Review Article |
Corresponding author: Abigail L. Mabey ( a.l.mabey@soton.ac.uk ) Academic editor: Sidinei Magela Thomaz
© 2023 Abigail L. Mabey, Marc Rius, Dan A. Smale, Jane A. Catford.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Mabey AL, Rius M, Smale DA, Catford JA (2023) The use of species traits in invasive seaweed research: a systematic review. NeoBiota 86: 123-149. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.86.97392
|
Species traits have been used extensively in invasion science, providing common metrics across taxa and ecosystems that enable comparisons based on the functional responses and effects of biota. However, most work on traits in invasion science has focused on terrestrial plants, despite the vulnerability of aquatic ecosystems to invasive species, such as invasive seaweeds. Research that focuses on individual species of invasive seaweeds has intensified in recent years, yet few studies have synthesised the information learned on species traits to identify commonalities or knowledge gaps in invasion science. Through a systematic review of 322 papers that investigate the traits of seaweed species from across the globe, here we ask – what are the trends and gaps in research that investigates traits of invasive seaweeds? To address this question, we aimed to: (1) identify publication rates and characteristics of the studies examining traits of invasive seaweeds; (2) clarify which and how many species have been investigated; and (3) assess which traits have been measured and how those traits have been used. Our review revealed that study regions for research on invasive seaweed traits were concentrated in Europe and North America. In addition, we found a total of 158 species that have been investigated, with a large proportion of studies (35%) focusing on just two species, Sargassum muticum and Undaria pinnatifida. Our study revealed that the most researched traits were morphological, which were used to address a wide range of research questions. Key research gaps included relatively few studies from Africa, Asia and South America, a lack of papers researching more than one species and a lack of measurements of biomechanical traits. Altogether, this review provides a thorough overview of research progress on species traits of invasive seaweeds and highlights the existing knowledge gaps that may lead to new ways in which the traits of invasive seaweeds can be used to answer important ecological questions.
Characteristics, functional traits, macroalgae, non-indigenous, non-native
Species traits can be defined as measurable features of an organism that potentially affect performance or fitness and that can be measured at the individual level (
Non-native species are those that are transported to areas beyond their native range through accidental or intentional human mediated transport of species (
Seaweeds (i.e. marine macroalgae) are important primary producers broadly distributed across the ocean biome and have significant ecological, economic and cultural value (
One of the largest investigations of traits of invasive seaweeds was carried out by
Here, we present a global review of papers that investigate traits of invasive seaweeds. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review that examines the use of traits in invasive seaweed research. Using a systematic and reproducible methodology (based upon the principles outlined in
The databases Web of Science (Core Collection and BIOSIS Citation Index), Scopus and EBSCOhost Greenfile were searched for records on 21 January 2021 using the following search string:
(trait* OR character* OR growth* OR life* OR phenotyp* OR morpholo* OR attribute*)
AND
(invas* OR nonnative* OR native* OR nonindigenous* OR indigenous* OR alien* OR casual* OR exotic* OR foreign* OR naturali* OR introduc* OR allochthonous*)
AND
(seaweed* OR macroalga* OR alga* OR chlorophyta* OR rhodophyta* OR phaeophyceae* OR hydrophyt* OR macrophyt*)
Search results were selected to include articles only and to include results from the maximum number of years possible for each database (Web of Science: 1950–2021, Scopus: All years to present and EBSCOhost Greenfile: 1973–2021). Irrelevant categories were removed from the Web of Science search (Suppl. material
All of these records were screened by title using the R package ‘metagear’ (
For each paper included in this review, 15 categories were used to collect data, similar to those adopted by
The geographic area of first author was recorded as the country or countries of the associated institutions of the first author. Each country was sorted by continent for ease of comparison and analysis. The geographic area of study was recorded as the continent from where the population of the invasive species was collected. When the geographic area of study was greater than a single continent, the reported larger geographic area was recorded instead (e.g. global or Northern Hemisphere). Multiple geographic areas were recorded for both first author location and the geographic area of study, but this was more common for the latter group.
The method of data collection recorded whether traits were measured from individuals grown under natural conditions (observational) or from individuals grown under manipulated conditions (experimental). The type of study recorded whether the data were collected from species grown in the field or the laboratory or whether the study was a review or modelling paper. The habitat type was recorded as the environment from which the invasive species was collected. Artificial included anthropogenic habitats, such as harbours or breakwaters. Rocky habitats included any natural rocky substrata, including reefs and rocky shores. Sandy/sedimentary habitats included beaches, estuaries and lagoons. Vegetated habitats included seagrass meadows, marshes and algal mats. Any habitats not included in the previous categories were recorded as other and studies which did not record any habitat were included as unknown.
