Abstract
Invasive exotic plants may compromise the survival, growth, and reproduction of native species and are among the leading causes of worldwide biodiversity losses. Climate changes—which will affect species distribution—may even amplify the problems caused by invasive species. Here, we used ecological niche models to evaluate the current and future distribution of 108 invasive plants in the entire Brazilian territory and the country's conservation unit facilities (CUFs). Overall, our results did not indicate a significant change in the potential distribution of invasive plants between the current and future climate scenarios, although we expect that 67.5% of the species will decrease its range in Brazil in the future. The proportion of the plants' invasive range inside conservation units varied from 1 to 12%, and results suggest that this would not increase or decrease in the future. Taken together, our results do not indicate that climate change will amplify the effects of existing invasive plants—although it may facilitate the invasion of other species. Both current and future scenarios suggest high suitability for invasive plants in the southern, southern, southeastern, and eastern coast of Brazil, comprising the Caatinga, Cerrado, and Mata Atlântica Brazilian biomes, the most populated areas of the country. We advise that conservation unit managers and authorities within these regions should continuously monitor such invasive plants to take early responses to avoid their establishment.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The data used in this manuscript are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References
Allen JA, Brown CS, Stohlgren TJ (2009) Non-native plant invasions of United States National Parks. Biol Invasions 11:2195–2207
Allouche O, Tsoar A, Kadmon R (2006) Assessing the accuracy of species distribution models: prevalence, kappa and the true skill statistic (TSS). J Appl Ecol 43:1223–1232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01214.x
Anderson RP (2017) When and how should biotic interactions be considered in models of species niches and distributions? J Biogeogr 44:8–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.12825
Araújo M, New M (2007) Ensemble forecasting of species distributions. Trends Ecol Evol 22:42–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2006.09.010
Araújo MB, Peterson AT (2012) Uses and misuses of bioblamtic envelope modeling. Ecology 93:1527–1539. https://doi.org/10.2307/23225219
Bahn V, McGill BJ (2013) Testing the predictive performance of distribution models. Oikos 122:321–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2012.00299.x
Barve N, Barve V, Jiménez-Valverde A et al (2011) The crucial role of the accessible area in ecological niche modeling and species distribution modeling. Ecol Modell 222:1810–1819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.02.011
Bellard C, Thuiller W, Leroy B et al (2013) Will climate change promote future invasions? Glob Chang Biol 19:3740–3748. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12344
Bernard E, Aguiar LM, Machado RB (2011) Discovering the Brazilian bat fauna: a task for two centuries? Mamm Rev 41:23–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2907.2010.00164.x
Braaker S, Ghazoul J, Obrist MK, Moretti M (2014) Habitat connectivity shapes urban arthropod communities: the key role of green roofs. Ecology 95:1010–1021. https://doi.org/10.1890/13-0705.1
Brasil (2011) SNUC-Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservação da Natureza: Lei no 9.985, de 18 de julho de 2000. Plano Estratégico Nacional de Áreas Protegidas: Decreto no 5.758, de 13 de abril de 2006
Breiman L (2001) Random forests. Mach Learn 45:5–32. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324
Cardoso P, Erwin TL, Borges PAV, New TR (2011) The seven impediments in invertebrate conservation and how to overcome them. Biol Conserv 144:2647–2655
de Andrade AFA, Velazco SJE, De Marco JP (2020) ENMTML: an R package for a straightforward construction of complex ecological niche models. Environ Model Softw. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2019.104615
Didham RK, Tylianakis JM, Hutchison MA et al (2005) Are invasive species the drivers of ecological change? Trends Ecol Evol 20:470–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.07.006
Dudley N, Stolton S (2008) Defining protected areas: An international conference in Almeria, Spain, May 2007
Elith J, Leathwick JR (2009) Species distribution models: ecological explanation and prediction across space and time. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 40:677–697
Escobar H (2015) Fiscal crisis has Brazilian scientists scrambling. Science 349:909–910. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.349.6251.909
Escobar H (2018) We are headed for a very dark period Brazil’s researchers fear election of far-right presidential candidate. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav7518
Escobar H (2019) Brazilian president attacks deforestation data. Science 365:419–419. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.365.6452.419
Guisan A, Thuiller W (2005) Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol Lett 8:993–1009. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00792.x
Guisan A, Tingley R, Baumgartner JB et al (2013) Predicting species distributions for conservation decisions. Ecol Lett 16:1424–1435. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12189
Guisan A, Zimmermann NE (2000) Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecol Modell 135:147–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(00)00354-9
Hennig EI, Ghazoul J (2012) Pollinating animals in the urban environment. Urban Ecosyst 15:149–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-011-0202-7
Hijmans RJ, Graham CH (2006) The ability of climate envelope models to predict the effect of climate change on species distributions. Glob Chang Biol 12:2272–2281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01256.x
