Download What is an Invasive Species?

What is an Invasive Species?
David M Richardson & Petr Pyšek
David M Richardson
Institute of Plant Conservation, Botany Department, University of Cape Town,
7701 Rondebosch, South Africa.
E-mail: [email protected]
Petr Pyšek
Institute of Botany, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, CZ-252 43
Pruhonice, Czech Republic.
E-mail: [email protected]
April 2004
1. Summary
2. Background
3. Native alien 'pest' species
4. When is an organism native or alien?
5. The history of problems with alien species
6. When does an alien species become feral, naturalized, invasive?
7. What terminology should research scientists, policy makers,
conservationists
and quarantine staff use for practical applications in the future?
8. References
1. Summary
Escalating transport of organisms around the world and the rapid increase in
problems with invasive alien organisms worldwide, demands improved precision and
objectivity in categorizing non-native species. This is essential for the effective
implementation of various policies aimed at reducing impacts of currently
problematic non-native species and those aimed at preventing introductions of other
species with a high risk of causing problems. Problems that exist in this regard relate
to, among other things: (1) poorly resolved systematics for many groups of
organisms, especially microscopic organisms for which the geographic origin of many
taxa is unknown; (2) the fact that scientific study of the determinants of
invasiveness is in its infancy; (3) criteria for defining organisms as feral/naturalized,
invasive, etc. have evolved differently in different parts of the world, and for
different taxa; (4) criteria for objective categorization are, in many cases,
complicated by complex human-value systems. This article discusses concepts
relating to biological invasions, and in particular the processes leading to
naturalization or invasion of alien organisms and the progress towards unifying
ecological concepts related to the invasions.
Back to Top
2. Background
In colonizing the world, humans have moved other species around with them,
intentionally or by accident (di Castri, 1989; Mooney and Hobbs, 2000; Ruiz and
Carlton, 2003). Until recently, human-aided movement of species involved relatively
few species, and those that were moved were generally moved slowly, over short
distances, and in fairly small numbers. Such movement certainly resulted in changes
to the distributions of many species, due to both human-aided dispersal and humandriven modifications to ecosystems. But such changes were mostly localized,
sometimes involving extensions at the edge of the natural range of species.
Technological innovations that enabled humans to move not only themselves, but
almost any other species around the world much quicker and in bigger numbers
caused not only a quantitative change, but also a qualitative change in the way that
humans impact on the world’s biota (di Castri, 1989). Major biogeographical barriers
that had separated biotas of different parts of the world for millennia were easily
breached. The stage was set for the rapid homogenization of the planet. Cultural ties
and emerging regional and global economies have forged a myriad of complex
pathways along which species are moved around the globe (Ruiz and Carlton, 2003).
What started as a trickle, has now become a roaring torrent, with many parts of the
world now boasting more species that evolved in distant regions than native ones in
certain taxonomic groups [e.g. vascular plants on many islands, Rejmánek (1996)].
It is not only the number of species moved around the world that has increased
dramatically, but also the number of individuals of different species, and the number
and character of interactions between species (native and foreign, e.g. Keane and
Crawley, 2002). Also, an increase in the time since introduction for large numbers of
alien species has meant that many of them have been able to move around within
their adventive ranges, on their own, or aided by humans or other resident species
(Kowarik, 1995; Wu et al., 2003; Pyšek et al., 2004b). Many alien species have had
time to prospect many habitats, and to take advantage of sporadic events that may
give them a foothold or enable them to increase in numbers and range.
Centuries ago, alien species were usually welcome residents. Humans colonizing new
lands needed such species to survive and to make their new homes more convivial.
Alien species provided humans with food, fibre, shelter and cultural ties with their
homelands. Much effort went into introducing, cultivating, or otherwise nurturing a
wide range of alien species (Mack, 2000). The shift from viewing alien species as
welcome components of the biota to the current situation where, in most parts of the
world, many of the most worrying diseases, pests and weeds are aliens, has followed
different trajectories in different regions [developed world vs. developing world; Old
World vs. New World; northern vs. southern hemisphere, e.g. Lonsdale (1999)]. For
example, in most parts of Europe, many alien species were incorporated slowly into
the biota so that human culture and land management slowly integrated such
species into environments with a long history of human modification. In contrast,
regions that were colonized by Europeans starting in the 1600s received a deluge of
alien species at the same time as the start of major human-driven transformations in
these systems (Rolls, 1985; di Castri, 1989).
