Insights from community ecology into the role of enemy release in causing invasion success: the importance of native enemy effects
Biological Invasions
Kirsten M. Prior1, Thomas H.Q. Powell, Ashley L. Joseph, Jessica J. Hellmann
Corresponding Author1: University of Florida; priorkm@gmail.com
Electronic Supplementary Material 5: Tables of statistics for sub-group comparisons (prey, enemy, and habitat)
Table S5.1 Mean effect sizes (Hedges’ d), confidence limits, and statistics for comparisons of native enemy effects among prey sub-groups, enemy
types, and habitats for terrestrial plants
Levels
Hedges’
d
Lower
95% CL
Upper
95% CL
n
Woodya
Graminoid
0.47
0.31
0.13
-0.08
0.81
0.70
38
45
Forb
0.37
0.11
0.64
79
Annual
0.22
0.20
0.62
42
Perennial
0.41
-0.22
0.67
108
Life history
Annual
-0.01
-0.13
0.79
12
(graminoid)
Perennial
0.34
-0.72
0.81
31
Life history
Annual
0.32
-0.29
0.98
26
(forb)
Perennial
0.43
0.18
0.74
47
Taxonomic groupb
Asteraceae
0.39
0.12
0.70
33
Fabaceae
0.55
0.00
1.22
26
Plantaginaceae
0.10
-0.26
0.49
5
Poaceae
0.22
-0.18
0.70
37
Rosaceae
0.17
-0.25
0.52
10
Variable
QB
d.f.
P
0.38
2
0.8274
0.82
1
0.3653
0.76
1
0.3831
0.15
1
0.6999
1.69
4
0.7917
Prey sub-group
Growth form
Life history
Enemy type
Taxonomic group
Pathogen
0.36
0.08
0.65
56
Invertebrate
0.33
0.00
0.64
53
Vertebrate
0.52
0.21
0.85
54
Taxonomic group
Birdc
1.02
-0.05
2.17
5
(vertebrate)
Rodent
0.40
-0.04
0.86
32
1.11
0.44
1.71
6
Ungulate
d
Feeding guild
Generalist
0.06
-0.26
0.53
8
(invertebrate)
Specialiste
0.67
0.50
0.91
12
Forest
0.64
0.49
0.82
89
Grassland
0.44
0.22
0.67
111
Scrubland
0.43
0.02
0.84
29
Marsh
0.70
0.44
0.99
42
Dune
0.12
-1.01
0.83
8
Tundra
1.11
0.55
1.70
16
Temperate
0.39
0.22
0.58
157
Tropic
0.61
-0.08
1.70
7
0.89
2
0.6407
2.46
2
0.2927
7.35
1
0.0067
9.44
6
0.1502
0.19
1
0.6659
Habitat
Habitatf
Climate region
Note. Statistical comparisons were conducted among different sub-groups within taxonomic groups. Confidence limits are 95 % bias-corrected
confidence intervals. Sample sizes are given (i.e., number of observations). Significance of QB was estimated using chi-square distributions.
Significant comparisons given in boldtype.
a
includes shrubs and trees
b
plants in the following families: Aceraceae, Brassicaceae, Campanulaceae, Carophyllaceae, Chenopodiaceae, Cyperaceae, Juncaginaceae,
Lecythidaceae, Melastomataceae, Ranunculaceae, Rubiaceae, Salicaceae were included in the overall the dataset, but not in this analysis because
they contained less than five observations.
c
all geese
d
defined as feeding on one species or genera, includes: beetles, moth larvae and sawflies
e
defined as feeding on multiple taxa, includes: grasshoppers, and one terrestrial crab
f
desert was not included because of low sample size
Table S5.2 Mean effect sizes (Hedges’ d), confidence limits, and statistics for comparisons of native enemy effects among prey sub-groups, enemy
types, and habitats for terrestrial invertebrates
Levels
Hedges’
d
Lower
95% CL
Upper
95% CL
N
Chewer
0.78
0.43
1.14
42
Leaf roller
0.19
-0.15
0.52
9
Predator
0.41
-0.26
0.97
11
Leaf miner
1.04
0.62
1.52
21
Sap sucker
0.28
-0.20
0.73
8
Gall former
0.10
-1.19
1.18
24
Free feedingb
0.58
0.31
0.87
62
Concealedc
0.50
0.03
0.88
29
Orthoptera
0.80
0.29
1.47
12
Lepidoptera
0.58
0.35
0.86
30
Hymenoptera
0.64
0.32
1.01
10
Coleoptera
1.46
0.72
2.53
7
Hemiptera
0.61
0.24
1.01
23
Arachnida
0.72
0.57
0.89
19
Invertebrate
0.59
0.43
0.76
75
Vertebrate
0.73
0.57
0.91
82
Taxonomic group
Bird
0.62
0.45
0.80
55
(vertebrate)
Reptile
0.71
0.38
0.98
20
Feeding guild
Generaliste
0.29
0.09
0.50
29
Variable
QB
d.f.
