Biological Invasions

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 707–714 | Cite as

Biological invasions in developing and developed countries: does one model fit all?

  • Martin A. NuñezEmail author
  • Aníbal Pauchard
Perspectives and Paradigms


There is a strong bias concerning the regions of the globe where research on biological invasions is conducted, with notably lower representation of developing countries. However, in developing countries, effective management strategies to control invasions could be more beneficial in conserving global biodiversity since these countries tend to have larger, highly diverse natural habitats. Lower levels of development are seen as an obstacle to tackling biological invasions, but little thought is given to the advantages of developing countries in dealing with invasive species. We analyzed differences between developed and developing countries regarding the problem of invasive species and their historical and current patterns of international trade, disturbance levels and land use, research and monitoring, control and mitigation, and social awareness. Developed nations have some advantages, especially in levels of social awareness and means for controlling and studying exotics, but developing nations also enjoy important advantages given their lower levels of international trade and the availability of low-cost labor. Also, there is evidence that the process of economic development, which results in more efficient ways to transform landscapes and increases international trade, is strongly associated with increasing rates of biological invasion. Differences in data quality and availability between developed and developing countries make comparative analyses of biological invasions a difficult task. Thus, these differences creates a challenge in forming global strategies to deal with invasions. There have been calls for creating international plans to deal with invasive species, but we believe that it is important first to acknowledge the challenges and understand both the advantages and disadvantages of developing countries.


Anthropogenic disturbance Control of invasions Development International trade Management 



Lara Souza, Emmi Felker-Quinn and Dan Simberloff for helpful comments on the manuscript. A. Pauchard is funded by ICM P05–002, PFB-23 of Conicyt-Chile, and Fondecyt 1070488.


  1. Balmford A, Bruner A, Cooper P, Costanza R, Farber S, Green RE, Jenkins M, Jefferiss P, Jessamy V, Madden J, Munro K, Myers N, Naeem S, Paavola J, Rayment M, Rosendo S, Roughgarden J, Trumper K, Turner RK (2002) Ecology—economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science 297:950–953CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bertolino S, Genovesi P (2003) Spread and attempted eradication of the grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) in Italy, and consequences for the red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) in Eurasia. Biol Conserv 109:351–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brandon A, Spyreas G, Molano-Flores B, Carroll C, Ellis J (2003) Can volunteers provide reliable data for forest vegetation surveys? Nat Areas J 23:254–261Google Scholar
  4. Chidiak M, Moreyra A, Greco C (2003) Captura de carbono y desarrollo forestal sustentable en la Patagonia Argentina: Sinergias y Desafíos. CENIT-CEPAL-UDESA, Buenos AiresGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen A, Carlton J (1998) Accelerating invasion rate in a highly invaded estuary. Science 279:555–558CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Dalmazzone S (2000) Economic factors affecting the vulnerability to biological invasions. Pages 17–30. The economics of biological invasions. Edward Elgar Publishing, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  7. Delaney DG, Sperling CD, Adams CS, Leung B (2008) Marine invasive species: validation of citizen science and implications for national monitoring networks. Biol Invasions 10:117–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ellis EC, Ramankutty N (2008) Putting people in the map: anthropogenic biomes of the world. Front Ecol Environ 6:439–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fazey I, Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2005) Who does all the research in conservation biology? Biodivers Conserv 14:917–934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fearnside PM (2005) Deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia: history, rates, and consequences. Conserv Biol 19:680–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gash J (2002) Deforestation, tropical: global problems. Pages 265-271. In: Douglas I (ed) Encyclopedia of global change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Genovesi P (2005) Eradications of invasive alien species in Europe: a review. Biol Invasions 7:127–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Inderjit, Callaway RM, Kaushik. S (2006) Time for international policies on biological invasions. Front Ecol Environ 4:67–68Google Scholar
  14. Jeanrenaud S (2001) Communities and forest management in Western Europe. IUCN, GlandGoogle Scholar
  15. JICA (2005) Japan-Chile partnership programme expands the horizon of JICA’s activities in Latin America. Network Magazine 27:
  16. Jiménez A, Pauchard A, Cavieres LA, Marticorena A, Bustamante RO (2008) Do climatically similar regions contain similar alien floras? A comparison between the mediterranean areas of central Chile and California. J Biogeogr 35:614–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Koenig R (2008) Critical time for African rainforests. Science 320:1439–1441CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Laurance WF (2004) The perils of payoff: corruption as a threat to global biodiversity. Trends Ecol Evol 19:399–401CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Lawton JH (2007) Ecology, politics and policy. J Appl Ecol 44:465–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leslie LL, Velez CE, Bonar SA (2004) Utilizing volunteers on fisheries projects: benefits, challenges, and management techniques. Fisheries 29:10–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Levine JM, D’Antonio CM (2003) Forecasting biological invasions with increasing international trade. Conserv Biol 17:322–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lin W, Zhou G, Cheng X, Xu R (2007) Fast economic development accelerates biological invasions in China. PLoS ONE 2:e1208CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Mack RN (2003) Global plant dispersal, naturalization and invasion: pathways, modes and circumstances. In: Ruiz G, Carlton J (eds) Global Pathways of Biotic invasions. Island Press, Washington, pp 3–30Google Scholar
  24. Magadlela D, Mdzeke N (2004) Social benefits in the working for water programme as a public works initiative. S Afr J Sci 100:94–96Google Scholar
  25. Matthews S, Brand K (2004) Tropical Asia invaded: the growing danger of invasive alien species. Global invasive species programmeGoogle Scholar
  26. Matthews S, Brand K (2005) South America invaded: the growing danger of invasive alien species. Global Invasive Species ProgrammeGoogle Scholar
  27. May RM (1997) The scientific wealth of nations. Science 275:793–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. May RM (1998) The scientific investments of nations. Science 281:49–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Meyerson LA, Mooney HA (2007) Invasive alien species in an era of globalization. Front Ecol Environ 5:199–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, da Fonseca GAB, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Padilla DK, Williams SL (2004) Beyond ballast water: aquarium and ornamental trades as sources of invasive species in aquatic ecosystems. Front Ecol Environ 2:131–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pauchard A, Alaback PB (2004) Influence of elevation, land use, and landscape context on patterns of alien plant invasions along roadsides in protected areas of south-central Chile. Conserv Biol 18:238–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Perrings C, Williamson M, Barbier EB, Delfino D, Dalmazzone S, Shogren, Simmons P, Watkinson A (2002) Biological invasion risks and the public good: an economic perspective. Conserv Ecol 6Google Scholar
  34. Perry D, Perry G (2008) Improving interactions between animal rights groups and conservation biologists. Conserv Biol 22:27–35CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Pimentel D, Zuniga R, Morrison D (2005) Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecol Econ 52:273–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Plessis MAd, Primack RB (2001) Academia as a nursery ground for conservation biology. Conserv Biol 15:1477–1478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pyšek P, Jarošík V, Chytrý M, Kropá Z, Tichý L, Wild J (2005) Alien plants in temperate weed communities: prehistoric and recent invaders occupy different habitats. Ecology 86:772–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pyšek P, Richardson DM, Pergil J, Jarosik V, Sixtova Z, Weber E (2008) Geographical and taxonomic biases in invasion ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 23:237–244CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Richardson DM, van Wilgen BW, Nunez MA (2008) Alien conifer invasions in South America: short fuse burning? Biol Invasions 10:573–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Seglen PO (1997) Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ 314:498–502PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Simberloff D (2003) Eradication-preventing invasions at the outset. Weed Sci 51:247–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Simberloff D, Von Holle B (1999) Positive interactions of nonindigenous species: invasional meltdown? Biol Invasions 1:21–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Smith J, Obidzinski K, Subarudi S, Suramenggala I (2003a) Illegal logging, collusive corruption and fragmented governments in Kalimantan, Indonesia. Int For Rev 5:293–302Google Scholar
  44. Smith RJ, Muir RDJ, Walpole MJ, Balmford A, Leader-Williams N (2003b) Governance and the loss of biodiversity. Nature 426:67–70CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Taylor BW, Irwin RE (2004) Linking economic activities to the distribution of exotic plants. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 101:17725–17730Google Scholar
  46. United Nations (2006) Standard country or area codes for statistical use. United Nations publication, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Victor DG (2000) Risk management and the world trading system: regulating international trade distortions caused by national sanitary and phytosanitary policies. Incorporating science, economics and sociology in developing sanitary and phytosanitary Standards in international trade: Proceedings of a Conference. National Academy Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  48. Vilà M, Pujadas J (2001) Land-use and socio-economic correlates of plant invasions in European and North African countries. Biol Conserv 100:397–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Westphal M, Browne M, MacKinnon K, Noble I (2008) The link between international trade and the global distribution of invasive alien species. Biol Invasions 10:391–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Williams M (2002) Deforestation in historic times. In: Douglas I (ed) Encyclopedia of global change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 259–264Google Scholar
  51. Williamson M (2006) Explaining and predicting the success of invading species at different stages of invasion. Biol Invasions 8:1561–1568CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA
  2. 2.Facultad de Ciencias ForestalesUniversidad de ConcepciónConcepciónChile
  3. 3.Instituto de Ecología y BiodiversidadSantiagoChile

Personalised recommendations