Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • Something wrong with this record ?

Geographical constraints are stronger than invasion patterns for European urban floras

C. Ricotta, L. Celesti-Grapow, I. Kühn, G. Rapson, P. Pyšek, FA. La Sorte, K. Thompson,

. 2014 ; 9 (1) : e85661.

Language English Country United States

Document type Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Persistent link   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc15008367

Understanding the mechanisms that affect invasion success of alien species is an important prerequisite for the effective management of present and future aliens. To gain insight into this matter we asked the following questions: Are the geographical patterns of species distributions in urban floras different for native compared with alien plant species? Does the introduction of alien species contribute to the homogenization of urban floras? We used a Mantel test on Jaccard dissimilarity matrices of 30 urban floras across the British Isles, Italy and central Europe to compare the spatial distribution of native species with four classes of alien species: archaeophytes, all neophytes, non-invasive neophytes, and invasive neophytes. Archaeophytes and neophytes are species that were introduced into Europe before and after 1500 AD, respectively. To analyze the homogenizing effect of alien species on the native urban floras, we tested for differences in the average dissimilarity of individual cities from their group centroid in ordination space. Our results show that the compositional patterns of native and alien species seem to respond to the same environmental drivers, such that all four classes of alien species were significantly related to native species across urban floras. In this framework, alien species may have an impact on biogeographic patterns of urban floras in ways that reflect their history of introduction and expansion: archaeophytes and invasive neophytes tended to homogenize, while non-invasive neophytes tended to differentiate urban floras.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc15008367
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20150306133245.0
007      
ta
008      
150306s2014 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1371/journal.pone.0085661 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)24465640
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Ricotta, Carlo $u Department of Environmental Biology, University of Rome 'La Sapienza', Rome, Italy.
245    10
$a Geographical constraints are stronger than invasion patterns for European urban floras / $c C. Ricotta, L. Celesti-Grapow, I. Kühn, G. Rapson, P. Pyšek, FA. La Sorte, K. Thompson,
520    9_
$a Understanding the mechanisms that affect invasion success of alien species is an important prerequisite for the effective management of present and future aliens. To gain insight into this matter we asked the following questions: Are the geographical patterns of species distributions in urban floras different for native compared with alien plant species? Does the introduction of alien species contribute to the homogenization of urban floras? We used a Mantel test on Jaccard dissimilarity matrices of 30 urban floras across the British Isles, Italy and central Europe to compare the spatial distribution of native species with four classes of alien species: archaeophytes, all neophytes, non-invasive neophytes, and invasive neophytes. Archaeophytes and neophytes are species that were introduced into Europe before and after 1500 AD, respectively. To analyze the homogenizing effect of alien species on the native urban floras, we tested for differences in the average dissimilarity of individual cities from their group centroid in ordination space. Our results show that the compositional patterns of native and alien species seem to respond to the same environmental drivers, such that all four classes of alien species were significantly related to native species across urban floras. In this framework, alien species may have an impact on biogeographic patterns of urban floras in ways that reflect their history of introduction and expansion: archaeophytes and invasive neophytes tended to homogenize, while non-invasive neophytes tended to differentiate urban floras.
650    _2
$a Magnoliopsida $x klasifikace $x fyziologie $7 D019684
650    12
$a velkoměsta $7 D002947
650    _2
$a počítačová simulace $7 D003198
650    12
$a ekosystém $7 D017753
650    _2
$a zeměpis $7 D005843
650    12
$a zavlečené druhy $7 D058865
650    _2
$a biologické modely $7 D008954
650    _2
$a fyziologie rostlin $7 D018521
650    _2
$a rostliny $x klasifikace $7 D010944
650    _2
$a populační dynamika $7 D011157
650    _2
$a druhová specificita $7 D013045
651    _2
$a Evropa $7 D005060
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
700    1_
$a Celesti-Grapow, Laura $u Department of Environmental Biology, University of Rome 'La Sapienza', Rome, Italy.
700    1_
$a Kühn, Ingolf $u UFZ, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Department of Community Ecology, Halle, Germany ; German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
700    1_
$a Rapson, Gillian $u Ecology Group, Institute of Agriculture and Environment, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
700    1_
$a Pyšek, Petr $u Institute of Botany, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Průhonice, Czech Republic ; Department of Ecology, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a La Sorte, Frank A $u Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York, United States of America.
700    1_
$a Thompson, Ken $u Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
773    0_
$w MED00180950 $t PloS one $x 1932-6203 $g Roč. 9, č. 1 (2014), s. e85661
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24465640 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
990    __
$a 20150306 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20150306133515 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1065640 $s 891167
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2014 $b 9 $c 1 $d e85661 $i 1932-6203 $m PLoS One $n PLoS One $x MED00180950
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20150306

Find record

Citation metrics

Archiving options