Beyond EICA: understanding post-establishment evolution requires a broader evaluation of potential selection pressures

Abstract

Research on post-establishment evolution in nonnative plant populations has focused almost exclusively on testing the Evolution of Increased Competitive Ability (EICA) hypothesis, which posits that the lack of specialized herbivores in the invaded range drives evolution in nonnative plant populations. Fifteen years of conflicting EICA test results suggest that selection pressures other than specialized herbivory are important in driving post-establishment evolution in invasive species. Alternative hypotheses, such as the Evolution of Reduced Competitive Ability (ERCA) hypothesis, have been proposed but have received little attention or testing. We argue that the lack of consensus across studies that test EICA may be due in part to the lack of consistent definitions and varying experimental design parameters, and that future research in this field would benefit from new methodological considerations. We examined previous work evaluating post-establishment evolution and evaluated the range of study systems and design parameters used in testing the EICA hypothesis. Our goal was to identify where different uses of ecological terms and different study parameters have hindered consensus and to suggest a path forward to move beyond EICA in post-establishment evolution studies. We incorporated these methods into a design framework that will increase data harmony across future studies and will facilitate examinations of any potential selection pressure driving evolution in the invaded range.