, Volume 46, Issue 4, pp 428–442 | Cite as

The progress of interdisciplinarity in invasion science

  • Ana S. VazEmail author
  • Christoph Kueffer
  • Christian A. Kull
  • David M. Richardson
  • Stefan Schindler
  • A. Jesús Muñoz-Pajares
  • Joana R. Vicente
  • João Martins
  • Cang Hui
  • Ingolf Kühn
  • João P. Honrado


Interdisciplinarity is needed to gain knowledge of the ecology of invasive species and invaded ecosystems, and of the human dimensions of biological invasions. We combine a quantitative literature review with a qualitative historical narrative to document the progress of interdisciplinarity in invasion science since 1950. Our review shows that 92.4% of interdisciplinary publications (out of 9192) focus on ecological questions, 4.4% on social ones, and 3.2% on socialecological ones. The emergence of invasion science out of ecology might explain why interdisciplinarity has remained mostly within the natural sciences. Nevertheless, invasion science is attracting social–ecological collaborations to understand ecological challenges, and to develop novel approaches to address new ideas, concepts, and invasion-related questions between scholars and stakeholders. We discuss ways to reframe invasion science as a field centred on interlinked social–ecological dynamics to bring science, governance and society together in a common effort to deal with invasions.


Biological invasions Interdisciplinarity Non-native species Scientometrics Social–ecological research 



A.S. Vaz was supported by FSE/MEC, FCT (PD/BD/52600/2014); J. Vicente by POPH/FSE, FCT (SFRH/BPD/84044/2012); J. Muñoz-Pajares by FEDER-FCT (UID/BIA/50027/2013; POCI-01-0145-FEDER-006821), CIBIO (UID/BIA/50027/2013); S. Schindler by ACRP (KR13AC6K11141); D. Richardson by the DST-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology, the Working for Water Programme through project on “Integrated Management of invasive alien species in South Africa”, and the National Research Foundation (NRF), South Africa (Grant 85417); C. Hui by the NRF (Grants 81825, 76912) and the Australian Research Council (DP150103017). We thank the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC; NSF DBI-1052875), the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, the Synthesis Centre of iDiv (DFG FZT 118), and Thomson Reuters.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 (MP4 6245 kb)

13280_2017_897_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (505 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 505 kb)


  1. Ameden, H.A., P.C. Boxall, S.B. Cash, and D.A. Vickers. 2009. An agent-based model of border enforcement for invasive species management. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 57: 481–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennett, N.J., R. Roth, S.C. Klain, K. Chan, P. Christie, D.A. Clark, G. Cullman, D. Curran, et al. 2017. Conservation social science: Understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biological Conservation 205: 93–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Binder, C.R., J. Hinkel, P.W.G. Bots, and C. Pahl-Wostl. 2013. Comparison of frameworks for analyzing social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society 18: 26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brenner, J.C. 2010. What drives the conversion of native rangeland to buffelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare) pasture in Mexico’s Sonoran desert? The social dimensions of a biological invasion. Human Ecology 38: 495–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brunel, S., E. Fernandez-Galiano, P. Genovesi, V.H. Heywood, C. Kueffer, and D.M. Richardson. 2013. Invasive alien species: A growing but neglected threat? In Late lessons from early warnings: science, precaution, innovation, ed. European Environment Agency, 518–540. Copenhagen: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  6. Buijs, A., T. Hovardas, H. Figari, P. Castro, P. Devine-Wright, A. Fischer, C. Mouro, and S. Selge. 2012. Understanding people’s ideas on natural resource management: Research on social representations of nature. Society and Natural Resources 25: 1167–1181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Butts, C.T., D. Hunter, M. Handcock, S. Bender-deMoll, and J. Horner. 2015. Package ‘network’. R package version 1.12.0.Google Scholar
