Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The progress of interdisciplinarity in invasion science

  • Review
  • Published:
Ambio Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Interdisciplinarity is needed to gain knowledge of the ecology of invasive species and invaded ecosystems, and of the human dimensions of biological invasions. We combine a quantitative literature review with a qualitative historical narrative to document the progress of interdisciplinarity in invasion science since 1950. Our review shows that 92.4% of interdisciplinary publications (out of 9192) focus on ecological questions, 4.4% on social ones, and 3.2% on social–ecological ones. The emergence of invasion science out of ecology might explain why interdisciplinarity has remained mostly within the natural sciences. Nevertheless, invasion science is attracting social–ecological collaborations to understand ecological challenges, and to develop novel approaches to address new ideas, concepts, and invasion-related questions between scholars and stakeholders. We discuss ways to reframe invasion science as a field centred on interlinked social–ecological dynamics to bring science, governance and society together in a common effort to deal with invasions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ameden, H.A., P.C. Boxall, S.B. Cash, and D.A. Vickers. 2009. An agent-based model of border enforcement for invasive species management. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 57: 481–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, N.J., R. Roth, S.C. Klain, K. Chan, P. Christie, D.A. Clark, G. Cullman, D. Curran, et al. 2017. Conservation social science: Understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biological Conservation 205: 93–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binder, C.R., J. Hinkel, P.W.G. Bots, and C. Pahl-Wostl. 2013. Comparison of frameworks for analyzing social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society 18: 26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brenner, J.C. 2010. What drives the conversion of native rangeland to buffelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare) pasture in Mexico’s Sonoran desert? The social dimensions of a biological invasion. Human Ecology 38: 495–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunel, S., E. Fernandez-Galiano, P. Genovesi, V.H. Heywood, C. Kueffer, and D.M. Richardson. 2013. Invasive alien species: A growing but neglected threat? In Late lessons from early warnings: science, precaution, innovation, ed. European Environment Agency, 518–540. Copenhagen: Publications Office of the European Union.

  • Buijs, A., T. Hovardas, H. Figari, P. Castro, P. Devine-Wright, A. Fischer, C. Mouro, and S. Selge. 2012. Understanding people’s ideas on natural resource management: Research on social representations of nature. Society and Natural Resources 25: 1167–1181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butts, C.T., D. Hunter, M. Handcock, S. Bender-deMoll, and J. Horner. 2015. Package ‘network’. R package version 1.12.0.

  • Carruthers, J., L. Robin, J.P. Hattingh, C.A. Kull, H. Rangan, and B.W. Van Wilgen. 2011. A native at home and abroad: The history, politics, ethics and aesthetics of acacias. Diversity and Distributions 17: 810–821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaffin, B.C., A.S. Garmestani, D.G. Angeler, D.L. Herrmann, C.A. Stow, M. Nystrom, J. Sendzimir, M.E. Hopton, et al. 2016. Biological invasions, ecological resilience and adaptive governance. Journal of Environmental Management 183: 399–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chew, M.K., and A.L. Hamilton. 2011. The rise and fall of biotic nativeness: A historical perspective. In Fifty years of invasion ecology. The legacy of Charles Elton, ed. D.M. Richardson, 35–47. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cote, M., and A.J. Nightingale. 2012. Resilience thinking meets social theory: Situating social change in socio-ecological systems (SES) research. Progress in Human Geography 36: 475–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Courchamp, F., A. Fournier, C. Bellard, C. Bertelsmeier, E. Bonnaud, J.M. Jeschke, and J.C. Russell. 2017. Invasion biology: Specific problems and possible solutions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 32: 13–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curtis, W. 1783. A Catalogue of the British, medicinal, culinary and agricultural plants cultivated in the London botanic gardens. London: B. White.