P
8.08
5
0.1518
0.13
1
0.7215
7.45
5
0.1892
1.45
1
0.2285
0.21
1
0.6460
Prey sub-group
Feeding guilda
Feeding mode
Taxonomic groupd
Enemy type
Taxonomic group
(invertebrate)
Specialistf
1.19
0.84
1.60
27
Forest
0.61
0.45
0.80
69
Grassland
0.98
0.17
1.75
16
Scrubland
0.75
0.43
1.18
17
Marsh
0.96
0.68
1.32
27
Temperate
0.75
0.59
0.92
107
Tropic
0.59
0.32
0.85
28
17.06
1
<0.0001
4.21
3
0.2391
0.77
1
0.3795
Habitat
Habitatg
Climate region
Note. Statistical comparisons were conducted among different sub-groups within taxonomic groups. Confidence limits are 95 % bias-corrected
confidence intervals. Sample sizes are given (i.e., number of observations). Significance of QB was estimated using chi-square distributions.
Significant comparisons given in boldtype.
a
detritivores were not included due to low sample size
b
includes free feeding Lepidoptera, Coleoptera, sawflies (Hymenoptera), and sap suckers (Hemiptera)
c
includes leaf rolling and mining Lepidoptera, and gall forming Diptera and Hymenoptera
d
Diptera was not included due to sample size
e
defined as feeding on multiple taxa, includes: spiders, ants and hemipterans
f
defined as feeding on a small number of taxa, includes: mostly hymenopteran parasitoids, and also dipteran parasitoids
g
tundra and desert were not included due to sample size
Table S5.3 Mean effect sizes (Hedges’ d), confidence limits, and statistics for comparisons of native enemy effects among prey sub-groups, enemy
types, and habitats for marine plants
Variable
Levels
Hedges’
d
Lower
95% CL
Upper
95% CL
n
Phytoplankton
1.22
0.74
1.63
15
Crustosea
-0.97
-1.88
-0.10
12
b
Turf
-0.48
-3.21
1.90
9
Macroalgaec
1.44
1.08
1.81
66
Chlorophyta
0.57
0.11
1.08
13
QB
d.f.
P
30.38
3
<0.0001
Prey sub-group
Growth form
Taxonomic group
Rhodophyta
-0.24
-1.23
0.67
20
Phaeophyceae
1.46
0.92
1.96
30
Invertebrate
1.20
0.81
1.60
50
Vertebrate
0.81
0.30
1.30
44
Taxonomic group
Molluske
1.72
0.94
2.43
15
(invertebrate)
Echinodermf
1.66
0.33
2.66
11
Intertidal
1.37
0.75
2.02
30
Littoral
1.41
1.09
1.73
14
Reef
0.79
0.23
1.33
56
Warm temperate
1.69
0.12
3.22
9
Cold temperate
1.20
0.73
1.63
43
Tropic
0.81
0.19
1.38
47
14.07
2
0.0009
1.39
1
0.2385
0.01
1
0.9316
2.93
2
0.2306
2.22
2
0.3299
Enemy type
Taxonomic group
d
Habitat
Habitat
Climate region
Note. Statistical comparisons were conducted among different sub-groups within taxonomic groups. Confidence limits are 95 % bias-corrected
confidence intervals. Sample sizes are given (i.e., number of observations). Significance of QB was estimated using chi-square distributions.
Significant comparisons given in boldtype.
a
calcified encrusting algae, all red algae (Rhodophyta)
b
assemblage of filamentous algae with canopy height of 1-10 mm, red and green algae (Rhodophyta, Chlorophyta)
c
large canopy erect algae with a canopy height >10 mm
d
all fish
e
includes limpets, chitons, and snails
f
all urchins
Table S5.4 Mean effect sizes (Hedges’ d), confidence limits, and statistics for comparisons of native enemy effects among prey sub-groups, enemy
types, and habitats for marine invertebrates
Levels
Hedges’
d
Lower
95% CL
Upper
95% CL
n
Mollusk
1.11
0.46
1.75
25
Crustacean
1.28
0.37
2.24
12
Annelid
0.02
-0.42
0.64
15
Grazer
0.87
-0.25
1.84
13
Filter feeder
0.71
0.20
1.33
28
Predator
1.38
0.71
2.28
12
Invertebrate
1.07
0.51
1.70
27
Vertebrate
0.79
0.12
1.47
27
Taxonomic groupc
Crustacean
0.61
0.10
1.35
14
(invertebrate)
Mollusk
1.86
0.68
3.09
10
Taxonomic group
Fish
0.85
0.24
1.62
20
(vertebrate)
Bird
0.71
-1.10
2.24
7
Intertidal
0.70
0.21
1.17
38
Littoral
1.18
0.41
2.19
14
Mudflat
1.72
0.35
3.86
6
Warm temperate
0.86
-0.02
2.20
10
Cold temperate
0.96
0.43
1.45
42
Tropic
0.63
0.28
1.09
6
Variable
QB
d.f.
P
6.60
2
0.0560
1.47
2
0.4787
0.41
1
0.5202
3.61
1
0.0573
0.04
1
0.8476
0.266
2
0.2642
0.25
2
0.8822
Prey sub-group
Taxonomic groupa
Feeding guildb
Enemy type
Taxonomic group
Habitat
Habitat
Climate region
Note. Statistical comparisons were conducted among different sub-groups within taxonomic groups. Confidence limits are 95 % bias-corrected
confidence intervals. Sample sizes are given (i.e., number of observations). Significance of QB was estimated using chi-square distributions.
Significant comparisons given in boldtype.
a
echinoderm removed due to low sample size
b
echinoderm and cnidaria removed due to low sample size
c
omnivores removed due to low sample size
Table S5.6 Mean effect sizes (Hedges’ d), confidence limits, and statistics for comparisons of native enemy effects among prey sub-groups, enemy
types, and habitats for marine vertebrates
Lower
95% CL
0.74
Upper
95% CL
1.69
n
Reefa
Hedges’
d
1.13
Seagrassb
0.54
0.27
0.83
9
Variable
Levels
Habitat
QB
d.f.
P
2.92
1
0.0874
10
Note. Statistical comparisons were conducted among different sub-groups within taxonomic groups. Confidence limits are 95 % bias-corrected
confidence intervals. Sample sizes are given (i.e., number of observations). Significance of QB was estimated using chi-square distributions.
Significant comparisons given in boldtype.
a
mostly in the tropical region (6), with a few studies in the cold temperate region (4)
b
all studies in the tropical region
Table S5.7 Mean effect sizes (Hedges’ d), confidence limits, and statistics for comparisons of native enemy effects among prey sub-groups, enemy
types, and habitats for freshwater plants
Variable
Levels
Hedges’
d
Lower
95% CL
Upper
95% CL
n
Periphyton
0.97
0.71
1.27
36
Macrophytea
1.44
0.89
2.06
19
Invertebrateb
1.34
0.90
1.81
16
Vertebrate
1.07
0.78
1.38
41
QB
d.f.
P
2.35
1
0.1250
0.63
1
0.4256
Prey sub-group
Growth form
Enemy type
Taxonomic group
Taxonomic group
(vertebrate)
Fish
1.29
0.73
1.77
5
0.74
0.42
1.06
19
1.10
0.48
1.77
10
2.37
0.96
1.06
6
Lentic
1.21
0.76
1.75
22
Lotic
1.10
0.78
1.47
33
Temperate
1.38
0.95
1.83
29
Tropic
0.89
0.61
1.23
26
Amphibian
c
Birdd
Mammal
e
7.99
3
0.0463
0.11
1
0.7353
2.84
1
0.0920
Habitat
Habitat
Climate region
Note. Statistical comparisons were conducted among different sub-groups within taxonomic groups. Confidence limits are 95 % bias-corrected
confidence intervals. Sample sizes are given (i.e., number of observations). Significance of QB was estimated using chi-square distributions.
Significant comparisons given in boldtype.
a
macrophytes consist of macroalgae (4) and vascular plants (15)
b
invertebrates consist of mixed groups of: insects (e.g., chironomids, mayflies), crustaceans (amphipods and shrimp), and mollusks (snails)
c
all tadpoles
d
all waterfowl
e
manatees and beavers
Table S5.8 Mean effect sizes (Hedges’ d), confidence limits, and statistics for comparisons of native enemy effects among prey sub-groups, enemy
types, and habitats for freshwater invertebrates
Hedges’
d
Lower
95% CL
Upper
95% CL
n
0.52
0.27
0.78
73
1.16
0.38
2.08
11
Mollusk
1.10
0.15
1.79
5
Taxonomic groupb
Trichoptera
0.91
0.02
1.90
10
(Insect)
Ephemeroptera
0.05
-0.38
0.49
18
Chironomidae
0.45
0.18
0.74
28
Variable
Levels
QB
d.f.
P
4.10
2
0.1286
4.62
2
0.0990
Prey sub-group
Taxonomic group
Insect
Crustacean
a
Enemy type
Taxonomic group
Invertebratec
0.97
0.03
2.16
5
Vertebrate
0.57
0.35
0.82
73
Lentic
0.66
0.28
1.08
37
Lotic
0.69
0.40
0.98
61
Temperate
0.57
0.33
0.82
85
Tropic
1.54
0.94
2.19
13
d
0.61
1
0.4341
0.01
1
0.9028
7.05
1
0.0079
Habitat
Habitat
Climate region
Note. Statistical comparisons were conducted among different sub-groups within taxonomic groups. Confidence limits are 95 % bias-corrected
confidence intervals. Sample sizes are given (i.e., number of observations). Significance of QB was estimated using chi-square distributions.
Significant comparisons given in boldtype.
a
includes amphipods, isopods, crayfish, and shrimp
b
did not include craneflies (Tipulidae) and stoneflies (Plecoptera) due to low sample size
c
all are omnivorous shrimp
d
all are fish