Search

Predicting whether microbial invaders will colonize an environment is critical for managing natural and engineered ecosystems, and controlling infectious disease. Invaders often face competition by resident microbes. But how invasions play out in communities dominated by facilitative interactions is less clear. We previously showed that growth medium toxicity can promote facilitation between four bacterial species, as species that cannot grow alone rely on others to survive. Following the same logic, here we allowed other bacterial species to invade the four-species community and found that invaders could more easily colonize a toxic medium when the community was present. In a more benign environment instead, invasive species that could survive alone colonized more successfully when the residents were absent. Next, we asked whether early colonists could exclude future ones through a priority effect, by inoculating the invaders into the resident community only after its members had co-evolved for 44 weeks. Compared to the ancestral community, the co-evolved resident community was more competitive toward invaders and less affected by them. Our experiments show how communities may assemble by facilitating one another in harsh, sterile environments, but that arriving after community members have co-evolved can limit invasion success.

Predicting whether microbial invaders will colonize an environment is critical for managing natural and engineered ecosystems, and controlling infectious disease. Invaders often face competition by resident microbes. But how invasions play out in communities dominated by facilitative interactions is less clear. We previously showed that growth medium toxicity can promote facilitation between four bacterial species, as species that cannot grow alone rely on others to survive. Following the same logic, here we allowed other bacterial species to invade the four-species community and found that invaders could more easily colonize a toxic medium when the community was present. In a more benign environment instead, invasive species that could survive alone colonized more successfully when the residents were absent. Next, we asked whether early colonists could exclude future ones through a priority effect, by inoculating the invaders into the resident community only after its members had co-evolved for 44 weeks. Compared to the ancestral community, the co-evolved resident community was more competitive toward invaders and less affected by them. Our experiments show how communities may assemble by facilitating one another in harsh, sterile environments, but that arriving after community members have co-evolved can limit invasion success.

ABSTRACTExtreme abiotic conditions, geographic isolation, and low levels of disturbance have historically provided alpine, Arctic, and Antarctic regions with low input of and relative resistance to the introduction of new species. However, the climate is warming rapidly, concomitant with intense and diversified types of human influence in these cold environments. Consequently, many plant species, both native and nonnative, are now moving or expanding their ranges to higher elevations and latitudes, creating new species interactions and assemblages that challenge biodiversity conservation. Based on our synthesis, many of the same nonnative species invade multiple cold environments, and many more could move up or over from adjoining warmer areas. Transportation networks and the disturbances associated with burgeoning development are responsible for many movements. Prevention and monitoring for nonnative plant species is of paramount importance, and management should be directed toward species that negatively impact ecosystem function or human well-being. Management of native range shifters is more complicated; most movements will be desirable, but some may be locally undesirable. Overall, plant movements into alpine, arctic, and Antarctic areas are going to increase, and management will need to be adaptive because species movements and assemblages of the past will not reflect those of the future.

Recent decades have seen a surge in awareness about insect pollinator declines. Social bees receive the most attention, but most flower-visiting species are lesser known, non-bee insects. Nocturnal flower visitors, e.g. moths, are especially difficult to observe and largely ignored in pollination studies. Clearly, achieving balanced monitoring of all pollinator taxa represents a major scientific challenge. Here, we use time-lapse cameras for season-wide, day-and-night pollinator surveillance of Trifolium pratense(L.; red clover) in an alpine grassland. We reveal the first evidence to suggest that moths, mainly Noctua pronuba(L.; large yellow underwing), pollinate this important wildflower and forage crop, providing 34% of visits (bumblebees: 61%). This is a remarkable finding; moths have received no recognition throughout a century of T. pratensepollinator research. We conclude that despite a non-negligible frequency and duration of nocturnal flower visits, nocturnal pollinators of T. pratensehave been systematically overlooked. We further show how the relationship between visitation and seed set may only become clear after accounting for moth visits. As such, population trends in moths, as well as bees, could profoundly affect T. pratenseseed yield. Ultimately, camera surveillance gives fair representation to non-bee pollinators and lays a foundation for automated monitoring of species interactions in future.