Content uploaded by Keith M. Bayha
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Keith M. Bayha on May 15, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Ecological Studies,Vol. 193
Analysis and Synthesis
Edited by
M.M. Caldwell, Logan, USA
G. Heldmaier, Marburg, Germany
R.B. Jackson, Durham, USA
O.L. Lange,Würzburg, Germany
H.A. Mooney, Stanford, USA
E.-D. Schulze, Jena, Germany
U. Sommer, Kiel, Germany
Ecological Studies
Volumes published since 2002 are listed at the end of this book.
1 23
W. Nentwig (Ed.)
Biological Invasions
With 38 Figures and 19 Tables
ISSN 0070-8356
ISBN-10 3-540-36919-8 Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York
ISBN-13 978-3-540-36919-6 Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York
Library of Congress Control Number: 2006934733
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned,
specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilm or in any other way,and storage in data banks. Duplication of this publication or parts thereof is permit-
ted only under the provisions of the German Copyright Law of September 9, 1965,in its current version,and per-
missions for use must always be obtained from Springer-Verlag. Violations are liable for prosecution under the
German Copyright Law.
Springer is a part of Springer Science+Business Media
springer.com
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007
The use of general descriptive names, registered names,trademarks, etc.in this publication does not imply, even in
the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations
and therefore free for general use.
Editor: Dr.Dieter Czeschlik,Heidelberg, Germany
Desk editor: Dr.Andrea Schlitzberger, Heidelberg, Germany
Cover design: WMXDesign GmbH,Heidelberg,Germany
Typesetting and production: Friedmut Kröner, Heidelberg,Germany
31/3152 YK – 5 4 3 2 1 0 – Printed on acid free paper
Prof. Dr.Wolfgang Nentwig
Community Ecology
Zoological Institute
University of Bern
Baltzerstrasse 6
3012 Bern
Switzerland
Cover illustration: The cover drawing shows the global dimensions of three invasion his-
tories. (1) Imports of the first potato (Solanum tuberosum) from the Andean highlands
to Europe began around 1550. In the eighteenth century potatoes were brought to the
east coast of North America from where potato cultivation expanded to the west coast,
until potatoes came into contact with the native weed Solanum rostratum. From this
plant, the Colorado potato beetle (Leptinotarsa decemlineata) switched in 1859 to
Solanum tuberosum, reached via potato fields the east coast of North America, crossed
the Atlantic in 1874, and invaded Europe to East Asia. (2) The common water hyacinth
(Eichhornia crassipes), native to a small area in tropical South America,has been spread
into the tropical and subtropical areas of all continents.(3) In Brazil, cultivated European
honey bees (Apis mellifera) and African wild forms of the honey bee, were interbred.
Around 1956,colonies of the so-called Africanized honey bee escaped and these are cur-
rently spreading into North America.
Preface
Yet another book on “Biological Invasions”? It is true, the market already pro-
vides several recent works on this topic and, in the next few years, probably
many more will follow.There are, however, two important points which argue
in favour of the relevance and need of exactly this book.
Most books on biological invasions treat only a small part of the subject.
They cover either invasive plants or invasive pest arthropods,address invasive
species of a country, an island or a habitat,discuss the impact of alien species
on economy or evolution, or gather an impressive number of case studies.
This book is clearly different insofar that it attempts to cover all (or at least
most) of these undoubtedly very important topics.A joint effort of 42 special-
ists, it deals with plants and animals, includes both the terrestrial and the
aquatic environment, guides us from ecology via economy to socio-economy,
and comprises also administrative and management aspects. Our intention is
a strong focus on mechanisms and so,in the opening chapters we analyse the
main pathways of biological invasions and discuss the traits of good invaders.
The patterns of invasion and invasibility point to central aspects such as land
management,nitrogen pollution or climate change.A presentation of the eco-
logical impact of invasive species, based on striking case studies from major
ecosystems worldwide, also tackles the key question whether genetically
modified organisms may become invasive. This all includes relevant eco-
nomic and socio-economic facets. The closing chapters claim an enormous
current lack of preventive means, and demand more administrative and con-
trol measures as well as eradication programs.
This all leads to my second main point, of urgent need. We already live in a
global world, in which the globalizing process has started with full power only
a few decades ago. Still, the pace will increase considerably, and there will be
ever more people and goods moving from one point of the world to another.
This complete loss of biogeographical borders will lead to much more alien
species everywhere and an increasing number of these will become invasive.
Invasion biology,until recently known only to a few experts,is becoming ever
more topical in newspapers,keeping governments and administrations more
than busy. The public awareness of biohazard due to invasive species is rising.
Still, this process,reaching from the public opinion to politicians and a grow-
ing scientific community, needs to be intensified even more to face biological
invasions as the most serious threat to biodiversity.
This work is based on the joint effort of all authors and co-authors
involved, and I wish to thank these all for their state-of-the-art contributions.
It was truly an enjoyable task producing this book together.Warmest thanks
also go to the many people behind the scenes,helping us in many ways,and to
the publisher who invited me to edit this book.
Bern, September 2006 Wolfgang Nentwig
PrefaceVI
Contents
1 Biological Invasions: why it Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Wolfga n g Nent wig
Section I Pathways of Biological Invasions
Short Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Wolfga n g Nent wig
2 Pathways in Animal Invasions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Wolfga n g Nent wig
2.1 Natural Dispersal Versus more Recent Invasions . . . . . . . 11
2.2 Unintentional Introductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2.1 Transports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2.1.1 Tramps in Vehicles and Planes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2.1.2 Waterways and Shipping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.2.1.3 Transported Plant Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.2.2 Escapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.3 Intentional Introductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.3.1 Human Nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.3.1.1 Global Distribution of Domesticated Animals . . . . . . . . 18
2.3.1.2 Release of Mammals and Birds for Hunting . . . . . . . . . 19
2.3.1.3 Release of Fish and Other Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.3.2 Beneficials or Biological Control Agents . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.3.2.1 Vertebrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.3.2.2 Invertebrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.3.3 Ornamental Animals and Pets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3 Pathways in Plant Invasions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Ingo Kowarik and Moritz von der Lippe
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.2 Introductions to a New Range: Relative Role
of Deliberate Versus Accidental Transfer of Species . . . . . 30
3.2.1 Introduction Mode and Invasion Success . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.2.2 Coinciding Pathways of Deliberate
and Accidental Introductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.2.3 Invasions at the Infra-Specific Level
Through Deliberate Introductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.3 Deliberate Secondary Releases Within the New Range . . . . 35
3.3.1 Cultivation as a Driver in Plant Invasions . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.3.2 From Clumped to Linear Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.4 Accidental Transfer of Non-Target Species . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.4.1 Transfer by Goods: Spatial-Temporal Separation
of Propagule Transport and Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.4.2 Direct Association with Vehicles: Coincidence
of Transport and Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.4.2.1 Adhesion to Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.2.2 Transport Routes: from Patterns to Processes . . . . . . . . 40
3.4.3 Role of Living Conveyers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4 Is Ballast Water a Major Dispersal Mechanism
for Marine Organisms? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Stephan Gollasch
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4.2 Vectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.3 Relative Vector Importance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.4 Ballast Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4.5 Risk-Reducing Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4.6 Ballast Water Management Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
4.7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
ContentsVIII
5 Waterways as Invasion Highways –
Impact of Climate Change and Globalization . . . . . . . . 59
Bella S. Galil, Stefan Nehring and Vadim Panov
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
5.2 The Watery Web – Inland Waterways of Europe . . . . . . . 60
5.3 Aquatic Highways for Invasion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5.4 Hot and Hotter – the Role of Temperature
in European Waterways Invasions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
5.5 Future of Waterways Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
5.6 Suez and Panama – the Interoceanic Canals . . . . . . . . . 67
5.7 Globalization and Shipping – “Size Matters” . . . . . . . . . 69
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Section II Traits of a Good Invader
Short Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Wolfga n g Nent wig
6 Integrating Ecological and Evolutionary Theory
of Biological Invasions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Ruth A. Hufbauer and Mark E. Torchin
6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
6.2 Hypotheses to Explain Biological Invasion . . . . . . . . . . 82
6.2.1 Ecological Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
6.2.2 Evolutionary Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
6.3 Proposed Refinements to Hypotheses, Predictions and Tests 87
6.3.1 Refining the Enemy Release Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . 87
6.3.2 Refining the Evolution of Increased Competitive
Ability Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
6.4 Recent Syntheses and Synergies Between Hypotheses . . . . 88
6.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Contents IX
7 Traits Associated with Invasiveness in Alien Plants:
Where Do we Stand? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Petr Pys
ˇek and David M. Richardson
7.1 History of the Search for Traits and Shifts in Research Focus 97
7.2 Comparative Analyses of Multispecies Datasets:
Every Picture Tells a Story . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
7.2.1 Methodological Approaches: what is Being Compared? . . . 99
7.2.2 Data, Scale and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
7.2.3 Main Findings of Comparative
Multispecies Studies (1995–2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
7.2.4 Biases to Bear in Mind: Residence Time,Scale and Stage . . 111
7.2.5 Message from Comparative Multispecies Studies . . . . . . 112
7.3 Studies of Congeners and Confamilials . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
7.3.1 Assumptions for Congeneric Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
7.3.2 Searching for Generalities Within Genera . . . . . . . . . . . 114
7.4 Combining Approaches: Pooling the Evidence . . . . . . . . 119
7.5 Conclusions:Where Do we Stand? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
8 Do Successful Invaders Exist? Pre-Adaptations
to Novel Environments in Terrestrial Vertebrates . . . . . . 127
Daniel Sol
8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
8.2 Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
8.3 Do Successful Invaders Exist? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
8.4 What Makes a Species a Successful Invader? . . . . . . . . . 132
8.5 Conclusions and Future Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
ContentsX
Section III Patterns of Invasion and Invasibility
Short Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Wolfga n g Nent wig
9 Effects of Land Management Practices on Plant Invasions
in Wildland Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Matthew L. Brooks
9.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
9.2 Factors that Affect Plant Invasions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
9.3 Linking Land Management Practices with Invasion Potential 151
9.3.1 Vehicular Route Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
9.3.1.1 Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
9.3.1.2 Vehicular Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
9.4 Managing Established Populations of Invasive Plants . . . . 155
9.4.1 Effects of Vegetation Management on Resource Availability 155
9.4.2 Effects of Vegetation Management on Propagule Pressure
of Invaders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
9.4.3 Predicting the Effects of Vegetation Management
Treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
9.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
10 Nitrogen Enrichment and Plant Invasions: the Importance of
Nitrogen-Fixing Plants and Anthropogenic Eutrophication 163
Michael Scherer-Lorenzen, Harry Olde Venterink,
and Holger Buschmann
10.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
10.2 Alterations of the N-Cycle by Exotic Invaders . . . . . . . . 164
10.2.1 Nitrogen-Fixing Species Among Invasives and Natives . . . 164
10.2.2 Nitrogen Input by N2-Fixing Invasive Species . . . . . . . . 165
10.2.3 Major Invasive Nitrogen-Fixing Species . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
10.2.4 Facilitated Secondary Invasion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
10.2.5 Nitrogen Fixation Suppressed by Invasion . . . . . . . . . . 169
10.3 Nitrogen Deposition and Exotic Invasions . . . . . . . . . . 169
10.3.1 N Deposition and Eutrophication in Natural Ecosystems . . 169
10.3.2 A Short Note on Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
10.3.3 Evidence for Effects of N Deposition on Plant Invasions? . . 171
Contents XI
10.3.3.1 Spatial Correlations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
10.3.3.2 Observational Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
10.3.3.3 Nutrient Addition Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
10.3.4 Interaction of N Deposition with Other Drivers
of Environmental Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
10.4 Future Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
11 From Ecosystem Invasibility to Local, Regional
and Global Patterns of Invasive Species . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
Ingolf Kühn and Stefan Klotz
11.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
11.2 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
11.3 Case Studies on Ecosystem Invasibility . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
11.4 Scale Dependence of Invasibility and the Importance
of Environmental Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
11.5 Local, Regional and Global Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
11.6 Scale-Dependent Consequences for Biodiversity
of Invaded Ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
11.7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
12 Will Climate Change Promote Alien Plant Invasions? . . . . 197
Wilfried Thuiller, David M. Richardson,
and Guy F. Midgley
12.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
12.2 Current and Emerging Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
12.2.1 Elevated Carbon Dioxide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
12.2.1.1 Observations and Experimental Findings . . . . . . . . . . . 201
12.2.1.2 Future Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
12.2.2 Changing Climate with Respect to Temperature and Rainfall 203
12.2.3 Future Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
12.2.4 Other Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
12.2.5 Increased Fire Frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
12.3 Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
ContentsXII
Section IV Ecological Impact of Biological Invasions
Short Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
Wolfga n g Nent wig
13 Impacts of Invasive Species on Ecosystem Services . . . . . 217
Heather Charles and Jeffrey S.Dukes
13.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
13.2 Relating Costs of Invasives to Valuation
of Ecosystem Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
13.2.1 Valuing Ecosystem Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
13.2.2 Interpreting Invasive Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
13.3 Mechanisms of Alteration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
13.3.1 Species Extinctions and Community Structure . . . . . . . . 223
13.3.2 Energy, Nutrient, and Water Cycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
13.3.3 Disturbance Regime, Climate,and Physical Habitat . . . . . 225
13.4 Which Ecosystems Are at Risk and Which Invasives
Have the Greatest Impact? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
13.5 Case Studies and Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
13.5.1 Provisioning Ecosystem Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
13.5.2 Regulating Ecosystem Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
13.5.3 Cultural Ecosystem Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
13.5.4 Supporting Ecosystem Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
13.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
14 Biological Invasions by Marine Jellyfish . . . . . . . . . . . 239
William M. Graham and Keith M. Bayha
14.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
14.2 Ctenophores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
14.2.1 Mnemiopsis leidyi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
14.2.2 Beroë ovata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
14.3 Medusae (Cnidaria) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
14.3.1 Phyllorhiza punctata (Scyphozoa) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
14.3.2 Cassiopea andromeda (Scyphozoa) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
14.3.3 Rhopilema nomadica (Scyphozoa) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
14.3.4 Aurelia spp.(Scyphozoa) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
Contents XIII
14.3.5 Maeotias marginata,Blackfordia virginica,
and Moerisia lyonsii (Hydrozoa) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
14.4 Jellyfish Invasions: Blooms and Ecosystem Controls . . . . . 245
14.5 The Role of Life-Histories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
14.6 Taxonomic Confusion, Species Crypsis,
and Morphological Plasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
14.7 Transport of Invasive Marine Jellyfish . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
14.8 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
15 Effects of Invasive Non-Native Species
on the Native Biodiversity in the River Rhine . . . . . . . . 257
Bruno Baur and Stephanie Schmidlin
15.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
15.2 The River Rhine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
15.3 Native Biodiversity and Invasion History . . . . . . . . . . . 260
15.4 Species Interactions and Mechanisms of Replacement . . . 264
15.4.1 Amphipods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
15.4.2 Molluscs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
15.5 Why Are There so many Non-Native Species in the Rhine? . 268
15.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
16 Hybridization and Introgression Between Native
and Alien Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
Carlo R. Largiadèr
16.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
16.2 Definitions and Technical Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
16.2.1 Definition of Hybridization and Introgression . . . . . . . . 277
16.2.2 Genetic and Statistical Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
16.3 Basic Types of Anthropogenic Hybridization:
Empirical Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
16.3.1 Hybridization Without Introgression . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
16.3.2 Hybridization with Introgression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
16.4 Hybridization as a Stimulus for the Evolution of Invasiveness
and the Emergence of Anthropogenic Hybrid Taxa . . . . . 285
16.5 Can we Predict Introgressive Hybridization and its Outcome? 286
ContentsXIV
16.5.1 Genetic Differentiation Between Taxa as an Indicator . . . . 286
16.5.2 Habitat Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
16.5.3 Introduction Intensity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
16.5.4 Differences Between Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
16.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
17 Genetically Modified Organisms as Invasive Species? . . . . 293
Rosie Hails and Tracey Timms-Wilson
17.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
17.2 Quantitative Measures of Invasion Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
17.3 Gene Flow: the First Step to Invasiveness of Transgenes . . . 295
17.3.1 Gene Escape in Bacterial Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
17.3.1.1 Transformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296
17.3.1.2 Conjugation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296
17.3.1.3 Transduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296
17.3.1.4 Evidence for Gene Transfer from GMMs . . . . . . . . . . . 297
17.3.2 Gene Escape in Plant Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
17.3.3 Gene Escape in Animal Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298
17.4 Transgene Spread . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
17.4.1 Transgene Spread in Bacterial Populations . . . . . . . . . . 299
17.4.2 Transgene Spread in Plant Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
17.4.3 Transgene Spread in Animal Populations . . . . . . . . . . . 302
17.5 Ecological Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304
17.5.1 Detecting Impacts in Bacterial Populations . . . . . . . . . . 304
17.5.2 Potential Impacts in Plant Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
17.5.3 Potential Impacts in Animal Populations . . . . . . . . . . . 305
17.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
Contents XV
Section V Economy and Socio-Economy of Biological Invasions
Short Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
Wolfga n g Nent wig
18 Plant,Animal, and Microbe Invasive Species
in the United States and World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315
David Pimentel, Marcia Pimentel and Anne Wilson
18.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315
18.2 Agricultural and Forestry Benefits from Introduced Species 316
18.3 Environmental Damages and Associated Control Costs . . . 316
18.3.1 Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
18.3.2 Mammals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318
18.3.3 Birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
18.3.4 Amphibians and Reptiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320
18.3.5 Fishes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
18.3.6 Arthropods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
18.3.7 Mollusks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322
18.4 Livestock Pests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
18.5 Human Diseases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
18.6 The Situation Today and Projections for the Future . . . . . 324
18.7 Biological Control of Invasives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326
19 Socio-Economic Impact and Assessment
of Biological Invasions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331
Rosa Binimelis,Wanda Born, Iliana Monterroso,
and Beatriz Rodríguez-Labajos
19.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331
19.2 Impacts on Ecosystems from the Perspective
of Human Wellbeing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332
19.3 Perception as a Prerequisite for Valuation . . . . . . . . . . . 336
19.4 Alternatives for the Evaluation of Impacts:
from Valuation to Deliberation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338
19.4.1 Risk Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340
19.4.2 Cost-Benefit Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341
19.4.3 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341
19.4.4 Multi-Criteria Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342
ContentsXVI
19.4.5 Scenario Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342
19.5 Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344
Section VI Prevention and Management of Biological Invasions
Short Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351
Wolfga n g Nent wig
20 Economic Analysis of Invasive Species Policies . . . . . . . 353
Julia Touza, Katharina Dehnen-Schmutz,
and Glyn Jones
20.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353
20.2 Economic Instruments as Measures
for Preventing Invasions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356
20.2.1 Risk-Related Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356
20.2.2 Risk-Related Import Tariffs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357
20.2.3 Tradable Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358
20.3 Trade-offs Between Prevention and Control Strategies . . . 359
20.4 Uncertainty Surrounding Invasion Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . 361
20.5 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364
21 Phytosanitary Measures to Prevent the Introduction
of Invasive Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367
Guy J.Hallman
21.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367
21.2 International Regulatory Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . 369
21.3 Phytosanitary Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370
21.3.1 Phytosanitary Measures that Do not Involve
Commodity Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370
21.3.1.1 Non-Host Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371
21.3.1.2 Systems Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372
21.3.2 Phytosanitary Treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374
21.3.2.1 Cold Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375
Contents XVII
21.3.2.2 Heated Air . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376
21.3.2.3 Hydrogen Cyanide Fumigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377
21.3.2.4 Methyl Bromide Fumigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377
21.3.2.5 Phosphine Fumigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 378
21.3.2.6 Sulfuryl Fluoride Fumigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 378
21.3.2.7 Hot Water Immersion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379
21.3.2.8 Pesticidal Dips or Sprays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379
21.3.2.9 Ionizing Irradiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379
21.3.2.10 Miscellaneous Treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380
21.3.2.11 Researched but not yet Applied Treatments . . . . . . . . . . 381
21.4 Future Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382
22 Limits and Potentialities of Eradication as a Tool
for Addressing Biological Invasions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385
Piero Genovesi
22.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385
22.1.1 Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385
22.1.2 History and Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386
22.1.3 Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388
22.2 Key Elements of Eradications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389
22.2.1 Biological Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389
22.2.2 Lag Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 390
22.2.3 Removal Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391
22.2.4 Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393
22.2.5 Legal and Organizational Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394
22.2.6 Human Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396
22.3 Management Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397
22.3.1 How to Plan an Eradication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397
22.3.2 Rapid Response to New Invasions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397
22.3.3 Planning the Eradication of Established Populations . . . . 398
22.3.4 Legal-Organizational Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398
22.3.5 Removal Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399
22.3.6 Eradication vs. Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399
22.3.7 Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400
ContentsXVIII
23 Pros and Cons of Biological Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403
Dirk Babendreier
23.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403
23.2 Pros of Biological Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 404
23.3 Cons of Biological Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405
23.3.1 Weed Biological Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405
23.3.2 Arthropod Biological Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406
23.4 Harmonia axyridis, a Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 408
23.5 Why Has H. axyridis Become Invasive? . . . . . . . . . . . . 411
23.6 How to Avoid ‘Harmonia Cases’? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412
23.7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 416
24 General Conclusion,or what Has to be Done now? . . . . . . 419
Wolfga n g Nent wig
24.1 Need for more Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419
24.2 Management from Detection to Eradication or Control . . . 420
24.3 Technical Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421
24.4 Legislation and Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422
24.5 Socio-Economy and Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423
Subject Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425
Contents XIX
Contributors
Babendreier, Dirk
Biosafety Group,Federal Department of Economic Affairs DEA,Agroscope
Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART,Reckenholzstrasse 191,
8046 Zürich, Switzerland, e-mail: dirk.babendreier@art.admin.ch
Baur, Bruno
Department of Environmental Sciences,Section of Conservation Biology,
University of Basel, St.Johanns-Vorstadt 10, 4056 Basel,Switzerland,
e-mail: bruno.baur@unibas.ch
Bayha, Keith M.
Dauphin Island Sea Lab and University of South Alabama,
101 Bienville Blvd.,Dauphin Island,AL 36528, USA
Binimelis i Adell, Rosa
Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals (ICTA), Edifici Ciències,
Torre Àrea 9, 4a planta,Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona,08193 Bellaterra
(Barcelona), Spain, e-mail: rosa.binimelis@gmx.net
Born,Wanda
UFZ – Centre for Environmental Research Leipzig-Halle,
Department of Economics, Permoserstr.15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany
Brooks, Matt
US Geological Survey,Western Ecological Research Center, Las Vegas Field
Station, 160 N. Stephanie St., Henderson, NV 89074,USA,
e-mail: matt_brooks@usgs.gov
Buschmann, Holger
Albrecht-von-Haller Institute for Plant Sciences, University of Göttingen,
Grisebachstraße 1a, 37077 Göttingen,Germany
Charles, Heather
Department of Biology, University of Massachusetts,100 Morrissey Blvd.,
Boston, MA 02125, USA
Dehnen-Schmutz, Katharina
Department of Biology, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK
Dukes, Jeffrey S.
Department of Biology, University of Massachusetts,100 Morrissey Blvd.,
Boston, MA 02125, USA, e-mail: jeffrey.dukes@umb.edu
Galil, Bella
National Institute of Oceanography, P.O. Box 8030, Haifa 31080, Israel,
e-mail: bella@ocean.org.il
Genovesi, Piero
Chair European Section IUCN SSC ISSG, INFS (National Wildlife Institute),
Via Ca Fornacetta 9,40064 Ozzano Emilia BO, Italy,
e-mail: piero.genovesi@infs.it
Gollasch, Stephan
GoConsult,Bahrenfelder Str.73a, 22765 Hamburg, Germany,
e-mail: sgollasch@aol.com
Graham, William
Dauphin Island Sea Lab and University of South Alabama, 101 Bienville
Blvd., Dauphin Island,AL 36528, USA,e-mail: mgraham@disl.org
Hails, Rosie
Pathogen Population Ecology, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Mansfield
Rd., Oxford OX1 3SR,UK, e-mail: RHA@ceh.ac.uk
Hallman, Guy
USDA-ARS, 2413 E. Highway 83, Weslaco, TX 78596, USA,
e-mail: ghallman@weslaco.ars.usda.gov
ContributorsXXII
Hufbauer, Ruth A.
Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado
State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1177, USA,
e-mail: hufbauer@lamar.colostate.edu
Jones, Glyn
Environment Department,University of York, York YO10 5DD,UK
Klotz, Stefan
UFZ – Centre for Environmental Research Leipzig-Halle,Department of
Community Ecology,Theodor-Lieser-Strasse 4, 06120 Halle, Germany
Kowarik, Ingo
Institute of Ecology,Technical University Berlin, Rothenburgstrasse 12,
12165 Berlin, Germany, e-mail: kowarik@tu-berlin.de
Kühn, Ingolf
UFZ – Centre for Environmental Research Leipzig-Halle,Department of
Community Ecology,Theodor-Lieser-Strasse 4, 06120 Halle, Germany,
e-mail: ingolf.kuehn@ufz.de
Largiadèr, Carlo R.
Institute of Clinical Chemistry, Inselspital, University Hospital,
University of Bern, 3010 Bern, Switzerland, e-mail: carlo.largiader@insel.ch
Midgley,Guy F.
Climate Change Research Group,Ecology and Conservation, Kirstenbosch
Research Center, National Biodiversity Institute, P/Bag X7 Claremont 7735;
Cape Town, South Africa
Monterroso, Iliana
Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals (ICTA), Edifici Ciències, Torre
Àrea 9, 4a planta, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra
(Barcelona), Spain
Nehring, Stefan
AeT umweltplanung, Bismarckstraße 19, 56068 Koblenz, Germany
e-mail: nehring@aet-umweltplanung.de
Contributors XXIII
Nent wig, Wolfgang
Community Ecology,Zoological Institute, University of Bern, Baltzer-
strasse 6, 3012 Bern, Switzerland, e-mail: wolfgang.nentwig@zos.unibe.ch
Olde Venterink, Harry
Institute of Integrative Biology,ETH Zurich, Universitaetsstrasse 16,
8092 Zurich, Switzerland
Panov, Vadim E.
Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Universitetskaya
Nab.1,199034 St. Petersburg, Russia
Pimentel, David
College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853,
USA, e-mail: dp18@cornell.edu
Pimentel, Marcia
Division of Nutritional Sciences, Cornell University,Ithaca,NY 14853, USA
Pys
ˇek, Petr
Institute of Botany, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic,252 43
Pruhonice, Czech Republic, e-mail: pysek@ibot.cas.cz
Richardson, David M.
Centre for Invasion Biology, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South
Africa
Rodríguez-Labajos, Beatriz
Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals (ICTA), Edifici Ciències, Torre
Àrea 9, 4a planta, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra
(Barcelona), Spain
Scherer-Lorenzen, Michael
Institute of Plant Sciences,ETH Zurich, Universitaetsstrasse 2, 8092 Zurich,
Switzerland, e-mail: michael.scherer@ipw.agrl.ethz.ch
Schmidlin, Stephanie
Department of Environmetal Sciences,Section of Conservation Biology,
University of Basel, St.Johanns-Vorstadt 10, 4056 Basel,Switzerland
ContributorsXXIV
Sol, Daniel
CREAF (Center for Ecological Research and Applied Forestries),
Autonomous University of Barcelona,08193 Bellaterra, Catalonia,Spain,
e-mail: d.sol@creaf.uab.es
Thuiller,Wilfried
Laboratoire d’Ecologie Alpine, CNRS,Université Joseph Fourier, B.P. 53,
38041 Grenoble Cedex 9, France, e-mail: wilfried.thuiller@ujf-grenoble.fr
Timms-Wilson, Tracey
Molecular Microbial Ecology,Centre for Ecology and Hydrology,
Mansfield Rd., Oxford OX1 3SR, UK
Torchin, Mark E.
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute,Apartado 0843–03092, Balboa,
Ancon, Panama, Republic of Panama
Touza, Julia
UFZ, Centre for Environmental Research Leipzig-Halle, Department
of Ecological Modelling, Permoserstr. 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany
von der Lippe, Moritz
Institute of Ecology,Technical University Berlin, Rothenburgstrasse 12,
12165 Berlin, Germany
Wilson, Anne
Research Assistant,Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853,USA
Contributors XXV
Ecological Studies,Vol. 193
W. Nentwig (Ed.)
Biological Invasions
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007
1 Biological Invasions: why it Matters
Wolfga n g N e ntw i g
The dispersal of organisms is a natural process,important for the distribution
of life on earth. It is also important for the appearance and expression of bio-
diversity, strengthening the multiple forms and functions of diversity in living
organisms. We, too, profit from this process and its dynamics, and are even
dependent on it.On a longer time scale, dispersal is one of the drivers of evo-
lution, responsible for life itself.
Dispersal is limited by multiple barriers, among which geographical barri-
ers are the most evident. However, human dispersal has overcome all biogeo-
graphical barriers, and humans now inhabit all parts of the world. Our activ-
ities are on a global scale, and we have been working intensively for centuries
to connect all parts of the world ever closer together.In human history, roads
were the first expression of these interconnections, as well as shipping.Today,
we can reach any spot on earth by plane within 24 h, and vessels transport
cargo around the globe within a few weeks. In addition, new connections
between water drainage systems,lakes and oceans have been constructed.
Man did not conquer the world alone. He was always accompanied by his
domesticated animals, crop plants, pets,pathogens and parasites. In addition
to this, we gather and transport ornamental plants and animals or parts of
these. Already our ancestors collected feathers and fur, shells and seeds for
multiple purposes. Wilson called this search or even love for all types of life
expressions “biophilia” (Wilson 1984).From a philosophical point of view,one
could state that we obviously need to surround ourselves with nature because
we are part of it. From a more ecological (and also medical) point of view,one
could state that we need our natural surrounding because it enables our sur-
vival, personally and as a species.
The dark side of this entourage of many species which always surrounds us
is the spread of exactly these species to every spot where we stay and to which
we move. Consequently, we distribute hundreds and thousands of species
intentionally and unintentionally worldwide. Bringing a given species into a
new habitat is not neutral to the environment because it interacts with resi-
dent species or abiotic parameters or energy and matter fluxes.
Usually, the result of an additional species is neither an enrichment of the
ecosystem nor any amelioration whatsoever. The acclimatisation societies
(which I would call pseudoscientific, rather than scientific), founded in the
second half of the 19th century to “vaccinate”, professionally and on a large
scale, new world colonies with European species in order to “ameliorate”their
“inferior” species richness, made a fatal error. It is meanwhile widely known,
at least to the scientific community, that alien species are among the major
dangers to the well-functioning of our environment.
The consequences of introducing alien species can be manifold: though the
majority of these species has no (or no visible) immediate negative effect,
some do exhibit ecological impacts directly or after a short time of adapting
to the new environment. The more obvious cases are invasive aliens compet-
ing with native species, dominating their new environment or even replacing
native residents. Quite often, this is done with the complicity of newly intro-
duced pathogens or parasites to which the alien species is adapted but to
which a close resident relative is not. Thus, alien species regularly lead to a
loss of biodiversity and to a homogenization of the invaded habitat. Sec-
ondary damage may be chemical pollution and erosion. Alien species con-
sume and contaminate water, thereby reducing its quantity and quality.Many
alien species themselves are pathogens or parasites which threaten the indige-
nous species community. Weeds and animal pests are of high importance to
humans because they impede on agriculture. Human pathogens such as bac-
teria and viruses attack humans directly and may cost millions of lives.On a
global scale, this ever-increasing mixture of species originating from all over
the world and being spread everywhere results in one gigantic muddle, initi-
ating a homogenization of world ecosystems towards a least-common deno-
minator.
One of the earliest invasions of a dangerous microorganism led to “the
plague” or Black Death which, in medieval times, reached Europe from East
Asia and killed about one third of the European population. Caused by the
pathogen Yersinia pestis, with fleas, mice and rats as vectors, this disease has
been spreading all over the world until recently. The potato blight Phytoph-
thora infestans, a fungal pathogen of the potato, was introduced in 1840 from
North America into Europe, causing mass famine in many countries the fol-
lowing years. Most severely affected was the Irish population, which was
reduced to half its size not only by starvation as such but also by an associated
mass emigration (Nentwig 2005).
To date, the most serious disease to have attacked mankind has been the
pandemic influenza which spread from North America via Europe to all parts
of the world at the end of the First World War. Recent estimates indicate that,
over the period 1918–1920, about one third of the world population had been
infected and 100 million people lost their lives – up to 20 % victims.The most
recent pandemic is AIDS.Since the 1960s, the human immunodeficiency virus
has spread from West or Central Africa via North America to the rest of the
W. Nentwig2
world. So far, more than 40 million people have been infected,some 5 million
people are newly infected each year and 3–4 million, mostly in sub-Saharan
Africa, have died. Though HIV has as yet infected only 1 % of the world pop-
ulation, it has the potential of becoming a very serious threat to mankind
(Nentwig 2005).
Meanwhile,the economic costs associated with alien species are known for
some countries, some species, some time periods as well as for some
processes. There are increasingly good data which facilitate some generaliza-
tions and extrapolations. Such data (albeit incomplete) already indicate the
various economic damages associated with invasive alien species in several
nations of the world to amount to about 5% of the world GNP. Including the
countries, species and processes still unaccounted for, this value would cer-
tainly be much higher (cf. Chap. 18).
Fifty years ago, the British ecologist Charles Elton published his Ecology
of invasions by animals and plants, already then clearly stating that our
world’s new mix of native and alien species has unfavourable and dangerous
aspects: “The whole matter goes far wider than any technological discussion
of pest control, though many of the examples are taken from applied ecol-
ogy. The real thing is that we are living in a period of the world’s history
when the mingling of thousands of kinds of organisms from different parts
of the world is setting up terrific dislocations in nature. We are seeing huge
changes in the natural population balance of the world” (Elton 1958). Elton
was among the first to realize the typical pattern of a biological invasion
which he also called biological explosion. He asked pertinent questions: why
and how are species dispersed by human activities? What is the negative
impact of species in a new environment? How can this be prevented? Elton
is rightly considered as one of the founders not only of ecology but also of
the so-called invasion biology.
The discovery of America by Columbus in 1492 is usually set as the zero
point of our definition of biological invasions.This is arguably rather an arbi-
trary date but it indeed marks the start of a new era of fast global population
movements and trade.Thus,it does not really matter that already the Romans
– and other earlier cultures,too – had imported new species into their empire.
Rather, it was approximately 500 years ago when the main process began
which today is called globalization, and its basic principles have not changed
in the last centuries. The speed, however,is accelerating from year to year.
A new development of the last few decades concerns the self-conception of
globalization, and the ease with which global trade proceeds. Global regula-
tory concepts such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade GATT and
its successor, the World Trade Organization WTO, are intended to facilitate
exchange between all nations. These treaties reduce tariffs, export subsidies,
protective measures, any kind of import limits, and quotas. On a worldwide
basis, the goal is to eliminate all obstructions for free trade, which is seen as a
basic right for people, nations, industries and trading companies.
Biological Invasions: why it Matters 3
In principle, this trend is certainly positive and could promote growth in
less-developed countries. So far, however,the main profit has gone to industri-
alized countries. A very important side-effect of the new WTO-world is that
the controls of goods involving alien species can be easily denounced as trade
obstruction. It could become more difficult to set up stricter quarantine mea-
sures or large-scale controls for pests. It may also become less easy to
strengthen the prohibition of trade dealing with potentially invasive alien
species classified as ornamentals or pets. Strong efforts will be necessary to
prevent the development of the WTO-world from turning fully in the direc-
tion initiated by early capitalistic societies. Especially politicians but also
decision-makers at all hierarchical levels, including opinion-makers such as
journalists, need intensive furthering of education with respect to the need of
preventing the spread of alien species.
Even a WTO-world is not free of regulations and of responsibility for its
own activities. Since the problem of invasive alien species is primarily eco-
nomic, it is open for economic solutions (Perrings et al. 2002).One promising
solution could be for each trading partner to contract an obligatory insurance
covering any hazards of alien species caused by international trade.Such edu-
cation – to take responsibility for one’s activities – needs to be strengthened.
There is increasing concern that strong lobbies may prevent necessary
countermeasures to biological invasions.Indeed,urgently needed import and
general trade restrictions are becoming ever less enforceable in a WTO-world.
Restrictions to trade with ornamental plants will fail on the front set up by
gardeners and plant lovers.It is difficult to convince public opinion about the
need for eradication programs for squirrels, parakeets, racoons and other
charismatic vertebrates. Such beautiful birds and appealing mammals gener-
ate much public sympathy, and this despite their alien status, and even some
scientists defend exotic species and debate about the purpose of eradication
measures, smartly taking advantage of the psychological and sociological
impact of such species. The public obviously needs continuing education to
convince the majority of the negative aspects of even cuddly aliens!
It is an oft-cited argument that, in case-by-case studies, the negative effect
of each and every alien species has to be proven.This “innocent until proven
guilty” approach is justified in human jurisdiction but fatal in dealing with
alien species because it immediately leads to uncontrolled introductions of
the worst pest species. When ecological damage is detected, it is always too
late since, once released, an organism can not simply be removed. Certainly,
alien species have to be treated differently – to be on the safe side, a general
zero-tolerance attitude is the far better position to take. This argumentation
additionally shows that our society needs much more information on the eco-
logical hazards of alien species.
Raising public awareness is always a tricky balance between panic and
lethargy. Both extremes are usually counterproductive but, indirectly, they
have proved useful in the past. When Rachel Carson published her Silent
W. Nentwig4
spring in 1962, she wanted to achieve a more responsible and carefully man-
aged use of environmental chemicals, especially pesticides. Her book caused
much concern as well as overreactions but also led to the beginning of the
modern environmental conservation movement.Today’s use of environmen-
tal chemicals has become much more restricted. In another notable example
in 1972 when Meadows and colleagues brought out Limits to growth, the book
suffered from a poor database and insufficient computer software for predic-
tions. Consequently,the critics “tore it to pieces” but, today,the main message
of this key work is considered accurate and is generally accepted: the
resources of the earth are finite and,thus,are inevitably subject to natural lim-
Biological Invasions: why it Matters 5
Table 1.1 Numbers of alien species per continent. These values are minimum numbers,
empty fields indicating gaps in our knowledge (data combined after Pimentel 2002;
DAISIE 2006; other sources)
Plants Vertebrates Invertebrates Microorganisms
Africa 8,750a83 fish
24 herpa
16 mammalsa
8 birdsa
North 5,000 145 fish 4,500 arthropodsb20,000b
America 53 herpb11 earthwormsb
20 mammalsb91 molluscsb
97 birdsb100 aquatic speciesb
South 11,605c76 fishc25 nematodesc500 fungic
America 25 mammalsc100 virusesc
3 birdsc
Asia 18,000d300 fishd1,100 arthropodsd
30 mammalsd
4 birdsd
Australia 3,020 180 fish 1,000 terrestrial species 188
20 herp 250 aquatic species
20 mammals
70 birds
Europe 3,691 140 fish 1,350 insects
40 herp 210 arachnids
90 mammals 65 annelids
51 birds 135 other “worms”
155 crustaceans
201 molluscs
17 cnidarians
Oceania 2,000e112 fish 2,200e
aSouth Africa,bUSA, cBrazil, dIndia, eNew Zealand
its. The modern movement of sustainability roots in the ideas of Meadows
and co-workers.
Elton (1958) characterized the introduction of alien species as “one of the
great convulsions of the world’s flora and fauna”. Astonishingly, the hazards
provoked by alien species did not cause that much concern among scientists,
nor did it attract public awareness as much as would have been expected.
However, the ultimate reason for the loss of more than 5% of the world GNP,
one main reason for the loss of biodiversity, for millions of human deaths,and
for the loss of more than 20% of the world’s food production cannot be
ignored.
The simple question as to how many alien species we have worldwide has no
precise answer. Per continent or larger geographic area, some estimates indi-
cate up to 10,000 alien plant species, up to 300 alien vertebrates,more than 5,000
alien invertebrates and many 1,000s of alien microorganisms (Table 1.1).Giv-
ing a more precise answer is not yet possible. This alarming knowledge gap is
indicative of our whole predicament in this field, and clearly points to our
urgent need for more activities at all levels to stem against the increasing flood
of alien species. This is why biological invasions do matter!
Acknowledgements. My thanks for valuable comments and support on the concept of
this book or on individual chapters go to Sven Bacher, Cecily Klingler and Rita Schnei-
der.Also, I gratefully acknowledge the considerable support by the European Union of
my studies on invasive alien species within FP 5 (Giant Alien EVK2-CT-2001-00128) and
within FP 6 through the projects ALARM (GOCE-CT-2003-506675) and DAISIE (SSPI-
CT-2003-511202).Special thanks go to Gerhard Heldmaier (University of Marburg) and
to Andrea Schlitzberger (Springer-Verlag,Heidelberg).
References
Carson R (1962) Silent spring. Houghton Mifflin,Boston
DAISIE (2006) Delivering alien invasive inventories for Europe. EU project 6th FP.
www.europe-aliens.org
Elton CS (1958) The ecology of invasions by animals and plants. Methuen,London
Meadows DH,Meadows DL, Randers J,Behrens WW III (1972) The limits to growth. Uni-
versity Books, New York
Nentwig W (2005) Humanökologie. Springer,Berlin Heidelberg New York
Perrings C, Williamson M, Barbier EB,Delfino D, Dalmazzone S, Shogren J,Simmons P,
Watkinson A (2002) Biological invasion risks and the public good: an economic per-
spective. Conserv Ecol 6(1):1
Pimentel D (2002) Biological invasions. CRC Press,Boca Raton
Wilson EO (1984) Biophilia.Harvard University Press, Cambridge
W. Nentwig6
Section I
Pathways of Biological Invasions
Short Introduction
Wolfga n g N e ntw i g
The following four chapters present the main pathways for alien species
invasions, i.e. they concern the routes by which aliens leave their habitat of
origin, how they are distributed, and the ways by which they enter their new,
invaded habitat. The subdivision into animals, plants,ships and waterways is
admittedly arbitrary but offers useful possibilities to detect parallels and dif-
ferences between various invasion pathways. Chapters 2 and 3 deal primar-
ily, but not exclusively, with terrestrial species whereas Chaps. 4 and 5 con-
cern the aquatic environment, including both animals and plants (mostly
algae).
The drive behind species distributing across biogeographical barriers into
new habitats where they assume their role as aliens is based on human activi-
ties, by direct migration, by transport of goods or by facilitating dispersal
through the elimination of existing barriers. This process probably began
already when early man started to conquer the world but it has intensified
dramatically over the last few centuries, culminating in the modern phase of
globalization.
Many species have been spread deliberately but, for the majority of
invaders, spread has occurred accidentally. Parallels may be conspicuous
between animals and plants when alien species reach their new habitat as con-
taminants, hitchhikers and stowaways or when they are transported by
humans as ornamentals and pets.
Pathway analysis is a first and important step of curtailing the spread of
alien species. Only when the corridors through which species become aliens
are known can effective countermeasures be taken. This is most obvious in
the examples given in Chaps. 4 and 5 where ballast water, hull fouling, water-
ways and man-made ocean channels are easily recognizable pathways. By
means of international conventions,it is intended that their harmful effect be
eliminated or at least reduced.
2 Pathways in Animal Invasions
Wolfga n g N e ntw i g
2.1 Natural Dispersal Versus more Recent Invasions
Two main ways of dispersal of species can be distinguished: natural dispersal
and anthropogenic spread, either indirectly or directly.Natural spread is usu-
ally slow and occurs within evolutionary times, it hardly crosses biogeo-
graphic borders, and is mostly undirectional. Anthropogenic dispersal is
enabled or facilitated directly by human activities. This includes domestica-
tion and the worldwide spread of selected species, releases into the wild of
suitable game, and escapes from captivity. Humans use animals for nutrition
in multiple ways (farming, game, aquaculture and mariculture) and, as
humans settle in the world,other species accompany them.More recent moti-
vations to spread species worldwide include the demand for luxury and exotic
products (e.g. fur farms),biological control and the pet trade. The main direc-
tions of anthropogenic dispersal until the 19th century were from Europe to
the European colonies and many other parts of the world. Later, with the
increasing independence of numerous countries, with growing world trade,
and also with the actual step of globalization,species have been distributed to
and from everywhere in the world.
In the past, many introductions occurred intentionally, e.g. as game or as
“enrichment” of a new environment, or they were accepted as unavoidable.
Looking back today, the lack of even basic ecological knowledge is astonish-
ing and the naive attitude of even scientists is frightening. By contrast, unin-
tentional introductions concern many smaller species such as arthropods,
parasites of other species, as contaminants of goods or stowaways on means of
transportation.
Ecological Studies,Vol. 193
W. Nentwig (Ed.)
Biological Invasions
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007
2.2 Unintentional Introductions
All means of transport enable alien species to reach new habitats where they
may become invasive.Many goods are transported with species as stowaways,
and the vehicles themselves may also serve as transportation means. Terres-
trial transport can take place in all directions, limited only by the bounds of
continental borders. Transport by shipping needs ports and waterways,avian
transport is linked to airports. Usually, these three main means of transport
are interconnected and, in combination, enable alien species to reach each
and every spot on earth within a relatively short time.
2.2.1 Transports
2.2.1.1 Tramps in Vehicles and Planes
Cars, trucks and aircrafts allow fast transportation for many species which
would not otherwise survive longer voyages over large distances. Such organ-
isms enter and leave vehicles uncontrolled – much like a tramp – and they are
very rapidly transported globally between the main centres of human popu-
lations.
Adult mosquitoes can travel by plane from the tropics into the temperate
zone. Around airports with frequent connections to tropical countries, these
mosquitoes, often vectors of tropical diseases, may infect people. Between
1969 and 1989, there were 87 cases of so-called airport-malaria reported from
12 countries,primarily France, Belgium,Switzerland and the UK – people liv-
ing in the close vicinity of airports but who have never travelled to the tropics
can be infected with malaria. Adult mosquitoes survive only for a short time
in the temperate zone and can easily be controlled by insecticidal spraying of
the plane’s cabin. Eggs, larvae and pupae of mosquitoes, when transported in
a small volume of water, can withstand longer transportation times and obvi-
ously adapt more easily to temperate climates. The Asian tiger mosquito
Aedes albopictus was introduced to North and South America, Europe and
Australia in used tyres and containers with remnants of rainwater. In its
native area, A. albopictus is known as a vector of dengue fever and other dis-
eases, in North America it transmits the West Nile virus disease and several
other diseases, and in Europe there are concerns for the transmission of a
variety of pathogens (Mitchell 1995). It is listed among the 100 world’s worst
invaders (ISSG 2006).
Another recent tramp species is the Western corn rootworm (Diabrotica
virgifera), North America’s most destructive corn pest, now actually becom-
ing a serious threat to European farmers since it has been displaced to Europe.
Within a few years, several obviously independent introductions (at least to
W. Nentwig12
Serbia, northern Italy, Belgium, France and the UK; Miller et al. 2005) have
occurred in the vicinity of international airports, from where the beetles have
meanwhile spread very rapidly over neighbouring parts of Europe (Fig. 2.1).
Tramp behaviour is typically shown by some subtropical and tropical ants
which, in addition,are spread by all kinds of cargo shipment,thus becoming a
serious pest worldwide in the last decades. The tiny African pharaoh ant
Monomorium pharaonis became very abundant in buildings including hospi-
tals, and is now an urban pest which is extremely difficult to control. The
Argentine ant Linepithema humile, one of the 100 world’s worst invaders, has
invaded buildings and natural habitats where their huge colonies reduce the
native biodiversity considerably.
In a comparable way, many cockroach species have been distributed glob-
ally as tramps by vehicles and cargo.Some species of probably tropical or sub-
tropical origin now occur everywhere. Blatta orientalis,Blatella germanica,
Periplaneta americana,P. australasiae and many more species are serious
urban pests very difficult to control,feeding on nearly everything and acting
as vectors for many human pathogens.
Pathways in Animal Invasions 13
USA
2004
1992
2002
2003
1998
1998
1998
2003
Fig. 2.1 Several independent introductions of the Western corn rootworm, Diabrotica
virgifera,by plane from the USA to Serbia,north-western Italy, France,Holland,Belgium
and England, and subsequent spread within Europe (hatched area invaded area; modi-
fied from Miller et al. 2005)
The horse chestnut leaf miner Cameraria ohridella,which seriously defoli-
ates the horse chestnut Aesculus hippocastanum, was first detected in Mace-
donia from where it spread throughout Europe within only 15 years. This
rapid distribution has been explained by vehicles transporting the adult
moths or dead leaves containing pupae, consistent with distribution patterns
along main highways and in urban areas (Gilbert et al. 2004). Pekar (2002)
considers that the spread of the spider Zodarion rubidum, formerly known
only in the French Pyrenees but having spread all over Europe over the last
100 years, can be explained by the railway system which allows the spider to
hitchhike over large distances (Fig. 2.2).
Military traffic is “normal” traffic, as mentioned above, but it is less con-
trolled, has its own infrastructure and,therefore,bears more risks. To date, the
best-known example with huge consequences concerns the nocturnal snake
Boiga irregularis. Hiding in containers,it was transported from the Admiralty
Islands to Guam and later to other Pacific islands as well.On Guam, B. irregu-
laris preyed so intensively on the birds, most of them endemic, that these
became extinct or very rare. Today, Guam is an avian desert (Savidge 1987),
W. Nentwig14
1914
1990
1984
1986
1987
1995
1993
1971
1979
1941 1983
Fig. 2.2 Spread of the spider Zodarion rubidum from its restricted area of origin in the
eastern French Pyrenees to larger parts of Europe within 80 years along major interna-
tional railway routes (map modified from Pekar 2002, drawing by Jan Bosselaers, with
kind permission)
and B. irregularis has been put on the list of the 100 world’s worst invaders
(ISSG 2006).
2.2.1.2 Waterways and Shipping
For several centuries, humans have connected river systems by canals and cut
land bridges to enable shorter shipping routes. Today, particularly Europe has
a well-developed waterway system (Chap. 5). These interconnections also
offer organisms unique opportunities to cross biogeographical borders by
reaching the next drainage system, sea or ocean. The connection of the
Caspian Sea and Central Asian waters to Western Europe,the Suez Canal con-
necting the Red Sea (Indian Ocean) with the Mediterranean Sea (North
Atlantic), and the Panama Canal connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans
are well-known examples (Chap. 5). The Suez Canal enabled hundreds of
species to migrate from one sea to the other,often causing considerable eco-
logical damage such as strongly modifying eastern Mediterranean species
communities. This phenomenon has been studied in detail and was named
the Lessepsian migration (or invasion), in “honour” of the architect of the
canal, Ferdinand de Lesseps (Por 1978; Galil 2000; Chap.5).
Shipping offers unique opportunities for hitchhikers and stowaways to be
transported and distributed globally:
1. with cargo: for balance and stability purposes, until the 19th century ships
used soil and stones as ballast. In combination with the soil and dirt in the
ship itself, and the possibilities which cargo and containers offer in general
for stowaways, maritime transport enabled many species to reach far-dis-
tant coasts. Notable examples include the brown rat (Rattus norvegicus)
and the house mouse (Mus musculus), also among the 100 world’s worst
invaders (ISSG 2006) and today globally distributed.
2. as hull fouling: the planktonic larvae of many sessile species regularly col-
onize the hull of ships and boats. This hull fouling of ships is characterized
by crustaceans and bivalves, and may involve more than 100 species (Gol-
lasch 2002) which are transported on a global scale. The Ponto-Caspian
zebra mussel Dreissena polymorpha, among the 100 world’s worst
invaders, is one of the best-known examples of an alien species which has
invaded Europe and North America via canals and as hull fouling (Chaps.
5 and 15). A Dreissena population also contains several parasites, among
them, the trematode Bucephalus polymorphus which continues its develop-
ment in several cyprinid species.
3. in ballast water: according to Carlton (1999), about 80 % of the world’s
commodities is transported aboard a global ship fleet of approximately
35,000 large ships. For more than 100 years, ships have used ballast water
for stability purposes. Huge cargo vessels of over 300,000 t carry up to one
third of their volume as water when unloaded, amounting to some 12 bil-
Pathways in Animal Invasions 15
lion t of ballast water being transported annually (Chap. 4). This ballast
water and its sediment load transport thousands of marine species from
uptake to discharge points. This includes virtually any species of plankton
or higher organisms, including their planktonic larvae (Chap. 4). Many
species have major ecological effects on their new habitats (e.g.the jellyfish
Mnemiopsis leidyi, one the 100 world’s worst invaders,see Chap. 14).
2.2.1.3 Transported Plant Material
The worldwide cultivation of a few important crops has led to a distribution
of the main pests (usually insects) of these plants, chiefly through lack of
quarantine measures (Chap.21). In 1874,the Colorado potato beetle (Leptino-
tarsa decemlineata) was transported from North America to France from
where it is still spreading to the eastern parts of Eurasia. Many aphid, psyllid,
whitefly and coccid species, some dipterans and lepidopteran pests as well as
some slugs and snails, originally restricted to smaller areas, now occur in
many or most agricultural parts of the world, it often being hardly possible to
determine their region of origin.
Harvested plant materials, processed as storable products, are traded
worldwide and, consequently, the potential pests of these products are also
dispersed globally.Most pest species are insects, especially beetles (primarily
Anobiidae, Bostrichidae, Bruchidae, Cucujidae, Curculionidae, Dermestidae,
Mycetophagidae, Nitidulidae, Ptinidae, Silvanidae and Tenebrionidae), lepi-
dopterans (e.g. Plodia interpunctella,Ephestia kuehniella and Sitatroga
cerealella) and psocids. Though these alien insects are not as spectacular as
alien mammals and birds, they represent an enormous number of species
(more than 1,000 worldwide), they destroy more than 20% of the world plant
production after harvest, and they cause an economic damage of more than
US$ 1.4 trillion per year,amounting to about 5 % of the world GNP (Chap. 18).
Greenhouses are stepping stones for the survival of subtropical and tropi-
cal species in otherwise harsh climates. With the transport of plants, soil and
equipment, species are moved from and to these greenhouses. Many
hemipterans of tropical origin have reached greenhouses all over the world,
establishing metapopulation-like colonies and even conquering outdoor
habitats when climatic conditions ameliorate (e.g. the aphid Aphis gossypii,
the whiteflies Bemisia tabaci and Trialeurodes vaporarium, and the scale
Planococcus citri). The same is true for thysanopteran species, e.g. Franklin-
iella intonsa,F. occidentalis and Heliothrips haemorroidalis. Several of these
pests are listed among the 100 world’s worst invaders (ISSG 2006). Spiders can
survive harsh conditions very successfully in the cocoon stage, attached to
plants,until more suitable habitats are reached. The pantropical spider Coleo-
soma floridanum,the Mediterranean cribellate spider Uloborus plumipes, and
several tropical oonopid spider species are widespread in European green-
W. Nentwig16
houses; the Asian giant huntsmen spider Heteropoda venatoria is globally dis-
tributed (Platnick 2006).
Many xylophagous insects have been dispersed by international move-
ments of timber, timber products and solid wood-packing material. Recent
examples include the Japanese scolytid or ambrosia beetle Xylosandrus ger-
manus imported to Europe and North America, attacking a variety of native
tree species as well as leading to quality loss from direct damage and, in addi-
tion, possibly causing tree infections with Fusarium fungus. The Asian long-
horn beetles Anoplophora glabripennis and A. chinensis are already major for-
est pests in Asia. They were introduced to North America and Europe where
they attack a wide range of broadleaf tree species. In China, A. glabripennis
caused the felling of 50 million poplars in one province within 3 years and, in
the USA, expensive eradication programs have been organized to prevent the
establishment of this serious forest pest.
The transport of soil offers many species an easy way of entering new habi-
tats.A historical example concerns early ship traffic between Europe and the
North Atlantic islands (Faroe Islands,Iceland,Greenland) by the Vikings who
settled on these islands. In the soil and dirt of their ships (used partly for sta-
bility and balance), the Vikings also transported carabid beetles and, today,
most carabids of these islands are Palaearctic, rather than Nearctic (Coope
1986). More recently, soil transport has been identified also as one of the
major pathways for alien ants.Several soil-dwelling Trachyzelotes spiders have
been distributed from Europe into the USA,South America and several Pacific
islands (Platnick 2006). In the 1960s, the New Zealand flatworm Arthur-
dendyus triangulates was introduced repeatedly on root-balled plants enter-
ing the UK where it is now widely spread. The flatworms prey on earthworms
and potentially may have an major impact on the soil ecosystem (Cannon et
al. 1999).
2.2.2 Escapes
Unintentional escapes occur when species are bred or cultivated outside of
their native range under controlled conditions,and escape.This concerns ani-
mals from fur farms, pet animals,farm animals, etc.Sometimes, animals may
be released deliberately, e.g. to “enrich” the environment. Thus, escapes may
be unintentional or intentional (for mammals,see Long 2003).
All over the world,animals have escaped regularly from fur farms and built
up feral populations. Escape reasons can be unsafe construction of cages or
catastrophic events such as natural disasters or war. Examples include the
South American nutria Myocastor coypus which escaped in Europe and North
America and is now among the 100 world’s worst invaders (ISSG 2006), and
the East Asian racoon dog Nyctereutes procyonoides, spreading now in
Europe.Examples of North American mammals escaping from European fur
Pathways in Animal Invasions 17
farms comprise the muskrat Ondathra zibethicus, the American mink Mustela
vison and the racoon Procyon lotor. The European invasion history of the lat-
ter shows that multiple dispersal pathways are involved because the German
racoon population has two roots:a deliberate release of four animals for hunt-
ing in 1934 (central Germany) and escapes after a racoon farm had been
bombed in 1945 (eastern Germany). Additionally, an intentional release by
American soldiers in northern France (1966) and farm escapes in Byelorussia
and in the Caucasus accelerated further spread in Europe. Today, most
racoons in European populations are infected with the racoon roundworm
Baylisascaris procyonis which causes severe and even fatal encephalitis in a
variety of birds and mammals as well as in humans.
The South American nutria (coypu) M. coypus, a large semi-aquatic
rodent,was bred in fur farms of North America,Europe and Asia. It escaped at
numerous locations and built up large feral populations. In addition, inten-
tional releases occurred and, today, the nutria is distributed over all the conti-
nents of the world. By their burrowing activity, these rodents damage river
banks, dikes and irrigation facilities, associated with high economical follow-
up costs; their feeding activity has a destructive effect on the vegetation, e.g.
in marshland, reed swamp and other wetlands. Eradication programs were
successful in Great Britain (Chap.22) but failed in most other parts of Europe.
The nutria has been classified among of the world’s 100 worst invaders.
Closed systems such as fur farms or laboratory animal stations also have
the special problem of “liberation” actions by naive, ignorant and/or militant
animal lovers.The release of the American mink Mustela vison from fur farms
in Europe gave rise to an inevitable population spread of this invasive species,
with strong negative effects on the European mink M. lutreola (replaced in
most parts of Europe) and on populations of nesting birds (considerably
reduced in numbers; Maran et al. 1998; Nordström et al. 2002). In addition,
such actions caused the Aleutian disease to be transmitted to the much more
sensitive European mustelid species (Oxenham 1990). It should also be men-
tioned that fur farmers occasionally released fur animals when market condi-
tions worsened.
2.3 Intentional Introductions
2.3.1 Human Nutrition
2.3.1.1 Global Distribution of Domesticated Animals
As humans spread all over the world,they were always accompanied by their
livestock. This became accelerated as the Europeans systematically colonized
major parts of the world on all continents, shipping in European horses
W. Nentwig18
(Equus caballus),cattle (Bos taurus), sheep (Ovis ammon aries), asses (Equus
asinus asinus),goats (Capra aegagrus hircus),pigs (Sus scrofa domestica) and
rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) as well as dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) and
cats (Felis silvestris catus).All these species escaped into the new environment
or were intentionally released,and goats,pigs,rabbits and cats list now among
the 100 world’s worst invaders (ISSG 2006).In addition, it was common prac-
tice to “vaccinate” many islands with a founding population of domesticated
mammals as food for shipwrecked sailors.As a consequence,the actual distri-
bution of these species is a global one (Long 2003).
Domesticated animals always suffer from a variety of parasites and dis-
eases which were then also introduced into the new habitats. The livestock
served as a vector for these pests and, in some cases, even enabled the para-
sites and diseases to spread to wild relatives. In the 1890s and in 1982–1984,
rinderpest outbreaks killed major proportions not only of cattle in sub-Saha-
ran Africa but also of wildebeests Connochaetes taurinus and buffalos
Syncereos caffer. Thus, wildlife was not the reservoir of the disease but rather
the livestock itself, and consequent vaccination of cattle eliminated the threat
to native species (McCallum and Dobson 1995). The domestic pigeon
Columba livia domestica harbours pathogens and parasites such as the
paramyxovirus,Chlamydophila psittaci,Salmonella sp., Trichomonas gallinae,
Eimeria sp., Capillaria sp. and Ascaridia columbae. Some of these also infect
humans (e.g. psittacosis) and pet birds (Dove et al. 2004).
2.3.1.2 Release of Mammals and Birds for Hunting
Among deer, many species were introduced into most continents as game,
especially because of their antlers for trophy hunters. Initially, the deer were
usually kept in fenced areas, from which individual animals were subse-
quently accidentally released, the fences being either not deer-safe or
destroyed by natural disasters or wars. In European countries, at least seven
non-European species were released: the fallow deer Dama dama from the
Near East was already introduced during Roman times into most Mediter-
ranean countries and by the Normans into England sometime after 1066.
The chital Axis axis, sika deer Cervus nippon, Chinese water deer Hydropotes
inermis and muntjacs Muntiacus reevesi were imported from Southeast Asia,
and the wapiti Cervus canadensis and white-tailed deer Odocoileus virgini-
anus from North America. The result of this species mix is a worldwide dis-
tribution of most and hybridisation of, amongst others, Cervus species
(Chap. 16). In addition, deer are a reservoir for alien parasites. For example,
the sika deer Cervus nippon transmitted the Asiatic blood-sucking nematode
Asworthius sidemi into Europe. Meanwhile, this roundworm has affected
100 % of the Polish population of the European bison Bison bonasus,a glob-
ally threatened species. Roe deer Capreolus capreolus, red deer Cervus ela-
Pathways in Animal Invasions 19
phus, cattle and sheep are also susceptible to this parasite (Drozdz et al.
2003).
Rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) originate from Spain. In mediaeval times,
monks and noblemen spread them to France and other European countries
and, in the 12th century,to England.Some domestication occurred but escap-
ing specimens naturalized easily and built up large game populations. British
colonists brought rabbits into Australia in 1788 and later into New Zealand,
primarily to shoot as game. Rabbits have been released on more than 800
islands throughout the world (Thompson and King 1994). When rabbits
became a pest in Australia, the Myxomatosis virus was introduced into Aus-
tralia and other countries to control them. Later,the disease also reduced the
native rabbit populations in Spain, France and Italy but, as game compensa-
tion, the North American Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus was intro-
duced into these countries.
Probably since Roman times, common pheasants (Phasianus colchicus),
native to Asia, have been introduced to many European countries for game
but could not establish self-maintaining populations in most areas due to
unfavourable climatic conditions. Since pheasants are a favourite game bird
throughout Europe,millions are bred and released each year. This means that
the small naturalized populations of mixed genetic origin are maintained
only by large releases,also of different origins. In the UK,for example,20 mil-
lion pheasants are released annually, 12 million of which are shot (150
birds km–2), the remaining 8 million birds dying probably due to predator
pressure, diseases and insufficient food. Hunting for pheasants is an industry
which annually generates over £ 300 million and sustains 26,500 jobs (Tapper
1999).
2.3.1.3 Release of Fish and Other Species
It is a widespread habit for anglers to introduce fish into their waters,with the
aim of increasing catch volume or improving the attractiveness of their catch.
Since fish survival depends primarily on water quality and environmental
structure, many blue white fish never got established – despite enormous
stocking, higher yields were not achieved. However, repeated restocking of
millions of specimens yielded a mix of species and genetic origins throughout
the fishing sites, introduced new species or varieties, and offered access of
parasites and disease to hitherto healthy populations.
One of the most prominent cases concerned is that of the rainbow trout
Oncorhynchus mykiss,native to the Pacific coast river systems of North Amer-
ica. It was first introduced to British rivers in 1874, later to all European river
systems,and belongs now to the 100 world’s worst invaders (ISSG 2006). It has
more tolerance to polluted waters,poor diet, and stress,and has consequently
replaced the native brown trout Salmo trutta which requires higher-quality
W. Nentwig20
waters (Chap. 16), and other native species (Drake and Naiman 2000). Simi-
larly, the North American largemouth brass Micropterus salmoides was
released throughout the world for fishing (also among the 100 world’s worst
invaders), and the East European pike-perch (Sander lucioperca) now also
occurs in Western Europe,including England.The American catfish Ameiurus
melas and A. nebulosus were introduced into Germany in the 19th century for
aquaculture, were subsequently found to be not valuable as food but were
soon spread all over Europe.
In the 1950s, the Nile perch (Lates niloticus), native to North and West
African river systems, was released into Lake Victoria and other East African
lakes,and soon became of great commercial importance as a food item. Being
a strong predator on all organisms in its ecosystem, only 20–30 years later,
60 % of the 300 endemic Haplochromis cichlid species were extinct.Today,it is
considered as one of the world’s 100 worst invasive species (Schofield 1999;
Verschuren and Johnson 2002).In the early 1980s, the eel parasite Anguillicola
crassus was introduced with transports of eel (Anguilla sp.) from Southeast
Asia to Europe and also to North America. This parasite spread in Europe
within two decades, and it affects not only the natural European eel popula-
tions but also the aquaculture of eels (Peters and Hartmann 1986).
Several crayfish species from North America were introduced into Europe,
with the aim of growing these in farms, e.g. Pacifastacus leniusculus,Procam-
barus clarkii and Orconectes limosus. Some escaped or were released, and are
now widespread in Europe, transferring the crayfish plague, the fungus
Aphanomyces astaci, to native crayfish species which are much more suscep-
tible and often have become locally extinct. The fungus is one of the 100
world’s worst invaders.
Comparably, many mussel and oyster species, distributed worldwide for
mariculture, escaped. The Mediterranean mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis
now replaces native species in South Africa and parts of the United States.
Also, frogs such as the North American bullfrog, Rana catesbeiana,have been
released as harvestable game animals for food. The East African giant snail,
Achatina fulica, became established all over the tropics because it was trans-
ported for food purposes, escaped from gardens, was intentionally released or
was moved with agricultural products, equipment, cargo, plant or soil matter.
A. fulica was also introduced into many areas for its use in medicinal reme-
dies. The latter three species belong to the list of the 100 world’s worst
invaders (ISSG 2006).
Pathways in Animal Invasions 21
2.3.2 Beneficials or Biological Control Agents
2.3.2.1 Vertebrates
Using vertebrates as biological control agents is associated mainly with the
dark and pre-scientific period of biological control. All the foxes and
weasels, dogs, cats and toads which were released to control pest species
soon became pests themselves because they predated on everything, except
the target pest. One of many typical examples concerns the ermine Mustela
erminea, now also ranked among the 100 world’s worst invaders (ISSG 2006),
native to the Holarctic region north of the 40th parallel. It was introduced
into New Zealand and into some small European islands because it was
believed that it could control rabbits. As a predator specialised in small
mammals and birds, in New Zealand M. erminea preys upon a variety of
native species, particularly kiwi chicks and hole-nesting forest birds.
Ermines spread easily over long distances on land and also reach small off-
shore islands unaided.
Vertebrates have also been used as herbivores. The nutria Myocastor
copyus has been introduced into Texas as a “cure-all” for ponds with dense
vegetation. It reduces many kinds of aquatic plants but, when nutrias get
established, overpopulation soon results and the animals move into places
where they destroy vegetation which is particularly valuable, e.g. for water-
fowl. In 1963, the grass carp or white amure Ctenopharyngodon idella was
imported into the USA from Malaysia as a biological control of aquatic
macrophytes. It was introduced into selected ponds and rivers but escaped.
Since grass carps are capable of moving well beyond areas intended for plant
control within a single season, within a few decades they had spread
throughout the USA (Guillory and Gasaway 1978). Grass carps were also
widely introduced into Europe and Central Asia. C.idella consumes all types
of aquatic plants, including reeds, reed sweet-grass, reed-mace, sedges, bul-
rushes and horsetail, thus destroying essentially all aquatic vegetation. This
has also indirectly reduced native invertebrate and fish populations to
extinction (Maeceina et al. 1992; Bain 1993; Crivelli 1995). Shipments of
grass carps were not always controlled, so that they also contained foreign
species, such as the stone moroko (Pseudorasbora parva), now widely spread
in Europe. In addition, grass carps are hosts of the Asian tapeworm Bothri-
ocephalus opsarichthydis which became established in North America,
Europe, Asia and New Zealand. It now parasites indigenous fish, has the
potential to reduce local biodiversity, and causes considerable economic
harm (Köting 1974).
W. Nentwig22
2.3.2.2 Invertebrates
Invertebrates, primarily insects, are the most common agents to be released
within a biocontrol project against a target weed or an insect pest.Nowadays,
these projects are very carefully performed and agents are tested intensively
prior to release (for the pros and cons of biocontrol,see Chap. 23). Neverthe-
less, these releases add species to an environment where they previously did
not occur. A catalogue by Julien and Griffiths (1998) lists the agents released
for the control of weeds: 201 beetle species, 132 lepidopteran species, 58
dipteran species, 55 hemipteran species and 37 other organisms. There is no
such compilation for released agents against insect pests but a few 100
hymenopteran species can undoubtedly be added to the above list. A rough
estimate of 1,000 invertebrate species released worldwide for biocontrol pur-
poses should certainly not be regarded as being too exaggerated.
2.3.3 Ornamental Animals and Pets
For different reasons,ever-increasing numbers of animals are traded as orna-
mentals and pets. Whereas the worldwide trade of 3,000 species of endan-
gered mammals, birds and reptiles is prohibitively regulated by the appendix
lists of CITES since 1975, other vertebrate taxa and most invertebrates are
excluded. Especially non-endangered species still have hardly any trade
restrictions in most countries. This leads to the paradox situation that many
invasive species or potentially invasive species can easily be traded. It should
not be ignored that virtually all species in the pet trade occasionally may
become released, intentionally or unintentionally,may build up a population,
and may cause problems.
The introduction of ornamental wildfowl was once commonplace, and
many species have been able to escape. Probably the most famous example
concerns the ruddy duck Oxyura jamaicensis. It escaped in England from a
wildfowl facilities in 1949, invaded the European continent and produced fer-
tile hybrids with the white-headed duck Oxyura leucocephala, thereby
strongly reducing the number of pure O. leucocephala. Formerly widespread
in the Mediterranean area, the European populations of O. leucocephala are
now close to extinction. The most obvious way of safeguarding the European
O. leucocephala is a rigorous shooting of O. jamaicensis in Europe (Hughes et
al. 1999). Other examples of escaping waterfowl include the East Asian Man-
darin duck Aix galericulata, the ruddy shelduck Tadorna ferruginea, and the
Canada goose Branta canadensis which became the most successful avian
invader in many regions in Europe.
The import and trade of songbirds are problematical because individuals
escape continuously. The more anthropophilic the species are,the more often
Pathways in Animal Invasions 23
they are introduced and released (e.g.sparrows, starlings,parakeets), leading
to a higher chance to establish in the wild.When the trade of some species was
prohibited, many held as pets were illegally released, e.g. the Californian
house finch,the most destructive bird pest in California, when first offered on
sale in local New York shops (Williamson 1996). On all continents,several par-
rot and parakeet species have escaped or were released.They survive primar-
ily in city parks with sufficient food resources such as shrubs and trees with
fruits and seeds – as well as bird feeders. The Afro-Indian ring-necked para-
keet (Psittacula krameri) and the South American monk parakeet (Myiopsitta
monachus) have established large breeding colonies in many urban areas of
North America, Europe, Africa and Asia (Lever 1987). Additionally, many
introduced birds carry avian malaria and birdpox which usually infect local
bird species much more strongly. Some species even went extinct – e.g. several
Hawaiian birds. Some infection routes were facilitated by the earlier import of
mosquitoes such as Culex or Aedes species, which actually happens worldwide
(Williamson 1996).
Between 1876 and 1929, at least 30 separate introductions to parks and
estates in the UK from the pet stock of the North American grey squirrel
Neosciurus carolinensis established it countrywide, and it soon replaced the
native red squirrel Sciurus vulgaris. An analogous situation is predicted for
Italy (Bertolino and Genovesi 2003) where, independently from the British
populations, grey squirrels have spread after having been released at several
locations. Additionally, the grey squirrel transmits diseases such as the para-
poxvirus to the red squirrel – the latter succumbs whereas the former is not
susceptible to this virus (Tompkins et al. 2003). This pathogen transfer may
even be the main reason for the replacement of the native red squirrel.Com-
parably,the Siberian chipmunk, Tamias sibiricus, has been released at several
locations from The Netherlands into Italy where it has established growing
populations.
Many pets cause problems when they are no longer desired by their own-
ers. They may have become too large (e.g. sliders, snakes, alligators), too
numerous (e.g. goldfish), too dangerous or expensive, or simply too bother-
some, e.g. during the holiday season! Such surplus animals are often simply
released into the wild and may establish self-maintaining populations. One
notable example is the North American bullfrog Rana catesbeiana,released at
several locations in Europe. Its large size, high mobility, generalist eating
habits, function as a disease vector to other amphibians, and huge reproduc-
tive capabilities make this species an extremely successful invader and a
major threat to biodiversity (Werner at al. 1995; Daszak et al. 1999).
The red-eared slider, Trachemys scripta elegans, now among the 100
world’s worst invaders (ISSG 2006), and other species of aquatic turtles are
frequently released in high numbers into European waters where they com-
pete with the rare native European pond terrapins (Emys orbicularis) for
food and sun-basking places. Usually, the alien species have a competitive
W. Nentwig24
advantage over the European pond turtle due to their lower age at maturity,
higher fecundity, larger adult body size, and more aggressive behaviour
(Cady and Joly 2004).
The goldfish (Carassius auratus) and related species,native to Central and
Eastern Asia, are favourite fish for aquarium and garden ponds, and have
reached a global distribution. They regularly escape or are released, have a
high reproduction rate,and today populate most European waters.As general
predators with highly flexible behaviour, they reduce biodiversity and change
ecosystem structure (Lehtonen 2002). Also North American pumpkinseed
species (Lepomis auritius,L. gibbosus) have been released into European
waters because of their colourful appearance and their attractive breeding
behaviour.
2.4 Conclusions
The main conclusions of this short presentation focus on the high variety of
pathways for the introduction of alien species. All pathways are linked to or
caused by human activities and,for many species,several pathways or combi-
nations of pathways are realised. Many introductions show astonishing his-
torical roots but globalization is a main driver of the actual acceleration of
invasion processes. When reading the wealth of information dealing with the
introduction of invasive alien species, one can argue that basic ecological
knowledge or, at least, common sense must have been weakly developed at
one point in time, and one would expect that the negative experience of the
past can largely be avoided today. However, there are present invasion events
which are even worse than those from past experience. The overall conclu-
sion,therefore, can only be that we need much tighter control,stricter quaran-
tine measures and more caution when shipping species and goods around the
world. These control costs are obviously well-invested money to prevent
much higher ecological and economical follow-up costs.
Acknowledgements. I would like to thank Cecily Klingler for valuable comments on
this chapter. My studies on invasive alien species have been considerably supported by
funding of the European Union within the FP 6 integrated project ALARM (GOCE-CT-
2003-506675) and by the specific targeted research project DAISIE (SSPI-CT-2003-
511202), which is gratefully acknowledged.
Pathways in Animal Invasions 25
References
Bain MB (1993) Assessing impacts of introduced aquatic species: grass carp in large sys-
tems. Environ Manage 17:211–224
Bertolino S, Genovesi P (2003) Spread and attempted eradication of the grey squirrel
(Sciurus carolinensis) in Italy, and consequences for the red squirrel (Sciurus vul-
garis) in Eurasia. Biol Conserv 109:351–358
Cady A, Joly P (2004) Impact of the introduction of the red-eared slider (Trach e my s
scripta elegans) on survival rates of the European pond turtle (Emys orbicularis).Bio-
diversity Conserv 13:2511–2518
Cannon RJC, Baker RHA, Taylor M, Moore JP (1999) A review of the pest status of the
New Zealand flatworm in the U.K.Ann Appl Biol 135:597–614
Carlton JT (1999) The scale and ecological consequences of biological invasions in the
world’s oceans. In: Sandlund OT, Schei PJ,Viken A (eds) Invasive species and biodi-
versity management. Kluwer,Dordrecht,pp 195–212
CITES (2006) Convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna
and flora. www.cites.org
Coope GR (1986) The invasion and colonization of the North Atlantic islands: a palaeoe-
cological solution to a biogeographic problem.Philos Trans R Soc B 314:619–635
Crivelli AJ (1995) Are fish introductions a threat to endemic freshwater fishes in the
northern Mediterranean region? Biol Conserv 72:311–319
Daszak P, Berger L, Cunningham AA,Hyatt AD,Earl Green D,Speare R (1999) Emerging
infectious diseases and amphibian population declines. Emerging Infect Diseases
5:735–748
Dove A, Zorman-Rojs O, Vergles Rataj A, Bole-Hribovsek; Krape U; Dobeic M (2004)
Health status of free-living pigeons (Columba livia domestica) in the city of Ljubl-
jana.Acta Vet Hung 52:219–216
Drake CD,Naiman JR (2000) An evaluation of restoration efforts in fishless lakes stocked
with exotic trout. Conserv Biol 14:1807–1820
Drozdz J,Demiaszkiewicz AW, Lachowicz J (2003) Expansion of the Asiatic parasite Ash-
worthius sidemi (Nematoda, Trichostrongylidae) in wild ruminants in Polish terri-
tory.Parasitol Res 89:94–97
Galil B (2000) A sea under siege – Alien species in the Mediterranean. Biol Invasions
2:177–186
Gilbert M, Grégoire JC,Freise JF, Heitland W (2004) Long-distance dispersal and human
population density allow the prediction of invasion patterns in the horse chestnut
leafminer Cameraria ohridella.J Anim Ecol 73:459–468
Gollasch S (2002) The importance of ship fouling as a vector of species introduction into
the North Sea. Biofouling 18:105–121
Guillory V, Gasaway RD (1978) Zoogeography of the grass carp in the United States.
Trans Am Fish Soc 107:105–112
Hughes B, Kirby J, Rowcliffe JM (1999) Waterbird conflicts in Britain & Ireland: Ruddy
ducks, Canada geese and cormorants.Wildfowl 50:70–99
ISSG (2006) 100 of the world’s worst invasive alien species. Invasive species specialist
group. http://www.issg.org
Julien MH,Griffiths MW (1998) Biological control of weeds.A world catalogue of agents
and their target weeds. CABI,Wallingford
Köting W (1974) Bothriocephalosis of the carp.Vet Med Rev 2:165–171
Lehtonen H (2002) Alien freshwater fishes of Europe. In: Leppaekoski E, Gollasch S,
Olenin S (eds) Invasive aquatic species in Europe. Kluwer,Dordrecht,pp 153–161
Lever C (1987) Naturalized birds of the world. Longman, London
W. Nentwig26
Long JL (2003) Introduced mammals of the world. Their history, distribution and influ-
ence. CABI, Wallingford
Maeceina MJ, Cichra MF, Betsill RK, Bettoli PW (1992) Limnological changes in a large
reservoir following vegetation removal by grass carp. J Freshwater Ecol 7:81–95
Maran T, Macdonald DW, Kruuk H, Sidorovich V, Rozhnov VV (1998) The continuing
decline of the European mink Mustela lutreola: evidence for the intraguild aggres-
sion hypothesis.In: Dunstone N,Gorman M (eds) Behaviour and ecology of riparian
mammals. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Symp Zoological Society of Lon-
don 71, pp 297–323
McCallum H, Dobson A (1995) Detecting disease and parasite threats to endangered
species and ecosystems.Trends Ecol Evol 10:190–194
Miller N, Estoup A,Toepfer S, Bourguet D,Lapchin L, Derridj S, Seok Kim K,Reynaud P,
Furlan L, Guillemaud T (2005) Multiple transatlantic introductions of the Western
corn rootworm. Science 310:992
Mitchell CJ (1995) Geographic spread of Aedes albopictus and potential for involvement
in arbovirus cycles in the Mediterranean basin. J Vector Ecol 20:44–58
Nordström M,Högmander J, Nummelin J, Laine J, Laanetu N, Korpimäki E (2002) Vari-
able responses of waterfowl breeding populations to long-term removal of intro-
duced American mink.Ecography 25:385–394
Oxenham M (1990) Aleutian disease in the ferret.Vet Rec 126:585
Pekar S (2002) Zodarion rubidum Simon 1914: railroad riders? Newslett Br Arachnol Soc
95:11–12
Peters G, Hartmann F (1986) Anguillicola, a parasitic nematode of the swim bladder
spreading among eel populations in Europe.Diseases Aquat Organisms 1:229–230
Platnick NI (2006) The world spider catalogue. http://research.amnh.org/entomology/
spiders/catalog/
Por FD (1978) Lessepsian migration: the influx of Red Sea biota into the Mediterranean
by way of the Suez Canal.Ecological Studies 23.Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York
Savidge JA (1987) Extinction of an island forest avifauna by an introduced snake. Ecol-
ogy 68:660–668
Schofield P (1999) Interactions between Nile perch, Lates niloticus, and other fishes in
Lake Nabugabo,Uganda.Environ Biol Fish 55:343–358
Tapper S (ed) (1999) A question of balance: game animals and their role in the British
countryside. The Game Conservancy Trust,Hampshire
Thompson HV, King CM (eds) (1994) The European rabbit,the history and biology of a
successful colonizer. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Tompkins DM, White A, Boots M (2003) Ecological replacement of native red squirrels
by invasive greys driven by disease.Ecol Lett 6:189–196
Verschuren D, Johnson T (2002) History and timing of human impact on Lake Victoria,
East Africa. Proc R Soc Biol Sci Ser B 269:289–294
Werner EE, Wellborn GA, McPeek MA (1995) Diet composition in postmetamorphic
bullfrogs and green frogs: implications for interspecific predation and competition. J
Herpetol 29:600–607
Williamson M (1996) Biological invasions. Chapman & Hall, London
Pathways in Animal Invasions 27
3 Pathways in Plant Invasions
Ingo Kowarik and Moritz von der Lippe
3.1 Introduction
At least at a global scale,species transfer through human agency is much more
frequent,efficient and effective than through natural mechanisms and has no
parallel in evolutionary history (Elton 1958; Mack et al. 2000). As propagule
pressure is one of the most powerful bottlenecks in invasions (Williamson
1996), human-mediated dispersal is a key process in the range expansion of
non-native plant species.
Due to the role of biological invasions as a major threat to biodiversity,
recent research has aimed at identifying pathways in invasions which can be
regulated to prevent or, at least, curb negative impacts of non-native species
(Carlton and Ruiz 2005). Information on the functioning and effectiveness of
different pathways is therefore necessary to set priorities in regulation or
management (Mack 2003).
In literature on human-mediated plant dispersal,“pathway”is used in two
ways: functionally, to describe why and how species are moved by human-
mediated agency and geographically, to describe explicit parts of landscapes
where dispersal proceeds. Consequently, Carlton and Ruiz (2005) aimed at a
more detailed analysis of pathways and proposed to analyse “causes” as the
human motivation for introducing species, “vectors” as physical means or
agents by which a species is transported, and “routes”and “corridors” as geo-
graphic paths over which a species is transferred.
Pathways of plant dispersal vary conspicuously with time (Poschlod and
Bonn 1998; Mack and Lonsdale 2001) and at different spatial scales (Pyšek
and Hulme 2005; Pauchard and Shea 2006), and so does the underlying
human motivation. We illustrate here the relative importance of different
pathways in the accidental and deliberate transfer of species in space and
time. In order to do so, we describe the usefulness of differentiating first
between processes leading to the introduction of a species to a new range and
those which subsequently provide secondary releases of the species within its
Ecological Studies,Vol. 193
W. Nentwig (Ed.)
Biological Invasions
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007
new range. Then,we argue for a detailed analysis of propagule transport and
release as two sub-processes of dispersal. Both may be driven by human
agency with or without intention for long periods after initial introduction.
We thus emphasise the need to analyse “causes”of plant dispersal far beyond
the reasons for introducing a species to a new range.
3.2 Introductions to a New Range: Relative Role
of Deliberate Versus Accidental Transfer of Species
Since the first human migrations and the beginning of agriculture and keep-
ing of livestock, humans have purposefully or accidentally transferred plants
whenever they have moved themselves, together with animals, seeds and
other goods (Hodkinson and Thompson 1997). If this occurs at regional to
continental scales,then such transfers result in species introductions, defined
as a range expansion of a species through human agency by overcoming
major geographical barriers (Richardson et al. 2000).
Both deliberate and accidental plant introductions have long been associ-
ated to human migrations.Palaeobotanical studies have revealed a significant
influx of new species to Central Europe since the Neolithic period, which evi-
dently increased during the Roman period (Willerding 1986). Most early
introductions occurred accidentally, probably as impurities in crop seeds or
by attachment to animals. Consistently, accidental introductions dominate
pre-1500 introductions to Central Europe, as shown by the Czech flora
(Table 3.1).
I. Kowarik and M. von der Lippe30
Table 3.1 Role of deliberately and accidentally introduced species in the non-native
Czech flora (modified from Pyšek et al. 2002)
Introduction Status Number of Mode of introduction
period species Deliberate Both Accidental
Archaeophytes Casual 74 30 4 40
(pre-1500) Naturalised 237 17 25 195
Invasive 21 2 4 15
Total 332 49 33 250
Neophytes Casual 817 400 47 370
(post-1500) Naturalised 160 94 18 48
Invasive 69 45 4 20
Total 1,046 539 69 438
Total Casual 891 430 51 410
Naturalised 397 111 43 243
Invasive 90 47 8 35
Total 1,378 588 102 688
Pathways in Plant Invasions 31
The Romans transferred a broad array of cereals and other useful plants
within their empire (Franz 1984).Castanea sativa may have started spreading
at this time, but its dispersal has been promoted mostly by further cultivation
since medieval times (Conedera et al.2004). Charlemagne’s decree Capitulare
de villis, in 812 AD, enhanced the use of introduced, mainly Mediterranean
plants, far beyond the northern limits of their ranges (Franz 1984).
In the post-Columbian period, the number and efficiency of deliberate
introductions greatly increased due to the magnitude of intercontinental
transfer of organisms (Crosby 1986).The temporal sequence of introductions
from different donor areas to Central Europe echoes the history of voyages
and discoveries,as illustrated by woody plant introductions to Central Europe
(Fig. 3.1a).At a regional scale, the sequence of invasions follows the pattern of
infra- and intercontinental introductions (Fig.3.1b), with an exceedingly vari-
able lag phase which averaged 170 years for trees and 131 for shrubs (Kowarik
1995). As global commerce grows, the frequency of introductions of orna-
mentals to new areas will continue to increase. A huge potential exists, for
example, for importing thousands of previously unavailable Chinese species
to the United States (Mack 2001).
Ornamentation is the predominant purpose for introducing plant species,
as shown by American plant introductions to Europe (Forman 2003) or the
non-native species of the Czech flora which were introduced deliberately:
74 % were ornamentals, 22% nutritional plants, 14% medicinal plants, 11%
fodder plants, 6 % were used for landscaping, 5% as bee plants, and all less
than 2 % each as forest crops or oil, dye and fibre plants (Pyšek et al. 2002).
In recent decades,the relative importance of intentional introductions has
increased at the infra- and intercontinental scale,as advances in seed cleaning
and quarantine measures reduced the efficiency of accidental pathways
(Mack and Lonsdale 2001).
3.2.1 Introduction Mode and Invasion Success
Global transfer of goods and people has also fostered the unintentional trans-
port of “hitchhiking” plants. As was illustrated early by the seminal Flore
adventice de Montpellier (Thellung 1912),accidental introductions may dom-
inate the regional non-native species pool but are clearly less important
among the naturalised species (Table 3.2). This also holds at a greater spatial-
temporal scale, as for post-1500 introductions to the Czech Republic
(Table 3.1) and especially for most recent introductions. Among those now-
naturalised species first recorded in Australia between 1971 and 1995, only
2 % are known to be accidental introductions (Mack and Lonsdale 2001).
Both accidental and deliberate introductions contribute to the group of
non-native species with detrimental effects. At a landscape scale, the impor-
tance of the introduction mode varies strongly. About one-half of the 50
I. Kowarik and M. von der Lippe32
Fig. 3.1a,bTemporal sequence of awoody plant introductions from different donor
areas to Central Europe and of bsuccessive invasions by species from the same donor
areas in Brandenburg, Germany, reflecting the history of infra- and intercontinental
introductions at a regional scale. The inserted columns in ashow absolute numbers of
introductions from Aparts of Europe excluding the Mediterranean, Bthe Mediter-
ranean, Cwestern Asia, DNorth America, ECentral Asia and FEast Asia. The cumulative
curves illustrate the relative importance of introductions from different donor areas for
a
b
species which are classified as noxious in Germany were introduced acciden-
tally, but all of these are virtually confined to arable fields. Almost all non-
agricultural conflicts due to invasive plant species result from deliberate
introductions (Kowarik 2003). Except for agricultural weeds, the majority of
invasive species have evidently been introduced on purpose, and most of
these as ornamentals (Reichard and White 2001; Kowarik 2005). In dealing
with conservation issues, deliberate introduction is thus the most efficient
driver in plant invasions for most terrestrial ecosystems. In marine ecosys-
tems, however, accidentally introduced plants prevail, due mainly to aquacul-
ture and ballast water which serve as effective pathways for species transfer
(Chap. 4).
3.2.2 Coinciding Pathways of Deliberate and Accidental Introductions
The example of the seed trade illustrates how deliberate and accidental path-
ways may coincide, thereby increasing vector efficiency. Deliberate transfer of
seeds has led to an efficient infra- and intercontinental exchange of arable
Pathways in Plant Invasions 33
20-year time spans over a period of 400 years (data from Kowarik 1992). The inserted
columns in bshow absolute numbers of spontaneously occurring non-native woody
species in the region of Brandenburg from the same donor areas (A–F) as shown in a.
The cumulative curves illustrate the relative importance of spontaneously emerging
species from different donor areas for 20-year time spans over a period of 200 years, cal-
culated from data in regional floras (100%=210 species; species occurring in more than
one donor area were calculated repeatedly; data from Kowarik 1992)
Table 3.2 Invasion success of accidentally versus deliberately introduced alien plant
species to the region of Montpellier (southern France), expressed by the rate of natural-
isation of alien species (data from Thellung 1912)
Pathway of introduction Total of Subset of Subset of
alien casual species naturalised
species species
Number Number % Number %
Total species number 800 693 86.6 107 13.4
a) Deliberate introductions 148 87 58.8 61 41.2
b) Accidental introductions with 621 575 92.6 46 7.4
Wool 526 507 96.4 19 3.6
Seed and feed grains 40 31 77.5 9 22.5
Grain crops 18 18 100.0 0 0
Ballast materials 19 10 52.6 9 47.4
Transportation vehicles 18 9 50.0 9 50.0
c) Resulting from hybridisation 31 31 100.0 0 0
crops,grasses and legumes. Crops have always been potential weeds, and vice
versa (Gressel 2005). De-domestication by endo- or exoferality evidently
functions as a prerequisite of potential invasions by many crop species (Gres-
sel 2005). Among the deliberately sown species, mainly perennials have
started to spread,such as African grass species which were previously used to
establish pastures in tropical America (Williams and Baruch 2000).
Since early times, the deliberate transfer of crop seeds has provided a pow-
erful pathway for accidental introductions through seed impurities. The
Roman period, for example, provided a significant influx of Mediterranean
species to the flora of arable fields in occupied territories north of the Alps
(Willerding 1986).In the 19th century, transport routes of crop seeds could be
precisely reconstituted based on the native area of associated species (Thel-
lung 1915). The commercialisation of the seed trade undoubtedly enhanced
the spread of associated weeds (Mack 1991).Prior to the establishment of effi-
cient seed-cleaning procedures during the last century,6 billion seeds per year
are believed to have been sown accidentally with clover and grass seeds in
Great Britain (Salisbury 1953). On arable fields, the recent sharp decline of
many species dispersed with crop seeds indirectly highlights the key role of
seed transfer in accidental introductions (Kornas 1988).
Interestingly, crop seeds were often deliberately contaminated with seeds
of other species to boost sales profits falsely by increasing harvest mass or
declaring a higher-rated origin for the goods, e.g.by adding the North Amer-
ican Ambrosia artemisiifolia to seeds of other provenances (Nobbe 1876).
Tod ay, Ambrosia, which had been also introduced as a true American seed
import, is a noxious species in Europe due to its allergenic effects (Chauvel et
al. 2006).
The distribution of garden plants or forest crops also integrates deliberate
and accidental pathways of species transfer, as weeds often co-occur with
crops in the soil (Prach et al. 1995; Hodkinson and Thompson 1997). The
highly invasive Chondrilla juncea was initially introduced to Australia
attached to imported vine-stocks (Mack and Lonsdale 2001).
3.2.3 Invasions at the Infra-Specific Level
Through Deliberate Introductions
Reintroductions of native species frequently occur in grasses and legumi-
noses as well as in woody species because their seeds can often be produced at
a lower cost abroad. As introduced provenances of native species, especially
cultivars, differ genetically from regional populations, their transfer probably
provides highly effective, albeit clandestine pathways for invasions at the
infra-specific level. In Spain, introduced provenances of Dactylis glomerata
spread from sown to natural grassland and affected endemic taxa of the same
species by competition and hybridisation (Lumaret 1990). Many tree nurs-
I. Kowarik and M. von der Lippe34
eries prefer to use introduced seeds to produce native species. Seeds of the
hazelnut (Corylus avellana),for example, are mainly imported from Italy and
Turkey to Germany (Spethmann 1995). Such introductions are believed to
affect regional genetic diversity, and they are economically relevant due to
possible decreases in frost tolerance, resistance against pathogens, and rates
of establishment and growth (Jones et al. 2001).
3.3 Deliberate Secondary Releases Within the New Range
Human-mediated introductions to a new area are a prerequisite for but no
guarantee of the subsequent establishment and spread of species at regional
and landscape scales. Inter- or infra-continental transport routes between
donor and recipient areas mostly have botanical gardens, tree nurseries or
seed companies as introduction foci. From here, invasions rarely occur
directly, in contrast to that of Matricaria discoidea which spread from the
botanical garden in Berlin (Sukopp 1972).
Evidently, most invasions by deliberately introduced species spread from
invasion foci which were set by secondary releases during decades and cen-
turies subsequent to the initial introduction of a species to a new range
(Kowarik 2003). Horticulture and seed companies function mainly as inter-
faces between continental and regional scales by determining species avail-
ability on the market. By this, they indirectly enhance the further regional
functions of plantations as invasion foci.
Socioeconomic factors, such as varying market routes or prices through
time, influence customers’ choice of a species for long periods after an initial
introduction to a region.For example,in a sample of 534 ornamentals,species
which had escaped cultivation had been for sale more frequently both in the
19th century and today than was the case for non-escaping species (Dehnen-
Schmutz et al. 2006). The economically motivated use of plant species may
change conspicuously over time, as the fate of the North American black
cherry (Prunus serotina) in Europe for the last 350 years exemplifies.A switch
from a rare ornamental to a forest crop in the 19th century, and broad usage
for other reasons during the following century resulted in manifold invasions
and finally in control (Starfinger et al.2003).Similarly, the increasing popular-
ity of Rhododendron ponticum in the British Isles facilitated its subsequent
spreading (Dehnen-Schmutz and Williamson 2006).
Forestry is a good example of the changing importance of pathways to
invasion in time and space.At the end of the 18th century,hundreds of species
were introduced to Europe, tree nurseries and experimental forest plantations
being the main targets of intercontinental transport routes. About 500 non-
native species were listed in 1787 for a single plantation near Berlin (Kowarik
1992). Of these, only those which were planted afterwards in large quantities
Pathways in Plant Invasions 35
at the landscape scale (Robinia pseudoacacia,Quercus rubra,Pinus strobus,
Pseudotsuga menziesii; Kowarik 2003) became important invaders. Through
forestry, in recent decades at least 100 million ha of plantations with non-
native species (84% conifers) have been established in the southern hemi-
sphere (Zobel et al. 1987). Although relatively few in terms of species num-
bers, invasions by conifers have led to far-reaching ecological and economic
consequences (Richardson and Rejmánek 2004).
3.3.1 Cultivation as a Driver in Plant Invasions
Cultivation provides a powerful pathway for subsequent plant invasions at
regional and landscape scales by enhancing the establishment of founder
populations (Mack 2000) and, even beyond the threshold of naturalisation,
species range expansion by bridging adequate but spatially isolated sites
(Kowarik 2003).
The maintenance of cultivated individuals by humans may function in
protecting non-native plant populations from detrimental environmental
effects which may otherwise prevent establishment and further spread (Mack
2000). The vector strength of cultivation is illustrated by the fact that 25 % of
328 cultivated non-native woody species emerged spontaneously in Ham-
burg’s residential areas, as reported by Kowarik (2005). Cultivating species in
large quantities provides a high propagule pressure, known to be a decisive
driver in plant invasions (Williamson 1996). Several studies demonstrate a
close correlation between the quantity of cultivation and subsequent invasion
events, for example, for Eucalyptus species introduced to South Africa
(Rejmánek et al.2005).
Through regional transfer, deliberate secondary releases may create myri-
ads of potential invasion foci and thereby bridge, often repeatedly, spatial or
environmental barriers. Except for agricultural weeds, all problematic
invaders in Germany have been frequently dispersed on purpose by a broad
array of pathways of secondary releases, which often provide a shift from
urban to semi-natural and natural habitats (Kowarik 2003). Deliberate
releases also facilitate invasions by amplifying propagule exposure to natural,
or other human-mediated, dispersal vectors at the landscape scale. Verte-
brates, for example, disperse 50 % of naturalised plant species in Australia
(Rejmánek et al.2005).
In northern Germany, the vector strength of secondary releases was
assessed at the landscape scale by analysing the origin of problematic plant
populations.The invasion foci of 63–76 % of more than 100 populations could
be directly traced back to deliberate releases. Virtually all populations of
Prunus serotina descended from local forestry plantations. In Fallopia
species, plantings (20 %), and deposition of garden waste (29 %) and soil
(20 %) led to the establishment of over two-thirds of all problematic popula-
I. Kowarik and M. von der Lippe36
tions. In Heracleum mantegazzianum,plantings (9%), sowings by beekeepers
(20 %), and deposition of propagules with garden waste (18%) or soil (4 %)
provided key pathways for spreading (Schepker 1998; Kowarik 2003).
Dumping waste into rivers may effectively induce further spread of aquar-
ium plants. Anthropogenically increased water temperature may even
enhance tropical species in temperate regions (Hussner and Lösch 2005). For
both water and terrestrial plants, deliberate releases to “enrich” nature have
been quite effective. Invasion of Elodea canadensis started soon after 1859
when the species was released into some lakes near Berlin and, for the small
region of Frankonia, 75 species are known to have been planted even at nat-
ural sites by amateur botanists (Kowarik 2003).
3.3.2 From Clumped to Linear Patterns
As Pauchard and Shea (2006) state, propagule movement tends, at a regional
scale, to follow landscape corridors such as rivers or roads.Secondary releases
may overlay the resulting linear patterns, as they lead mostly to clumped
releases of species. These result initially in clumped populations adjacent to
the site of release, which may persist for decades and centuries as indicators of
earlier horticulture (Kowarik 2005). Since the end of the 16th century, Tu l ipa
sylvestris has been used as an ornamental north of the Alps.In northwest Ger-
many, about 50% of all populations and 72 % of populations with more than
10,000 individuals are confined to historical gardens and similar sites of early
horticulture. When exposed to rivers, a shift to linear dispersal occurred only
rarely (Kowarik and Wohlgemuth 2006). Such shifts to long-distance dispersal
frequently occur in many successful invaders and may efficiently overlay for-
mer release patterns, for example, in Heracleum mantegazzianum,Impatiens
glandulifera and Fallopia species in Europe (Pyšek and Prach 1993). In the
United States, more than 370,000 ha of Tamarix stands result from plantations
along rivers and subsequent dispersal by moving water (Pauchard and Shea
2006).
3.4 Accidental Transfer of Non-Target Species
Among the huge diversity of human-mediated modes of accidental transport
of species (Thellung 1912; Ridley 1930; Bonn and Poschlod 1998), two princi-
pal ways can be distinguished: (1) the transport by direct association of
propagules to a conveyer, such as the attachment of seeds to cars by mud, and
(2) the transport of propagules associated with goods which are moved by
one or more conveyers. Deliberate and accidental transfer of species may
coincide, as illustrated by the pathway of crop seed transfer described above.
Pathways in Plant Invasions 37
Where and how quickly vehicles and ships – or people and animals, as liv-
ing conveyers, move depend on the method and route of transport. Transport
efficiency expressed in terms of number,velocity and spatial reach of moved
propagules (Carlton and Ruiz 2005) is not necessarily equivalent to vector
efficiency. Transport vectors differ noticeably in the way propagules are
released during or after transport. We thus emphasise the role of release
processes, which can clearly determine the efficiency of a dispersal pathway
and resulting invasion patterns.
3.4.1 Transfer by Goods: Spatial-Temporal Separation
of Propagule Transport and Release
In deliberate transfers of target species, the processes of transporting and
releasing propagules are usually separated in time and space.Release through
cultivation regularly occurs after transport and leads initially to clumped pat-
terns of resulting offspring. As an exception to this general rule, transport
losses of target species may provide continuous propagule release during
transport, resulting in linear patterns of emerging populations. This is most
evident in seed crops which are accidentally dispersed by spilling from load-
ing areas of trains or trucks and subsequently emerge along transport corri-
dors (Suominen 1979). Oilseed rape (Brassica napus), for example, can estab-
lish large populations alongside roads which may persist over long periods
and are associated with major transport routes to oilseed processing plants
(Crawley and Brown 2004).
Accidental transfer of species associated with goods leads preferentially to
discontinuous patterns of release and clumped populations of the emerging
offspring. This may occur both during and after transport. Harbours and
train stations are hotspots of non-native diversity which have long been
recognised (Thellung 1915; Brandes 1993); this is mostly due to the release of
propagules during the switch from one conveyer to another. Associated clean-
ing procedures often enhance clumped propagule release. Citrus fruits, for
example, were once often protected by hay on their way from southern to
northern European regions. At the end of the train journeys, the packing
material was usually discarded at the stations. Jauch (1938) reports 814
species which were moved this way,most of them originating from southern
Europe.The release of solid ballast material in the vicinity of ports is another
example of a highly efficient transport vector associated with clumped pat-
terns of propagule release at the endpoint of transport routes (Thellung 1915;
Ridley 1930). Analogous patterns occur when using water as weighting mate-
rial, but marine release sites facilitate subsequent long-distance dispersal
more effectively than do terrestrial ones (Chap.4).
As another pathway for accidental introductions, wool imports show a
clear separation between propagule transport and release, and also illustrate
I. Kowarik and M. von der Lippe38
how changes in technology may affect vector efficiency through curbing
propagule release. More than 1,600 species, mostly from the southern hemi-
sphere, have arrived in Europe associated with wool (Probst 1949). Only a
few (e.g. Xanthium spinosum,Senecio inaequidens; Thellung 1915; Ernst
1998) crossed the threshold of naturalisation (Table 3.2). The confinement of
most wool adventives to the vicinity of wool industry sites reflects how
propagules were released after transport. Formerly, waste from wool pro-
cessing contained high amounts of viable seeds and was dispersed, often as
organic manure, adjacent to the factories (Salisbury 1964). Today, wool
transports still provide a worldwide transfer of propagules, but the number
of wool adventives in the field has decreased conspicuously due to changes
in the way waste from wool processing is treated and released (Bonn and
Poschlod 1998).
3.4.2 Direct Association with Vehicles: Coincidence of Transport
and Release
Traffic routes were associated with plant invasions even before modern road
construction started. The early colonisation of North America by European
settlers induced multiple range expansions of non-native species, often fol-
lowing trails and primitive roads (Crosby 1986). The inventions of railways
and cars in the 19th century substantially increased the role of traffic as a dis-
persal vector. Apart from an association with transported goods, propagules
can be transported directly through adhesive dispersal on the surface of vehi-
cles.
In contrast to most vectors which promote the intercontinental introduc-
tion of species to a new range, and also in contrast to transfers by means of
transported goods, the direct attachment of propagules to vehicles provides a
vector where the processes of reception, transport and release of propagules
largely overlap in time and space. Road vehicles, for example, continuously
disperse seeds during their journey and this may coincide with the attach-
ment of further diaspores to the vehicle from the roadside flora. Along the
route of transport,propagules released by one car can be attached to a follow-
ing one.Vectors which provide such interlinked chains of reception, transport
and release of diaspores lead to linear distribution patterns along transport
networks. These retrace the transport route, which acts concurrently as corri-
dor of seed release. This continuous release of seeds during transport also
enhances the probability of exposing propagules to other, both natural and
human-mediated dispersal vectors.
Pathways in Plant Invasions 39
3.4.2.1 Adhesion to Vehicles
The adhesive association of propagules to the surface of vehicles can occur
accidentally along the whole route of a vehicle’s journey. The attachment of
propagules to cars has been confirmed through analyses of seed samples from
the surface of cars (Hodkinson and Thompson 1997). The attachment of
propagules to cars as transport vectors is mediated by mud (Clifford 1959;
Hodkinson and Thompson 1997). The efficiency of propagule reception by
vehicles depends on exposure to potential seed sources.Thus,cars which were
driven in rural surroundings and on unpaved roads had much higher seed
contents than cars from urban areas and paved roads (Hodkinson and
Thompson 1997).Although not tested experimentally, it can be assumed that
the attachment potential of propagules to trains is lower than that for cars,as
direct contact to seed sources is limited in the former case.
Various parts of vehicles, such as the tires, wheel arches, tire wells, hood
and trunk grooves and window washer grooves, can support the accumula-
tion of mud and seeds on the surface of vehicles (Hodkinson and Thompson
1997). Occasional events of long-distance dispersal may also be facilitated by
unintended internal transport, e.g. in engine blocks, passenger spaces or
trunks. Corresponding to the varying duration of seed adhesion on different
parts of vehicles, the transport distances cover a broad spatial scale associated
with short- to longer-distance dispersal. As an example, initial roadside pop-
ulations of coastal species in the United Kingdom were found at great dis-
tances from coastal seed sources, probably due to long-distance dispersal by
vehicles (Scott and Davison 1985).At the local scale,dispersal from these ini-
tial populations was enhanced in the direction of traffic flow, demonstrating
also short-distance effects of vehicles on seed dispersal.
3.4.2.2 Transport Routes: from Patterns to Processes
The relevance of traffic as a pathway in plant invasions is usually determined
from observed distribution patterns of non-native species along traffic
routes.As these depend both on dispersal processes and on characteristic site
conditions of roadside and railway corridors, the vector, i.e. the underlying
processes causing these distributional patterns, can be retraced only indi-
rectly.This necessitates a differentiation of site- and vector-dependent mech-
anisms, both of which may enhance plant migration along transportation sys-
tems: (1) seed dispersal by vehicles (Hodkinson and Thompson 1997) and (2)
high disturbance and altered site conditions which provide safe sites for the
establishment of numerous non-native species and form suitable migration
corridors (Hansen and Clevenger 2005). Both processes are mutually depen-
dent,as site conditions along transport routes can favour the establishment of
I. Kowarik and M. von der Lippe40
populations of non-native species which are dispersed by vehicles and which,
in turn, can act as seed sources for subsequent adhesion to vehicles.
It is thus difficult to assess the vector strength of adhesive dispersal by
vehicles as such because plant migration patterns along transportation cor-
ridors usually reflect the confounding effects of site characteristics and the
agency of traffic as well as of other dispersal vectors. Nonetheless, several
studies provide evidence that dispersal by vehicles does indeed enhance the
range expansion of non-native plant species. First, time series of roadside
invasions reveal a linear and sequential range expansion along roadsides
(Kopecky 1988; Ernst 1998), indicating that spreading is due to dispersal
within the corridor, rather than to adjacent seed sources. Second, along
transport systems, isolated founder populations of invasive species can be
found (Scott and Davison 1985; Ernst 1998) which are likely to result from
long-distance dispersal by vehicles. Furthermore, non-native species may
contribute a large share of the seeds found in mud samples from vehicles, for
example, about 70 % in the sludge of a car wash in Canberra, Australia (Wace
1977).
At the local scale,road verges are among the habitat types with the highest
proportion of non-native species and usually comprise more non-native
species than does the adjacent landscape (Gelbard and Belnap 2003; Hansen
and Clevenger 2005). Roadside populations of non-native plant species can
act as focal points for invasion into the adjacent landscape. In grassland habi-
tats, an increase in non-native species richness can be observed up to 100 m
from the edge of transportation corridors (Tyser and Worley 1992; Gelbard
and Belnap 2003). Roads also enhance plant transfers into protected areas
(Tyser and Worley 1992).
Similarly to road traffic, linear distribution of non-native species has
been observed along rail tracks (Hansen and Clevenger 2005). Long-distance
dispersal along the railway system has been acknowledged as a major driver
in the rapid spread of Senecio inaequidens (Ernst 1998). In addition to con-
tinuous dispersal during train travel, discontinuous release of propagules
occurs at stations. However, similarly to road vehicles, it is difficult to
unequivocally identify the functioning of railroad tracks as migration or dis-
persal corridors.
Effects of transport corridors on plant invasions at larger scales are indi-
cated by a positive correlation between the density of the transportation sys-
tem and the density and richness of non-native plants of an area (Vilà and
Pujadas 2001). At the regional scale, migration along transport corridors can
cause altitudinal shifts in species distribution (Kopecky 1988).
Pathways in Plant Invasions 41
3.4.3 Role of Living Conveyers
Since the earliest migrations,people and their domesticated animals (Chap.2)
are known to have transferred plant species accidentally at local to continen-
tal scales. Propagules may be externally moved through attachment to
footwear,clothing, fur or hoofs,and internally through the digestive tract.
Studies on dispersal by livestock illustrate a huge potential for long-dis-
tance dispersal.A flock of 400 sheep can move about 8 million diaspores dur-
ing a single vegetation period, with a retention period of up to 100 days in the
fleece of a sheep (Poschlod and Bonn 1998). Wandering herds can cover dis-
tances of hundreds of kilometres and lead to a continuous release of propag-
ules during transport. This provided, for example,an efficient spread of Xan-
thium spinosum, which was eventually called shepherd’s plague (Thellung
1915). Although transhumance is today less widespread in Europe, long-dis-
tance dispersal through domesticated animals still occurs as livestock are
moved by trains or other vehicles at least at regional to infra-continental
scales, often integrating straw and fodder as additional vectors for plant dis-
persal. In North America, invasions by Bromus tectorum were facilitated in
this way (Mack 1981). During the period of colonisation in the southern
hemisphere, livestock most likely led to an efficient intercontinental transfer
of plant species through the establishment of pasture regimes in the southern
hemisphere or even by releasing domesticated animals as a living larder for
early voyagers on isolated oceanic islands (Crosby 1986).
High numbers of propagules associated with the dung of cattle, sheep and
horses indicate pathways of dispersal via endozoochory (Poschlod and Bonn
1998).Viable seeds of numerous exotic species have been found in horse dung
along recreational riding trails (Campbell and Gibson 2001).Although in this
case only one species moved into the adjacent forest, the large number of
exotic species in horse dung reflects a potential of horseback activities for
inducing invasions. Within German biosphere reserves, sheep transfer the
invasive Lupinus polyphyllus by endozoochory (Otte et al. 2002). Sheep also
provide a potential pathway for crop dispersal, as they have been shown to be
capable of excreting viable canola seeds for up to 5 days after consumption
(Stanton et al.2003).This could lead to seed transfer from grazed stubble pad-
docks to habitats outside of cultivated fields, facilitating the establishment of
feral crop populations.
Human population size is a good predictor for non-native plant species
richness (McKinney 2002), but the understanding of underlying processes is
still limited. Despite the enormous increase in human mobility in the last
decades, only a few studies have directly analysed the role of humans in mov-
ing species by attachment to footwear or clothing (Clifford 1956; Falinski
1972). The anecdotal spread of Plantago major in North America as “English-
men’s foot” (Crosby 1986) clearly indicates the measurable strength of this
vector. Association with footwear of travelling botanists, tourists and sports-
I. Kowarik and M. von der Lippe42
men may provide an infra- and intercontinental transfer of species, as shown
by Clifford (1956) and Powell (1968).Sportsmen have also introduced seeds of
invasive species to Hawai’i on their shoes (Higashino et al. 1983).Still little is
known about the role of humans in dispersing propagules after consumption.
The frequent germination of tomatoes on river banks in Germany suggests an
efficient seed transfer from the human digestive tract via sewage to rivers as
natural corridors of transport (Schmitz 2004).
3.5 Conclusions
Humans promote plant dispersal at local, regional and continental scales. In
processes leading to the introduction of a species to a new range, human
agency is a prerequisite for subsequent invasions. Even at more local to
regional scales, however, human-mediated dispersal can be crucial for inva-
sion success but seems to be still underestimated. Both accidental and delib-
erate vectors of plant invasions are engaged in the further spread of non-
native species following their initial introduction and sometimes, as in
horticulture, the vector of initial introduction can be the same as the one
which fosters range expansion in the new area.As a consequence,prevention
and management of invasions should address processes which lead to the ini-
tial introduction of a species to a new range as well as those enhancing subse-
quent invasion success within the new range through secondary releases or
accidental transfer of propagules.
Distinguishing between the processes of propagule transport and release is
useful for a better understanding of vector efficiency and of the spatial pat-
terns of invasions resulting from the release of propagules to the environ-
ment.As an additional point, we stress here the role of human intervention as
a key driver in both processes (Table 3.3). Often, transport and release of
propagules occur both intentionally and accidentally. Additionally, deliber-
ately transported target species may also be released accidentally and, vice
versa,unintentionally moved non-target species may be released purposefully
into the environment. The classification of vectors according to the underly-
ing human motivation could be a viable approach for the development of pol-
icy and management strategies dealing with biological invasions,as it helps to
group those vectors which can be governed by similar control measures.
Despite the long history in studying pathways in plant dispersal, our
knowledge of the functioning and efficiency of vectors is still limited. In this
regard,it is useful to further analyse the strength of different vectors in terms
of efficiency of both propagule transport and release and the transition to
subsequent stages of invasion success.As has been broadly acknowledged, the
focal challenge in assessing the present and future role of vectors is their
changing nature over time and space.
Pathways in Plant Invasions 43
References
Bonn S, Poschlod P (1998) Ausbreitungsbiologie der Pflanzen Mitteleuropas: Grundla-
gen und kulturhistorische Aspekte. Quelle und Meyer,Wiesbaden
Brandes D (1993) Eisenbahnanlagen als Untersuchungsgegenstand der Geobotanik.
Tuexenia 13:415–444
Campbell JE, Gibson DJ (2001) The effect of seeds of exotic species transported via horse
dung on vegetation along trail corridors. Plant Ecol 157:23–35
Carlton JT, Ruiz GM (2005) Vector science and integrated vector management in bioin-
vasion ecology: conceptual frameworks. In: Mooney HA, Mack RN, McNeely JA,
Neville LE, Schei PJ, Waage JK (eds) Invasive alien species. Island Press,Washington,
DC, pp 36–58
Chauvel B,Dessaint F, Cardinal-Legrand C, Bretagnolle F (2006) The historical spread of
Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.in France from herbarium records. J Biogeogr 33:665–673
Clifford HT (1956) Seed dispersal on footwear. Proc Bot Soc Br Isles 2:129–131
Clifford HT (1959) Seed dispersal by motor vehicles. J Ecol 47:311–315
Conedera M, Krebs P, Tinner W, Pradella M, Torriani D (2004) The cultivation of Cas-
tanea sativa (Mill.) in Europe, from its origin to its diffusion on a continental scale.
Veg Hist Archaeobot 13:161–179
I. Kowarik and M. von der Lippe44
Table 3.3 Presence or absence of human motivation as underlying driver in the transport
and release of propagules. Both processes can be linked to deliberate or accidental
human agency
Deliberate release of propagules Accidental release of propagules
Deliberately
moved target
species
Introduction and subsequent
propagation or cultivation of
ornamentals
Transport losses in crop seeds
by spilling from vehicles or
trains
Deposition of ornamentals
as garden waste
Planting of introduced species
to enrich nature
Accidentally
moved non-
target species
Release of propagules with
solid or liquid ballast
materials
Transport losses of weed seeds
associated with crop seeds
Deposition of propagule-
containing waste from
wool factories as manure
Deposition of propagules
attached to vehicles,animals or
to human footwear
Discharge of propagules which
were associated with goods by
cleaning procedures (e.g.trains)
Resulting spatial
patterns
Mostly clumped invasion
foci by discontinuous release
of propagules
Mostly linear invasion foci by
continuous release of propag-
ules
Crawley MJ, Brown SL (2004) Spatially structured population dynamics in feral oilseed
rape. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 271:1909–1916
Crosby AW (1986) Ecological imperialism: the biological expansion of Europe,
900–1900. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Dehnen-Schmutz K, Williamson M (2006) Rhododendron ponticum in Britain and Ire-
land: social, economic and ecological factors in its successful invasion. Environ Hist
(in press)
Dehnen-Schmutz K, Touza J, Perrings C, Williamson M (2006) The horticultural trade
and ornamental plant invasions in Britain. Conserv Biol (in press)
Elton CS (1958) The ecology of invasions by plants and animals. Methuen,London
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 Bot Neerl 47:131–151
Falinski JB (1972) Anthropochory in xerothermic grasslands in the light of experimen-
tal data.Acta Soc Bot Polon 41:357–368
Forman J (2003) The introduction of American plant species into Europe: issues and
consequences. In: Child LE, Brock JH, Brundu G, Prach K, Pyšek K, Wade PM,
Williamson M (eds) Plant invasions: ecological threats and management solutions.
Backhuys, Leiden, pp 17–39
Franz G (1984) Geschichte des deutschen Gartenbaues.Ulmer, Stuttgart
Gelbard JL, Belnap J (2003) Roads as conduits for exotic plant invasions in a semiarid
landscape. Conserv Biol 17:420–432
Gressel J (ed) (2005) Crop ferality and volunteerism. CRC Press, Boca Raton
Hansen MJ, Clevenger AP (2005) The influence of disturbance and habitat on the pres-
ence of non-native plant species along transport corridors. Biol Conserv 125:249–259
Higashino PK, Guyer W, Stone CP (1983) The Kilauea wilderness marathon and crater
rim runs: sole searching experiences. Newslett Hawaiian Bot Soc 22:25–28
Hodkinson DJ, Thompson K (1997) Plant dispersal: the role of man. J Appl Ecol
34:1484–1496
Hussner A,Lösch R (2005) Alien aquatic plants in a thermally abnormal river and their
assembly to neophyte-dominated macrophyte stands (River Erft,North Rhine-West-
phalia). Limnologica 35:18–30
Jauch F (1938) Fremdpflanzen auf den Karlsruher Güterbahnhöfen. Beitr Naturkde
Forsch Südwestdeutschland 3:76–147
Jones AT, Hayes MJ,Hamilton NRS (2001) The effect of provenance on the performance
of Crataegus monogyna in hedges. J Appl Ecol 38:952–962
Kopecky K (1988) Einfluß der Straßen auf die Synanthropisierung der Flora und Vegeta-
tion nach Beobachtungen in der Tschechoslowakei. Folia Geobot Phytotax
23:145–171
Kornas J (1988) Speirochore Ackerwildkräuter: von ökologischer Spezialisierung zum
Aussterben.Flora 180:83–91
Kowarik I (1992) Einführung und Ausbreitung nichteinheimischer Gehölzarten in
Berlin und Brandenburg.Verh Bot Ver Berlin Brandenburg Beiheft 3:1–188
Kowarik I (1995) Time lags in biological invasions with regard to the success and failure
of alien species. In: Pyšek P, Prach K, Rejmánek M, Wade M (eds) Plant invasions –
general aspects and special problems.SPB Academic,Amsterdam, pp 15–38
Kowarik I (2003) Human agency in biological invasions: secondary releases foster natu-
ralisation and population expansion of alien plant species. Biol Invasions 5:293–312
Kowarik I (2005) Urban ornamentals escaped from cultivation. In: Gressel J (ed) Crop
ferality and volunteerism.CRC Press,Boca Raton,pp 97–121
Kowarik I, Wohlgemuth JO (2006) Tulipa sylvestris in northwestern Germany: a non-
indigenous species as indicator of former horticulture.Polish Bot Stud 22 (in press)
Pathways in Plant Invasions 45
Lumaret R (1990) Invasion of natural pastures by a cultivated grass (Dactylis glomerata
L.) in Galicia, Spain:process and consequence on plant-cattle interactions.In: di Cas-
tri F,Hansen AJ, Debussche M (eds) Biological invasions in Europe and the Mediter-
ranean Basin. Kluwer,Dordrecht,pp 392–397
Mack RN (1981) Invasion of Bromus tectorum L. into western North America: an ecolog-
ical chronicle.Agro-Ecosystems 7:145–165
Mack RN (1991) The commercial seed trade: an early disperser of weeds in the United
States. Econ Bot 45:257–273
Mack RN (2000) Cultivation fosters plant naturalization by reducing environmental sto-
chasticity.Biol Invasions 2:111–122
Mack RN (2001) Motivations and consequences of the human dispersal of plants. In:
McNeely JA (ed) The great reshuffling: human dimensions in invasive alien species.
IUCN, Gland,pp 23–34
Mack RN (2003) Global plant dispersal, naturalization, and Invasion: pathways, modes,
and circumstances. In: Ruiz GM, Carlton JT (eds) Invasive species: vectors and man-
agement strategies. Island Press,Washington, DC,pp 3–30
Mack RN, Lonsdale WM (2001) Humans as global plant dispersers: getting more than we
bargained for.Bioscience 51:95–102
Mack RN, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM, Evans H, Clout M, Bazzaz FA (2000) Biotic inva-
sions: causes,epidemiology,global consequences,and control.Ecol Appl 10:689–710
McKinney ML (2002) Do human activities raise species richness? Contrasting patterns
in United States plants and fishes. Global Ecol Biogeogr 11:343–348
Nobbe F (1876) Handbuch der Samenkunde.Physiologisch statistische Untersuchungen
über den Gebrauchswert der land- und forstwirtschaftlichen sowie gärtnerischen
Saatwaren.Wiegand,Hempel & Parey,Berlin
Otte A, Obert S, Volz H, Weigand E (2002) Effekte von Beweidung auf Lupinus polyphyl-
lus Lindl. in Bergwiesen des Biosphärenreservates Rhön. Neobiota 1:101–133
Pauchard A, Shea K (2006) Integrating the study of non-native plant invasions across
spatial scales. Biol Invasions 8:399–413
Poschlod P, Bonn S (1998) Changing dispersal processes in the central European land-
scape since the last Ice Age: an explanation for the actual decrease of plant species
richness in different habitats? Acta Bot Neerl 47:27–44
Powell RH (1968) Harmful plant species entering New Zealand 1963–1967. N Z J Bot
6:395–401
Prach K, Hadinec J,Michalek J,Pyšek P (1995) Forest planting as a way of species disper-
sal. Forest Ecol Manage 76:191–195
Probst R (1949) Wolladventivflora Mitteleuropas.Voigt-Schild, Solothurn
Pyšek P, Hulme PE (2005) Spatio-temporal dynamics of plant invasions: linking pattern
to process.Ecoscience 12:302–315
Pyšek P, Prach K (1993) Plant invasions and the role of riparian habitats – a comparison
of 4 species alien to Central Europe. J Biogeogr 20:413–420
Pyšek P, Sádlo J,Mandák B (2002) Catalogue of alien plants of the Czech Republic.Pres-
lia 74:97–186
Reichard SH,White P (2001) Horticulture as a pathway of invasive plant introductions in
the United States.Bioscience 51:103–113
Rejmánek M, Richardson DM, Higgins SI, Pitcairn MJ, Grotkopp E (2005) Ecology of
invasive plants: state of the art. In: Mooney HA, Mack RN, McNeely JA, Neville LE,
Schei PJ, Waage JK (eds) Invasive alien species – a new synthesis. Scope 63. Island
Press,Washington, DC, pp 104–161
Richardson DM, Rejmánek M (2004) Conifers as invasive aliens: a global survey and pre-
dictive framework. Diversity Distrib 10:321–331
I. Kowarik and M. von der Lippe46
Richardson DM, Pyšek P, Rejmánek M, Barbour MG,Panetta FD,West CJ (2000) Natural-
ization and invasion of alien plants: concepts and definitions. Diversity Distrib
6:93–107
Ridley HN (1930) The dispersal of plants throughout the world.Reeve, Ashford, Kent
Salisbury E (1953) A changing flora as shown in the study of weeds of arable land and
waste places. In: Lousley JE (ed) The changing flora of Britain. Botanical Society of
the British Isles, Oxford, pp 130–139
Salisbury E (1964) Weeds and aliens. Collins, London
Schepker H (1998) Wahrnehmung, Ausbreitung und Bewertung von Neophyten. Eine
Analyse der problematischen nichteinheimischen Pflanzenarten in Niedersachsen.
Ibidem, Stuttgart
Schmitz U (2004) Frost resistance of tomato seeds and the degree of naturalisation of
Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. in Central Europe.Flora 199:476–480
Scott NE, Davison AW (1985) The distribution and ecology of coastal species on road-
sides.Vegetatio 62:433–440
Spethmann W (1995) In-situ/ex-situ-Erhaltung von heimischen Straucharten. In:Klein-
schmit J,Begemann F, Hammer K (eds) Erhaltung pflanzengenetischer Ressourcen in
der Land- und Forstwirtschaft. ZADI, Bonn,pp 68–87
Stanton R, Pratley J,Hudson D (2003) Sheep are potential vectors for the spread of canola
(Brassica napus) seed.Austral J Exp Agric 43:535–538
Starfinger U,Kowarik I,Rode M, Schepker H (2003) From desirable ornamental plant to
pest to accepted addition to the flora? The perception of an alien plant species
through the centuries.Biol Invasions 5:323–335
Sukopp H (1972) Wandel von Flora und Vegetation in Mitteleuropa unter dem Einfluß
des Menschen. Ber Landwirtsch 50:112–139
Suominen J (1979) The grain immigrant flora of Finland.Acta Bot Fenn 111:1–108
Thellung A (1912) La flore adventice de Montpellier. Mém Soc Sci Nat Cherbourg
38:622–647
Thellung A (1915) Pflanzenwanderungen unter dem Einfluß des Menschen. Beibl Bot
Jahrb 3/5:37–66
Tyser RW,Worley CA (1992) Alien flora in grasslands adjacent to road and trail corridors
in Glacier National Park,Montana (USA). Conserv Biol 6:253–262
Vilà M, Pujadas J (2001) Land-use and socio-economic correlates of plant invasions in
European and North African countries. Biol Conserv 100:397–401
Wace N (1977) Assessment of dispersal of plant species – the car-borne flora in Can-
berra. Proc Ecol Soc Austral 10:167–186
Willerding U (1986) Zur Geschichte der Unkräuter Mitteleuropas. Wachholtz, Neumün-
ster
Williams DG, Baruch Z (2000) African grass invasion in the Americas: ecosystem conse-
quences and the role of ecophysiology.Biol Invasions 2:123–140
Williamson M (1996) Biological invasions. Chapman & Hall, London
Zobel BJ,Wyk GV, Stahl P (1987) Growing exotic forests. Wiley, New York
Pathways in Plant Invasions 47
4 Is Ballast Water a Major Dispersal Mechanism
for Marine Organisms?
Stephan Gollasch
4.1 Introduction
More than 1,000 non-indigenous aquatic species, ranging from unicellular
algae to vertebrates, have been found in European coastal waters, including
navigational inland waterways for ocean-going vessels and adjacent water
bodies. Approximately half of all non-indigenous species recorded to date
have established self-sustaining populations (Gollasch 2006).These introduc-
tions are of high concern, as many cases have caused major economical or
ecological problems (Chaps. 13–19).
Species are introduced unintentionally (e.g. with ships) or intentionally
(e.g. for aquaculture purposes and re-stocking efforts). In shipping, the prime
vectors for species transportation are ballast water and in the hull fouling of
vessels. Further, a considerable number of exotic species migrates through
man-made canals. Examples are the inner-European waterways connecting
the Ponto-Caspian region and the Baltic Sea.Also, the Suez Canal “opened the
door” for Red Sea species migrations into the Mediterranean Sea and vice
versa (Gollasch et al. 2006; Chap. 5).
For the purpose of this contribution, the following inventories of intro-
duced species in coastal waters were considered: North Sea (Gollasch 1996;
Reise et al. 1999; Nehring 2002), Baltic Sea (Leppäkoski 1994; Gollasch and
Mecke 1996; Leppäkoski and Olenin 2000; Olenin et al. 2005), British Isles
(Eno 1996; Eno et al. 1997), Ireland (Minchin and Eno 2002), Mediterranean
Sea (Galil and Zenetos 2002; CIESM 2005). Other key publications are a book
dealing with aquatic invaders in Europe (Leppäkoski et al.2002) and a review
of marine introduced species in Europe (Streftaris et al. 2005).To broaden the
scope, additional datasets from outside Europe were also included: from Aus-
tralia, Japan, New Zealand and North America,including Hawaii, as well as the
inventories of introduced species prepared during the Global Ballast Water
Management Programme (GloBallast), i.e. from Brazil, China, India, Iran,
South Africa and Ukraine.
Ecological Studies,Vol. 193
W. Nentwig (Ed.)
Biological Invasions
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007
4.2 Vectors
Introduction vectors are defined as the physical means by which species are
transported from one geographic region to another (Carlton 2001). Vectors
include various natural mechanisms of spread and also anthropogenically
aided species dispersal.Since man started to sail the oceans, species have been
either intentionally or unintentionally in transport. The Vikings were wide-
reach seafarers and may have been responsible for the introduction of the
infaunal bivalve Mya arenaria to Europe (Petersen et al.1992) – this actually
may be the first ship-mediated species introduction into Europe. When
returning from North America, Vikings may have kept live M. arenaria
aboard as food supply. Alternatively,they may have imported the clam in the
solid ballast used on their vessels. It is assumed that Viking ships arrived in
Europe from muddy estuaries in North America, and these estuaries would
have been highly populated with M. arenaria.However,it is also possible that
there was a gradual re-expansion of M. arenaria into Europe after the last
glaciation period. Wolff (2005) states that the transfer of M. arenaria by the
Vikings may have occurred only on an occasional vessel because there was no
direct transport route between North America and Europe in Viking times
(Marcus 1980).Greenlanders travelled to North America more frequently, and
also between Greenland and Norway, but it is unclear whether these trips
were undertaken by the same vessels. As a result, M. arenaria was probably
first introduced from North America to Greenland and thereafter from
Greenland to Europe (Ockelmann 1958; Höpner Petersen 1978,1999).
Historically, aquaculture and stock transfers of aquatic species resulted in
a significant amount of taxa being transported worldwide. Dry and semi-dry
ballast is no longer in use with merchant shipping but, during former times,
this vector is claimed to have introduced a certain number of species world-
wide, e.g. Littorina littorea to North America (Carlton 1992),Chara connivens
to coastal areas of the Baltic Sea and several seashore plants into Europe (Wal-
lentinus 2002). Estimations reveal that more than 480,000 annual ship move-
ments occur worldwide with the potential for transporting organisms. Vari-
ous calculations have been made on the amount of ballast water carried with
the world’s fleet of merchant ships – it has been estimated that 2–12 billion t
of ballast water are transported annually. In ballast tanks and also other ship
vectors including hulls,anchor chains and sea chests,ships may carry 4,000 to
7,000 taxa each day (Gollasch 1996; Carlton, personal communication). One
reason for this great diversity of organisms in transit arises from the three dif-
ferent “habitats” inside ballast water tanks: (1) tank walls, (2) ballast water,
and (3) the sediment (Taylor et al. 2002).
When calculating the number of new invaders per time unit, every 9 weeks
a new species is found.It should be noted that this value is regionally very dif-
ferent and,in Europe,there are indications that a new species was found every
S. Gollasch50
3 weeks over the time period 1998–2000 (ICES WGITMO 2004). However,not
all species recorded form self-sustaining populations (Minchin and Gollasch
2002). In many cases, it is impossible to clearly identify the introduction vec-
tor. In bivalves, for example, introductions may be attributed to larval trans-
port in ballast water releases, adults in hull fouling of ships or imports as
(non-)target species for aquaculture activities.
4.3 Relative Vector Importance
Previous studies have shown that the most prominent invasion vectors are
shipping and aquaculture activities (Streftaris et al. 2005; Gollasch 2006). An
exception from this general trend is the Mediterranean Sea where the domi-
nating invasion “vector” is the opening of the Suez Canal, enabling Red Sea
species to migrate into the south-eastern Mediterranean Sea and vice versa.
This phenomenon is also known as Lessepsian migration (cf. Ferdinand de
Lesseps planned the Suez Canal which opened in 1869). However, this is not
considered to be a vector but rather a removal of a migration barrier, and has
been included here only for reasons of comparison (Chap. 5).
The relative vector importance is regionally very different. Assessing all
available data as outlined above,on a global scale species introduced with hull
fouling seem to slightly dominate those associated with ballast water and
Is Bllast Water a Major Dispersal Mechanism for Marine Organisms? 51
World
32,6 27,4 26,8
0
10
20
30
40
50
fouling ballast aquaculture
[%]
European Union
15,8 21,2 14,9
0
10
20
30
40
50
fouling ballast aquaculture
[%]
North Sea
23,4
33,2
24,5
0
10
20
30
40
50
fouling ballast aquaculture
German North Sea coast
28,9
42,2
22,2
0
10
20
30
40
50
fouling ballast aquaculture
Fig. 4.1 Relative importance of the invasion vectors hull fouling, ballast water and aqua-
culture efforts per region
aquaculture.In waters of the European Union, ballast water-mediated species
introductions prevail and this trend becomes even clearer when extracting
the data for the North Sea (Fig. 4.1).
4.4 Ballast Water
Ballast water is in use in shipping to, for example, strengthen structures and
to submerge the propeller when no cargo is carried. Ballast water has long
been suspected as major vector for species introductions. One of the first
assumptions that a species was introduced by ballast water to regions outside
its native range was made by Ostenfeld (1908) after a mass occurrence of the
Asian phytoplankton algae Odontella (Biddulphia) sinensis. The species was
first recorded in the North Sea in 1903.The first study to sample ships’ballast
water was carried out 70 years later by Medcof (1975), followed by many oth-
ers. In Europe, 14 ship sampling studies have been undertaken. More than
1,500 ballast tank samples were taken, of which approx. 80% represent sam-
ples from ballast water and nearly 20% from ballast tank sediments. Almost
600 vessels have been sampled since 1992. The total number of taxa identified
overall was more than 1,000.The diversity of species found included bacteria,
fungi, protozoans,algae, invertebrates of different life stages including resting
stages, and fishes with a body length up to 15 cm. The most frequently col-
lected taxa were diatoms, copepods, rotifers, and larvae of Gastropoda,
Bivalvia and Polychaeta (Gollasch et al. 2002).
The above-mentioned shipping studies have clearly shown that an enor-
mous number of taxa can be found in ballast tanks at the end of ship voy-
ages. However, en-route studies based on daily sampling frequencies showed
that organisms in ballast water die out over time. The most significant
decrease in organism densities occurs during the first 3 days of the voyage,
and after 10 days most individuals were found dead (e.g.Gollasch et al. 2000;
Olenin et al. 2000). However, exceptions from this general trend occurred. In
one study, most taxa died out during the first days of the ship’s voyage but
harpacticoid copepods increased in numbers towards the end of the voyage,
documenting that certain species reproduce in ballast water tanks (Gollasch
et al. 2000).
Species with a high potential to cause unwanted impacts in the receiving
environment are frequently transported in ballast water. This refers mainly to
phytoplankton species which may produce toxins – these species, when intro-
duced to areas in close proximity to aquaculture farms, are of great concern.
Further,human pathogens including Vibrio cholerae have been found in bal-
last water.
One invader well known for its negative impact is the Ponto-Caspian zebra
mussel Dreissena polymorpha.When very abundant,the mussel may clog the
S. Gollasch52
water intakes of power plants and municipal waterworks, one notable exam-
ple being the North American Great Lakes.Although this species causes foul-
ing problems,it is unlikely that it was introduced to North America in the hull
fouling of ships. The oceanic voyage is too long for these freshwater organ-
isms to survive. As a result, certain species, including those causing fouling
problems as adults,are introduced as larvae in ballast water.
Ship design continuously improves,resulting in ever faster and larger ves-
sels. Consequently, ship arrivals are more frequent, ballast tanks increase in
size and the time an organism needs to survive in a ballast water tank is
reduced. As a result, the volume and frequency of ballast water discharges
increase, which also enhances the likelihood of species surviving in the new
habitat after ballast water discharge. By implication, each new generation of
ships has the potential to increase the risk of invasion.
4.5 Risk-Reducing Measures
The vectors shipping, aquaculture and stocking may play a different role in
the future,as regulatory instruments are either in place or developing with the
aim to minimize the number of new species introductions.In aquaculture and
stocking, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) has
updated its Code of Practice on the Introductions and Transfers of Marine
Organisms (ICES 2005). This instrument provides (voluntary) guidelines to
avoid unwanted effects of moved species and unintentional introductions of
non-target taxa. ICES member countries planning new marine (including
brackish) species introductions are requested to present to the ICES Council
a detailed prospectus on the rationale, the contents of the prospectus being
detailed in the Code. Having received the proposal, the Council may then
request its Working Group on Introductions and Transfers of Marine Organ-
isms (WGITMO) to evaluate the prospectus. WGITMO may request more
information before commenting on a proposal.If the decision is taken to pro-
ceed with the introduction, then only progeny of the introduced species may
be transplanted into the natural environment,provided that a risk assessment
indicates that the likelihood of negative genetic and environmental impacts is
minimal, that no disease agents,parasites or other non-target species become
evident in the progeny to be transplanted,and that no unacceptable economic
impact is to be expected. A monitoring programme of the introduced species
in its new environment should be undertaken, and annual progress reports
should be submitted to ICES for review at WGITMO meetings, until the
review process is considered complete.
The International Maritime Organization (IMO),the United Nations body
which deals, e.g. with minimizing pollution from ships, has developed two
conventions relevant to biological invasions.
Is Bllast Water a Major Dispersal Mechanism for Marine Organisms? 53
1. The International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling Sys-
tems on Ships: this Convention was developed as a consequence of the
unwanted impact from poisonous antifouling paints based on tri-butyl-tin
(TBT) in the aquatic environment. Eventually, the use of TBT was banned
and TBT-free antifouling paints are currently being developed and tested.
However, it is feared that alternative ship coatings may not be as effective,
possibly resulting in more species arriving in new habitats with ship hull
fouling.
2. The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’
Ballast Water and Sediments: although being of limited effectiveness, bal-
last water exchange in open seas is recommended as a partial solution to
reduce the number of species in transit. In the future, ballast water treat-
ment will eventually be required.This Convention was adopted in 2004 and
is now open for signature by IMO member states. IMO is currently devel-
oping 15 guidelines to address certain key issues in the Convention in
greater detail.
4.6 Ballast Water Management Options
Ballast water exchange has been suggested as a management tool for vessels
on transoceanic voyages.Ballast water taken onboard ships in ports or coastal
areas would be exchanged for deep oceanic water, the background assump-
tion being that, in the open sea, fewer organisms will be present and also
plankton species are unlikely to survive in coastal areas when the ballast
water is discharged in the next port of call. This water exchange approach is
also recommended for cases of vessels travelling between two freshwater
ports, as the salinity increase would likely kill any freshwater organisms
pumped onboard in the freshwater ports.
The water replacement efficiency during ballast water exchange depends
on, e.g. the ballast tank design. Trials have shown that three times volumetric
exchange of ballast water results in approx. 95% removal of phytoplankton
cells and approx. 60% removal of zooplankton organisms.However, the 5 % of
phytoplankton surviving may amount to millions of specimens (Taylor et al.
2002).
Since the mid-1990s, roughly 20 initiatives on ballast water treatment have
been completed or are still ongoing.The treatment options considered to date
include filtration,use of hydrocyclones,heat treatment, coagulation/floccula-
tion, pH adjustment and chemical treatment, including electrolytical genera-
tion of agents from seawater and UV.
S. Gollasch54
4.7 Conclusions
The relative importance of invasion vectors is difficult to assess because not
all introduced species can clearly be attributed to any one vector. However,
shipping seems to be the prime invasion vector today.In shipping, key vectors
are ballast water and hull fouling.Their relative importance is regionally very
different,being strongly influenced by local economies and shipping patterns.
However, as shown above, any ship design improvement which results in
larger and faster ships will favour ballast water-mediated introductions.Con-
sequently, the relative vector importance should be revisited over time. Fur-
ther,trade scenarios and shipping patterns may change over time.When plan-
ning mitigation measures aimed at reducing the number of new species
introductions, the prime invasion vectors should be addressed first; the find-
ings of such assessments may change over time.
Exotic species will definitely continue to spread, although the timely
implementation of the above-mentioned measures may significantly reduce
the invasion rate. As newly found species are usually reported with a certain
time lag due to publishing procedures in scientific journals, the number of
first records in the current decade will likely increase in the future. To solve
this problem, a new European journal of applied research on biological inva-
sions in aquatic ecosystems has been launched and will be published
frequently to announce new findings of biological invaders (http://www.
aquaticinvasions.ru/). Timely publication of new introduced species is not
only of academic interest. It may also result in an early warning instrument
with the aim to develop eradication programmes of certain species. The suc-
cess of rapid response measures to eliminate newly introduced species is
dependent on early detection. Successful efforts are known from Australia
and North America. In Europe, early detection and rapid response scenarios
are currently developing.
The management of already established species requires more effective
international cooperation of neighbouring states. Following the precaution-
ary principle, emphasis should be placed on the prevention of species intro-
ductions because, once established, their secondary spread is difficult or
impossible to control.This approach comes particularly into focus noting the
impacts certain invasions have caused, including implications for native
species, fisheries, aquaculture and human health.It is therefore hoped that the
above-mentioned regulatory instruments enter into force soon and will
timely be implemented with the aim to reduce future species introductions
and their potential negative impacts, resulting in an improved protection of
the world oceans. It seems logical to address the most prominent invasion
vectors first – as shown above,these are likely ballast water and hull fouling of
ships.
Is Bllast Water a Major Dispersal Mechanism for Marine Organisms? 55
Acknowledgements. The manuscript preparation was supported by the European
Union FP 6 specific targeted research project DAISIE (SSPI-CT-2003-511202).
References
Carlton JT (1992) Introduced marine and estuarine molluscs of North America: an end-
of-the-20th-century perspective.J Shellfish Res 11:489–505
Carlton JT (2001) Introduced species in U.S. coastal waters: environmental impacts and
management priorities. Pew Oceans Commission,Arlington,VA
CIESM (2005) Atlas of exotic species in the Mediterranean Sea. www.ciesm.org/atlas
Eno NC (1996) Non-native species in British waters: effects and controls.Aquat Conserv
Mar Freshwater Ecosyst 6:215–228
Eno NC, Clark RA, Sanderson WG (1997) Non-native species in British waters: a review
and directory.Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough
Galil B, Zenetos A (2002) A sea change – exotics in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. In:
Leppäkoski E,Gollasch S,Olenin S (eds) Invasive aquatic species of Europe:distribu-
tion, impacts and management. Kluwer,Dordrecht,pp 325–336
Gollasch S (1996) Untersuchungen des Arteintrages durch den internationalen
Schiffsverkehr unter besonderer Berücksichtigung nichtheimischer Arten. Disserta-
tion, Universität Hamburg,Verlag Dr. Kovac,Hamburg, 314 pp
Gollasch S (2006) Overview on introduced aquatic species in European navigational and
adjacent waters.Helgoland Mar Res 60:84–89
Gollasch S, Mecke R (1996) Eingeschleppte Organismen. In: Lozan JL, Lampe R,
Matthäus W, Rachor E,Rumohr H,v Westernhagen H (eds) Warnsignale aus der Ost-
see. Parey,Berlin, pp 146–150
Gollasch S, Lenz J, Dammer M, Andres HG (2000) Survival of tropical ballast water
organisms during a cruise from the Indian Ocean to the North Sea. J Plankton Res
22:923–937
Gollasch S, Macdonald E, Belson S, Botnen H, Christensen J, Hamer J, Houvenaghel G,
Jelmert A,Lucas I,Masson D, McCollin T, Olenin S,Persson A,Wallentinus I, Wetsteyn
B,Wittling T (2002) Life in ballast tanks.In: Leppäkoski E, Gollasch S,Olenin S (eds)
Invasive aquatic species of Europe: distribution, impacts and management. Kluwer,
Dordrecht,pp 217–231
Gollasch S, Galil BS,Cohen A (eds) (2006) Bridging divides – maritime canals as invasion
corridors. Springer, Dordrecht
Höpner Petersen G (1978) Life cycles and population dynamics of marine benthic
bivalves from the Disko Bugt area of West Greenland. Ophelia 17:95–120
Höpner Petersen G (1999) Five recent Mya species,including three new species and their
fossil connections. Polar Biol 22:322–328
ICES (2005) ICES code of practice on the introductions and transfers of marine organ-
isms 2005. ICES,Copenhagen
ICES WGITMO (2004) Report of the ICES working group on introductions and transfers
of marine organisms (WGITMO).WGITMO, Cesenatico
Leppäkoski E (1994) Non-indigenous species in the Baltic Sea. In: Boudouresque CF,
Briand F, Nolan C (eds) Introduced species in European coastal waters. CIESM,
Monaco,Eur Comm Ecosyst Res Rep 8:67–75
Lepp‰koski E, Olenin S (2000) Non-native species and rates of spread: lessons from the
brackish Baltic Sea. Biol Invasions 2:151–163
S. Gollasch56
Leppäkoski E,Gollasch S, Olenin S (eds) (2002) Invasive aquatic species of Europe: dis-
tribution, impacts and management. Kluwer, Dordrecht
Marcus GJ (1980) The conquest of the North Atlantic.Boydell Press,Woodbridge
Medcof JC (1975) Living marine animals in a ships’ ballast water. Proc Natl Shellfish
Assoc 65:54–55
Minchin D,Eno NC (2002) Exotics of coastal and inland waters of Ireland and Britain.In:
Leppäkoski E,Gollasch S,Olenin S (eds) Invasive aquatic species of Europe:distribu-
tion, impacts and management. Kluwer,Dordrecht,pp 267–275
Minchin D, Gollasch S (2002) Vectors – how exotics get around. In: Leppäkoski E, Gol-
lasch S, Olenin S (eds) Invasive aquatic species of Europe: distribution, impacts and
management. Kluwer,Dordrecht, pp 183–192
Nehring S (2002) Biological invasions into German waters: an evaluation of the impor-
tance of different human-mediated vectors for nonindigenous macrozoobenthic
species. In: Leppäkoski E, Gollasch S, Olenin S (eds) Invasive aquatic species of
Europe: distribution, impacts and management.Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 373–383
Ockelmann WK (1958) The zoology of East Greenland. Marine Lamellibranchiata. Medd
Grønland 122(4):1–256
Olenin S, Gollasch S,Jonusas S,Rimkute I (2000) En-route investigations of plankton in
ballast water on a ship’s voyage from the Baltic to the open Atlantic coast of Europe.
Int Rev Hydrobiol 85:577–596
Olenin S, Daunys D, Dauniene E (eds) (2005) Baltic sea alien species database. http://
www.ku.lt/nemo/mainnemo.html
Ostenfeld CH (1908) On the immigration of Biddulphia sinensis Grev.and its occurrence
in the North Sea during 1903–1907. Medd Komm Havundersogelser Plankton
1(6):1–25
Petersen KS, Rasmussen KL, Heinemeler J, Rud N (1992) Clams before Columbus?
Nature 359:679
Reise K, Gollasch S, Wolff WJ (1999) Introduced marine species of the North Sea coasts.
Helgoländer Meeresunters 52:219–234
Streftaris N, Zenetos A,Papathanassiou E (2005) Globalisation in marine ecosystems: the
story of non-indigenous marine species across European seas. Oceanogr Mar Biol
Annu Rev 43:419–453
Taylor A, Rigby G,Gollasch S, Voigt M, Hallegraeff G, McCollin T, Jelmert A (2002) Pre-
ventive treatment and control techniques for ballast water.In: Leppäkoski E,Gollasch
S, Olenin S (eds) Invasive aquatic species of Europe: distribution, impacts and man-
agement. Kluwer,Dordrecht, pp 484–507
Wallentinus I (2002) Introduced marine algae and vascular plants in European aquatic
environments.In: Leppäkoski E,Gollasch S, Olenin S (eds) Invasive aquatic species of
Europe: distribution, impacts and management.Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 27–54
Wolff WJ (2005) Non-indigenous marine and estuarine species in The Netherlands. Zool
Med Leiden 79:1–116
Is Bllast Water a Major Dispersal Mechanism for Marine Organisms? 57
5 Waterways as Invasion Highways –
Impact of Climate Change and Globalization
Bella S. Galil, Stefan Nehring, and Vadim Panov
5.1 Introduction
The earliest civilizations flourished on the banks of navigable rivers. Indeed,
their first monumental hydrological construction projects were concerned
with irrigation and transport: around 2200 b.c., the first navigable canal, the
Shatt-el-hai, linking the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in Mesopotamia, was
excavated; in the 6th century b.c.,a canal was built which joined the Nile with
the northern Red Sea and, in the 4th century b.c., the Grand Canal in China
connected Peking to Hangzhou,a distance of almost 1,000 km. The technolog-
ical innovations of the 18th century led to an expansion of the network of nav-
igable inland waterways,followed in the 19th century and the early part of the
20th century by the excavation of two interoceanic canals: the Suez Canal,
which opened a direct route from the Mediterranean Sea to the Indo-Pacific
Ocean, and the Panama Canal, which afforded passage between the Atlantic
and Eastern Pacific oceans.
Canals connecting rivers over watersheds or seas across narrow land
bridges “dissolve” natural barriers to the dispersal of aquatic organisms,
thereby furnishing these with many opportunities for natural dispersal as well
as for shipping-mediated transport.The introduction of alien aquatic species
has proven to be one of the most profound and damaging anthropogenic
deeds – involving both ecological and economic costs. Globalization and cli-
mate change are projected to increase aquatic bioinvasions and reduce envi-
ronmental resistance to invasion of thermophilic biota. Navigable waterways
serving as major invasion corridors offer a unique opportunity to study the
impact of these processes.
Ecological Studies,Vol. 193
W. Nentwig (Ed.)
Biological Invasions
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007
5.2 The Watery Web – Inland Waterways of Europe
The complex European network of inland waterways was created over a
period of more than 200 years (see Ketelaars 2004 for review; Fig. 5.1). The
network comprises over 28,000 km of navigable rivers and canals, and extends
from the Atlantic Ocean to the Ural Mountains, connecting 37 countries in
Europe and beyond. This immense aquatic web connects previously isolated
watersheds and has facilitated “all-water” transport from the Caspian and
Black seas to the Baltic and North seas and beyond.
Four invasion corridors have been traced between the southern and north-
ern European seas (Jazdzewski 1980; Panov et al. 1999; Nehring 2002; Bij de
B.S. Galil, S. Nehring, and V. Panov60
Fig. 5.1 Important European waterways and invasion corridors of aquatic species. Canal
number: 1Volga-Don Canal, 2Volga-Baltic Canal, 3White Sea–Baltic Sea Canal, 4Bug-
Prypjat Canal, 5Vistula-Oder Canal, 6Havel-Oder Canal, 7Mittelland Canal, 8Dort-
mund-Ems Canal, 9Rhine-Herne Canal, 10 Ludwig Canal and Main-Danube Canal, 11
Rhine-Rhône Canal, 12 Canal du Centre, 13 Canal de Briar, 14 Rhine-Marne Canal, 15
Kiel Canal (dates of the openings are indicated; for further explanations, see text)
Vaate et al. 2002; Slyn’ko et al. 2002; Van der Velde et al. 2002; Ketelaars 2004).
The largest, comprising 6,500 km of main waterways and 21 inland ports of
international importance, is the “northern corridor” linking the Black and
Azov seas with the Caspian Sea via the Azov-Caspian waterway (E90, includ-
ing the Volga-Don Canal, opened in 1952,no. 1 in Fig. 5.1), with the Baltic and
White seas via the Volga-Baltic waterway (E50, the Volga-Baltic Canal, first
opened in 1810,reopened after major reconstruction in 1964,no.2 in Fig. 5.1),
and the White Sea–Baltic Sea waterway (E60, White Sea–Baltic Sea Canal,
opened in 1932,no.3 in Fig. 5.1).The “central corridor”connects the Black Sea
with the Baltic Sea region via Dnieper (E40) and the Bug-Prypjat Canal
(opened in 1784,no.4 in Fig. 5.1).The Vistula-Oder Canal (opened in 1774,no.
5 in Fig. 5.1) and the Havel-Oder Canal (first opened in 1640, reopened after
major reconstruction in 1746, no. 6 in Fig. 5.1) connect the “central corridor”
with the Elbe River and the North Sea. Since 1938, the Elbe is directly con-
nected with the Rhine via the Mittelland Canal (no. 7 in Fig. 5.1),Dortmund-
Ems Canal (no. 8 in Fig. 5.1), and the Rhine-Herne Canal (no. 9 in Fig. 5.1;
Jazdzewski 1980; Nehring 2002). The “southern corridor” owes its origins to
Charlemagne who, in the 8th century, began digging the Fossa Carolina
between the Rezat,a tributary of the Rhine, and the Altmühl river flowing into
the Danube. Heavy rainfall thwarted his plan and over 1,000 years passed
before another emperor, Louis I,constructed the Ludwig Canal with 101 locks
which connects the Danube with the Main River, a tributary of the Rhine
(opened in 1845,destroyed in World War II, no.10 in Fig. 5.1).Reconstruction
of the Main-Danube Canal began in 1959 and, in 1992,the Danube (E80) and
the Rhine (E10) were finally connected (Nehring 2002; Bij de Vaate et al. 2002;
Van der Velde et al. 2002; WSV 2005). The “western corridor” links the
Mediterranean with the North Sea via the Rhône (E10) and the Rhine-Rhône
Canal (opened in 1834, no. 11 in Fig. 5.1). Although of little commercial
import today, numerous old navigable canals in France and the Benelux coun-
tries, including the Canal du Centre (opened in 1790, no. 12 in Fig. 5.1), the
Canal de Briar (opened in 1842,no. 13 in Fig.5.1) and the Rhine-Marne Canal
(opened in 1853,no.14 in Fig. 5.1),connected major river basins and may have
served as early dispersal routes for alien species from the Mediterranean to
the North Sea basin.
5.3 Aquatic Highways for Invasion
The precise number of aquatic species, primarily of Ponto-Caspian origin,
which benefited from the extensive network described above and extended
their ranges far and wide is as yet unknown but we estimate that 65 species
may have spread through European waterways. Some Ponto-Caspian species
are considered as pests: Dreissena polymorpha, which spread across Western
Waterways as Invasion Highways – Impact of Climate Change and Globalization 61
Europe in the 19th century, exerts a significant impact upon community
structure and functions, by modifying spatial and food chain resources.
Although heavy water pollution reduced Dreissena populations by the mid-
20th century, the improvement of water quality since the 1980s promoted
their recovery (Chap. 15). Dreissena populations nowadays have again
attained densities of up to 40,000 individuals m–2 in German waterways
(Nehring 2005). The amphipod Chelicorophium curvispinum, which spread
via the central and southern corridors in the 20th century, has radically
altered the communities by covering hard substrates with a layer of muddy
tubes up to 4 cm thick (Van der Velde et al. 2002). Since 1996, its population in
the Rhine has been reduced from more than 10,000 to 500 individuals m–2
because of heavy predation pressure exerted by another Ponto-Caspian
amphipod, Dikerogammarus villosus (Haas et al. 2002). After its initial intro-
duction in 1995 via the southern corridor into the Main River, D. villosus has
achieved wide dispersal via the Rhine (Chap. 15) and several canals in north-
ern Germany (Fig. 5.1), and this in record time – by 2000, it was observed
more than 1,000 km away in the Oder (Nehring 2005). The phenomenally suc-
cessful invasive amphipod has become a major component of the macroben-
thic assemblages in German waterways, and significantly impacts their
ecosystem (Haas et al.2002).
At least five Mediterranean macroinvertebrate species invaded the Rhine
and neighbouring basins through the “western corridor”. One of these alien
species, the euryhaline isopod Proasellus coxalis, has established populations
in German inland waters as well in North Sea estuaries (Nehring 2002). The
other invasion corridors (northern, central and southern) have served as
important routes for Ponto-Caspian species to disperse to the North Sea and
Baltic Sea basins. At least six Ponto-Caspian macroinvertebrate species
invaded Western Europe waters using the central corridor and one species,
Dreissena polymorpha, probably dispersed also along the northern corridor
(Nehring 2002; Bij de Vaate et al. 2002;Van der Velde et al. 2002).Following the
opening of the new Main-Danube Canal in 1992, however, the “southern cor-
ridor” has proven to be the most important dispersal route into Western
Europe for Ponto-Caspian species.
To date, 14 macroinvertebrate and fish species originating in the Danube
have established populations in the Main and Rhine river systems, and some
have spread further through the Mittelland Canal into the Ems, Weser and
Elbe rivers and up to the Oder (Nehring 2005). Four species from the Rhine
have recently been recorded from the Danube (e.g. the clam Corbicula flumi-
nalis; Tittizer and Taxacher 1997). Twenty-five of the 44 established alien
macrozoobenthic species recorded from inland waters of Germany are con-
sidered to have arrived through navigable waterways (Aet Umweltplanung
2006). In the Rhine, more than 20% of the species and more than 90% of the
biomass are represented by alien species – the Rhine is an “international
waterway”in the full sense of the word.
B.S. Galil, S. Nehring, and V. Panov62
Organisms spread through waterways mainly through larval and postlar-
val drifting, active dispersal, and transport on ships’ hulls. An examination of
the hulls and cooling water filters of vessels plying the Danube-Main water-
ways revealed the presence of six alien species, underscoring the importance
of that vector (Reinhold and Tittizer 1999). By contrast, we may owe the high
influx of Ponto-Caspian biota through the “southern corridor”to an engineer-
ing development: to compensate for the drain deficit of the Main River, more
than 100 million m3of Danube water are transferred annually through the
Main-Danube Canal into the Main (Nehring 2002). It stands to reason that
additional organisms originating in the Danube ecosystem and the Ponto-
Caspian region will spread via the Main-Danube Canal, especially mobile
species which have already been observed in the upper and middle Danube,
such as the amphipods Chelicorophium sowinskyi,Dikerogammarus bispino-
sus and Obesogammarus obsesus (Nehring 2002; Bij de Vaate et al. 2002).
Recently, this was proven true – O. obsesus was first found in the Rhine in
2004, and further records in 2005 establish this Ponto-Caspian species as new
member of the Rhine biocoenosis (Aet Umweltplanung 2006).
Recent invasions of three Ponto-Caspian onychopod crustaceans – Cerco-
pagis pengoi,Evadne anonyx,Cornigerius maeoticus – into the eastern Gulf of
Finland (Baltic Sea) may indicate the increasing significance of the Volga-
Baltic inland waterway in shipping-mediated long-distance intracontinental
transfer of invasive species in a south–north direction (Rodionova and Panov
2005; Rodionova et al. 2005). Southward dispersal via inland waterways has
been shown for the northern corridor (Slyn’ko et al. 2002). Among the first
invasive alien species established in the basins of the North and Baltic seas,
the Chinese mitten crab, Eriocheir sinensis, made use of inland waterways to
spread to the basins of the Black Sea (Zaitsev and Ozturk 2001), Volga River
(Slyn’ko et al.2002) and Caspian Sea (Robbins et al.2006). Eastward spread of
alien species via the Azov-Caspian waterway (southern part of the northern
corridor) is likely the most intensive among the European waterways: since
the opening of the Volga-Don Canal in 1952, at least 17 alien species have been
introduced to the previously isolated Caspian Sea (Grigorovich et al. 2003),
including the invasive Atlantic ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi, significantly
affecting commercial fisheries and the whole Caspian ecosystem (Shiganova
et al. 2004).
Estuaries are subjected to a two-sided invasion pressure – both through
inland waterways and through coastal activities such as aquaculture – and
thus represent hot spots for the occurrence of aquatic alien species (Nehring
2006). Estuarine ports servicing both inland waterways and oceanic shipping
are prone to inoculations of trans-oceanic biota and may occasionally pro-
mote secondary spread of alien biota upstream. In 1985, the brackish water
polychaete Marenzelleria neglecta (=M. cf. viridis) was introduced in ballast
water to the German Baltic Sea coast. Within years, soft-bottom community
structure was totally changed by this invasive species (Zettler 1997). Since
Waterways as Invasion Highways – Impact of Climate Change and Globalization 63
1996, it has become increasingly abundant in German North Sea estuaries
(Nehring and Leuchs, unpublished data). Its spread is attributed to the Kiel
Canal (opened 1895,no. 15 in Fig.5.1), which connects the brackish Baltic Sea
(Kiel Bight) with the brackish waters of the Elbe estuary at the North Sea
coast.
5.4 Hot and Hotter – the Role of Temperature
in European Waterways Invasions
Increasing water temperature – in groundwater, surface runoff, streams or
rivers – has a significant impact on the spread of alien species. The Asiatic
clam Corbicula fluminea was first found in Europe in 1989 at the confluence of
the Rhine and Meuse rivers near the port of Rotterdam, by 1990 it was
recorded in the Rhine, in 1997 in the Danube, in 1998 in the Elbe, in 2000 in
the drainage basin of the Seine River, and in 2003 in the Saône and Rhône
rivers and in the Canal du Midi, clearly dispersing along the web of naviga-
tional waterways (Vincent and Brancotte 2002).It has been suggested that the
successful dispersal of the Asiatic clam in European waters is correlated with
winter water minima exceeding 2 °C (Schöll 2000). Seeing that winter inland
water temperatures in Germany are frequently below this value, C. fluminea
should seldom be seen.Yet, man-induced discharge of warmer waters – indus-
trial and residential – into the waterways raises their temperature above 2 °C
and promotes the establishment of this species (Fig. 5.2).In fact, downstream
from cooling water outlets of power stations,populations of C. fluminea reach
densities of more than 3,000 individuals m–2 (Haas et al. 2002).
The past two decades have seen a dramatic increase in invasion rates of
Ponto-Caspian species in the eastern Gulf of Finland (the northern end of the
Volga-Baltic waterway): at least 50% of established alien species were first
recorded after 1986. Moreover, the number of Ponto-Caspian aliens estab-
lished in the eastern Gulf of Finland in the past half century is five times as
high as the number of alien species originating elsewhere. The invasions of
Cercopagis pengoi,Evadne anonyx and Cornigerius maeoticus, introduced to
the gulf by vessels using the “northern corridor”, occurred after 1990. This
period was characterized by significant declines in shipping activity via the
Volga Baltic waterway due to the economic crisis in Russia; yet, environmen-
tal changes in the gulf increased its invasibility to warm-temperate Ponto-
Caspian species (Panov et al.2006). Most likely, slight changes in the temper-
ature regime of the eastern Baltic resulted also in the recent range extension
of Dreissena polymorpha. Distribution of this temperate species in the Baltic
Sea in the century and half since its first introduction was limited to latitudes
below 60°N, despite available pathways (inland waterways from the Ponto-
Caspian to northwest of Russia) and suitable mechanisms of introduction
B.S. Galil, S. Nehring, and V. Panov64
Waterways as Invasion Highways – Impact of Climate Change and Globalization 65
Fig. 5.2 Spread of the invasive Asiatic clam Corbicula fluminea in German waterways:
first findings, spreading direction, and locations of power stations over 2.5 million MWh
(modified after Schöll 2000)
(intensive shipping). Recently, D. polymorpha has become established along
the northern coast of the Gulf of Finland, reaching high densities comparable
with those reported for its native habitat. Indeed, only the higher salinity
regime impedes its dispersal further westwards (Orlova and Panov 2004).
Global warming may be instrumental in increasing the spread of warm-tem-
perate alien aquatic species through the inland waterways of Europe.
5.5 Future of Waterways Transport
In 1850, waterborne cargo through the Ludwig Canal amounted to 0.2 mil-
lion t annually but,within a few decades, the transport of goods shifted to the
railways, causing the rapid decline of this canal. We have no record of any
alien species transferred between the Danube and Rhine rivers via the Ludwig
Canal. Since its reopening in 1992, the cargo on the Main-Danube Canal
increased from 2.4 million t in 1993 to 5.2 million t in 1999 (WSV 2005),sub-
sequently slightly declining due to political instability in the Balkans. How-
ever, the rate of invasion remains constant: since 1992, an average of one
Ponto-Caspian species a year arrives through the Main-Danube Canal and
establishes a population in the Rhine and neighbouring basins.With the com-
pletion of the first round of the eastern enlargement of the EU, and the
improvement of the political situation in the Balkans, there are expectations
for greater waterborne trade volumes on the Main-Danube Canal, which can
accommodate up to 18 million t annually. It is predicted that the inland water-
way transport in Germany alone will increase by 43% by 2015 (WSV 2005)
and, based on past experience, this will entail a concomitant rise in the num-
ber of alien species spreading through this waterway.
The volume of shipping along the “northern corridor” has increased to its
pre-1990 level (20 million t of cargo annually, including crude oil), and is cur-
rently limited by poor upkeep of the system, including some derelict locks
and waterways, and two strategic bottlenecks: the Azov-Caspian and Volga-
Baltic waterways (UN 2005). Russia plans to integrate its waterway network
into the European one, focusing on the Volga–Don–Danube corridor. The
Russian network is due to open to international shipping by 2010. The
expected increase in waterborne transport will doubtlessly be followed by a
rise in the number of alien species in this cross-continental system of rivers,
canals, lakes and inland seas. Policy and management should be aware that
this increase in waterborne transport will facilitate the transfer of invasive
species through the European web of inland waterways. Control and reduc-
tion of the dispersal of alien species may entail the installation of barriers
such as deterrent electrical systems as well as chloride- or pH-altered locks
(Clarkson 2004; Nehring 2005).
B.S. Galil, S. Nehring, and V. Panov66
5.6 Suez and Panama – the Interoceanic Canals
The seawater-fed Suez Canal serves as a nearly unidirectional conduit for Red
Sea and Indo-Pacific biota into the Mediterranean. Despite impediments such
as the canal’s long length and shallowness, and strong variations in turbidity,
temperature and salinity, more than 500 Red Sea species have been recorded
from the Mediterranean Sea and many have become established along the
Levantine coast, with some extending their range westwards to Tunis, Sicily
and the Adriatic Sea (Galil 2000). The Suez Canal has provided access for over
80 % of all alien fish, decapod crustaceans and molluscs in the Mediterranean
Sea (www.ciesm.org/atlas). Red Sea aliens now dominate the community
structure and function of the Levantine littoral and infralittoral zones,having
replaced some local populations of native species.Some alien species are con-
sidered as pests or cause nuisance whereas other invaders are of commercial
value – Red Sea prawns and fish presently constitute nearly half of the trawl
catches along the Levantine coast (Goren and Galil 2005).
By contrast, the triple-locked Panama Canal is a freshwater corridor
between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Although the fresh waters of Lake
Gatun connect the Rio Chagres on the Caribbean slope and the Rio Grande on
the Pacific slope, facilitating the intermingling of their formerly isolated fau-
nas (Smith et al. 2004), the lake forms an effective barrier to the dispersal of
marine biota, which generally cannot tolerate hyposaline conditions. Only
seven Atlantic decapod crustacean species have been collected from the
Pacific drainage and a single Pacific crab from the Atlantic drainage, but none
are known to have established populations outside the canal (Abele and Kim
1989). Apart from the euryhaline Atlantic tarpon, Megalops atlanticus, regu-
larly reported near the Pacific terminus of the Panama Canal and around
Coiba Island, no fish have established populations along the Pacific coast of
Panama beyond the Miraflores lagoon, although several species, predomi-
nantly blennies and gobies, have breeding populations in the canal (Hilde-
brand 1939; McCosker and Dawson 1975; Gunter 1979).
It has been assumed that organisms progress through canals as a result of
“natural” dispersal, by autochthonous active or passive larval or adult move-
ments,unaided either directly or indirectly by human activity (other than the
construction of the canal as such). Indeed, a temporal succession of direc-
tional (“stepping stones”) records from the Red Sea,the Suez Canal,and along
the coasts of the Levant confirms a species status as a naturally dispersing Red
Sea alien. However, dispersal could also result from anthropogenic transloca-
tion – already Fox (1926) wrote “It is, of course,well known that ships have in
more than one instance dispersed marine organisms from one part of the
world to another. This must apply equally to transport through the Suez
Canal”. Shipping has been implicated in the dispersal of numerous neritic
organisms, from protists and macrophytes to fish (Carlton 1985). The trans-
Waterways as Invasion Highways – Impact of Climate Change and Globalization 67
port on the hulls of ships of boring, fouling,crevicolous or adherent species is
certainly the most ancient vector of aquatic species introduction. Slower-
moving and frequently moored vessels,such as tugs and barges permanently
employed in canal operations and maintenance,may have a larger share than
other vessels in transport from one end of the canal to the other. Fouling gen-
erally concerns small-sized sedentary, burrow-dwelling or clinging species,
although larger species characterized by life histories which include a life
stage appropriate for such dispersal may be disseminated as well (Zibrowius
1979). Ballast water is usually taken into dedicated ballast tanks or into empty
cargo holds when offloading cargo, and discharged when loading cargo or
bunkering (fuelling). Water and sediment carried in ballast tanks, even after
voyages of several weeks’ duration, have been found to contain many viable
organisms. Since the volume of ballast water may be as much as a third of the
vessel’s deadweight tonnage, it engenders considerable concern as a key vec-
tor of introduction. However, it is seldom possible to ascertain precise means
of transmission, as some organisms may conceivably be transported by sev-
eral modes (Chap. 4).
In addition to serving as corridors for autochthonous or shipping-based
invasions of alien species, canals facilitate aquatic invasions globally by
increasing the overall volume of ship-borne trade and changing the patterns
of maritime transport. The opening of the Suez Canal in 1869, and the
Panama Canal in 1914, had an immediate effect on shipping and trade,
markedly altering global shipping routes. The Suez and Panama canals are the
world’s greatest shortcuts and its densest shipping lanes: about 6 and 3.4 % of
total world seaborne cargo passes through these respectively (The Economist,
23 July 2005). What possible effects could climate change and globalization
have on marine invasions through these canals?
The Suez Canal has a tropical sea at one end and a subtropical sea at the
other, the annual temperature range on the Mediterranean side (15–30.5 °C)
being greater than that in the Gulf of Suez (23.5–28.5 °C). Red Sea aliens, orig-
inating in tropical waters, require “temperatures high enough for the repro-
ductive processes and development of eggs, and minimum winter tempera-
tures above their lethal limits”to establish populations in the Mediterranean
(Ben Tuvia 1966). For some of the most successful Red Sea invasive species,
the initiation of explosive population growth coincided with a rise in winter
water temperatures. The abrupt rise in the populations of the Red Sea lizard
fish Saurida undosquamis, the Red Sea goldband goatfish,Upeneus moluccen-
sis, and other fish and penaeid prawns was attributed to a rise of 1–1.5 ºC in
the Levantine surface seawater temperature during the winter months of
1955–1956 (Ben Yami 1955; Chervinsky 1959; Ben Yami and Glaser 1974). The
appearance of six Red Sea fish species, in addition to a proliferation of previ-
ously rare thermophilic Mediterranean species, in the Adriatic Sea since the
mid-1980s was correlated with a rise in eastern Adriatic surface temperatures
in 1985–1987 and 1990–1995 (Dulcic and Grbec 2000; Dulcic and Lipej 2002).
B.S. Galil, S. Nehring, and V. Panov68
Similarly,a considerable increase in the number of Red Sea fish, decapods and
molluscs along the south-western Anatolian coast and in the southern Aegean
Sea has been attributed to a more extensive inflow of the Asia Minor Current,
resulting in a westward flow of warm, salty water from the Levantine Sea
(Galil and Kevrekidis 2002; Bilecenoglu et al.2002; Corsini et al.2002; Kumulu
et al. 2002;Yokes and Galil 2004; Yokes and Rudman 2004;Katagan et al.2004).
Global warming would likely have a significant influence on the establishment
and distribution of Red Sea species entering through the Suez Canal. Rising
seawater temperature may change the pool of species which could establish
themselves in the Mediterranean,enable temperature-limited Red Sea species
to expand beyond their present distributions in the Mediterranean, and
impact on a suite of population characteristics (reproduction,survival) deter-
mining interspecific interactions and, therefore, the dominance and preva-
lence patterns of alien species, providing Red Sea aliens with a distinct advan-
tage over native Mediterranean biota.
The Panama Canal has a tropical sea at either end but,although the annual
temperature range on the Pacific side is greater than that on the Atlantic side,
due to seasonal upwelling and episodic El Niño events, the “rigorous physical
perturbations” on the Caribbean side mean that the former is “characterized
by the presence of rich stenothermal biotic communities” (Glynn 1972). A
shift in weather patterns may have incalculable biotic consequences across
the isthmus.
5.7 Globalization and Shipping – “Size Matters”
Expanding global trade engenders greater volumes of shipping, and eco-
nomic development of new markets brings about changes to shipping routes.
The world’s seaborne trade amounted to more than 6.7 billion t in 2004.
Almost 40 % of the cargo originated in Asia, and much of it was destined for
Europe and North America (The Economist, 26 November 2005).
The Suez Canal benefited from the development of Middle Eastern oil-
fields, being closely associated with the oil trade from the Gulf – oil shipments
constituted over 70% of total traffic volume in 1966 (Quéguiner 1978). The
closure of the canal in 1967–1975 launched a rapid increase in tanker sizes
and the emergence of VLCC (very large crude carriers, with capacities of
150,000–300,000 t) and ULCC (ultra-large crude carriers, with capacities
exceeding 300,000 t) vessels specifically designed for long-haul routes.
Although recent tanker traffic has been competing with the SUMED pipeline
for the transmission of oil from the Gulf of Suez to the Mediterranean and the
alternate route around the Cape of Good Hope,thousands of laden and partly
laden oil tankers transit the canal annually, transporting about 1.3 million
barrels day–1 (=174,200 t day–1; www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs). At present, the
Waterways as Invasion Highways – Impact of Climate Change and Globalization 69
Suez Canal accommodates Suezmax class tankers of 200,000 t maximum
cargo. In order to attract larger vessels to use the waterway, the Suez Canal
Authority has been expanding the channel to accommodate ULCCs with oil
cargos of up to 350,000 t by 2010.
Whereas earlier progress through the Suez Canal might have been
restricted to euryhaline and generally hardy species, it is now mainly depth-
restricted. Formerly, most Red Sea aliens occupied the Mediterranean littoral
and infralittoral to a depth of 60 m and, with few exceptions, were not found
in deeper waters (Galil 1989; Golani 1996; Bilecenoglu and Taskavak 1999).
However, recent records of the typically deepwater Red Sea molluscs Ergala-
tex contracta Huart 1996 and Mactrinula tryphera Melvill 1899 off the Levan-
tine coast conceivably indicate the general entry of deepwater invaders (Mie-
nis 2004). The increase in canal depth to accommodate larger vessels not only
facilitates the invasion of species showing upper depth ranges (as adults or
larvae) which otherwise would not permit passage but, in addition, the
enlargement of the canal increases current velocities (Soliman 1995).Implica-
tions of faster current on the transport of biota through the canal are clear:
“With gradually improving chances for planktonic larvae to pass the Canal a
steeply increasing invasion of Red Sea animals into the Mediterranean can be
expected – an immigration which in a not too far future might radically
change the whole faunal composition of its eastern basin” (Thorson 1971: p.
846). The profound changes wrought on the eastern Mediterranean biota
commenced with the opening of the Suez Canal.The influx of Red Sea biota is
rooted in the continuous expansion of the canal, which has altered its hydrog-
raphy and hydrology and enhanced its potential as a “corridor”facilitating the
passage of greater numbers of organisms.
Half of the cargo transiting the Panama Canal originates in or is destined
for US ports, and China and Japan are the next-biggest users.The share of the
world’s trade transiting through the Panama Canal was reduced from 5.6% in
1970 to 3.4% in 2004 because the 80,000 dead-weight-ton Panamax, the
largest vessels able to traverse the canal, are only half as large as newly built
container ships. Vessels too big for the waterway use other routes to travel
between Asia and the US coast.Alternatively, goods are either unloaded at US
West Coast ports and transported by road and rail or they are trans-shipped
between Panama’s Atlantic and Pacific ports. To maintain its market share, the
Panama Canal Authority plans to construct a third lane and new locks to
accommodate ships twice as big as Panamax vessels (The Economist, 23 July
2005).
For decades,the permissible draft of the Suez Canal and the dimensions of
the locks in the Panama Canal determined ship sizes, and delayed and limited
the construction of more stable, larger vessels with smaller ratios of ballast
water and hull surface to cargo, thus impacting on patterns of shipping-trans-
ported biota worldwide. The Suez Canal and the Panama Canal have induced
profound economic, political and social changes, facilitating globalization by
B.S. Galil, S. Nehring, and V. Panov70
reducing costs of ship-borne cargo. By increasing maritime trade, contracting
and altering shipping routes, and influencing vessel size,both canals have had
profound impacts on ship-borne bioinvasions. Whereas the Suez Canal has
been serving as a veritable gateway for Red Sea species into the Mediter-
ranean Sea, the waters of Lake Gatun and the upper locks of the Panama Canal
have reduced its suitability for marine biota.
Acknowledgements. This review has been supported by the European Commission
with the FP 6 integrated project ALARM (contract GOCE-CT-2003-506675,VP) and the
specific targeted research project DAISIE (contract SSPI-CT-2003-511202, BG and VP).
References
Abele LG, Kim W (1989) The decapod crustaceans of the Panama Canal. Smithsonian
Contrib Zool 482:1–50
Aet Umweltplanung (2006) Aquatic aliens in German inland and coastal waters.
http://www.aquatic-aliens.de
Ben Tuvia A (1966) Red Sea fishes recently found in the Mediterranean. Copeia 2:254–
275
Ben Yami M (1955) 1954-1955: over-fishing or bad season (in Hebrew)? Fish Bull Haifa
6:10–14
Ben Yami M, Glaser T (1974) The invasion of Saurida undosquamis (Richardson) into the
Levant Basin – an example of biological effect of interoceanic canals. Fish Bull Haifa
72:359–373
Bij de Vaate A, Jazdzewski K, Ketelaars HAM, Gollasch S, Van der Velde G (2002) Geo-
graphical patterns in range extension of Ponto-Caspian macroinvertebrate species in
Europe.Can J Fish Aquat Sci 59:1159–1174
Bilecenoglu M, Taskavak E (1999) General characteristics of the Turkish marine ichthy-
ofauna.Zool Middle East 18:41–56
Bilecenoglu M, Taskavak E, Bogac Kunt K (2002) Range extension of three Lessepsian
migrant fish (Fistularia commersoni,Sphyraena flavicauda,Lagocephalus suezensis)
in the Mediterranean Sea. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 82:525–526
Carlton JT (1985) Transoceanic and interoceanic dispersal of coastal marine organisms:
the biology of ballast water.Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev 23:313–371
Chervinsky J (1959) A systematic and biological comparison between the lizardfish
(Saurida grandisquamis) from the Mediterranean and the Red Sea (with English
abstract). Fish Bull Haifa 19:10–14
Clarkson RW (2004) Effectiveness of electrical fish barriers associated with the Central
Arizona Project. N Am J Fish Manage 24:94–105
Corsini M, Kondilatos G, Economidis PS (2002) Lessepsian migrant Fistularia commer-
sonii from the Rhodes marine area. J Fish Biol 61:1061–1062
Dulcic J, Grbec B (2002) Climatic change and Adriatic ichthyofauna. Fish Ocean
9:187–191
Dulcic J, Lipej L (2002) Rare and little-known fishes in the Eastern Adriatic during last
two decades (1980-2001). Periodicum Biol 104:185–194
Fox HM (1926) I. General part. Zoological results Cambridge expedition to the Suez
Canal, 1924.Trans Zool Soc Lond 22:1–64
Waterways as Invasion Highways – Impact of Climate Change and Globalization 71
Galil BS (1989) Bathymetric distribution and habitat preferences of Lessepsian migrant
Decapoda along the Mediterranean coast of Israel, or: do decapods have cold feet.In:
Spanier E, Steinberger Y, Luria M (eds) Environmental quality and ecosystem stabil-
ity.ISEEQS, Jerusalem, vol IV-B, pp 147–153
Galil BS (2000) A sea under siege – alien species in the Mediterranean. Biol Invasions
2:177–186
Galil BS, Kevrekidis K (2002) Exotic decapods and a stomatopod off Rhodes Island
(Greece) and the Eastern Mediterranean Transient. Crustaceana 75:925–930
Glynn PW (1972) Observations on the ecology of the Caribbean and Pacific coasts of
Panama. Bull Biol Soc Washington 2:13–30
Golani D (1996) The marine ichthyofauna of the eastern Levant – history,inventory and
characterization. Israel J Zool 42:15–55
Goren M, Galil BS (2005) A review of changes in the fish assemblages of Levantine inland
and marine ecosystems following the introduction of non-native fishes. J Appl
Ichthyol 21:1–7
Grigorovich IA, Therriault TW, MacIsaac HJ (2003) History of aquatic invertebrate inva-
sions in the Caspian Sea. Biol Invasions 5:103–115
Gunter G (1979) Marine fishes of Panama as related to the Canal. Gulf Res Rep 6:267–273
Haas G, Brunke M, Streit B (2002) Fast turnover in dominance of exotic species in the
Rhine river determines biodiversity and ecosystem function: an affair between
amphipods and mussels.In: Leppäkoski E, Olenin S,Gollasch S (eds) Alien species in
European waters.Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 426–432
Hildebrand SF (1939) The Panama Canal as a passageway for fishes, with lists and
remarks on the fishes and invertebrates observed. Zoologica 24:15–45
Jazdzewski K (1980) Range extensions of some gammaridean species in European
inland waters caused by human activity. Crustaceana suppl 6:84–106
Jazdzewski K, Konopacka A, Grabowski M (2002) Four Ponto-Caspian and one American
gammarid species (Crustacea, Amphipoda) recently invading Polish waters. Contrib
Zool 71:115–122
Katagan T, Kocatas A, Zengin M,Ates AS (2004) An indo-pasific Stomatopod from the sea
of Marmara: Erugosquilla massavensis (Kossmann,1880). Crustaceana 77:381–383
Ketelaars HAM (2004) Range extensions of Ponto-Caspian aquatic invertebrates in con-
tinental Europe.In: Dumont HJ, Shiganova TA, Niermann U (eds) Aquatic invasions
in the Black, Caspian,and Mediterranean seas.Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 209–236
Kumulu M, Eroldogan OT, Aktas M, Gocer M (2002) A new shrimp record for the Turk-
ish Seas: Melicertus Hathor (Burkenroad, 1959) (Penaeidae: Crustacea). Israel J Zool
48:246–247
Leppäkoski E,Gollasch S, Gruszka P, Ojaveer H, Olenin S,Panov V (2002) The Baltic – a
sea of invaders. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 59:1175–1188
McCosker JE,Dawson CE (1975) Biotic passage through the Panama Canal, with partic-
ular reference to fishes.Mar Biol 30:343–351
Mienis H (2004) New data concerning the presence of Lessepsian and other Indo-Pacific
migrants among the molluscs in the Mediterranean Sea with emphasize on the situ-
ation in Israel. Turkish J Aquat Life 2:117–131
Nehring S (2002) Biological invasions into German waters: an evaluation of the impor-
tance of different human-mediated vectors for nonindigenous macrozoobenthic
species. In: Leppäkoski E,Olenin S, Gollasch S (eds) Alien species in European waters.
Kluwer, Dordrecht,pp 373–383
Nehring S (2005) International shipping – a risk for aquatic biodiversity in Germany. In:
Nentwig W, Bacher S, Cock MJW, Dietz H, Gigon A, Wittenberg R (eds) Biological
invasions – from ecology to control.Neobiota 6:125–143
B.S. Galil, S. Nehring, and V. Panov72
Nehring S (2006) Four arguments why so many alien species settle into estuaries, with
special reference to the German river Elbe. Helgoland Mar Res 60:127–134
Orlova MI, Panov VE (2004) Establishment of the zebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha
Pallas, in the Neva Estuary (Gulf of Finland, Baltic Sea): distribution, population
structure and possible impact on local unionid bivalves.Hydrobiologia 514:207–217
Panov VE, Krylov PI,Telesh IV (1999) The St. Petersburg harbour profile. In:Gollasch S,
Leppäkoski E (eds) Initial risk assessment of alien species in Nordic coastal waters.
Nordic Council of Ministers,Copenhagen,pp 225–244
Panov VE, Bychenkov DE,Berezina NA,Maximov AA (2003) Alien species introductions
in the eastern Gulf of Finland: current state and possible management options. Proc
Est Acad Sci Biol Ecol 52:254–267
Panov VE, Rodionova NV, Bolshagin PV, Bychek EA (2006) Invasion biology of Ponto-
Caspian onychopod cladocerans (Crustacea: Cladocera: Onychopoda). Hydrobiolo-
gia (in press)
Quéguiner J (1978) The Mediterranean as a maritime trade route. Ocean Manage
3:179–189
Reinhold M, Tittizer T (1999) The transport of macroinvertebrates by a river vessel’s
cooling water filter (in German).Wasser Boden 51:61–66
Robbins RS,Sakari M, Baluchi N, Clark PF (2006) The occurrence of Eriocheir sinensis H.
Milne Edwards,1853 (Crustacea: Brachyura: Varunidae) from the Caspian Sea region.
Iran Aquat Invasions 1:31–32
Rodionova N,Panov V (2005) Establishment of the Ponto-Caspian predatory cladoceran
Evadne anonyx in the eastern Gulf of Finland, Baltic Sea.Aquat Invasions 1:7–12
Rodionova NV, Krylov PI, Panov VE (2005) Invasion of the Ponto-Caspian predatory
cladoceran Cornigerius maeoticus maeoticus (Pengo, 1879) into the Baltic Sea.
Oceanology 45:66–68
Schöll F (2000) Temperature as a regulative factor for the dispersal of Corbicula fluminea
(O.F. Müller 1774) (in German). Hydrol Wasserbewirtsch 44:318–321
Shiganova TA, Dumont HJ, Sokolsky AF, Kamakin AM, Tinenkova D, Kurasheva EK
(2004) Population dynamics of Mnemiopsis leidyi in the Caspian Sea, and effects on
the Caspian ecosystem. In: Dumont HJ, Shiganova TA, Niermann U (eds) Aquatic
invasions in the Black, Caspian, and Mediterranean seas. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp
71–111
Slyn’ko YV,Korneva LG,Rivier IK, Shcherbina KH, Papchenkov VG,Orlova MI, Therri-
ault TW (2002) Caspian-Volga-Baltic invasion corridor. In: Leppäkoski E, Olenin S,
Gollasch S (eds) Alien species in European waters. Kluwer,Dordrecht,pp 339–411
Smith SA, Bell G, Bermingham E (2004) Cross-cordillera exchange mediated by the
Panama Canal increased the species richness of local freshwater fish assemblages.
Proc R Soc Lond Biol Sci 271:1889–1896
Soliman GF (1995) The influence of the last widening and deepening of the Suez Canal
on its tidal motion. Bull Natl Inst Oceanogr Fish 21:35–66
Thorson G (1971) Animal migrations through the Suez Canal in the past, recent years
and the future (a preliminary report).Vie Milieu suppl 22:841–846
Tittizer T, Taxacher M (1997) First record of Corbicula fluminea/fluminalis (Müller 1774)
(Corbiculidae, Mollusca) in the Danube (in German). Lauterbornia 31:103–107
UN (2005) Inventory of most important bottlenecks and missing links in the European
waterway network.Resolution no 49.United Nations Organization, New York
Van der Velde G, Nagelkerken I, Rajagopal S, Bij de Vaate A (2002) Invasions by alien
species in inland freshwater bodies in Western Europe: the Rhine delta. In: Lep-
päkoski E, Olenin S,Gollasch S (eds) Alien species in European waters. Kluwer,Dor-
drecht,pp 360–372
Waterways as Invasion Highways – Impact of Climate Change and Globalization 73
Vincent T, Brancotte V (2002) Present distribution and spreading modes of Corbicula
spp.in France.Bull Soc Zool Fr 127:241–252
WSV (2005) Wasser- und Schifffahrtsverwaltung des Bundes.http://www.wsv.de
Yokes B, Galil BS (2004) New record of alien decapods from the southwestern coast of
Turkey. Rapp Réunions Comm Int Explor Sci Mer Méditerr 37:556
Yokes B, Rudman WB (2004) Lessepsian opisthobranchs from southwestern coast of
Turkey; five new records for Mediterranean. Rapp Réunions Comm Int Explor Sci
Mer Méditerr 37:557
Zaitsev YU, Ozturk B (eds) (2001) Exotic species in the Aegean, Marmara, Black, Azov
and Caspian seas. Turkish Marine Research Foundation,Istanbul
Zettler M (1997) Populations dynamics, growth and production of the neozoon Maren-
zelleria cf. viridis (Verrill, 1873) (Polychaeta: Spionidae) in a coastal water of the
southern Baltic Sea. Aquat Ecol 31:177–186
Zibrowius H (1979) Serpulidae (Annelida Polychaeta) de l’océan Indien arrivés sur des
coques de bateaux à Toulon (France). Rapp Réunions Comm Int Explor Sci Mer
Méditerr 25/26(4):133–134
B.S. Galil, S. Nehring, and V. Panov74
Section II
Traits of a Good Invader
Short Introduction
Wolfga n g N e ntw i g
One of the striking features of successful invasive species is that they are a
minority among alien species. Aliens, again, are only a small subgroup of all
species. Consequently, the process of becoming a successful invasive alien
species can be understood as a strong selection sequence. An assemblage of
special characteristics, also called traits, is obviously important to belong to
the spearhead of aliens.
Determining the traits of successful invaders ought to be a very rewarding
task because it would enable us to determine the characteristics of the most
harmful invaders. This would facilitate early diagnosis of potential invaders
and would also offer a promising approach to avoid alien invasive species.It is
obvious that scientists have been focussing on the nature of these traits for a
long time but, do they really exist? At least, we do not get any simple answers
for different groups of invasive alien species which have been investigated in
this respect (Chaps. 7 and 8).
How do invasive species fit into the framework of ecological theories? Is it
true, as some have suggested, that aliens are inherently superior to native
species because they are so successful? And,what is the basis of this superior-
ity? It has also been suggested that invasives possess novel weapons which
might explain their success.This super-weapon theory may sound strange but
was, among others, responsible for the resurrection of allelopathy in plants
and intensified the discussion of gradual differentiation in chemical defence
among alien populations.If successful aliens principally conquer only empty
niches or develop a loss of defence against natural enemies, as some theories
suggest, this would bear good prospects for our battle. Or are such universal
theoretical explanations not applicable to the reality of a strange mixture of
invasive alien species (Chap.6)?
6 Integrating Ecological and Evolutionary Theory
of Biological Invasions
Ruth A. Hufbauer and Mark E. Torchin
6.1 Introduction
While research on biological invasions is becoming more predictive (e.g.,
Mack 1996; Kolar and Lodge 2001; Peterson 2003;Arim et al. 2006; Mitchell et
al. 2006),significant challenges lie ahead.Indeed, it is still not clear what leads
some introduced species to remain benign while others become aggressive
invaders. Here, we review some principal ecological and evolutionary
hypotheses employed to explain biological invasions.We present an overview
of these hypotheses, and suggest approaches to integrate them into a more
comprehensive framework that will allow potential interactions among them
to be examined.
Biological invasions are spatially and temporally continuous processes,
encompassing transport, establishment and spread phases (Sakai et al.2001).
We focus here on the spread, or demographic expansion, of non-native
species that are established, since this stage will ultimately determine an
invader’s impact in a novel environment. Demographic expansions of intro-
duced species can encompass changes within individuals,such as increase in
size or fecundity, and within populations, such as increase in geographic
spread and density. We refer to demographic expansions of introduced
species as invasion success.
Generally, a species is considered invasive if it has significant ecological,
environmental or economic impacts in its novel range. Measuring such
impacts is not trivial, and thus categorizing introduced species as invasive is
often vague and inconsistent. Three issues make measuring impact difficult.
First, not all populations of an invasive species will exhibit the same demo-
graphic patterns, with some expanding rapidly or attaining high densities
and others remaining small. Second, invasive species may not have parallel
ecological, environmental and economic impacts where they invade. While
these different types of impacts are generally linked,in some cases introduced
Ecological Studies,Vol. 193
W. Nentwig (Ed.)
Biological Invasions
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007
species can have significant negative ecological and environmental effects
while having positive economic effects (e.g., cows). Third, it is important to
have a baseline against which changes associated with invasion can be judged.
We argue that comparing the ecology of an introduced species to that of pop-
ulations in its native range will set the most relevant baseline by which to
measure changes in ecology resulting from translocation. If we first under-
stand the causes of demographic variation among populations within the
native range, then we can compare introduced populations to this gradient
(Torchin et al.2001).
For some species, population demographics may be similar between the
native and novel ranges, and mechanisms of their success may be no different.
Such species may be quite benign when introduced,or if they cause economic
problems in their native range,then often they will in their introduced range
as well (e.g., insect pests such as Western corn root worm, Diabrotica vir-
gifera, which is a native pest in North America, and an invasive pest in Europe;
Chap. 2). If a species is more abundant, dense, or widespread in the novel
range than in the native range, then – by definition – something has funda-
mentally changed in its ecology or perhaps evolution.Because invasiveness is
a combined function of the invaded community and the invader, the changes
leading to greater success in the new range can be extrinsic changes in the
environment that favor the invading species, or they can be intrinsic to the
invading species. We refer to species that experience significant positive
demographic changes that contribute to invasion success as strong invaders,
and those with no change or significant negative changes as weak invaders.As
Hierro et al. (2005) point out, there are remarkably few comparative data
between the native and novel ranges of species documenting whether the
demography of invaders changes (but see Torchin et al. 2001).
Introduced species that are weak invaders can be important economically
and environmentally, and also give rise to interesting and urgent ecological
questions. However, weak invaders are less useful in helping us address ques-
tions regarding fundamental ecological and evolutionary changes that appear
to underlie the most damaging invasions (e.g., tamarisk and zebra mussel in
North America).To further an understanding of the causes of biological inva-
sion, it is vital to know whether or not most species considered to be “inva-
sive” are strong invaders that have experienced dramatic demographic
changes relative to their native range.
Herein, we propose a metric to quantify the continuum from weak
invaders to strong invaders. Response ratios are used to compare the means
of experimental treatments (XE) and controls (XC), where R=XE/XC(Hedges
et al. 1999). If R>1, then the experimental treatment is larger than the con-
trol, and if R<1, then the experimental treatment is smaller than the control.
For comparative research on biological invasions, the response ratio we pro-
pose is the ratio of a measure of performance in the introduced range (PI)
to that in the native range (PN). Thus, this metric measure of invasion suc-
R.A. Hufbauer and M.E. Torchin80
cess represents a relative measure of average individual or population per-
formance in the introduced versus native environments. The response ratio,
R, is simply the ratio of performance in the introduced to the native environ-
ments (R=PI/PN), and provides a quantitative measure of demographic
change between the introduced and native environment.A response ratio of
1 indicates no change between the introduced and native range. A response
ratio greater than 1 shows positive change, and a response ratio less than 1
shows a negative change relative to the native environment. If PIand PNare
normally distributed, and PNis unlikely to be negative, then the log of the
response ratio (L) is approximately normally distributed (Hedges et al.
1999), making it a statistically tractable metric. Replicate measures of either
individual or population performance (e.g., average body size, fecundity,
seed set) are required to evaluate whether Rdiffers significantly from 1 (or
Lfrom zero) for a given species.
Strong invasion (R>1) can have one or more of several underlying causes,
such as important changes in the biotic environment (e.g., reduced compe-
tition or reduced suppression by natural enemies), or intrinsic evolutionary
changes associated with the introduction. Quantifying whether strong inva-
sion occurs is simply a first fundamental step (that has often been skipped)
in coming to a more general understanding of the causes of biological inva-
sions.
The response ratio (R) that we have defined for demographic change in
introduced species is linked to whether or not a species is labeled as “invasive”
(Fig. 6.1).Nevertheless,as labels of invasiveness typically are based on subjec-
tive assessments of ecological and economic impacts, Rwill not perfectly pre-
dict invasiveness. The outliers, however, are likely to be particularly interest-
ing cases.
Integrating Ecological and Evolutionary Theory of Biological Invasions 81
Fig. 6.1 Relationship between the
response ratio and invasiveness.
When R=1, the populations in
the introduced range have not
experienced demographic
change (see text). Strong
invaders are those with R>1.
Weak invaders are those with
R=1.While some populations or
species may be considered quite
invasive and have R<1,we pre-
dict that few species will lie in
the upper left quadrant.While
some species with R>1 may not
be considered ecologically and
economically invasive, we pre-
dict few species will lie in the
lower right quadrant
6.2 Hypotheses to Explain Biological Invasion
Demographic expansions of invasive species are influenced by multiple biotic
and abiotic factors.Our aim is to review ecological and evolutionary hypothe-
ses of invasion success, and to explain relationships among biotic factors,
including characteristics of both the invaded communities and the invaders
themselves (Table 6.1). We evaluate whether the hypotheses can help explain
strong invasion, or not. We first outline multiple hypotheses, and then focus
on four: two ecological (enemy release, biotic resistance) and two evolution-
ary (evolution of increased competitive ability, hybridization). We further
explore links between these four hypotheses. Most existing work integrating
across hypotheses focuses on ecological hypotheses only (though see Facon et
al. 2006).We offer ideas connecting ecological and evolutionary hypotheses,
and suggest ways in which a more clear and integrated framework may help
explain seemingly contradictory results.
R.A. Hufbauer and M.E. Torchin82
Table 6.1 Main ecological and evolutionary hypotheses to explain invader success fol-
lowing introduction, and whether they can help explain strong invasion (R>1)
Hypotheses Selected early and recent references R>1
Ecological hypotheses
Preadaptation/disturbance Baker and Stebbins (1965), Sax and Brown (2000) No
Inherent superiority Elton (1958),Sax and Brown (2000) No
Novel weapons Callaway and Ridenour (2004) Yes
Empty niche Elton (1958),Hierro et al. (2005) No
Mutualist facilitation/ Simberloff and Von Holle (1999), No
invasional meltdown Richardson et al. (2000)
Biotic resistance Elton (1958), Levine et al. (2004) Yes
Enemy release Darwin (1859), Torchin and Mitchell (2004) Yes
Evolutionary hypotheses
Hybridization Ellstrand and Schierenbeck (2000) Yes
Evolution of increased Blossey and Nötzold (1995) Yes
competitive ability
Founder events Mayr (1954) Yes
Genetic architecture Lee (2002) No
6.2.1 Ecological Hypotheses
There are multiple ecological hypotheses to explain invasions (Table 6.1). In
addition to this review, the reader is referred to Sax and Brown (2000),
Hierro et al. (2005) and Mitchell et al. (2006). When a species establishes in
a new range, it may be successful if it is preadapted to facets of the new envi-
ronment (Baker and Stebbins 1965; Sax and Brown 2000). Such a species may
have a long association with humans and ecosystems modified by humans
that native species do not have. For example, Eurasian species that have long
been adapted to agricultural settings may be quick to invade regions where
agriculture is relatively new. The native species in those regions are not
adapted to the agricultural setting, and are at a disadvantage when pread-
apted species from an agricultural area are introduced. While this hypothe-
sis may explain the success of introduced species relative to native species, it
does not explain how introduced species might be more successful in the
new range relative to the native range, becoming strong invaders. Such
species might lie in the upper left quadrant of Fig. 6.1, being relatively inva-
sive, yet having low R.
Several hypotheses suggest that invasive species are in some way simply
inherently superior to the native species in the communities that they invade
(e.g., Elton 1958; Sax and Brown 2000). For example,invaders may be superior
competitors (Sax and Brown 2000), or they may be superior predators (e.g.,
brown tree snakes;Wiles et al.2003).A related idea, the novel weapons hypoth-
esis, proposes that invasive species possess biochemical weapons that are
novel to the native inhabitants of the invaded community (Callaway and Ride-
nour 2004;Vivanco et al.2004), but are less effective in the native range where
the competing species have evolved in the presence of those weapons. Much of
the evidence for this intuitively appealing hypothesis comes from plants in the
genus Centaurea that are thought to be allelopathic (Callaway and Ridenour
2004; Vivanco et al. 2004). However, there is some debate about the evidence
for allelopathy in these systems (Blair et al. 2005).
The empty niche hypothesis posits that invasive species are able to use
resources not used by native species,or use them more efficiently and thereby
create a new ecological niche in a community (Elton 1958). This hypothesis
may help explain invasion, but not strong invasion, unless the niche used in
the novel range is in some way more favorable or broader than that used in the
native range.This hypothesis is linked to the idea that species-rich communi-
ties are more difficult to invade than species-poor communities,which is dis-
cussed below under the biotic resistance hypothesis.
In several respects, preadaptation, inherent superiority, and the empty
niche hypotheses are related.Each proposes that the invaded environment is
suitable for invasion from the outset, and that similarly, the invasive species
has the capability of invading that environment without any intrinsic ecolog-
ical or evolutionary changes being required.Thus,when preadaptation,inher-
Integrating Ecological and Evolutionary Theory of Biological Invasions 83
ent superiority, or an empty niche lead to strong invasion, the external envi-
ronment of the new range must be more favorable to the invasive species than
its native range.
A positive feedback between introduced species may enable them to
become invasive, a process termed invasional meltdown (Simberloff and Von
Holle 1999; Richardson et al. 2000). Often, mutualists are important in facili-
tating invasional meltdown. Similarly to the enemy release hypothesis
described below, mutualists are likely to be lost during the process of inva-
sion. Some species rely upon mutualists for successful passage through cru-
cial stages of their life cycles. For example,obligatorily outcrossing plants that
rely upon pollination can not reproduce sexually without a pollinator. Other
species engage in mutualisms that are not obligate but that increase their fit-
ness in many situations, such as plants harboring mycorrhizal fungi. For
introduced species engaged in mutualisms to become invasive, their mutual-
ists must be replaced by mutualists from the novel range, or their mutualists
from the native range must be introduced to the novel range as well. Without
their mutualists, they may remain latent for years. For example, Pierce’s dis-
ease (Xylella fastidiosa), a bacterial disease of many woody plants, did not
become invasive in North America until an efficient vector (glassy-winged
sharpshooter, Homalodisca coagulata) was introduced (Redak et al. 2004).
While the hypothesis that mutualisms facilitate invasions is well-supported,it
may not explain strong invasion unless other factors and interactions (in the
case of Pierce’s disease, the availability of many susceptible hosts) also come
into play.
The invasion process may “filter out” parasites (including specialized her-
bivores),pathogens, or other natural enemies that occur in an invading host’s
native range through several mechanisms (Keane and Crawley 2002; Torchin
et al. 2003). The enemy release hypothesis (ERH) posits that this filtering
process releases introduced species from the top-down population regulation
exerted in the native range, enabling strong invasion.A key prediction of the
ERH is that introduced populations harbor fewer natural enemies compared
to populations within their original range (Williams 1954; Elton 1958).Addi-
tionally, it is often postulated that there should be a corresponding shift to a
higher proportion of generalist enemies relative to the native range, since
generalists are more likely to shift to novel species.Another prediction of the
ERH is that introduced species may gain a competitive edge because they are
less likely to be affected by natural enemies than are native competitors (Elton
1958; Keane and Crawley 2002). These key predictions of the ERH are not
mutually exclusive, but the mechanisms may not occur simultaneously.Grow-
ing evidence indicates that introduced species have fewer enemies than where
they are native (reviewed in Torchin and Mitchell 2004). Whether this loss of
enemies drives the unusual demographic expansion of some introduced
species remains equivocal (e.g., Lampo and Bayliss 1996; Beckstead and
Parker 2003; Reinhart et al. 2003).Additionally,the extent to which introduced
R.A. Hufbauer and M.E. Torchin84
species suffer less from enemies relative to native competitors (and how this
affects competitive interactions) remains uncertain (e.g., Settle and Wilson
1990; Calvo-Ugarteburu and McQuaid 1998; Blaney and Kotanen 2001).
The biotic resistance hypothesis (BRH) focuses on the communities into
which species are introduced,and aims to understand how they differ in their
ability to resist invasion (Elton 1958; Tilman 1997; Levine and D’Antonio
1999; Maron and Vilà 2001), and to suppress population growth of invaders
(Levine et al.2004). Most studies of biotic resistance have focused on competi-
tors and the role of species diversity in shaping competitive regimes. However,
there is growing appreciation that the importance of this process varies
strongly with the setting in which competitive interactions occur. For exam-
ple, the relative abilities of species to compete successfully is influenced by
their interactions with higher trophic levels (e.g., Schierenbeck et al. 1994;
Courchamp et al. 2000; Chase et al. 2002). Invading species also experience
resistance directly from enemies that are able to use the novel organisms as
prey or hosts. Introduced species invading communities with close relatives
are more likely to accumulate natural enemies and experience stronger com-
petition than is the case in the absence of relatives (Strong et al. 1984; Mack
1996; Torchin and Mitchell 2004). Hence, the enemy release and the biotic
resistance hypotheses are fundamentally linked.
6.2.2 Evolutionary Hypotheses
Most research on the mechanisms underlying biological invasions has
focused on the ecological explanations outlined above, despite the pioneering
symposium of Baker and Stebbins (1965) addressing the potentially critical
role of evolution in the success of colonizing species. For evolution to con-
tribute to the success of introduced species, it must increase relative fitness of
individuals in the population, and thereby increase population growth rates.
A challenge is understanding whether and how evolution may lead to more
rapid increases in fitness in introduced populations than in native popula-
tions, leading to strong invasions.
The evolution of increased competitive ability (EICA) hypothesis is an evo-
lutionary corollary to the enemy release hypothesis that proposes that escape
from natural enemies alters the selection regime, such that costly defenses
against enemies no longer enhance fitness. The evolutionary loss of defenses
enables resources to be directed toward growth and reproduction, or other
traits influencing performance (Blossey and Nötzold 1995). Thus, EICA
addresses a specific scenario in which the selective regime changes for intro-
duced species but not for native species,and thus can explain strong invasion.
Research on this hypothesis has principally focused on plants, but the basic
premise of EICA should be valid for other taxa, too. The EICA hypothesis
leads to two key predictions. First, introduced populations should exhibit a
Integrating Ecological and Evolutionary Theory of Biological Invasions 85
loss of defenses against natural enemies when compared to native popula-
tions. Second, when grown or reared in the novel environment, individuals
from introduced populations should be more fit than individuals from native
populations (or, in a reciprocal transplant, introduced individuals should be
locally adapted to their new environment). While some studies examining
EICA have found a loss of defense in introduced species, only a subset have
demonstrated altered resource allocation facilitating demographic expansion
of the invader (Bossdorf et al. 2005).
The EICA hypothesis proposes a specific mechanism for adaptive evolu-
tion. However, the genetic variation available for adaptive evolution might be
expected to be limited in introduced species due to bottlenecks in popula-
tion size that can be associated with the introduction process (Nei et al.
1975). In fact, reduced genetic variation in the invaded region compared to
the native region is often considered evidence for bottlenecks (e.g., Tsutsui
et al. 2000; Hassan et al. 2003). Population bottlenecks may lead to inbreed-
ing depression and may limit adaptive evolution, particularly when popula-
tions remain small for multiple generations (e.g., Lande 1980). This may not
always be the case, however, as founder effects that can be associated with
bottlenecks may actually convert epistatic variance into additive genetic
variance and thereby enhance the potential for a response to selection (see
below; Goodnight 1987; Bryant and Meffert 1995). In addition, multiple
introductions from different native origins, even if each imposes a strong
bottleneck in population size, may enhance variation, particularly if there is
significant genetic structure among populations in the native range. When
individuals from those populations cross in the new range, they can gener-
ate introduced populations that can harbor greater genetic variation than is
found in any single population in the native range (Kolbe et al. 2004).Varia-
tion can also be increased if introduced species cross with related species
(native or introduced; see Chap. 16).
Abbott (1992) and Ellstrand and Schierenbeck (2000) highlighted the role
of hybridization between species and gene flow among distinct genotypes in
invasions, and proposed that it increases the invasiveness of exotic species
by generating genetic variation, evolutionary novelty or hybrid vigor (e.g.,
Vilà and D’Antonio 1998). Hybridization may initially reduce fitness (Arnold
et al. 2001), but a combination of selection and backcrossing may result in
individuals with higher fitness than is the case for the hybridizing parents
(Arnold and Hodges 1995; Arnold et al. 2001). Whether hybridization influ-
ences the demographic success of introduced species is still under debate:
many invasive taxa are of hybrid origin (Ellstrand and Schierenbeck 2000),
but few data connect hybridization or outcrossing directly to changes that
would increase invasion success. Two aspects of introductions make
hybridization a good candidate for explaining strong invasions. First, when
backcross or other hybrid individuals have higher fitness than the parents,
that effect often is restricted to novel habitats (Lexer et al. 2003), and the
R.A. Hufbauer and M.E. Torchin86
introduced range is by definition a novel habitat. Thus, introduced taxa of
hybrid origin may be able to invade areas that are unavailable to the parental
species. Second,we propose that hybridization might be expected to be more
frequent in the novel range, because the introduction process unites distinct
genotypes of a species or distinct species whose distributions do not over-
lap in the native range.
In addition to leading to bottlenecks in population size,and potentially to
increased hybridization, introductions may be viewed as founder events.The
genetic consequences of founder events have long been a proposed mecha-
nism for rapid evolution, and even speciation (e.g., Mayr 1954; Barton and
Charlesworth 1984; Gavrilets and Hastings 1996; Regan et al. 2003). Founder
events may lead to “genetic revolutions” through breaking up what have been
called co-adapted gene complexes (Mayr 1954), and can increase additive
genetic variation in phenotypic traits (Goodnight 1987; Bryant and Meffert
1995). Such genetic revolutions poise the population for rapid response to a
new selective regime. Thus, founder events may be implicated in strong inva-
sion, as they lead to changes that do not occur in the native populations of an
invasive species. Lee (2002) proposed that the genetic architecture and the
amount of available additive genetic variance contribute to whether an intro-
duced species will become invasive,or not. While this is likely quite true, and
an important area of research that is much neglected, genetic architecture
alone may not be adequate to explain strong invasion. Rather,founder effects,
or other changes associated with introductions such as release from enemies
(e.g., EICA), must also be invoked for genetic architecture to contribute to
strong invasion.
6.3 Proposed Refinements to Hypotheses, Predictions
and Tests
There likely is room for improvements to all of the above hypotheses.Here,we
offer several suggestions for refining the enemy release and evolution of
increased competitive ability hypotheses, then move on to discuss synergies
among these hypotheses.
6.3.1 Refining the Enemy Release Hypothesis
Given the multiple scenarios for interactions between enemies, introduced
species and native species, it is important to evaluate critically our expecta-
tions for the outcomes of such interactions. This should include differences in
predictions for generalist and specialist enemies (Müller-Schärer et al. 2004;
Joshi and Vrieling 2005).An analytical framework combining comparisons of
Integrating Ecological and Evolutionary Theory of Biological Invasions 87
(1) differential parasitism in populations of a single species, both in its native
and introduced region (within-species,cross-regional comparison),(2) native
versus introduced species in the same region (between-species comparison of
ecologically analogous competitors),(3) introduced species that are not inva-
sive with introduced species that are invasive (between introduced species),
and (4) population growth rates and enemy abundance among populations
within a range (within species, within region) will help fully evaluate enemy
release and the role of enemies in biological invasions. When used in combi-
nation, such comparisons will clarify the extent to which natural enemies
keep their host populations in check, and the consequences of release from
these natural enemies on population growth. To our knowledge, this joint
approach has not yet been employed.
6.3.2 Refining the Evolution of Increased Competitive Ability Hypothesis
Evidence for adaptive evolution in invaders supporting the EICA hypothesis,
particularly local adaptation to the new environment, is growing (e.g., Leger
and Rice 2003; Lee et al. 2003; Blair and Wolfe 2004; Maron et al. 2004), but is
not found in all cases (e.g., Willis et al. 1999; van Kleunen and Schmid 2003).
Similarly to cases dealing with enemy release,much of the conflict in the data
may be due to the specific comparisons that are made. For example, most of
the data come from common garden experiments with plants, largely com-
prised of specimens that simply happened to be available for study, without
particular knowledge of the origin of an invasion (but see Maron et al.2004).
Often, these are not comprehensive samples taken from across the native and
introduced ranges (but see Blair and Wolfe 2004).If common gardens include
inappropriate comparisons,then the data may not reflect the role of evolution
in invasions.
6.4 Recent Syntheses and Synergies Between Hypotheses
Efforts have been made to synthesize across hypotheses. Shea and Chesson
(2002) view biological invasions from the perspective of community ecology
theory.They discuss invasions in terms of niche opportunities that are deter-
mined largely by resources, natural enemies, and the physical environment.
Top-down population regulation is exerted by both specialist and generalist
enemies, and for invaders,specialists may be relatively rare in the new range.
The availability of resources that are present in a habitat is governed by other
members of the community using those resources. Thus, Shea and Chesson
(2002) bring together aspects of the enemy release, biotic resistance, and
empty niche hypotheses.
R.A. Hufbauer and M.E. Torchin88
Facon et al.(2006) propose a framework that combines ecological and evo-
lutionary perspectives on biological invasions.Additionally,similarly to Shea
and Chesson (2002), they bring together work focusing on the invasibility of
communities (e.g., BRH) and the properties of invaders (e.g., ERH, inherent
superiority). They argue that for invasion to occur, there must be a match
between the invaded ecosystem and the invader. If that match exists from the
outset,then all that is required for invasion is migration of a potential invader
into the ecosystem.If that match does not exist, then in addition to migration,
either the ecosystem must be altered,such as through changes in land use, or
the invader must be altered, such as through evolutionary changes associated
with the founder event, or with a response to natural selection following
migration. Changes in both the ecosystem and the invader are possible, and
may be necessary prior to some invasions.
Blumenthal (2005) proposes a conceptual link between enemy release and
resource availability (the resource-enemy release hypothesis, or RERH) that
differs from simply combining the enemy release and the biotic resistance
hypotheses. Rather, he notes first that species that are able to take advantage
of rich resources typically are fast growing, and not well defended against
enemies. Because of this, enemy release may provide the greatest benefit to
species that are adapted to high-resource conditions. This creates an interac-
tion between resource availability and enemy release,amplifying the potential
for invasion (Fig. 6.2). This also has implications for management, as it sug-
gests that successful control of invaders may require both increasing enemy
load (e.g., through biological control) and reducing resource availability.
Another conceptual integration of hypotheses is offered in Mitchell et al.
(2006). They take a comparative perspective on invaders in their native and
Integrating Ecological and Evolutionary Theory of Biological Invasions 89
Fig. 6.2a, b Illustration of how resources and enemy release may interact to cause inva-
sion. aSpecies adapted to environments with high resources are inhibited by enemies in
their native range,and therefore have great potential to benefit from escaping their nat-
ural enemies. bAlthough all high-resource species will benefit from high resource avail-
ability,resource availability will increase the advantage of introduced species relative to
native species due to enemy release (modified from Blumenthal 2005)
introduced ranges,examining how their population dynamics are influenced
by several types of interspecific interactions and the abiotic environment.The
biotic interactions they examined comprise predation, parasitism, mutual-
ism, and competition, making this the first theoretical integration of these key
groups.
Furthermore, Mitchell et al. (2006) highlight that phylogenetic relation-
ships between an invader and the members of the invaded community may
play a critical role in the outcome of an introduction. Introduced species
invading communities with close relatives should be more susceptible to ene-
mies in that community, and thus accumulate a broader suite of enemies com-
pared to invasions of communities in which relatives are absent (Strong et al.
1984; Mack 1996). However, they may also be more likely to gain mutualists
from their relatives. The comparative importance of enemies and mutualists,
and their relative differences in host specificity will determine whether invad-
ing a community containing close relatives is a disadvantage for invaders.The
relatedness of members of the community may also be an indicator of suit-
ability of the abiotic environment, when related species have similar environ-
mental requirements.
Additional connections and synergies between hypotheses are possible,
and for the field to advance,those links should be clarified and formalized in
a predictive framework. We offer an initial attempt at such a framework
(Table 6.2), focusing on interactions among enemy release, biotic resistance,
and evolutionary change (including both evolution of increased competitive
ability,and hybridization). By formalizing the connections among hypotheses
to explain invasion,we can generate specific, testable predictions. These pre-
dictions can guide research efforts, and resultant data can feed back into the
predictive framework.
For example,we suggest that genetic variation and changes associated with
introductions may interact directly with enemy release and biotic resistance
in at least two key ways. First,with a severe bottleneck in population size upon
introduction, a species will lose genetic variation, but is also more likely to
lose natural enemies (Torchin et al. 2002). Thus, adaptive evolution may be
most limited by lack of genetic variation when enemy release is likely to be
greatest, setting up a useful comparison between two potentially opposing
pathways for invasion success (Drake 2003; Table 6.2, hypothesis 4a). Addi-
tionally, reductions in variation will define the context within which new
interactions with enemies develop,and may affect the ability of the invader to
defend against enemies.
A second way that genetic variation may interact with enemy release and
biotic resistance is through changes associated with hybridization.Often, it is
only in novel environments that hybrid and backcross offspring are fitter than
their parents.One key novel aspect of a new range may be the lack of enemies.
Thus, ways in which hybridization alters interactions with natural enemies
could be particularly important. One mechanism may be simply that
R.A. Hufbauer and M.E. Torchin90
Table 6.2 Initial conceptualization of a predictive framework including three main
hypotheses with their predictions, and examples of how these may be integrated to gen-
erate refined hypotheses and predictions
Integrating Ecological and Evolutionary Theory of Biological Invasions 91
Hypotheses Predictions
1. Introduced populations experi-
ence a release from enemies (ERH)
a. Introduced populations have fewer enemies compared
to populations in the native range
b. Reduction in enemy diversity leads to less damage
compared to populations in the native range,which facil-
itates demographic expansion
2. Introduced species experience
biotic resistance in new regions
(BRH)
a. Introduced species compete with native species
b.Introduced species accumulate novel enemies over
time
3. Introduced species diverge evo-
lutionarily from native populations
a. Introduced populations experience a reduction in
genetic diversity compared to native populations (bottle-
necks)
b. Multiple independent introductions to one region
increases genetic diversity (hybridizing and outcrossing
with native species or other invaders)
c. Introduced species locally adapt to new biotic environ-
ments, and members of the invaded community adapt to
the presence of the invader (adaptive evolution)
4. (1a+3a) Introductions with few
enemies have experienced a bottle-
neck in population size
a.Adaptive evolution may be limited by lack of genetic
variation when enemy release is greatest
5. (1a+2a+3c) Reduction of para-
sitism gives introduced species an
advantage when competing with
heavily parasitized native species
a. Resources diverted from supporting parasites to sup-
port host growth and reproduction
b. EICA, costly defenses selected against,freeing
resources for growth and reproduction
6. (2b+3c) Introduced species will
experience an increase in enemies
over time as enemy relationships in
the new range evolve
a. Historical invasions will have a subset of enemies from
the range of origin and a subset from the current range
b. Historical invasions will be parasitized by a greater
proportion of local parasite species compared to contem-
porary invasions
c. Historical invasions provide a glimpse into the evolu-
tionary future of contemporary invasions
7. (1a+2a+2b+1b) Introduced
species invading communities with
phylogenetically similar species
will experience a smaller demo-
graphic advantage from lack of
parasites
a. Parasites will shift from native species to use phyloge-
netically similar introduced species
b. Introduced species invading areas with close relatives
should be less invasive
8. (1a+3b+3c) Hybridization and
outcrossing can alter relationships
with natural enemies, competitors
or other novel aspects of the envi-
ronment,directly facilitating inva-
sion, and providing variation nec-
essary for adaptive evolution
a. Hybridization will promote adaptation to a novel envi-
ronment with low enemy load (e.g., EICA)
hybridization may increase genetic variation in resource allocation,providing
variants that shunt resources away from defense (e.g., Floate et al. 1993; Fritz
et al. 2001). These variants may be strongly selected for in a novel environ-
ment lacking enemies. Therefore, hybridization may promote the evolution-
ary response predicted by the evolution of increased competitive ability
hypothesis. Similarly, hybridization may provide the variation necessary to
respond to selection imposed by changes in the competitive regime associ-
ated with the new range (Table 6.2, hypothesis 8a).
Clearly,the variables that transform with introduction to a new range (e.g.,
enemies, competitors, mutualists, genetic variation) can all change at once,
and should be considered together. Figure 6.3 illustrates a simple conceptual
model for how invasiveness may vary with three of these variables.We predict
that in many cases, invasiveness will increase with release from enemies and
competitors, and with an increase in genetic variation. The speed and direc-
tion of adaptive evolution will be influenced by extrinsic factors (e.g.,enemies
and competitors) and intrinsic factors (e.g., genetic diversity). Thus, the
change depicted in invasiveness may be due to either ecological or evolution-
ary processes, or a combination of both. Of course, exceptions to the general
trend shown in Fig. 6.3 are known to exist. For example, the Argentine ant
(Linepithema humile) has accrued an advantage with loss of genetic variation
(Tsutsui et al.2000),although the change in natural enemies has yet to be eval-
uated in this case.
Figure 6.3 can be used in two ways: knowing how enemies, competitors
and genetic diversity differ between the native and introduced range, one can
make initial predictions of relative invasiveness of species (e.g., whether Ris
greater or less than 1).Alternatively, using a measure of invasiveness based on
the response ratio, we can make initial predictions of how these three vari-
ables might have changed between the native and introduced range with
respect to the direction of change along the axes, and in some cases, the rela-
tive magnitude of change. Testing such predictions should provide new
R.A. Hufbauer and M.E. Torchin92
Fig. 6.3 Prediction of relative inva-
siveness when combining three of the
variables likely to change with intro-
ductions (see text for further infor-
mation)
insights into the relative importance of these factors for different taxa in set-
ting the stage for introduced species to become invasive.
6.5 Conclusions
Research on biological invasions is at an exciting junction.The vast amount of
empirical research has enabled deductions that move beyond individual case
studies, and the theoretical stage is set for advancement.With this review of
ecological and evolutionary hypotheses to explain invasion,we offer a quanti-
tative measure for a key aspect of invasiveness – that of ecological change
between the native and introduced range – and an example of how synthesiz-
ing across hypotheses to form a predictive framework can guide future
empirical and theoretical work.
References
Abbott RJ (1992) Plant invasions, interspecific hybridization and the evolution of new
plant taxa. Trends Ecol Evol 7:401–405
Arim M, Abades SR, Neill PE, Lima M, Marquet PA (2006) Spread dynamics of invasive
species. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:374–378
Arnold ML, Hodges SA (1995) Are natural hybrids fit or unfit relative to their parents?
Trends Ecol Evol 10:67–71
Arnold ML, Kentner EK, Johnston JA, Cornman S, Bouck AC (2001) Natural hybridisa-
tion and fitness. Taxon 50:93–104
Baker HG, Stebbins GL (1965) The genetics of colonizing species. Academic Press, New
Yo r k
Barton NH, Charlesworth B (1984) Genetic revolutions, founder effects, and speciation.
Annu Rev Ecol Syst 15:133–164
Beckstead J, Parker IM (2003) Invasiveness of Ammophila arenaria: release from soil-
borne pathogens? Ecology 84:2824–2831
Blair A,Wolfe LM (2004) The evolution of an invasive plant: an experimental study with
Silene latifolia. Ecology 85:3035–3042
Blair AC, Hanson BD, Brunk GR, Marrs RA, Westra P, Nissen SC, Hufbauer RA (2005)
New techniques and findings in the study of a candidate allelochemical implicated in
invasion success. Ecol Lett 8:1039–1047
Blaney CS, Kotanen PM (2001) Effects of fungal pathogens on seeds of native and exotic
plants: a test using congeneric pairs.J Appl Ecol 38:1104–1113
Blossey B, Nötzold R (1995) Evolution of increased competitive ability in invasive non-
indigenous plants – a hypothesis.J Ecol 83:887–889
Blumenthal D (2005) Interrelated causes of plant invasion. Science 310:243–244
Bossdorf O, Auge H, Lafuma L, Rogers WE, Siemann E, Prati D (2005) Phenotypic and
genetic differentiation between native and introduced plant populations. Oecologia
144:1–11
Integrating Ecological and Evolutionary Theory of Biological Invasions 93
Bryant EH, Meffert LM (1995) An analysis of selectional response in relation to a popu-
lation bottleneck. Evolution 49:626–634
Callaway RM,Ridenour WM (2004) Novel weapons: invasive success and the evolution of
increased competitive ability. Frontiers Ecol Environ 2:436–443
Calvo-Ugarteburu G,McQuaid CD (1998) Parasitism and introduced species: epidemiol-
ogy of trematodes in the intertidal mussels Perna perna and Mytilus galloprovin-
cialis. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 220:47–65
Chase JM, Abrams PA,Grover JP, Diehl S, Chesson P, Holt RD, Richards SA, Nisbet RM,
Case TJ (2002) The interaction between predation and competition: a review and
synthesis. Ecol Lett 5:302–315
Courchamp F, Langlais M, Sugihara G (2000) Rabbits killing birds: modelling the hyper-
predation process.J Anim Ecol 69:154–164
Darwin C (1859) On the origin of species by means of natural selection, 1st edn.Harvard
University Press,Cambridge,MA
Drake JM (2003) The paradox of the parasites: implications for biological invasion.Proc
R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 270:S133–S135
Ellstrand NC, Schierenbeck KA (2000) Hybridization as a stimulus for the evolution of
invasiveness in plants? Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:7043–7050
Elton CS (1958) The ecology of invasions by animals and plants. Methuen,London
Facon B, Genton BJ, Shykoff JA, Jarne P, Estoup A, David P (2006) A general eco-evolu-
tionary framework for understanding bioinvasions.Trends Ecol Evol 21:130–135
Floate KD,Kearsley MJC,Whitham TG (1993) Elevated herbivory in plant hybrid zones:
Chrysomela confluens,Populus and phenological sinks. Ecology 74:2056–2065
Fritz RS, Hochwender CG, Lewkiewicz DA, Bothwell S, Orians CM (2001) Seedling her-
bivory by slugs in a willow hybrid system: developmental changes in damage, chem-
ical defense, and plant performance. Oecologia 129:87–97
Gavrilets S, Hastings A (1996) Founder effect speciation: a theoretical reassessment.Am
Nat 147:466–491
Goodnight CJ (1987) On the effect of founder events on epistatic genetic variance.Evo-
lution 41:80–91
Hassan M,Harmelin-Vivien M,Bonhomme F (2003) Lessepsian invasion without bottle-
neck: example of two rabbitfish species (Siganus rivulatus and Siganus luridus). J Exp
Mar Biol Ecol 291:219–232
Hedges LV, Gurevitch J, Curtis PS (1999) The meta-analysis of response ratios in experi-
mental ecology.Ecology 80:1150–1156
Hierro JL, Maron JL,Callaway RM (2005) A biogeographical approach to plant invasions:
the importance of studying exotics in their introduced and native range. J Ecol
93:5–15
Joshi J,Vrieling K (2005) The enemy release and EICA hypothesis revisited: incorporat-
ing the fundamental difference between specialist and generalist herbivores. Ecol
Lett 8:704–714
Keane RM, Crawley MJ (2002) Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis.
Trends Ecol Evol 17:164–170
Kolar CS, Lodge DM (2001) Progress in invasion biology: predicting invaders. Trends
Ecol Evol 16:199–204
Kolbe JJ, Glor RE, Schettino LRG, Lara AC, Larson A, Losos JB (2004) Genetic variation
increases during biological invasion by a Cuban lizard. Nature 431:177–181
Lampo M, Bayliss P (1996) Density estimates of cane toads from native populations
based on mark-recapture data.Wildlife Res 23:305–315
Lande R (1980) Genetic variation and phenotypic evolution during allopatric speciation.
Am Nat 116:463–479
Lee CE (2002) Evolutionary genetics of invasive species.Trends Ecol Evol 17:386–391
R.A. Hufbauer and M.E. Torchin94
Lee CE,Remfert JL, Gelembiuk GW (2003) Evolution of physiological tolerance and per-
formance during freshwater invasions. Integrated Comp Biol 43:439–449
Leger EA, Rice KJ (2003) Invasive California poppies (Eschscholzia californica Cham.)
grow larger than native individuals under reduced competition.Ecol Lett 6:257–264
Levine JM, D’Antonio CM (1999) Elton revisited: a review of evidence linking diversity
and invasibility. Oikos 87:15–26
Levine JM, Adler PB, Yelenik SG (2004) A meta-analysis of biotic resistance to exotic
plant invasions. Ecol Lett 7:975–989
Lexer C,Welch ME, Durphy JL, Rieseberg LH (2003) Natural selection for salt tolerance
quantitative trait loci (QTLs) in wild sunflower hybrids: implications for the origin of
Helianthus paradoxus,a diploid hybrid species. Mol Ecol 12:1225–1235
Mack RN (1996) Predicting the identity and fate of plant invaders: emergent and emerg-
ing approaches.Biol Conserv 78:107–121
Maron JL,Vilà M (2001) When do herbivores affect plant invasion? Evidence for the nat-
ural enemies and biotic resistance hypotheses.Oikos 95:361–373
Maron JL,Vilà M,Bommarco R, Elmendorf S, Beardsley P (2004) Rapid evolution of an
invasive plant. Ecol Monogr 74:261–280
Mayr E (1954) Change of genetic environment and evolution. In: Huxley J, Hardey AC,
Ford EB (eds) Evolution as a process.Allen and Unwin, London, pp 157–180
Mitchell CE, Agrawal AA, Bever JD, Gilbert GS, Hufbauer RA, Klironomos JN, Maron JL,
Morris WF, Parker IM, Power AG, Seabloom EW, Torchin ME, Vázques DP (2006)
Biotic interactions and plant invasions. Ecol Lett 9:726–740
Müller-Schärer H, Schaffner U, Steinger T (2004) Evolution in invasive plants: implica-
tions for biological control.Trends Ecol Evol 19:417–422
Nei M, Maruyama T,Chakraborty R (1975) The bottleneck effect and genetic variability
in populations.Evolution 29:1–10
Peterson AT (2003) Predicting the geography of species’ invasions via ecological niche
modeling. Q Rev Biol 78:419–433
Redak RA, Purcell AH,Lopes JRS,Blua MJ,Mizell RF,Andersen PC (2004) The biology of
xylem fluid-feeding insect vectors of Xylella fastidiosa and their relation to disease
epidemiology.Annu Rev Entomol:243–270
Regan JL, Meffert LM, Bryant EH (2003) A direct experimental test of founder-flush
effects on the evolutionary potential for assortative mating. J Evol Biol 16:302–312
Reinhart KO, Packer A, van der Putten WH, Clay K (2003) Plant-soil biota interactions
and spatial distribution of black cherry in its native and invasive ranges. Ecol Lett
6:1046–1050
Richardson DM, Allsopp N, D’Antonio CM, Milton SJ, Rejmanek M (2000) Plant inva-
sions – the role of mutualisms.Biol Rev Cambridge Philos Soc 75:65–93
Sakai AK,Allendorf FW, Holt JS, Lodge DM, Molofsky,With KA, Baughman S, Cabin RJ,
Cohen JE, Ellstrand NC, McCauley DE, O’Neil P, Parker IM,Thompson JN,Weller SG
(2001) The population biology of invasive species.Annu Rev Ecol Syst 32:305–332
Sax DF, Brown JH (2000) The paradox of invasion.Global Ecol Biogeogr 9:363–371
Schierenbeck KA, Mack RN,Sharitz RR (1994) Effects of herbivory on growth and bio-
mass allocation in native and introduced species of Lonicera. Ecology 75:1661–1672
Settle WH, Wilson LT (1990) Invasion by the variegated leafhopper and biotic interac-
tions: parasitism, competition, and apparent competition.Ecology 71:1461–1470
Shea K, Chesson P (2002) Community ecology theory as a framework for biological inva-
sions. Trends Ecol Evol 17:170–176
Simberloff D, Von Holle B (1999) Positive interactions of nonindigenous species: inva-
sional meltdown? Biol Invasions 1:21–32
Strong DR, Lawton JH,Southwood SR (1984) Insects on plants; community patterns and
mechanisms. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Integrating Ecological and Evolutionary Theory of Biological Invasions 95
Tilman D (1997) Community invasibility, recruitment limitation, and grassland biodi-
versity.Ecology 78:81–92
Torchin ME, Mitchell CE (2004) Parasites, pathogens, and invasions by plants and ani-
mals. Frontiers Ecol Environ 2:183–190
Torchin ME, Lafferty KD, Kuris AM (2001) Release from parasites as natural enemies:
increased performance of a globally introduced marine crab. Biol Invasions
3:333–345
Torchin ME, Lafferty KD, Kuris AM (2002) Parasites and marine invasions.Parasitology
124:S137–S151
Torchin ME, Lafferty KD, Dobson AP, McKenzie VJ, Kuris AM (2003) Introduced species
and their missing parasites. Nature 421:628–630
Tsutsui ND, Suarez AV, Holway DA, Case TJ (2000) Reduced genetic variation and the
success of an invasive species. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:5948–5953
van Kleunen M, Schmid B (2003) No evidence for an evolutionary increased competitive
ability in an invasive plant. Ecology 84:2816–2823
Vilà M,D’Antonio CM (1998) Hybrid vigor for clonal growth in Carpobrotus (Aizoaceae)
in coastal California. Ecol Appl 8:1196–1205
Vivanco JM,Bais HP,Stermitz FR,Thelen GC, Callaway RM (2004) Biogeographical vari-
ation in community response to root allelochemistry: novel weapons and exotic inva-
sion. Ecol Lett 7:285–292
Wiles GJ,Bart J, Beck RE, Aguon CF (2003) Impacts of the brown tree snake: patterns of
decline and species persistence in Guam’s avifauna. Conserv Biol 17:1350–1360
Williams JR (1954) The biological control of weeds. In: Rep 6th Commonwealth Ento-
mology Congr, London, pp 95–98
Willis AJ, Thomas MB, Lawton JH (1999) Is the increased vigour of invasive weeds
explained by a trade-off between growth and herbivore resistance? Oecologia
120:632–640
R.A. Hufbauer and M.E. Torchin96
7 Traits Associated with Invasiveness in Alien Plants:
Where Do we Stand?
Petr Pysˇek and David M. Richardson
7.1 History of the Search for Traits and Shifts
in Research Focus
Any organism must be equipped for life in a given environment, otherwise it
will die. The fundamental question is how well does an organism need to be
“equipped”,or what syndrome of traits must it possess to survive and flourish
at a given locality. In the current human-mediated biodiversity crisis, where
alien species play an important role, we need to know whether some species
are inherently better equipped to become invasive when moved to new areas
by humans. If so, we can identify such species and consider management
options to prevent, or at least reduce the damaging effects of biological inva-
sions.
Despite the importance of chance and timing in the establishment and
spread of alien plants (Crawley 1989), invasions are clearly not entirely ran-
dom events (Crawley et al. 1996). Much of the early work on invasions was
directed at collating traits associated with invasiveness (Booth et al. 2003).
The question of whether is it possible to determine a set of traits that pre-
dispose a species to be invasive has been a central theme since the emer-
gence of invasion ecology as a discrete field of study (Richardson and Pyšek
2006).
Many studies have attempted to profile successful invaders, starting with
Herbert Baker’s attempt to identify the traits of an “ideal weed” (Baker 1965),
an idea now considered simplistic (Perrins et al. 1993). Baker defined as a
weed a plant growing “entirely or predominantly in situations markedly dis-
turbed by man (without, of course, being deliberately cultivated plants)”. To
him, weeds included plants that encroached onto agricultural land (agrestals),
and those occurring in waste places (ruderals; Baker 1965). There was no
explicit reference to the status of the species as being native or alien. Perhaps
it was the two species pairs he used to document different traits of “weedy”
Ecological Studies,Vol. 193
W. Nentwig (Ed.)
Biological Invasions
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007
and “non-weedy” plants (alien and native congeners in the genera Eupato-
rium and Ageratum) that made followers consider Baker’s “ideal weed” to be
synonymous with “ideal invader” (i.e., an alien plant spreading from sites of
introduction). Nevertheless, Williamson (1993) concluded that there is no
consistency of life history and reproductive behavior across all weeds, and the
same holds for invading plants (Williamson and Fitter 1996).
Work undertaken in the post-Baker era has shown that identifying traits
consistently associated with invasiveness is difficult (Alpert et al. 2000); this
resulted in a widespread pessimism in the mid-1990s (Crawley 1987; Roy
1990). However, Rejmánek (1996) showed that such traits are a crucial ingre-
dient for explaining (and therefore predicting) invasions. Rejmánek’s paper
probably stimulated attempts to find correlates of invasiveness across vascu-
lar plants, because this is when comparative studies based on large species
sets started to appear. Studies comparing species pairs or a few congeners
started to be published some 15 years earlier (Fig. 7.1), possibly because data
needed for comparative multispecies studies have only recently become avail-
able. Classification of whole floras with respect to alien or native status of
their members, with reliable information based on objective criteria, is still
far from being standard,even two decades after the SCOPE project on biolog-
ical invasions (Richardson et al.2000a; Pyšek et al. 2004a).
After a period of stagnation in late 1990s,the relative contribution of com-
parative multispecies studies has been increasing recently (Fig. 7.1). This is
obviously due to improved data availability, the advent of online databases,
P. P y sšek and D.M. Richardson98
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
0
5
10
15
20
25
Alien-alien c ongeneric
Alien-native congeneric
Multispecies studies
Cumulative number of studies
Proportion of multispecies studies (%)
Fig. 7.1 Left axis Increase in the cumulative number of studies using different approaches
to the analysis of the effect of species traits on invasiveness: comparison of invasive aliens
with their native congeners or related genera within a family, comparison of alien
congeners with different levels of invasiveness,and comparative analyses of large species
sets and whole floras (multispecies studies).Right axis Increase in number of multispecies
studies, expressed as a proportion of the cumulative total number of studies
Traits Associated with Invasiveness in Alien Plants:Where Do we Stand? 99
and better communication among researchers. Powerful computing facilities
and statistical techniques also contributed to fairly promising results in some
studies, which in turn probably stimulated further work.
Kolar and Lodge (2001) analyzed 16 invasion studies each containing at
least 20 plant or animal species, and concluded that sound generalizations
have emerged. Gilpin (1990) pointed out that there is pattern in the available
data on invasions, and suggested that further efforts in the study of invasions
should be self-consciously statistical. If ecologists are unable to predict out-
comes of individual cases,then they should focus on uncovering broader,gen-
eral ecological patterns (Cadotte et al. 2006b).
7.2 Comparative Analyses of Multispecies Datasets:
Every Picture Tells a Story
7.2.1 Methodological Approaches: what is Being Compared?
Can plant invasions be explained and predicted based on the traits of invad-
ing species? Has there been real progress, or are we floundering as much as
we were 20 years ago? The aim of the present paper is to reassess the poten-
tial of studies seeking for plant traits that determine species invasiveness,
and to identify such plant characteristics. To achieve this, we need to deal
with research approaches first. Just as invasions are notoriously idiosyn-
cratic, so too are the approach methodologies that have been applied to
study them.
Multispecies comparative studies need to be classified according to the
approach,type of comparison, scale and data character, including measures of
occurrence of the species present (Table 7.1). The 18 studies summarized in
Table 7.2 use some measure of the occurrence of alien species in the invaded
territory, or the presence of aliens and native species as response variables,
and explain these by using plant traits. In our analysis, we concentrate on
species biological, ecological and physiological traits. We excluded distribu-
tional characteristics of alien plants such as the size of native ranges,although
such variables are clearly among the best predictors of invasiveness
(Rejmánek 1996, 2000). Size of the occupied range is certainly a convenient
measure of ecological versatility (Prinzing et al. 2002), but this characteristic
results from the interplay of “primary” biological, ecological and physiologi-
cal traits, and finding a significant link between range size and invasiveness
does not tell us much about what traits a plant needs to become a successful
invader.
To adopt the correct approach to this issue (column A in Table 7.1), the
question being asked needs to be clearly defined (Hamilton et al. 2005). The
P. P y sšek and D.M. Richardson100
Table 7.1 Classification of research strategies for multispecies comparative studies of species traits
A.Approach B. Comparison C.Scale D.Data characterbE. Occurrence measures F.Analytical methods
1. Target-area 1. Native–alien 1.Local/habitat 1. Inventory (>80% of species) 1. Presence 1.Simple comparison
2. Source-area 2. Alien–aliena2.Regional 2. Database (20–80% of species) 2. Abundance/frequency 2. Phylogenetic corrections
3. Continental 3. Species list (<20% or 3. Distribution range 3. Net effects: residence
20–50 species) time
4. Historical dynamics 4. Net effects: distribution
aLists of alien species may include all taxa (including casuals), or be restricted to naturalized/invasive species (sensu Richardson et al. 2000a;
Pyšek et al. 2004a)
bClassification follows Cadotte et al.(2006b)
target-area approach focuses on a pool of species that are alien to a region,
and attributes the variation in their success to differences in their traits. It
asks the question “what traits distinguish successful invaders from those
aliens that have not invaded successfully?” (Hamilton et al. 2005). Alterna-
tively, aliens in a target region can be compared with natives of that region.
The target-area approach has been more commonly applied than the source-
area approach (Table 7.2).
The source-area approach (sensu Pyšek et al. 2004b) asks the question “do
traits of species that become invasive from a geographic ‘source’ region differ
from those species from the same region that fail to invade?” Such an
approach can either identify traits that allow species to pass through early
phases (i.e., transport and establishment) of the invasion process (Hamilton
et al. 2005), or if factors associated with the chance of being transported are
controlled for, provide relatively unbiased estimates of the role of traits asso-
ciated with naturalization and invasion. The source-area approach is more
convenient for identifying net effects of traits because it eliminates or reduces
the bias and variation associated with different species origins, and pathways
and distance of introduction. In this approach, it is crucial that geographic
origin and size of the native range of source-pool species are taken into
account, to eliminate these biases as much as possible (Pyšek et al. 2004b);
otherwise, the life-history traits of invading species can be confused with
environmental circumstances associated with dispersal. Unfortunately, the
source area approach has been used in only three studies (Table 7.2). We
believe that the main constraint to its wider use is not the lack of information
on potential source pools, but rather the lack of knowledge on how these
species are performing as invaders elsewhere.
Native–alien comparisons (column B in Table 7.1) explore whether the
traits of native species in a target area differ from those of alien species that
invaded that area. It asks the question “what traits of the invading species
enhance their potential to increase in abundance over native species?”
(Hamilton et al.2005). When interpreting the results of alien–native compar-
isons, one must bear in mind which aliens and which natives are being com-
pared. Not all aliens spread (Richardson et al.2000a), but some natives expand
their ranges into human-made habitats, or increase in abundance and/or
range following human-induced landscape changes (so-called apophytes,
expansive species, see Pyšek et al. 2004a; Alpert et al. 2000). Thompson et al.
(1995) compared invasive aliens with expanding natives, and concluded that
while invasive species differ significantly from non-invasive species (Thomp-
son 1994), the attributes of invasive aliens are not unique, but most are shared
by expanding native species. Comparing these two groups may indicate
whether being an alien alone exerts specific effects that are not seen in native
expanding taxa (Leishman and Thompson 2005; Hamilton et al.2005).
Analogically, the alien–alien comparison of two or more invading alien
congeners exhibiting different levels of invasiveness asks the question “what
Traits Associated with Invasiveness in Alien Plants:Where Do we Stand? 101
P. P y sšek and D.M. Richardson102
Table 7.2 Overview of comparative studies of species traits and their effect on plant invasiveness,using
large species numbersa
Author Region of invasion/
source region
Research strategy Species
number
Comparison
Thompson et al.(1995) England, Scotland, Ire-
land, The Netherlands
A1-B1-C2-D3-E1-F1 211 alien Target/invasive
alien vs. expand-
ing native
Pyšek et al. (1995) Czech Republic A1-B12-C2-D3-E12-F1 132 alien Target/1. natural-
ized neophyte vs.
native; 2. within
alien
Andersen (1995) Denmark A1-B12-C2-D3-E1-F1 93 alien,
40 native
Target/1. alien
with native; 2.
alien in ruderal
and seminatural
habitats
Crawley et al.
(1996)
British Isles A1-B1-C2-D1-E1-F2 1,169 alien Target/natural-
ized alien (incl.
archaeophyte) vs.
native
Williamson and Fitter
(1996)
Great Britain A1-B1-C2-D1-E1-F1 1,777
native
+alien
Target/invasive
alien vs. native
Pyšek (1997) Central Europe A1-B1-C2-D2-E1-F2 2,223 native,
457 alien
Target/alien with
native
Pyšek (1997) New Zealand:
Auckland
A1-B2-C2-D1-E14-F2 615 alien Target/within
alien
Goodwin et al.
(1999)
Canada: New
Brunswick/Europe
A2-B2-C2-D3-E1-F2 165 species
pairs (invad-
ing+non-
invading)
Source/within
alien
Thébaud and Sim-
berloff (2001)
Europe, North America:
California, Carolinas/rec-
iprocal
A2-B2-C23-D2-E1-F1 651 alien Source/within
alien
Traits Associated with Invasiveness in Alien Plants:Where Do we Stand? 103
Scale Relevant traits compared Results
Reg. Life strategy, height,lateral spread, flowering
time, propagule weight, growth form, clonal
growth, seed bank,dispersal mode, canopy
structure, habitat preference
Aliens more likely clonal,polycarpic perennials
with erect leafy stems than are native species, and
having transient seed banks
Reg. Origin,height, life form, life strategy, dispersal
mode, pollen vector, human use, habitat pref-
erences
1. aliens more likely than natives to be C- and CR-
strategists, dispersed by humans, with preferences
for dry,warm and nutrient-rich habitats; 2.suc-
cessful aliens in seminatural habitats are tall
hemicryptophytes escaped from cultivation; 3.suc-
cessful aliens in human-made habitat are thero-
phytes or geophytes,introduced spontaneously
Reg. Dispersal mode Aliens, especially in seminatural habitats, more
often with fleshy fruits and dispersed by wind than
are natives
Reg. Life form, height,seed weight,dispersal mode,
seedling relative growth rate,flowering time,
pollination mode
Aliens taller,with larger seeds, no or protracted
dormancy,flowering earlier or later, with more
pronounced r- or K-strategies
Reg. Life form, max. height, spread (height:width),
leaf area, leaf shape, leaf longevity, age at 1st
flowering, flowering time,seedling relative
growth rate, season of seed dispersal,season
of germination, pollen vector, fertilization
method, breeding system,compatibility
Invasive species are tall, taller than wide, more
often phanerophytes,have large leaves, are insect-
pollinated and prefer fertile habitats; natives tend
to be more often monoecious
Reg. Clonal growth Aliens are more often non-clonal
Reg. Clonal growth, introduction pathways,habitat
preferences
Clonal aliens are more often introduced deliber-
ately, more likely to increase in numbers and less
likely to occur in dry habitats than are non-clonal
aliens
Reg. Growth form, height, flowering period Invading species are taller and have longer flower-
ing period than those that do not invade
Cont. Height Species are not taller in their introduced range
Author Region of invasion/
source region
Research strategy Species
number
Comparison
P. P y sšek and D.M. Richardson104
Table 7.2 (Continued)
Cadotte and Lovett-
Doust (2001)
Canada: SW Ontario
(Essex, Hamilton-
Wenthworth)
A1-B1-C2-D1-E1-F1 1,330 native,
484 alien
Target/alien with
native
Prinzing et al.
(2002)
Argentina: Buenos
Aires and Mendoza
provinces/Europe
A2-B2-C2-D2-E1-F2 197 alien Source/within
alien
Pyšek et al. (2003) Czech Republic A1-B2-C2-D2-E4-F4 668 alien Target/within
alien (neophyte)
Lake and Leishman
(2004)
Australia: Sydney A1-B12-C1-D3-E1-F1 57 alien Target/alien–alien
(invasive vs.non-
invasive);
alien–native
Sutherland (2004) USA A1-B12-C3-D1-E1-F1 19,960
native+alien
Target/1. alien
with native; 2.
invasive with non-
invasive alien (in
ruderal habitats)
Hamilton et al.(2005) Eastern Australia
(regional: Royal
National Park+conti-
nental)
A1-B2-C23-D3-E2-F23 152 alien Target/within
alien (introduced
in last 200 years)
Lloret et al. (2005) Mediterranean islands A1-B2-C2-D2-E2-F2 354 alien Target/within nat-
uralized alien
Pyšek and Jarošík
(2005)
Czech Republic A1-B2-C2-D2-E2-F34 668 alien Target/within
alien (neophyte)
Cadotte et al. (2006a) Canada: SW Ontario A1-B2-C2-D1-E2-F23 1,153 alien Target/within
alien
aSee Table 7.1 for codes describing the research strategy adopted by individual studies in terms of
approach,type of comparison, scale, data character,occurrence measures, and analytical methods
used. Only significant results are presented in the last column. Studies are ranked chronologically.
Reg., regional, cont., continental
Scale Relevant traits compared Results
Traits Associated with Invasiveness in Alien Plants:Where Do we Stand? 105
Reg. Growth form, clonal growth, breeding system,
pollen vector,flowering period, dispersal
mode, fruit size,seed number per fruit
Aliens more likely annuals and biennials,her-
maphrodites with longer flowering period and
with small fruits, less likely to be dispersed by ani-
mals; in seminatural habitats,aliens are also more
likely trees with many seeds per fruit
Reg. Habitat preferences,life strategy,dispersal
vectors, use by humans
Species that invade have r-strategy, prefer warm,
dry,sunny and nitrogen-rich habitats, and are
more often used by humans
Reg. Origin,introduction pathway,growth form,
life strategy,time of flowering, dispersal
mode, propagule size
Geographical proximity, early flowering, annual
growth form, CSR strategy, and human use con-
tribute to early arrival
Local/
habitat
Specific leaf area, leaf texture and hairiness,
seed weight, growth form, dispersal mode,
vegetative propagation, flowering duration,
canopy height
Invasive species have higher specific leaf area than
do alien non-invasive and native species,and have
more hairy leaves in some situations; aliens have
softer leaves; invasive species in disturbed sites
have smaller seeds and flower longer than do
natives; invasives dispersed more by wind and ver-
tebrates,less by ants; aliens more propagated vege-
tatively than are natives
Cont. Vegetative reproduction,breeding system,
compatibility system,pollen vector,shade tol-
erance, growth form, life form, morphology,
toxicity
1. aliens less likely clonal and wetland plants than
are natives; 2.invasive aliens more likely than non-
invasives to be monoecious,self-incompatible,
perennial and woody
Reg.
+cont.
Specific leaf area, height,seed weight Small seeds correlated with success at both scales,
high SLA at continental scale – both with and
without phylogenetic correction (all three traits
correlated with abundance at both scales,if mini-
mum residence time not controlled for)
Reg. Growth form, vegetative propagation, leaf
size, morphology (spinescence,pubescence,
succulence),life form, height, breeding sys-
tem, pollen vector, flowering, fruit type, seed
size, dispersal mode
Species that reproduce vegetatively, have large
leaves,flower in summer and for longer period,or
are dispersed by wind and animals have highest
abundance; succulent and fleshy fruits favor rud-
eral and seminatural habitats,respectively
Reg. Introduction pathway, human use, origin,
growth form, life strategy, height, flowering
time, dispersal mode,propagule size
Life strategy,origin and dispersal mode have
direct effect, height and growth form interact with
minimum residence time; aliens from America
and Asia dispersed by water are more frequent
Reg. Clonal growth, flowering, origin, growth
form, breeding system, habitat preferences
Abundant aliens have longer flowering duration,
originated from Europe or Eurasia, and grow in
variable soil moistures
traits enhance the potential of an invasive species to increase in abundance
and/or distribution over less-successful alien species?” The two types of com-
parison are comparatively frequently represented: within the 18 studies sum-
marized in Table 7.2, there are nine native–alien and 13 alien–alien compar-
isons (some studies use both approaches, e.g., Pyšek et al. 1995; Sutherland
2004; Lake and Leishman 2004).
7.2.2 Data,Scale and Analysis
We included only studies based on statistically tested data; the analyzed traits
of alien species had to be tested either against those of native species
(native–alien approach), or against differing invasion success (alien–alien
approach). This is why some papers, often cited regarding traits typical of
invaders, are not considered here – they do not compare with “control”
datasets (Timmins and Williams 1987), or they are theoretical studies build-
ing profiles from examples, but without primary data analysis (e.g., Noble
1989; Roy 1990; Richardson and Cowling 1992).
Multispecies comparative studies also differ in the number of species
involved in comparison, whether the species compared are characterized on
presence/absence only or some quantitative measure of their occurrence (or
some other measure of the extent of invasion) is used,and in the way data are
analyzed. Here, we follow the scheme recently suggested by Cadotte et al.
(2006b). A complete species inventory (D1 in Table 7.1) results from a con-
certed, usually long-term effort to record all extant taxa within a large region.
A database (D2) covers large representative group of species, 20–80% of the
total number in a region, or a complete inventory from a subregion; it is usu-
ally rather a complete list of species that occur in a large, representative habi-
tat or ecosystem. A species list (D3) includes <20 % of flora in a region, or
50–200 species in total,and is selected on some a priori criteria, such as a sam-
ple from a particular habitat. Available multispecies comparative studies are
evenly distributed with respect to the data character, with six studies in D1,
D2 and D3 each. Of the 18 studies,16 are based on more than 100 species,and
six on more than 1,000 species (Table 7.2).
The fourth category delimited by Cadotte et al. (2006b), termed species
groups, deals with comparisons made on limited numbers of species selected
according to some criteria, often congeners or confamilials; these are dealt
with below. Congeneric studies have received much focus thus far (Fig. 7.1),
given their utility in reducing the influence of phylogenetic effects, and the
sense of comparative value (Cadotte et al.2006b).The major reason,neverthe-
less, is that data on congeners are easier to get – one can collate them in the
field in a specifically designed case study.To produce a reliable flora list for a
large region (namely,D1 and D2 types in Table 7.1) is much more difficult and
not a matter of simple decision; whether it will be possible to analyze such
P. P y sšek and D.M. Richardson106
alien flora is beyond the researcher’s control, as she/he must rely on data that
have been collated by others.
The size of the region needs to be appropriate for the questions asked,but
larger areas (>100,000 km2, the scale of political regions) are preferable, since
species inventories are usually compiled for political regions, are biogeo-
graphically arbitrary, and are repeatable (see discussion in Cadotte et al.
2006b). The vast majority of studies (16 in Table 7.2) were conducted at the
regional scale, with only a few (Thébaud and Simberloff 2001; Sutherland
2004) addressing the problems at a continental scale. The study by Hamilton
et al. (2005) is the only one that compares the effect of studied variables
between regional and continental scales. In most studies, cross-species com-
parisons treating species as independent data points were conducted without
explicit consideration of phylogenetic relatedness among species (Cadotte et
al. 2006b).However,incorporating phylogenetic information can elucidate the
extent to which changes in invasiveness may be correlated with changes in
other traits through a particular phylogeny (Harvey and Pagel 1991; Cadotte
et al. 2006b). Using phylogenetic corrections may, or may not provide differ-
ent results (Harvey et al. 1995). However, the same results with and without
using phylogenetic corrections indicates that throughout the phylogeny of
alien species there have been multiple and independent correlated evolution-
ary divergences between invasion success and the trait examined (as found,
e.g., by Hamilton et al. 2005 for seed mass and specific leaf area). The list of
studies that used phylogenetic corrections (coded F2 in Table 7.2) clearly
indicates that the frequency of its application has been increasing recently,
presumably with the gradual improvement in availability of phylogenetic
trees for multispecies assemblages. Alternatively, phylogenetic bias can be
reduced by comparing invading and non-invading congeners (Goodwin et al.
1999).
The variety of methods, approaches,scales, and measures used in compar-
ative multispecies studies of species invasiveness makes it dangerous to draw
generalizations without taking the character of individual studies into
account.What can be thus inferred about species traits and their effects on the
invasiveness of plant species? Is the message consistent?
7.2.3 Main Findings of Comparative Multispecies Studies (1995–2005)
Although the multispecies studies test different hypotheses, simply because
the inventories and databases contain different information (Cadotte et al.
2006b), some traits have been tested frequently enough for a pattern to
emerge (Table 7.2 and see below).
Growth form (usually separating species into annual, biennial, perennial,
shrubs, and trees) and life form (following Raunkiaer’s scheme) are the most
frequently analyzed traits – obviously because these data are readily available.
Traits Associated with Invasiveness in Alien Plants:Where Do we Stand? 107
Compared with natives, alien species tend to be longer-lived, i.e., phanero-
phytes, polycarpic (Thompson et al. 1995; Williamson and Fitter 1996), but
also shorter-lived in other studies (Pyšek et al. 1995; Cadotte and Lovett-
Doust 2001). This broader context supports the conclusions of Crawley et al.
(1996) that aliens need to “try harder”than native species. They suggested that
there are two characteristic groups of aliens that find vacant niches at differ-
ent ends of niche axes: aliens that are more K-strategists (long-lived,tall, and
with big seeds) than native K-strategists (woody and thicket-forming species
that are capable of displacing native vegetation), and those that are more r-
strategists than native r-strategists (small, rapidly maturing, long-flowering
species that soon succumb to interspecific competition during secondary suc-
cession).Recently, Lloret et al.(2005) provided support for the hypothesis that
invasion success may be triggered by functional traits quantitatively different
from those occurring in the native flora, in which some life forms may be
more saturated than others (Mack 2003).
Within aliens, the role of life form seems to be stage-specific: annuals are
promoted in terms of early arrival (Pyšek et al. 2003), but invasiveness seems
to be associated with long-lived life forms (Sutherland 2004),and to be habi-
tat-specific: therophytes do better in disturbed, hemicryptophytes in semi-
natural vegetation (Pyšek et al.1995). Unlike life histories, Grime’s life strategy
shows no consistent pattern across studies (Table 7.2).
Not surprisingly, alien species originating on the same continent have
tended to arrive earlier in Central Europe (Pyšek et al. 2003), but aliens from
more distant regions tend to be more frequent or abundant than those from
the same continent. There are only two datasets to support this, but both are
very representative and based on large numbers of species from Europe
(Pyšek and Jarošík 2005) and North America (Cadotte et al. 2006a).
Plant height is often subjected to testing, for the same reason as growth
form. Two studies based on British flora (Williamson and Fitter 1996; Crawley
et al. 1996) found aliens to be taller than native species,the latter by using phy-
logenetic corrections. As far as within-alien comparisons are concerned,
although aliens do not seem to be generally taller in their invasive ranges
(Thébaud and Simberloff 2001), several studies provided evidence that tall-
ness is associated with invasiveness (Goodwin et al. 1999),and with a higher
abundance in some types of habitats (Pyšek et al. 1995), or with increased
invasiveness in interaction with other features such as life strategy (Pyšek and
Jarošík 2005). We should note, however, that some recent, sophisticated stud-
ies that considered height found no relationship between height and invasive-
ness (Hamilton et al.2005; Lloret et al. 2005; Cadotte et al. 2006b).
Clonality, along with the ability of vegetative reproduction and good lateral
growth, is positively associated with invasiveness, but its effect is context-
dependent. The results depend on whether a large set of aliens, including
casual species (sensu Richardson et al.2000a),is compared,or the comparison
is restricted to naturalized or even invasive species only. In the former case,
P. P y sšek and D.M. Richardson108
non-clonal species tend to be overrepresented among aliens (Pyšek 1997;
Sutherland 2004), but the situation may be reversed in the latter. For more
limited data, such as naturalized aliens (Thompson et al. 1995) or smaller
species sets in specific habitats (Lake and Leishman 2004), clonal aliens may
appear overrepresented compared to clonal natives, become more abundant
than non-clonal aliens (Lloret et al. 2005), or increase their abundance at a
faster rate (Pyšek 1997).
Only two studies considered specific leaf area (SLA), but both concluded
that high SLA promotes invasiveness (Lake and Leishman 2004; Hamilton et
al. 2005).This is worth mentioning because congeneric studies strongly indi-
cate that this physiological measure is important (see below, Fig. 7.2). On the
contrary, seedling relative growth rate (RGR) was not found significant in two
studies; a paper exploring its effect on the distribution of 33 woody species
invasive in New Zealand did not find seedlings’ RGR nor their survival to be
related to invasiveness either (Bellingham et al. 2004).
Breeding system and sex habit were evaluated in two studies using large
species sets. For Britain (Williamson and Fitter 1996) and Ontario (Cadotte
and Lovett-Doust 2001), it was concluded that alien species are less often
monoecious and more likely hermaphroditic than natives. This provides
some support, in broader context, for predictions about the importance of a
sexual partner being present (Baker 1965). However, Sutherland (2004) found
no significant difference for the North American flora (and even indicated
that invasive species on this continent are more likely to be monoecious than
are non-invasives).In the same vein,there is no evidence that self-compatibil-
ity is more common among aliens than among natives (Williamson and Fitter
1996; Sutherland 2004); Sutherland (2004) even reports the opposite – that
aliens are more likely to be self-incompatible. Since congeneric studies
addressing this issue are rare (Table 7.3), the main support for the importance
of being able to reproduce sexually in the new region is from case studies,e.g.,
Nadel et al. (1992) for Ficus, and Daehler and Strong (1996) for Spartina.In
these two genera, sudden events that allowed taxa to reproduce sexually – the
formation of an allopolyploid taxon (Spartina),and the arrival of a pollinator
(Ficus) – triggered widespread invasions.
Pollen vector has little value in explaining invasion success.Williamson and
Fitter (1996) found British aliens to be more likely insect-pollinated than were
native species.Using the flora of the same country, Crawley et al. (1996) came
to the same result but only for cross-species comparisons, not with phyloge-
netic corrections applied. None of the four other studies reported significant
effects of pollen vector, neither for aliens compared with natives, nor within
themselves (Table 7.2). Again, this result seems to be fairly robust because it is
strongly supported by congeneric comparisons (Fig. 7.2,Table 7.4).
Timing of flowering is very important, based on 11 studies,seven of which
yielded significant results (Tables 7.2, 7.4). Although several studies compar-
ing native and aliens found no significant differences in flowering phenology
Traits Associated with Invasiveness in Alien Plants:Where Do we Stand? 109
P. P y sšek and D.M. Richardson110
(cf. Thompson et al. 1995; Williamson and Fitter 1996), and Crawley et al.
(1996) did so only without applying phylogenetic corrections, other studies
clearly show that it is advantageous for an alien to flower for a more extended
period, compared to a native (Lake and Leishman 2004 for Australia; Cadotte
and Lovett-Doust 2001 for Ontario). The pattern becomes even more distinct
in within-alien comparisons: early-flowering species had higher chances to be
introduced early to Central Europe (Pyšek et al. 2003), European species
invading in Canada flowered longer than their non-invading congeners
(Goodwin et al. 1999), and alien species on Mediterranean islands that flower
in summer and over longer periods are more abundant (Lloret et al. 2005).
Aliens with longer flowering periods are also more abundant in Ontario
(Cadotte et al. 2006b). Interestingly, the pattern of flowering found for the
British flora by Crawley et al.(1996) – aliens flower earlier or later than natives
– supports the “aliens try harder” concept suggested by these authors (see
above).
When propagule size was compared for a number of native and alien
species, its effect was found to be non-significant (Thompson et al. 1995;
Williamson and Fitter 1996), or the results were ambiguous – seeds of aliens
were reported to be bigger (Crawley et al. 1996) or very small (Cadotte and
Lovett-Doust 2001), or the probability of aliens having seeds smaller than
those of natives was associated with disturbed habitats (Lake and Leishman
2004). Most within-alien studies exploring the correlation between seed size
and invasion success also yielded non-significant results (Pyšek et al. 2003;
Pyšek and Jarošík 2005;Lloret et al. 2005;Cadotte et al. 2006b),the only excep-
tion being for Eastern Australia, where small seeds were found to be associ-
ated with invasion success at both regional and continental scales (Hamilton
et al. 2005). These mostly ambiguous results (as in studies on congeners,
Table 7.4) may be partly explained by there being two contrasting groups of
aliens – short-lived herbs and woody species, having on average small and
large seeds, respectively – each of them successful in different environments.
Another reason may be that having both small and large seeds brings about
potential pros and cons for an alien plant. Small seeds are correlated with
increased seed output (Henery and Westoby 2001), are easily dispersed by
wind, and persist longer in soil than do large seeds (Thompson et al. 1993).
Large seeds are better for establishment (Harper 1977),and more attractive to
vertebrate dispersers (Richardson et al. 2000b). It is, nevertheless, encourag-
ing that Hamilton et al. (2005) in their excellent study, considering phyloge-
nies, net effects and different scales,found small seeds to be significantly cor-
related with invasion success.
Studies addressing the effect of dispersal mode and efficiency did not
arrive at consistent conclusions (Table 7.2). Aliens were reported to be more
likely dispersed by humans than were native species (Pyšek et al.1995; Craw-
ley et al. 1996),and less likely by water, wind (Crawley et al.1996) and animals
(Cadote and Lovett-Doust 2001). These results emerged from analyses of large
floras, but datasets based on fewer species indicated the opposite – both
Andersen (1995) and Lake and Leishman (2004) found aliens to be more often
dispersed by wind and vertebrates, or having more fleshy fruits, which indi-
rectly implies the latter. To relate dispersal syndrome to invasion success
within aliens is even more difficult – the few available studies highlighted
wind, animals (Lloret et al. 2005), and water (Pyšek and Jarošík 2005) as dis-
persal vectors leading to higher abundance, whereas other studies did not
find significant results (Pyšek et al. 1995, 2003; Prinzing et al. 2002). Compar-
ative multispecies studies are constrained by plants being effectively dis-
persed by many vectors, each of them most efficient under specific circum-
stances.
Results of comparative large-scale studies on habitat preferences are not
easy to interpret, as they reflect variation in habitats present in target areas
and the variety of approaches used.Affinity for dry habitats seems to be a fea-
ture typical of alien species (Thompson et al. 1995; Prinzing et al. 2002;
Sutherland 2004). Surprisingly, only two studies (Williamson and Fitter 1996;
Prinzing et al. 2002) out of seven indicated affinity of aliens to fertile soils.
7.2.4 Biases to Bear in Mind: Residence Time, Scale and Stage
There are biases that need to be considered when interpreting the results of
comparative multispecies studies. Analyses of several pools of alien species
have shown that the more time alien species have spent in their introduced
ranges, the more likely they are to have become widespread (Pyšek and
Jarošík 2005; Cadotte et al. 2006b). To take this into account when exploring
net effects of traits requires knowledge of introduction dates, and such data
are notoriously hard to obtain for whole floras (Kolar and Lodge 2001; but see
Pyšek et al. 2003; Hamilton et al. 2005). Real residence time can be reliably
inferred from the date of first reporting (Pyšek and Jarošík 2005; Hamilton et
al. 2005). The potential confounding effect of residence time can be demon-
strated by the use by humans, which promotes invasiveness in terms of prob-
ability of arrival to the new region (Pyšek et al. 2003), and abundance (Pyšek
et al. 1995;Prinzing et al. 2002).However, this effect may be mediated through
the residence time – plants introduced for utility reasons arrived significantly
earlier in the Czech Republic than those planted as ornamentals, and acciden-
tal introductions were the latest (Pyšek et al. 2003). If minimum residence
time is included into the model, the effect of human use becomes non-signif-
icant (Pyšek and Jarošík 2005; Hamilton et al. 2005).
The scale of study may represent another potential bias. Studies at a sin-
gle spatial scale are unlikely to discern the drivers of invasion patterns
(Collingham et al. 2000; Lloret et al. 2004; Pyšek and Hulme 2005), and the
effect of a given trait may differ at various scales (Hamilton et al. 2005; Lloret
et al. 2005).
Traits Associated with Invasiveness in Alien Plants:Where Do we Stand? 111
When interpreting multispecies studies, one must be aware of the type of
comparison and approaches used by the primary researchers. For example, if
aliens are compared with natives,then large seeds were identified as typical of
aliens (Crawley et al. 1996), but if the analysis is made within aliens, then
another study indicated small seeds as promoting invasion success (Hamilton
et al. 2005).Similarly, Prinzing et al. (2002) did not find dispersal by wind and
vertebrates important for species that reached Argentina from the European
source pool, while Lake and Leishman (2004) did find this important for the
invasion success of aliens in different habitats.Dispersal by wind and animals
may not play a role in the chance of a species to overcome major oceanic bar-
riers, where humans are the main vector, while more natural dispersal agents
become important for spread in the new territory (Rejmánek et al. 2005).
These seeming contradictions also indicate that the effects of individual traits
depend on the stage of the invasion process. Social and economic factors are
crucial at the introduction stage,biogeographical and ecological factors at the
stage of naturalization,and ecological and evolutionary principles are crucial
mediators of invasiveness (Perrings et al. 2005).
7.2.5 Message from Comparative Multispecies Studies
Cadotte et al.(2006b) generalized that the success of plant invaders was related
to a short life cycle, dispersal syndrome, large native range size, non-random
taxonomic patterns,presence of clonal organs, occupation of disturbed habi-
tats,and early time since introduction.In this review, we do not deal with range
sizes nor habitat affinities,and the effect of introduction time (Rejmánek 2000;
Pyšek and Jarošík 2005) and taxonomic patterns are evident (Daehler 1998;
Pyšek 1998).Nevertheless, our survey of the 18 studies indicates that the effect
of life history is more complicated,and the results reported for dispersal syn-
drome are far from unambiguous.Presence of clonal organs and ability of vig-
orous spatial growth certainly promote invasiveness,but these traits are con-
text-specific (Table 7.2). This illustrates that even within the limited number of
comparative multispecies studies available to date, different researchers
include slightly different datasets (compare Table 7.3 with Table 2 in Cadotte et
al. 2006b) and interpret them slightly differently.
Our review suggests that comparative multispecies studies provide strong
support only for height, vigorous vegetative growth, early and extended flow-
ering, and attractiveness to humans,as traits universally associated with inva-
siveness in vascular plants (Table 7.4). Studies reporting these findings are not
numerous but fairly robust, as they were tested in different regions of the
world and are based on different floras. They have potentially useful implica-
tions for screening protocols (Daehler et al. 2004).
There are, however, several fundamental limitations of multispecies com-
parative studies carried out to date. For one, accurate data on many traits of
P. P y sšek and D.M. Richardson112
interest are not available for most plant species, not even for very widespread
and abundant species.Good data are available for plant height, growth form,
seed mass and very general “dispersal syndrome”, but data on growth rates,
palatability, seed production, and many other t raits that are crucial for invasion
success are incomplete or of highly dubious quality. Nevertheless, as
researchers continue to collect life-history and population-level data, the infor-
mation contained in inventories wil l continue to improve and contribute to elu-
cidating the role species traits play in plant invasions (Cadotte et al. 2006b).
7.3 Studies of Congeners and Confamilials
Although some interesting patterns have emerged from the studies reviewed
above, it is clear that uncovering a set of traits associated with invasiveness
applicable to all vascular plants, and for all of the world’s biomes, is totally
unrealistic. A trait or set of traits that potentially confers invasiveness to an
African Acacia in Australia cannot be expected to do the same for a European
grass in North America. Nonetheless, there is value in continuing the search
for traits determining invasiveness at a fine taxonomic scale,or for particular
life forms or “functional types” (Rejmánek and Richardson 1996).
Much work has thus focused on congeners, confamilials, and otherwise
taxonomically and phylogenetically related species (Fig. 7.2). Especially for
congeners, such comparisons reduce phylogenetic problems that bedevil
interspecific comparisons (Rejmánek and Richardson 1996; Cadotte and
Lovett-Doust 2001). This approach involves pairing invasive species with
native species or non-invasive congeners – if a consistent difference can be
identified between invader and native, then that difference might help to
explain invasiveness in some taxa (Daehler 2003).
Following the pioneering studies of Baker (1965) and Harris (1967), con-
generic studies of invasiveness started to appear in the 1980s. This interest
seems to have been stimulated by the SCOPE program on biological invasions
launched in 1982 (Fig. 7.1).Our analysis is based on 46 comparisons of aliens
with their native congeners or confamilials, and 18 studies that compare two
or more alien congeners differing in their invasiveness (Fig.7.2). The increase
in the number of available studies indicates that alien–native congeneric com-
parisons have been increasing faster (Fig. 7.1). That there are more studies of
this kind simply reflects that there are more such natural experiments avail-
able to researchers. Many prominent invaders have native congeners in
invaded regions,but the sets of alien congeners invading in the same region,
and differing in the degree of invasiveness or status (naturalized vs. casual)
are certainly more limited.
Traits Associated with Invasiveness in Alien Plants:Where Do we Stand? 113
7.3.1 Assumptions for Congeneric Studies
In attempting to determine traits of invasive species, ecologists often use
species native to the invaded range as control species. Muth and Pigliucci
(2006) argue that because many native species themselves are aggressive col-
onizers, comparisons using this type of control do not necessarily yield rel-
evant information, and suggest that comparing introduced invasives vs.
introduced non-invasives is more appropriate. As in the multispecies com-
parisons discussed above, however, whether native–alien or native–native
comparisons are preferred (if we have a choice of such research strategy at
all) depends on a concrete situation. If the invader outcompetes the native
congener, or they at least coexist in the same type of habitat, then the com-
parison is relevant and the questions asked are the same as in comparable
multispecies studies.
We identified 64 studies comparing one or more pairs of congeners (50
studies), or species from the same family (14 studies).In total,species from 21
families are represented (Fig. 7.2). The criterion for a pair/group of con-
generic alien taxa to be included was that they differ in their degree of inva-
siveness. There was always a notable invasive species, and one or more other
alien species that could be considered non-invasive (or at least much less
invasive). Therefore, we did not consider studies comparing non-invasive
aliens with native species (e.g., Blaney and Kotanen 2001). There is no reason
to expect differences in traits explicable by alien status only, i.e., without ref-
erence to invasive potential (Crawley et al. 1996).It is also important how non-
invasive counterparts of invaders are defined. Probably the best approach in
terms of eliminating biases was used by Burns (2004).In this study,non-inva-
sive species were those that were cultivated in the same region as invasive con-
gener, but did not escape from cultivation. Ideally, the “invasive” and “non-
invasive” species used in a comparison should have been present in a region
for approximately the same period of time, and have experienced the same
opportunities for sampling a range of potentially invasible sites (e.g.,through
human-mediated dissemination). Where this was clearly not the case, com-
parisons were not included in our analysis.
7.3.2 Searching for Generalities Within Genera
For each study, we recorded all traits that were subjected to statistical testing
in primary papers, and those that were reported to differ significantly
between aliens and natives, or invasive and non-invasive aliens. In total, there
were 27 traits subjected to testing in at least three studies; these were classi-
fied into morphological, physiological, reproductive, and “response” traits –
the latter comprise the response of species to external factors such as her-
P. P y sšek and D.M. Richardson114
Traits Associated with Invasiveness in Alien Plants:Where Do we Stand? 115
bivory, burning, or soil conditions (Table 7.4). In terms of structure of the
traits considered, alien–native studies focus more on physiology (45 % of
trait/congeners comparisons) than do within-alien studies; the correspond-
ing value for the latter is 18 %, accounted for almost exclusively by measure-
ments of seedling RGR. Comparison of alien congeners deal disproportion-
ately more with reproductive characteristics. In total, the studies analyzed
comprised 222 between-congener/confamilial comparisons of individual
traits (Table 7.3). The list of analyzed studies covers the majority of published
data, and can therefore be regarded as a highly representative sample of cur-
rent research.
Since we, as in the case of comparative multispecies studies, recorded not
only the number of significant results for individual traits, but also their pro-
portion among all tested cases for a given trait, the results summarized in
Fig. 7.2 and Table 7.4 provide a reasonably robust assessment of important
traits associated with invasiveness in plants.
Some traits associated with invasiveness in multispecies comparative stud-
ies also emerge as important in congeneric studies (Table 7.4). Surprisingly,
neither approach revealed an unambiguous and positive effect of high bio-
mass on invasiveness, but both did so for plant height. As far as biomass is
concerned, a substantial proportion of the 15 studies found its effect non-sig-
nificant or even opposite, i.e., the native congener had higher biomass than
the alien one (Schierenbeck et al. 1994; Smith and Knapp 2001).
Growth rate and allocation to growth appear important; closely associated
with this is the capacity for vigorous spatial growth (Fig. 7.2, Table 7.4); this
seems to contradict the results of Daehler (2003) who reviewed the perfor-
mance of co-occurring native and alien species, and did not find higher
growth rates, competitive ability nor fecundity to be characteristic of the lat-
ter. Rather, the relative performance of invaders and co-occurring natives
depended on growing conditions (Daehler 2003). That aliens, compared to
natives,or invaders compared to less-invasive taxa, exhibited faster growth is
a very robust result in our analysis (Fig. 7.2),and the question arises whether
Table 7.3 Frequencies of pairwise species comparisons classified according to groups of
traits and approaches
Group of traits Number of comparisons Total Comparisons (%)
Alien–native Within alien Alien–native Within alien
Morphological 31 5 36 17.6 10.9
Physiological 79 8 87 44.9 17.4
Reproductive 49 25 74 27.8 54.3
Response 17 8 25 9.7 17.4
Total 176 46 222
P. P y sšek and D.M. Richardson
116
Group of traits Trait Comparative studies No. Congeneric studies No.
Complex Growth form and life form Short-lived form promotes transport
and in disturbed habitats, long-lived
competitiveness in seminatural habitats
13 N.a.
Grime life strategy Ambiguous 6N.a.
Area of origin Aliens of distant origin arrive later but
become more abundant
4N.a.
Use by humans Promotes early arrival and invasiveness 4N.a.
Morphological Biomass N.a. Ambiguous 15
Plant height Promotes invasiveness 10 Promotes invasiveness 6
Vegetative spatial growth Promotes invasiveness, but the role is
context-specific
9Promotes invasiveness 5
Leaf number N.a. Ambiguous 10
Leaf morphology, canopy structure Ambiguous 6N.a.
Physiological Photosynthetic rate/capacity N.a. Promotes invasiveness 15
Water, N and P use efficiency N.a. Promotes invasiveness 9
Chlorophyll contents N.a. Not enough studies 1
Leaf N contents N.a. Not enough studies 1
Leaf longevity N.a. Not enough studies 3
Tissue construction costs N.a. Not enough studies 3
Specific leaf area Promotes invasiveness (only few studies) 2Promotes invasiveness 11
Leaf area ratio N.a. Tends to promote invasiveness 8
Total leaf area N.a. Ambiguous 10
Seedling relative growth rate Not enough studies 3Tends to promote invasiveness 8
Growth rate,allocation to growth N.a. Promotes invasiveness 8
Table 7.4 Summary of results from comparative and congeneric studies on traits promoting invasiveness in plantsa
Traits Associated with Invasiveness in Alien Plants:Where Do we Stand? 117
Reproductive Self-compatibility Not enough studies, but no support
for it being a feature of aliens
3Not enough studies 4
Breeding system Hermaphroditism and dioecy support
invasiveness
5N.a.
Pollen quality N.a. Not enough studies 2
Pollen vector No pattern 8N.a.
Time of flowering Early and longer flowering promotes
invasiveness
11 Early and longer flowering promotes
invasiveness
5
Reproductive maturity
(generation time)
N.a. Not enough studies 4
Fecundity N.a. Promotes invasiveness 13
Propagule size Not very clear pattern, the effect seems
to be stage-related
10 Not enough studies and ambiguous 4
Dispersal mode and efficiency Ambiguous 11 Efficient dispersal promotes invasiveness 5
Seed release, serotiny N.a. Not enough studies 3
Germination ability N.a. Promotes invasiveness 18
Seedling survival and establishment N.a. Promotes invasiveness 6
Seed dormancy,seed bank
longevity and size
Not enough studies 3Promotes invasiveness 10
Response Tolerance to herbivory/clipping/
cutting
N.a. Promotes invasiveness 11
Tolerance to drought N.a. Not enough studies 4
Tolerance to low nutrients N.a. Promotes invasiveness (but only few
studies)
4
Tolerance to fire N.a. Promotes invasiveness 5
Habitat preferences Ambiguous, trend for dry and warm
habitats
7N.a.
aRobust patterns are shown in italics. Number of studies and species pairs used for comparison (see Tables 7.2 and 7.3) is indicated. N.a. Not
addressed, in comparative studies mostly because data are not available for large sets of species, in congeneric studies mostly because complex
traits are controlled by approach – species of the same life form and strategy,morphology,pollination syndrome, etc.,are usually chosen for con-
generic comparisons to reduce bias
P. P y sšek and D.M. Richardson118
050100
Yes (%) No difference (% ) No (%)
Alien/invasive has more vigorous spatial growth (5)
Alien/invasive is more fecund (13)
Alien/invasive has higher water, N and/or P use efficiency (9)
Alien/invasive exhibits faster growth (8)
Alien/invasive is more resistant to herbivory (11)
Fruits/seeds of alien/invasive are more efficiently dispersed (5)
Alien/invasive flowers for longer period or starts earlier (5)
Alien/invasive has higher photosynthetic rate/capacity (15)
Alien/invasive has higher specific leaf area (11)
Alien/invasive germinate earlier, better or at wider range of conditions (18)
Seedlings of alien/invasive establish and/or survive better (6)
Alien/invasive is taller (6)
Alien/invasive is more tolerant to burning (5)
Alien/invasive has larger and longer persistent seed bank (10)
Seedlings of alien/invasive had higher relative growth rate (8)
Alien/invasive has higher leaf area ratio (8)
Alien/invasive has higher biomass (15)
Alien/invasive has more leaves (10)
Alien/invasive has higher total leaf area (10)
Alien/invasive allocate more to reproduction (7)
Fig. 7.2 Summary of the results of 59 studies comparing 64 aliens with their native con-
geners or related taxa, and alien congeners with different degree of invasiveness. Per-
centages of significant results supporting (yes) or rejecting (no) given statements, or
yielding no difference are shown. Traits are listed according to decreasing unambigu-
ousness of results.The number of species pairs on which a given trait was tested is given
in parentheses following the statement;only traits tested on at least five species pairs are
displayed. The following studies comparing traits of alien and native congeners or
closely related taxa within a genus (the latter cases are where family name is given),and
of alien congeners differing in the degree of invasiveness were used as dataset: Acer
(Kloeppel and Abrams 1995), Ageratum (Baker 1965), Agropyron (Caldwell et al. 1981;
Richards 1984; Black et al. 1994), Agrostis (Pammenter et al. 1986), Amsinckia (Pantone
et al. 1995), Asteraceae (Smith and Knapp 2001), Atriplex (Mandák 2003), Bidens
(Gruberová et al. 2001), Bromus (Kolb and Alpert 2003), Carpobrotus (Vilà and D’Anto-
nio 1998a, b),Celastrus,Parthenocissus,Polygonum (Van Clef and Stiles 2001), Centaurea
(Gerlach and Rice 2003), Centaurea,Crepis (Muth and Pigliucci 2006), Cortaderia (Lam-
brinos 2001, 2002), Crataegus (Sallabanks 1993), Cyatheaceae (Durand and Goldstein
2001), Echium (Forcella et al. 1986), Eucalyptus (Radho-Toly et al. 2001), Eupatorium
(Baker 1965), Fabaceae (Smith and Knapp 2001), Hakea (Richardson et al.1987), Impa-
tiens (Perrins et al. 1993), Lonicera (Sasek and Strain 1991; Schierenbeck and Marshall
1993; Schierenbeck et al. 1994; Schweitzer and Larson 1999; Larson 2000), Mikania
(Deng et al. 2004), Oenothera (Mihulka et al. 2003), Oleaceae (Morris et al. 2002), Pinus
(Rejmánek and Richardson 1996; Grotkopp et al.2002), Plantago (Matsuo 1999), Poaceae
(Harris 1967; Baruch et al. 1985; Pyke 1986, 1987; Bilbao and Medina 1990; Williams and
Black 1994; Baruch and Goméz 1996; Holmes and Rice 1996; Baruch and Bilbao 1999;
Goergen and Daehler 2001a, b, 2002; Smith and Knapp 2001), Proteaceae (Honig et al.
1992), Reynoutria (Pyšek et al. 2003a; Bímová et al. 2003),Rubus (McDowell 2002; Lam-
brecht-McDowell and Radosevich 2005), Senecio (Radford and Cousens 2000, Sans et al.
2004), Spartina (Callaway and Josselyn 1992; Anttila et al. 1998), Tradescantia,
Commelina,Murdannia (Burns 2004). Citation details can be found at www.ibot.cas.cz/
personal/pysek
the seemingly contradicting conclusions of Daehler’s review could be due to
the fact that his review was not confined to congeners. In our analysis, phylo-
genetic bias is reduced.
In agreement with Daehler (2003), congeneric studies suggest that leaf area
is important, although this was manifested as total leaf area in Daehler’s
dataset (which gave ambiguous results in ours),and as specific leaf area (SLA)
in 11 studies in our review (Fig. 7.2).As SLA is positively associated with inva-
siveness in multispecies comparative studies as well (see above), it seems to be
one of most robust indicators/predictors of invasiveness.Invasions are gener-
ally associated with disturbed habitats, and high SLA is typical of rapidly col-
onizing species. High SLA is correlated with short leaf retention and fast
growth rate; this is associated with avoidance of investing biomass into long-
lasting structures, which is, in turn, a critical precondition of success in dis-
turbed habitats where fast growth is paramount (Grotkopp et al. 2002). Of
other physiological traits, photosynthetic rate/capacity and water and/or
resource use efficiency promote invasiveness, and this pattern is very robust
and supported in 15 and nine studies, respectively.
The results of 80 % of studies that address flowering phenology accord
with conclusions from multispecies comparative studies; early flowering and
extended flowering period, compared to natives/non-invasives, provide
invaders with an advantage.Reproductive traits in general appear important
determinants of invasiveness, and these traits are identified by congeneric
studies much more reliably than by multispecies comparisons, because suffi-
ciently accurate data are mostly not available for large numbers of species.
High fecundity and efficient dispersal of seeds promote invasiveness (Fig. 7.2,
Table 7.4). Many studies compared features associated with seed germination,
dormancy, and seed bank longevity (Fig. 7.2), and together they clearly indi-
cate that easy germination, and long-term seed banks that allow species to
extend germination over time and to wait for preferred conditions increase
invasiveness.
7.4 Combining Approaches: Pooling the Evidence
From the above, it follows that each of the two main approaches discussed
has its own strengths and weaknesses. It is symptomatic that the best
progress to date toward a general theory of plant invasiveness has been
achieved by pooling evidence from both approaches. Genera with enough
invasive and non-invasive taxa to enable rigorous statistical analysis, and for
which detailed autecological information is available are ideally suited for
extracting robust generalizations. The genus Pinus provides the best exam-
ple known to date.
Traits Associated with Invasiveness in Alien Plants:Where Do we Stand? 119
Rejmánek and Richardson (1996) were able to explain invasiveness in
Pinus species using only three traits (seed mass, length of juvenile period, and
interval between good seed crops). They defined a discriminant function that
successfully separated invasive and non-invasive species.This framework was
expanded, by adding considerations relating to dispersal by vertebrates and
characteristics of fruits, and successfully applied to predict invasiveness in
other gymnosperms and woody angiosperms (Rejmánek and Richardson
1996; Richardson and Rejmánek 2004).
Rejmánek combined the results from congeneric studies on pines with
robust patterns emerging from multispecies comparative studies to formulate
his “Theory of seed plant invasiveness”,the most ambitious attempt to create
a unified scheme (Rejmánek 1996, 2000; Rejmánek et al. 2005). This theory
posits that a low nuclear amount of DNA,as a result of selection for short gen-
eration time, membership to alien genera, and primary latitudinal range are
major factors contributing to the invasiveness of seed plants.Large geograph-
ical range is often among the best predictors of invasion success (Rejmánek
1996; Goodwin et al. 1999).Widespread species are more likely to be adapted
to a wider range of conditions, and have better chances to be dispersed
because they occur in more locations (Booth et al. 2003).Although there are
exceptions to this general rule reported for individual species (Richardson
and Bond 1991), the same traits that allow a species to be widespread in the
native range seem to be also favorable for a successful invasion (Booth et al.
2003).An additional study identified RGR as the most important predictor of
invasiveness in disturbed habitats, and related invasiveness to physiological
measures (Grotkopp et al.2002).
7.5 Conclusions: Where Do we Stand?
The two main approaches to the role of plant traits in determining invasive-
ness (Table 7.4) provide complementary answers. The congeneric studies
identified a higher number of important traits, because they are better
focused and more detailed. Some of the traits simply cannot be addressed by
multispecies studies, because this approach is too “coarse-grained”. Method-
ologically, there is another difference between the two approaches. Con-
generic/confamilial comparisons,by involving an invasive or at least natural-
ized alien, address later stages of invasion,while analyses of whole floras are
in some cases biased by including casual species.Since different traits poten-
tially influence different stages of invasion (Kolar and Lodge 2001; Pyšek et al.
2003; Perrings et al. 2005), this introduces a bias into multispecies compar-
isons that does not influence congeneric studies.
On the other hand, conclusions yielded by comparisons of whole floras are
fairly robust, and often generally valid for all vascular plants. Detailed con-
P. P y sšek and D.M. Richardson120
generic studies are sometimes difficult to compare directly because of the
variety of methods used, these being specific and suited to a given species,
region and the investigator’s research priorities.
Cadotte et al. (2006b) recently reminded us of John Harper’s contention
that historically the field of plant ecology has been dominated by two major
themes, i.e., description of vegetation, dealing with species assemblages and
their classification, and autecological single-species descriptions (Harper
1977). Seeking traits associated with invasiveness has followed a similar two-
pronged approach, with multispecies studies being somewhat analogous to
vegetation description, and research on congeners comparable to autecologi-
cal studies.As for plant ecology in general,both approaches yield unique and
mutually enriching results.
When looking at the effect of traits on invasiveness, we must remember
that different species were introduced at different times and are at different
stages of naturalization/invasion. Studies that explicitly attempt to filter out
such effects and other biases are extremely useful for revealing inherent trait-
related determinants of invasibility. The role of plant traits in the invasion
process is to a very large extent stage- and habitat-specific. Traits that confer
an advantage at a given stage of the process, and in a particular habitat may be
neutral or even detrimental at another phase and/or for a different habitat.
Most importantly, however, many traits have been tested repeatedly and
often enough to allow us to draw fairly robust conclusions regarding their
role. This review clearly indicates that successful invaders possess some traits
that unsuccessful invaders do not have. Traits do matter! Unfortunately, cru-
cial information is lacking for many species, and the challenge for the inva-
sion-ecology community is to collate such information and to make it widely
available.
Acknowledgments. We thank Mark Cadotte and Brad Murray for providing us with
their unpublished papers, and Ivan Ostr´y and Zuzana Sixtová for logistic support. P.P.
was supported by the European Union FP 6 integrated project ALARM (GOCE-CT-2003-
506675) and by the specific targeted research project DAISIE (SSPI-CT-2003-511202),
grant no.206/05/0323 from the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic, and by institutional
long-term research plans no.AV0Z60050516 from the Academy of Sciences of the Czech
Republic, and no. 0021620828 from the Ministry of Education of the Czech Republic.
D.M.R.acknowledges support from the DST-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biol-
ogy.
Traits Associated with Invasiveness in Alien Plants:Where Do we Stand? 121
References
Alpert P, Bone E, Holzapfel C (2000) Invasiveness, invasibility and the role of environ-
mental stress in the spread of non-native plants.Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 3:52–66
Andersen UV (1995) Comparison of dispersal strategies of alien and native species in
the Danish flora. In: Pyšek P, Prach K, Rejmánek M, Wade M (eds) Plant invasions:
general aspects and special problems. SPB Academic,Amsterdam, pp 61–70
Baker HG (1965) Characteristics and modes of origin of weeds. In: Baker HG, Stebbins
GL (eds) The genetics of colonizing species.Academic Press,New York, pp 147–172
Bellingham PJ, Duncan RP, Lee GW, Buxton RP (2004) Seedling growth rate and survival
do not predict invasiveness in naturalized woody plants in New Zealand. Oikos
106:308–316
Blaney CS, Kotanen PM (2001) Effects of fungal pathogens on seeds of native and exotic
plants: a test using congeneric pairs.J Appl Ecol 38:1104–1113
Booth BD,Murphy SD, Swanton CJ (2003) Weed ecology in natural and agricultural sys-
tems. CABI, Wallingford
Burns JH (2004) A comparison of invasive and non-invasive dayflowers (Commeli-
naceae) across experimental nutrient and water gradients. Diversity Distrib 10:387–
397
Cadotte MW, Lovett-Doust J (2001) Ecological and taxonomic differences between native
and introduced plants of southwestern Ontario.Ecoscience 8:230–238
Cadotte MW, Murray BR,Lovett-Doust J (2006a) Evolutionary and ecological influences
of plant invader success in the flora of Ontario.Ecoscience 13:388–395
Cadotte MW, Murray BR,Lovett-Doust J (2006b) Ecological patterns and biological inva-
sions: using regional species inventories in macroecology. Biol Invasions 8:809–821
Collingham YC, Wadsworth RA, Willis SG, Huntley B, Hulme PE (2000) Predicting the
spatial distribution of alien riparian species: issues of spatial scale and extent. J Appl
Ecol suppl 1 37:13–27
Crawley MJ (1987) What makes a community invasible? In: Gray AJ, Crawley MJ,
Edwards PJ (eds) Colonization, succession and stability. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 429–
453
Crawley MJ (1989) Chance and timing in biological invasions.In: Drake JA,Mooney HA,
di Castri F,Groves RH,Kruger FJ, Rejmanek M, Williamson M (eds) Biological inva-
sions: a global perspective.Wiley, Chichester,pp 407–424
Crawley MJ,Harvey PH,Purvis A (1996) Comparative ecology of the native and alien flo-
ras of the British Isles. Biol Trans R Soc B 351:1251–1259
Daehler CC (1998) The taxonomic distribution of invasive angiosperm plants: ecological
insights and comparison to agricultural weeds.Biol Conserv 84:167–180
Daehler CC (2003) Performance comparisons of co-occurring native and alien invasive
plants: implications for conservation and restoration.Annu Rev Ecol Syst 34:183–211
Daehler CC, Strong DR (1996) Status, prediction and prevention of introduced cordgrass
Spartina spp. invasions in Pacific estuaries,USA. Biol Conserv 78:51–58
Daehler CC, Denslow JS, Ansari S, Kuo H-C (2004) A risk assessment system for screen-
ing out invasive pest plants from Hawai’i and other Pacific Islands. Conserv Biol
18:360–368
Dreyer GD, Baird LM, Fickler C (1987) Celastrus scandens and Celastrus orbiculatus
comparisons of reproductive potential between a native and an introduced woody
vine. Bull Torrey Bot Club 114:260–264
Gerlach JD, Rice KJ (2003) Testing life history correlates of invasiveness using con-
generic plant species. Ecol Appl 13:167–179
Gilpin M (1990) Ecological prediction. Science 248:88–89
P. P y sšek and D.M. Richardson122
Goodwin BJ, McAllister AJ, Fahrig L (1999) Predicting invasiveness of plant species
based on biological information. Conserv Biol 13:422–426
Grotkopp E, Rejmánek M, Rost TL (2002) Towards a casual explanation of plant invasive-
ness: seedling growth and life history strategies of 29 pine (Pinus) species. Am Nat
159:396–419
Hamilton MA, Murray BR, Cadotte MW, Hose GC, Baker AC, Harris CJ, Licari D (2005)
Life-history correlates of plant invasiveness at regional and continental scales. Ecol
Lett 8:1066–1074
Harper JL (1977) Population biology of plants.Academic Press, London
Harris GA (1967) Some competitive relationships between Agropyron spicatum and Bro-
mus tectorum. Ecol Monogr 37:89–111
Harvey PH, Pagel MD (1991) The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford
University Press, Oxford
Harvey PH, Read AF, Nee S (1995) Why ecologists need to be phylogenetically chal-
lenged? J Ecol 83:535–536
Henery M,Westoby M (2001) Seed mass and seed nutrient contents as predictors of seed
output variation between species.Oikos 92:479–490
Kolar CS, Lodge DM (2001) Progress in invasion biology: predicting invaders. Trends
Ecol Evol 16:199–204
Lake JC, Leishman MR (2004) Invasion success of exotic plants in natural ecosystems:
the role of disturbance, plant attributes and freedom from herbivores. Biol Conserv
117:215–226
Leishman MR, Thomson VP (2005) Experimental evidence for the effects of additional
water,nutrients and physical disturbance on invasive plants in low fertility Hawkes-
bury Sandstone soils, Sydney,Australia.J Ecol 93:38–49
Lloret F, Médail F, Brundu G, Hulme P (2004) Local and regional abundance of exotic
plant species on Mediterranean islands: are species traits important? Global Ecol Bio-
geogr 13:37–45
Lloret F, Médail F, Brundu G, Camarda I,Moragues E, Rita J,Lambdon P,Hulme PE (2005)
Species attributes and invasion success by alien plants on Mediterranean islands. J
Ecol 93:512–520
Mack RN (2003) Phylogenetic constraint,absent life forms, and preadapted alien plants:
a prescription for biological invasions.Int J Plant Sci 164 suppl 3:185–196
Muth NZ, Pigliucci M (2006) Traits of invasives reconsidered: phenotypic comparisons
of introduced invasive and introduced noninvasive plant species within two closely
related clades.Am J Bot 93:188–196
Nadel H, Frank JH, Knight RJ (1992) Escapees and accomplices: the naturalization of
exotic Ficus and their associated faunas in Florida. Florida Entomol 75:30–38
Noble I (1989) Attributes of invaders and the invading process: terrestrial and vascular
plants. In: Drake JA, Mooney HA, di Castri F, Groves RH, Kruger FJ, Rejmanek M,
Williamson M (eds) Biological invasions: a global perspective. Wiley, Chichester, pp
301–314
Perrings C, Dehnen-Schmutz K, Touza L, Williamson M (2005) How to manage biologi-
cal invasions under globalization.Trends Ecol Evol 20:212–215
Perrins J,Fitter A,Williamson M (1993) Population biology and rates of invasion of three
introduced Impatiens species in the British Isles. J Biogeogr 20:33–44
Prinzing A, Durka W, Klotz S, Brandl R (2002) Which species become aliens? Evol Ecol
Res 4:385–405
Pyšek P (1997) Clonality and plant invasions: can a trait make a difference? In:de Kroon
H, van Groenendael J (eds) The ecology and evolution of clonal plants.Backhuys,Lei-
den, pp 405–427
Traits Associated with Invasiveness in Alien Plants:Where Do we Stand? 123
Pyšek P (1998) Is there a taxonomic pattern to plant invasions? Oikos 82:282–294
Pyšek P (2003) How reliable are data on alien species in Flora Europaea? Flora 198:499–
507
Pyšek P, Hulme PE (2005) Spatio-temporal dynamics of plant invasions: linking pattern
to process.Ecoscience 12:302–315
Pyšek P, Jarošík V (2005) Residence time determines the distribution of alien plants.In:
Inderjit (ed) Invasive plants: ecological and agricultural aspects. Birkhäuser, Basel,
pp 77–96
Pyšek P, Prach K, S
ˇmilauer P (1995) Relating invasion success to plant traits: an analysis
of the Czech alien flora. In: Pyšek P, Prach K,Rejmánek M,Wade M (eds) Plant inva-
sions: general aspects and special problems.SPB Academic,Amsterdam, pp 39–60
Pyšek P, Sádlo J,Mandák B, Jarošík V (2003) Czech alien flora and a historical pattern of
its formation: what came first to Central Europe? Oecologia 135:122–130
Pyšek P, Richardson DM, Rejmánek M, Webster G, Williamson M, Kirschner J (2004a)
Alien plants in checklists and floras: towards better communication between taxon-
omists and ecologists. Taxon 53:131–143
Pyšek P, Richardson DM, Williamson M (2004b) Predicting and explaining plant inva-
sions through analysis of source area floras: some critical considerations. Diversity
Distrib 10:179–187
Rejmánek M (1996) A theory of seed plant invasiveness: the first sketch. Biol Conserv
78:171–181
Rejmánek M (2000) Invasive plants: approaches and predictions. Austral Ecol 25:497–
506
Rejmánek M, Richardson DM (1996) What attributes make some plant species more
invasive? Ecology 77:1655–1661
Rejmánek M, Richardson DM, Higgins SI, Pitcairn MJ, Grotkopp E (2005) Ecology of
invasive plants: state of the art. In: Mooney HA, Mack RM, McNeely JA, Neville L,
Schei P, Waage J (eds) Invasive alien species: searching for solutions. Island Press,
Washington, DC,pp 104–161
Richardson DM, Bond WJ (1991) Determinants of plant-distribution – evidence from
pine invasions.Am Nat 137:639–668
Richardson DM, Cowling RM (1992) Why is mountain fynbos invasible and which
species invade? In: Van Wilgen BW, Richardson DM, Kruger FJ, van Hensbergen HJ
(eds) Fire in South African mountain fynbos. Springer,Berlin Heidelberg New York,
pp 161–181
Richardson DM, Pyšek P (2006) Plant invasions: merging the concepts of species inva-
siveness and community invasibility.Prog Phys Geogr 30:409–431
Richardson DM, Rejmánek M (2004) Conifers as invasive aliens: a global survey and pre-
dictive framework. Diversity Distrib 10:321–331
Richardson DM, Pyšek P, Rejmánek M, Barbour MG,Panetta FD,West CJ (2000a) Natu-
ralization and invasion of alien plants: concepts and definitions. Diversity Distrib
6:93–107
Richardson DM, Allsopp N, D’Antonio CM, Milton SJ, Rejmánek M (2000b) Plant inva-
sions: the role of mutualisms.Biol Rev 75:65–93
Roy J (1990) In search of characteristics of plant invaders. In: di Castri J, Hansen AJ,
Debussche M (eds) Biological invasions in Europe and the Mediterranean Basin.
Kluwer, Dordrecht,pp 335–352
Schierenbeck K, Mack RN, Sharitz RR (1994) Effects of herbivory on growth and bio-
mass allocation in native and introduced species of Lonicera. Ecology 75:1661–1672
Smith MD, Knapp AK (2001) Physiological and morphological traits of exotic, invasive
exotic, and native plant species in tallgrass prairie.Int J Plant Sci 162:785–792
P. P y sšek and D.M. Richardson124
Sutherland S (2004) What makes a weed a weed: life history traits of native and exotic
plants in the USA. Oecologia 141:24–39
Thébaud C, Simberloff D (2001) Are plants really larger in their introduced ranges? Am
Nat 157:231–236
Thompson K (1994) Predicting the fate of temperate species in response to human dis-
turbance and global change. In: Boyle TJB, Boyle CEB (eds) Biodiversity, temperate
ecosystems and global change. Springer,Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 61–76
Thompson K, Band SR, Hodgson JG (1993) Seed size and shape predict persistence in
soil. Funct Ecol 7:236–241
Thompson K,Hodgson JG,Rich TCG (1995) Native and alien invasive plants: more of the
same? Ecography 18:390–402
Timmins SM, Williams PA (1987) Characteristics of problem weeds in New Zealand’s
protected natural areas. In: Saunders DA, Arnold G, Burbidge A, Hopkins A (eds)
Nature conservation: the role of remnants of native vegetation. Surrey Beatty, Chip-
ping Norton, pp 241–247
Williamson M (1993) Invaders, weeds and the risk from genetically manipulated organ-
isms. Experientia 49:219–224
Williamson MH, Fitter A (1996) The characters of successful invaders. Biol Conserv
78:163–170
Traits Associated with Invasiveness in Alien Plants:Where Do we Stand? 125
8 Do Successful Invaders Exist? Pre-Adaptations
to Novel Environments in Terrestrial Vertebrates
Daniel Sol
8.1 Introduction
Central in invasion biology is to understand why alien species, whose initial
populations are generally small and genetically depleted, can succeed to
establish themselves in environments to which they have had no opportunity
to adapt (Sax and Brown 2000). This paradox is usually resolved by invoking
pre-adaptations of non-indigenous species to novel environments.The idea is
that some species are successful invaders because they have attributes that
pre-adapt them to survive and reproduce in novel environments (Mayr 1965).
However, do we really have evidence that there exist properties of successful
invaders?
The goal of this chapter is to evaluate to what extent establishment success
of terrestrial vertebrates may be understood by the existence of pre-adapta-
tions of species to novel environments. This implies answering two interre-
lated questions: (1) do species differ in their invasion potential? And if so, (2)
what are the features of the species that identify some as successful invaders?
Answering these questions is important not only to fully understand how ani-
mals respond to new environmental conditions, but also to help identify and
prevent situations where the risk is high that a species becomes established
and causes ecological impact when introduced in a novel region.
8.2 Framework
A population is considered to be established when it is able to develop a self-
sustaining population, that is, a population that is maintained over time by
reproduction without the need of additional introductions.To become estab-
Ecological Studies,Vol. 193
W. Nentwig (Ed.)
Biological Invasions
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007
lished, the invader needs to find an appropriate niche to survive and repro-
duce in the novel environment, which should include environmental condi-
tions (e.g., temperatures or precipitations) that the species may tolerate,
resources (e.g.,food or shelter) that are not monopolized by other species,and
a pressure from enemies (e.g.,parasites or predators) low enough to not com-
promise population growth. Consequently, any property of a species that
increases the likelihood to find an appropriate niche in a variety of diverse
environments will also make the species a potentially successful invader.
Yet, finding an appropriate niche in the novel region is not a guarantee of
successful establishment.Introduced populations generally start in low num-
bers, which makes them vulnerable to extinction by demographic, environ-
mental and genetic stochasticity (Legendre et al. 1999; Lockwood et al. 2005).
Thus, the first stages in the invasion process are particularly critical in deter-
mining the chance that a species establishes a self-sustaining population. Not
only is it necessary that the balance between births and deaths be positive,but
also that the increase of population size is fast enough to reduce the period in
which the population remains vulnerable to stochasticity.
The need to grow fast in numbers has four main implications for under-
standing the invasion process. First,the likelihood of establishment is likely to
increase with the size of the founder population, an idea that is strongly sup-
ported by evidence in both birds and mammals (Lockwood et al. 2005). Sec-
ond, a non-indigenous species that, due to the Allee effect, has a reduced per
capita growth rate at low population densities will be particularly prone to
extinction (Reed 1999). Third, a non-indigenous species with a life history
that facilitates a higher intrinsic rate of population increase will be more
likely to escape the critical founding stage, and hence have higher chances to
develop a self-sustaining population. Finally,any property of the invader that
reduces survival or reproduction in the novel environment will impair popu-
lation growth, increasing the risk of population extinction.
Thus, the ideal invader should posses a combination of traits that allows it
to pass three main barriers toward establishment (Fig. 8.1). Such a combina-
tion of traits is unlikely to be found in a same species, implying that for most
species, establishing self-sustaining populations in novel environments
should be inherently difficult.Indeed,Williamson and others have repeatedly
noted that most past introductions of plants and animals have failed to estab-
lish self-sustaining populations (e.g.,Williamson and Fitter 1996). Moreover,
many species that establish successfully in new regions often do so only after
having failed in multiple earlier introductions (Sax and Brown 2000).
Despite the inherent difficulty to invade a new region, some vertebrates
appear to be extremely successful invaders, while others are not (Ehrlich 1989;
Williamson and Fitter 1996). Such varying invasion success is often held to
arise from differences in certain properties of species (Ehrlich 1989), yet a
similar pattern could result from a variety of alternative processes.For exam-
ple, differences in invasion success could be explained by simple neutral
D. Sol128
processes, such as differences in the number of individuals released, without
the need to invoke differences in the properties of species. So, we must start
asking whether differences between species really matter when it comes to
determining invasion success.
8.3 Do Successful Invaders Exist?
The main difficulty in answering the above question is how to estimate the
invasion potential for a given set of species.The invasion potential defines the
ability of a species to establish itself in novel regions (Lonsdale 1999). The
ideal approach to measure it would be to conduct experimental introductions
under controlled conditions (e.g., releasing the same number of individuals of
each species) in a variety of regions, and then use the rate of successes as an
estimate of the invasion potential of each species. In terrestrial vertebrates,
however, such large-scale experiments are not generally feasible for ethical
and practical reasons.
As alternative, the invasion potential may be assessed using information of
past historical introductions. The use of past introductions within a compar-
ative framework has become the most widely used tool to study the success of
vertebrate invasions, broadening our understanding of the invasion process,
and providing general principles that are realistic enough to be used in risk
assessments of future invaders (Duncan et al.2003).Yet, past historical intro-
Do Successful Invaders Exist? 129
Introduced
individuals
Find
appropriate
niche
Survive and
reproduce
Increase in
numbers
Reach a minimum
number as to avoid
stochastic extinction
Pre-adaptations
Constraints
Life history
First barrier
Second barrier
Third barrier
Fig. 8.1 Schematic repre-
sentation of the three main
barriers a species may pass
to become established in a
novel region.The species
must first be able to find an
appropriate niche to sur-
vive and reproduce, then
have to reproduce at a rate
high enough to counterbal-
ance mortality,and finally
must grow in number to
reach a population size
large enough to escape the
effects of stochasticity. The
success to pass each one of
these barriers may mostly
be affected by different
attributes of the invaders
ductions are not randomized experiments, and hence their utility in under-
standing the invasion process is not exempt of problems.
One difficulty in using past introductions is the need to know not only
those introductions that were successful, but also those that were unsuccess-
ful. While the species that have succeeded at establishing themselves are rela-
tively easy to determine,much more difficult is to know those that have failed,
as they may have left no traces of their presence in the region. If the probabil-
ity of detecting failures varies between species, then some species will appear
to be very successful invaders simply because they have many unrecorded
failures. Fortunately, very accurate records of both successes and failures are
available for vertebrates.In birds,for example,many introductions in the 18th
and 19th centuries were carried out by acclimatisation societies, which kept
accurate records of the year of introduction, its outcome, and even the num-
ber of individuals released, providing high-quality data to estimate the inva-
sion potential (Sol et al. 2005a).
Provided that reliable information on past introductions is available, a
simple way to estimate the invasion potential would be to calculate the pro-
portion of introductions that were successful. This method is nonetheless
problematic when one uses historical introductions. It is well-known that
introductions are non-randomly distributed across regions (Blackburn and
Duncan 2001b), and that some species have been introduced in larger num-
bers than others (Cassey et al. 2004). In vertebrates, there is good evidence
that success increases with the size of the founder population, so even suc-
cessful invaders are expected to fail in some introductions if released in low
numbers (Lockwood et al. 2005). Moreover, some regions may be easier to
invade than others,as a result of their characteristics (e.g., species richness or
degree of disturbance), as well as their ecological similitude with the native
regions of the species introduced (Williamson 1996; Shea and Chesson 2002).
In birds, for example, exotic species are more likely to fail on islands with
species-rich mammalian predator assemblages (Cassey et al. 2005). Conse-
quently, one species may seem to be a worse invader than another simply
because it has been introduced in lower numbers, or in hard-to-invade
regions. Clearly, differences in invasion potential between species must be
evaluated under similar conditions of introduction.
One possibility suggested in the literature to obtain reliable measures of
the invasion potential is the use of generalized linear mixed models (Black-
burn and Duncan 2001a; Steele and Hogg 2003; Sol et al.2005b). The idea is to
estimate the magnitude of species (or higher taxonomic levels) differences in
establishment success while accounting for the confounding effect of differ-
ences in the conditions of introduction. This is done by including species (or
higher taxonomic levels) as random effect coefficients into a multivariate
model that contains as co-variates the region of introduction, introduction
effort, and other confounding variables.Thus,the random effect coefficient of
each species provides a relative measure of the ability of the species to estab-
D. Sol130
lish itself in a novel location, having controlled for region and introduction
effort effects. The need for generalized linear mixed model is because the
response variable is either success or failure of introductions, which has to be
modeled with a binomial structure of errors.
The mixed model approach has provided evidence that, at least in birds,
species differ in their invasion potential: once controlled for region and intro-
duction effort, some species show a higher probability of establishment than
others (Blackburn and Duncan 2001a; Sol et al.2002). Interestingly,most vari-
ation in establishment success is evident at low, rather than at high taxonomic
levels, indicating that even closely related species may differ substantially in
their probability of establishment. Such a pattern may imply that the traits
that affect establishment success primarily vary between closely related
species. Nonetheless, the possibility that differences in invasion success also
exist at higher taxonomic levels cannot be completely ruled out (Forsyth and
Duncan 2001; Moulton et al. 2001; Sol et al. 2005b). For example, for a given
number of individuals introduced, ungulates were more likely to succeed in
New Zealand than were birds (Forsyth and Duncan 2001).
Mixed models have also revealed that species may not simply be separated
as successful and unsuccessful invaders. The majority of species has interme-
diate levels of invasion potential, so they may either succeed or fail when
introduced into novel regions (Fig. 8.2). This finding contradicts what Sim-
berloff and Boecklen (1991) called an all-or-non pattern, where some species
are particularly good invaders and so succeed everywhere they are intro-
duced, whereas others are poor invaders and always fail, regardless of the
characteristics of the recipient community (Moulton 1993; Duncan and Young
1999). Deviations from an all-or-non pattern have several possible interpreta-
tions (Duncan and Young 1999; Duncan et al. 2003). First, some species may
Do Successful Invaders Exist? 131
-1.58 -1.24 -0.89 -0.55 -0.21 0.13 0.47 0.81 1.15 1.49
Invasion potential
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Frequency
Fig. 8.2 Variation in
invasion potential
between avian species,
when both introduc-
tion effort and region
are accounted for by
using generalized lin-
ear mixed models
have properties that make them good invaders when released in certain habi-
tats, but not in others. Second, establishment success may be determined by a
combination of properties that are unlikely to be all present in most intro-
duced species. Finally, it is quite conceivable that even an exceptionally good
invader might occasionally fail to establish itself due to a chance set of unfa-
vorable circumstances, and that a poor invader may occasionally succeed
under favorable circumstances. Thus, even though there exist differences in
invasion potential at the species level, success still remains a very idiosyn-
cratic event, limiting the utility of using past invasion success to assess the
outcome of future introductions.
8.4 What Makes a Species a Successful Invader?
While in vertebrates there is evidence that species differ in their invasion
potential, controversy still exists regarding the nature of the features best
defining those species that are more successful. One important unresolved
question is whether species are born as, or evolve to be successful invaders.
Coming from distant regions, invaders are often confronted to sudden envi-
ronmental changes to which they are unlikely to be fully adapted. Thus, evo-
lutionary responses are likely to be important,at least in the long-term,to bet-
ter fit the population into their new environment. Post-invasion evolutionary
response has been suggested as one of the possible explanations for the time
lag observed in many invasion events (Williamson 1996; Mooney and Cleland
2001), where the invader population remains at low numbers for a long time
before starting an exponential population growth phase.
Post-invasion evolution has been shown in a number of studies (Mooney
and Cleland 2001), but whether such evolutionary adjustments are impor-
tant in determining differences between species in invasion potential
remains unclear. This requires that successful invaders show a higher evolu-
tionary potential over different ecological contexts (e.g., because of a higher
genetic diversity) than less successful invaders, an aspect that still awaits
empirical confirmation. Moreover, adaptive evolution is relatively slow in
long-lived species such as vertebrates, and the evolutionary response of the
population can be limited by insufficient genetic variation. This suggests that
evolutionary adjustments should be more important in later transitions of
the invasion process than during the process of establishment,at least in ver-
tebrates.
The alternative to evolutionary responses is that successful invaders have
some pre-adaptations that facilitate their establishment in novel environ-
ments.A large number of traits have been hypothesized to affect the invasion
potential of terrestrial vertebrates (Table 8.1). Whether some of these features
affect the invasion potential may be evaluated by measuring differences in
D. Sol132
Do Successful Invaders Exist? 133
Table 8.1 Hypotheses proposed on the attributes that characterize successful invaders in
terrestrial vertebratesa
Hypothesis Description Supporting
evidence
Pre-adaptations to new environments
Niche
breadth
Generalist species should be better invaders than are spe-
cialists, because the former are more likely to find appro-
priate resources in a new environment1,2
Birds3,4
Behavioral
flexibility
Species with larger brains and higher behavioral flexibility
should be better invaders than less flexible ones,because
they may behaviorally adapt to the new environment1,5
Birds5–7
Social
behavior
Social species should be better invaders than solitary
ones1. Social foraging may be advantageous for invaders
because it can increase the probability of detecting a
predator, locating food, and learning about new food
sources. However, social species may also have difficulties
to survive and/or reproduce when they are in low num-
bers due to the Allee effect, which may counterbalance the
benefits
None
Human
commen-
salism
Human commensalists should be better invaders than
non-commensalists1,8,because introductions are generally
carried out in human-modified habitats
Birds7
Pre-adaptations to specific environments
Traits that help avoid stochastic extinction
Life
histories
and popula-
tion growth
Species with life histories that increase intrinsic popula-
tion growth rates are expected to have a better chance of
surviving9, because these species may attain large popula-
tion size faster
Birds10,11,
but see12
Lifespan Long-lived species should show a higher probability of
establishing themselves in a new habitat13,14, as they are
less exposed to stochastic extinctions
None
Traits that constrain establishment
Migratory
behavior
Species that migrate within their native range are less
likely to establish themselves than non-migratory
species15,16. Long-distance migrants may be handicapped
in invading novel regions by the incapacity to either
develop novel migratory adaptations to reach suitable
wintering habitats,or to adapt simultaneously to prevail-
ing conditions in breeding and wintering areas
Birds16
Sexual
selection
Compared to non-sexually selected species,sexually
selected species should have lower introduction success17.
Sexually selected species may be more vulnerable to
extinction, because of production and maintenance costs
of secondary sexual characters, and their reduced effective
population size3,17,18
Birds3,17,18,
but see4
establishment success between species that differ in those traits (Newsome
and Noble 1986).Although such a comparative approach has been extensively
used in the last two decades, surprisingly,most of the traits found to be signif-
icantly associated with establishment success primarily explain why certain
species repeatedly fail to invade a new environment, but say much less about
why other species are successful invaders (Duncan et al.2003; Sol et al.2005a).
For example,some studies have found that sexually dimorphic species are less
likely to establish themselves in new regions than are sexually monomorphic
species (Mclain et al.1995, 1999; Sorci et al.1998). This is consistent with sex-
ual selection theory, which predicts a lower success in sexually selected
species due to,among other reasons, the costs of producing and maintaining
secondary sexual characters that promote male mating success at the expense
of survival. However, while sexual selection theory may help understand why
some species are bad invaders,it says nothing about why other species are so
successful.
Life history has also been classically suggested to affect the ability of ani-
mals to establish themselves in new regions (Pimm 1991), although theoreti-
cal predictions are controversial. In general, “fast” life histories (i.e., small
body size, fast body growth rate, early maturity, and short lifespan; Saether
1988) are thought to facilitate establishment success by promoting faster pop-
ulation growth, thereby reducing the period in which the population is small
D. Sol134
Trophic
level
Herbivores are predicted to invade new habitats more eas-
ily than are carnivores19,20.This is based on the idea that
competition is the prime determinant of community
structure, and that competition is less intense for herbi-
vores than it is for carnivores
None
Nesting
site
Ground nesters should have lower probabilities of estab-
lishing themselves in a new environment than would be
the case for canopy, shrubs, or hole nesters3,21.This is
because nest predation is generally higher in ground
nesters, which may enhance the probability of extinction
when the population is small
Birds3,
but see7
aData sources: 1. Mayr (1965); 2. Ehrlich (1989); 3. Mclain et al. (1999); 4. Cassey et al.
(2004); 5. Sol and Lefebvre (2000); 6. Sol et al. (2005b); 7. Sol et al. (2002); 8. Brown
(1989); 9. Moulton and Pimm (1986); 10.Green (1997); 11.Cassey (2003); 12.Blackburn
and Duncan (2001a); 13. Pimm (1989); 14.Legendre et al.(1999); 15. Thompson (1922);
16. Veltman et al. (1996); 17. Mclain et al. (1995); 18. Sorci et al.(1998); 19. Hairston et
al. (1960); 20.Crawley (1986); 21.Reed (1999)
Table 8.1 (Continued)
Hypothesis Description Supporting
evidence
and highly vulnerable to extinction. However,small-bodied species also tend
to be more vulnerable to environmental risks, and they tend to have more
variable populations than do large-bodied ones (Pimm 1991). These contra-
dictory theoretical predictions over how life history strategies affect the inva-
sion potential have as yet not been resolved empirically (Duncan et al. 2003).
While some studies have reported positive relationships between clutch size
and establishment success (Green 1997; Cassey 2002), others have reported
negative relationships, or no relationship at all (Veltman et al. 1996; Blackburn
and Duncan 2001a). Despite the controversy, it is conceivable that life history
affects establishment by shaping key demographic parameters. Nonetheless,
life history does not explain why some species are better armed to find an
appropriate niche in new regions, which is the first barrier in the invasion
process.
Most ecologists would agree that the chances that a species find an appro-
priate niche in a new region should be higher if its environment is similar to
that found in the native region of the invader, as then the invader will already
be pre-adapted to it,an idea known as the “environmental matching”hypoth-
esis. In vertebrates,the existence of pre-adaptations to specific habitats is sug-
gested by several indirect lines of evidence. Establishment success in birds is
significantly greater when the difference between a species’latitude of origin
and its latitude of introduction is small (Blackburn and Duncan 2001a; Cassey
2002), when climatic conditions in the locations of origin and introduction
are more similar (Duncan et al 2001), and when species are introduced to
locations within their native biogeographical regions (Blackburn & Duncan
2001a). Direct evidence for the existence of pre-adaptations to specific habi-
tats is less clear. In birds, species with a history of close association with
humans tend to be successful invaders (Sol et al. 2002), which agrees with the
fact that many avian introductions have taken places in human-modified
habitats (Case 1996).By contrast, a comparison of avian introductions across
convergent Mediterranean regions revealed that success was not higher for
those originating from Mediterranean systems than for those from non-
Mediterranean regions (Kark and Sol 2005).
Traits that pre-adapt species to specific habitats, however, cannot explain
why some species are extremely successful at invading a variety of environ-
ments. Moreover, environments that may look very similar to us may actually
show subtle differences in key aspects such as available food types or diversity
of enemies, sometimes a matter of life and death. If successful invaders have
in common some general attributes that help them to invade new regions,
then these should be pre-adaptations to exploit novel niches under a wide
diversity of environments.Yet, do we have evidence for such general attributes
of successful invaders in vertebrates?
If features of successful invaders do exist,then they should not be multifac-
eted; the reason is that adaptations that are useful in some environments are
often inappropriate for other environments. Thus, it would seem more likely
Do Successful Invaders Exist? 135
to find pre-adaptations to invade specific habitats, rather than a wide variety
of habitats.Yet, ecological theory suggests at least two classes of attributes of
vertebrates that might predispose them to be successful invaders: niche
breadth and behavioral flexibility.
The “niche breadth–invasion success” hypothesis represents the first
attempt at generalization that species have attributes that make them success-
ful invaders (Vasquez 2006). It suggests that species with broad niches (“gen-
eralists”) are more likely to invade new regions than are species with narrower
niches (“specialists”), because the former are more likely to find the necessary
resources or conditions in the novel environment. Supporting evidence for
the hypothesis is found in analyses showing that introduced birds that are
either dietary or habitat generalists are more likely to establish successfully in
new regions (Mclain et al. 1999; Cassey et al. 2004). Also consistent with the
idea that niche breadth is important is the finding that, following introduc-
tion, bird species with larger geographic ranges are more likely to establish
(Moulton and Pimm 1986; Blackburn and Duncan 2001a). Species may have
large geographic ranges because they can exploit a broad range of conditions,
although the alternative that they simply utilize conditions that are them-
selves widespread cannot be ruled out (Duncan et al. 2003).
Ecological generalism reflects the capacity of an animal to use a variety of
resources,and is thus a static concept.However, coming from distant regions,
invaders have to respond to dramatic changes in the environment, often fac-
ing what Schlaepfer et al. (2002) have termed “ecological traps”. Ecological
traps occur when invaders make wrong choices of resources, relative to con-
ditions in their native environments.For example,the contrasting successes in
North America of the common starling, Sturnus vulgaris, and the closely
related Southeast Asian crested myna, Acridotheres cristatellus, have in part
been attributed to the fact that mynas retained breeding habits appropriate to
their homelands, but inappropriate in their new home (British Columbia;
Ehrlich 1989).
Animals may in part compensate for such poor adaptive fit by means of
behavioral changes (Klopfer 1962; Sol 2003). Behavioral flexibility may aid
establishment through,for example,the ready adoption of new food resources
(Lefebvre et al. 2004), the adjustment of breeding to the prevailing environ-
mental conditions (Arcese et al. 1997), or rapid behavioral changes to avoid
novel enemies (Berger et al. 2001). Because behaviorally flexible species are
believed to be more exploratory (Greenberg and Mettke-Hofmann 2001) and
ecologically generalist (Sol 2003), they may also have higher chances of dis-
covering and adopting new habitats or new resources that may be important
to survive and reproduce in the novel environment. The hypothesis that
behavioral flexibility enhances establishment dates from Mayr (1965),but has
only recently received empirical support for birds. This derives from observa-
tions that, compared to unsuccessful species, established birds tend to have a
larger brain size, relative to their body mass, and to show more innovative
D. Sol136
behaviors in their region of origin (Sol and Lefebvre 2000; Sol et al. 2002,
2005b). The importance of behavioral adjustments to deal with novel ecolog-
ical problems is also supported by experimental evidence. Martin II and
Fitzgerald (2005) found that house sparrows from an invading population in
North America tended to approach and consume novel foods more readily
than those from a well-established population.
8.5 Conclusions and Future Directions
Progress in the last decades has provided firm evidence in vertebrates sup-
porting that species differ in their invasion potential, and that such differ-
ences are associated with certain features that facilitate establishment in novel
regions. A number of features appears to combine to affect the ability of
species to cross the three barriers that lead to successful establishment, yet
only two of these characteristics appear to provide general explanations in
understanding why some vertebrates are so extremely successful invaders: a
broad ecological niche,and a high degree of behavioral flexibility.These traits
are presumed to facilitate that vertebrates find an appropriate niche in a vari-
ety of environments, even in those to which they have had no opportunity to
adapt to.
The conclusion that species attributes influence invasion success is impor-
tant for three main reasons. First,it informs us on the mechanisms that allow
animals to invade novel environments, improving our understanding of the
invasion process, and providing cues to identify and prevent situations where
the risk is high that a species becomes established in a novel region.Second,it
indicates that invasion success cannot simply be explained by neutral
processes,such as the differences in introduction effort,but that properties of
the species matter when it comes to understand invasion success. Finally, it
suggests that animals differ in the way they respond to changes in their envi-
ronment, which has obvious implications for the conservation of vertebrates
in the face of environmental threats such as the destruction and fragmenta-
tion of habitats, and global climate change.
Despite our progress,we still have a long way to go to fully understand why
some vertebrates are so successful invaders. Below, I highlight five issues that
I envision as important avenues of future research.
First, the role of some traits in determining the invasion potential of verte-
brates remains unclear. The reasons include that the theoretical basis is insuf-
ficiently developed, that the empirical evidence is contradictory, or simply
that the effect of the trait has never been tested. Traits that remain insuffi-
ciently studied include life history strategies, human commensalisms, and
social behaviour. Testing the importance of these and other factors requires
large, representative samples of introduced species, adopting appropriate
Do Successful Invaders Exist? 137
methodologies that take into account the non-random nature of past histori-
cal introductions (Duncan et al. 2003).
Second, previous work has largely ignored possible interactions between
species attributes and the characteristics of the recipient community, even
though this may contribute to better understanding the underlying mecha-
nisms. For example, if behavioral flexibility affects establishment by enhanc-
ing the individual’s response to novel environments, then we should expect
this to play an even bigger role when the species is introduced into habitats
that differ strongly from its original one – and hence demand greater behav-
ioral adjustments – than would be the case for more similar habitats. Like-
wise, migratory behavior has been suggested to constrain establishment suc-
cess in vertebrates on the grounds that, on isolated islands, species cannot
develop migratory routes (Veltman et al. 1996). Such a mechanism should be
tested – not simply assumed – for example, by assessing whether migratory
species are particularly unsuccessful when introduced onto very isolated
islands.
Third, although establishment success is undoubtedly central in the inva-
sion process, the impact of the invader is determined mostly by the ability of
the species to grow in numbers, and expand over large regions. Thus,it is crit-
ical that we understand what determines that a species is able to successfully
spread and impact over ecosystems. A particularly intriguing question is
whether those traits that have been found to affect establishment also influ-
ence spread, as then we would easily detect situations of high risk. Indeed,
both niche breadth (Brooks 2001) and behavioral flexibility (Sol 2003) have
been suggested to affect spread,although supporting evidence is still lacking.
Fourth, most past work on establishment success has been done in birds.
We need to extend the results to other terrestrial vertebrates, particularly in
mammals for which good data are available on many successful and failed
introductions (Forsyth and Duncan 2001; Forsyth et al. 2004). Such studies
will allow us to ascertain the generality of the hypothesis suggested to explain
establishment success, and hence build a general framework that is common
to all vertebrates.
Finally, if we wish to fully understand the mechanisms that allow some
vertebrates to be so successful, then we should progress from the present
focus on comparative approaches toward increasingly experimental
approaches. While experimental introductions are not generally feasible in
vertebrates, we can nevertheless study underlying mechanisms by using
translocations of species, or by running experiments on both native and
introduced populations. One good example of the type of work required is
the study of Martin II and Fitzgerald (2005), who used common garden
experiments to evaluate differences in behavioral flexibility between an
invading and a well-established population of house sparrows (Passer
domesticus). The use of experiments will serve to validate the evidence stem-
ming from comparative analyses, and will help better understand the exact
D. Sol138
mechanisms that facilitate that a species can establish itself in an environ-
ment to which it is not well adapted.
Acknowledgements. I thank Louis Lefebvre, Richard Duncan, Tim Blackburn, Phill
Cassey,Montse Vilà, Joan Pino, Salit Kark,Sven Bacher, Wojciech Solarz, Wolfgang Nen-
twig, Simon Reader, Andrea Griffin, Julie Morand-Ferron, Diego Vasquez, and Gray Stir-
ling for fruitful discussions over the past years. This work was supported by a Ramón y
Cajal fellowship and a Proyecto de Investigación (ref. CGL2005-07640/BOS) from the
Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia (Spain), and European Union FP 6th integrated pro-
ject ALARM grant GOCE-CT-2003-506675.
References
Arcese P, Keller LF, Cary JR (1997) Why hire a behaviorist into a conservation or manage-
ment team? In: Clemmons JR,Buchholz R (eds) Behavioral approaches to conserva-
tion in the wild. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 48–71
Berger J, Swenson JE, Persson I-L (2001) Recolonizing carnivores and naive prey: conser-
vation lessons from Pleistocene extinctions.Science 291:1036–1039
Blackburn TM, Duncan RP (2001a) Determinants of establishment success in intro-
duced birds.Nature 414:195–197
Blackburn TM, Duncan RP (2001b) Establishment patterns of exotic birds are con-
strained by non-random patterns in introduction.J Biogeogr 28:927–939
Brooks T (2001) Are unsuccessful avian invaders rarer in their native range than success-
ful invaders? In: Lockwood JL, McKinney ML (eds) Biotic homogenization.
Kluwer/Plenum, New York, pp 125–155
Brown JH (1989) Patterns, modes and extents of invasions by vertebrates.In: Drake JA,
Mooney HA,di Castri F, Groves RH,Kruger FJ,Rejmanek M,Williamson M (eds) Bio-
logical invasions: a global perspective.Wiley,Chichester,pp 85–109
Case TJ (1996) Global patterns in the establishment and distribution of exotic birds. Biol
Conserv 78:69–96
Cassey P (2002) Comparative analysis of successful establishment among introduced
landbirds. PhD Thesis,Griffith University,Australia
Cassey P (2003) A comparative analysis of the relative success of introduced land birds
on island. Evol Ecol Res 5:1–11
Cassey P, Blackburn TM, Sol D, Duncan RP, Lockwood JL (2004) Global patterns of intro-
duction effort and establishment success in birds. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B 271:405–408
Cassey P, Blackburn TM, Duncan RP, Gaston KJ (2005) Causes of exotic bird establish-
ment across oceanic islands.Proc R Soc Lond Ser B 272:2059–2063
Crawley MJ (1986). The population biology of invaders. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B
314:711–731
Duncan RP, Young JR (1999) The fate of passeriform introductions on oceanic islands.
Conserv Biol 13:934–936
Duncan RP, Bomford M, Forsyth DM, Conibear L (2001) High predictability in introduc-
tion outcomes and the geographical range size of introduced Australian birds: a role
for climate.J Anim Ecol 70:621–632
Duncan RP, Blackburn TM, Sol D (2003) The ecology of avian introductions.Annu Rev
Ecol Evol Syst 34:71–98
Do Successful Invaders Exist? 139
Ehrlich PH (1989) Attributes of invaders and the invading processes: vertebrates. In:
Drake JA, Mooney HA, di Castri F, Groves RH,Kruger FG, Rejmánek M, Williamson
MH (eds) Biological invasions: a global perspective.Wiley,Chichester,pp 315–328
Forsyth DM, Duncan RP (2001) Propagule size and the relative success of exotic ungu-
late and bird introductions to New Zealand.Am Nat 157:583–595
Forsyth DM, Duncan RP, Bomford M, Moore G (2004) Climatic suitability, life-history
traits, introduction effort, and the establishment and spread of introduced mammals
in Australia. Conserv Biol 18:557–569
Green RE (1997) The influence of numbers released on the outcome of attempts to intro-
duce exotic bird species to New Zealand. J Anim Ecol 66:25–35
Greenberg RS, Mettke-Hofmann C (2001) Ecological aspects of neophobia and neophilia
in birds. In: Nolan V Jr (ed) Current ornithology. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New
York, pp 119–178
Hairston NG,Smith FE, Slobodkin LB (1960) Community structure, population control,
and competition.Am Nat 94:421–425
Kark S, Sol D (2005) Establishment success across convergent Mediterranean ecosys-
tems: an analysis of bird introductions.Conserv Biol 19:1519–1527
Klopfer PH (1962) Behavioral aspects of ecology.Prentice-Hall, London
Lefebvre L, Reader SM, Sol D (2004) Brains,innovations and evolution in birds and pri-
mates. Brain Behav Evol 63:233–246
Legendre S, Clobert J, Møller AP, Sorci G (1999) Demographic stochasticity and social
mating system in the process of extinction of small populations: the case of passer-
ines introduced to New Zealand. Am Nat 153:449–463
Lockwood JL, Cassey P, Blackburn TM (2005) The role of propagule pressure in explain-
ing species invasions.Trends Ecol Evol 20:223–228
Lonsdale WM (1999) Global patterns of plant invasions and the concept of invasibility.
Ecology 80:1522–1536
Martin LB II, Fitzgerald L (2005) A taste for novelty in invading house sparrows, Passer
domesticus. Behav Ecol 16:702–707
Mayr E (1965) The nature of colonising birds.In: Baker HG, Stebbins GL (eds) The genet-
ics of colonizing species.Academic Press,New York, pp 29–43
Mclain DK, Moulton MP, Redfearn TP (1995) Sexual selection and the risk of extinction
of introduced birds on oceanic islands.Oikos 90:599–605
Mclain DK,Moulton MP, Sanderson JG (1999) Sexual selection and extinction: the fate of
plumage-dimorphic and plumage-monomorphic birds introduced onto islands.Evol
Ecol Res 1:549–565
Mooney HA, Cleland EE (2001) The evolutionary impact of invasive species. Proc Natl
Acad Sci USA 98:5446–5451
Moulton MP (1993) The all-or-none pattern in introduced Hawaiian Passeriformes: the
role of competition sustained.Am Nat 141:105–119
Moulton MP, Pimm SL (1986) Species introductions to Hawaii.In: Mooney HA,Drake JA
(eds) Ecology of biological invasions in North America and Hawaii. Springer, Berlin
Heidelberg New York, pp 231–249
Moulton MP, Miller KE, Tillman EA (2001) Patterns of success among introduced birds
in the Hawaiian islands.Stud Avian Biol 22:31–46
Newsome AE, Noble IR (1986) Ecological and physiological characters of invading
species. In: Groves RH, Burdon JJ (eds) Biological invasions. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, pp 1–20
Pimm SL (1989) Theories of predicting success and impact of introduced species. In:
Drake JA, Mooney HA, di Castri F, Groves RH,Kruger FG, Rejmanek M, Williamson
M (eds) Biological invasions: a global perspective.Wiley,Chichester,pp 351–367
Pimm SL (1991) The balance of nature? University of Chicago Press,Chicago
D. Sol140
Reed JM (1999) The role of behavior in recent avian extinctions and endangerments.
Conserv Biol 13:232–241
Saether B-E (1988) Pattern of covariation between life-history traits of european birds.
Nature 331:616–617
Sax DF, Brown JH (2000) The paradox of invasion.Global Ecol Biogeogr 9:363–371
Schlaepfer MA, Runge MC, Sherman PW (2002) Ecological and evolutionary traps.
Trends Ecol Evol 17:474–480
Shea K, Chesson P (2002) Community ecology theory as a framework for biological inva-
sions. Trends Ecol Evol 17:170–176
Simberloff D, Boecklen W (1991) Patterns of extinction in the introduced Hawaiian avi-
fauna: a reexamination of the role of competition. Am Nat 138:327
Sol D (2003) Behavioural flexibility: a neglected issue in the ecological and evolutionary
literature? In: Reader SM, Laland KN (eds) Animal innovation. Oxford University
Press, Oxford, pp 63–82
Sol D, Lefebvre L (2000) Behavioural flexibility predicts invasion success in birds intro-
duced to New Zealand.Oikos 90:599–605
Sol D, Timmermans S, Lefebvre L (2002) Behavioural flexibility and invasion success in
birds.Anim Behav 63:495–502
Sol D, Blackburn TM, Cassey P, Duncan RP, Clavell J (2005a) The ecology and impact of
non-indigenous birds.In: Del Hoyo J,Elliot A, Christie D (eds) Handbook of the Birds
of the World, vol 10.Lynx,Barcelona, pp 13–35
Sol D,Duncan RP, Blackburn TM,Cassey P, Lefebvre L (2005b) Big brains,enhanced cog-
nition, and response of birds to novel environments. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
102:5460–5465
Sorci G, Møller AP, Clobert J (1998) Plumage dichromatism of birds predicts introduc-
tion success in New Zealand.J Anim Ecol 67:263–269
Steele BM, Hogg JT (2003) Measuring individual quality in conservation and behavior.
In: Festa-Bianchet M,Apollonio M (eds) Animal behavior and wildlife conservation.
Island Press,Washington,DC, pp 243–269
Thompson GM (1922) The naturalization of plants and animals in New Zealand. Cam-
bridge University Press,Cambridge
Vazquez D (2006) Exploring the relationship between niche breadth and invasion suc-
cess. In: Cadotte MW, McMahon SM, Fukami T (eds) Conceptual ecology and inva-
sions biology: reciprocal approaches to nature.Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York,
pp 307–322
Veltman CJ, Nee S, Crawley MJ (1996) Correlates of introduction success in exotic New
Zealand birds.Am Nat 147:542–557
Williamson MH (1996) Biological invasions. Chapman and Hall, London
Williamson MH,Fitter A (1996) The varying success of invaders.Ecology 77:1661–1666
Do Successful Invaders Exist? 141
Section III
Patterns of Invasion and Invasibility
Short Introduction
Wolfga n g N e ntw i g
It is easy to state that the process of invasion by alien species has been occur-
ring since time immemorial and has been slowly accelerating for the last few
centuries.Now,in the age of globalization, this process is exploding and aliens
are spreading all over. Again,in the following four chapters we search for pat-
terns of invasion but no longer at the species level. Are there supra-species
patterns which promote the success of alien species in general, or of the most
successful invaders?
Globalization, i.e. a bundle of simultaneous changes which happen world-
wide, contains alterations which definitely favour alien species. Agriculture,
land management, and land use change are some of the obvious factors facil-
itating the occurrence of alien species (Chap. 9). Also, the invasibility of
ecosystems has changed, with heavily disturbed ecosystems being much eas-
ier to invade. Consequently, modern anthropogenic modifications of natural
ecosystems increase their invasibility, and the global restructuring of the
ecosystems of the world for human purposes implicitly favours biological
invasions (Chap. 11).
Pollution is certainly one of the factors promoting the spread of alien
species. As a by-product of our increasing energy consumption and fertilizer
use, nitrogen compounds flood our environment. Eutrophication of waters
and soils has long received considerable attention but it has been largely over-
looked that nitrogen-fixating plants and plants which profit from high nitro-
gen levels are among the most successful invaders.So,the question is justified
as to whether nitrogen enrichment in general supports alien invaders (Chap.
10).
Globalization not only affects ecosystem structures and functions but is
also one of the causes of global climate change. This strongly modifies tem-
perature and humidity conditions, and completely alters the foundations of
existing species assemblages. Since the establishment of alien species
becomes easier,climate change is considered to promote alien plant invasions
(Chap. 12).
9 Effects of Land Management Practices
on Plant Invasions in Wildland Areas
Matthew L. Brooks
9.1 Introduction
The alteration of natural ecosystems by humans and anthropogenic dispersal
of plant propagules beyond their native ranges have facilitated the dramatic
spread and increase in dominance of nonnative plants worldwide since the
late 1800s (Hobbs 2000; Mack et al. 2000).The amount of ecosystem alteration
is related to predominant land uses, which can be summarized into four cate-
gories of increasing impact: (1) conservation – nature reserves, wilderness;
(2) utilization – pastoralism, non-plantation silviculture, recreation; (3)
replacement – cropping agriculture,plantation silviculture; and (4) removal –
urbanization, mining, industrial development (Hobbs and Hopkins 1990;
Hobbs 2000). The rate at which propagules are dispersed into new regions is
largely related to the frequency and intensity of human activities, which gen-
erally covary with the degree of ecosystem alteration among the four land use
categories.
Compared to areas where replacement or removal land uses are the norm,
the management of plant invasions tends to be more complicated where con-
servation or utilization land uses prevail. The latter two land uses emphasize
the need to maintain the integrity of natural ecosystems,whereas the former
two do not require that natural ecosystem properties be maintained, and in
some cases involve replacing them with simpler ecosystems (e.g., cropping
monocultures). Options for controlling invading plants are more limited
when their potential negative effects on native ecosystems may preclude their
usage. This chapter is focused on conservation and utilization land uses that
occur where native ecosystems are largely present and functioning,otherwise
known as wildland areas.
Management plans for wildland areas typically focus on defining a balance
between conservation and utilization, while maintaining ecosystem integrity
in the process. Each land use type is associated with a range of land manage-
Ecological Studies,Vol. 193
W. Nentwig (Ed.)
Biological Invasions
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007
ment practices designed to achieve particular objectives. It is not so much the
land use itself that affects plant invasions, but rather the collective effects of
all associated land management practices. For example, pastoralism is often
associated with the practices of road building to facilitate access to range-
lands and infrastructure (grazing allotments,watering sites, corrals), specific
grazing methods (rotational, deferred), and forage improvement techniques
(seeding, burning),all of which may be tailored for specific types of livestock
(sheep,cattle, goats). Collectively, these practices have a net effect on the inva-
sion potential of grazed landscapes, but individually they may have somewhat
differing effects, and differing solutions tailored to their specific effects.In the
field of pastoralism, the decisions that land managers typically face are gener-
ally not related to choosing between practicing, or not practicing livestock
grazing, but rather to determining how to conduct livestock grazing in a man-
ner that maximizes its sustainability and minimizes its potential negative
effects on ecosystem integrity.Plant invasions are one of the key variables that
can hinder the attainment of both these objectives.
In this chapter, I present a conceptual framework that can be used to eval-
uate the mechanisms by which land management practices affect plant inva-
sions in wildland areas. I also discuss some of the measures that can be imple-
mented to reduce the potential for invasion. Although the discussions and
examples are limited to terrestrial ecosystems, the approach and principles
presented in this chapter may be applied to other types of ecosystems as well.
9.2 Factors that Affect Plant Invasions
Factors that promote plant invasions are only generally understood. Many
factors have been associated with the ability of nonnative plants to invade new
areas, including various types of disturbance, connectivity to already invaded
sites via pathways and vectors, disruption of large-scale ecological processes
or regimes, loss of pollinators or other keystone species, and fluctuating
resource levels (Hobbs and Huenneke 1992; D’Antonio 1993; Maron and Con-
nors 1996; Lonsdale 1999; Davis et al. 2000). However, much of this research
has produced contradictory results as to the primary factors that promote
plant invasions (Lonsdale 1999; Williamson 1999).
The difficulty in finding clear and predictable patterns may be due to the
episodic nature of plant invasions. This is not captured in most theoretical
constructs, which tend to focus more on the inherent susceptibility of land-
scapes to invasion based on more fixed characteristics (species diversity,
vegetation type, land use type). The susceptibility of landscapes to invasion
can alternatively be viewed as fluctuating. In this case, invasions are most
likely to occur during “windows of opportunity” when barriers that would
otherwise prevent them are lowered (Johnstone1986). These barriers can be
M.L. Brooks148
lowered and raised over time, alternatively opening and closing windows of
opportunity for invasion. Barriers can be specific intrinsic characteristics
affecting the “invasibility” (sensu Lonsdale 1999) of the landscape in ques-
tion, or related to the extrinsic types and amounts of potential invader pro-
gagules. A thorough assessment of invasion potential must take into account
both of these factors.
Davis et al. (2000) incorporated the concepts of variable opportunities for
invasion into a theoretical model that assumes the invasion of landscapes by
new species is affected by variations in (1) resource availability; (2) propagule
availability; and (3) the types of species invading. These factors can be further
grouped into the intrinsic property of resource availability, which is related to
the availability of each type of potentially limiting resource (light, moisture,
nitrogen, etc.), and the extrinsic property of propagule pressure, which
includes the amount of each potentially invading species.Collect ively,resource
availability and propagule pressure affect invasion potential.The basic premise
of this theory is that when and where the availability of otherwise limiting
resources is high, landscapes are more invasible than when and where
resources are low, but only if propagule pressure is sufficiently high and com-
prised of species well suited to colonize and establish new populations under
prevailing environmental conditions (Fig.9.1). Thus, the invasion potential of
a landscape is highly contextual,as are the relative levels of resource availabil-
ity and propagule pressure,which both vary over space and time.
Plant resource availability is a function of the underlying supply of light,
water, and mineral nutrients, and the proportions of these resources that are
unused by the existing vegetation. Resource availability can increase due to
Effects of Land Management Practices on Plant Invasions in Wildland Areas 149
Resource Availabilit
y
Propagule Pressure
Low
Invasion
Potential
High
Invasion
Potential
Moderate
Invasion
Potential
Fig. 9.1 Invasion potential of
landscapes is related to both
resource availability and
propagule pressure
direct additions to the landscape (atmospheric nitrogen deposition, agricul-
tural fertilization) or increased rates of production within the landscape
(nutrient cycling rates), or by reduced rates of uptake following declines in
competition from extant plants after they are thinned or removed (Fig. 9.2,
link A). The rate of resource uptake is inversely related to disturbance levels,
because disturbance typically reduces vegetation biomass, thus reducing the
amount of resources used. Established populations of nonnative plants can
also feed back to affect resource supply.This can occur by direct increases in
nutrient supply (nitrifying plants), or indirect increases brought about by
inhibiting the growth of other species through competition (e.g., Brooks
2000) or inhibition (e.g., Callaway and Aschehoug 2000; Fig. 9.2,link C). Con-
versely, processes that reduce plant resource availability (e.g., increased plant
productivity) may dampen invasion potential.
Propagule pressure is related to the number of propagules available to
establish and increase populations.Propagules can be introduced deliberately
(seeding projects or ornamental plants) or accidentally (adhering to vehicles
or as contaminant in hay; Fig. 9.2, link B). Once established, populations of
nonnative plants can promote their dominance by adding to their own pool of
available propagules (Fig. 9.2, link D). Propagule pressure can be negatively
affected by predators (granivores) or diseases that reduce the rate of produc-
tion of new propagules. The types of propagules that are present are also an
important factor. Species or functional groups of plants with properties that
confer an advantage in colonizing and establishing populations under pre-
vailing environmental conditions will be more successful than those lacking
such properties.
M.L. Brooks150
Increasing
resource
input
Decreasing
resource
uptake
Deliberate
dispersal of
propagules
Accidental
dispersal of
propagules
Non-native Species Abundance
Resource Availability Propagule Pressure
AB
CD
Fig. 9.2 Relationships between resource availability, propagule pressure, and nonnative
species abundance (modified from concepts presented in Davis et al. 2000). Resource
availability (A) and propagule pressure (B) both affect the abundance of nonnative
species populations. Once these populations become established, they can themselves
affect resource availability (C) and propagule pressure (D)
9.3 Linking Land Management Practices
with Invasion Potential
Much has been written about various aspects of plant invasions, but to date
a universal approach to evaluating the relationships between land manage-
ment practices and invasion potential by plants has not been explicitly
described. The theoretical framework presented in Figs. 9.1 and 9.2 can be
used for such a purpose. Specifically, this framework can be applied to any
land management practice to evaluate links between invasion potential,
resource availability,and propagule pressure,as well as specific management
actions that may reduce the invasion potential of landscapes. The fluctuating
and episodic dynamics of this theoretical framework is similar in nature to
land management practices, which tend to also occur as punctuated activi-
ties.
There are a number of management actions that can target specific parts of
the conceptual model presented in Fig.9.2. For example, resource availability
may be minimized by reducing the rate of resource input and/or increasing its
rate of uptake. Similarly, propagule pressure may be minimized by reducing
the rates of intentional and/or unintentional dispersal. The specific actions
that will generate the most benefit will vary on a case-by-case basis,depend-
ing on the relative importance of resource supply and propagule pressure.
This is important to understand, because costly efforts may otherwise be
wasted on reducing resource availability when propagule pressure is relatively
low (i.e., there are few propagules available to respond to resource fluctua-
tions), or reducing propagule pressure when resource availability is limited
(i.e., there are few resources for propagules to respond to).
An example is provided below that illustrates some of the ways that a land
management practice – in this case, the management of vehicular routes –
may increase the invasion potential of landscapes, and how these effects may
be mitigated by specifically managing resource availability and propagule
pressure.
9.3.1 Vehicular Route Management
Vehicular routes are perhaps the single, most pervasive land use feature in
wildland areas worldwide. Approximately 6.3 million km of roads have been
reported in the United States alone (National Research Council 1997), which
vastly underestimates the actual amount of vehicular routes,due to extensive
networks of unimproved routes and trails that remain uninventoried (For-
man et al. 2003). The ecological effects of vehicular routes can range from
physical and chemical changes of ecosystems to alterations in the population
and community structure of organisms (Forman and Alexander 1998; Spel-
Effects of Land Management Practices on Plant Invasions in Wildland Areas 151
lerberg 1998, 2002; Forman et al. 2003), including the spread and dominance
of nonnative plants (Brooks and Lair 2007).
Vehicular routes can be classified into three general categories: off-high-
way vehicle trails and unimproved local roads, improved local roads and col-
lector roads, and arterial roads and limited-access highways (Brooks and Lair
2007). Of these,off-highway vehicle trails and unimproved local roads charac-
terize the typical routes encountered in wildland areas.
Vehicular routes are part of larger transportation infrastructures that
some classify as a form of removal land use (e.g., Hobbs 2000).From this per-
spective, the immediate footprints of routes are recognized for their direct
amelioration of local ecosystem properties (vegetation cover, soil hydrology).
This has also been referred to as the direct local effect of vehicular routes
(Fig. 9.3a; Brooks and Lair 2007). However, vehicular routes also have signifi-
cant indirect and diffuse effects that encompass much larger areas,and do not
impact local ecosystem processes as severely (Fig. 9.3a). These latter effects
are of primary concern to managers of wildlands, since they threaten ecosys-
tem structure and processes beyond route corridors. In addition, vehicular
routes are integral to most other types of land uses. Anywhere people need to
travel to conduct activities associated with various land uses, they usually
travel by vehicle upon some sort of vehicular route.
The ecological effects of vehicular routes stem from both the vehicles
themselves, and the surfaces created to facilitate their travel (Brooks and
Lair 2007). Both can affect resource supply and propagule pressure of
invading plants, although the management of each requires differing
approaches.
M.L. Brooks152
A. Vehicular Routes B. Vegetation Management
Direct local effects (within footprint of impact)
Indirect local effects (gradient outward from impact)
Dispersed landscape effects (cumulative across landscapes)
Fig. 9.3a, b Three
primary scales of
ecosystem impact
of vehicular
routes (a) and
vegetation man-
agement treat-
ments (b), modi-
fied from Brooks
and Lair (2007)
9.3.1.1 Vehicles
Vehicles produce atmospheric pollution in the form of nitrogen oxides and
other compounds.At a regional scale, these pollutants can produce nitrogen
deposition gradients that increase soil nitrogen levels (e.g., Padgett et al.
1999), and can lead to increased dominance by nonnative plants (Brooks 2003;
Allen et al. 2007).At a local scale,they can create deposition gradients radiat-
ing outward from individual roads (e.g., Angold 1997). Unfortunately, the
reduction of nitrogen deposition rates is outside the scope of what local land
managers can typically influence – this can occur primarily through the
efforts of regional air quality management districts or based on national auto-
mobile emission standards. To some degree, limitations on local rates of
vehicular travel may reduce local deposition rates associated with individual
roads. However, local land managers still should understand how broad-scale
atmospheric nitrogen deposition may affect the processes of plant invasions
into the wildland areas they manage. Such information may help them moni-
tor more efficiently for the arrival of new plant invaders, and predict where
these new invaders may reach levels that negatively affect ecosystem proper-
ties (e.g., fire regimes in deserts; Brooks 2003,Allen et al. 2007).
Vehicles can also serve as vectors for the unintentional dispersal of nonna-
tive plant propagules (Clifford 1959; Schmidt 1989; Lonsdale and Lane 1994).
Propagules may adhere directly to vehicles, or be blown along by wind cur-
rents created by vehicular travel.Maintenance guidelines for vehicles used by
land managers may help reduce propagule pressure if they stipulate that vehi-
cles be periodically washed, or at least washed when they are moved from one
region to another. Vehicle washing is especially important after they have
been operated in the vicinity of populations of nonnative plants that are high
priorities for containment and control.Management of private vehicles used
by people visiting a management unit is more problematic. Beyond relatively
simple efforts to reduce dispersal rates by land management vehicles, it may
be more efficient to focus resources on early detection and eradication of col-
onizing nonnative plants, rather than on extensive efforts to reduce their dis-
persal by private vehicles into a management unit (Lonsdale and Lane 1994).
9.3.1.2 Vehicular Routes
Vehicular routes can have much greater effects on soil nutrient availability
than do the vehicles themselves.For example, in arid and semi-arid environ-
ments, rainfall accumulation along roadsides can increase soil moisture lev-
els, making conditions more conducive to plant growth (Brooks and Lair
2007). Even the tracks created by a single crossing of a motorcycle in desert
soil can create microsites that facilitate the establishment and growth of non-
Effects of Land Management Practices on Plant Invasions in Wildland Areas 153
native plants, as demonstrated in the deserts of Kuwait (Brown and
Schoknecht 2001) and in the Mojave Desert of North America (Davidson and
Fox 1974; Brooks 2007).
The maintenance and engineering of roads can also significantly affect
resource availability. Where vegetation is removed along roadside verges,
reduced competition may increase resource availability (Vasek et al. 1975),
and thus invasion potential. The creation of roadside berms can improve soil
conditions,making it more suitable for the establishment and growth of non-
native species (Gelbard and Belnap 2003), especially if the conditions they
create are significantly different from those of the surrounding landscape
(Brooks 2007). The abundance of nonnative plants may also increase where
new soils are introduced to create roadbeds, such as clay and limestone soils
in an otherwise sandy landscape (Greenberg et al. 1997). Contouring to
reduce the prominence of berms, and the use of roadbed materials that do not
increase the relative fertility of the soil may help reduce rates of establishment
by invading plant species. If the underlying fertility of roadsides cannot be
reasonably managed, then regular vegetation management to maintain bare
soil, and repeatedly remove new invaders as they become established,may be
another option.
The construction and maintenance of vehicular routes can also signifi-
cantly affect propagule pressure of invading species.Roadbed materials often
originate from quarries that contain significant stands of invasive plants (M.
Brooks,personal observations). In some cases,roadsides are recontoured and
the materials redistributed elsewhere along other roadsides, potentially
spreading nonnative plant propagules. The results of these activities often
lead to new populations of plant invaders establishing in the vicinity of major
road construction (M. Brooks, personal observations). Careful monitoring
and control of nonnative plants at sites from which road materials originate is
required to reduce the rates of propagule dispersal onto roadsides.
The verges of vehicle routes are often revegetated if plant cover has been
lost during the course of construction or maintenance activities, especially if
soil conservation or aesthetic degradation is of concern. Seedings are the
most common revegetation method, and in many cases nonnative species are
used. Nonnatives are often chosen simply because they have been used in the
past and are part of institutionalized practices,but also because they are rela-
tively inexpensive, compared to native seeds, and are often bred for high
establishment and rapid growth rates.This last factor is of particular concern
because selection for these traits also improves the chances that seeded
species will spread beyond their points of application into wildland areas, and
potentially become problems for land managers. Economic incentives are
required to promote the development of native seed stocks, and research is
needed to identify those native species that are most appropriate for specific
vegetation types and ecoregions.
M.L. Brooks154
9.4 Managing Established Populations of Invasive Plants
Once plants have invaded and naturalized,control efforts involve treatments
to remove, or at least reduce, their populations. In some cases, other species
may be introduced through the process of revegetation to hinder the
reestablishment of invading species after they are removed from an area.
These practices are typical of the broader field of vegetation management,
which transcends most realms of land management. For example, silvicul-
turalists manage forests to maximize lumber production, and range conser-
vationists manage rangelands to maximize livestock production. Fire man-
agers manage vegetation before and after fires to manipulate fuelbed
characteristics that affect fire behavior and fire regimes. Law enforcement
and cultural resource managers may manage vegetation to respectively facil-
itate the detection of illegal activities and to maintain historically significant
vegetation stands. Natural resource managers manage vegetation to create
and maintain habitat for wildlife (forage and cover), reduce rates of soil ero-
sion (species that stabilize soils), and promote certain plant community
characteristics (high diversity, healthy populations of rare species). Vegeta-
tion management may also be targeted directly at eradicating or controlling
the dominance of nonnative plants. All of these land management activities
can affect invasion potential by influencing resource availability and propag-
ule pressure. Even efforts to manage specific nonnative plants may uninten-
tionally promote the subsequent invasion and rise to dominance of other
nonnative species.
Just as vehicular routes can have ecosystem impacts at various spatial
scales, so too can vegetation management treatments (Fig. 9.3b). Areas
directly within the footprint of the treatments can have direct local effects
that are very obvious, such as a clearcut in a forest.Invasive plants can domi-
nate these areas where competition for light and soil resources has been tem-
porarily reduced (Hobbs and Huenneke 1992). There may also be gradients of
resource availability and propagule pressure extending outward from areas
where vegetation has been removed,and which can affect landscape invasibil-
ity (Zink et al. 1995). The cumulative effect of multiple direct and indirect
local effects can have diffuse landscape impacts that influence much broader
areas.
9.4.1 Effects of Vegetation Management on Resource Availability
The removal of vegetation has obvious implications for resource availability
to species that may subsequently invade.When plants are removed, there can
be an immediate release from competition for soil nutrients and light, and
when plants are revegetated, the opposite may occur. However, the different
Effects of Land Management Practices on Plant Invasions in Wildland Areas 155
methods used to remove or add vegetation may have additional effects on
nutrient availability that warrant further examination.
Fire is perhaps the oldest and most widely used tool for vegetation man-
agement worldwide. Its application requires only an ignition source, and
appropriate fuelbed and weather conditions. Its effects on vegetation vary
depending on the life history strategies and phenologic stages of the plants,
and the intensity and duration of the fire. Continuous fires that have high
intensity, long duration, and high percent fuel consumption result in signifi-
cant removal of plant tissue that can increase resource availability by reducing
plant competition (Fig.9.4). Fires can also alter the chemistry of soils, increas-
ing rates of nutrient input,as long as fire intensities are not excessively high,
in which case nutrients may be volatilized and lost from the local landscape
(DeBano et al. 1998).
Mechanical treatments can be targeted to either selectively remove all, or
selectively thin a proportion, of an individual species or group of species
M.L. Brooks156
Fire Treatment
Herbicide Treatment
Mechanical Treatment
Relative Amount of Biomass Removal
Subsequent Resource Uptake
Resource Availability
low intensity,
short duration,
patchy fire
high intensity*,
long duration,
continuous fire
thinning clearcut
narrow spectrum broad spectrum
low high
lowhigh
low high
Fig. 9.4 Relative effects of different types of fire, mechanical, and herbicide vegetation
removal treatments on resource availability (* unless of very high intensity, in which
case soil nutrients may be volatilized)
present at a site. Another approach involves removing the aboveground bio-
mass of all plant species through clearcutting or blading. As the level of bio-
mass removal increases, the rate of resource uptake declines,and the relative
availability of resources increases (Fig. 9.4). However, mechanical treatments
also typically cause significant soil disturbance, which can reduce soil fertil-
ity if subsequent erosion removes topsoil (Edeso et al. 1999), or increase soil
fertility due to the decomposition of freshly removed plants (McLellan et al.
1995).
Herbicides are designed to either target a specific subset of plants (narrow
spectrum), or target all or most plants (broad spectrum). The more species
and biomass that are removed, the lower the resource uptake and the greater
the resource availability. Herbicide treatments do not typically cause signifi-
cant soil disturbance,although the decomposing plant material, especially the
roots, can over time increase rates of nutrient input and potentially increase
nutrient availability (McLellan et al. 1995).
In general, biomass reductions can be relatively transient if individual
plants are not removed, but merely defoliated or thinned in the process of
vegetation removal. Incomplete vegetation removal is most common with
narrow-spectrum herbicides that target only specific suites of species (e.g.,
grasses), mechanical treatments that target specific life forms (e.g., forest
understory thinning), and fires that only partially consume vegetation, or
leave unburned islands within their perimeters. Biomass reductions can per-
sist longer if whole plants are removed, and their replacements are slow to
reestablish. Broad-spectrum herbicide treatments, mechanical treatments
that completely remove plant biomass (e.g., bladed fuelbreaks), and fires
with high intensity and long duration can all result in high rates of plant
mortality.
The different techniques used for revegetation can also affect resource
availability. In some cases, revegetation efforts include fertilization or
mulching treatments that can increase resource supply, and may improve con-
ditions for plant invasions. The benefits of these treatments for the establish-
ing plants should be weighed against their effects on invasion potential.Seed-
ings are typically used over large areas, especially after major disturbances
such as fires or floods. If these treatments are applied aerially, then they have
virtually no direct impact on the soil. However, if they are followed by tillage,
or are applied with ground-based equipment, then significant soil distur-
bance may occur that could increase rates of nutrient mineralization. Again,
the comparison of tillage vs. non-tillage seeding methods should include con-
sideration for the potential effects of soil disturbance.
Effects of Land Management Practices on Plant Invasions in Wildland Areas 157
9.4.2 Effects of Vegetation Management on Propagule Pressure
of Invaders
Any time humans, their mechanized equipment, or domesticated animals
pass through a landscape, there is a chance they will disperse propagules of
invading plants. All land management activities have this potential, although
the degree to which they affect propagule pressure can be variable.
On its own, fire does not directly promote the dispersal of plant propag-
ules. However, the management activities associated with fire, such as fuels
management,fire suppression, and post-fire emergency stabilization,rehabil-
itation, and restoration activities, can increase propagule pressure by either
accidentally or deliberately introducing propagules. By contrast, mechanical
and herbicide treatments tend to involve significant travel throughout the
landscape, which can facilitate plant dispersal. In many cases, herbicides are
applied aerially,but in most cases in wildlands they are applied using a vehi-
cle or on foot. In the latter case, there is the chance of spread of propagules as
the applicators traverse the landscape. These impacts themselves may affect
resource availability and propagule pressure.Efforts to mitigate these impacts
may include ensuring that propagules are not adhering to people and equip-
ment (this may require periodic decontamination),avoiding passage through
known stands of invasives,and traversing the landscape in the most efficient
manner (i.e., covering minimal ground).
9.4.3 Predicting the Effects of Vegetation Management Treatments
Vegetation removal is targeted at undesirable,often nonnative,species. Reveg-
etation is focused on promoting the dominance of desirable species, which
can target either nonnative or native species, or sometimes both. The factors
that determine which species are undesirable and targeted for removal, and
which are desirable and targeted for revegetation, depend on the desired
effects of treatments that have their roots in broad management objectives.
For example,if a plant invasion has altered fuelbed characteristics to the point
that fire behavior and fire regimes are affected,creating an invasive plant/fire
regime cycle (Brooks et al. 2004), then an important management objective
may be to restore pre-invasion fuel and fire regime characteristics.This would
involve removal of the undesirable species causing the fuelbed change, and
possible revegetation of the desirable species that are necessary to restore the
pre-invasion conditions. Unfortunately, it can be very difficult to predict if
specific vegetation management treatments will have the effects necessary to
achieve the desired management objective. In this example, fuelbed and fire
regime characteristics are higher-order effects, with a number of intermedi-
ate steps and interactions that can lead to variable results (Fig. 9.5). Similar
M.L. Brooks158
Effects of Land Management Practices on Plant Invasions in Wildland Areas 159
Management
Treatments
Primary Effects
Plant Populations & Communities
Higher-Order Effects
Animal Populations &
Communities
Higher-Order Effects
Ecosystem Structure & Function
Removal of
Undesirable Species
Revegetation of
Desirable Species
Non-Target
Undesirable Species
Target Undesirable
Species
Target Desirable
Species
Non-Target Desirable
Species
General Species
Listed & Sensitive
Species
Soil
Condition
Water
Balance
Fuels & Fire
Regime
Fig. 9.5 Conceptual model linking vegetation management treatments with primary and
higher-order effects
difficulties may be encountered when vegetation management is prescribed
to benefit other ecosystem properties, or populations of listed and sensitive
wildlife species.
9.5 Conclusions
The processes that affect plant invasions can vary widely,so much so that uni-
fying principles have been difficult to identify. The guidelines presented in
this chapter focus on two factors, resource availability and propagule pres-
sure, which can be used to provide a coarse-scale assessment of the invasion
potential associated with any type of land management practice. More precise
guidelines can likely be developed to evaluate specific management practices
tailored for particular ecosystems, but it may be useful to use the framework
presented in this chapter as a foundation to start from.
The issue of spatial scale associated with management treatments and
invasion potential was only briefly discussed in this chapter, largely because
most research has focused on the direct local and indirect local effects of land
management practices (Fig. 9.3).The mechanisms and dynamics of dispersed
landscape effects that result from multiple local impacts need to be better
studied. Although specific management objectives may be focused on the
invasion potential of specific places in the landscape, overarching manage-
ment goals typically address the invasion potential of broad landscapes (e.g.,
nature reserves). Scientists should always strive to match the spatial scale of
their studies with that of the information need they are addressing.
Some management actions are clearly more feasible than others, due to
financial costs or other constraints.The framework presented in this chapter
can help land managers identify the specific points at which plant invasions
may most effectively be managed. Final decisions regarding where and when
to apply specific actions will ultimately require another level of scrutiny that
involves social, economic, logistical, and other factors that are beyond the
scope of this chapter. However, this decision-making process should begin
with biological concepts such as those presented here.
References
Allen EB, Leela ER, Steers RJ, Bytnerowicz A, Fenn ME (2007) Impacts of atmospheric
nitrogen deposition on Mojave Desert vegetation and soils. In: Webb RH, Fenster-
maker LF, Heaton JS, Hughson DL, McDonald EV, Miller DM (eds) The Mojave
Desert: ecosystem processes and sustainability. University of Arizona Press, Tucson
(in press)
Angold PG (1997) The impact of roads on adjacent heathland vegetation: effects on plant
species composition.J Appl Ecol 34:409–417
Brooks ML (2000) Competition between alien annual grasses and native annual plants in
the Mojave Desert. Am Midl Nat 144:92–108
Brooks ML (2003) Effects of increased soil nitrogen on the dominance of alien annual
plants in the Mojave Desert. J Appl Ecol 40:344–353
Brooks ML (2007) Spatial and temporal distribution of nonnative plants in the Mojave
Desert. In:Webb RH, Fenstermaker LF, Heaton JS,Hughson DL,McDonald EV, Miller
DM (eds) The Mojave Desert: ecosystem processes and sustainability. University of
Arizona Press, Tucson (in press)
Brooks ML,Lair B (2007) Ecological effects of vehicular routes in a desert ecosystem.In:
Webb RH, Fenstermaker LF, Heaton JS,Hughson DL, McDonald EV, Miller DM (eds)
The Mojave Desert: ecosystem processes and sustainability. University of Arizona
Press, Tucson (in press)
M.L. Brooks160
Brooks ML, D’Antonio CM,Richardson DM, Grace J,Keeley J,DiTomaso J, Hobbs R,Pel-
lant M, Pyke D (2004) Effects of invasive alien plants on fire regimes. BioScience
54:677–688
Brown G, Schoknecht N (2001) Off-road vehicles and vegetation patterning in a
degraded desert ecosystem in Kuwait.J Arid Environ 49:413–427
Callaway RM,Aschehoug ET (2000) Invasive plants versus their new and old neighbors:
a mechanism for exotic invasion. Science 290:521–523
Clifford HT (1959) Seed dispersal by motor vehicles. J Ecol 47:311–315
D’Antonio CM (1993) Mechanisms controlling invasions of coastal plant communities
by the alien succulent,Carpobrotus edulis.Ecology 74:83–95
Davidson E, Fox M (1974) Effects of off-road motorcycle activity on Mojave Desert veg-
etation and soil. Madroño 22:381–412
Davis MA, Grime PJ, Thompson K (2000) Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a
general theory of invasibility. J Ecol 88:528–534
DeBano LF, Neary DG, Ffoliott PF (1998) Fire’s effects on ecosystems.Wiley, New York
Edeso JM, Merino A, Gonzalez MJ,Marauri P (1999) Soil erosion under different harvest-
ing managements in steep forestlands from northern Spain. Land Degrad Develop
10:79–88
Forman RTT, Alexander LE (1998) Roads and their major ecological effects. Annu Rev
Ecol Syst 29:207–231
Forman RTT, Sperling D, Bissonette JA, Clevenger AP, Cutshall CD, Dale VH, Fahrig L,
France R, Goldman CR, Heanue K, Jones JA, Swanson FJ, Turrentine T, Winter TC
(2003) Road ecology: science and solutions. Island Press,Washington, DC
Gelbard JL, Belnap J (2003) Roads as conduits for exotic plant invasions in a semiarid
landscape. Conserv Biol 17:420–432
Greenberg CH, Crownover SH, Gordon DR (1997) Roadside soil: a corridor for invasion
in xeric scrub by nonindigenous plants.Nat Areas J 17:99–109
Hobbs RJ (2000) Land-use changes and invasions.In: Mooney HA, Hobbs RJ (eds) Inva-
sive species in a changing world.Island Press,Washington,DC, pp 55–64
Hobbs RJ, Hopkins AJM (1990) From frontier to fragments: European impact on Aus-
tralia’s vegetation. Proc Ecol Soc Am 16:93–114
Hobbs RJ, Huenneke LF (1992) Disturbance, diversity and invasion: implications for
conservation. Conserv Biol 6:324–337
Johnstone IM (1986) Plant invasion windows: a time-based classification of invasion
potential. Biol Rev 61:369–394
Lonsdale WM (1999) Global patterns of plant invasions and the concept of invasibility.
Ecology 80:1522–1536
Lonsdale WM, Lane AM (1994) Tourist vehicles as vectors of weed seeds in Kakadu
National Park,Northern Australia. Biol Conserv 69:277–283
Mack RN, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM, Evans H, Clout M, Bazzaz FA (2000) Biotic inva-
sions: causes,epidemiology,global consequences,and control.Ecol Appl 10:689–710
Maron JL, Connors PG (1996) A native nitrogen-fixing shrub facilitates weed invasion.
Oecologia 105:302–312
McLellan AJ, Fitter AH, Law R (1995) On decaying roots, mycorrhizal colonization, and
the design of removal experiments. J Ecol 83:225–230
National Research Council (1997) Toward a sustainable future: addressing the long-term
effects of motor vehicle transportation on climate and ecology. National Academy
Press, Washington, DC
Padgett PE,Allen EB, Bytnerowicz A, Minnich RA (1999) Changes in soil inorganic nitro-
gen as related to atmospheric nitrogenous pollutants in southern California.Atmos-
pheric Environ 33:769–781
Effects of Land Management Practices on Plant Invasions in Wildland Areas 161
Schmidt W (1989) Plant dispersal by motor cars.Vegetatio 80:147–152
Silveri A, Dunwiddie PW, Michaels HJ (2001) Logging and edaphic factors in the inva-
sion of an Asian woody vine in a mesic North American forest. Biol Invasions
3:379–389
Spellerberg IF (1998) Ecological effects of roads and traffic: a literature review. Global
Ecol Biogeogr Lett 7:317–333
Spellerberg IF (2002) Ecological effects of roads. Science Publishers,Plymouth
Vasek FC, Johnson HB, Brum GD (1975) Effects of power transmission lines on vegeta-
tion of the Mojave Desert.Madroño 23:114–130
Williamson M (1999) Invasions. Ecography 22:5–12
Zink TA,Allen MF, Heindl-Tenhunen B, Allen EB (1995) The effects of a disturbance cor-
ridor on and ecological reserve. Restor Ecol 3:304–310
M.L. Brooks162
10 Nitrogen Enrichment and Plant Invasions:
the Importance of Nitrogen-Fixing Plants
and Anthropogenic Eutrophication
Michael Scherer-Lorenzen, Harry Olde Venterink,
and Holger Buschmann
10.1 Introduction
The invasion of natural ecosystems by exotic species is an important compo-
nent of global environmental change,and poses a major threat to biodiversity.
Other drivers of global change – such as alteration of the atmospheric compo-
sition and associated climate change,changing patterns of land use that frag-
ment habitats and alter disturbance regimes, and increasing levels of airborne
nitrogen deposition – also influence resource dynamics and species composi-
tion of ecosystems (Sala et al. 2000). Consequently, they all have the potential
to interact with biological invasions and to accelerate this process, for which
evidence is accumulating (Dukes and Mooney 1999; Mooney and Hobbs
2000). In addition, biological invasions themselves can alter the biogeochem-
istry of ecosystems through particular traits of the invading species (Ehren-
feld and Scott 2001).If we wish to understand and eventually predict the eco-
logical impacts of invasive species,it is thus of particular importance to reveal
the many complex interactions between all elements of global change, and
their effects on ecosystem processes. In this chapter,we focus on alterations of
the nitrogen cycle of terrestrial ecosystems by exotic invasions, and how
nitrogen deposition may influence the success of invaders.
It is not yet possible to predict which exotic species will become invasive,
though successful invaders are often associated with a particular suite of
traits: high seed output, high relative growth rate, high specific leaf area, low
leaf construction costs, high phenotypic plasticity, and high nutrient concen-
trations (Rejmanek and Richardson 1996; Daehler 2003; see also Chap. 7).
Species sharing these traits may be specifically capable to capitalize on the
various elements of environmental change (Dukes and Mooney 1999). What
Ecological Studies,Vol. 193
W. Nentwig (Ed.)
Biological Invasions
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007
makes a community invasible appears related to, among others, disturbance
regimes, and resource availabilities (Lonsdale 1999; Davis et al. 2000; see
Chaps. 9,11,12), stressing the relevance of global change drivers for invasibil-
ity. Some consequences of exotic invasions are clear: for example, they may
have a devastating effect on communities of native plants and animals (see
Chaps. 13–17), resulting in a strong decline in biodiversity (Mack et al. 2000;
Sala et al. 2000).Other consequences – for example, effects on ecosystem bio-
geochemistry – may be initially less conspicuous, but are of great importance
in the long term.
10.2 Alterations of the N-Cycle by Exotic Invaders
Some exotic species alter soil communities and nutrient cycling processes,
often increasing nutrient availabilities for plants (Ehrenfeld 2003). Since
exotic invaders usually benefit more from higher nutrient availability than do
indigenous species, this may ultimately cause a positive feedback of invasion
(D’Antonio et al. 1999), although negative feedbacks of invasions have also
been reported (Ehrenfeld 2003). For a few exotic invaders, such as pyrophytic
grasses (e.g., Mack and D’Antonio 2003) and the N2-fixing shrub Myrica faya
(Vitousek et al. 1987), the ecosystem effect and feedback mechanism appear
to be well understood. By contrast, less information is available about the con-
sequences for the invaded ecosystem, partly because the time course of the
invasion is often unknown, but also because ecosystem effects may not
become evident for many decades (Ehrenfeld 2003).
Mack et al. (2001) distinguished two types of alterations to nutrient cycles
by exotic invasions,which they characterized as (1) dramatic, and (2) gradual.
Dramatic alterations occur when exotic invasive species introduce a new
functional trait into the ecosystem, making resources available from new
sources (e.g., the introduction of N2-fixing plants into ecosystems with no
such symbioses). Gradual alterations occur when plant functional traits –
such as size, growth rate, tissue quality – of invasive species differ quantita-
tively from those of indigenous species, causing different rates of nutrient
uptake or nutrient turnover (e.g., the cycle involving plant-available nutrients
in soil–nutrients in plants–nutrients in litter–plant-available nutrients in
soil). Here,we focus on the first type: dramatic alterations by the introduction
of nitrogen-fixing species.
10.2.1 Nitrogen-Fixing Species Among Invasives and Natives
Some of the world’s most problematic invaders of natural ecosystems are N2-
fixing legumes (e.g., Acacia,Albizia, and Leucaena species), and actinorhizal
M. Scherer-Lorenzen,H. Olde Venterink, and H. Buschmann164
N2-fixing species (e.g., Casuarina equitesifolia and Myrica faya; e.g., Richard-
son et al. 2000). There are examples of invasions by some of these species in
Hawaii (Myrica faya), South African fynbos (Acacia species), the American
continent (Casuarina species, Lupinus arboreus,Robinia pseudoacacia),
Europe (Lupinus polyphyllus,Robinia pseudoacacia), New Zealand and Chile
(Ulex europaeus), and several tropical islands (Albizia falcataria).
Approximately 10% of the introduced and invasive flora of the United
States are possible nitrogen-fixers (USDA 2006), and for highly invasive
species the proportion could even be higher (e.g., six of 31 species in Florida;
Gordon 1998).Hence,the ability to fix N2is not an uncommon feature of inva-
sive species in North America, but we do not have the data to evaluate whether
this proportion differs from that of native species.For Germany, such data are
available from FloraWeb (BfN 2006). The proportion of N2-fixers among the
native and invasive flora of Germany is rather similar (natives 4%, invasives
5 %). Moreover, only two (Lupinus polyphyllus,Robinia pseudoacacia) of 30
species listed by Kowarik (2003) as strong invaders with serious economical
and ecological impacts have symbiotic rhizobia. Thus, it seems that nitrogen
fixation is generally more pronounced in the introduced invasive flora of the
new world than in Europe.There are,however, no clear indications that nitro-
gen fixation is more frequent in invasive than in native species.
10.2.2 Nitrogen Input by N2-Fixing Invasive Species
Despite the apparent importance of invading exotic N2-fixers, the roles of
nitrogen-fixing symbioses have been surprisingly ignored in the invasion lit-
erature (Richardson et al. 2000). The outstanding exception is the study by
Vitousek and coworkers in Hawaii,of N2fixation by the exotic Myrica faya in
a N-limited forest where N2-fixers were previously absent (Vitousek et al.
