Invasions: the trail behind, the path ahead, and a test of a disturbing idea

• Autores: Moles, Angela; Flores Moreno, Habacuc; Bonser, Stephen P.; Warton, David I.; Helm, Aveliina; Warman, Laura; Eldridge, David J.; Jurado, Enrique; Hemmings, Frank A.; Reich, Peter B.; Cavender Bares, Jeannine; Seabloom, Eric William; Mayfield, Margaret M.; Sheil, Douglas; Djietror, Jonathan C.; Peri, Pablo Luis; Enrico, Lucas; Cabido, Marcelo Ruben; Setterfield, Samantha; Lehman, Caroline; Thomson, Fiona
• Año de publicación: 2012
• Idioma: inglés
• Tipo de recurso: artículo
• Fuente: Journal of Ecology 100 (1) : 116-127 (January 2012)
• Materia: Plantas; Especies Introducidas; Especie Invasiva; Pastoreo; Ecología; Plants; Introduced Species; Invasive Species; Grazing; Ecology; Especies no Nativas
• Institución: Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria

We provide a brief overview of progress in our understanding of introduced plant species. Three main conclusions emerge from our review: (i) Many lines of research, including the search for traits that make species good invaders, or that make ecosystems susceptible to invasion, are yielding idiosyncratic results. To move forward, we advocate a more synthetic approach that incorporates a range of different types of information about the introduced species and the communities and habitats they are invading. (ii) Given the growing evidence for the adaptive capacity of both introduced species and recipient communities, we need to consider the implications of the long‐term presence of introduced species in our ecosystems. (iii) Several foundational ideas in invasion biology have become widely accepted without appropriate testing, or despite equivocal evidence from empirical tests. One such idea is the suggestion that disturbance facilitates invasion. We use data from 200 sites around the world to provide a broad test of the hypothesis that invasions are better predicted by a change in disturbance regime than by disturbance per se. Neither disturbance nor change in disturbance regime explained more than 7% of the variation in the % of cover or species richness contributed by introduced species. However, change in disturbance regime was a significantly better predictor than was disturbance per se, explaining approximately twice as much variation as did disturbance. Synthesis: Disturbance is a weak predictor of invasion. To increase predictive power, we need to consider multiple variables (both intrinsic and extrinsic to the site) simultaneously. Variables that describe the changes sites have undergone may be particularly informative.
Fil: Moles, Angela. The University of New South Wales. School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences. Evolution & Ecology Research Centre; Australia
Fil: Flores Moreno, Habacuc. The University of New South Wales. School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences. Evolution & Ecology Research Centre; Australia
Fil: Bonser, Stephen P.. The University of New South Wales. School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences. Evolution & Ecology Research Centre; Australia
Fil: Warton, David I.. The University of New South Wales. School of Mathematics and Statistics and Evolution & Ecology Research Centre; Australia
Fil: Helm, Aveliina. University of Tartu. Institute of Ecology and Earth Sciences; Estonia
Fil: Warman, Laura. The University of New South Wales. School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences. Evolution & Ecology Research Centre; Australia
Fil: Eldridge, David J.. The University of New South Wales. School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences. Evolution & Ecology Research Centre; Australia
Fil: Jurado, Enrique. Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León. School of Forest Sciences; México
Fil: Hemmings, Frank A.. The University of New South Wales. School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences. Evolution & Ecology Research Centre; Australia
Fil: Reich, Peter B. University of Minnesota. Department of Forest Resources; Estados Unidos. University of Western Sydney. Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment; Australia
Fil: Cavender Bares, Jeannine. University of Minnesota. Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior; Estados Unidos
Fil: Seabloom, Eric W. University of Minnesota. Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior; Estados Unidos
Fil: Mayfield, Margaret M.. The University of Queensland. School of Biological Sciences; Australia
Fil: Sheil, Douglas. Mbarara University of Science and Technology. Institute for Tropical Forest Conservation; Uganda. Center for International Forestry Research; Indonesia. Southern Cross University. School of Environmental Science and Management; Australia
Fil: Djietror, Jonathan C. Hokkaido University. Graduate School of Environmental Science. Laboratory of Ecological Genetics; Japón
Fil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Santa Cruz; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
Fil: Enrico, Lucas. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; Argentina
Fil: Cabido, Marcelo Ruben. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; Argentina
Fil: Setterfield, Samantha. Charles Darwin University. Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihood; Australia
Fil: Lehman, Caroline. Macquarie University. Department of Biological Sciences; Australia
Fil: Thomson, Fiona. Landcare Research; Nueva Zelanda