Darwin’s naturalization conundrum disentangled: the role of phylogenetic relatedness depends on the invasion stages
Abstract Darwin’s naturalization hypothesis predicts successful invaders to be distantly related to native species, whereas his pre-adaptation hypothesis predicts the opposite. It has been suggested that depending on the invasion stage (i.e. introduction, naturalization, and invasiveness), both hypotheses, now known as Darwin’s naturalization conundrum, could hold true. We tested this by analysing whether the likelihood of introduction for cultivation as well as subsequent stages of naturalization and invasion of species alien to Southern Africa are correlated with their phylogenetic distance to the native flora of this region. While species were more likely to be introduced for cultivation if they are distantly related to the native flora, the probability of subsequent naturalization was higher for species closely related to the native flora. Furthermore, the probability of becoming invasive was higher for naturalized species distantly related to the native flora. These results were consistent across three different metrics of phylogenetic distance. Our study reveals that the relationship between phylogenetic distance to the native flora and success of an alien species depends on the invasion stage.