  • Dahlberg, R., O. Rubin, and M.T. Vendelø. 2016. Disaster research. Multidisciplinary and international perspectives. Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M.A. 2006. Invasion biology 1958–2005: The pursuit of science and conservation. In Conceptual ecology and invasion biology: Reciprocal approaches to nature, ed. M.W. Cadotte, S.M. McMahon, and T. Fukami, 35–64. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M.A. 2011. Invasion Biology. In Encyclopedia of biological invasions, ed. D. Simberloff, and M. Rejmánek, 364–369. California: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M.A., K. Thompson, and J.P. Grime. 2001. Charles S. Elton and the dissociation of invasion ecology from the rest of ecology. Diversity and Distributions 7: 97–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drake, J.A., H.A. Mooney, F. Di Castri, R.H. Groves, F.J. Kruger, M. Rejmánek, and M. Williamson. 1989. Biological invasions: A global perspective. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elton, C.S. 1958. The ecology of invasions by animals and plants. London: Methuen.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Essl, E., P.E. Hulme, J.M. Jeschke, R. Keller, P. Pyšek, D.M. Richardson, W.-C. Saul, S. Bacher, et al. 2017. Scientific and normative foundations for the valuation of alien species impacts: thirteen core principles. BioScience. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw160.

  • Estévez, R.A., C.B. Anderson, J.C. Pizarro, and M.A. Burgman. 2014. Clarifying values, risk perceptions, and attitudes to resolve or avoid social conflicts in invasive species management. Conservation Biology 29: 19–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frawley, J., and I. McCalman. 2014. Rethinking invasion ecologies from the environmental humanities. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groves, R.H., and J.J. Burdon. 1986. Ecology of biological invasions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guisan, A., and N.E. Zimmermann. 2000. Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecological Modelling 135: 147–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, S.J. 2009. Cultural disturbances and local ecological knowledge mediate cattail (Typha domingensis) invasion in Lake Pátzcuaro, México. Human Ecology 37: 241–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattingh, J. 2011. Conceptual clarity, scientific rigour and ‘The stories we are’: Engaging with two challenges to the objectivity of invasion biology. In Fifty years of invasion ecology. The legacy of Charles Elton, ed. D.M. Richardson, 359–375. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Head, L., and J. Atchison. 2015. Governing invasive plants: Policy and practice in managing the Gamba grass (Andropogon gayanus)—Bushfire nexus in northern Australia. Land Use Policy 47: 225–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Head, L., B.M.H. Larson, R.J. Hobbs, J. Atchison, N. Gill, C.A. Kull, and H. Rangan. 2015. Living with invasive plants in the Anthropocene: The importance of understanding practice and experience. Conservation and Society 13: 311–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heger, T., A.T. Pahl, Z. Botta-Dukát, F. Gherardi, C. Hoppe, I. Hoste, K. Jax, L. Lindström, et al. 2013. Conceptual frameworks and methods for advancing invasion ecology. Ambio 42: 527–540.

  • Hobbs, R.J., and D.M. Richardson. 2011. Invasion ecology and restoration ecology: Parallel evolution in two fields of endeavour. In Fifty years of invasion ecology. The legacy of Charles Elton, ed. D.M. Richardson, 61–69. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hui, C., and M.A. McGeoch. 2014. Zeta diversity as a concept and metric that unifies incidence-based biodiversity patterns. The American Naturalist 184: 684–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hui, C., and D.M. Richardson. 2017. Invasion dynamics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hulme, P. 2009. Trade, transport and trouble: Managing invasive species pathways in an era of globalization. Journal of Applied Ecology 46: 10–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humair, F., P.J. Edwards, M. Siegrist, and C. Kueffer. 2014a. Understanding misunderstandings in invasion science: Why experts don’t agree on common concepts and risk assessments. NeoBiota 20: 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humair, F., M. Siegrist, and C. Kueffer. 2014b. Working with the horticulture industry to limit invasion risks: The Swiss experience. EPPO Bulletin 44: 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humair, F., L. Humair, F. Kuhn, and C. Kueffer. 2015. E-commerce trade in invasive plants. Conservation Biology 29: 1658–1665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeschke, J.M., S. Bacher, T.M. Blackburn, J.T.A. Dick, F. Essl, T. Evans, M. Gaertner, P.E. Hulme, et al. 2014. Defining the impact of non-native species: Resolving disparity through greater clarity. Conservation Biology 28: 1188–1194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krebs, C.J. 1972. Ecology. The experimental analysis of distribution and abundance. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kueffer, C. 2013. Integrating natural and social sciences for understanding and managing plant invasions. In Biodiversity and society in the Pacific Islands, ed. S. Larrue, 71–96. Marseille & Canberra: Presses Universitaires de Provence & ANU ePress.