  8. Carruthers, J., L. Robin, J.P. Hattingh, C.A. Kull, H. Rangan, and B.W. Van Wilgen. 2011. A native at home and abroad: The history, politics, ethics and aesthetics of acacias. Diversity and Distributions 17: 810–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chaffin, B.C., A.S. Garmestani, D.G. Angeler, D.L. Herrmann, C.A. Stow, M. Nystrom, J. Sendzimir, M.E. Hopton, et al. 2016. Biological invasions, ecological resilience and adaptive governance. Journal of Environmental Management 183: 399–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chew, M.K., and A.L. Hamilton. 2011. The rise and fall of biotic nativeness: A historical perspective. In Fifty years of invasion ecology. The legacy of Charles Elton, ed. D.M. Richardson, 35–47. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. Cote, M., and A.J. Nightingale. 2012. Resilience thinking meets social theory: Situating social change in socio-ecological systems (SES) research. Progress in Human Geography 36: 475–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Courchamp, F., A. Fournier, C. Bellard, C. Bertelsmeier, E. Bonnaud, J.M. Jeschke, and J.C. Russell. 2017. Invasion biology: Specific problems and possible solutions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 32: 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Curtis, W. 1783. A Catalogue of the British, medicinal, culinary and agricultural plants cultivated in the London botanic gardens. London: B. White.Google Scholar
  14. Dahlberg, R., O. Rubin, and M.T. Vendelø. 2016. Disaster research. Multidisciplinary and international perspectives. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Davis, M.A. 2006. Invasion biology 1958–2005: The pursuit of science and conservation. In Conceptual ecology and invasion biology: Reciprocal approaches to nature, ed. M.W. Cadotte, S.M. McMahon, and T. Fukami, 35–64. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Davis, M.A. 2011. Invasion Biology. In Encyclopedia of biological invasions, ed. D. Simberloff, and M. Rejmánek, 364–369. California: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Drake, J.A., H.A. Mooney, F. Di Castri, R.H. Groves, F.J. Kruger, M. Rejmánek, and M. Williamson. 1989. Biological invasions: A global perspective. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  19. Elton, C.S. 1958. The ecology of invasions by animals and plants. London: Methuen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Essl, E., P.E. Hulme, J.M. Jeschke, R. Keller, P. Pyšek, D.M. Richardson, W.-C. Saul, S. Bacher, et al. 2017. Scientific and normative foundations for the valuation of alien species impacts: thirteen core principles. BioScience. doi:
  21. Estévez, R.A., C.B. Anderson, J.C. Pizarro, and M.A. Burgman. 2014. Clarifying values, risk perceptions, and attitudes to resolve or avoid social conflicts in invasive species management. Conservation Biology 29: 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Frawley, J., and I. McCalman. 2014. Rethinking invasion ecologies from the environmental humanities. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Groves, R.H., and J.J. Burdon. 1986. Ecology of biological invasions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Guisan, A., and N.E. Zimmermann. 2000. Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecological Modelling 135: 147–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hall, S.J. 2009. Cultural disturbances and local ecological knowledge mediate cattail (Typha domingensis) invasion in Lake Pátzcuaro, México. Human Ecology 37: 241–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hattingh, J. 2011. Conceptual clarity, scientific rigour and ‘The stories we are’: Engaging with two challenges to the objectivity of invasion biology. In Fifty years of invasion ecology. The legacy of Charles Elton, ed. D.M. Richardson, 359–375. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  27. Head, L., and J. Atchison. 2015. Governing invasive plants: Policy and practice in managing the Gamba grass (Andropogon gayanus)—Bushfire nexus in northern Australia. Land Use Policy 47: 225–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Head, L., B.M.H. Larson, R.J. Hobbs, J. Atchison, N. Gill, C.A. Kull, and H. Rangan. 2015. Living with invasive plants in the Anthropocene: The importance of understanding practice and experience. Conservation and Society 13: 311–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Heger, T., A.T. Pahl, Z. Botta-Dukát, F. Gherardi, C. Hoppe, I. Hoste, K. Jax, L. Lindström, et al. 2013. Conceptual frameworks and methods for advancing invasion ecology. Ambio 42: 527–540.Google Scholar
