Refine
Year of publication
- 2011 (2)
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- EICA (1)
- ERCA (1)
- invasion ecology (1)
- invasive plants (1)
- natural selection (1)
As members of the editorial board of Neobiota who, for various reasons, didn’t get our names on the original editorial (Kühn et al. 2011), we would like to add a coda to it. Even though there were 38 bullet points listing areas in invasion science where more work is needed, we would like to mention additional areas that we hope would be addressed in future issues of Neobiota. Like the other editors, we would like this innovative and exciting new journal to lead the way in all areas of invasion science. As the graphs in Gurevitch et al. (2011) and Kühn et al. (2011) show, the literature on invasions has been increasing almost exponentially since the early 1980s and so we cannot expect any list of areas of interest to stay complete and up to date for very long. Three areas that we would like to stress are the interaction between invasion science and economics and the role that invasion science should play in advancing pure ecology in two areas, population dynamics and ecosystem ecology. Neither ecology nor economics appears as a word in the original bullet list, but many of the topics are obviously ecological while none are obviously economic. For economics, we want to point out its relevance to invasion science and the feedback between the two disciplines, particularly in a rapidly changing world with powerful new emerging economies. For ecology, we want to emphasise not what ecology tells us about invasions but what invasions reveal about ecology and evolution at two scales.
Research on post-establishment evolution in nonnative plant populations has focused almost exclusively on testing the Evolution of Increased Competitive Ability (EICA) hypothesis, which posits that the lack of specialized herbivores in the invaded range drives evolution in nonnative plant populations. Fifteen years of conflicting EICA test results suggest that selection pressures other than specialized herbivory are important in driving post-establishment evolution in invasive species. Alternative hypotheses, such as the Evolution of Reduced Competitive Ability (ERCA) hypothesis, have been proposed but have received little attention or testing. We argue that the lack of consensus across studies that test EICA may be due in part to the lack of consistent definitions and varying experimental design parameters, and that future research in this field would benefit from new methodological considerations. We examined previous work evaluating post-establishment evolution and evaluated the range of study systems and design parameters used in testing the EICA hypothesis. Our goal was to identify where different uses of ecological terms and different study parameters have hindered consensus and to suggest a path forward to move beyond EICA in post-establishment evolution studies. We incorporated these methods into a design framework that will increase data harmony across future studies and will facilitate examinations of any potential selection pressure driving evolution in the invaded range.