  • Kueffer, C., and C. Kull. 2017. Non-native species and the aesthetics of nature. In Impact of biological invasions on ecosystem services, eds. P. Hulme, and M. Vilà. Berlin: Springer.

  • Kueffer, C., and G. Hirsch Hadorn. 2008. How to achieve effectiveness in problem-oriented landscape research: The example of research on biotic invasions. Living Reviews in Landscape Research 2: 2. doi:10.12942/lrlr-2008-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kueffer, C., and B. Larson. 2014. Responsible use of language in scientific writing and science communication. BioScience 64: 719–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kull, C.A., C.M. Shackleton, P.J. Cunningham, C. Ducatillon, J.-M. Dufour-Dror, K.J. Esler, J.B. Friday, A.C. Gouveia, et al. 2011. Adoption, use and perception of Australian Acacias around the world. Diversity and Distributions 17: 822–836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kull, C.A., S.M. Carrière, S. Moreau, H.R. Ramiarantsoa, C. Blanc-Pamard, and J. Tassin. 2013. Melting pots of biodiversity: Tropical smallholder farm landscapes as guarantors of sustainability. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 55: 6–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson, B. 2005. The war of the roses: Demilitarizing invasion biology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3: 495–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson, B.M.H. 2007. Who’s invading what? Systems thinking about invasive species. Canadian Journal of Plant Sciences 87: 993–999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson, B. 2011. Metaphors for environmental sustainability: Redefining our relationship with nature. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson, B.M.H. 2013. The metaphorical links between ecology, ethics, and society. In Linking ecology and ethics for a changing world: Values, philosophy, and action, ed. R. Rozzi, S.T.A. Pickett, C. Palmer, J.J. Armesto, and J.B. Callicott, 137–145. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Latombe, G., M.A. McGeoch, and C. Hui. 2015. Zetadiv: Functions to compute compositional turnover using zeta diversity. R package.

  • Leydesdorff, L., and I. Rafols. 2009. A global map of science based on the ISI subject categories. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60: 348–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, J., M.-H. Wang, and Y.-S. Ho. 2011. Trends in research on global climate change: A Science Citation Index expanded-based analysis. Global and Planetary Change 77: 13–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, J., T. Dietz, S.R. Carpenter, M. Alberti, C. Folke, E. Moran, A.N. Pell, P. Deadman, et al. 2007. Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science 317: 1513–1516.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lockwood, J.L., M.F. Hoopes, and M.P. Marchetti. 2007. Invasion ecology. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lövei, G.L. 1997. Global change through invasion. Nature 388: 627–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mann, R. 1979. Exotic species in aquaculture. Oceanus 22: 29–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matzek, V., J. Covino, J.L. Funk, and M. Saunders. 2013. Closing the knowing–doing gap in invasive plant management: Accessibility and interdisciplinarity of scientific research. Conservation Letters 7: 208–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeely, J.A. 2001. The great reshuffling: Human dimensions of invasive alien species. Gland: IUCN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • N’Guyen, A., P.E. Hirsch, I. Adrian-Kalchhauser, and P. Burkhardt-Holm. 2016. Improving invasive species management by integrating priorities and contributions of scientists and decision makers. Ambio 45: 280–289.

  • R Core Team. 2014. R: A language and environment for statistical computing, version 3.1.2. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

  • Porter, A.L., and I. Rafols. 2009. Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics 81: 719–745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rafols, I., A.L. Porter, and L. Leydesdorff. 2010. Science overlay maps: A new tool for research policy and library management. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 61: 1871–1887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, D.M. 2011a. Invasion science: The roads travelled and the roads ahead. In Fifty years of invasion ecology. The legacy of Charles Elton, ed. D.M. Richardson, 397–407. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

  • Richardson, D.M. (ed.). 2011b. Fifty years of invasion ecology. The legacy of Charles Elton. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, D.M., and P. Pyšek. 2007. Classics in physical geography revisited: Elton, C.S. 1958: The ecology of invasions by animals and plants. Methuen: London. Progress in Physical Geography 31: 659–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, D.M., and P. Pyšek. 2008. Fifty years of invasion ecology—The legacy of Charles Elton. Diversity and Distributions 14: 161–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, D.M., and A. Ricciardi. 2011. Misleading criticisms of invasion science: A field guide. Diversity and Distributions 19: 1461–1467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, D.M., P. Pyšek, and J.T. Carlton. 2011. A compendium of essential concepts and terminology in invasion ecology. In Fifty years of invasion ecology. The legacy of Charles Elton, ed. D.M. Richardson, 409–420. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rissman, A.R., and S. Gillon. 2016. Where are ecology and biodiversity in social–ecological systems research? A review of research methods and applied recommendations. Conservation Letters. doi:10.1111/conl.12250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez-Labajos, B., R. Binimelis, and I. Monterroso. 2009. Multi-level driving forces of biological invasions. Ecological Economics 69: 63–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rotherham, I.D., and R.A. Lambert. 2011. Invasive and introduced plants and animals: Human perceptions, attitudes and approaches to management. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sax, D.F., J.J. Stachowicz, J.H. Brown, J.F. Bruno, M.N. Dawson, S.D. Gaines, R.K. Grosberg, A. Hastings, et al. 2007. Ecological and evolutionary insights from species invasions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 22: 465–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schindler, S., B. Staska, M. Adam, W. Rabitsch, and F. Essl. 2015. Alien species and public health impacts in Europe: A literature review. NeoBiota 27: 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, B.R., A. Howell, and K. Genskow. 2014. Evaluation of a movie theater advertisement campaign to promote behaviors that prevent spread of aquatic invasive species. Society and Natural Resources 27: 768–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff, D. 2001. Eradication of island invasives: Practical actions and results achieved. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 16: 273–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff, D. 2011. Charles Elton: Neither founder nor siren, but prophet. In Fifty years of invasion ecology. The legacy of Charles Elton, ed. D.M. Richardson, 11–24. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff, D., J.-L. Martin, P. Genovesi, V. Maris, D.A. Wardle, J. Aronson, F. Courchamp, B. Galil, et al. 2013. Impacts of biological invasions: What’s what and the way forward? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 28: 58–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stock, P., and R.J.F. Burton. 2011. Defining terms for integrated (multi-inter-trans-disciplinary) sustainability research. Sustainability 3: 1090–1113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stork, H., and J.J. Astrin. 2014. Trends in biodiversity research—A bibliometric assessment. Open Journal of Ecology 4: 354–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tassin, J., and C.A. Kull. 2015. Facing the broader dimensions of biological invasions. Land Use Policy 42: 165–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tengö, M., E.S. Brondizio, T. Elmqvist, P. Malmer, and M. Spierenburg. 2014. Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: The multiple evidence base approach. Ambio 43: 579–591.

  • Thuiller, W., D.M. Richardson, P. Pyšek, G.F. Midgley, G.O. Hughes, and M. Rouget. 2005. Niche-based modelling as a tool for predicting the risk of alien plant invasions at a global scale. Global Change Biology 11: 2234–2250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Wilgen, B.W., B. Reyers, D.C. Le Maitre, D.M. Richardson, and L. Schonegevel. 2008. A biome-scale assessment of the impact of invasive alien plants on ecosystem services in South Africa. Journal of Environmental Management 89: 336–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Wilgen, B.W., S.J. Davies, and D.M. Richardson. 2014. Invasion science for society: A decade of contributions from the Centre for Invasion Biology. South African Journal of Science. doi:10.1590/sajs.2014/a0074.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaz, A.S., C. Kueffer, C.A. Kull, D.M. Richardson, J.R. Vicente, I. Kühn, M. Schröter, J. Hauck, et al. 2017. Integrating ecosystem services and disservices: Insights from plant invasions. Ecosystem Services 23: 94–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitousek, P.M. 1988. Diversity and biological invasions of Oceanic Islands. In Biodiversity, ed. E.O. Wilson, and F.M. Peter, 181–189. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, C.S., J.D. Roessner, K. Bobb, J.T. Klein, K.W. Boyack, J. Keyton, I. Rafols, and K. Börnerf. 2011. Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature. Journal of Infometrics 165: 14–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, H.C. 1847. Cybele Britannica, vol. 1. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodford, D.J., D.M. Richardson, H.J. MacIsaac, N.E. Mandrak, B.W. Van Wilgen, J.R.U. Wilson, and O.L.F. Weyl. 2016. Confronting the wicked problem of managing biological invasions. NeoBiota 31: 63–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zavaleta, E. 2000. Valuing ecosystem services lost to Tamarix invasion in the United States. In Invasive species in a changing world, ed. H.A. Mooney, and R.J. Hobbs, 261–300. Washington DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, L., M.-H. Wang, J. Hu, and Y.-S. Ho. 2010. A review of published wetland research, 1991–2008: Ecological engineering and ecosystem restoration. Ecological Engineering 36: 973–980.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

A.S. Vaz was supported by FSE/MEC, FCT (PD/BD/52600/2014); J. Vicente by POPH/FSE, FCT (SFRH/BPD/84044/2012); J. Muñoz-Pajares by FEDER-FCT (UID/BIA/50027/2013; POCI-01-0145-FEDER-006821), CIBIO (UID/BIA/50027/2013); S. Schindler by ACRP (KR13AC6K11141); D. Richardson by the DST-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology, the Working for Water Programme through project on “Integrated Management of invasive alien species in South Africa”, and the National Research Foundation (NRF), South Africa (Grant 85417); C. Hui by the NRF (Grants 81825, 76912) and the Australian Research Council (DP150103017). We thank the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC; NSF DBI-1052875), the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, the Synthesis Centre of iDiv (DFG FZT 118), and Thomson Reuters.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Network in Biodiversity and Evolutionary Biology, Research Center in Biodiversity and Genetic Resources (InBIO-CIBIO), Campus Agrário de Vairão, Rua Padre Armando Quintas, 4485-661, Vairão, Portugal

    Ana S. Vaz, A. Jesús Muñoz-Pajares, Joana R. Vicente, João Martins & João P. Honrado

  2. Faculty of Sciences, University of Porto (FCUP), Rua do Campo Alegre, s/n, 4169-007, Porto, Portugal

    Ana S. Vaz, Joana R. Vicente & João P. Honrado

  3. Institute of Integrative Biology, ETH Zurich, Universitätstrasse 16, 8092, Zurich, Switzerland

    Christoph Kueffer

  4. Department of Botany and Zoology, Centre for Invasion Biology, Stellenbosch University, Matieland, 7602, South Africa

    Christoph Kueffer & David M. Richardson

  5. Institute of Geography and Sustainability, University of Lausanne, Quartier UNIL-Mouline Bâtiment Géopolis, 1015, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Christian A. Kull

  6. Centre for Geography and Environmental Science, Monash University, 20 Chancellors Walk, Clayton, VIC, 3800, Australia

    Christian A. Kull

  7. Environment Agency Austria, Spittelauer Lände 5, 1090, Vienna, Austria

    Stefan Schindler

  8. Division of Conservation Biology, Vegetation and Landscape Ecology, University of Vienna, Rennweg 14, 1030, Vienna, Austria

    Stefan Schindler

  9. Department of Mathematical Sciences, Centre for Invasion Biology, Stellenbosch University, Matieland, 7602, South Africa

    Cang Hui

  10. Theoretical Ecology Group, African Institute for Mathematical Sciences, Cape Town, 7945, South Africa

    Cang Hui

  11. Department of Community Ecology, UFZ – Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Theodor-Lieser-Str. 4, 06120, Halle, Germany

    Ingolf Kühn

  12. Geobotany and Botanical Garden, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Am Kirchtor 1, 06108, Halle, Germany

    Ingolf Kühn

  13. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Deutscher Platz 5e, 04103, Leipzig, Germany

    Ingolf Kühn

Authors
  1. Ana S. Vaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christoph Kueffer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christian A. Kull
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David M. Richardson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Stefan Schindler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. A. Jesús Muñoz-Pajares
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Joana R. Vicente
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. João Martins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Cang Hui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Ingolf Kühn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. João P. Honrado
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ana S. Vaz.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (MP4 6245 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (PDF 505 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vaz, A.S., Kueffer, C., Kull, C.A. et al. The progress of interdisciplinarity in invasion science. Ambio 46, 428–442 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-017-0897-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-017-0897-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation