Abstract
Darwin's naturalization hypothesis predicts successful alien 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 (that is, 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 the subsequent stages of naturalization and spread (that is, becoming invasive) of species alien to Southern Africa are correlated with their phylogenetic distance to the native flora of this region. Although species are 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 the success of an alien species changes from one invasion stage to the other.