, Volume 42, Issue 5, pp 527–540 | Cite as

Conceptual Frameworks and Methods for Advancing Invasion Ecology

  • Tina HegerEmail author
  • Anna T. Pahl
  • Zoltan Botta-Dukát
  • Francesca Gherardi
  • Christina Hoppe
  • Ivan Hoste
  • Kurt Jax
  • Leena Lindström
  • Pieter Boets
  • Sylvia Haider
  • Johannes Kollmann
  • Meike J. Wittmann
  • Jonathan M. Jeschke


Invasion ecology has much advanced since its early beginnings. Nevertheless, explanation, prediction, and management of biological invasions remain difficult. We argue that progress in invasion research can be accelerated by, first, pointing out difficulties this field is currently facing and, second, looking for measures to overcome them. We see basic and applied research in invasion ecology confronted with difficulties arising from (A) societal issues, e.g., disparate perceptions of invasive species; (B) the peculiarity of the invasion process, e.g., its complexity and context dependency; and (C) the scientific methodology, e.g., imprecise hypotheses. To overcome these difficulties, we propose three key measures: (1) a checklist for definitions to encourage explicit definitions; (2) implementation of a hierarchy of hypotheses (HoH), where general hypotheses branch into specific and precisely testable hypotheses; and (3) platforms for improved communication. These measures may significantly increase conceptual clarity and enhance communication, thus advancing invasion ecology.


Communication platforms Definitions and terminology Hierarchy of hypotheses Invasive alien species Synthesis Transdisciplinarity 



This paper summarizes the results of many fruitful discussions during the workshop “Tackling the emerging crisis of invasion biology: How can ecological theory, experiments, and field studies be combined to achieve major progress?” (March 2010 in Benediktbeuern, Germany; workshop of the specialist group “Theory in Ecology” of the Ecological Society of Germany, Austria and Switzerland, GfÖ), organized by TH, SH, ATP, and JMJ. We thank Laura Aquiloni, Silvia Bertocchi, Sara Brusconi, Alberto Inghilesi, Christiane Koch, Giuseppe Mazza, Roberto Merciai, Gabriele Orioli, and Elena Tricarico for their valuable contributions during this workshop. Katharina Dehnen-Schmutz as well as anonymous reviewers provided many critical comments that helped to improve the manuscript. The manuscript was reviewed through Peerage of Science ( Stella Copeland provided language corrections. JMJ acknowledges financial support from the DFG (JE 288/4-1).


  1. Andreu, J., M. Vilà, and P.E. Hulme. 2009. An assessment of stakeholder perception and management of noxious alien plants in Spain. Environmental Management 43: 1244–1255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arndt, E. 2006. Niche occupation by invasive ground-dwelling predator species in Canarian laurel forests. Biological Invasions 8: 893–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aronson, J., J.N. Blignaut, R.S. de Groot, A. Clewell, P.P. Lowry II, P. Woodworth, R.M. Cowling, D. Renison, et al. 2010. The road to sustainability must bridge three great divides. In Ecological economics reviews, ed. K. Limburg, and R. Costanza, 225–236. Boston: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  4. Barabási, A.-L. 2002. Linked. The new science of networks. Cambridge: Perseus Publishing.Google Scholar
  5. Bardsley, D.K., and G. Edwards-Jones. 2007. Invasive species policy and climate change: Social perceptions of environmental change in the Mediterranean. Environmental Science & Policy 10: 230–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bayliss, H.R., A. Wilcox, G.B. Stewart, and N.P. Randall. 2012. Does research information meet the needs of stakeholders? Exploring evidence selection in the global management of invasive species. Evidence & Policy 8: 37–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berghöfer, U., R. Rozzi, and K. Jax. 2010. Many eyes on nature: Diverse perspectives in the Cap Horn Biosphere Reserve and their relevance for conservation. Ecology and Society 15: Art. 18.
  8. Blackburn, T.M., and R.P. Duncan. 2001. Determinants of establishment success in introduced birds. Nature 414: 195–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blackburn, T.M., J.L. Lockwood, and P. Cassey. 2009. Avian invasions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blackburn, T.M., K.J. Gaston, and M. Parnell. 2010. Changes in non-randomness in the expanding introduced avifauna of the world. Ecography 33: 168–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blackburn, T.M., P. Pysek, S. Bacher, J.T. Carlton, R.P. Duncan, V. Jarosík, J.R.U. Wilson, and D.M. Richardson. 2011. A proposed unified framework for biological invasions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 26: 333–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blakeslee, A.M.H., and J.E. Byers. 2008. Using parasites to inform ecological history: Comparisons among three congeneric marine snails. Ecology 89: 1068–1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Blumenthal, D.M. 2006. Interactions between resource availability and enemy release in plant invasion. Ecology Letters 9: 887–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bodey, T.W., S. Bearhop, S.S. Roy, J. Newton, and R.A. McDonald. 2010. Behavioural responses of invasive American mink Neovison vison to an eradication campaign, revealed by stable isotope analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology 47: 114–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Born, W., F. Rauschmayer, and I. Bräuer. 2005. Economic evaluation of biological invasions—A survey. Ecological Economics 55: 321–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bremner, A., and K. Park. 2007. Public attitude to the management of invasive non-native species in Scotland. Biological Conservation 139: 306–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Burt, J., A. Muir, J. Piovia-Scott, K. Veblen, A. Chang, J. Grossman, and H. Weiskel. 2007. Preventing horticultural introductions of invasive plants: Potential efficacy of voluntary initiatives. Biological Invasions 9: 909–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Byron, J. 2008. Safe alternatives to replace invasives in California gardens. California Agriculture 62: 88–89.Google Scholar
  19. Callaway, R.M., and W.M. Ridenour. 2004. Novel weapons: Invasive success and the evolution of increased competitive ability. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2: 436–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Capers, R.S., R. Selsky, G.J. Bugbee, and J.C. White. 2007. Aquatic plant community invasibility and scale-dependent patterns in native and invasive species richness. Ecology 88: 3135–3143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Carey, M.P., B.L. Sanderson, K.A. Barnas, and J.D. Olden. 2012. Native invaders—Challenges for science, management, policy, and society. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10: 373–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Carlsson, N.O.L., J.M. Jeschke, N. Holmqvist, and J. Kindberg. 2010. Long-term data on invaders: When the fox is away, the mink will play. Biological Invasions 12: 633–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Carlton, J.T., and G.M. Ruiz. 2005. Vector science and integrated vector management in bioinvasion ecology: Conceptual frameworks. In Invasive alien species. A new synthesis, ed. H.A. Mooney, R.N. Mack, J.A. McNeely, L.E. Neville, P.J. Schei, and J.K. Waage, 36–58. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  24. Carpenter, D., and N. Cappuccino. 2005. Herbivory, time since introduction and the invasiveness of exotic plants. Journal of Ecology 93: 315–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Carthey, A.J.R., and P.B. Banks. 2012. When does an alien become a native species? A vulnerable native mammal recognizes and responds to its long-term alien predator. PLoS ONE 7: e31804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cassey, P., T.M. Blackburn, R.P. Duncan, and J.L. Lockwood. 2005. Lessons from the establishment of exotic species: A meta-analytical case study using birds. Journal of Animal Ecology 74: 250–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Catford, J.A., R. Jansson, and C. Nilsson. 2009. Reducing redundancy in invasion ecology by integrating hypotheses into a single theoretical framework. Diversity and Distributions 15: 22–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Chew, M. 2006. Ending with Elton: Preludes to invasion biology. Tempe: Arizona State University.Google Scholar
  29. Colautti, R.I., and H.J. MacIsaac. 2004. A neutral terminology to define ‘invasive’ species. Diversity and Distributions 10: 135–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Davis, M.A. 2009. Invasion biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Davis, M.A. 2011. Researching invasive species 50 years after Elton: A cautionary tale. In Fifty years of invasion ecology: The legacy of Charles Elton, ed. D.M. Richardson, 269–276. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Dehnen-Schmutz, K., and M. Williamson. 2006. Rhododendron ponticum in Britain and Ireland: social, economic and ecological factors in its successful invasion. Environment and History 12: 325–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Dehnen-Schmutz, K., J. Touza, C. Perrings, and M. Williamson. 2007. The horticultural trade and ornamental plant invasions in Britain. Conservation Biology 21: 224–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Dickinson, J.L., J. Shirk, D. Bonter, R. Bonney, R.L. Crain, J. Martin, T. Phillips, and K. Purcell. 2012. The current state of citizen science as a tool for ecological research and public engagement. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10: 291–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Drake, J.A., H.A. Mooney, F. Di Castri, R.H. Groves, F.J. Kruger, M. Rejmánek, and M. Williamson (eds.). 1989. Biological invasions: A global perspective. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  37. Driscoll, C.T., L. Kathy Fallon, and K.C. Weathers. 2011. Integrating science and policy: A case study of the Hubbard Brook Research Foundation Science Links Program. BioScience 61: 791–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ebeling, S.K., I. Hensen, and H. Auge. 2008. The invasive shrub Buddleja davidii performs better in its introduced range. Diversity and Distributions 14: 225–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Elton, C.S. 1958. The ecology of invasions by animals and plants. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd.Google Scholar
