Refine
Document Type
- Article (3)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- Biogeographical comparisons (1)
- Invasion science (1)
- biological invasions (1)
- definitions (1)
- functional traits (1)
- increased vigour (1)
- intrinsic vs extrinsic factors (1)
- invasion biology (1)
- invasion success (1)
- preadaptation (1)
In a recent Discussion Paper, Hoffmann and Courchamp (2016) posed the question: are biological invasions and natural colonisations that different? This apparently simple question resonates at the core of the biological study of human-induced global change, and we strongly believe that the answer is yes: biological invasions and natural colonisations differ in processes and mechanisms in ways that are crucial for science, management, and policy. Invasion biology has, over time, developed into the broader transdisciplinary field of invasion science. At the heart of invasion science is the realisation that biological invasions are not just a biological phenomenon: the human dimension of invasions is a fundamental component in the social-ecological systems in which invasions need to be understood and managed.
The 13th International Conference on Ecology and Management of Alien Plant Invasions (EMAPi) was held in Waikoloa Village, Hawaii, 20–24 September 2015. EMAPi is the only international conference that focuses exclusively on alien plants; its history and broad significance were outlined by Richardson et al. (2010). During EMAPi 2015, over 200 presentations were delivered by delegates hailing from 31 countries. The presentations covered a wide range of topics in invasion biology, addressing organizational levels ranging from the gene to global patterns. Connecting science with management emerged as a unifying theme across the conference program. Commonalities emerged through lively discussions, giving new insights into research needs, management strategies, and more effective implementation of biosecurity and control. A highlight was the mid-conference field trip, where researchers, land managers, and policy makers discussed collaboration and solutions in the stimulating back drop of Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, Hakalau National Wildlife Refuge, and other conservation sites that have evolving invasive plant management strategies.
The success of invasive species has been explained by two contrasting but non-exclusive views: (i) intrinsic factors make some species inherently good invaders; (ii) species become invasive as a result of extrinsic ecological and genetic influences such as release from natural enemies, hybridization or other novel ecological and evolutionary interactions. These viewpoints are rarely distinguished but hinge on distinct mechanisms leading to different management scenarios. To improve tests of these hypotheses of invasion success we introduce a simple mathematical framework to quantify the invasiveness of species along two axes: (i) interspecific differences in performance among native and introduced species within a region, and (ii) intraspecific differences between populations of a species in its native and introduced ranges. Applying these equations to a sample dataset of occurrences of 1,416 plant species across Europe, Argentina, and South Africa, we found that many species are common in their native range but become rare following introduction; only a few introduced species become more common. Biogeographical factors limiting spread (e.g. biotic resistance, time of invasion) therefore appear more common than those promoting invasion (e.g. enemy release). Invasiveness, as measured by occurrence data, is better explained by inter-specific variation in invasion potential than biogeographical changes in performance. We discuss how applying these comparisons to more detailed performance data would improve hypothesis testing in invasion biology and potentially lead to more efficient management strategies.