Springer Science+Business Media
About: Biological Invasions is an academic journal published by Springer Science+Business Media. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Introduced species & Population. It has an ISSN identifier of 1387-3547. Over the lifetime, 4470 publications have been published receiving 157814 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
TL;DR: There is little evidence that interference among introduced species at levels currently observed significantly impedes further invasions, and synergistic interactions among invaders may well lead to accelerated impacts on native ecosystems – an invasional ‘meltdown’ process.
Abstract: Study of interactions between pairs or larger groups of nonindigenous species has been subordinated in the literature to study of interactions between nonindigenous and native species. To the extent that interactions among introduced species are depicted at all, the emphasis has been on negative interactions, primarily resource competition and interference. However, a literature search reveals that introduced species frequently interact with one another and that facilitative interactions are at least as common as detrimental ones. The population significance of these interactions has rarely been determined, but a great variety of types of direct and indirect interactions among individuals of different nonindigenous species is observed, and many are plausibly believed to have consequences at the population level. In particular, mutualisms between plants and the animals that disperse and/or pollinate them and modification of habitat by both animals and plants seem common and often important in facilitating invasions. There is little evidence that interference among introduced species at levels currently observed significantly impedes further invasions, and synergistic interactions among invaders may well lead to accelerated impacts on native ecosystems ‐ an invasional ‘meltdown’ process.
TL;DR: This paper argues that the total impact of an invader includes three fundamental dimensions: range, abundance, and the per-capita or per-biomass effect of the invader, and recommends previous approaches to measuring impact at different organizational levels, and suggests some new approaches.
Abstract: Although ecologists commonly talk about the impacts of nonindigenous species, little formal attention has been given to defining what we mean by impact, or connecting ecological theory with particular measures of impact. The resulting lack of generalizations regarding invasion impacts is more than an academic problem; we need to be able to distinguish invaders with minor effects from those with large effects in order to prioritize management efforts. This paper focuses on defining, evaluating, and comparing a variety of measures of impact drawn from empirical examples and theoretical reasoning. We begin by arguing that the total impact of an invader includes three fundamental dimensions: range, abundance, and the per-capita or per-biomass effect of the invader. Then we summarize previous approaches to measuring impact at different organizational levels, and suggest some new approaches. Reviewing mathematical models of impact, we argue that theoretical studies using community assembly models could act as a basis for better empirical studies and monitoring programs, as well as provide a clearer understanding of the relationship among different types of impact. We then discuss some of the particular challenges that come from the need to prioritize invasive species in a management or policy context. We end with recommendations about how the field of invasion biology might proceed in order to build a general framework for understanding and predicting impacts. In particular, we advocate studies designed to explore the correlations among different measures: Are the results of complex multivariate methods adequately captured by simple composite metrics such as species richness? How well are impacts on native populations correlated with impacts on ecosystem functions? Are there useful bioindicators for invasion impacts? To what extent does the impact of an invasive species depend on the system in which it is measured? Three approaches would provide new insights in this line of inquiry: (1) studies that measure impacts at multiple scales and multiple levels of organization, (2) studies that synthesize currently available data on different response variables, and (3) models designed to guide empirical work and explore generalities.
TL;DR: It is concluded that propagule pressure should serve as the basis of a null model for studies of biological invasions when inferring process from patterns of invasion, and ‘propagule biases’ may confound current paradigms in invasion ecology.
Abstract: Invasion ecology has been criticised for its lack of general principles. To explore this criticism, we conducted a meta-analysis that examined characteristics of invasiveness (i.e. the ability of species to establish in, spread to, or become abundant in novel communities) and invasibility (i.e. the susceptibility of habitats to the establishment or proliferation of invaders). There were few consistencies among invasiveness characteristics (3 of 13): established and abundant invaders generally occupy similar habitats as native species, while abundant species tend to be less affected by enemies; germination success and reproductive output were significantly positively associated with invasiveness when results from both stages (establishment/spread and abundance/impact) were combined. Two of six invasibility characteristics were also significant: communities experiencing more disturbance and with higher resource availability sustained greater establishment and proliferation of invaders. We also found that even though ‘propagule pressure’ was considered in only ~29% of studies, it was a significant predictor of both invasiveness and invasibility (55 of 64 total cases). Given that nonindigenous species are likely introduced non-randomly, we contend that ‘propagule biases’ may confound current paradigms in invasion ecology. Examples of patterns that could be confounded by propagule biases include characteristics of good invaders and susceptible habitats, release from enemies, evolution of ‘invasiveness’, and invasional meltdown. We conclude that propagule pressure should serve as the basis of a null model for studies of biological invasions when inferring process from patterns of invasion.
TL;DR: This work highlights that, in the case of invasive species, distributional predictions should aim to derive the best hypothesis of the potential distribution of the species by using all distributional information available, including information from both the native range and other invaded regions.
Abstract: Risk maps summarizing landscape suitability of novel areas for invading species can be valuable tools for preventing species’ invasions or controlling their spread, but methods employed for development of such maps remain variable and unstandardized. We discuss several considerations in development of such models, including types of distributional information that should be used, the nature of explanatory variables that should be incorporated, and caveats regarding model testing and evaluation. We highlight that, in the case of invasive species, such distributional predictions should aim to derive the best hypothesis of the potential distribution of the species by using (1) all distributional information available, including information from both the native range and other invaded regions; (2) predictors linked as directly as is feasible to the physiological requirements of the species; and (3) modelling procedures that carefully avoid overfitting to the training data. Finally, model testing and evaluation should focus on well-predicted presences, and less on efficient prediction of absences; a k-fold regional cross-validation test is discussed.
TL;DR: The effects caused by different insect invaders are reviewed according to their ecosystem roles, i.e. herbivores, predators, parasites, parasitoids and pollinators; the level of biological organisation at which they occur; and the direct and indirect mechanisms underlying these effects.
Abstract: A literature survey identified 403 primary research publications that investigated the ecological effects of invasive alien insects and/or the mechanisms underlying these effects. The majority of these studies were published in the last 8 years and nearly two-thirds were carried out in North America. These publications concerned 72 invasive insect species, of which two ant species, Solenopsis invicta and Linepithema humile, accounted for 18% and 14% of the studies, respectively. Most publications investigated effects on native biodiversity at population or community level. Genetic effects and, to a lesser extent, effects on ecosystem services and processes were rarely explored. We review the effects caused by different insect invaders according to: their ecosystem roles, i.e. herbivores, predators, parasites, parasitoids and pollinators; the level of biological organisation at which they occur; and the direct and indirect mechanisms underlying these effects. The best documented effects occur in invasive ants, Eurasian forest herbivores invasive in North America, and honeybees. Impacts may occur through simple trophic interactions such as herbivory, predation or parasitism. Alien species may also affect native species and communities through more complex mechanisms such as competition for resources, disease transmission, apparent competition, or pollination disruption, among others. Finally, some invasive insects, particularly forest herbivores and ants, are known to affect ecosystem processes through cascading effects. We identify biases and gaps in our knowledge of ecological effects of invasive insects and suggest further opportunities for research.