Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Naturalized alien floras still carry the legacy of European colonialism

Nature Ecology & Evolution volume 6, pages 1723–1732 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

The redistribution of alien species across the globe accelerated with the start of European colonialism. European powers were responsible for the deliberate and accidental transportation, introduction and establishment of alien species throughout their occupied territories and the metropolitan state. Here, we show that these activities left a lasting imprint on the global distribution of alien plants. Specifically, we investigated how four European empires (British, Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch) structured current alien floras worldwide. We found that compositional similarity is higher than expected among regions that once were occupied by the same empire. Further, we provide strong evidence that floristic similarity between regions occupied by the same empire increases with the time a region was occupied. Network analysis suggests that historically more economically or strategically important regions have more similar alien floras across regions occupied by an empire. Overall, we find that European colonial history is still detectable in alien floras worldwide.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Zeta diversity decline and retention rate for each empire.
Fig. 2: Drivers of alien species turnover in the different European empires.
Fig. 3: Networks of the four empires with nodes placed at the region centroids and edges (links) between the regions.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All driver datasets used in the study are openly available and provide spatially explicit, gridded information and the aggregated data are provided in Supplementary Table 5. The GloNAF database together with the shapefile that was used to produce the maps have been published in a data paper35. All data and code are available on Zenodo and can be found here: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6640264.

Code availability

All code is available on Zenodo and can be found here: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6640264.

References

  1. Richardson, D. M. et al. Naturalization and invasion of alien plants: concepts and definitions. Divers. Distrib. 6, 93–107 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Winter, M. et al. Plant extinctions and introductions lead to phylogenetic and taxonomic homogenization of the European flora. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 21721–21725 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Pyšek, P. et al. Naturalized alien flora of the world: species diversity, taxonomic and phylogenetic patterns, geographic distribution and global hotspots of plant invasion. Preslia 89, 203–274 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Daru, B. H. et al. Widespread homogenization of plant communities in the Anthropocene. Nat. Commun. 12, 6983 (2021).

  5. Yang, Q. et al. The global loss of floristic uniqueness. Nat. Commun. 12, 7290 (2021).

  6. van Kleunen, M. et al. Global exchange and accumulation of non-native plants. Nature 525, 100–103 (2015).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Dawson, W. et al. Global hotspots and correlates of alien species richness across taxonomic groups. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 0186 (2017).

  8. Essl, F. et al. Drivers of the relative richness of naturalized and invasive plant species on Earth. AoB Plants 11, plz051 (2019).

  9. Pyšek, P. & Richardson, D. M. The biogeography of naturalization in alien plants. J. Biogeogr. 33, 2040–2050 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Moser, D. et al. Remoteness promotes biological invasions on islands worldwide. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 9270–9275 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Guo, Q. et al. Latitudinal patterns of alien plant invasions. J. Biogeogr. 48, 253–262 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Pyšek, P. et al. Disentangling the role of environmental and human pressures on biological invasions across Europe. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 12157–12162 (2010).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Essl, F. et al. Socioeconomic legacy yields an invasion debt. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 203–207 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Helmus, M. R., Mahler, D. L. & Losos, J. B. Island biogeography of the Anthropocene. Nature 513, 543–546 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. di Castri, F. in Biological Invasions: A Global Perspective (ed. Drake, J. et al.), Ch. 1 (Wiley, 1989).

  16. Crosby, A. W. Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe, 900–1900 2nd edn (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2004).

  17. Diamond, J. M. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies (Norton, 2005).

  18. Nunn, N. & Qian, N. The Columbian exchange: a history of disease, food, and ideas. J. Econ. Perspect. 24, 163–188 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Beinart, W. & Middleton, K. Plant transfers in historical perspective: a review article. Environ. Hist. Camb. 10, 3–29 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Mrozowski, S. A. in Historical Archaeology (eds Hall, M. & Silliman, S. W.) Ch. 2 (Blackwell, 2006).

  21. Brockway, L. H. Science and colonial expansion: the role of the British Royal Botanic Gardens. Am. Ethnol. 6, 449–465 (1979).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hulme, P. E. Addressing the threat to biodiversity from botanic gardens. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26, 168–174 (2011).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Baas, P. The golden age of Dutch colonial botany and its impact on garden and herbarium collections. In Proc. Int. Symp. held by The Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters in Copenhagen (eds Friis, I. & Balselv, H.), 53–62 (2017).

  24. Anderson, W. Climates of opinion: acclimatization in nineteenth-century France and England. Vic. Stud. 35, 135–157 (1992).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Osborne, M. A. Acclimatizing the world: a history of the paradigmatic colonial science. Osiris 15, 135–151 (2000).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Musgrave, T., Gardner, C. & Musgrave, W. The Plant Hunters Two Hundred Years of Adventure and Discovery (Seven Dials, 1999).

  27. Stoner, A. & Hummer, K. 19th and 20th century plant hunters. HortScience 42, 197–199 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Williams, K. A. An overview of the U.S. National Plant Germplasm System’s Exploration Program. HortScience 40, 297–301 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  29. McCracken, D. P. Gardens of Empire: Botanical Institutions of the Victorian British Empire Garden History Vol. 26 (Leicester Univ. Press, 1997).

  30. Mitchener, K. J. & Weidenmier, M. Trade and empire. Econ. J. 118, 1805–1834 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  31. World Trade Report 2007: Six Decades of Multilateral Trade Cooperation: What Have We Learnt? (World Trade Organization, 2007).

  32. Seebens, H. et al. No saturation in the accumulation of alien species worldwide. Nat. Commun. 8, 14435 (2017).

  33. Seebens, H. et al. Global rise in emerging alien species results from increased accessibility of new source pools. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, E2264–E2273 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Essl, F. et al. Historical legacies accumulate to shape future biodiversity in an era of rapid global change. Divers. Distrib. 21, 534–547 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  35. van Kleunen, M. et al. The Global Naturalized Alien Flora (GloNAF) database. Ecology 100, e02542 (2019).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Soininen, J., McDonald, R. & Hillebrand, H. The distance decay of similarity in ecological communities. Ecography 30, 3–12 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Blackburn, T. M. et al. A proposed unified framework for biological invasions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26, 333–339 (2011).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Colautti, R. I., Grigorovich, I. A. & MacIsaac, H. J. Propagule pressure: a null model for biological invasions. Biol. Invasions 8, 1023–1037 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Cassey, P., Delean, S., Lockwood, J. L., Sadowski, J. S. & Blackburn, T. M. Dissecting the null model for biological invasions: a meta-analysis of the propagule pressure effect. PLoS Biol. 16, e2005987 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Blackburn, T. M., Cassey, P. & Duncan, R. P. Colonization pressure: a second null model for invasion biology. Biol. Invasions 22, 1221–1233 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Nekola, J. C. & White, P. S. The distance decay of similarity in biogeography and ecology. J. Biogeogr. 26, 867–878 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Liu, C., Wolter, C., Xian, W. & Jeschke, J. M. Most invasive species largely conserve their climatic niche. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 23643–23651 (2020).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Panton, K. J. Historical Dictionary of the British Empire (Rowman & Littlefield, 2015).

  44. Brendon, P. The Decline and Fall of the British Empire, 1781–1997 (Cape, 2007).

  45. Hulme, P. E. Unwelcome exchange: international trade as a direct and indirect driver of biological invasions worldwide. One Earth 4, 666–679 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Levinson, M. The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger (Princeton Univ. Press, 2010).

  47. Liebhold, A. M., Brockerhoff, E. G. & Kimberley, M. Depletion of heterogeneous source species pools predicts future invasion rates. J. Appl. Ecol. 54, 1968–1977 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Theoharides, K. A. & Dukes, J. S. Plant invasion across space and time: factors affecting nonindigenous species success during four stages of invasion. New Phytol. 176, 256–273 (2007).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Maltby, W. S. The Rise and Fall of the Spanish Empire (Palgrave Macmillan, 2008).

