Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The problem of prediction in invasion biology

  • Published:
Biology & Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Invasion biology is a relatively young discipline which is important, interesting and currently in turmoil. Biological invaders can threaten native ecosystems and global biodiversity; they can incur massive economic costs and even introduce diseases. Invasion biologists generally agree that being able to predict when and where an invasion will occur is essential for progress in their field. However, successful predictions of this type remain elusive. This has caused a rift, as some researchers are pessimistic and believe that invasion biology has no future, whereas others are more optimistic and believe that the key to successful prediction is the creation of a general, unified theoretical framework which encompasses all invasion events. Although I agree that there is a future for invasion biology, extensive synthesis is not the way to better predictions. I argue that the causes of invasion phenomena are exceedingly complex and heterogeneous, hence it is impossible to make generalizations over particular events without sacrificing causal detail. However, this causal detail is just what is needed for the specific predictions which the scientists wish to produce. Instead, I show that a limited type of synthesis (integration of data and methods) is a more useful tool for generating successful predictions. An important implication of my view is that it points to a more pluralistic approach to invasion biology, where generalization and prediction are treated as important yet distinct research goals.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. According to the National Research Council, “[t]he aggregate figure for crop and timber losses and for the use of herbicides and pesticides to fight invasive species exceeds $100 billion per year”, in the USA (National Research Council 2002, p.15). This figure is restricted to crops and does not include the funds spent on managing invasions of natural ecosystems.

  2. In recent years there have been a number of papers published by practicing invasion biologists, with titles such as “Another call for the end of invasion biology” (Valéry et al. 2013).

  3. I use the term ‘specificity’ in this paper, because it captures the fact that invasion biologists must specify which organism will invade, which particular environment (ecosystem or community) it will invade, how far it will spread, how fast it will spread, and of course whether it will succeed. I should note that invasion biologists often use the term ‘precision’ to refer to the types of predictions they should aim for. While there is overlap between these two terms, ‘precision’ is a technical term which is used differently in various contexts, some of which are not applicable to invasion biology (see Matthewson and Weisberg 2009). Instead, the term ‘specificity’ is meant to be a more neutral term, which captures only these aspects of ‘precision’ (see also pp. 5–6).

  4. A popular view that has emerged in philosophy of science is that laws do not have to be universal in order to count as true laws, (Colyvan and Ginzburg 2003). In other words, laws in biology (just like laws in physics or chemistry) can have exceptions. Therefore the generalizations and regularities that we find in ecology can count as laws (Colyvan and Ginzburg 2003; Cooper 1998). If we adopt this position, we may be able to find laws or at least regularities in invasion biology, which could prove to be useful for explaining invasions. Yet even if this is the case, this will not help in the case of predictions.

  5. In fact, interspecific competition is considered to be one of the few unifying themes in ecology. Many of those who argue that ecology is lawless believe that the problem applies mainly to community ecology, while population ecology (especially competition and predation) fare much better (Lawton 1999; Roughgarden 2009). However, the approach to studying invasions as a type of competition was very popular in the 1960s and 1970s and became one of the two major conceptual frameworks of invasion biology. Yet despite important advances models and experiments of interspecific competition, predictions of invasions remained elusive (Davis 2011; Zenni and Nuñez 2013). A similar point can be made with respect to ‘macroecology’, which refers to the study of ecological interactions at large scales, in terms of both time and space. The idea here is that at these scales general patterns re-emerge. Again, while this approach became popular in invasion biology, in the study of biodiversity and resistance to invasion it did not yield any important predictions.

  6. I should note that this is just one of many of calls for synthesis in recent invasion research. More examples can be found in: (Blackburn et al. 2011; Catford et al. 2009; Gundale et al. 2013; Kolar and Lodge 2001; Milbau et al. 2008; Moles et al. 2012; Perkins et al. 2011; Richardson and Pyšek 2006; Richardson and Ricciardi 2013; Romanuk et al. 2009; Sousa et al. 2011; Van Kleunen et al. 2010).

  7. Of course, management of invasions is an important goal for invasion research, and it is quite well funded. However, management of invasions that have already occurred or have already started is very costly, whereas predictions could lead to the complete avoidance of invasions, greatly reducing economic and environmental costs.

  8. I should note that data integration and methodological integration are the most prevalent types of integration in invasion biology. Other examples of data integration include meta-analyses, (see for example Davidson et al. 2011). Other examples of methodological integration include mathematical and computational models from a range of different ecological sub-disciplines, laboratory experiments, field experiments etc (such as Dunstan and Johnson 2007).

