Support for major hypotheses in invasion biology is uneven and declining

NeoBiota 14
NeoBiota 14

Jonathan M. Jeschke, Lorena Gómez Aparicio, Sylvia Haider, Tina Heger, Christopher J. Lortie, Petr Pyšek, David L. Strayer— 2012

Several major hypotheses have been proposed to explain and predict biological invasions, but the general applicability of these hypotheses is largely unknown, as most of them have not been evaluated using a standard approach across taxonomic groups and habitats. We offer such an evaluation for six selected leading hypotheses. Our global literature review reveals that those hypotheses that consider interactions of exotic invaders with their new environment (invasional meltdown, novel weapons, enemy release) are better supported by empirical evidence than other hypotheses (biotic resistance, island susceptibility, tens rule). We also show that empirical support for the six hypotheses has declined over time, and that support differs among taxonomic groups and habitats. Our results have implications for basic and applied research, policy making, and invasive species management, as their effectiveness depends on sound hypotheses.

TitelSupport for major hypotheses in invasion biology is uneven and declining
VerfasserJonathan M. Jeschke, Lorena Gómez Aparicio, Sylvia Haider, Tina Heger, Christopher J. Lortie, Petr Pyšek, David L. Strayer
VerlagPensoft
ThemaBiological invasions, biotic resistance hypothesis, decline effect, enemy release hypothesis, invasional meltdown hypothesis, island susceptibility hypothesis, novel weapons hypothesis, tens rule
Datum20120822
Kennungdoi: 10.3897/neobiota.14.3435
Quelle/n
Erschienen inNeoBiota 14: 1-20 (22 Aug 2012)
Spracheeng
ArtText
Rechte© 2012 Jonathan M. Jeschke. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 3.0 (CC-BY).