  30. Hobbs, R.J., and D.M. Richardson. 2011. Invasion ecology and restoration ecology: Parallel evolution in two fields of endeavour. In Fifty years of invasion ecology. The legacy of Charles Elton, ed. D.M. Richardson, 61–69. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  31. Hui, C., and M.A. McGeoch. 2014. Zeta diversity as a concept and metric that unifies incidence-based biodiversity patterns. The American Naturalist 184: 684–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hui, C., and D.M. Richardson. 2017. Invasion dynamics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hulme, P. 2009. Trade, transport and trouble: Managing invasive species pathways in an era of globalization. Journal of Applied Ecology 46: 10–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Humair, F., P.J. Edwards, M. Siegrist, and C. Kueffer. 2014a. Understanding misunderstandings in invasion science: Why experts don’t agree on common concepts and risk assessments. NeoBiota 20: 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Humair, F., M. Siegrist, and C. Kueffer. 2014b. Working with the horticulture industry to limit invasion risks: The Swiss experience. EPPO Bulletin 44: 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Humair, F., L. Humair, F. Kuhn, and C. Kueffer. 2015. E-commerce trade in invasive plants. Conservation Biology 29: 1658–1665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jeschke, J.M., S. Bacher, T.M. Blackburn, J.T.A. Dick, F. Essl, T. Evans, M. Gaertner, P.E. Hulme, et al. 2014. Defining the impact of non-native species: Resolving disparity through greater clarity. Conservation Biology 28: 1188–1194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Krebs, C.J. 1972. Ecology. The experimental analysis of distribution and abundance. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  39. Kueffer, C. 2013. Integrating natural and social sciences for understanding and managing plant invasions. In Biodiversity and society in the Pacific Islands, ed. S. Larrue, 71–96. Marseille & Canberra: Presses Universitaires de Provence & ANU ePress.Google Scholar
  40. Kueffer, C., and C. Kull. 2017. Non-native species and the aesthetics of nature. In Impact of biological invasions on ecosystem services, eds. P. Hulme, and M. Vilà. Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
  41. Kueffer, 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. doi: 10.12942/lrlr-2008-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kueffer, C., and B. Larson. 2014. Responsible use of language in scientific writing and science communication. BioScience 64: 719–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kull, C.A., C.M. Shackleton, P.J. Cunningham, C. Ducatillon, J.-M. Dufour-Dror, K.J. Esler, J.B. Friday, A.C. Gouveia, et al. 2011. Adoption, use and perception of Australian Acacias around the world. Diversity and Distributions 17: 822–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kull, C.A., S.M. Carrière, S. Moreau, H.R. Ramiarantsoa, C. Blanc-Pamard, and J. Tassin. 2013. Melting pots of biodiversity: Tropical smallholder farm landscapes as guarantors of sustainability. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 55: 6–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Larson, B. 2005. The war of the roses: Demilitarizing invasion biology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3: 495–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Larson, B.M.H. 2007. Who’s invading what? Systems thinking about invasive species. Canadian Journal of Plant Sciences 87: 993–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Larson, B. 2011. Metaphors for environmental sustainability: Redefining our relationship with nature. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Larson, B.M.H. 2013. The metaphorical links between ecology, ethics, and society. In Linking ecology and ethics for a changing world: Values, philosophy, and action, ed. R. Rozzi, S.T.A. Pickett, C. Palmer, J.J. Armesto, and J.B. Callicott, 137–145. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Latombe, G., M.A. McGeoch, and C. Hui. 2015. Zetadiv: Functions to compute compositional turnover using zeta diversity. R package.Google Scholar
  50. Leydesdorff, L., and I. Rafols. 2009. A global map of science based on the ISI subject categories. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60: 348–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Li, J., M.-H. Wang, and Y.-S. Ho. 2011. Trends in research on global climate change: A Science Citation Index expanded-based analysis. Global and Planetary Change 77: 13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Liu, J., T. Dietz, S.R. Carpenter, M. Alberti, C. Folke, E. Moran, A.N. Pell, P. Deadman, et al. 2007. Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science 317: 1513–1516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lockwood, J.L., M.F. Hoopes, and M.P. Marchetti. 2007. Invasion ecology. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  54. Lövei, G.L. 1997. Global change through invasion. Nature 388: 627–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mann, R. 1979. Exotic species in aquaculture. Oceanus 22: 29–35.Google Scholar
  56. Matzek, V., J. Covino, J.L. Funk, and M. Saunders. 2013. Closing the knowing–doing gap in invasive plant management: Accessibility and interdisciplinarity of scientific research. Conservation Letters 7: 208–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. McNeely, J.A. 2001. The great reshuffling: Human dimensions of invasive alien species. Gland: IUCN.Google Scholar
  58. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  59. N’Guyen, A., P.E. Hirsch, I. Adrian-Kalchhauser, and P. Burkhardt-Holm. 2016. Improving invasive species management by integrating priorities and contributions of scientists and decision makers. Ambio 45: 280–289.Google Scholar
  60. R Core Team. 2014. R: A language and environment for statistical computing, version 3.1.2. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
  61. Porter, A.L., and I. Rafols. 2009. Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics 81: 719–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rafols, I., A.L. Porter, and L. Leydesdorff. 2010. Science overlay maps: A new tool for research policy and library management. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 61: 1871–1887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Richardson, D.M. 2011a. 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. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  64. Richardson, D.M. (ed.). 2011b. Fifty years of invasion ecology. The legacy of Charles Elton. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  65. Richardson, D.M., and P. Pyšek. 2007. Classics in physical geography revisited: Elton, C.S. 1958: The ecology of invasions by animals and plants. Methuen: London. Progress in Physical Geography 31: 659–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 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
  67. Richardson, D.M., and A. Ricciardi. 2011. Misleading criticisms of invasion science: A field guide. Diversity and Distributions 19: 1461–1467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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, 409–420. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  69. Rissman, A.R., and S. Gillon. 2016. Where are ecology and biodiversity in social–ecological systems research? A review of research methods and applied recommendations. Conservation Letters. doi: 10.1111/conl.12250.Google Scholar
  70. Rodríguez-Labajos, B., R. Binimelis, and I. Monterroso. 2009. Multi-level driving forces of biological invasions. Ecological Economics 69: 63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rotherham, I.D., and R.A. Lambert. 2011. Invasive and introduced plants and animals: Human perceptions, attitudes and approaches to management. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  72. Sax, D.F., J.J. Stachowicz, J.H. Brown, J.F. Bruno, M.N. Dawson, S.D. Gaines, R.K. Grosberg, A. Hastings, et al. 2007. Ecological and evolutionary insights from species invasions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 22: 465–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Schindler, S., B. Staska, M. Adam, W. Rabitsch, and F. Essl. 2015. Alien species and public health impacts in Europe: A literature review. NeoBiota 27: 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Shaw, B.R., A. Howell, and K. Genskow. 2014. Evaluation of a movie theater advertisement campaign to promote behaviors that prevent spread of aquatic invasive species. Society and Natural Resources 27: 768–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Simberloff, D. 2001. Eradication of island invasives: Practical actions and results achieved. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 16: 273–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Simberloff, D. 2011. Charles Elton: Neither founder nor siren, but prophet. In Fifty years of invasion ecology. The legacy of Charles Elton, ed. D.M. Richardson, 11–24. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  77. Simberloff, D., J.-L. Martin, P. Genovesi, V. Maris, D.A. Wardle, J. Aronson, F. Courchamp, B. Galil, et al. 2013. Impacts of biological invasions: What’s what and the way forward? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 28: 58–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Stock, P., and R.J.F. Burton. 2011. Defining terms for integrated (multi-inter-trans-disciplinary) sustainability research. Sustainability 3: 1090–1113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Stork, H., and J.J. Astrin. 2014. Trends in biodiversity research—A bibliometric assessment. Open Journal of Ecology 4: 354–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Tassin, J., and C.A. Kull. 2015. Facing the broader dimensions of biological invasions. Land Use Policy 42: 165–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Tengö, M., E.S. Brondizio, T. Elmqvist, P. Malmer, and M. Spierenburg. 2014. Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: The multiple evidence base approach. Ambio 43: 579–591.Google Scholar
