64
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The unseen invaders: introduced earthworms as drivers of change in plant communities in North American forests (a meta‐analysis)

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Globally, biological invasions can have strong impacts on biodiversity as well as ecosystem functioning. While less conspicuous than introduced aboveground organisms, introduced belowground organisms may have similarly strong effects. Here, we synthesize for the first time the impacts of introduced earthworms on plant diversity and community composition in North American forests. We conducted a meta‐analysis using a total of 645 observations to quantify mean effect sizes of associations between introduced earthworm communities and plant diversity, cover of plant functional groups, and cover of native and non‐native plants. We found that plant diversity significantly declined with increasing richness of introduced earthworm ecological groups. While plant species richness or evenness did not change with earthworm invasion, our results indicate clear changes in plant community composition: cover of graminoids and non‐native plant species significantly increased, and cover of native plant species (of all functional groups) tended to decrease, with increasing earthworm biomass. Overall, these findings support the hypothesis that introduced earthworms facilitate particular plant species adapted to the abiotic conditions of earthworm‐invaded forests. Further, our study provides evidence that introduced earthworms are associated with declines in plant diversity in North American forests. Changing plant functional composition in these forests may have long‐lasting effects on ecosystem functioning.

          Related collections

          Most cited references16

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100.

          Scenarios of changes in biodiversity for the year 2100 can now be developed based on scenarios of changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide, climate, vegetation, and land use and the known sensitivity of biodiversity to these changes. This study identified a ranking of the importance of drivers of change, a ranking of the biomes with respect to expected changes, and the major sources of uncertainties. For terrestrial ecosystems, land-use change probably will have the largest effect, followed by climate change, nitrogen deposition, biotic exchange, and elevated carbon dioxide concentration. For freshwater ecosystems, biotic exchange is much more important. Mediterranean climate and grassland ecosystems likely will experience the greatest proportional change in biodiversity because of the substantial influence of all drivers of biodiversity change. Northern temperate ecosystems are estimated to experience the least biodiversity change because major land-use change has already occurred. Plausible changes in biodiversity in other biomes depend on interactions among the causes of biodiversity change. These interactions represent one of the largest uncertainties in projections of future biodiversity change.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Terrestrial ecosystem responses to species gains and losses.

            Ecosystems worldwide are losing some species and gaining others, resulting in an interchange of species that is having profound impacts on how these ecosystems function. However, research on the effects of species gains and losses has developed largely independently of one another. Recent conceptual advances regarding effects of species gain have arisen from studies that have unraveled the mechanistic basis of how invading species with novel traits alter biotic interactions and ecosystem processes. In contrast, studies on traits associated with species loss are fewer, and much remains unknown about how traits that predispose species to extinction affect ecological processes. Species gains and losses are both consequences and drivers of global change; thus, explicit integration of research on how both processes simultaneously affect ecosystem functioning is key to determining the response of the Earth system to current and future human activities.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Estimating local biodiversity change: a critique of papers claiming no net loss of local diversity.

