Refine
Year of publication
- 2013 (2) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2) (remove)
Keywords
- Alien species (2) (remove)
Invasion ecology has made considerable progress in identifying specific mechanisms that potentially determine success and failure of biological invasions. Increasingly, efforts are being made to interrelate or even synthesize the growing number of hypotheses in order to gain a more comprehensive and integrative understanding of invasions. We argue that adopting an eco-evolutionary perspective on invasions is a promising approach to achieve such integration. It emphasizes the evolutionary antecedents of invasions, i.e. the species’ evolutionary legacy and its role in shaping novel biotic interactions that arise due to invasions. We present a conceptual framework consisting of five hypothetical scenarios about the influence of so-called ‘eco-evolutionary experience’ in resident native and invading non-native species on invasion success, depending on the type of ecological interaction (predation, competition, mutualism, and commensalism). We show that several major ecological invasion hypotheses, including ‘enemy release’, ‘EICA’, ‘novel weapons’, ‘naive prey’, ‘new associations’, ‘missed mutualisms’ and ‘Darwin’s naturalization hypothesis’ can be integrated into this framework by uncovering their shared implicit reference to the concept of eco-evolutionary experience. We draft a routine for the assessment of eco-evolutionary experience in native and non-native species using a food web-based example and propose two indices (xpFocal index and xpResidents index) for the actual quantification of eco-evolutionary experience. Our study emphasizes the explanatory potential of an eco-evolutionary perspective on biological invasions.
Information from research has an important role to play in shaping policy and management responses to biological invasions but concern has been raised that research focuses more on furthering knowledge than on delivering practical solutions. We collated 449 priority areas for science and management from 160 stakeholders including practitioners, researchers and policy makers or advisors working with invasive species, and then compared them to the topics of 789 papers published in eight journals over the same time period (2009–2010). Whilst research papers addressed most of the priority areas identified by stakeholders, there was a difference in geographic and biological scales between the two, with individual studies addressing multiple priority areas but focusing on specific species and locations. We hypothesise that this difference in focal scales, combined with a lack of literature relating directly to management, contributes to the perception that invasive species research is not sufficiently geared towards delivering practical solutions. By emphasising the practical applications of applied research, and ensuring that pure research is translated or synthesised so that the implications are better understood, both the management of invasive species and the theoretical science of invasion biology can be enhanced.