Similarities between invaders and native species: Moving past Darwin's naturalization conundrum

Darwin's naturalization conundrum states that successful invaders must be closely related to native species to possess the traits to tolerate that environment, but distantly related enough to possess traits allowing exploitation of underutilized niches, thereby minimizing competition. Although influential, this hypothesis is based on several simplistic assumptions. In particular, the relationship among phylogenetic relatedness, similarity, and competition is more complex than assumed and changes with spatial and phylogenetic scale. Competitive interactions are determined by limiting similarity and trait hierarchies associated with separate traits. Successful invaders thus need to be similar to native species in some respects, but different in others. This combination of similarities and differences is unlikely to be conserved. Further, many invasive species are represented in their novel range by genotypes with extreme trait values or plasticity relative to the species mean. Selection for these genotypes may alter the similarity between invasive and native species, thus obscuring the relationship between competition and phylogenetic relatedness. As environmental filtering and competition often act on different spatial scales, approaches assessing how individual traits relate to invasion at these scales (species pools vs local community) may improve our understanding of the relationship between similarity and invasion. Darwin's naturalization conundrum states that invaders must be closely and distantly related to native species to pass environmental and competitive filters, respectively. These predictions are based on simplistic assumptions, and cannot be fully tested using phylogenetic relationships alone. Trait‐based approaches offer a means to better understand invasion, especially if considering how individual traits affect invasion at multiple spatial scales.