Environmental Management

, Volume 50, Issue 6, pp 979–981

The Tens Rule in Invasion Biology: Measure of a True Impact or Our Lack of Knowledge and Understanding?

Article

Abstract

The Tens Rule, as well as the last stage described therein, i.e., the proportion of established species that becomes pests, is frequently perceived by the scientific community to indicate that introduced established species have little impact on communities. This belief is dangerous because it strengthens the perspective of the general public and decision makers that the risks of species introductions are largely overestimated. It is often difficult to detect the actual negative impact of an introduced established species. It might be less apparent or indirect; it might be delayed or masked by the “noise” caused by other anthropogenic disturbances. It is also likely that numerous ecological interactions are still not detected or properly understood. Therefore, the ten-percent rule might be more of an indicator of our lack of understanding of the impacts that established introduced species produce than the actual ratio of such species that produces negative impacts. In such a state of affairs, adopting the precautionary principle is crucial. The scientific community must be much more cautious and responsible regarding the message it delivers to the general public and management authorities.

Keywords

Introduced Invasive Exotic Pest Tens Rule 

References

  1. Campbell JE, Gibson DJ (2001) The effect of seeds of exotic species transported via horse dung on vegetation along trail corridors. Plant Ecology 157:23–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carlton JT (2003) Community assembly and historical biogeography in the North Atlantic Ocean: the potential role of human-mediated dispersal vectors. Hydrobiologia 503:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clavero M, García-Berthou E (2005) Invasive species are a leading cause of animal extinctions. Trends in Ecololgy & Evolution 20(3):110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Copp GH, Bianco PG, Bogutskaya NG, Erős T, Falka I, Ferreira MT et al (2005) To be, or not to be, a non-native freshwater fish? Journal of Applied Ichthyology 21:242–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crooks JA, Soulé ME (1999) Lag times in population explosions of invasive species: causes and implications. In: Sandlund OT et al (eds) Invasive species and biodiversity management. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 103–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Daehler CC (2001) Two ways to be an invader, but one is more suitable for ecology. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 82:101–102Google Scholar
  7. Davis MA, Thompson K (2000) Eight ways to be a colonizer; two ways to be an invader: a proposed nomenclature for invasion ecology. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 81:226–230Google Scholar
  8. Davis MA, Thompson K (2001) Invasion terminology: should ecologists define their terms differently than others? No, not if we want to be of any help! Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 82:2–6Google Scholar
  9. García-Berthou E (2007) The characteristics of invasive fishes: what has been learned so far? Journal of Fish Biology 71(Suppl D):33–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gozlan RE (2008) Introduction of non-native freshwater fish: is it all bad? Fish and Fisheries 9:106–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gozlan RE (2009) [Response by Gozlan R] Biodiversity crisis and the introduction of non-native fish: Solutions, not scapegoats. Fish and Fisheries 10:109–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jeschke JM, Strayer DL (2005) Invasion success of vertebrates in Europe and North America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102(20):7198–7202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lapointe NWR, Pendleton RM, Angermeier PL (2012) A comparison of approaches for estimating relative impacts of nonnative fishes. Environmental Management 49:82–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Leprieur F, Brosse S, García-Berthou E, Oberdorff T, Olden JD, Townsend CR (2009) Scientific uncertainty and the assessment of risks posed by non-native freshwater fishes. Fish and Fisheries 10:88–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ludsin SA, Wolfe AD (2001) Biological invasion theory: Darwin’s contributions from The Origin of Species. Bioscience 51(9):780–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. National Research Council (2002) Predicting invasions of nonindigenous plants and plant pests. Committee on the Scientific Basis for Predicting the Invasive Potential of Nonindigenous Plants and Plant Pests in the United States, National Research Council. The National Academies Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  17. Qiu H, Chen YF (2009) Bibliometric analysis of biological invasions research during the period of 1991 to 2007. Scientometrics 81:601–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Simberloff D et al (2011) Non-natives: 141 scientist object. Nature 475(7345):36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Vitule JRS, Freire CA, Simberloff D (2009) Introduction of non-native freshwater fish can certainly be bad. Fish and Fisheries 10:98–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Williamson MH, Brown KC (1986) The analysis and modelling of British invasions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B 314:505–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Williamson M, Fitter A (1996) The varying success of invaders. Ecology 77(6):1661–1666CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Multidisciplinary ResearchUniversity of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia

Personalised recommendations