  82. Thuiller, W., D.M. Richardson, P. Pyšek, G.F. Midgley, G.O. Hughes, and M. Rouget. 2005. Niche-based modelling as a tool for predicting the risk of alien plant invasions at a global scale. Global Change Biology 11: 2234–2250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Van Wilgen, B.W., B. Reyers, D.C. Le Maitre, D.M. Richardson, and L. Schonegevel. 2008. A biome-scale assessment of the impact of invasive alien plants on ecosystem services in South Africa. Journal of Environmental Management 89: 336–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Van Wilgen, B.W., S.J. Davies, and D.M. Richardson. 2014. Invasion science for society: A decade of contributions from the Centre for Invasion Biology. South African Journal of Science. doi: 10.1590/sajs.2014/a0074.Google Scholar
  85. Vaz, A.S., C. Kueffer, C.A. Kull, D.M. Richardson, J.R. Vicente, I. Kühn, M. Schröter, J. Hauck, et al. 2017. Integrating ecosystem services and disservices: Insights from plant invasions. Ecosystem Services 23: 94–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Vitousek, P.M. 1988. Diversity and biological invasions of Oceanic Islands. In Biodiversity, ed. E.O. Wilson, and F.M. Peter, 181–189. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  87. Wagner, C.S., J.D. Roessner, K. Bobb, J.T. Klein, K.W. Boyack, J. Keyton, I. Rafols, and K. Börnerf. 2011. Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature. Journal of Infometrics 165: 14–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Watson, H.C. 1847. Cybele Britannica, vol. 1. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  89. Woodford, D.J., D.M. Richardson, H.J. MacIsaac, N.E. Mandrak, B.W. Van Wilgen, J.R.U. Wilson, and O.L.F. Weyl. 2016. Confronting the wicked problem of managing biological invasions. NeoBiota 31: 63–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Zavaleta, E. 2000. Valuing ecosystem services lost to Tamarix invasion in the United States. In Invasive species in a changing world, ed. H.A. Mooney, and R.J. Hobbs, 261–300. Washington DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  91. Zhang, L., M.-H. Wang, J. Hu, and Y.-S. Ho. 2010. A review of published wetland research, 1991–2008: Ecological engineering and ecosystem restoration. Ecological Engineering 36: 973–980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ana S. Vaz
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Christoph Kueffer
    • 3
    • 4
  • Christian A. Kull
    • 5
    • 6
  • David M. Richardson
    • 4
  • Stefan Schindler
    • 7
    • 8
  • A. Jesús Muñoz-Pajares
    • 1
  • Joana R. Vicente
    • 1
    • 2
  • João Martins
    • 1
  • Cang Hui
    • 9
    • 10
  • Ingolf Kühn
    • 11
    • 12
    • 13
  • João P. Honrado
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Research Network in Biodiversity and Evolutionary BiologyResearch Center in Biodiversity and Genetic Resources (InBIO-CIBIO)VairãoPortugal
  2. 2.Faculty of SciencesUniversity of Porto (FCUP)PortoPortugal
  3. 3.Institute of Integrative BiologyETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  4. 4.Department of Botany and Zoology, Centre for Invasion BiologyStellenbosch UniversityMatielandSouth Africa
  5. 5.Institute of Geography and SustainabilityUniversity of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland
  6. 6.Centre for Geography and Environmental ScienceMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia
  7. 7.Environment Agency AustriaViennaAustria
  8. 8.Division of Conservation Biology, Vegetation and Landscape EcologyUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria
  9. 9.Department of Mathematical Sciences, Centre for Invasion BiologyStellenbosch UniversityMatielandSouth Africa
  10. 10.Theoretical Ecology GroupAfrican Institute for Mathematical SciencesCape TownSouth Africa
  11. 11.Department of Community EcologyUFZ – Helmholtz Centre for Environmental ResearchHalleGermany
  12. 12.Geobotany and Botanical GardenMartin-Luther-University Halle-WittenbergHalleGermany
  13. 13.German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-LeipzigLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations