Non-native species have higher consumption rates than their native counterparts.

Non-native species can be major drivers of ecosystem alteration, especially through changes in trophic interactions. Successful non-native species have been predicted to have greater resource use efficiency relative to trophically analogous native species (the Resource Consumption Hypothesis), but rigorous evidence remains equivocal. Here, we tested this proposition quantitatively in a global meta-analysis of comparative functional response studies. We calculated the log response ratio of paired non-native and native species functional responses, using attack rate and maximum consumption rate parameters as response variables. Explanatory variables were consumer taxonomic group and functional feeding group, habitat, native assemblage latitude, and non-native species taxonomic distinctiveness. Maximum consumption rates for non-native species were 70% higher, on average, than those of their native counterparts; attack rates also tended to be higher, but not significantly so. The magnitude of maximum consumption rate effect sizes varied with consumer taxonomic group and functional feeding group, being highest in favour of non-natives for molluscs and herbivores. Consumption rate differences between non-native and native species tended to be greater for freshwater taxa, perhaps reflecting sensitivity of insular freshwater food webs to novel consumers; this pattern needs to be explored further as additional data are obtained from terrestrial and marine ecosystems. In general, our results support the Resource Consumption Hypothesis, which can partly explain how successful non-native species can reduce native resource populations and restructure food webs.