The taxonomic classification of the invasive species was recorded, either as Phaeophyceae, Chlorophyta or Rhodophyta following the classification found in the World Register of Marine Species (
For ease of analysis and comparisons, trait categories were used to group measured traits into seven comparable groups. Morphology included measures of size or branching diameter. Biochemical included the elemental composition of tissues. Productivity included fresh and dry weight and measures of growth rate. Physiology included physiological processes, such as photosynthesis, nutrient uptake rates, respiration and pigment content. Biomechanics measured mechanical strength and related features. Reproduction included traits related to reproduction and dispersal. Other included any traits not covered by the previous categories.
The environmental variables measured alongside traits were grouped into ten categories. Water included physical or chemical measures of the water column, including temperature, salinity or nutrient content. Sediment/substrate included differences or characteristics of the sediments or substrate. Climate included meteorological variables, such as air temperature. Anthropogenic included environmental conditions caused by human activities, such as nutrient pollution, climate change or control methods. Depth/light included measures of the depth in the water column and variations in light. Hydrology/topology included information on the hydrological regime, often through differences amongst sites. Biotic included interactions or changes of the natural community, including measures of natural enemies, biotic resistance or microbial communities. Season/time included studies which measured how traits changed over time, including both short time-periods (days) or long time-periods (months or years). None is where no environmental variables were measured and other included any environmental variables not included in the categories above.
Finally, the main aim of the paper was recorded to characterise the purpose of the research and, therefore, the reason for measuring traits. Environmental gradients measured how traits varied along environmental gradients, often to investigate the invasive potential of species in different environmental conditions. Competition included papers that measured how traits related to competition, which may have been inter- or intra-specific. Natural enemies measured how traits related to herbivores or pathogens. Anthropogenic investigated the effects of human-induced pressures such as pollution, climate change or management. Impact investigated the effects of invasive species on the surrounding community. Invasive process included papers that investigated how traits changed with the invasive process, such as propagule pressure or differences between native and invasive populations. Other included any main aims that were not included in the previous categories. Several papers had more than one main aim, but no paper had more than two. The bar charts and chord diagrams were created in RStudio using R 4.1.2, using packages ‘ggplot2’ and ‘Rcolorbrewer’ for the bar charts (
Given our focus on trends in literature, we re-ran the search on 6 November 2022 in Web of Science and EBSCOhost Greenfile to estimate how many new papers may have been excluded from our systematic review. Since our initial search date of 21 January 2021, we estimate that approximately 31 additional papers could be included if we had used a November 2022 search date. This accounts for < 10% of the 322 papers used in our review and is, thus, not expected to significantly change the results presented here (Suppl. material
All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article and its Suppl. materials
The first paper investigating traits of invasive seaweeds found in this review was published in 1975 in the journal Botanica Marina. Since then, the number of papers investigating this research area has risen, as 39% of the 322 papers included in this review were published between 2014 and 2021. This reflects trends in the wider literature, as the number of publications that mention ecology, invasive species and traits in the title, abstract or keywords has also increased since 1985 (Fig.
First authors were mostly based in Europe (54% of papers), followed by North America (23%). Africa (2%) and Asia (2%) had the lowest number of first author affiliations. The geographic study area followed a similar trend, with the majority of studies sampling European and North American populations (57% and 25%, respectively), with Africa and Asia being the least studied (2% and 2%) (Fig.
a The proportion of invasion science papers published on species traits (see Suppl. material
The a geographic area of first author affiliation and the study area (where the invasive species were sampled from) (two papers had a global study area and two had a study area of the Northern Hemisphere which are not shown). Multiple geographic areas were recorded for both first author and study locations, but more so for the latter. The number of papers which b used field, lab, review or modelling to collect data or draw conclusions, with the structure of the study shown in stacked bars (Exp. = experimental, Obs. = Observational, N/A = study did not include experiments or observational data) and c the habitat type from where the invasive species were collected.
The 322 papers included in this review measured traits of 158 seaweed species. Of these, the most investigated taxonomic classification was Rhodophyta (65% of all species) and Chlorophyta was the least studied (11%) (Fig.
All 15 forms of invasiveness were represented amongst the 322 studies, i.e. all possible combinations of the four demographic dimensions were used to define invasive species, with geographic range size (15%) and spread rate (10%) being the most frequently used criteria (Fig.
The number of a invasive species in each taxonomic group investigated across all papers in this review [two papers each investigated one charophyte species, (see
Proportion of 322 trait-based studies that classify invasive seaweed species into 15 forms of invasiveness, based on the dimensions of invasiveness (local abundance, geographic range size, environmental range size and spread rate) and their combinations, as described in
We found that the majority of papers did not include comparisons to a baseline of native species or populations (61% of all papers), suggesting that they are not investigating differences between invasive species and native species or populations of the invasive species in its home (native) and invaded (non-native) range (Fig.