Many alien species are undisputedly essential for human survival and wellbeing. For
example, it is estimated that 95% of food production in the USA depends on nonindigenous species of plants and animals (Pimentel, 2002). On the other hand, in
many parts of the world, the harmful effects of invasive alien species are widely
recognized, and multi-scale (local-regional-national-international) programmes are
underway to reduce the current and potential future impacts of the relatively small
number of alien species that cause problems (Daehler and Carino, 2001; McNeeley et
al., 2001). Most people agree that some alien species are harmful and that farreaching and expensive interventions need to be implemented to deal with current
populations of such species, and to reduce the likelihood of other alien species from
becoming a nuisance (Ewel et al., 1999). Such precautions, it is generally accepted,
should relate to alien species already introduced, and perhaps widespread (possibly
with some beneficial properties), as well as the many potentially troublesome species
not yet introduced. Conflicts of interest exist in almost every case where alien
species are deemed problematical and are the focus of management action. One
man’s weed is another man’s miracle plant, horticultural subject, or link with his
cultural heritage.
In any case, management of invasive alien species needs to compete for resources
with many other priorities at different levels of government, and within the fields of
environmental conservation, agriculture, forestry, fisheries, etc. For this reason,
objective categorization and prioritization of alien species for management action is
an essential component of building policies and sustainable strategies. At the core of
any objective system of prioritization in this area should be a clear understanding of
key biological/ecological/biogeographical concepts relating to naturalization and
invasion of alien species.
"What is an invasive species?" is a seemingly simple question, but reference to the
burgeoning scientific literature on invasions, and to many policy documents and web
sites focusing on alien species shows that much confusion exists (Davis and
Thompson, 2000; Richardson et al., 2000b; Daehler, 2001; Rejmánek et al., 2002;
Pyšek et al., 2004a). This article explores the multi-faceted nature of the question,
differences between taxonomic groups, and the wide range of inherent and policydriven problems that confront anyone trying to categorize alien species with regard
to their status.
Back to Top
3. Native and alien 'pest' species
When organisms show increase in abundance, density or geographic extent, this may
be deemed inappropriate or problematic, and such organisms are sometimes termed
‘pests’, ‘problem species’, ‘weeds’, etc. In many cases, such species are native to the
areas where their presence, abundance, density, or ‘impacts’ (variously defined,
usually invoking human value systems) are deemed inappropriate. In such cases,
rapid increases in range, abundance or density and subsequent impacts on
ecosystems are attributable to human-induced perturbations to such ecosystems.
Factors that regularly lead to such changes include altered disturbance or nutrient
regimes (Hobbs and Huenneke, 1992; Davis et al., 2000; Shea and Chesson, 2002),
or additions and removals of biota, leading to altered ecosystem dynamics (Vitousek
and Walker, 1989). Natural fluctuation in climate and other factors drive range
changes, but these usually lead to slower range shifts, measurable at the scale of
centuries, rather than years or decades (Williamson, 1996).
‘Weedy’ native species sometimes have major impacts and are the subject of
intensive and expensive management efforts (Williamson, 1998). Examples include
the widespread expansion of native pinyon pines (notably Pinus edulis and Pinus
monophylla) in the American Southwest and the similar expansion and densification
of native acacias (e.g. Acacia karroo) in parts of southern Africa, both largely
attributable to increased grazing and thus reduced competition for tree seedlings
from grasses; extensive spread of the native grass Calamagrostis villosa in areas
deforested due to air pollution in Central Europe (Pyšek, 1992); spread of the
asteraceous herb, Dittrichia viscosa on disturbed habitats in the Mediterranean
(Wacquant, 1990); or many native weeds on arable land (Williamson, 1998). Many
native animal species have undergone major range expansions, at least partly, in
response to human-driven changes to ecosystems.
‘Invasions’ of native species [‘expansion’ has been suggested as a more appropriate
term for designating spreading native species, see Pyšek et al. (2004a)], although
often indisputably problematic and warranting substantial management effort,
usually do not rank as major threats to biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. The
rampant spread of some alien aliens, has however, wreaked havoc in ecosystems
worldwide. Are invasions involving alien species fundamentally different to those
involving native species? Do alien invasions demand different management
strategies?
The answer to both the above questions is yes. Although the basic processes
whereby native and alien species increase in abundance and geographical extent in
certain instances are the same, alien species have certain attributes that mean that
they demand special attention. For example, native species (even weedy ones)
usually have their full complement of co-evolved mutualists and natural enemies,
whereas aliens are often introduced without many/most of these (Richardson et al.,
2000a), for example when plants are introduced as seeds, or mussels are introduced
as spat. The ‘enemy release hypothesis’ (Keane and Crawley, 2002) proposes that
aliens are often successful when they leave their enemies behind when they are
transported to a new area because they have an advantage over native species
whose performance is, to some extent, inhibited by suites of co-evolved enemies.
Recent studies indicated that alien species differ from natives in their relationships
with organisms of other trophic levels (Chittka and Schürkens, 2001; Klironomos,
2002); this can provide them with competitive advantages during invasion. This
article focuses largely on alien species, but it is not always easy to say whether a
species is native or alien.
