Competitive effects of non-native plants are lowest in native plant communities that are most vulnerable to invasion

Despite widespread acknowledgment that disturbance favors invasion, a hypothesis that has received little attention is whether non-native invaders have greater competitive effects on native plants in undisturbed habitats than in disturbed habitats. This hypothesis derives from the assumption that competitive interactions are more persistent in habitats that have not been recently disturbed. Another hypothesis that has received little attention is whether the effects of non-native plants on native plants vary among habitats that differ in soil fertility. We documented habitat occurrences of 27 non-native plant species and 377 native plant species encountered in numerous study plots in a broad sample of ecosystems in MS (USA). We then reviewed experimental and regression-based field studies in the scientific literature that specifically examined potential competitive (or facilitative) effects of these non-native species on native species and characterized the habitats in which effects were the greatest. As expected, the non-native species examined here in general were more likely to be associated with severely disturbed habitats than were the native species as a group. In contrast, we found that non-native species with competitive effects on natives were more likely to be associated with undisturbed habitats than with disturbed habitats. When longer term studies involving more resident species were given more weight in the analysis, competitive effects appeared to be the greatest in undisturbed habitats with low soil fertility. These results reinforce the notion that invasion is not synonymous with impact. The environmental conditions that promote invasion may limit competitive effects of invaders on native plant communities following invasion.