Hortal J, de Bello F, Diniz-Filho JAF et al (2015) Seven shortfalls that beset large-scale knowledge of biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 46:523–549. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-112414-054400
IPCC (2017) Intergovernmental panel on climate change
Jiménez-Valverde A, Peterson AT, Soberón J et al (2011) Use of niche models in invasive species risk assessments. Biol Invasions 13:2785–2797. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-011-9963-4
Kariyawasam CS, Kumar L, Ratnayake SS (2020) Potential risks of plant invasions in protected areas of Sri Lanka under climate change with special reference to threatened vertebrates. Climate. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli8040051
Kramer-Schadt S, Niedballa J, Pilgrim JD et al (2013) The importance of correcting for sampling bias in MaxEnt species distribution models. Divers Distrib 19:1366–1379. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12096
Laurance WF, Sayer J, Cassman KG (2014) Agricultural expansion and its impacts on tropical nature. Trends Ecol Evol 29:107–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TREE.2013.12.001
Mack RN, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM et al (2000) Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol Appl 10:689–710. https://doi.org/10.2307/2641039
Malhi Y, Roberts JT, Betts RA et al (2008) Climate change, deforestation, and the fate of the Amazon. Science 319:169–172. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1146961
Marshall Meyers N, Reaser JK, Hoff MH (2020) Instituting a national early detection and rapid response program: needs for building federal risk screening capacity. Biol Invasions 22:53–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-019-02144-0
Martinez B, Reaser JK, Dehgan A et al (2020) Advancing capacities for the early detection of and rapid response to invasive species. Biol Invasions 22:75–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-019-02146-y
Muscarella R, Galante PJ, Soley-Guardia M et al (2014) ENMeval: an R package for conducting spatially independent evaluations and estimating optimal model complexity for Maxent ecological niche models. Methods Ecol Evol 5:1198–1205. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12261
Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG et al (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858. https://doi.org/10.1038/35002501
Newbold T (2010) Applications and limitations of museum data for conservation and ecology, with particular attention to species distribution models. Prog Phys Geogr 34:3–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133309355630
Oliveira U, Paglia AP, Brescovit AD et al (2016) The strong influence of collection bias on biodiversity knowledge shortfalls of Brazilian terrestrial biodiversity. Divers Distrib 22:1232–1244. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12489
Oyama MD, Nobre CA (2003) A new climate-vegetation equilibrium state for Tropical South America. Geophys Res Lett 30:2199. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GL018600
Parmesan C (2006) Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 37:637–669. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.37.091305.110100
Patterson BD (1994) Accumulating knowledge on the dimensions of biodiversity: systematic perspectives on neotropical mammals. Biodivers Lett 2:79–86. https://doi.org/10.2307/2999761
Pauchard A, Milbau A, Albihn A et al (2016) Non-native and native organisms moving into high elevation and high latitude ecosystems in an era of climate change: new challenges for ecology and conservation. Biol Invasions 18:345–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-015-1025-x
Pejchar L, Mooney HA (2009) Invasive species, ecosystem services and human well-being. Trends Ecol Evol 24:497–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.016
Petenon D, Pivello VR (2008) Plantas invasoras: representatividade da pesquisa dos países tropicais no contexto mundial. Nat Conserv 6:65–77
Peterson AT, Soberon J, Pearson RG et al (2011a) Ecological niches and geographic distributions, 1st edn. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Phillips SJ, Anderson RP, Schapire RE (2006) Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol Modell 190:231–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.03.026
Pimentel D, McNair S, Janecka J et al (2001) Economic and environmental threats of alien plant, animal, and microbe invasions. Agric Ecosyst Environ 84:1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(00)00178-X
Pimentel D, Zuniga R, Morrison D (2005) Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecol Econ 52:273–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.10.002
Pyke GH, Ehrlich PR (2010) Biological collections and ecological/environmental research: a review, some observations and a look to the future. Biol Rev 85:247–266. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2009.00098.x
Reaser JK, Burgiel SW, Kirkey J et al (2020) The early detection of and rapid response (EDRR) to invasive species: a conceptual framework and federal capacities assessment. Biol Invasions 22:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-019-02156-w
Reddy S, Dávalos LM (2003a) Geographical sampling bias and its implications for conservation priorities in Africa. J Biogeogr 30:1719–1727
Riahi K, Rao S, Krey V et al (2011) RCP 8.5—a scenario of comparatively high greenhouse gas emissions. Clim Change 109:33–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0149-y
Richardson D (1999) Commercial forestryand agroforestryas sources of invasive alien trees and shrubs. In: Sandlund OT, Schei PJ, Viken A (eds) Invasive species and biodiversity management, 1st edn. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 237–257
Richardson DM, Pysek P, Rejmanek M et al (2000) Naturalization and invasion of alien plants: concepts and definitions. Divers Distrib 6:93–107. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1472-4642.2000.00083.x
Roberts DR, Bahn V, Ciuti S et al (2017) Cross-validation strategies for data with temporal, spatial, hierarchical, or phylogenetic structure. Ecography (Cop) 40:913–929. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.02881