  50. Disdier, A. C. & Head, K. The puzzling persistence of the distance effect on bilateral trade. Rev. Econ. Stat. 90, 37–48 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Jiménez, A., Pauchard, A., Cavieres, L. A., Marticorena, A. & Bustamante, R. O. Do climatically similar regions contain similar alien floras? A comparison between the Mediterranean areas of central Chile and California. J. Biogeogr. 35, 614–624 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Epanchin-Niell, R., McAusland, C., Liebhold, A., Mwebaze, P. & Springborn, M. R. Biological invasions and international trade: managing a moving target. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 15, 180–190 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Bakewell, P. A History of Latin America (Wiley-Blackwell, 2003).

  54. Disney, A. R. A History of Portugal and the Portuguese Empire (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2009).

  55. De Zwart, P. Globalization in the early modern era: new evidence from the Dutch-Asiatic Trade, c. 1600–1800. J. Econ. Hist. 76, 520–558 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Emmer, P. C. & Gommans, J. J. L. The Dutch Overseas Empire, 1600–1800 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2021).

  57. Melitz, J. & Toubal, F. Native language, spoken language, translation and trade. J. Int. Econ. 93, 351–363 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Becker, B. Introducing COLDAT: the colonial dates dataset. Preprint at OSF https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/apvqm (2019).

  59. Pyšek, P., Richardson, D. M. & Williamson, M. Predicting and explaining plant invasions through analysis of source area floras: some critical considerations. Divers. Distrib. 10, 179–187 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  60. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2021).

  61. Hui, C. & McGeoch, M. A. Zeta diversity as a concept and metric that unifies incidence-based biodiversity patterns. Am. Nat. 184, 684–694 (2014).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. McGeoch, M. A. et al. Measuring continuous compositional change using decline and decay in zeta diversity. Ecology 100, e02832 (2019).

  63. Latombe, G., Richardson, D. M., Pyšek, P., Kučera, T. & Hui, C. Drivers of species turnover vary with species commonness for native and alien plants with different residence times. Ecology 99, 2763–2775 (2018).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Latombe, G., McGeoch, M. A., Nipperess, D. A. & Hui, C. zetadiv: an R package for computing compositional change across multiple sites, assemblages or cases. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/324897 (2018).

  65. Latombe, G., McGeoch, M. A., Nipperess, D. A. & Hui, C. zetadiv: Functions to compute compositional turnover using zeta diversity. R package version 1.2.0 (2020).

  66. Baselga, A. Partitioning the turnover and nestedness components of beta diversity. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 19, 134–143 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  67. Latombe, G., Hui, C. & McGeoch, M. A. Multi-site generalised dissimilarity modelling: using zeta diversity to differentiate drivers of turnover in rare and widespread species. Methods Ecol. Evol. 8, 431–442 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  68. Newman, M. E. J. & Girvan, M. Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. Phys. Rev. E 69, 026113 (2004).

  69. Clauset, A., Newman, M. E. J. & Moore, C. Finding community structure in very large networks. Phys. Rev. E 70, 066111 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  70. Csardi, G. & Nepusz, T. The igraph software package for complex network research. InterJournal, Complex Systems, 1695 (2006).

  71. Bonacich, P. Power and centrality: a family of neasures. Am. J. Sociol. 92, 1170–1182 (1987).

    Google Scholar 

  72. Delmas, E. et al. Analysing ecological networks of species interactions. Biol. Rev. 94, 16–36 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

P.P. and J.P. were supported by EXPRO grant no. 19-28807X (Czech Science Foundation) and long-term research development project RVO 67985939 (Czech Academy of Sciences). M.v.K. and M.W. were supported by the German Research Foundation DFG (M.v.K., 264740629; M.W., FZT118, 202548816). H.S. acknowledges support through the 2017–2018 Belmont Forum and BiodivERsA joint call for research proposals, under the BiodivScen ERA-Net COFUND programme and with the funding organization BMBF (AlienScenarios 16LC1807A). A.S. acknowledges funding from the Austrian Science Foundation FWF (grant no. I3757).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. BioInvasions, Global Change, Macroecology Group, Department of Botany and Biodiversity Research, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Bernd Lenzner, Anna Schertler & Franz Essl

  2. Institute of Ecology and Evolution, The University of Edinburgh, King’s Buildings, Edinburgh, UK

    Guillaume Latombe

  3. Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre, Frankfurt, Germany

    Hanno Seebens

  4. Ecology, Department of Biology, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany

    Qiang Yang & Mark van Kleunen

  5. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany

    Marten Winter

  6. Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany

    Marten Winter

  7. Biodiversity, Macroecology & Biogeography, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany

    Patrick Weigelt & Holger Kreft

  8. Campus-Institut Data Science, Göttingen, Germany

    Patrick Weigelt

  9. Centre of Biodiversity and Sustainable Land Use, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany

    Patrick Weigelt & Holger Kreft

  10. Zhejiang Provincial Key Laboratory of Plant Evolutionary Ecology and Conservation, Taizhou University, Taizhou, China

    Mark van Kleunen

  11. Department of Invasion Ecology, Institute of Botany, Czech Academy of Sciences, Průhonice, Czech Republic

    Petr Pyšek & Jan Pergl

  12. Department of Ecology, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

    Petr Pyšek

  13. Department of Biosciences, Durham University, Durham, UK

    Wayne Dawson

  14. Department of Botany and Biodiversity Research, Biodiversity Dynamics & Conservation, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Stefan Dullinger

Authors
  1. Bernd Lenzner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Guillaume Latombe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anna Schertler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hanno Seebens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Qiang Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Marten Winter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Patrick Weigelt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Mark van Kleunen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Petr Pyšek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Jan Pergl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Holger Kreft
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Wayne Dawson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Stefan Dullinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Franz Essl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

B.L. and F.E. designed the study. B.L. performed the analysis with input from G.L. B.L. led the writing with significant input from F.E. and S.D. Species data were provided by the GloNAF core team (F.E., M.v.K., M.W., W.D., P.P., J.P., H.K. and P.W.). All other authors (including A.S., H.S. and Q.Y.) contributed to the discussion and writing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bernd Lenzner.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Ecology & Evolution thanks Nussaïbah Raja and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Conceptual overview of the analyses performed in the study.

Conceptual overview of the analyses performed in the study. For each analysis, an interpretation of the metrics is provided (a-i; b-i; c-i) and the expectation based on the formulated hypotheses (a-ii & a-iii; b-ii & b-iii; c-ii & c-iii). ‘Random empire’ (a-ii & a-iii) relates to a hypothetical empire associated with a colonial power that has the same number of mainland and island regions in total and per UN geospatial region as the observed empire of that colonial power. ‘Sites’ refers to the respective spatial unit used in the analysis and can be a country or subnational region (for example, county or island).

Extended Data Fig. 2 Maximum extent of the four European Empires under consideration independent of the temporal dimension.

Maximum extent of the four European Empires under consideration independent of the temporal dimension. All regions have been included at some point in the respective empire. Regions with an area < 50000 km2 are additionally highlighted by a circle. Saturation of the colour indicates the total time in years the region was occupied by the respective empire. The bar graph shows the extent of the European Empires (that is, number of regions) over time from 1492-2010.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figs, 1–13 and Tables 1–3, 6 and 7.

Reporting Summary

Peer Review File

Supplementary Table

Supplementary Tables 4 and 5.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lenzner, B., Latombe, G., Schertler, A. et al. Naturalized alien floras still carry the legacy of European colonialism. Nat Ecol Evol 6, 1723–1732 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01865-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01865-1

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing