Background and aims: The enemy release hypothesis assumes that invasive plants lose their co-evolved natural enemies during introduction into the new range. This study tested, as proposed by the evolution of increased competitive ability (EICA) hypothesis, whether escape from enemies results in a decrease in defence ability in plants from the invaded range. Two straightforward aspects of the EICA are examined: (1) if invasives have lost their enemies and their defence, they should be more negatively affected by their full natural pre-invasion herbivore spectrum than their native conspecifics; and (2) the genetic basis of evolutionary change in response to enemy release in the invasive range has not been taken sufficiently into account.
Methods: Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife) from several populations in its native (Europe) and invasive range (North America) was exposed to all above-ground herbivores in replicated natural populations in the native range. The experiment was performed both with plants raised from field-collected seeds as well as with offspring of these where maternal effects were removed.
Key results: Absolute and relative leaf damage was higher for introduced than for native plants. Despite having smaller height growth rate, invasive plants attained a much larger final size than natives irrespective of damage, indicating large tolerance rather than effective defence. Origin effects on response to herbivory and growth were stronger in second-generation plants, suggesting that invasive potential through enemy release has a genetic basis.
Conclusions: The findings support two predictions of the EICA hypothesis - a genetically determined difference between native and invasive plants in plant vigour and response to enemies - and point to the importance of experiments that control for maternal effects and include the entire spectrum of native range enemies.