  40. Essl, F., S. Dullinger, W. Rabitsch, P.E. Hulme, K. Hülber, V. Jarošík, I. Kleinbauer, F. Krausmann, et al. 2010. Socioeconomic legacy yields an invasion debt. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108: 203–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Fischer, A., and R. van der Wal. 2007. Invasive plant suppresses charismatic seabird—The construction of attitudes towards biodiversity management options. Biological Conservation 135: 256–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Frenzel, M., and R. Brandl. 2003. Diversity and abundance patterns of phytophagous insect communities on alien and native host plants in the Brassicaceae. Ecography 26: 723–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Fridley, J.D., J.J. Stachowicz, S. Naeem, D.F. Sax, E.W. Seabloom, M.D. Smith, T.J. Stohlgren, D. Tilman, et al. 2007. The invasion paradox: Reconciling pattern and process in species invasions. Ecology 88: 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Gellis Communications. 2008. Scoping study for an EU wide communications campaign on biodiversity and nature. Final report to the Commission/DG ENV.Google Scholar
  45. Gherardi, F. 2011. Public perception of invasive alien species in Mediterranean Europe. In Invasive and introduced plants and animals: Human perceptions, attitudes and approaches to management, ed. R.A. Lambert, and I.D. Rotherham, 185–200. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  46. Gozlan, R.E. 2008. Introduction of non native freshwater fish: Is it all bad? Fish and Fisheries 9: 106–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Gozlan, R.E., J.R. Britton, I. Cowx, and G.H. Copp. 2010. Current knowledge on non-native freshwater fish introductions. Journal of Fish Biology 76: 751–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Gurevitch, J., I.W. Howard, E.A. Ashton, E.A. Leger, E. Howe, E. Woo, and M. Lerdau. 2008. Effects of experimental manipulation of light and nutrients on establishment of seedlings of native and invasive woody species in Long Island, NY forests. Biological Invasions 10: 821–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Gurevitch, J., G.A. Fox, G.M. Wardle, Inderjit, and D. Taub. 2011. Emergent insights from the synthesis of conceptual frameworks for biological invasions. Ecology Letters 14: 407–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hayes, K.R., and S.C. Barry. 2008. Are there any consistent predictors of invasion success? Biological Invasions 10: 483–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Heger, T., W.-C. Saul, and L. Trepl. in press. What biological invasions ‘are’ is a matter of perspective. Journal for Nature Conservation. doi: 10.1016/j.jnc.2012.11.002.
  52. Heger, T., and L. Trepl. 2003. Predicting biological invasions. Biological Invasions 5: 313–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hodges, K.E. 2008. Defining the problem: Terminology and progress in ecology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6: 35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Hoste, I., R. van Moorsel, and R. Barendse. 2008. Een nieuwkomer in sierteeltbedrijven en tuinen: Cardamine corymbosa in Nederland en België. Dumortiera 93: 15–24.Google Scholar
  55. Hulme, P.E. 2006. Beyond control: Wider implications for the management of biological invasions. Journal of Applied Ecology 43: 835–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Hulme, P.E. 2009. Trade, transport and trouble: Managing invasive species pathways in an era of globalization. Journal of Applied Ecology 46: 10–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Jeschke, J.M. 2009. Across islands and continents, mammals are more successful invaders than birds (Reply to Rodriguez-Cabal et al.). Diversity and Distributions 15: 913–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Jeschke, J.M., and P. Genovesi. 2011. Do biodiversity and human impact influence the introduction or establishment of alien mammals? Oikos 120: 57–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Jeschke, J.M., L. Gómez Aparicio, S. Haider, T. Heger, C.J. Lortie, P. Pyšek, and D.L. Strayer. 2012a. Taxonomic bias and lack of cross-taxonomic studies in invasion biology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10: 349–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Jeschke, J.M., L. Gómez Aparicio, S. Haider, T. Heger, C.J. Lortie, P. Pyšek, and D.L. Strayer. 2012b. Support for major hypotheses in invasion biology is uneven and declining. NeoBiota 14: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Jogesh, T., D. Carpenter, and N. Cappuccino. 2008. Herbivory on invasive exotic plants and their non-invasive relatives. Biological Invasions 10: 797–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Jones-Walters, L., and A. Çil. 2011. Biodiversity and stakeholder participation. Journal for Nature Conservation 19: 327–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Keane, R.M., and M.J. Crawley. 2002. Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 17: 164–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Kowarik, I. 2003. Human agency in biological invasions: Secondary releases foster naturalisation and population expansion of alien plant species. Biological Invasions 5: 293–312.Google Scholar
  65. Küffer, 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.
  66. Lambert, R.A., and I.D. Rotherham (eds.). 2011. Invasive and introduced plants and animals: Human perceptions, attitudes and approaches to management. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  67. Levine, J.M. 2000. Species diversity and biological invasions: Relating local process to community pattern. Science 288: 852–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Levine, J.M., and C.M. D’Antonio. 1999. Elton revisited: A review of evidence linking diversity and invasibility. Oikos 87: 15–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Lewis, K.C., F.A. Bazzaz, Q. Liao, and C.M. Orians. 2006. Geographic patterns of herbivory and resource allocation to defense, growth, and reproduction in an invasive biennial, Alliaria petiolata. Oecologia 148: 384–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Liu, H., P. Stiling, and R.W. Pemberton. 2007. Does enemy release matter for invasive plants? Evidence from a comparison of insect herbivore damage among invasive, non-invasive and native congeners. Biological Invasions 9: 773–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Lockwood, J.L., M.F. Hoopes, and M.P. Marchetti. 2007. Invasion ecology. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  72. Lockwood, J.L., P. Cassey, and T.M. Blackburn. 2009. The more you introduce the more you get: The role of colonization pressure and propagule pressure in invasion ecology. Diversity and Distributions 15: 904–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Lodge, D.M. 1993. Biological invasions: Lessons for ecology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 8: 133–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Lodge, D.M., S. Williams, H.J. MacIsaac, K.R. Hayes, B. Leung, S.E. Reichard, R.N. Mack, P.B. Moyle, et al. 2006. Biological invasions: Recommendations for U.S. policy and management. Ecological Applications 16: 2035–2054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Mack, R.N., D. Simberloff, W.M. Lonsdale, H. Evans, M. Clout, and F.A. Bazzaz. 2000. Biotic invasions: Causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecological Applications 10: 689–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Mattingly, B.W., R. Hewlate, and H.L. Reynolds. 2007. Species evenness and invasion resistance of experimental grassland communities. Oikos 116: 1164–1170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. McGeoch, M.A., S.H.M. Butchardt, D. Spear, E. Marais, E.J. Kleynhans, A. Symes, J. Chanson, and M. Hoffmann. 2010. Global indicators of biological invasions: Species numbers, biodiversity impact and policy responses. Diversity and Distributions 16: 95–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. McGeoch, M.A., D. Spear, E.J. Kleynhans, and E. Marais. 2012. Uncertainty in invasive alien species listing. Ecological Applications 22: 959–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Meiners, S.J., M.L. Cadenasso, and S.T.A. Pickett. 2004. Beyond biodiversity: Individualistic controls of invasion in a self-assembled community. Ecology Letters 7: 121–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Memmott, J., S.V. Fowler, Q. Paynter, A.W. Sheppard, and P. Syrett. 2000. The invertebrate fauna on broom, Cytisus scoparius, in two native and two exotic habitats. Acta Oecologica 21: 213–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Mitchell, C.E., and A.G. Power. 2003. Release of invasive plants from fungal and viral pathogens. Nature 421: 625–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Moles, A.T., H. Flores-Moreno, S.P. Bonser, D.I. Warton, A. Helm, L. Warman, D.J. Eldridge, E. Jurado, et al. 2012. Invasions: The trail behind, the path ahead, and a test of a disturbing idea. Journal of Ecology 100: 116–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Moore, J.L., T.M. Rout, C.E. Hauser, D. Moro, M. Jones, C. Wilcox, and H.P. Possingham. 2010. Protecting islands from pest invasion: Optimal allocation of biosecurity resources between quarantine and surveillance. Biological Conservation 143: 1068–1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Myster, R.M. 1993. Tree invasion and establishment in old fields at Hutcheson Memorial Forest. Botanical Reviews 59: 251–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Niggemann, M., J. Jetzkowitz, S. Brunzel, M.C. Wichmann, and R. Bialozyt. 2009. Distribution patterns of plants explained by human movement behaviour. Ecological Modelling 220: 1339–1346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Nisbet, M.C., M.A. Hixon, K.D. Moore, and M. Nelson. 2010. Four cultures: New synergies for engaging society on climate change. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8: 329–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Perrings, C., H.A. Mooney, and M. Williamson (eds.). 2010a. Bioinvasions and globalization. Ecology, economics, management, and policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Perrings, C., S. Burgiel, M. Lonsdale, H.A. Mooney, and M. Williamson. 2010b. Globalization and bioinvasions: The international policy problem. In Bioinvasions and globalization. Ecology, economics, management, and policy, ed. C. Perrings, H.A. Mooney, and M. Williamson, 235–250. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  89. Puth, L.M., and D.M. Post. 2005. Studying invasion: Have we missed the boat? Ecology Letters 8: 715–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Pyšek, P., D.M. Richardson, M. Rejmánek, G.L. Webster, M. Williamson, and J. Kirscher. 2004. Alien plants in checklists and floras: Towards better communication between taxonomists and ecologists. Taxon 53: 131–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Pyšek, P., D.M. Richardson, J. Pergl, V. Jarosik, Z. Sixtova, and E. Weber. 2008. Geographical and taxonomic biases in invasion ecology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 23: 237–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Reichard, S.H., and C.W. Hamilton. 1997. Predicting invasions of woody plants introduced into North America. Conservation Biology 11: 193–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Richardson, D.M. (ed.). 2011a. Fifty years of invasion ecology: The legacy of Charles Elton. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  94. Richardson, D.M. 2011b. 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. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  95. Richardson, D.M., and P. Pyšek. 2007. Elton, C.S. 1958: The ecology of invasions by animals and plants. London: Methuen. Progress in Physical Geography 31: 659–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Richardson, D.M., and P. Pyšek. 2008. Fifty years of invasion ecology: The legacy of Charles Elton. Diversity and Distributions 14: 161–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Richardson, D.M., P. Pyšek, M. Rejmánek, M.G. Barbour, F.D. Panetta, and C.J. West. 2000. Naturalization and invasion of alien plants: Concepts and definitions. Diversity and Distributions 6: 93–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 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. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  99. Rodriguez-Cabal, M., N. Barrios-Garcia, and D. Simberloff. 2009. Across island and continents, mammals are more successful invaders than birds (Reply). Diversity and Distributions 15: 911–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Sax, D.F., J.H. Brown, E.P. White, and S.D. Gaines. 2005. The dynamics of species invasions. Insights into the mechanisms that limit species diversity. In Species invasions: Insights into ecology, evolution, and biogeography, ed. D.F. Sax, J.J. Stachowicz, and S.D. Gaines, 447–465. Sunderland: Sinauer.Google Scholar
  101. Simberloff, D. 2009. The role of propagule pressure in biological invasions. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics 40: 81–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Skou, A.M.T., S. Pauleit, and J. Kollmann. in press. Tracing the introduction history of a potentially invasive ornamental shrub—Variation in frost hardiness and climate change. Nordic Journal of Botany. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-1051.2012.01399.x.
  103. Stohlgren, T.J., D.T. Barnett, and J. Kartesz. 2003. The rich get richer: Patterns of plant invasions in the United States. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1: 11–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Stohlgren, T.J., C. Jarnevich, G.W. Chong, and P.H. Evangelista. 2006. Scale and plant invasions: A theory of biotic acceptance. Preslia 78: 405–426.Google Scholar
  105. Strayer, D.L., V.T. Eviner, J.M. Jeschke, and M.L. Pace. 2006. Understanding the long-term effects of species invasions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21: 645–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Sugiura, S. 2010. Associations of leaf miners and leaf gallers with island plants of different residency histories. Journal of Biogeography 37: 237–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Tatem, A.J. 2009. The worldwide airline network and the dispersal of exotic species: 2007–2010. Ecography 32: 94–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. te Beest, M., N. Stevens, H. Olff, and W.H. van der Putten. 2009. Plant–soil feedback induces shifts in biomass allocation in the invasive plant Chromolaena odorata. Journal of Ecology 97: 1281–1290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Valéry, L., F. Hervé, J.-C. Levfeuvre, and D. Simberloff. 2008. In search of a real definition of the biological invasion phenomenon itself. Biological Invasions 10: 1345–1351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. van Kleunen, M., W. Dawson, D. Schlaepfer, J.M. Jeschke, and M. Fischer. 2010. Are invaders different? A conceptual framework of comparative approaches for assessing determinants of invasiveness. Ecology Letters 13: 947–958.Google Scholar
  111. Verbrugge, L.N.H., R.S.E.W. Leuven, and G.v.d Velde. 2010. Evaluation of international risk assessment protocols for exotic species. Series of Reports on Environmental Science: Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  112. Vignon, M., P. Sasal, and R. Galzin. 2009. Host introduction and parasites: A case study on the parasite community of the peacock grouper Cephalopholis argus (Serranidae) in the Hawaiian Islands. Parasitology Research 104: 775–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Walther, G.-R., A. Roques, P.E. Hulme, M.T. Sykes, P. Pyšek, I. Kühn, M. Zobel, S. Bacher, et al. 2009. Alien species in a warmer world: Risks and opportunities. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24: 686–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Webb, D.A. 1985. What are the criteria for presuming native status? Watsonia 15: 231–236.Google Scholar
  115. Wilsey, B.J., and H.W. Polley. 2002. Reductions in grassland species evenness increase dicot seedling invasion and spittle bug infestation. Ecology Letters 5: 676–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Wilson, J.R.U., S. Proches, B. Braschler, E.S. Dixon, and D.M. Richardson. 2007. The (bio)diversity of science reflects the interests of society. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5: 409–414.Google Scholar
  117. Wilson, J.R.U., E.E. Dormontt, P.J. Prentis, A.J. Lowe, and D.M. Richardson. 2009. Something in the way you move: Dispersal pathways affect invasion success. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24: 136–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Wolfe, L.M. 2002. Why alien invaders succeed: Support for the escape-from-enemy hypothesis. The American Naturalist 160: 705–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Zedler, J.B., and S. Kercher. 2004. Causes and consequences of invasive plants in wetlands: Opportunities, opportunists, and outcomes. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 23: 431–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tina Heger
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Anna T. Pahl
    • 1
  • Zoltan Botta-Dukát
    • 3
  • Francesca Gherardi
    • 4
  • Christina Hoppe
    • 5
  • Ivan Hoste
    • 6
  • Kurt Jax
    • 1
    • 7
  • Leena Lindström
    • 8
  • Pieter Boets
    • 9
  • Sylvia Haider
    • 1
    • 12
  • Johannes Kollmann
    • 1
  • Meike J. Wittmann
    • 10
  • Jonathan M. Jeschke
    • 1
    • 10
    • 11
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Ecosystem Management, Restoration EcologyTechnische Universität München (TUM)FreisingGermany
  2. 2.Department of Plant SciencesUniversity of California, DavisDavisUSA
  3. 3.Institute of Ecology and BotanyMTA Centre for Ecological ResearchVácrátótHungary
  4. 4.Department of Evolutionary Biology „Leo Pardi“University of FlorenceFlorenceItaly
  5. 5.Institute of Ecology, Evolution & Diversity, Plant EcologyGoethe University of FrankfurtFrankfurtGermany
  6. 6.National Botanic Garden of BelgiumMeiseBelgium
  7. 7.Department of Conservation BiologyHelmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research – UFZLeipzigGermany
  8. 8.Department of Biological and Environmental ScienceUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland
  9. 9.Laboratory of Environmental Toxicology and Aquatic EcologyGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  10. 10.Department of Biology II, EcologyLudwig-Maximilians-University MunichPlanegg-MartinsriedGermany
  11. 11.Cary Institute of Ecosystem StudiesMillbrookUSA
  12. 12.Institute of Biology, Geobotany and Botanical GardenMartin Luther University Halle WittenbergHalle (Saale)Germany

Personalised recommendations