Biological Invasions

, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp 313–321 | Cite as

Predicting Biological Invasions

  • Tina Heger
  • Ludwig Trepl


There are various approaches to explain the mechanisms of biological invasions. It is possible (1) to focus on the characteristics of invading species and (2) on those of the ecosystems invaded, (3) to investigate the relationship between these two factors (key–lock approach), or (4) to differentiate the invasion process in time. Each of these approaches may serve to improve the understanding of some aspects of biological invasions, and each of them is in some way suitable for the purpose of predicting invasions. We discuss the usefulness and the limitations of these approaches, focusing on case studies from central Europe. An example of the fourth approach, a model of steps and stages of plant invasions that describes the invasion process in greater detail, illustrates some general limitations in predicting biological invasions.

Characteristics of plants definition invasibility invasion models invasion theory invasiveness model of steps and stages plant invasions prediction 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alerternst B (1998) Biologie, Ökologie, Verbreitung und Kontrolle von Reynoutria-Sippen in Baden-Württemberg. Verlag des Institutes für Landespflege der Universität Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany, 198 ppGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker HG (1965) Characteristics and modes of origin of weeds. In: Baker HG and Stebbins GL (eds) The Genetics of Colonizing Species, pp 147–172. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Böhmer HJ, Heger T and Trepl L (2001) Fallstudien zu gebietsfremden Arten in Deutschland. Case Studies on Alien Species in Germany. Umweltbundesamt, Berlin, 126 ppGoogle Scholar
  4. Brock JH, Child LE, de Waal LC and Wade PM (1995) The invasive nature of Fallopia japonica is enhanced by vegetative regeneration from stem tissues. In: Pyšek P, Prach K, Rejmánek M and Wade PM(eds) Plant Invasions - General Aspects and Special Problems, pp 131–139. SPB Academic Publishing, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  5. Chesson PL and Case TJ (1986) Overview: Nonequilibrium community theories: Chance, variability, history and coexistence. In: Diamond JM and Case TJ (eds) Community Ecology. Harper & Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Cornelius R, Schultka W and Meyer G (1990) Zum Invasionspotential florenfremder Arten. Verhandlungen der Gesellschaft für Ökologie 19: 20–29Google Scholar
  7. Crawley MJ (1987) What makes a community invasible? In: Gray AJ, Crawley MJ and Edwards KR (ed) Colonization, Succession and Stability, pp 429–453. Blackwell Scientific Publications, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Daehler CC and Carino DA (2000) Predicting invasive plants: Prospects for a general screening system based on current regional models. Biological Invasions 2: 93–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Darwin C (1859) Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection 1998 ed, Wordsworth Editions Ltd, Ware, UKGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis MA, Grime JP and Thompson K (2000) Fluctuating resources in plant communities: A general theory of invasibility. Journal of Ecology 88: 528–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Di Castri F (1990) On invading species and invaded ecosystems: The interplay of historical chance and biological necessity. In: Di Castri F, Hansen AJ and Debussche M (eds) Biological Invasions in Europe and the Mediterranean Basin, pp 3–16. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  12. Elton CS (1958) The Ecology of Invasions by Animals and Plants. Methuen & Co. Ltd, London, 181 ppGoogle Scholar
  13. Goodwin BJ, McAllister AJ and Fahrig L (1999) Predicting invasiveness of plant species based on biological information. Conservation Biology 13(2): 422–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grubb PJ (1985) Plant populations and vegetation in relation to habitat, disturbance and competition: Problems of generalization. In: White J (eds) The Population Structure of Vegetation, pp 595–621. Dr W. Junk, Dordrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  15. Guzikova M and Maycock PF (1986) The invasion and expansion of three North American species of goldenrod (Solidago canadensis L. sensu lato, S. gigantea AIT. and S. graminifolia (L.) SALISB.) in Poland. Acta Societas Botanicorum Poloniae 55: 367–384Google Scholar
  16. Heger T (2000) Biologische Invasionen als komplexe Prozesse: Konsequenzen für den Naturschutz. Natur und Landschaft 75(6): 250–255Google Scholar
  17. Heger T (2001) A model for interpreting the process of invasion: Crucial situations favouring special characteristics of invasive species. In: Brundu G, Brock JH, Camarda I, Child LE and Wade PM (eds) Plant Invasions. Species Ecology and Ecosystem Management, pp 3–10. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  18. Higgins SI and Richardson DM (1998) Pine invasions in the southern hemisphere: Modelling interactions between organism, environment and disturbance. Plant Ecology 135: 79–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Higgins SI, Richardson DM, Cowling RM and Trinder-Smith TH (1999) Predicting the landscape-scale distribution of alien plants and their threat to plant diversity. Conservation Biology 13(2): 303–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jäger EJ (1988) Möglichkeiten der Prognose synanthroper Pflanzenausbreitungen. Flora 180: 101–131Google Scholar
  21. Koenis H and Glavac V (1979) Ñber die Konkurrenzfähigkeit des Indischen Springkrautes (Impatiens glandulifera ROYLE) am Fuldaufer bei Kassel. Philippia 4(1): 47–59Google Scholar
  22. Kolar CS and Lodge DM (2001) Progress in invasion biology: Predicting invaders. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16(4): 199–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kopecký K (1967) Die flußbegleitenden Neophytengesellschaft Impatienti-Solidaginetum in Mittelmähren. Preslia, Praha 39: 151–166Google Scholar
  24. Kowarik I (1995) Time lags in biological invasions with regard to the success and failure of alien species. In: Pyšek P, Prach K, Rejmánek M and Wade PM (eds) Plant Invasions - General Aspects and Special Problems, pp 15–38. SPB Academic Publishing, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  25. Levine JM (2000) Species diversity and biological invasions: Relating local process to community pattern. Science 288: 852–854PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Levine JM and D'Antonio CM (1999) Elton revisited: A review of evidence linking diversity and invasibility. Oikos 87: 15–26Google Scholar
  27. Lodge DM (1993) Biological invasions: Lessons for ecology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8: 133–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mack RN (1985) Invading plants: Their potential contribution to population biology. In: White J (ed) Studies in Plant Demography: a Festschrift for John L. Harper, pp 127–141. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Mack RN (1992) Characteristics of invading plant species. In: Stone CP, Smith CW and Tunison JT (eds) Alien Plant Invasions in Native Ecosystems of Hawaii: Management and Research, pp 42–46. University of Hawaii Press, HonoluluGoogle Scholar
  30. McNeely JA (ed) (2001) The great reshufflling. Human dimensions of invasive alien species. IUCN Biodiversity Policy Co-ordination Division, Gland, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  31. Noble IR (1989) Attributes of invaders and the invading process: Terrestrial and vascular plants. In: Drake JA, Mooney HJ, Di Castri F, Groves RH, Kruger FJ, Rejmánek M and Williamson M (eds) Biological Invasions: a Global Perspective, pp 301–313. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UKGoogle Scholar
  32. Pyšek P (1991) Heracleum mantegazzianum in the Czech Republik: Dynamics of spreading from the historical perspective. Folia Geobotanica et Phytotaxonomica 26: 439–454Google Scholar
  33. Pyšek P (1998) Is there a taxonomic pattern to plant invasions? Oikos 82: 282–294Google Scholar
  34. Rejmánek M (1989) Invasibility of plant communities. In: Drake JA, Mooney HJ, Di Castri F, Groves RH, Kruger FJ, Rejmánek M and Williamson M (eds) Biological Invasions: a Global Perspective, pp 369–388. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UKGoogle Scholar
  35. Rejmánek M (1995) What makes a species invasive? In: Pyšek P, Prach K, Rejmánek M and Wade PM (eds) Plant Invasions - General Aspects and Special Problems, pp 3–13. SPB Academic Publishing, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  36. Rejmánek M and Richardson DM (1996) What attributes make some plant species more invasive? Ecology 77(6): 1655–1661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Richardson DM, Pyšek P, Rejmánek M, Barbour MG, Panetta FD and West CJ (2000) Naturalization and invasion of alien plants: Concepts and definitions. Diversity and Distributions 6: 93–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Roy J (1990) In search of the characteristics of plant invaders. In: Di Castri F, Hansen AJ and Debussche M (eds) Biological Invasions in Europe and the Mediterranean Basin, pp 335–352. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  39. Schuldes H and Kübler R (1991) Neophyten als Problempflanzen im Naturschutz. Landesamt für Umweltschutz Baden-Württemberg, Karlsruhe, Germany, 16 ppGoogle Scholar
  40. Seiger LA (1997) The status of Fallopia japonica (Reynoutria japonica; Polygonum cuspidatum) in North America. In: Brock JH, Wade PM, Pyšek P and Green DM (eds) Plant Invasions: Studies from North America and Europe, pp 95–102. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  41. Sher AA and Hyatt LA (1999) The disturbed resource-flux invasions matrix: A framework for patterns of plant invasion. Biological Invasions 1(2-3): 107–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Smith CS, Lonsdale WM and Fortune J (1999) When to ignore advice: invasion prediction and decision theory. Biological Invasions 1(1): 89–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Starfield AM (1997) A pragmatic approach to modeling for wildlife management. Journal of Wildlife Management 61(2): 261–270Google Scholar
  44. Symstad AJ (2000) A test of the effects of functional group richness and composition on grassland invasibility. Ecology 81(1): 99–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Trepl L (1984) Ñber Impatiens parviflora DC. als Agriophyt in Mitteleuropa. J. Cramer, Vaduz, Lichtenstein, 400 ppGoogle Scholar
  46. Trepl L (1990) Zum Problem der Resistenz von Pflanzengesellschaften gegen biologische Invasionen. Verhandlungen des Berliner Botanischen Vereins 8: 195–230Google Scholar
  47. Trepl L and Sukopp H (1993) Zur Bedeutung der Introduktion und Naturalisation von Pflanzen und Tieren für die Zukunft der Artenvielfalt. Rundgespräche der Kommission für Ökologie der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 6: 127–142Google Scholar
  48. Williamson M and Fitter A (1996) The varying success of invaders. Ecology 77(6): 1661–1666CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tina Heger
    • 1
  • Ludwig Trepl
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ecology, Landscape EcologyTechnische Universität MünchenFreising-WeihenstephanGermany

Personalised recommendations