Exciting times are afoot for those of us interested in the ecology and evolution of invasive populations. Recent years have seen evolutionary process woven firmly into our understanding of invasions (Miller et al. 2020). This integration has inspired a welter of empirical and theoretical work. We have moved from field observations and verbal models to replicate experiments and sophisticated mathematical models. Progress has been rapid, and we have seen science at its best; an intimate discussion between theory and data.
An area currently under very active development is our understanding of pushed invasions. Here a population spreads through space driven, not by dispersal and growth originating at the leading tip of the invasion, but by dispersal and growth originating deeper in the bulk of the population. These pushed invasions may be quite common – they result when per capita growth and dispersal rates are higher in the bulk of the wave than at the leading tip. They result from a range of well-known phenomena, including Allee effects and density-dependent dispersal (Gandhi et al. 2016; Bîrzu et al. 2019). Pushed invasions travel faster than we would expect given growth and dispersal rates on the leading tip, and they lose genetic diversity more slowly than classical pulled invasions (Roques et al. 2012; Haond et al. 2018; Bîrzu et al. 2019).
Well… in theory, anyway. The theory on pushed waves has momentarily streaked ahead of the empirical work, because empirical systems for studying pushed invasions are rare (though see Gandhi et al. 2016; Gandhi, Korolev, and Gore 2019). In this paper, Dahirel and colleagues (2020) make the argument that we may be able to generate pushed invasions in laboratory systems simply by reducing the connectedness of our experimental landscapes. If true, we might have a simple tool for turning many of our established experimental systems into systems for studying pushed dynamics.
It’s a nice idea, and the paper goes to careful lengths to explore the possibility in their lab system (a parasitoid wasp, Trichogramma). They run experiments on replicate wasp populations comparing strongly- v poorly-connected arrays, and estimate the resulting invasion speeds and rate of diversity loss. They also build a simulation model of the system, allowing them to explore in-silico a range of possible processes underlying their results.
As well as developing these parallel systems, Dahirel and colleagues (2020) go to careful lengths to develop statistical analyses that allow inference on key parameters, and they apply these analyses to both the experimental and simulation data. They have been motivated to apply methods that might be used in both laboratory and field settings to help classify invasions.
Ultimately, they found reasonable evidence that their poorly-connected habitat did induce a pushed dynamic. Their poorly connected invasions travelled faster than they should have if they were pulled, they lost diversity more slowly than the highly connected habitat, and replicates with a higher carrying capacity tended to have higher invasion speeds. All in line with expectations of a pushed dynamic. Interestingly, however, their simulation results suggest that they probably got this perfect result for unexpected reasons. The strong hint is that their poorly-connected habitat induced density dependent dispersal in the wasps. Without this effect, their simulations suggest they should have seen diversity decreasing much more rapidly than it did.
There is a nuanced, thoughtful, and carefully argued discussion about all this in the paper, and it is worth reading. There is much of value in this paper. Theirs is not a perfect empirical system in which all the model assumptions are met and in which huge population sizes make stochastic effects negligible. Here is a system one step closer to the messy reality of biology. The struggle to align this system with new theory has been worth the effort. Not only does it give us hope that we might usefully be able to discriminate between classes of invasions using real-world data, but it hints at a rule that Tolstoy might have expressed this way: all pulled invasions are alike, each pushed invasion is pushed in its own way.

References

Bîrzu, G., Matin, S., Hallatschek, O., and Korolev, K. S. (2019). Genetic drift in range expansions is very sensitive to density dependence in dispersal and growth. Ecology Letters, 22(11), 1817-1827. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13364
Dahirel, M., Bertin, A., Haond, M., Blin, A., Lombaert, E., Calcagno, V., Fellous, S., Mailleret, L., Malausa, T., and Vercken, E. (2020). Shifts from pulled to pushed range expansions caused by reduction of landscape connectivity. bioRxiv, 2020.05.13.092775, ver. 4 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Evolutionary Biology. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.13.092775
Gandhi, S. R., Korolev, K. S., and Gore, J. (2019). Cooperation mitigates diversity loss in a spatially expanding microbial population. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(47), 23582-23587. doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1910075116
Gandhi, S. R., Yurtsev, E. A., Korolev, K. S., and Gore, J. (2016). Range expansions transition from pulled to pushed waves as growth becomes more cooperative in an experimental microbial population. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(25), 6922-6927. doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1521056113
Haond, M., Morel-Journel, T., Lombaert, E., Vercken, E., Mailleret, L. and Roques, L. (2018). When higher carrying capacities lead to faster propagation (2018), bioRxiv, 307322, ver. 4 peer-reviewed and recommended by Peer Community in Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1101/307322
Miller et al. (2020). Eco‐evolutionary dynamics of range expansion. Ecology, 101(10), e03139. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.3139
Roques, L., Garnier, J., Hamel, F., and Klein, E. K. (2012). Allee effect promotes diversity in traveling waves of colonization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(23), 8828-8833. doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1201695109