Back to Top
4. When is an organism native or alien?
Species from all taxonomic groups of organisms have been moved around the world
through human activities. The extent to which species in a given biota can accurately
be labelled as ‘native’ or ‘alien’ varies considerably for different major taxonomic
groups and for different parts of the world. Certain taxonomic groups, notably
vascular plants and vertebrate animals, are relatively well described, and reasonable
lists of species exist for many regions of the world (e.g. Randall, 2002). Such
taxonomic resolution is essential for determining which species in a given area are
native (i.e. evolved in that area, or at least migrated into the area before the age of
human domination of the world’s ecosystems), or alien (i.e. moved there directly by
humans or indirectly by transport means associated with human activities) (Pyšek et
al., 2004a). For taxonomic groups with less well resolved taxonomies and for which
detailed species lists are often lacking, determining whether a species is native to a
given area or has arrived via human transport is much more difficult. This applies to
many groups of smaller organisms, especially microorganisms such as viruses,
prions, viroids, bacteria, fungi, algae and protozoa, but also most groups of
arthropods and plankton [but see e.g. Frank and McCoy (1992, 1995) for insects]. In
the absence of basic taxonomic monographs and biogeographical information, many
species must be labelled ‘cryptogenic’, i.e. of unknown origin - not demonstrably
native or alien (Carlton, 1996).
Biological invasions are generally considered at the level of species, i.e. species are
either native or alien, invasive or not, etc. There is, however, growing realization
that invasions at the level of genes is also a major issue (Petit, 2004). The spread of
non-native genotypes within the range of members of their own species has been
termed ‘cryptic invasions’ (Saltonstall, 2002). Interspecific hybridization between
native and alien species is thought to act as a stimulus for invasiveness in many
cases (Abbott, 1992; Ernst, 1998; Ellstrand and Schierenbeck, 2000; Huey et al.,
2000; Willis et al., 2000; Daehler and Carino, 2001; Lee, 2002). Examples of
increased vigour of hybrids relative to parents include taxa in the plant genera
Spartina (Daehler and Strong, 1994, 1996), Carpobrotus (Vila and D’Antonio, 1998),
Reynoutria (Pyšek et al., 2003), and for animals, crayfish taxa in the genus
Orconectes (Perry et al., 2001). Hybridization also complicates the quest for
definitive criteria for classifying species as native or alien. There is currently no clear
agreement on how to treat products of hybridization involving alien species but it is
more appropriate to consider the products of hybridization with alien species
involved, as alien (Crawley et al., 1996; Pyšek et al., 2004a).
Besides the problems of taxonomic resolution and invasions at the gene level when
attempting to classify species as native or alien, there is the problem of geographic
scale. Organisms encroaching in habitats in which they were not present before the
first available records can be assessed from an ecological point of view (and termed
colonizers), or from biogeographical (invaders, or aliens in a more general sense), or
anthropocentric perspectives (pests, weeds) (Williamson, 1993, 1996; Rejmánek,
1995, 2000). In biological invasions, the biogeographical perspective is preferable
(Rejmánek, 1995, 2000; Pyšek et al., 2004a). However, is it appropriate to consider
a species alien to a continent, to a country, to a state or province, to a biogeographic
zone? There is no definitive answer to this question. Clearly, resolution in this regard
calls for arbitrary limits and a measure of pragmatism, especially when the
categorization is driven by requirements for policy formulation. The best resolution
depends on the aim of the assessment. Since most policies are formulated for
implementation at the level of political entities (mainly countries), the native vs.
alien dichotomy is usually debated for such geographical units. In many cases
political boundaries are not an ideal framework because they do not correspond to
biogeographic zones that set biological and ecological barriers which are crucial in
biological invasions (Richardson et al., 2000b). This problem is more pronounced in
big countries, such as Australia and the USA, where many species from east/west
coasts are as foreign on the other coast as species from another continent. For
plants, alien and native occurrence in demarcated localities within a region should be
ideally distinguished. However, to our knowledge, there is only one source with
information categorized in such a way: in the New Atlas of the British and Irish Flora
(Preston et al., 2002) which give precise information on the number of alien and
native occurrences recorded for each plant species. Such information greatly
improves the potential for analyses of alien floras because, in association with
environmental characteristics, the data can be examined on a finer scale (Pyšek et
al., 2004a).
Back to Top
5. The history of problems with alien species
Significant problems with invasive alien species are a relatively recent phenomenon.
In most parts of the world, by far the biggest impacts have been felt only in the last
50 years. There are some prominent examples of widespread invasions, presumably
with impacts (although in most cases we have little or no information on this), that
date back much further. For instance, Charles Darwin wrote of invasive populations
of the alien plant species Silybum marianum and Cynara cardunculus covering
square kilometres in Argentina in 1833.
Means for dealing with invasive alien species, beyond uncoordinated efforts at local
scales, had to be developed in many parts of the world rapidly to avert looming
species extinctions and various ecosystem-level impacts. Such methods were
simultaneously needed at spatial scales ranging from landscapes to continents, and
at temporal scales of days or weeks (for small-scale containment or eradication
efforts) to years, decades or more (to prevent further introductions across national
borders and to limit dissemination within political boundaries). The rush to develop
cost-effective management strategies arose at about the same time as ecologists
and biogeographers were starting to appreciate both the momentous potential of
non-native species to disrupt ecosystem functioning, and also the opportunities that
biological invasions provided for studying fundamental issues in biogeography and
ecology. As a consequence, ecologists were poorly equipped to provide wellformulated theories and conceptual frameworks to underpin emerging management
strategies.
This led to some disasters, e.g. the use of generalist predators for biological control
of some vertebrate invaders, and also led to much confusion due to the adoption of a
bewildering array of terms used to describe different categories of alien species.
A milestone in the coordinated fight against invasive pests was the establishment of
the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) in 1951 (revised in 1979 and in
1997) [http://www.ippc.int/IPP/En/model_letters.jsp]. The IPPC is an
international treaty whose purpose is to secure a common and effective action to
prevent the spread and introduction of pests of plants and plant products, and to
promote appropriate measures for their control. The Convention extends to the
protection of natural flora and plant products. Contracting parties meet IPPC
obligations through the actions and policies of national and regional plant protection
organizations.
The emergence of prominent national and international initiatives for the
management of invasive alien species, especially in natural and semi-natural
ecosystems, has brought into focus the need for clear concepts and terminology to
distinguish pest species of foreign origin from other non-native, but beneficial or
benign, species, and from native species. Prominent examples of international
programmes focusing on invasive species include the Global Invasive Species
Programme [http://www.gisp.org/] and the World Conservation Union’s (IUCN)
Invasive Species Specialist Group [http://www.issg.org/]. The IPPC was initially
largely directed at agriculture and food security, but is now applying its guidelines to
the protection of uncultivated plants and habitats, e.g. ISPM No. 11, Pest Risk
Analysis for Quarantine Pests, revised in 2003 to include a new supplementary
section which provides more detail on the ‘analysis of environmental risks’. Regional
programmes include the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme
[http://www.sprep.org.ws/bird_inva/], and national and regional initiatives
include the National Weeds Strategy in Australia [http://www.weeds.org.au/],
the ‘Protect New Zealand’ initiative in New Zealand
[http://www.protectnz.org.nz/], the ‘Working for Water’ programme and
associated initiatives in South Africa [http://www.dwaf.gov.za/wfw/], and the
National Invasive Species Council in the USA
[http://www.invasivespecies.gov/]. Many non-governmental organizations with
an interest in conservation issues worldwide are addressing issues relating to
invasive species. Important examples include The Nature Conservancy’s Invasive
Species Initiative in the USA [http://nature.org/initiatives/invasivespecies/].
Note that the geographic distribution of these initiatives reflects the extent of
problems with alien species in different regions of the world.
All the above organizations focus on invasive alien species that have substantial
impact on biodiversity, the functioning of ecosystems, and human wellbeing. In the
websites and policy documents of these organizations, ‘invasive species’ tend to be
loosely equated with ‘alien species that cause damage’. As we will see below there
are some problems with the application of this definition in practice.
Back to Top
6. When does an alien species become feral, naturalized, invasive?
A review of the scientific and popular literature on invasions clearly shows that
different people mean different things when they write about ‘introduced’, ‘casual’,
‘feral’, ‘naturalized’ or ‘invasive’ species. Several recent contributions have reviewed
the confusing array of terms and the fuzzy application of concepts related to them
(e.g. Richardson et al., 2000b; Daehler, 2001; Davis and Thompson, 2001;
Rejmánek et al., 2002; Colautti and McIsaac, 2004; Pyšek et al., 2004a). It is
symptomatic that even these review papers express different views on terminology
(see below). Table 1 lists the most widely used terms in the lexicon of invasion
ecology and attempts to provide objective, non-ambiguous definitions for each, with
notes relating to problems of interpretation and difficulties pertaining to specific
types of organisms or in particular localities.
Although imprecise definitions are widely used for most terms, most confusion and
debate has centred on the term ‘invasive’. Most widely used definitions of ‘invasive’
include statements relating to two or more of the following: (1) the alien status of
the species; (2) its ability or potential to establish and overcome various barriers to
reproduction, dispersal and proliferation in the new environment (as in Figure 1);
and (3) its ability or potential to cause harm to the environment and/or human
health (reviewed in Richardson et al., 2000b).
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the phases between the introduction
of an organism to a locality through human action, and its establishment
and proliferation in natural (undisturbed) environments. The ability of a
given species to overcome a series of barriers in the new environment
defines its current (not necessarily ultimate) status as an alien. This scheme
objectively defines "casual", "naturalized" and "invasive" species [adapted
from Richardson et al. (2002a)].
There are two main groups of definitions of ‘invasive’:
1. Those based on ‘biological/ecological’ principles and more or less objective
and measurable criteria - invasive species are a subset of naturalized species
that produce reproductive offspring, often in very large numbers, are able to
disperse considerable distances from parent populations, and thus have the
potential to spread over a large area (Richardson et al., 2000b; Pyšek et al.,
2004a). The advantage of this definition is that ‘invasive’ taxa can be defined,
using reasonably objective criteria, according to their position along the
‘naturalization-invasion’ continuum (Richardson et al., 2000b; see Figure 1).
Importantly, the definition infers no connotation of impact.
2. The second category of definitions may be lumped under the heading
‘anthropocentric’ - invasive species are those that are alien to the ecosystem
under question, and whose introduction causes, or is likely to cause,
economic or environmental harm to human health. This definition has been
widely adopted in policies, including such influential ones as the Executive
Order 13112 of 1999 signed by President Clinton in the USA
[http://www.invasivespecies.gov/laws/execorder.shtml]. The
rationale for such a definition is usually stated as being the need to focus the
attention of policy makers on the biggest problems. A substantial problem
with this definition is that many impacts are not readily measurable or, in the
absence of objective criteria for comparing impacts of different species in
different ecosystems, assigned meaningful currency. At what stage in an
invasion can an alien organism be considered to be causing ‘harm’? And,
given the problem inherent in predicting which alien species are likely to
invade (i.e. spread), how can we decide which species are likely to cause
harm? Nonetheless, the definition adopted by GISP reads "Invasive alien
species are non-native organisms that cause, or have the potential to cause,
harm to the environment, economies, or human health".
A most readable review of the debate in this regard, dealing with issues such as
whether it is practical or desirable to include impact as an integral part of the
definition of ‘invasive’ or not, and discrepancies between scientific and popular usage
of the term is provided by Carlton (2002).
The most intense and challenging debate on defining ‘alien’ and ‘invasive’ species
has focused on plants. This is probably because there is generally much more precise
geographical data available for plant species than for most other types of organisms.
This is partly because most plants stand still and wait to be counted, allowing their
populations to be mapped accurately. They do not migrate. Evaluating geographical
ranges is generally much more difficult for animals, even for large, conspicuous
species.
Although the term ‘invasive’ has lost its precise meaning through convoluted usage,
it is likely to remain in widespread use, especially in socio-political circles. Some
prominent ecologists are abandoning the term ‘invasive’ as a scientific concept.
Back to Top
7. What terminology should research scientists, policy makers,
conservationists and quarantine staff use for practical applications in the
future?
This question has yet to be debated with sufficient vigour in the relevant forums and
international conventions. Urgent attention is required to harmonize concepts and
develop international guidelines for practical application by policy makers,
researchers, phytosanitary organizations, conservationists, etc. Whatever
terminology is used, several key points must be considered. Firstly, it is essential
that objective criteria be used to separate native from alien taxa wherever possible.
Cryptogenic species will remain a problem in this regard, but focused biogeographic
and systematic studies currently underway will improve the situation somewhat.
Secondly, particulars of space and time are essential: a species may well be invasive
at one locality at one time, but not invasive under other situations. Guidelines for the
practical use of concepts such as ‘potentially invasive’ and ‘potentially causing harm’
are urgently required. Thirdly, if impact is used as a criterion for labelling species as
invasive, objective parameters that define such impact should be used.
Back to Top
8. References
Abbott RJ, 1992. Plant invasions, interspecific hybridisation and the evolution of new
plant taxa. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 7:401-405.
Carlton JT, 1996. Biological invasions and cryptogenic species. Ecology, 77:16531655.
Carlton JT, 2002. Bioinvasion ecology: assessing invasion impact and scale. In:
Leppäkoski E, Gollasch S, Olenin S, eds. Invasive Aquatic Species of Europe.
Distribution, Impacts, and Management. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic Publishers, 7-19.
Chittka L, Schürkens S, 2001. Successful invasion of a floral market. Nature,
411:653.
Clement EJ, Foster MC, 1994. Alien plants of the British Isles: a provisional catalogue
of vascular plants (excluding grasses). London, UK: Botanical Society of the British
Isles.
Colautti IR, McIsaac HJ, 2004. A neutral terminology to define ‘invasive’ species.
Diversity and Distributions, 10:135-141.
Crawley MJ, Harvey PH, Purvis A, 1996. Comparative ecology of the native and alien
floras of the British Isles. Biological Transactions of the Royal Society of Botany,
351:1251-1259.
Daehler CC, 2001. Two ways to be an invader, but one is more suitable for ecology.
Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 82: 206.
Daehler CC, Carino D, 2001. Hybridization between native and alien plants and its
consequences. In: Lockwood JL, McKinney M, eds. Biotic Homogenization. The
Netherlands: Kluwer/Plenum Publishers, 81-102.
Daehler CC, Strong DR, 1994. Variable reproductive output among clones of Spartina
alterniflora (Poaceae) including San Francisco Bay, California: the influence of
herbivory, pollination and establishment rate. American Journal of Botany, 81:307313.
Daehler CC, Strong DR, 1996. Status, prediction and prevention of introduced
cordgrass Spartina spp. invasions in Pacific estuaries, USA. Biological Conservation,
78:51-58.
Davis MA, Grime JP, Thompson K, 2000. Fluctuating resources in plant communities:
a general theory of invasibility. Journal of Ecology, 88:528-534.
Davis MA, Thompson K, 2000. Eight ways to be a colonizer, two ways to be an
invader: A proposed nomenclature scheme for invasion ecology. Bulletin of the
Ecological Society of America, 81:206.
di Castri F, 1989. History of biological invasions with special emphasis on the Old
World. In: Drake JA et al., eds. Biological Invasions: A Global Perspective. John Wiley
and Sons, 1-30.
Ellstrand NC, Schierenbeck KA, 2000. Hybridization as a stimulus for the evolution of
invasiveness in plants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97:70437050.
Ernst WHO, 1998. Invasion, dispersal and ecology of the South African neophyte
Senecio inaequidens in the Netherlands: From wool alien to railway and road alien.
Acta Botanica Neerlandica 47:131-151.
Ewel JJ, O’Dowd D, Bergelson DJ, Daehler J, D’Antonio CM, 1999. Deliberate
introductions of species: Research needs. BioScience, 49:619-630.
Frank JH, McCoy ED, 1992. The immigration of insects to Florida, with a tabulation of
records published since 1970. Florida Entomologist, 75:1-28.
Frank JH, McCoy ED, 1995. Invasive adventive insects and other organisms in
Florida. Florida Entomologist Online, 78:1-15.
Hobbs RJ, Huenneke LF, 1992. Disturbance, diversity and invasion: implications for
conservation. Conservation Biology, 6:324-337.
Huey RB, Gilchrist GW, Carlson ML, Berrigan D, Serra L, 2000. Rapid evolution of a
geographic cline in size in an introduced fly. Science, 287:308-309.
Keane RM, Crawley MJ, 2002. Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release
hypothesis. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 17:164-170.
Klironomos JN, 2002. Feedback with soil biota contributes to plant rarity and
invasiveness in communities. Nature, 417:67-70.
Kowarik I, 1995. Time lags in biological invasions with regard to the success and
failure of alien species. In: Pyšek P et al., eds. Plant Invasions: General Aspects and
Special Problems. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: SPB Academic Publishing, 15-38.
Lee CE, 2002. Evolutionary genetics of invasive species. Trends in Ecology and
Evolution, 17:386-391.
Lonsdale WM, 1999. Global patterns of plant invasions and the concept of
invasibility. Ecology, 80:1522-1536.
Mack RN, 2000. Cultivation fosters plant naturalization by reducing environmental
stochasticity. Biological Invasions, 2:111-122.
McNeely JA, Mooney HA, Neville LE, Schei PJ, Waage JK, 2001. Global Strategy on
Invasive Alien Species. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
Mooney HA, Hobbs RJ, 2000. Invasive Species in a Changing World. Washington DC,
USA: Island Press.
Petit R, 2004. Biological invasions at the gene level. Diversity and Distributions,
10:159-165.
Perry WL, Feder JL, Dwyer G, Lodge DM, 2001. Hybrid zone dynamics and species
replacement between Orconectes crayfishes in a northern Wisconsin lake. Evolution,
55:1153-1166.
Pimentel D, 2002. Biological Invasions: Economic and Environmental Costs of Alien
Plant, Animal and Microbe Species. Boca Raton, USA: CRC Press.
Preston CD, Pearman DA, Dines TD, 2002. New Atlas of the British and Irish flora.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Pyšek P, 1992. Dominant species exchange during succession in reclaimed habitats:
a case study from areas deforested due to air pollution. Forest Ecology and
Management, 54:27-44.
Pyšek P, Brock JH, Bímová K, Mandák B, Jarošík V, Koukolíková I, Pergl J, Štěpánek
J, 2003. Vegetative regeneration in invasive Reynoutria (Polygonaceae) taxa: the
determinant of invasibility at the genotype level. American Journal of Botany,
90:1487-1495.
Pyšek P, Richardson DM, Rejmánek M, Webster GL, Williamson M, Kirschner J,
2004a. Alien plants in checklists and floras: towards better communication between
taxonomists and ecologists. Taxon, 53:131-143.
Pyšek P, Richardson DM, Williamson M, 2004b. Predicting and explaining plant
invasions through analysis of source area floras: some critical considerations.
Diversity and Distributions, 10:179-187.
Randall RP, 2002. A Global Compendium of Weeds. Melbourne, Australia: RG and FJ
Richardson.
Rejmánek M, 1995. What makes a species invasive? In: Pyšek P, Prach K, Rejmánek
M, Wade M, eds. Plant Invasions: General Aspects and Special Problems.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: SPB Academic Publishing, 3-13.
Rejmánek M, 1996. Species richness and resistance to invasions. In: Orians GH,
Dirzo R, Cushman JH, eds. Diversity and Processes in Tropical Forest Ecosystems.
Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 153-72.
Rejmánek M, 2000. Invasive plants: approaches and predictions. Austral Ecology,
25:497-506.
Rejmánek M, Richardson DM, 1996. What attributes make some plant species more
invasive? Ecology, 77:1655-1661.
Rejmánek M, Richardson DM, Barbour MG, Crawley MJ, Hrusa GF, Moyle PB, Randall
JM, Simberloff D, Williamson M, 2002. Biological invasions: politics and the
discontinuity of ecological terminology. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America,
83(2):131-133.
Richardson DM, Pyšek P, Rejmánek M, Barbour MG, Panetta DF, West CJ, 2000a.
Naturalization and invasion of alien plants - concepts and definitions. Diversity and
Distributions, 6:93-107.
Richardson DM, Allsopp N, D’Antonio CM, Milton SJ, Rejmánek M, 2000b. Plant
invasions - the role of mutualisms. Biological Reviews, 75:65-93.
Rolls EC, 1985. More a new planet than a new continent. CRES Paper 3. Australian
National University, Canberra, Australia: Centre for Resource and Environmental
Studies.
Ruiz GM, Carlton JT, 2003. Invasive Species. Vectors and Management Strategies.
Washington DC, USA: Island Press.
Saltonstall K, 2002. Cryptic invasion by non-native genotypes of the common reed,
Phragmites australis, into North America. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 99:2445-2449.
Shea K, Chesson P, 2002. Community ecology theory as a framework for biological
invasions. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 17:170-176.
Vila M, D’Antonio C, 1998. Fruit choice and seed dispersal of invasive vs. noninvasive Carpobrotus (Aizoaceae) in coastal California. Ecology, 79:1053-1060.
Vitousek PM, Walker LR, 1989. Biological invasion by Myrica faya in Hawai’i: plant
demography, nitrogen fixation, ecosystem effects. Ecological Monographs, 59:24765.
Wacquant JP, 1990. Biogeographical and physiological aspects of the invasion of
Dittrichia (ex: Inula) viscosa Greuter, a ruderal species in the Mediterranean Basin.
In: di Castri F, Hansen AJ, Debussche M, eds. Biological Invasions in Europe and the
Mediterranean Basin. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer, 353–364.
Williamson M, 1993. Invaders, weeds and the risk from genetically modified
organisms. Experientia, 49:219-224.
Williamson M, 1996. Biological Invasions. London, UK: Chapman and Hall.
Williamson M, 1998. Measuring the impact of plant invaders in Britain. In: Starfinger
U, Edwards K, Kowarik I, Williamson M, eds. Plant Invasions: Ecological Mechanisms
and Human Responses. The Netherlands: Backhuys Publishers, 33-42.
Willis AJ, Memmott J, Forrester RI, 2000. Is there evidence for the post-invasion
evolution of increased size among invasive plants species? Ecology Letters, 3:275283.
Wu S-H, Chaw S, Rejmánek M, 2003. Naturalized Fabaceae (Leguminosae) species in
Taiwan: the first approximation. Botanical Bulletin of Academia Sinica, 44:59-66.
Back to Top
Table 1. Suggestions for a standardized terminology for alien species
[adapted from Pyšek et al. (2004a) unless stated otherwise].
Native species (applies to all taxonomic groups)
Synonym: indigenous species.
Definition: taxa that have originated/evolved in a given area without human
involvement or that have arrived there without intentional or unintentional
intervention of humans from an area in which they are native.
Interpretation: this definition excludes products of hybridization involving alien taxa
since ‘human involvement’ in this case includes the introduction of an alien parent.
Alien species (applies to all taxonomic groups)
Synonyms: exotic species; introduced species; non-native species; non-indigenous
species.
Definition: taxa in a given area (see below) whose presence there is due to
intentional or unintentional human involvement, or which have arrived there without
the help of people from an area in which they are alien.
Interpretation: taxa can be alien to any definable geographical area, e.g. continents,
islands, bio- or ecoregions, or any political entity (e.g. countries, states, provinces).
Reference to human involvement in the definition does not include habitat changes,
global warming, atmospheric nitrogen fertilization, acid rain, etc. Native species that
change their geographical range due to these processes should not be considered
aliens unless there is clear evidence of significant leaps in distribution attributable to
human-aided dispersal of propagules. For the purpose of particular studies, a
geographic modifier should be included of how far a taxon has to be moved by
human activities from the border of its native distribution to be considered alien. It
would normally be arbitrary where political boundaries are involved, and natural
where biogeographic boundaries exist, e.g. between islands and mainlands, on the
borders of phytogeographical regions or wherever there are natural barriers. The
term alien also includes all non-native taxa under cultivation. Many alien taxa that
currently are not casual aliens, naturalized species or invasive species, may become
such in the future.
Cryptogenic species (applies to all taxonomic groups, but most often to
microscopic or other taxa with poor taxonomic resolution).
Synonyms: none known.
Definition: species that are not demonstrably native or alien (Carlton, 1996).
Interpretation: the term ‘cryptogenic’ is gaining widespread acceptance in the marine
invasions literature, has slowly crept into the freshwater realm, but has made only
minor inroads into the terrestrial literature. Cryptogenic has been mistakenly used to
mean an introduced species whose original home is not known, i.e. of unknown
geographic origin, albeit clearly recognized as non-native.
Casual alien species (applies to all taxonomic groups)
Synonyms: given the difficulties associated with definition of casual plants, there are
no consistently used synonyms in the literature [see Pyšek et al. (2004a) for
discussion].
Definition: taxa that may flourish and even reproduce occasionally as aliens outside
cultivation or captivity in an area, but that eventually die out because they do not
form self-replacing populations, and rely entirely on repeated introductions for their
persistence.
Naturalized species (applies to all taxonomic groups)
Synonym: established species; feral species (see below).
Definition: alien species that sustain self-regenerating populations for a reasonable
period of time (see below), unsupported by and independent of humans.
Interpretation: naturalized species do not necessarily invade natural, semi-natural or
human-made ecosystems. How long a species must persist to be considered
naturalized is inevitably arbitrary, and this affects how the definition should be used
in practice [see Pyšek et al. (2004a) for discussion relating to plants].
Feral species (usually applied to animals [mostly mammals, birds and fish], but
also to invertebrates [mostly insects]).
Definition: species that have lapsed into a wild form from a domesticated condition.
Interpretation: various analogical terms are used for plants introduced to cultivation
and subsequently escaping: cultivation relics, garden/greenhouse escapes (Clement
and Foster, 1994).
Invasive species (applies to all taxa)
Definition: invasive species are a subset of naturalized species that produce
reproductive offspring, often in very large numbers, are capable of
dispersal/movement over considerable distances from the parent populations, and
thus have the potential to spread over a large area.
Interpretation: ‘over considerable distance’ is ideally defined, but different criteria
are required for different types of organisms. For plants, Richardson et al. (2000a)
suggested the following approximate spatial scales: >100 m in <50 years for taxa
spreading by seeds and other propagules for dioecious taxa that rely exclusively on
seeds for reproduction, this applies only after the introduction of both sexes; and >6
m in 3 years for taxa spreading by roots, rhizomes, stolons, or creeping stems. To
our knowledge, no comparable dimensions have been proposed for animals.
Organisms should be labelled ‘invasive’ with reference to a given geographic locality.
Organisms that spread previously, but do not spread currently because the total
range of suitable habitats and landscapes has been occupied, should still be termed
invasive because local eradication will undoubtedly lead to re-invasion. Many alien
taxa that are not classified as ‘invasive’ by the criteria above may become invasive in
the future, given time to reach optimum habitats, to make adaptive genetic changes,
or when key mutualist partners (mainly for plants) arrive in their new range; some
taxa may also become invasive because of the introduction of new genotypes. The
definition infers no connotation of impact, although many invasive species do have
impact.
Transformers (applies to plants)
Synonyms: transformers are essentially equivalent with edificators (‘environment
forming plants’), a term used in the European, especially Russian, literature.
Definition: a subset of invasive plants (not necessarily alien) that change the
character, condition, form or nature of ecosystems over a substantial area;
substantial meaning relative to the extent of that ecosystem.
Interpretation: the term is an ecological one; a plant can be a transformer without
receiving human attention by way of economic concern or control efforts. Several
categories of transformers may be distinguished: excessive users of resources
(water, light, oxygen), donors of limiting resources (nitrogen), fire
promoters/suppressors, sand stabilizers, erosion promoters, colonizers of intertidal
mudflats/sediment stabilizers, litter accumulators, salt accumulators/redistributors,
etc. [see Richardson et al. (2000a), Table 1, for examples of species].
Pests (applies to all taxa)
Synonyms: harmful species; problem species; noxious species. The last term is often
used, particularly in USA, for a subset of taxa whose control/eradication is
mandatory.
Definition: taxa (not necessarily alien) that grow or live in sites where they are not
wanted and which have detectable economic or environmental impact or both.
Interpretation: for plants, a special term ‘weed’ is used besides those given above.
This term is anthropocentric and a plant is considered a weed if it interferes with
human objectives. The terms ‘environmental weeds’ or ‘species of environmental
concern’ are used for alien plant taxa that invade natural vegetation, usually
adversely affecting native biodiversity and/or ecosystem functioning [see Pyšek et al.
(2004a) for discussion].
Back to Section 6
Back to Top
Back to Contents page