  9. The new studies were published about a decade later, perhaps in response to the criticism the authors received from the community.

References

  • Bever JD (2003) Soil community feedback and the coexistence of competitors: conceptual frameworks and empirical tests. New Phytol 157(3):465–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackburn TM, Pyšek P, Bacher S, Carlton JT, Duncan RP, Jarošík V et al (2011) A proposed unified framework for biological invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 26(7):333–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckley YM, Bolker BM, Rees M (2007) Disturbance, invasion and re-invasion: managing the weed-shaped hole in disturbed ecosystems. Ecol Lett 10(9):809–817

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callaway RM, Thelen GC, Rodriguez A, Holben WE (2004) Soil biota and exotic plant invasion. Nature 427(6976):731–733

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright N (1994) Nature’s capacities and their measurement. OUP, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Catford JA, Jansson R, Nilsson C (2009) Reducing redundancy in invasion ecology by integrating hypotheses into a single theoretical framework. Divers Distrib 15(1):22–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Civeyrel L, Simberloff D (1996) A tale of two snails: is the cure worse than the disease? Biodivers Conserv 5(10):1231–1252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colyvan M, Ginzburg LR (2003) Laws of nature and laws of ecology. Oikos 101(3):649–653

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper G (1998) Generalizations in ecology: a philosophical taxonomy. Biol Philos 13(4):555–586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daehler CC (2003) Performance comparisons of co-occurring native and alien invasive plants: implications for conservation and restoration. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34(1):183–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson AM, Jennions M, Nicotra AB (2011) Do invasive species show higher phenotypic plasticity than native species and, if so, is it adaptive? A meta-analysis. Ecol Lett 14(4):419–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis MA (2011) Invasion biology. In: Simberloff D, Rejmanek M (eds) Encyclopedia of biological invasions. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 364–369

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis MA, Grime JP, Thompson K (2000) Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invasibility. J Ecol 88(3):528–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunstan PK, Johnson CR (2007) Mechanisms of invasions: can the recipient community influence invasion rates? Bot Mar 50(5/6):361–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geng Y-P, Pan X-Y, Xu C-Y, Zhang W-J, Li B, Chen J-K et al (2006) Phenotypic plasticity rather than locally adapted ecotypes allows the invasive alligator weed to colonize a wide range of habitats. Biol Invasions 9(3):245–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gundale MJ, Pauchard A, Langdon B, Peltzer DA, Maxwell BD, Nuñez MA (2013) Can model species be used to advance the field of invasion ecology? Biol Invasions 16(3):591–607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gurevitch J, Fox GA, Wardle GM, Inderjit, Taub D (2011) Emergent insights from the synthesis of conceptual frameworks for biological invasions. Ecol Lett 14(4):407–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes KR, Barry SC (2007) Are there any consistent predictors of invasion success? Biol Invasions 10(4):483–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hempel CG, Oppenheim P (1948) Studies in the logic of explanation. Philos Sci 15(2):135–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holle B, Delcourt HR, Simberloff D (2003) The importance of biological inertia in plant community resistance to invasion. J Veg Sci 14(3):425–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarchow ME, Cook BJ (2009) Allelopathy as a mechanism for the invasion of Typha angustifolia. Plant Ecol 204(1):113–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeschke J, Gómez Aparicio L, Haider S, Heger T, Lortie C, Pyšek P, Strayer D (2012) Support for major hypotheses in invasion biology is uneven and declining. NeoBiota 14:1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy TA, Naeem S, Howe KM, Knops JMH, Tilman D, Reich P (2002) Biodiversity as a barrier to ecological invasion. Nature 417(6889):636–638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher P (1981) Explanatory unification. Philos Sci 48(4):507–531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klironomos JN (2002) Feedback with soil biota contributes to plant rarity and invasiveness in communities. Nature 417(6884):67–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolar CS, Lodge DM (2001) Progress in invasion biology: predicting invaders. Trends Ecol Evol 16(4):199–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawton JH (1999) Are there general laws in ecology? Oikos 84(2):177–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine JM, D’Antonio CM (1999) Elton revisited: a review of evidence linking diversity and invasibility. Oikos 87(1):15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levins R (1966) The strategy of model building in population biology. Am Sci 54(4):421–431

    Google Scholar 

  • Lodge DM (1993) Biological invasions: lessons for ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 8(4):133–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthewson J (2011) Trade-offs in model-building: a more target-oriented approach. Stud Hist Philos Sci Part A 42(2):324–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthewson J, Weisberg M (2009) The structure of tradeoffs in model building. Synthese 170(1):169–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milbau A, Stout JC, Graae BJ, Nijs I (2008) A hierarchical framework for integrating invasibility experiments incorporating different factors and spatial scales. Biol Invasions 11(4):941–950

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moles AT, Gruber MAM, Bonser SP (2007) A new framework for predicting invasive plant species. J Ecol 96(2):13–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Moles AT, Flores-Moreno H, Bonser SP, Warton DI, Helm A, Warman L et al (2012) Invasions: the trail behind, the path ahead, and a test of a disturbing idea. J Ecol 100(1):116–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2002) Predicting invasions of nonindigenous plants and plant pests. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, pp 95–110

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Malley MA, Soyer OS (2012) The roles of integration in molecular systems biology. Stud Hist Philos Sci Part C Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 43(1):58–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkins LB, Leger EA, Nowak RS (2011) Invasion triangle: an organizational framework for species invasion. Ecol Evol 1(4):610–625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rejmánek M, Richardson DM (1996) What attributes make some plant species more invasive? Ecology 77(6):1655–1661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson DM, Pyšek P (2006) Plant invasions: merging the concepts of species invasiveness and community invasibility. Prog Phys Geogr 30(3):409–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson DM, Rejmánek M (2004) Conifers as invasive aliens: a global survey and predictive framework. Divers Distrib 10(5–6):321–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson DM, Ricciardi A (2013) Misleading criticisms of invasion science: a field guide. Divers Distrib 19(12):1461–1467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romanuk TN, Zhou Y, Brose U, Berlow EL, Williams RJ, Martinez ND (2009) Predicting invasion success in complex ecological networks. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 364(1524):1743–1754

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roughgarden J (2009) Is there a general theory of community ecology? Biol Philos 24(4):521–529. doi:10.1007/s10539-009-9164-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheiner SM, Willig MR (2008) A general theory of ecology. Theor Ecol 1(1):21–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrader-Frechette K (2001) Non-indigenous species and ecological explanation. Biol Philos 16(4):507–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff D (2009) Invasion biologists and the biofuels boom: Cassandras or colleagues. Weed Sci 56(6):867–872

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff D, Vitule JRS (2013) A call for an end to calls for the end of invasion biology. Oikos 123(4):408–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sousa R, Morais P, Dias E, Antunes C (2011) Biological invasions and ecosystem functioning: time to merge. Biol Invasions 13(5):1055–1058

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thiengo SC, Faraco FA, Salgado NC, Cowie RH, Fernandez MA (2007) Rapid spread of an invasive snail in South America: the giant African snail, Achatina fulica, in Brasil. Biol Invasions 9(6):693–702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valéry L, Fritz H, Lefeuvre J-C (2013) Another call for the end of invasion biology. Oikos 122(8):1143–1146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Putten WH, Bardgett RD, Bever JD, Bezemer TM, Casper BB, Fukami T et al (2013) Plant-soil feedbacks: the past, the present and future challenges. J Ecol 101(2):265–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Kleunen M, Dawson W, Schlaepfer D, Jeschke JM, Fischer M (2010) Are invaders different? A conceptual framework of comparative approaches for assessing determinants of invasiveness. Ecol Lett. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01503.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Vitousek PM (1990) Biological invasions and ecosystem processes: towards an integration of population biology and ecosystem studies. In: Ecosystem management. Springer, New York, pp 183–191

  • Weidenhamer JD, Callaway RM (2010) Direct and indirect effects of invasive plants on soil chemistry and ecosystem function. J Chem Ecol 36(1):59–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiner J (2004) Allocation, plasticity and allometry in plants. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 6(4):207–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson M (1999) Invasions. Ecography 22(1):5–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zenni RD, Nuñez MA (2013) The elephant in the room: the role of failed invasions in understanding invasion biology. Oikos 122(6):801–815

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Author would like to thank Michael Weisberg, Carlos Santana, Adrian Curry, Eric Desjardins, Dan Hicks, Maureen O' Malley, Kim Sterelny and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, Rotman Institute of Philosophy, The University of Western Ontario, Stevenson Hall Building 2157, London, ON, N6A 5B8, Canada

    Alkistis Elliott-Graves

Authors
  1. Alkistis Elliott-Graves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alkistis Elliott-Graves.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Elliott-Graves, A. The problem of prediction in invasion biology. Biol Philos 31, 373–393 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-015-9504-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-015-9504-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation