Biological Invasions

, Volume 8, Issue 6, pp 1403–1407

Does Darwin’s Naturalization Hypothesis Explain Fish Invasions?



Darwin’s naturalization hypothesis predicts that introduced species tend not to invade areas containing congeneric native species, because they would otherwise compete with their close relatives and would likely encounter predators and pathogens that can attack them. An opposing view is that introduced species should succeed in areas where native congeners are present because they are more likely to share traits that pre-adapt them to their new environment. A test of both these hypotheses using data on fish introductions from several independent regions fails to support either viewpoints. In contrast to studies of nonindigenous plants, our results suggest that taxonomic affiliation is not an important general predictor of fish invasion success.


biotic resistance colonization exotic species invasion success nonindigenous species prediction 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baltz DM and Moyle PB (1993). Invasion resistance to introduced species by a native assemblage of Californian stream fishes. Ecological Applications 3: 246–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Case TJ (1990). Invasion resistance arises in strongly interacting species-rich model competition communities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 87: 9610–9614PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Colautti RI, Ricciardi A, Grigorovich IA and MacIsaac HJ (2004). Is invasion success explained by the Enemy Release Hypothesis?. Ecology Letters 7: 721–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cudmore-Vokey B and Crossman EJ (2000) Checklists of the fish fauna of the Laurentian Great Lakes and their connecting channels. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, No. 2550Google Scholar
  5. Curnutt JL (2000). Host-area climatic-matching: similarity breeds exotics. Biological Conservation 94: 341–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Daehler CC (2001). Darwin’s naturalization hypothesis revisited. American Naturalist 158: 324–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Darwin C (1859). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. John Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Duggan IC, Rixon AM and MacIsaac HJ (2006). Popularity and propagule pressure: determinants of introduction and establishment of aquarium fish. Biological Invasions 8: 377–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Duncan RP and Williams PA (2002). Darwin’s naturalization hypothesis challenged. Nature 417: 608CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Fofonoff PW, Ruiz GM, Steves B, Hines AH and Carlton JT (2003) National Exotic Marine and Estuarine Species Information System. http://invasions/ Scholar
  11. Froese R and Pauly D (2004) FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication., version (10/2004)Google Scholar
  12. Harvey BC, White JL and Nakamoto RJ (2004). An emergent multiple predator effect may enhance biotic resistance in a stream assemblage. Ecology 85: 127–133Google Scholar
  13. Kolar CS and Lodge DM (2001). Progress in invasion biology: predicting invaders. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16: 199–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kolar CS and Lodge DM (2002). Ecological predictions and risk assessments for alien fishes in North America. Science 298: 1233–1236CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Leach JH (2003). Unusual invaders of Lake Erie. Point Pelee Natural History News 3(1): 1–5Google Scholar
  16. Leppäkoski E and Olenin S (2000). Non-native species and rates of spread: lessons from the brackish Baltic Sea. Biological Invasions 2: 151–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Levine JM, Adler PB and Yelenik SG (2004). A meta-analysis of biotic resistance to exotic plant invasions. Ecology Letters 7: 975–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lockwood JL (1999). Using taxonomy to predict success among introduced avifauna: relative importance of transport and establishment. Conservation Biology 13: 565–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lockwood JL, Cassey P and Blackburn T (2005). The role of propagule pressure in explaining species invasions. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20: 223–228CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. MacIsaac HJ, Grigorovich IA and Ricciardi A (2001). Reassessment of species invasions concepts: the Great Lakes basin as a model. Biological Invasions 3: 405–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marchetti MP, Moyle PB and Levine R (2004). Alien fishes in California watershed: characteristics of successful and failed invaders. Ecological Applications 14: 587–596Google Scholar
  22. Mills EL, Scheuerell MD, Carlton J and Strayer DL (1997) Biological invasions in the Hudson River basin: an inventory and historical analysis. New York State Museum Circular No. 57, New York State Education Department, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  23. Moyle PB and Light T (1996). Fish invasions in California: do abiotic factors determine success. Ecology 77: 1666–1670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rejmanek M (1996). A theory of seed plant invasiveness: the first sketch. Biological Conservation 78: 171–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rejmanek M (1998). Invasive plant species and invadible ecosystems. In: Sandlund, OT, Schei, PJ and Vilken, A (eds) Invasive Species and Biodiversity Management, pp 79–102. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  26. Ricciardi A and Rasmussen JB (1998). Predicting the identity and impact of future biological invaders: a priority for aquatic resource management. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55: 1759–1765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ross ST (1991). Mechanisms structuring stream fish assemblages: are there lessons from introduced species. Environmental Biology of Fishes 30: 359–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shurin JB (2000). Dispersal limitation, invasion resistance and the structure of pond zooplankton communities. Ecology 81: 3074–3086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sokal RR and Rohlf FJ (1995). Biometry. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Williamson MH and Fitter A (1996). The varying success of invaders. Ecology 77: 1661–1666CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Redpath MuseumMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations