Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-g8tfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-29T23:48:13.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Origin matters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

MARCEL REJMÁNEK  and
DANIEL SIMBERLOFF
MARCEL REJMÁNEK*
Affiliation:
Department of Evolution and Ecology, University of California, Davis, California 95616, USA
DANIEL SIMBERLOFF
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee 37996, USA
*
*Correspondence: Professor Marcel Rejmánek Tel: +1 530 752 1092 e-mail: mrejmanek@ucdavis.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Van der Wal et al. (2015) (henceforth VdW) attempted to evaluate the degree to which the geographical origin of a species shapes people's attitudes towards conservation management decisions. Based on questionnaire surveys of the general public and experts from Scotland and Canada, the authors perceive “widespread use of the label ‘non-native’ as a proxy for harmfulness” and a species' origin as being used as shorthand for “harmfulness” (pp. 349 & 352). However, the authors cited by VdW do not take such a categorical view. Invasions of non-native species are also often just symptoms, not causes of human-created environmental changes. VdW focus on well-known species with long introduction histories for which the potential abundance and impact can plausibly be judged by experts and the public alike. However, when a decision is to be made regarding whether a non-native taxon that is not yet present in the local biota should be introduced, or whether a recently established and geographically restricted but spreading non-native taxon should be controlled, the taxon's origin should be a primary component in the decision-making process.

Information

Type
Comment
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , June 2017 , pp. 97 - 99
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Buckley, Y.M. & Catford, J. (2016) Does the biogeographic origin of species matter? Journal of Ecology 104: 4–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callaway, R.M., Cipollini, D., Barto, K., Thelen, G.C., Hallett, S.G., Pati, D. et al. (2008) Novel weapons: invasive plant suppresses fungal mutualists in America but not in its native Europe. Ecology 89: 1043–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'Antonio, C.M. & Vitousek, P.M. (1992) Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, and global change. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 23: 63–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driscoll, D.A., Catford, J.A., Barney, J.N., Hulme, P.E., Inderjit, Martin, T.G. et al. (2014) New pasture plants intensify invasive species risk. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111: 16622–16627.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foxcroft, L.R., Richardson, D.M., Rejmánek, M. & Pysek, P. (2010) Alien plant invasions in tropical and sub-tropical savannas. Biological Invasions 12: 3913–3933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fridley, J.D. & Sax, D.F. (2014) The imbalance of nature: revisiting a Darwinian framework for invasion biology. Global Ecology and Biogeography 23: 1157–1166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hassan, A. & Ricciardi, A. (2014) Are non-native species more likely to become pests? Frontiers of Ecology and Environment 12: 218–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hejda, M., Štajerová, K. & Pyšek, P. (2016) Dominance has a biogeographical component. Journal of Biogeography (DOI: 10.1111/jbi.12801).Google Scholar
Hill, S.B. & Kotanen, P.M. (2009) Evidence that phylogenetically novel non-indigenous plants experience less herbivory. Oecologia 161: 581–590.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hulme, P.E. (2012) Weed risk assessment: a way forward or a waste of time? Journal of Applied Ecology 49: 10–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeschke, J.M. & Strayer, D.L. (2008) Are threat status and invasion success two sides of the same coin? Ecography 31: 124–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leopold, A. (1942, 1999). Biotic land-use. In: Aldo Leopold. For the Health of the Land. Previously Unpublished Essays and Other Writings, eds. Callicott, J.B. & Freyfogle, E.T., pp. 198–207. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press.Google Scholar
Lima, R.A.F., Rother, D.C., Muler, A.E., Lepsch, I.F. & Rodrigues, R.R. (2012) Bamboo overabundance alters forest structure and dynamics in the Atlantic Forest hotspot. Biological Conservation 147: 32–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lonsdale, W.M. (1994) Inviting trouble: introduced pasture species in northern Australia. Australian Journal of Ecology 19: 345–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morales, C.L. & Traveset, A. (2009) A meta-analysis of impacts of alien vs. native plants on pollinator visitation and reproductive success of co-flowering native plants. Ecology Letters 12: 716–728.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moyle, P.B. & Marchetti, M.P. (2006) Predicting invasion success: freshwater fishes in California as a model. BioScience 56: 515–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novoa, A., Kaplan, H., Wilson, J.R.U. & Richardson, D.M. (2016) Resolving a prickly situation: involving stakeholders in invasive cactus management in South Africa. Environmental Management 57: 998–1008.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paolucci, E.M., MacIsaac, H.J. & Ricciardi, A. (2013) Origin matters: alien consumers inflict greater damage on prey populations than do native consumers. Diversity and Distributions 19: 988–995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rejmánek, M. & Pitcairn, M.J. (2002) When is eradication of exotic pest plants a realistic goal? In: Turning the Tide: The Eradication of Invasive Species, eds. Veitch, C.R. & Clout, M.N., pp. 249–253. Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK: IUCN.Google Scholar
Rejmánek, M. & Randall, J.M. (2004) The total number of naturalized species can be a reliable predictor of the number of alien pest species. Diversity and Distributions 10: 367–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ricciardi, A. & Kipp, R. (2008) Predicting the number of ecologically harmful exotic species in an aquatic system. Diversity and Distributions 14: 374–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, D.M. & Rejmánek, M. (2011) Trees and shrubs as invasive alien species – a global review. Diversity and Distributions 17: 788–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, J.C. & Broome, K.G. (2016) Fifty years of rodent eradication in New Zealand: another decade of advances. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 40: 197–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seabloom, E.W., Borer, E.T., Buckley, Y.M., Cleland, E.E., Davies, K.F., Fim, J. et al. (2015) Plant species’ origin predicts dominance and response to nutrient enrichment and herbivores in global grasslands. Nature Communications 6: 7710.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simberloff, D., Souza, L., Nunez, M.A., Barrios-Garcia, M.N. & Bunn, W. (2012) The natives are restless, but not often and mostly when disturbed. Ecology 93: 598–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuble, K.L. & Souza, L. (2016) Priority effects: natives, but not exotics, pay to arrive late. Journal of Ecology (DOI: 10.1111/1365-2745.12583).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, Y., Müller-Schärer, H., Maron, J.L. & Schaffner, U. (2015) Biogeographic effects on early establishment of an invasive alien plant. American Journal of Botany 102: 621–625.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, K.T., Maxwell, B.D., Pauchard, A., Nunez, A. & Rew, L. (2016) Native versus non-native invasions: biodiversity impacts of Pinus contorta in introduced and native ranges. Diversity and Distributions 22: 578–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Wal, R., Fischer, A., Selge, S. & Larson, B.M.H. (2015) Neither the public nor experts judge species primarily on their origins. Environmental Conservation 42: 349–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilsey, B.J., Barber, K. & Martin, L.M. (2015) Exotic grassland species have stronger priority effects than natives regardless of whether they are cultivated or wild genotypes. New Phytologist 205: 928–937.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Rejmanek Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material

Download Rejmanek Supplementary Material(File)
File 12.6 KB