TY - JOUR A1 - Jeschke, Jonathan M. A1 - Gómez Aparicio, Lorena A1 - Haider, Sylvia A1 - Heger, Tina A1 - Lortie, Christopher J. A1 - Pyšek, Petr A1 - Strayer, David L. T1 - Support for major hypotheses in invasion biology is uneven and declining T2 - NeoBiota N2 - Several major hypotheses have been proposed to explain and predict biological invasions, but the general applicability of these hypotheses is largely unknown, as most of them have not been evaluated using a standard approach across taxonomic groups and habitats. We offer such an evaluation for six selected leading hypotheses. Our global literature review reveals that those hypotheses that consider interactions of exotic invaders with their new environment (invasional meltdown, novel weapons, enemy release) are better supported by empirical evidence than other hypotheses (biotic resistance, island susceptibility, tens rule). We also show that empirical support for the six hypotheses has declined over time, and that support differs among taxonomic groups and habitats. Our results have implications for basic and applied research, policy making, and invasive species management, as their effectiveness depends on sound hypotheses. KW - Biological invasions KW - biotic resistance hypothesis KW - decline effect KW - enemy release hypothesis KW - invasional meltdown hypothesis KW - island susceptibility hypothesis KW - novel weapons hypothesis KW - tens rule Y1 - 2012 UR - http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/32291 UR - https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:hebis:30:3-322919 IS - 14 SP - 1 EP - 20 ER -