Rodrigues ASL, Andelman SJ, Bakarr MI et al (2004) Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity. Nature 428:640–643
Royle JA, Chandler RB, Yackulic C, Nichols JD (2012) Likelihood analysis of species occurrence probability from presence-only data for modelling species distributions. Methods Ecol Evol 3:545–554. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2011.00182.x
Sastre P, Lobo JM (2009a) Taxonomist survey biases and the unveiling of biodiversity patterns. Biol Conserv 142:462–467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.11.002
Shah MA, Shaanker RU (2014) Invasive species: reality or myth? Biodivers Conserv 23:1425–1426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0673-y
Silva RG, Zenni RD, Rosse VP et al (2020) Landscape-level determinants of the spread and impact of invasive grasses in protected areas. Biol Invasions 22:3083–3099. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-020-02307-4
Simberloff D, Stiling P (1996) Risks of species introduced for biological control. Biol Conserv 78:185–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(96)00027-4
Simpson A, Jarnevich C, Madsen J et al (2009) Invasive species information networks: collaboration at multiple scales for prevention, early detection, and rapid response to invasive alien species. Biodiversity 10:5–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/14888386.2009.9712839
Sousa-Baena MS, Garcia LC, Peterson AT (2014) Completeness of digital accessible knowledge of the plants of Brazil and priorities for survey and inventory. Divers Distrib 20:369–381. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12136
Sousa-Baena MS, Garcia LC, Peterson AT (2013) Completeness of digital accessible knowledge of the plants of Brazil and priorities for survey and inventory. Divers Distrib 20:369–381. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12136
Spear D, Foxcroft LC, Bezuidenhout H, McGeoch MA (2013) Human population density explains alien species richness in protected areas. Biol Conserv 157:137–147
Tax DMJ, Duin RPW (2004) Support vector data description. Mach Learn 54:45–66. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:MACH.0000008084.60811.49
Taylor GT, Muller-Karger FE, Thunell RC et al (2012) Ecosystem responses in the southern Caribbean Sea to global climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109:19315–19320. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1207514109
Theoharides KA, Dukes JS (2007) Plant invasion across space and time: factors affecting nonindigenous species success during four stages of invasion. New Phytol 176:256–273. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02207.x
Threlfall CG, Mata L, Mackie JA et al (2017) Increasing biodiversity in urban green spaces through simple vegetation interventions. J Appl Ecol 54:1874–1883. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12876
Tylianakis JM, Didham RK, Bascompte J, Wardle DA (2008) Global change and species interactions in terrestrial ecosystems. Ecol Lett 11:1351–1363. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01250.x
Václavík T, Meentemeyer RK (2009) Invasive species distribution modeling (iSDM): are absence data and dispersal constraints needed to predict actual distributions? Ecol Modell 220:3248–3258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2009.08.013
Vanhatalo J, Veneranta L, Hudd R (2012) Species distribution modeling with Gaussian processes: a case study with the youngest stages of sea spawning whitefish (Coregonus lavaretus L. s.l.) larvae. Ecol Modell 228:49–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.12.025
Whittaker RJ, Araújo MB, Jepson P et al (2005) Conservation biogeography: assessment and prospect. Divers Distrib 11:3–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1366-9516.2005.00143.x
Wilson EO (2017) Biodiversity research requires more boots on the ground. Nat Ecol Evol 1:1590–1591. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0360-y
Zenni RD, Ziller SR (2011) An overview of invasive plants in Brazil. Rev Bras Botânica 34:431–446
Zenni RD, Wilson JRU, Le Roux JJ, Richardson DM (2009) Evaluating the invasiveness of Acacia paradoxa in South Africa. South African J Bot 75:485–496
Ziller S, Zenni R, Wong LJ (2018) Register of introduced and invasive species-Brazil. In: Invasive species spec. Gr. ISSG. Checkl. dataset
Ziller SR, Dechoum MS (2013) Plantas e vertebrados exóticos invasores em unidades de conservação no Brasil. Biodivesidade Bras 3:4–31
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Colin Phifer, the editor, and two anonymous reviewers for essential suggestions for improving this manuscript's previous version. LGLF is thankful to Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) for her technical fellowship received during the development of this research (Proc. 371842/2017-4). DPS is thankful to CNPq for the support provided by this project (Proc. 407750/2016-9). This paper was developed in the context of the National Institutes for Science and Technology (INCT) in Ecology, Evolution and Biodiversity Conservation, supported by MCTIC/CNPq (Proc. number 465610/2014-5), and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Goiás (FAPEG) (Proc. 201810267000023). The authors also thank Silvia R. Ziller for valuable discussions and data provision to produce the distribution ranges of the species. DPS and PDM thank CNPq for productivities grants received during the development of this study (CNPq—Proc. Number: 304494/2019-4 and 308694/2015-4, respectively).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interests
The authors declare there is no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fulgêncio-Lima, L.G., Andrade, A.F.A., Vilela, B. et al. Invasive plants in Brazil: climate change effects and detection of suitable areas within conservation units. Biol Invasions 23, 1577–1594 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-021-02460-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-021-02460-4