Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Conceptual Frameworks and Methods for Advancing Invasion Ecology

  • Perspective
  • Published:
AMBIO Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

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.

Box 1
Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arndt, E. 2006. Niche occupation by invasive ground-dwelling predator species in Canarian laurel forests. Biological Invasions 8: 893–902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Barabási, A.-L. 2002. Linked. The new science of networks. Cambridge: Perseus Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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/.

  • Blackburn, T.M., and R.P. Duncan. 2001. Determinants of establishment success in introduced birds. Nature 414: 195–197.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Blackburn, T.M., J.L. Lockwood, and P. Cassey. 2009. Avian invasions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumenthal, D.M. 2006. Interactions between resource availability and enemy release in plant invasion. Ecology Letters 9: 887–895.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Born, W., F. Rauschmayer, and I. Bräuer. 2005. Economic evaluation of biological invasions—A survey. Ecological Economics 55: 321–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bremner, A., and K. Park. 2007. Public attitude to the management of invasive non-native species in Scotland. Biological Conservation 139: 306–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byron, J. 2008. Safe alternatives to replace invasives in California gardens. California Agriculture 62: 88–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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.

  • Carpenter, D., and N. Cappuccino. 2005. Herbivory, time since introduction and the invasiveness of exotic plants. Journal of Ecology 93: 315–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chew, M. 2006. Ending with Elton: Preludes to invasion biology. Tempe: Arizona State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colautti, R.I., and H.J. MacIsaac. 2004. A neutral terminology to define ‘invasive’ species. Diversity and Distributions 10: 135–141.

    Article  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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elton, C.S. 1958. The ecology of invasions by animals and plants. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gellis Communications. 2008. Scoping study for an EU wide communications campaign on biodiversity and nature. Final report to the Commission/DG ENV.

  • 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.

  • Gozlan, R.E. 2008. Introduction of non native freshwater fish: Is it all bad? Fish and Fisheries 9: 106–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, K.R., and S.C. Barry. 2008. Are there any consistent predictors of invasion success? Biological Invasions 10: 483–506.

    Article  Google 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.

  • Heger, T., and L. Trepl. 2003. Predicting biological invasions. Biological Invasions 5: 313–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodges, K.E. 2008. Defining the problem: Terminology and progress in ecology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6: 35–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hulme, P.E. 2006. Beyond control: Wider implications for the management of biological invasions. Journal of Applied Ecology 43: 835–847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulme, P.E. 2009. Trade, transport and trouble: Managing invasive species pathways in an era of globalization. Journal of Applied Ecology 46: 10–18.

    Article  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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeschke, J.M., and P. Genovesi. 2011. Do biodiversity and human impact influence the introduction or establishment of alien mammals? Oikos 120: 57–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jogesh, T., D. Carpenter, and N. Cappuccino. 2008. Herbivory on invasive exotic plants and their non-invasive relatives. Biological Invasions 10: 797–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones-Walters, L., and A. Çil. 2011. Biodiversity and stakeholder participation. Journal for Nature Conservation 19: 327–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keane, R.M., and M.J. Crawley. 2002. Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 17: 164–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Levine, J.M. 2000. Species diversity and biological invasions: Relating local process to community pattern. Science 288: 852–854.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, J.M., and C.M. D’Antonio. 1999. Elton revisited: A review of evidence linking diversity and invasibility. Oikos 87: 15–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockwood, J.L., M.F. Hoopes, and M.P. Marchetti. 2007. Invasion ecology. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lodge, D.M. 1993. Biological invasions: Lessons for ecology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 8: 133–137.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattingly, B.W., R. Hewlate, and H.L. Reynolds. 2007. Species evenness and invasion resistance of experimental grassland communities. Oikos 116: 1164–1170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGeoch, M.A., D. Spear, E.J. Kleynhans, and E. Marais. 2012. Uncertainty in invasive alien species listing. Ecological Applications 22: 959–971.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, C.E., and A.G. Power. 2003. Release of invasive plants from fungal and viral pathogens. Nature 421: 625–627.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myster, R.M. 1993. Tree invasion and establishment in old fields at Hutcheson Memorial Forest. Botanical Reviews 59: 251–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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.

  • Puth, L.M., and D.M. Post. 2005. Studying invasion: Have we missed the boat? Ecology Letters 8: 715–721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reichard, S.H., and C.W. Hamilton. 1997. Predicting invasions of woody plants introduced into North America. Conservation Biology 11: 193–203.

    Article  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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, D.M., and P. Pyšek. 2008. Fifty years of invasion ecology: The legacy of Charles Elton. Diversity and Distributions 14: 161–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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 

  • 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.

    Article  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.

  • Simberloff, D. 2009. The role of propagule pressure in biological invasions. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics 40: 81–102.

    Article  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., 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sugiura, S. 2010. Associations of leaf miners and leaf gallers with island plants of different residency histories. Journal of Biogeography 37: 237–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tatem, A.J. 2009. The worldwide airline network and the dispersal of exotic species: 2007–2010. Ecography 32: 94–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, D.A. 1985. What are the criteria for presuming native status? Watsonia 15: 231–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, L.M. 2002. Why alien invaders succeed: Support for the escape-from-enemy hypothesis. The American Naturalist 160: 705–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ecology and Ecosystem Management, Restoration Ecology, Technische Universität München (TUM), Emil-Ramann-Str. 6, 85350, Freising, Germany

    Tina Heger, Anna T. Pahl, Kurt Jax, Sylvia Haider, Johannes Kollmann & Jonathan M. Jeschke

  2. Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis, One Shields Ave., Davis, CA, 95616, USA

    Tina Heger

  3. Institute of Ecology and Botany, MTA Centre for Ecological Research, Alkotmány u. 2-4, 2163, Vácrátót, Hungary

    Zoltan Botta-Dukát

  4. Department of Evolutionary Biology „Leo Pardi“, University of Florence, Via Romana 17, 50125, Florence, Italy

    Francesca Gherardi

  5. Institute of Ecology, Evolution & Diversity, Plant Ecology, Goethe University of Frankfurt, Max-von-Laue Str. 13, 60438, Frankfurt, Germany

    Christina Hoppe

  6. National Botanic Garden of Belgium, Domein van Bouchout, 1860, Meise, Belgium

    Ivan Hoste

  7. Department of Conservation Biology, Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Permoserstr. 15, 04318, Leipzig, Germany

    Kurt Jax

  8. Department of Biological and Environmental Science, University of Jyväskylä, P.O. Box 35, 40014, Jyväskylä, Finland

    Leena Lindström

  9. Laboratory of Environmental Toxicology and Aquatic Ecology, Ghent University, J. Plateaustraat 22, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Pieter Boets

  10. Department of Biology II, Ecology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Grosshadernder Str. 2, 82152, Planegg-Martinsried, Germany

    Meike J. Wittmann & Jonathan M. Jeschke

  11. Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, P.O. Box AB, Millbrook, NY, 12545, USA

    Jonathan M. Jeschke

  12. Institute of Biology, Geobotany and Botanical Garden, Martin Luther University Halle Wittenberg, Am Kirchtor 1, 06108, Halle (Saale), Germany

    Sylvia Haider

Authors
  1. Tina Heger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anna T. Pahl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zoltan Botta-Dukát
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Francesca Gherardi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Christina Hoppe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ivan Hoste
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Kurt Jax
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Leena Lindström
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Pieter Boets
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Sylvia Haider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Johannes Kollmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Meike J. Wittmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Jonathan M. Jeschke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tina Heger.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Heger, T., Pahl, A.T., Botta-Dukát, Z. et al. Conceptual Frameworks and Methods for Advancing Invasion Ecology. AMBIO 42, 527–540 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-012-0379-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-012-0379-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation