant phenotype. SCOPE: In evolution, we tested the hypothesis that plant lineages with large genomes are diversifying more slowly. We found that genera with large genomes are less likely to be highly specious -- suggesting a large genome constraint on speciation. In ecology, we found that species with large genomes are under-represented in extreme environments -- again suggesting a large genome constraint for the distribution and abundance of species. Ultimately, if these ecological and evolutionary constraints are real, the genome size effect must be expressed in the phenotype and confer selective disadvantages. Therefore, in phenotype, we review data on the physiological correlates of genome size, and present new analyses involving maximum photosynthetic rate and specific leaf area. Most notably, we found that species with large genomes have reduced maximum photosynthetic rates - again suggesting a large genome constraint on plant performance. Finally, we discuss whether these phenotypic correlations may help explain why species with large genomes are trimmed from the evolutionary tree and have restricted ecological distributions. CONCLUSION: Our review tentatively supports the large genome constraint hypothesis.