D Simberloff, L Souza, MA Nuñez, MN Barrios-Garcia and W
Bunn Ecology. 2012 Mar; 93(3): 598-607
Our Review:
Parry H, Lonsdale M: 2012. F1000.com/717952323#eval793457754
This paper provides some counter-evidence to the argument
that native species are as likely to become problematic invaders as
non-indigenous species. The authors examined the literature on plant invasions
in the United States and found that a member of the naturalised non-native pool
is 40 times more likely than the native species to be perceived as invasive.
It is important to note that, while 'invasive' means
different things to different researchers in the literature, these authors are
using it to mean spreading from the point of introduction into the natural or
semi-natural habitat and having an effect on the resident species in the
habitat. The authors used Web of Science literature searches to determine for
the United States the proportion of native and non-native plant species that
were recorded as invasive and to glean the reasons for invasions by native
species. In addition to demonstrating that non-native species have far greater
invasion risk than native species, they also found that the typical cause for
invasiveness of native species was mainly anthropogenic environmental change,
such as altered fire regimes and grazing regimes. In other words, it was
unusual for native species to spontaneously invade under natural, unmodified
environmental conditions.
All this provides an important counter-argument to the
proposal that there is nothing special about non-native species per se, which
has arisen in recent literature (e.g. [1]). According to Simberloff et al.,
non-native species clearly have a greater propensity to cause damage than
natives, and we should use this information strategically, rather than ignore
this important trait.
References:
Davis MA, Chew MK, Hobbs RJ, Lugo AE, ...,
Ehrenfeld JG, Grime JP, Mascaro J, Briggs JC Nature. 2011 Jun 9; 474(7350):
153-4
No comments:
Post a Comment