Conceptual Frameworks and Methods for Advancing Invasion Ecology
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.
KeywordsCommunication 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 (http://www.peerageofscience.org). Stella Copeland provided language corrections. JMJ acknowledges financial support from the DFG (JE 288/4-1).
- 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
- Barabási, A.-L. 2002. Linked. The new science of networks. Cambridge: Perseus Publishing.Google Scholar
- 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. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss1/art18/.
- Byron, J. 2008. Safe alternatives to replace invasives in California gardens. California Agriculture 62: 88–89.Google Scholar
- 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
- Chew, M. 2006. Ending with Elton: Preludes to invasion biology. Tempe: Arizona State University.Google Scholar
- Davis, M.A. 2009. Invasion biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Elton, C.S. 1958. The ecology of invasions by animals and plants. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd.Google Scholar
- Gellis Communications. 2008. Scoping study for an EU wide communications campaign on biodiversity and nature. Final report to the Commission/DG ENV.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- ISSG. 2000. IUCN Guidelines for the prevention of biodiversity loss caused by alien invasive species. http://intranet.iucn.org/webfiles/doc/SSC/SSCwebsite/Policy_statements/IUCN_Guidelines_for_the_Prevention_of_Biodiversity_Loss_caused_by_Alien_Invasive_Species.pdf.
- 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
- 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. http://landscaperesearch.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrlr-2008-2/.
- 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
- Lockwood, J.L., M.F. Hoopes, and M.P. Marchetti. 2007. Invasion ecology. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
- Perrings, C., H.A. Mooney, and M. Williamson (eds.). 2010a. Bioinvasions and globalization. Ecology, economics, management, and policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- Richardson, D.M. (ed.). 2011a. Fifty years of invasion ecology: The legacy of Charles Elton. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Webb, D.A. 1985. What are the criteria for presuming native status? Watsonia 15: 231–236.Google Scholar
- 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