Refine
Year of publication
- 2017 (3) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- alien species (3) (remove)
Humans have an extremely long history of transporting and introducing mammal species outside their native geographic ranges. The characteristics of the species introduced (taxonomy, life-history, ecology, environment) can all influence which traits are available (and selected) for establishment, and subsequent invasive spread. Understanding the non-randomness in species introductions is therefore key to understanding invasions by alien species. Here, we test for selectivity in the identities and traits of mammal species introduced worldwide. We compiled and analysed a comprehensive database of introduced mammal species, including information on a broad range of life history, ecological, distributional and environmental variables that we predicted to differ between introduced and non-introduced mammal species. Certain mammal taxa are much more likely to have been introduced than expected, such as Artiodactyls in the families Bovidae and Cervidae. Rodents and bats were much less likely to have been introduced than expected. Introduced mammal species have significantly larger body masses, longer lifespans and larger litter sizes than a random sample of all mammal species. They also have much larger native geographic ranges than expected, originate from significantly further north, from cooler areas, and from areas with higher human population densities, than mammal species with no recorded introductions. The traits and distributions of species help determine which have been introduced, and reflect how the evolutionary history of mammals has resulted in certain species with certain traits being located in the way of human histories of movement and demands for goods and services. The large amount of unexplained variation is likely to relate to the intrinsically stochastic nature of this human-driven process.
Impact assessment with different scoring tools: How well do alien amphibian assessments match?
(2017)
Classification of alien species' impacts can aid policy making through evidence based listing and management recommendations. We highlight differences and a number of potential difficulties with two scoring tools, the Environmental Impact Classification of Alien Taxa (EICAT) and the Generic Impact Scoring System (GISS) using amphibians as a case study. Generally, GISS and EICAT assessments lead to very similar impact levels, but scores from the schemes are not equivalent. Small differences are attributable to discrepancies in the verbal descriptions for scores. Differences were found in several impact categories. While the issue of disease appears to be related to uncertainties in both schemes, hybridisation might be inflated in EICAT. We conclude that GISS scores cannot directly be translated into EICAT classifications, but they give very similar outcomes and the same literature base can be used for both schemes.
Die in Amerika heimische Kolumbianische Zwergwasserlinse (Wolffia columbiana) tritt neuerdings in Europa als Neophyt auf und konnte in Niedersachsen zum ersten Mal im Jahr 2016 nachgewiesen werden. Im Hintergrund stehen die für den Naturschutz relevanten Fragen, wie viele vermeintliche Vorkommen von Wolffia arrhiza in Wirklichkeit Wolffia columbiana repräsentieren und ob dieser Neophyt die heimische und gefährdete Art Wolffia arrhiza verdrängen kann.