Back

Toward a unified theory of microbially-mediated invasion

Martignoni, M. M.; Garnier, J. M.; Tyson, R. C.; Harris, K. D.; Kolodny, O.

2024-10-24 ecology
10.1101/2024.01.18.576278 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Biological invasions pose major ecological and economic threats, and extensive research has been dedicated to understanding and predicting their dynamics. Most studies focus on the biological invasion of single species, and only in recent years has it been realized that multi-species interactions that involve native and invasive host species and their microbial symbionts can play important roles in determining invasion outputs. A theoretical framework that treats these interactions and their impact is lacking. Here we offer such a framework and use it to explore possible dynamics that may emerge from the horizontal sharing of native and non-native microbial symbionts among native and non-native host individuals and species. Thus, for example, invasive plants might benefit from native mycorrhizal networks in the soil, or might be particularly successful if they carry with them parasites to which competing native hosts are susceptible. On the other hand, invasion might be hindered by native parasites that spread from native to invasive individuals. The mathematical framework that we lay out in this study provides a new mechanistic, cohesive, and intuition-enhancing tool for theoretically exploring the ways by which the subtleties of the relationships between hosts and microbes may affect invasion dynamics. We identify multiple pathways through which microbes can facilitate (or prevent) host invasion, microbial invasion, and the invasion of both hosts and their co-introduced microbes. We disentangle invasion outcomes and highlight modalities of ecological dynamics that have so far not been considered in invasion biology. Our work sets the foundations for invasion theory that includes a community-level view of invasive and native hosts as well as their microbial symbionts.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.