              Global species extinction rates are orders of magnitude above the background rate documented in the fossil record. However, recent data syntheses have found mixed evidence for patterns of net species loss at local spatial scales. For example, two recent data meta-analyses have found that species richness is decreasing in some locations and is increasing in others. When these trends are combined, these papers argued there has been no net change in species richness, and suggested this pattern is globally representative of biodiversity change at local scales. Here we reanalyze results of these data syntheses and outline why this conclusion is unfounded. First, we show the datasets collated for these syntheses are spatially biased and not representative of the spatial distribution of species richness or the distribution of many primary drivers of biodiversity change. This casts doubt that their results are representative of global patterns. Second, we argue that detecting the trend in local species richness is very difficult with short time series and can lead to biased estimates of change. Reanalyses of the data detected a signal of study duration on biodiversity change, indicating net biodiversity loss is most apparent in studies of longer duration. Third, estimates of species richness change can be biased if species gains during post-disturbance recovery are included without also including species losses that occurred during the disturbance. Net species gains or losses should be assessed with respect to common baselines or reference communities. Ultimately, we need a globally coordinated effort to monitor biodiversity so that we can estimate and attribute human impacts as causes of biodiversity change. A combination of technologies will be needed to produce regularly updated global datasets of local biodiversity change to guide future policy. At this time the conclusion that there is no net change in local species richness is not the consensus state of knowledge.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                dylan.craven@aya.yale.edu
                Journal
                Glob Chang Biol
                Glob Chang Biol
                10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2486
                GCB
                Global Change Biology
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                1354-1013
                1365-2486
                03 September 2016
                March 2017
                : 23
                : 3 ( doiID: 10.1111/gcb.2017.23.issue-3 )
                : 1065-1074
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ]German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle‐Jena‐Leipzig Deutscher Platz 5e 04103 LeipzigGermany
                [ 2 ] Institute of BiologyLeipzig University Johannisallee 21 04103 LeipzigGermany
                [ 3 ] Metapopulation Research Centre Department of BiosciencesUniversity of Helsinki PO Box 65, 00014 HelsinkiFinland
                [ 4 ] Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate Change Natural History Museum of DenmarkUniversity of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15 KøbenhavnDenmark
                [ 5 ] Center for Forest EcologyUniversity of Minnesota St. Paul MNUSA
                [ 6 ] Département de BiologieUniversité de Sherbrooke Sherbrooke QCCanada
                [ 7 ] Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation BiologyUniversity Of Minnesota 2003 Upper Buford Circle Suite 135 St. Paul MN 55108USA
                [ 8 ] Department of Natural ResourcesCornell University Ithaca New YorkUSA
                [ 9 ] Faculty of ForestryUniversity of Toronto Toronto ONCanada
                [ 10 ] Schoodic Institute at Acadia National ParkForest Ecology Program Winter Harbor MEUSA
                [ 11 ] Department of Botany and Plant PathologyPurdue University West Lafayette INUSA
                [ 12 ] Département des sciences biologiquesUniversité du Québec à Montréal Montréal QCCanada
                [ 13 ] Department of Biological SciencesNorthern Kentucky University Highland Heights KYUSA
                [ 14 ] Department of Natural Resource Ecology and ManagementOklahoma State University Stillwater OKUSA
                [ 15 ]Natural Area Consultants 1 West Hill School Road Richford NYUSA
                [ 16 ] Warnell School of Forestry and Natural ResourcesUniversity of Georgia Athens GAUSA
                [ 17 ] College of Natural ResourcesUniversity of Wisconsin – Stevens Point Stevens Point WIUSA
                [ 18 ] Plant Biology and ConservationNorthwestern University Evanston ILUSA
                [ 19 ] Department of Plant ScienceChicago Botanic Garden Glencoe ILUSA
                Author notes
                [*] [* ]Correspondence: Dylan Craven, tel: +49 341‐9733173, fax +49 341‐9739358, e‐mail dylan.craven@ 123456aya.yale.edu
                Article
                GCB13446
                10.1111/gcb.13446
                5324548
                27590777
                330abab8-8f98-4849-ae81-6343d7f7e993
                © 2016 The Authors. Global Change Biology Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

                History
                : 10 May 2016
                : 15 July 2016
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 1, Pages: 10, Words: 7828
                Funding
                Funded by: European Research Council (ERC)
                Funded by: German Research Foundation
                Award ID: DFG FZT 118
                Funded by: German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD)
                Categories
                Primary Research Article
                Primary Research Articles
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                gcb13446
                March 2017
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_NLMPMC version:5.0.7 mode:remove_FC converted:24.02.2017

                introduced earthworms,plant communities,plant diversity,biological invasions,earthworm invasion,community composition,meta‐analysis

                Comments

                Comment on this article