The number of papers which a compared the invasive species to a baseline (either a native species or a native population of the invasive species) and the number of papers which b studied one, two-five or more than six invasive species within the same paper. Stacked bars show the years of publication.
Morphological traits were the most investigated (49% of all papers), followed by productivity (42%), reproduction (30%) and biochemical (29%) traits (Fig.
There were no clear trends in which traits were used to investigate certain environmental variables (Fig.
Number of papers which measured a categories of traits and b environmental variables to reach the c main aims of the paper, out of a possible 322 papers.
In this systematic review of 322 papers, we identified several key trends in how studies have investigated traits of invasive seaweeds. These included an increase in publications over time (although this increase did not exceed the background publication rate) and a higher research effort in Europe and North America. We also found a research focus on two brown seaweeds, Sargassum muticum and Undaria pinnatifida. Finally, morphological and productivity traits were the most investigated and biomechanical traits the least. These results have addressed the three aims of this review, as explained below.
The increase of publications over time is in keeping with wider trends in the invasion science literature (
The papers included in this systematic review were published in a wide range of journals, but the five journals in which these were most frequently published were Botanica Marina, Marine Ecology Progress Series, Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, Marine Ecology and Biological Invasions. Although papers in these journals investigated an invasive species, only one of these top-5 journals specifically focuses on invasion science. This indicates that, for the topic of invasive seaweed traits, a large body of work may be associated with marine biology and ecology topics, rather than exclusively invasion science.
The most studied geographic areas were in Europe, North America and Oceania, with Africa and Asia being extremely under-represented in the papers included in this review. A similar geographical bias was also apparent in the greater research output in Europe and North America which has also been noted in conservation and invasion science literature previously (
Species belonging to Rhodophyta were the most researched, which was to be expected given that this group contains both the highest number of species and the highest proportion of non-native orders (compared to Phaeophyceae and Chlorophyta) (
Most papers investigated only one invasive species (Fig.
Many papers did not explicitly provide criteria for why species were considered invasive and papers often used non-native and invasive as interchangeable terms. Given the wide remit of invasion science research, it is not practical that a single universal definition of invasiveness could be used across all papers and, indeed, would be impractical and inappropriate to do so across different taxa. However, going forward, it is vital that papers explicitly state the criteria they use to define a species as invasive or non-native. This transparency would facilitate appropriate comparisons across taxa (
The most measured traits were those relating to morphology and productivity. These are often referred to as ‘soft traits’, as they are relatively easy to measure, can be measured in situ and are generally inexpensive as they do not require specialist equipment and are useful for measuring traits from a large number of species or over a long period of time (
Both morphological and productivity trait categories were measured in papers that also recorded changes over seasons and years. These temporal studies addressed a range of aims, including how changes in traits over time affected the impact of an invasive seaweed on the native community (
Despite the importance of biomechanical traits in determining the hydrodynamic conditions in which seaweeds can survive (
The most researched main aim related to environmental gradients, where the study investigated environmental variables (such as light, nutrient availability and temperature) and measured how traits changed along these gradients. All trait categories were used in papers that investigated environmental gradients and were used for a variety of purposes, including investigating the realised niches of species (
In recent years (2014–2021), most papers focused on examining seaweed traits related to anthropogenic pressures and commercial applications. This suggests that there is increasing interest in researching how invasive species respond to human-induced stressors, such as climate change and pollution, for which previous studies have shown a link (
The use of traits to investigate invasive seaweeds is a growing research area and this trend is likely to continue given the expected increase in the rate of marine introductions. By quantifying the methods, species and aims used in investigations of traits of invasive seaweeds, we provided an overview of the main trends in this review. Through this, we have identified several research gaps and so propose these recommendations for future research:
This systematic review provided an overview of the ways in which traits are used to investigate invasive seaweeds. As pressures on the environment continue to increase, using a functional approach to understand invasiveness of seaweeds will allow for generalisations across taxa and ecosystems, which will be useful for conservation and policy decisions. By providing a concise summary of the research so far, this review has identified knowledge gaps and future research directions for invasive seaweed research.
We thank Rebecca Spake for assistance with designing the search string and for recommendations on software to use for screening results. We also thank John Griffin and Rebecca Morris for their constructive feedback of the manuscript. A.L.M. was supported by the Natural Environmental Research Council (Grant number NE/L002531/1) and a School of Biological Sciences Studentship at the University of Southampton. D.A.S. was supported by a UKRI Future Leaders Fellowship (MR/S032827/1). This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme (grant agreement No. [101002987] to J.A.C.). For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission.
Supplementary information
Data type: NA (PDF file)
Explanation note: Supplementary information referenced throughout the paper.
Associated data
Data type: Categorical data collected from published papers (excel document)
Explanation note: Data collected from 322 papers included in this review, and the relevant bibliographic information.