1987). In this study,the mean nitrogen input into the forest ecosystem due to
Myrica faya was 18 kg N ha–1 year–1, whereas other N inputs were only
5.5kgNha
–1 year–1. This study has become the example of a dramatic alter-
ation of a nutrient cycle by an invasive plant species; by March 2005, it had
been cited 390 times (ISI Web of Science; i.e., the papers from Vitousek et al.
1987, and Vitousek and Walker 1989). We screened the abstracts of these 390
papers, and found that N2fixation by invading exotic species had been quan-
tified in only one other region (cf. two exotic Acacia species in two South
African forests, Stock et al. 1995). Additionally, seven of the 390 studies
reported an increased soil N status (higher N contents,higher mineralization
rate) after invasions with exotic N2-fixing species, while one study reported a
decreased soil N status (Wolf et al. 2004). It should be noted, however, that the
cases of higher soil N availability are not necessarily due to an enhanced N
input,since at least six of the 390 studies reported similar increases following
invasion by non-N2-fixing species.Thus, this could also result from increased
Nitrogen Enrichment and Plant Invasions 165
decomposition rates, since legumes often have relatively high N concentra-
tions, which might stimulate litter decomposition rates (Ehrenfeld 2003).
10.2.3 Major Invasive Nitrogen-Fixing Species
Also other researchers came to the conclusion that there are hardly any data
available about the N input into the ecosystem by N2fixation of exotic invad-
ing species. One reason for this may be the lack of precise methods for quan-
tifying N2-fixation rates. Nevertheless, there are some data available for some
of these species when growing in their native range or in plantations. The N
input values from these studies might give an indication of the potential
importance of N2fixation when these species are invading. We note that rates
in plantations could be higher than those in natural areas because of more
optimal growth conditions in the former.Below, we will shortly present exam-
ples of some important invading N2-fixing species, and their possible influ-
ence on N cycling and related ecosystem processes.
Myrica faya. As mentioned above,Myrica faya increased annual N input in
young volcanic soils about fourfold. This additional nitrogen cycles rapidly
within the system, increases nitrogen availability, enhances plant productiv-
ity, and alters community structure by differentially affecting survival and
growth (Vitousek and Walker 1989; Walker and Vitousek 1991). It is interest-
ing to note that these volcanic soils are poor in nitrogen, rich in phosphorus,
and have scarce vegetation. Hence, these young soils are nitrogen-limited. M.
faya does not invade on older,P-limited soils (Vitousek 2004).
Albizia falcataria (=Falcataria moluccana or Paraserianthes falcataria).
There are several studies investigating the influence of N2-fixing Albizia fal-
cataria and non-N2-fixing Eucalyptus saligna on soil properties and produc-
tivity of tree plantations (e.g., Binkley 1997; Garcia-Montiel and Binkley 1998;
Binkley et al. 2003).Both species were introduced on Hawaii.Compared with
E. saligna monocultures, mixed stands of E. saligna and A. falcataria may pro-
duce more biomass, contain larger aboveground nutrient pools, and cycle
more nutrients through litterfall. A. falcataria can increase N pools in tropical
soils with N limitation almost threefold. There are also indications that A. fal-
cataria is able to acquire more P from the soil than is the case for E. saligna,
leading to reduced soil P pools.As the effects of A. falcataria have been mea-
sured only in plantations,it is unknown whether it also causes N enrichment
in natural ecosystems.This seems a very relevant question,since A. falcataria
is an important invasive tree in some tropical areas.
Acacia spp. Invasive Acacia species have been intensively investigated in
South African ecosystems. The results of these studies are unequivocal and
M. Scherer-Lorenzen,H. Olde Venterink, and H. Buschmann166
ecosystem-dependent.In sand plains in the South African fynbos,alien nitro-
gen-fixing Acacia species increase soil nitrogen and phosphorus contents,
and enhance nitrogen return in litterfall (e.g.,Yelenik et al. 2004).Remarkably,
they enhance soil nitrogen mineralization rates only at nutrient-rich sites,
while phosphorus mineralization was increased in Acacia stands of both
nutrient-rich and nutrient-poor ecosystems (Witkowski and Mitchell 1987;
Stock et al. 1995).It has been suggested that these effects are only in part the
result of nitrogen fixation, and rather due to associations with mycorrhiza
(Versfeld and van Wilgen 1986). There are indications that enhanced soil
nitrogen caused by Acacia species promotes the invasion of other plant
species. For example, a bioassay experiment showed that the alteration of N
availability by Acacia increases growth rates of the weedy grass Ehrharta
calycina (Yelenik et al. 2004).
Lupinus arboreus. Pickart et al. (1998) studied the invasion of Lupinus
arboreus in parts of North America where it does not occur naturally. Ammo-
nium and nitrate levels in the soil of nutrient-poor coastal dunes of northern
California were found to increase at higher abundance of L. arboreus.In addi-
tion, by removing L. arboreus from restoration plots, other invasive species
were reduced. Pickart et al. (1998) suggested that L. arboreus invasion results
in both direct and indirect soil enrichment, as a result of the associated
encroachment of other nonnative species, particularly grasses.
Robinia pseudoacacia. According to Boring and Swank (1984), Robinia
pseudoacacia is the second most abundant deciduous tree in the world, and
one of the most aggressive invaders worldwide. They reported that N2fixation
of this species can amount to 75 kg N ha–1 year–1. Rice et al.(2004) investigated
the influence of this nitrogen-fixing species on nitrogen cycling, when it was
invading a nutrient-poor sand plain ecosystem in temperate North America.
They carried out a comparison between pine-oak stands and 20–35 year-old
R. pseudoacacia stands in terms of soil nutrient contents,soil nitrogen trans-
formation rates, and annual litterfall biomass and nitrogen concentrations.
Compared with soils of pine-oak stands, soils of R. pseudoacacia stands had
1.3–3.2 times greater nitrogen concentration. They also showed elevated net
nitrification rates (25–120 times higher than in pine-oak stands), higher total
net N mineralization rates,and elevated soil P pools.
Ulex europaeus. In New Zealand, Egunjobi (1969) studied nine ecosystems
between 1 and 57 years of age and invaded by nitrogen-fixing Ulex europaeus.
In vegetation stands up to 10 years old, U. europaeus was dominant, and dry
matter accumulation and nitrogen contents of dead litter and soil were high-
est. In later stages of succession, non-fixing species were dominant, and dry
matter accumulation and nitrogen contents declined with vegetation age,
indicating that U. europaeus can increase soil nitrogen levels.
Nitrogen Enrichment and Plant Invasions 167
Despite such examples of N enrichment by exotic N2-fixers, there are various
reasons why invasion by such species may not result in N enrichment of the
ecosystem.Firstly,not all leguminous species are able to form nodules and fix
atmospheric N2(Sprent 2001).Secondly, the extent of nodulation and fixation
is controlled largely by environmental factors,of which soil N and P availabil-
ities are the most prominent. Indeed, nodulation and N2fixation are nega-
tively affected by high soil N availability and by low soil P availability
(Vitousek et al.2002; Binkley et al.2003). Hence, there may be a negative feed-
back between exotic invasions of N2-fixing species and N enrichment of the
soil, as well as a positive feedback between N2-fixing species and factors
enhancing soil P availability. The latter factors may include interactions with
other invasive exotic species that are able to enhance P availability (Simberloff
and Von Holle 1999). On the one hand, enhanced P availability may promote
N2fixation, and on the other, increased N availability may stimulate root
phosphatase activity and/or P mineralization,and hence may increase P avail-
ability for plants (e.g., Johnson et al. 1999). Although P is the main growth-
limiting nutrient, N enrichment may stimulate production and cause shifts in
species composition.As mentioned above, in some cases the introduction of
an N2-fixer is accompanied by a decrease of soil P pools (e.g., Binkley 1997),in
others by an increase (e.g., Rice et al. 2004). Versfeld and Van Wilgen (1986)
suggested that the increased P pools could be due to interactions with symbi-
otic mycorrhiza. Hence, the impact of invading and potentially N2-fixing
species is site-specific, and depends on local soil N and P conditions.
10.2.4 Facilitated Secondary Invasion
The consequences, and in particular, the long-term effects of N2fixation on
ecosystem properties and vegetation composition are fairly unknown. Not
only does N2fixation influence primary productivity, but this may have cas-
cading effects on successional patterns, community composition, and distur-
bance regimes (Rice et al. 2004). For example, the increased availability of
nitrogen following the invasion of nitrogen-fixing species might be an impor-
tant pathway by which invaders alter community structure, possibly favoring
the invasion of more exotic species. In coastal grasslands of California
invaded by Lupinus arboreus, the impact of N enrichment on secondary inva-
sion was most severe after senescence (Pickart et al. 1998;Maron and Jefferies
1999). Similar effects were documented after the death of Myrica faya (Adler
et al. 1998).Hence, nitrogen enrichment may impede efforts to restore native
plant communities and ecosystem functions at sites previously occupied by
exotic nitrogen-fixers.
M. Scherer-Lorenzen,H. Olde Venterink, and H. Buschmann168
10.2.5 Nitrogen Fixation Suppressed by Invasion
Nitrogen fixation could also be negatively affected by plant invasions. For the
invasion of African grasses in Hawaii, Ley and D’Antonio (1998) demon-
strated that these species eliminate the fire-sensitive native tree Metrosideros
polymorpha by promoting fire events. Non-symbiotic N2-fixing bacteria are
active on the litter of M. polymorpha, but not on that of the invasive grasses.
Hence,elimination of these native species led to reduced nitrogen contents in
invaded soils. In addition, invasive species that do not themselves fix N2may
also indirectly affect the rate of fixation in co-occurring N2-fixing species,
possibly through an allelopathic mechanism (Ehrenfeld 2003). For example,
in glasshouse and pasture studies in New Zealand,Wardle et al. (1994) found
evidence that decomposing leaves of the invasive thistle Carduus nutans
inhibit nitrogen fixation by the introduced Trifolium repens.C. nutans has
invaded many areas of western North America.Therefore, it might be possible
that this thistle also adversely affects growth and nitrogen fixation of native
legumes.
10.3 Nitrogen Deposition and Exotic Invasions
10.3.1 N Deposition and Eutrophication in Natural Ecosystems
The input of nitrogen compounds into terrestrial ecosystems is a major com-
ponent of global environmental change, and can have substantial effects on
ecological processes and the biogeochemistry of these systems (Vitousek et
al. 1997). Current estimates of airborne, mineral nitrogen deposition show
that large portions of North America, Europe, and Asia have rates
>75 kg N ha–1 year–1,and some regions receive >100 kg N ha–1 year–1 (Galloway
et al. 2004), exceeding the natural background rate by two orders of magni-
tude. Anthropogenic emissions of nitrogen compounds (NHxand NOx) from
fossil fuel combustion, fertilizer use, and animal husbandry are the underly-
ing cause for this elevated deposition of biologically active N. Beside the rela-
tively well-documented effects on biogeochemical cycles, N deposition can
also have severe economic impacts, such as increased costs for the manage-
ment or purification of drinking water (Wamelink et al. 2005).
The most direct ecological effect is a subtle, but continuous increase in
nitrogen pools and fluxes, and hence in nitrogen availability for plant growth
and productivity in N-limited ecosystems (e.g., Olde Venterink et al. 2002).
The eutrophying influence of N deposition may be associated with an acidifi-
cation of soils, mineral imbalances in plant nutrition resulting in reduced
plant vitality and increased sensitivity against stress, and enhanced nitrate
Nitrogen Enrichment and Plant Invasions 169
leaching into groundwater (Schulze 2000; Nadelhoffer 2001). Ecosystems that
are characterized by low natural levels of nitrogen availability are most vul-
nerable – for example, ombrothrophic bogs, heathlands,temperate and boreal
forests, or nutrient-poor grasslands. Critical loads for acidifying and eutro-
phying nitrogen for these ecosystems lie in the range of 5–20 kg N ha–1 year–1,
currently exceeded in many parts of the world (EEA 2005). These alterations
of growing conditions also have direct consequences for the competitive suc-
cess of species, associated with often dramatic changes in community compo-
sition and decrease of species richness, especially at N-limited oligo- and
mesotrophic sites such as in northern temperate forests (Bobbink et al. 1998;
Sala et al. 2000): slow-growing plants adapted to nutrient-poor soils are out-
competed by faster-growing species originating from nutrient-rich sites.
Responsiveness of species to N deposition is thus highly related to plant traits
typical for high-nutrient environments.
Since invasive species are often associated with a particular suite of traits
that are characteristic for plants of nutrient-rich sites (see Sect. 10.1), one
might assume that N deposition could also influence the abundance patterns
of native vs. invasive plant species. In addition, the invasibility of ecosystems
is most often also related to the degree of resource availability (Davis et al.
2000), and invasive species generally occur more frequently at nutrient-rich
sites, as shown for the floras of Germany (Scherer-Lorenzen et al. 2000), and
the Czech Republic (Pyšek et al. 1995). One could therefore hypothesize that
invasive species are more successful, and therefore more abundant in areas of
high atmospheric N deposition than in areas of low deposition.
10.3.2 A Short Note on Mechanisms
As Scherer-Lorenzen et al. (2000) have discussed, the mechanism of competi-
tive exclusion of species adapted to low nutrient levels by faster-growing,
more nitrophilic species is independent of whether the invading species is
either alien or native. There are numerous examples of successful native
species invading species-rich communities under high N deposition (Bob-
bink et al. 1998). Particularly well documented is the case of ombrotrophic
bogs, an ecosystem type among the most sensitive to N enrichment because
these bogs receive most of their nutrients from the atmosphere (e.g.,
Tomassen et al. 2004). Other examples include community changes in wet
heathlands (e.g.,Aerts and Berendse 1988), or after acidic deposition-induced
forest dieback. In the latter case, native grasses responsive to nitrogen invade
the understorey of the forests, replacing species adapted to less fertile soils.
Examples from mountain spruce forests in Europe include the replacement of
the dwarf shrubs Vaccinium myrtillus and Calluna vulgaris or the grass
Deschampsia flexuosa by the grass Calamagrostis villosa (Scherer-Lorenzen
et al. 2000). In all cases, combinations of specific traits, such as high relative
M. Scherer-Lorenzen,H. Olde Venterink, and H. Buschmann170
growth rate and higher rates of nutrient uptake associated with a higher
demand for soil nutrients, result in competitive advantages for the more
nitrophilic species.As discussed above, the same suites of traits are also often
found in alien invasive species,which may at least partly explain their success
in formerly nutrient-poor habitats subsequently exposed to high levels of
eutrophication related to N deposition.
10.3.3 Evidence for Effects of N Deposition on Plant Invasions?
10.3.3.1 Spatial Correlations
A first, correlative approach is to compare the distribution patterns of N
deposition with those of invasive species. Obviously, this comparison has to
be done on different spatial scales, ranging from global to local. The major
problem with such an approach,however, is the difference in data availability
and quality between, on the one hand, spatially explicit information on N
deposition, and on the other, scanty information on plant invasions. Indeed,
data on N deposition are now available both at global and regional scales – for
example,global: Galloway et al.(2004), Europe: EMEP – European Monitoring
and Evaluation Programme (EEA 2005), and USA: National Atmospheric
Deposition Program/National Trends Network (NADP 2006). By contrast, a
mapping of plant invasions on similar scales currently does not exist. Even
readily accessible global datasets such as the ISSG Global Invasive Species
Database as yet do not allow us to compile maps with a robustness and reso-
lution comparable to those for N deposition. Despite this limitation, interest-
ing insights can still be derived from such a correlative approach.
At the global scale,highest N deposition with values greater than 20 kg ha–1
year–1 (or 2,000 mg m–2 yr–1) occurs in densely populated regions in the vicinity
of large urban agglomerations, or in intensively managed agricultural areas
and their downwind neighborhoods (Fig. 10.1, Galloway et al.2004),in central
and eastern Europe,eastern North America, the Indian subcontinent,and east-
ern Asia. Smaller spots of relatively high deposition occur in South America
and central Africa. Still unaffected are large areas of the circum-boreal zone,
the western coasts of both Americas, the Amazon basin, Patagonia, Saharan
Africa, central and southeast Asia,Australia and New Zealand,and the oceans.
From the knowledge we have about global patterns of invasion (Chap. 11),it is
clear that present-day N deposition levels cannot be assigned as a crucial factor
determining the invasibility of ecosystems by alien, invasive species at the
global scale: the hotspots of invasion,such as all oceanic islands, Australia, New
Zealand, Chile,and South Africa, clearly lie outside of the hotspots of deposi-
tion – either because of low human population densities and agricultural N
losses, or because of low levels of industrialization.
Nitrogen Enrichment and Plant Invasions 171
At a continental or regional scale, however, we found some evidence for a
positive correlation between N deposition and invasive species abundance.
We combined data on inorganic nitrogen wet deposition from nitrate and
ammonium, extracted from the US National Atmospheric Deposition Pro-
gram/National Trends Network (NADP 2006), with estimates of nonnative
plant species abundance in North American ecoregions, provided by the
PAGE project of the World Resources Institute (WRI 2000, based on data of
the US World Wildlife Fund WWF). This shows that the proportion of exotic
species in forest ecoregions of the USA clearly increases at higher levels of wet
N deposition (Fig. 10.2).By contrast, no such pattern emerges for correspond-
ing data from grassland ecoregions (data not shown). Of course, the relation-
ship depicted in Fig. 10.2 is no absolute proof of a causal link between N
enrichment and invasibility, because other factors determining invader suc-
cess do also change in the vicinity of centers of N emission, such as distur-
bance, traffic, or seed input. Nevertheless, it convincingly demonstrates the
potentially accelerating effects on invasibility resulting from complex interac-
tions between various drivers of environmental change.
M. Scherer-Lorenzen,H. Olde Venterink, and H. Buschmann172
Fig. 10.1 Spatial pattern of total inorganic nitrogen deposition in the early 1990s
(mgNm
–2 year–1; reprinted from Galloway et al.2004, with permission from the author)
10.3.3.2 Observational Studies
More reliable data on the relationship between N deposition and invader suc-
cess are available only on a local or plot scale,i.e., from a few square kilometers
to several square meters. Theory predicts that a plant community should
become more invasible if there is an increase in the amount of unused
resources (Davis et al. 2000), i.e., if the use of resources by resident species
declines, or if resource supply increases at a rate faster than the resident species
can make use of.The latter may occur in the case of eutrophication, e.g.,by N
deposition. There are indeed several reports of promoted invasion on more fer-
tile soils. For instance, in New Zealand’s Nothofagus forests, areas invaded by
Hieracium species had higher N availabilities as well as higher P, Ca, and Mg
concentrations than those recorded in uninvaded areas (Wiser et al. 1998).
Likewise, in southern Utah, exotic plant invasions were highly correlated to
soils high in C, N,and P (Bashkin et al.2003).Although variations in soil fertil-
ity were of natural origin in these studies, the authors concluded that because
habitats containing fertile soils appeared more vulnerable to exotic invasions
than those with less-fertile soils, shifts in soil conditions induced by N deposi-
tion could shift the balance for native and exotic species locally.Similarly,the
clonal-growing species Arundo donax, which is known to be very responsive to
N enrichment,invades riparian areas in the USA preferentially at sites of high
nitrogen availability (Decruyenaere and Holt 2005). Its higher success under
such conditions is attributable to year-round activity, greater overall ramet
flux, and higher foraging. Although eutrophication of riparian ecosystems is
related more to nutrient enrichment of surface waters than to atmospheric N
Nitrogen Enrichment and Plant Invasions 173
N depositionwet (kg N ha-1 yr-1)
012345
non-native plant species (%)
< 5
5-10
11-20
21-30
> 30
(n=3)
(n=77)
(n=80)
(n=49)
(n=14)
Fig. 10.2 Correlation
between total N wet
deposition as nitrate
and ammonium and the
proportion of nonnative
plant species in forest
ecoregions of the USA.
Data taken from the US
National Atmospheric
Deposition Program
(NADP 2006) and from
the World Resources
Institute (WRI 2000).
Wet deposition repre-
sents means±s.e. of
annual averages of 223
monitoring sites located
in forest systems
deposition, this example emphasizes the mechanisms of responsiveness to
eutrophication of clonal-growing plants, which are known to show high
growth responses to nutrient enrichment and which can be highly invasive
(e.g., Solidago canadensis and S. gigantea or Helianthus tuberosus in Europe).
Much work on ecological effects of N deposition on plant invasions has
been done in California, USA, especially in the chaparral and coastal sage
scrub ecosystems invaded by alien grasses (Allen 2004; also see Fenn et al.
2003, and references therein). Gradients of N deposition are well reflected in
soil nitrogen concentrations, and increased soil N concentrations may con-
tribute to the growth of invasive grasses.A variety of underlying mechanisms
have been tested, including (1) direct growth responses due to high respon-
siveness of these species to nutrient enrichment, (2) higher N uptake rates of
invasive grasses, (3) changes in mycorrhizal fungal community composition
and functioning, and (4) indirect alterations of the fire cycle due to increased
fire fuel loads. It seems that direct growth responses are less important than
expected, because in addition to invasive species, also native shrub species
responded strongly to fertilization,while changes in mycorrhizal community
composition,higher N uptake rates, and especially positive feedbacks via fire
may be responsible for the observed shifts in community composition caused
by N deposition.Phenology also plays a role here, as the exotic grasses germi-
nated more rapidly than native species in response to rain during the first
winter growing season, and they therefore may have had a week of growth
advantage in terms of N uptake. In species-rich Californian serpentinitic
grasslands, there are indications that dry N deposition from smog near urban
areas is responsible for invasions by annual grasses (mainly Lolium,Bromus,
and Avena) that ultimately lead to crashes in rare butterfly populations (Weiss
1999). A moderate, well-managed cattle grazing is now needed to prevent
dominance of exotic grasses, and to maintain native plant and insect diversity.
10.3.3.3 Nutrient Addition Experiments
There are numerous nitrogen addition experiments confirming that N enrich-
ment stimulates the dominance of alien plants, and decreases the overall per-
formance, abundance,and diversity of native species.For example,increasing
nutrient levels of Californian serpentine grasslands linked with the use of N,
NP or NPK fertilizers facilitated the rapid invasion and dominance of nonna-
tive annual grasses in patches originally dominated by native forbs (Hobbs et
al. 1988;Huenneke et al. 1990).Compared to N deposition levels (100 kg N ha–1
year–1,Huenneke et al.1990), levels of fertilization in these studies were rather
high (313 kg N ha–1 year–1, Hobbs et al. 1988).Still, atmospheric deposition of
even less than 10–15 kg ha–1 year–1 at these sites (Weiss 1999) may have accumu-
lated nitrogen in plants and microbes over several years in these strongly N-
limited serpentinitic grasslands that are highly retentive of N. Thus, under
M. Scherer-Lorenzen,H. Olde Venterink, and H. Buschmann174
strong N limitation,even low (albeit chronic) levels of N deposition may be suf-
ficient to induce dramatic changes in community composition associated with
shifts from native annual forbs to invasive grasses. Similarly, Wedin and Tilman
(1996) showed,for N-limited prairie ecosystems in Minnesota,USA,that simu-
lated gradients of N deposition resulted in decreasing levels of plant species
diversity, and shifts in dominance from native C4to exotic C3grasses, even at N
input rates comparable to current deposition levels.For deserts, still among the
least invaded of all ecosystems and possibly because of very low levels of soil
nitrogen, Brooks (2003) were able to demonstrate that enhancing N load at
rates comparable to published deposition rates around urban areas in the
Mojova Desert, USA, increased the density and biomass of exotic annual
species. Native species density,biomass, and richness responded negatively in
years of high annual productivity, presumably due to increased competition
for soil water and other nutrients caused by the increased biomass production
of the invaders. The higher standing biomass, in turn, represents higher fuel
load, so that fire frequency could be increased in those systems affected by N
deposition (see also Sect. 10.3.4).
Compared to control plots in the shortgrass steppe of Colorado, USA,
Milchunas and Lauenroth (1995) found large increases of exotic species after
addition of nitrogen or nitrogen plus water. Interestingly, these changes were
much more pronounced after a period of 7 years without any further experi-
mental addition of resources, emphasizing the importance of time lags in
response to enrichment stressors.
Evidence for superiority of alien invasive plants over native ones under
high soil N availability also comes from restoration ecology. Daehler (2003)
summarizes examples from nutrient reduction experiments via the addition
of carbon supplements to the soil, which increases microbial N immobiliza-
tion. In many cases, this treatment increased the competitive performance of
native species vis-à-vis invasives,which could even lead to the transformation
of alien-dominated communities into those closely resembling the natural
vegetation.
10.3.4 Interaction of N Deposition with Other Drivers of Environmental
Change
Clearly, drivers of environmental change other than N deposition have large
effects on plant invasion. Many of these will interact in complex ways, pre-
sumably accelerating biological invasions and their ecological impact (Dukes
and Mooney 1999; Mooney and Hobbs 2000).
A particularly important interaction might exist between N deposition and
increasing levels of disturbance by fire.Indeed, there is evidence from several
studies that N deposition increases biomass production, contributing to
greater fuel loads and thus altering the fire cycle in a variety of ecosystems (cf.
Nitrogen Enrichment and Plant Invasions 175
Fenn et al. 2003). Particularly prone to such interactions between N enrich-
ment and fire seem to be ecosystems invaded by grasses,because of their gen-
erally strong positive response in biomass production under N loading, and
compared with other plant functional types, their higher inflammability. In
addition, grasses are able to recover relatively quickly after fire, producing a
positive feedback loop of grass and fire until an annual grassland is stabilized
under a high-frequency fire cycle (D’Antonio and Vitousek 1992). There are
many examples from other ecosystems where plant invasion has caused alter-
ations of the fire regime (Brooks et al. 2004); it would be interesting to see
whether nitrogen enrichment could also interact with the process of invasion
and the fire regime in these systems.
10.4 Future Challenges
The few nitrogen-fixing species that have to date been intensively investigated
show partly high impacts on community structure and ecosystem processes,
but it remains unclear whether these results are applicable for all invasive N2-
fixers: many species have not yet been investigated perhaps simply due to an
absence of obvious impact on the ecosystem. Levine et al. (2003) criticized
that most studies have been carried out in environments where effects would
be most likely (e.g., nutrient-poor soils with sparse vegetation), and that
nitrogen-rich and densely vegetated ecosystems would not be expected to
show similar impacts. Thus, general statements about the influence of inva-
sive nitrogen-fixers may have been biased by the choice of species, and of
study sites. Evidently, there is high need for further detailed studies about
effects of other invasive N2-fixing species on N cycling and ecosystem proper-
ties under various site conditions.
It is very difficult to draw any general conclusion about the impact of nitro-
gen-fixing invasives, largely because of the paucity of comparisons with
native nitrogen-fixers,and with non-invasive exotic nitrogen-fixers. Further-
more, essentially nothing is known about whether N2-fixers change their fix-
ing capacity if they become invasive,or about the compatibility of these plants
with local symbionts in the invaded range. To investigate these questions,
comparative studies between the native and invaded range are needed. A
comprehensive approach would entail comparing the provenances of species
in the invaded and native ranges by means of experimental studies.
Although we have shown that there is now some basic knowledge about the
effects of invasive species on N dynamics, and about the impact of N deposi-
tion on invasibility, there are still many open questions to be resolved. An
interesting research project would be a compilation of the occurrence and
proportions of native and alien species responsive to N addition in local flo-
ras, and to what extent this is reflected in the invader success along gradients
M. Scherer-Lorenzen,H. Olde Venterink, and H. Buschmann176
of N deposition. Particularly important in this context would be a high-reso-
lution mapping of invasive species at local scales.Such a study should be com-
plemented by experimental N addition experiments under various levels of
soil fertility and/or soil disturbance, because performance comparisons
between native and invasive species are often context-dependent (Daehler
2003). Ideally, other aspects of environmental change could be added in a
combinatorial approach.
The significance of interactions between N enrichment and other environ-
mental factors, such as global warming, hydrological changes, P enrichment,
or fire, in plant invasions could be investigated by means of full-factorial
experiments. These may provide insight in the relative importance of these
interactions,and how they may be related to regional or ecosystem character-
istics. For example, further study is needed of whether N enrichment as such
leads to a real loss of species,since many endangered species appear to persist
under P-limited conditions, and hence seem particularly sensitive to P, rather
than to N enrichment (Wassen et al. 2005).
In conclusion,our literature review on the impact of N deposition on plant
invasibility of ecosystems supports the hypothesis formulated by Dukes and
Mooney (1999): depending on the occurrence of species responsive to nitro-
gen in the native flora, the impact of invaders may be minimal, e.g., in Euro-
pean temperate forests. However, if most responsive species are aliens, e.g.,in
many parts of North America, then the impact of N deposition (or other
forms of eutrophication) will be much larger. Thus, N deposition effects on
invasibility will certainly vary from region to region.
References
Adler P, D’Antonio CM,Tunison JT (1998) Understorey succession following a dieback of
Myrica faya in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. Pacific Sci 52:69–78
Aerts R, Berendse F (1988) The effect of increased nutrient availability on vegetation
dynamics in wet heathlands.Vegetatio 76:63–69
Allen EB (2004) Restoration of Artemisia shrublands invaded by exotic annual Bromus:
a comparison between southern California and the intermountain region.USDA For
Ser Proc 31:9–17
Bashkin M, Stohlgren TJ, Otsuki Y, Lee M, Evangelista P, Belnap J (2003) Soil characteris-
tics and plant exotic species invasions in the Grand Staircase – Escalante National
Monument, Utah,USA.Appl Soil Ecol 22:67–77
BfN (2006) Floraweb.Bundesamt für Naturschutz,Bonn, http://floraweb.de/neoflora
Binkley D (1997) Bioassays of the influence of Eucalyptus saligna and Albizia falcataria
on soil nutrient supply and limitation. For Ecol Manage 91:229–234
Binkley D,Senock R, Cromack K Jr (2003) Phosphorus limitation on nitrogen fixation by
Facaltaria seedlings.For Ecol Manage 186:171–176
Bobbink R, Hornung M, Roelofs JGM (1998) The effects of air-borne nitrogen pollutants
on species diversity in natural and semi-natural European vegetation.J Ecol 86:717–
738
Nitrogen Enrichment and Plant Invasions 177
Boring LR, Swank WT (1984) Symbiotic nitrogen fixation in regenerating black locust
(Robinia pseudoacacia L.) stands.Forest Sci 30:528–537
Brooks ML (2003) Effects of increased soil nitrogen on the dominance of alien annual
plants in the Mojave Desert. J Appl Ecol 40:344–353
Brooks ML, D’Antonio CM, Richardson DM, Grace JB, Keeley JE, DiTomaso JM, Hobbs
RJ, Pellant M, Pyke D (2004) Effects of invasive alien plants on fire regimes. Bio-
Science 54:677–688
Daehler CC (2003) Performance comparisons of co-occurring native and alien invasive
plants: implications for conservation and restoration. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst
34:183–211
D’Antonio CM,Vitousek PM (1992) Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire
cycle, and global change.Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 23:63–87
D’Antonio CM,Dudley TL, Mack M (1999) Disturbance and biological invasions: direct
effects and feedbacks. In: Walker LR (ed) Ecosystems of disturbed ground. Elsevier,
Amsterdam, pp 413–452
Davis MA, Grime JP, Thompson K (2000) Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a
general theory of invasibility. J Ecol 88:528–534
Decruyenaere JG, Holt JS (2005) Ramet demography of a clonal invader, Arundo donax
(Poaceae), in Southern California. Plant Soil 277:41–52
Dukes JS, Mooney HA (1999) Does global change increase the success of biological
invaders? Trends Ecol Evol 14:135–139
EEA (2005) The European environment.State and outlook 2005.European Environment
Agency, Copenhagen
Egunjobi JK (1969) Dry matter and nitrogen accumulation in secondary successions
involving gorse (Ulex europaeus L.) and associated shrubs and trees. N Z J Sci
12:175–193
Ehrenfeld JG (2003) Effects of exotic plant invasions on soil nutrient cycling processes.
Ecosystems 6:503–523
Ehrenfeld JG, Scott N (2001) Invasive species and the soil: effects on organisms and
ecosystem processes.Ecol Appl 11:1259–1260
Fenn ME, Baron JS,Allen EB,Rueth HM,Nydick KR,Geiser L, Bowman WD,Sickman JO,
Meixner T, Johnson DW, Neitlich P (2003) Ecological effects of nitrogen deposition in
the western United States.BioScience 53:404–420
Galloway JN, Dentener FJ, Capone DG, Boyer EW, Howarth RW, Seitzinger SP, Asner GP,
Cleveland CC, Green PA, Holland EA, Karl DM,Michaels AF, Porter JH, Townsend AR,
Vörösmarty CJ (2004) Nitrogen cycles: past, present, and future. Biogeochemistry
70:153
Garcia-Montiel D,Binkley D (1998) Effect of Eucalyptus saligna and Albizia falcataria on
soil processes and nitrogen supply in Hawaii. Oecologia 113:547–556
Gordon DR (1998) Effects of invasive, non-indigenous plant species on ecosystem
processes: lessons from Florida.Ecol Appl 8:975–989
Hobbs RJ, Gulmon SL, Hobbs VJ, Mooney HA (1988) Effects of fertiliser addition and
subsequent gopher disturbance on a serpentine annual grassland community.
Oecologia 75:291–295
Huenneke LF, Hamburg SP, Koide R, Mooney HA, Vitousek PM (1990) Effects of soil
resources on plant invasion and community structure in Californian serpentine
grassland. Ecology 71:478–491
Johnson D, Leake JR, Lee JA (1999) The effects of quantity and duration of simulated pol-
lutant nitrogen deposition on root-surface phosphatase activities in calcareous and
acid grasslands: a bioassay approach.New Phytol 141:433–442
Kowarik I (2003) Human agency in biological invasions: secondary releases foster natu-
ralisation and population expansion of alien plant species. Biol Invasions 5:293–312
M. Scherer-Lorenzen,H. Olde Venterink, and H. Buschmann178
Levine JM, Vila M, D’Antonio CM, Dukes JS, Grigulis K, Lavorel S (2003) Mechanisms
underlying the impacts of exotic plant invasions.Proc R Soc Lond B 270:775–781
Ley RE,D’Antonio CM (1998) Exotic grass invasion alters potential rates of N fixation in
Hawaiian woodlands. Oecologia 113:179–87
Lonsdale WM (1999) Global patterns of plant invasions and the concept of invasibility.
Ecology 80:1522–1536
Mack MC, D’Antonio CM (2003) Exotic grasses alter controls over soil nitrogen dynam-
ics in a Hawaiian woodland. Ecol Appl 13:154–166
Mack RN, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM, Evans H, Clout M, Bazzaz FA (2000) Biotic inva-
sions: causes,epidemiology,global consequences,and control.Ecol Appl 10:689–710
Mack MC, D’Antonio CM, Ley RE (2001) Alteration of ecosystem nitrogen dynamics by
exotic plants: a case of C4grasses in Hawaii.Ecol Appl 11:1323–1335
Maron JL, Jefferies RL (1999) Bush lupine mortality, altered resource availability, and
alternative vegetation states. Ecology 80:443–454
Milchunas DG, Lauenroth WK (1995) Inertia in plant community structure: state of
changes after cessation of nutrient-enrichment stress.Ecol Appl 5:452–458
Mooney HA, Hobbs RJ (eds) (2000) Invasive species in a changing world. Island Press,
Washington, DC
Nadelhoffer KJ (2001) The impacts of nitrogen deposition on forest ecosystems. In: Fol-
lett RF, Hatfield JL (eds) Nitrogen in the environment: sources, problems and man-
agement. Elsevier,Amsterdam,pp 311–331
NADP (2006) National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NRSP-3). NADP Program
Office, Champaign, http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu
Olde Venterink H, Pieterse NM, Belgers JDM,Wassen MJ,de Ruiter PC (2002) N, P and K
budgets along nutrient availability and productivity gradients in wetlands. Ecol Appl
12:1010–1026
Pickart AJ, Miller LM, Duebendorfer TE (1998) Yellowbush lupine invasion in northern
California coastal dunes. I. Ecological impacts and manual restoration techniques.
Restor Ecol 6:59–68
Pyšek P, Prach K, Smilauer P (1995) Relating invasion success to plant traits: an analysis
of the Czech alien flora. In: Pyšek P, Prach K,Rejmánek M,Wade M (eds) Plant inva-
sions – general aspects and special problems.Academic Publishing, Amsterdam, pp
39–60
Rejmanek M, Richardson DM (1996) What attributes make some plant species more
invasive? Ecology 77:1655–1661
Rice SK, Westerman B, Federici R (2004) Impacts of the exotic, nitrogen-fixing black
locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) on nitrogen-cycling in a pine–oak ecosystem. Plant
Ecol 174:97–107
Richardson DM,Allsop N, D’Antonio CM,Milton SJ, Rejmanek M (2000) Plant invasions
– the role of mutualisms.Biol Rev 75:65–93
Sala OE, Chapin FS,Armesto JJ, Berlow E,Bloomfield J, Dirzo R, Huber-Sanwald E, Huen-
neke LF, Jackson RB, Kinzig A, Leemans R, Lodge DM, Mooney HA, Oesterheld M,
Poff NL, Sykes MT, Walker BH, Walker M,Wall DH (2000) Biodiversity – global biodi-
versity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287:1770–1774
Scherer-Lorenzen M,Elend A,Nöllert S, Schulze E-D (2000) Plant invasions in Germany:
general aspects and impact of nitrogen deposition. In: Mooney HA, Hobbs RJ (eds)
Invasive species in a changing world. Island Press,Washington, DC, pp 351–368
Schulze E-D (ed) (2000) Carbon and nitrogen cycling in European forest ecosystems.
Springer,Berlin Heidelberg New York
Simberloff D, Von Holle B (1999) Positive interactions of nonindigenous species: inva-
sional meltdown? Biol Invasions 1:21–32
Sprent JI (2001) Nodulation in Legumes.Royal Botanic Gardens,Kew
Nitrogen Enrichment and Plant Invasions 179
Stock WD,Wienand KT, Baker AC (1995) Impacts of invading N2-fixing Acacia species
on patterns of nutrient cycling in two Cape ecosystems: evidence from soil incuba-
tion studies and 15N natural abundance values. Oecologia 101:375–382
Tomassen HBM, Smolders AJP, Limpens J, Lamers LPM, Roelofs JGM (2004) Expansion
of invasive species on ombrotrophic bogs: desiccation or high N deposition. J Appl
Ecol 41:139–150
USDA (2006) The PLANTS database, version 3.5. National Plant Data Center, Baton
Rouge, http://plants.usda.gov
Versfeld DB, van Wilgen BS (1986) Impact of woody aliens on ecosystem properties. In:
Macdonald IAW, Kruger FJ, Ferrar AA (eds) The ecology and management of biolog-
ical invasions in southern Africa. Oxford University Press,Cape Town, pp 239–246
Vitousek PM (2004) Nutrient cycling and limitation; Hawai’i as a model system. Prince-
ton University Press, Princeton
Vitousek PM,Howarth RW (1991) Nitrogen limitation on land and in the sea:how can it
occur? Biogeochemistry 13:87–115
Vitousek PM, Walker LR (1989) Biological invasion by Myrica faya in Hawaii: plant
demography, nitrogen fixation, ecosystem effects. Ecol Monogr 59:247–265
Vitousek PM,Walker LR,Whiteaker LD,Mueller-Dombois D,Matson PA (1987) Biologi-
cal invasion by Myrica faya alters ecosystem development in Hawaii. Science
238:802–804
Vitousek PM,Aber JD, Howarth RW, Likens GE, Matson PA, Schindler DW, Schlesinger
WH, Tilman DG (1997) Human alteration of the global nitrogen cycle: sources and
consequences. Ecol Appl 7:737–750
Vitousek PM, Cassman K, Cleveland C, Crews T, Field CB, Grimm NB, Howarth RW,
Marino R, Martinelli L, Rastetter EB, Sprent JI (2002) Towards an ecological under-
standing of biological nitrogen fixation. Biogeochemistry 57:1–45
Walker LR, Vitousek PM (1991) An invader alters germination and growth of a native
dominant tree in Hawaii.Ecology 72:1449–1455
Wamelink GWW, de Jong JJ,Van Dobben HF, Van Wijk MN (2005) Additional costs of
nature management caused by deposition. Ecol Econ 52:437–451
Wardle DA,Nicholson KS,Ahmed M, Rahman A (1994) Interference effects of the inva-
sive plant Carduus nutans L. against the nitrogen fixation ability of Trifolium repens
L. Plant Soil 163:287–297
Wassen MJ, Olde Venterink H, Lapshina ED, Tanneberger F (2005) Endangered plants
persist under phosphorus limitation. Nature 437:547–550
Wedin D, Tilman D (1996) Influence of nitrogen loading and species composition on the
carbon balance of grasslands. Science 274:1720–1723
Weiss SB (1999) Cars, cows, and checkerspot butterflies: nitrogen deposition and man-
agement of nutrient-poor grasslands for a threatened species. Conserv Biol
13:1476–1486
Wiser SK,Allen RB, Clinton PW, Platt KH (1998) Community structure and forest inva-
sion by an exotic herb over 23 years. Ecology 79:2071–2081
Witkowski ETF, Mitchell DT (1987) Variations in soil phosphorus in the fynbos biome,
South Africa.J Ecol 75:1159–1171
Wolf JJ, Beatty SW, Seastedt TR (2004) Soil characteristics of Rocky Mountain National
Park grasslands invaded by Melilotus officinalis and M. alba. J Biogeogr 31:415–424
WRI (2000) World resources 2000–2001: people and ecosystems.World Resources Insti-
tute, Washington, DC
Yelenik SG, Stock WD, Richardson DM (2004) Ecosystem level impacts of invasive Aca-
cia saligna in the South African fynbos. Restor Ecol 12:44–51
M. Scherer-Lorenzen,H. Olde Venterink, and H. Buschmann180
11 From Ecosystem Invasibility to Local, Regional
and Global Patterns of Invasive Species
Ingolf Kühn and Stefan Klotz
11.1 Introduction
Distribution patterns of species are a consequence of long evolutionary histo-
ries. Biogeographical barriers have resulted in separate developments of biota
with specific adaptations to their native ecosystems and associated environ-
mental conditions. Especially during the past centuries, human activity has
helped species to surmount these natural barriers, so that present-day pat-
terns of alien species result from natural drivers as well as man’s history of
land exploitation and construction of traffic routes. Humans created new
pathways of species introductions (Chaps. 2 and 3), and also new habitats.
Introduced species were thus able to invade both (semi-)natural and human-
made habitats, which differ considerably in their proportion of alien species
(e.g. Chytr´y et al. 2005).
With the arrival of aliens in a novel environment,interactions between res-
ident species are disrupted, and interactions among resident and invading
species have to be newly established. Though unplanned and mostly
unwanted, biological invasions are considered to be an important ecological
experiment, well suited for ecological studies. Because many aspects are bet-
ter known in alien species than in native ones (e.g. time of isolation from the
original gene pool, and we have replications by introductions into multiple
localities), species invasions provide a unique opportunity to test general eco-
logical theories as an alternative approach to focused experimental manipu-
lations which might be more constrained by time,space,research budgets,etc.
(Rice and Sax 2005).
Here, we employ this approach by using habitat availability, and the fact
that habitats differ in their proportion of alien species across a multitude of
ecosystems and spatial scales to investigate the question of spatial patterns of
alien species distribution, and the consequences of invasions for communities
and ecosystems. Many of these ideas were outlined initially by Elton (1958),
Ecological Studies,Vol. 193
W. Nentwig (Ed.)
Biological Invasions
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007
who provided a set of key observations and hypotheses in this field of
research. In this chapter, we will discuss the invasibility of ecosystems as well
as local, regional and global patterns of alien species occurrence as a tool to
understand two different niche theories and general biogeographical pat-
terns. In this context, alien species are here defined as exotic (non-native)
species which have been intentionally or unintentionally introduced into an
area after the discovery of the Americas by Columbus.
11.2 Background
In his famous book ‘The ecology of invasions by animals and plants’, Elton
(1958) laid the foundation for modern invasion biology.He describes why rel-
atively simple communities are “more easily upset than richer ones; that is,
more subject to destructive oscillations in populations, especially of animals,
and more vulnerable to invasions” (Elton 1958: 145). The idea that species-
rich communities are more resistant to invasions than are species-poor com-
munities has challenged generations of ecologists.
Particularly important for invasion biology is the question whether eco-
logical communities are saturated or unsaturated, and whether the more
invaded ones are less saturated.This aspect is directly coupled with that of the
ecological niche. The concept of the ‘ecological niche’ is considered to be
among the most important in ecology (Cherrett 1989). However, there are
essentially at least two different niche concepts,based on the ideas of Grinnell
(1928), on the one hand, and Hutchinson (1957) on the other. Grinnell (1928)
used the term ‘niche’ to characterise species-specific requirements. Besides
habitat,these can be nutrients,mating places or other resources and requisites
associated with a species’ occurrence (Brandl et al. 2001). Grinnell (1928)
defines a niche as an ...”ultimate distributional unit,within which each species
is held by its structural and instinctive limitations, these being subject only to
exceedingly slow modification down through time”. According to this con-
cept, the niche has an autecological character – any community to which a
species belongs is of less importance. However, even Grinnell had pondered
on whether all niches are necessarily occupied within a community (Grinnell
and Swarth 1913). Grinnell’s theory was mainly used to describe and to
understand changes in species distributions in relation to environmental
variability.Jäger (1988) directly applied Grinnell’s idea to invasion problems.
He characterised the introduced range of a species by the properties of its
native range. This idea also forms a basis for species distribution modelling
using climate envelopes.
Hutchinson (1957) introduced a new concept to niche theory. He stated
that basic autecological (environmental) factors are not the only ones deter-
mining niche dimensions. The role of a species in its community is an impor-
I. Kühn and S.Klotz182
tant additional factor influencing the presence or absence of a species at a
given site. The difference between the Grinnell and the Hutchinson approach
can be viewed as that between an address (Grinnell) and a profession
(Hutchinson). Hutchinson (1957) described the niche as an n-dimensional
hyper-volume characterised by several niche dimensions such as nutrients
and other resources.The fitness of a species may vary along these niche axes,
which may lead to a reduction in available niche space. He thus distinguished
between the fundamental niche and the realised niche. The former covers all
potential resources and requisites, the latter only the resources and requisites
available to a species within a given community.
The main differences between these two concepts are
1. Grinnell highlights the distributional range (geography) of a species to
characterise the niche (regional concept). Hutchinson stresses the use of
resources within a given community (local concept).
2. Following Hutchinson,the niche of a species depends on other species in a
community. Grinnell’s concept emphasises the fundamental niche,
Hutchinson’s the realised niche.
3. Hutchinson defined the niche in terms of species characteristics and com-
munity structure. By definition,there exists no vacant niche within a com-
munity.
One conceptual problem with Hutchinson’s niche concept is the idea that
‘vacant niches’do not occur.Indeed, it is obvious that, in some systems,there
may be possibilities for species to exist which,due to evolutionary constraints,
are simply not made use of.A prominent example are large herbivores repre-
sented in African savannahs by ungulates,in Australian grasslands by marsu-
pials but which were absent on the pre-Columbian South American pampas.
In addition,both these classical concepts consider species as static entities,
and assume that communities are saturated and therefore in equilibrium (i.e.
species gains are compensated by losses). However, these assumptions are
both usually not met. Species evolve continuously, and microevolution can
occur over short time periods. Furthermore, an ecosystem is rarely in equilib-
rium, and this for several reasons: for example, systems in temperate regions
may not have reached their full set of species after the last glaciation (i.e. they
are unsaturated), the climate changes continuously, systems are disturbed
more or less frequently by natural or human processes, and propagule pres-
sure ensures a steady influx of new species.
Nevertheless, these two niche concepts facilitate a wider understanding of
scale-dependent processes in biological invasions, as their underlying
processes work at different scales. Grinnell’s concept is more regional and
describes a species’ potential impact whereas Hutchinson’s concept is more
local and describes a species’ existing requirements within a community.
From Ecosystem Invasibility to Local,Regional and Global Patterns of Invasive Species 183
11.3 Case Studies on Ecosystem Invasibility
There are several case studies shedding light on the patterns and processes of
biological invasions.Ecosystems can be invaded if there is a ‘vacant niche’,i.e.
resources which are not utilised.A good example for this is the Central Euro-
pean aquatic mammal community (Brandl et al. 2001): the water vole (Arv i-
cola terrestris) and European beaver (Castor fiber) are native herbivores of
these inland waters, where humans successfully introduced the North Ameri-
can muskrat (Ondatra zibethica) and South American coypu (Myocastor coy-
pus).Why was this possible – was there a ‘vacant niche’? It has been suggested
that,in vertebrates,resource use correlates with body mass (Brown 1975). The
difference in resource use between the beaver (over 20 kg body mass) and
water vole (ca. 0.1 kg) is substantial: a beaver feeds on trees, a water vole on
grass. Between these two extremes are some resources which are evidently
unutilised and thus available for the muskrat (ca.1 kg body mass) and coypu
(ca. 7–8 kg). This shows that increasing species numbers can lead to more
complete resource use. Therefore, more species would mean less ‘vacancies’.
This example shows why we may expect a negative relationship between
species richness and invasion resistance, but leaves room for other explana-
tions as well. Indeed, it is useful to review some more patterns which (1)
derive from a larger sample size, (2) are robust to statistical testing and (3)
encompass different groups of organisms and different spatial scales.Gido (in
Brown and Lomolino 1998) found a significant negative correlation between
native and introduced fish species in North American rivers.A similar obser-
vation was made by Case and Bolger (1991) for reptiles on islands. They
reported that,on islands with only few native reptile species,there were more
invasive reptile species than on islands with many native reptile species. How-
ever, in both these fish and reptile datasets, native–invasive relationships were
not linear, species-poor communities showing a higher variability in the
number of invading species. This means that alien species which can poten-
tially invade do not necessarily do so.An analysis of macrozoobenthos of Ger-
man waterways again showed a significant negative correlation between
native and alien species numbers (reported by Brandl et al.2001) but the pro-
portion of alien species decreased with increasing number of native species
(see also Chap.15). By contrast,Welter-Schultes and Williams (1999) found no
significant relationship between species richness of native and alien species
for molluscs of the Aegean islands. For plant species, most of the published
studies report that species-rich habitats were also more strongly invaded,i.e.
the rich became richer (Stohlgren et al. 2003). As an example, Stadler et al.
(2000) analysed native and alien tree species richness in Kenya, reporting a
positive correlation between native and alien tree species numbers.In a more
complex approach, Chytr´y et al. (2005) investigated over 20,000 vegetation
plots, ranging in size from 1–100 m2in 32 habitats of the Czech Republic.They
I. Kühn and S.Klotz184
found no significant relationship between native and alien plant species num-
bers when analysing across all habitats but,within habitat types, mostly posi-
tive relationships were recorded.
Using both an observational and an experimental approach, Levine (2000)
found two different patterns in native–alien relationships in his analysis of
riverine Californian plant communities.He investigated tussocks of the sedge
Carex nudata, which can host more than 60 native and three alien plant
species (Agrostis stolonifera,Plantago major,Cirsium arvense). As a first
approach, he counted the proportion of native tussocks in which the alien
species occurred (i.e. invader incidence), finding a significant positive rela-
tionship with plant species richness (excluding the invaders). In a second
approach, he manipulated the tussocks; specifically, he removed all species
from randomly selected tussocks and assigned these to one of five species
richness treatments. Then, he added 200 seeds of each alien plant species to
the surface of the experimental tussocks. Here, with increasing native species
richness, the number of alien seeds which germinated and survived two grow-
ing seasons decreased. Thus, in a controlled experiment but in a natural set-
ting, Levine (2000) was able to separate effects of species richness from
covarying effects of natural heterogeneity.
The examples above do not show a clear pattern.It therefore is necessary to
have a closer look at the different factors driving the invasibility of habitats
and ecosystems.This can help to understand which processes are relevant for
invasibility, and to decide which niche concepts are best able to explain small-
to large-scale invasion patterns.
11.4 Scale Dependence of Invasibility and the Importance
of Environmental Factors
On a local scale, the main factors identified to date in explaining habitat inva-
sibility are evolutionary history, disturbance, propagule pressure, abiotic
stress, and community structure (Alpert et al. 2000).
Local patterns of invasibility differ strongly around the globe.For example,
Europe is less affected by biological invasions whereas regions of North
America,Australia and especially oceanic islands can be heavily affected.This
can be explained by different evolutionary histories. It is argued that species
and habitats which have shared a long co-evolutionary history with human
land uses (such as agriculture) are better (pre-)adapted to biological invasion.
Thus, these species had already been selected for their tolerance to distur-
bance. Therefore, regions such as the Mediterranean, with a long history in
agriculture, may be less prone to biological invasions than others (di Castri
1990). By contrast, natural grasslands such as the North American prairies
evolved under a regime of only little disturbance by native grazers and, there-
From Ecosystem Invasibility to Local,Regional and Global Patterns of Invasive Species 185
fore, under today’s strong grazing pressure, are particularly susceptible to
invasions (Mack and D’Antonio 1998). Likewise, islands which have been
most strongly affected by invasions were often least disturbed before human
colonisation. Island biota are evolutionary distinct from mainland biota, and
have evolved very specific community structures and species traits. For one,
oceanic islands are considered to host habitats showing relaxed selection for
competitive ability (Loope and Mueller-Dombois 1989). In the presence of
invading species, specific interactions are therefore more heavily affected in
island biota than in mainland biota,which makes islands much more suscep-
tible to invasions than mainland areas.
In numerous studies, disturbance is considered to be a key factor in bio-
logical invasions, but one which can act in several ways: disturbance can
remove native competitors, facilitate a flush of surplus resources (Davis et al.
2000), such as light or nutrients, or can create completely new habitats. In
many cases, therefore, increasing disturbance promotes invasibility. How-
ever, invasions can occur also without disturbance, and there are cases when
suppressing disturbance can even increase invasions.Thus, it can be hypoth-
esised that it is not necessarily disturbance per se which increases invasibil-
ity but rather the deviation from a typical disturbance regime (Alpert et al.
2000).
Lonsdale (1999) argues that invasion patterns are a function not only of
habitat invasibility – as an idiosyncratic characteristic – but also of different
propagule pressures (see also Williamson 1996). Therefore, the number of
exotic species would be a function of the frequency and magnitude of inten-
tional and unintentional introduction events, and of the ability of these
species to successfully reproduce. The importance of propagule pressure for
invasion patterns has been invoked in several analyses (e.g. Pyšek et al. 2003;
Thuiller et al. 2005). Locally, propagule pressure can explain exotic species
cover better than can environmental factors (Rouget and Richardson 2003).
For birds,it is known that invasion success is higher when more species have
been introduced into a target region (Duncan et al. 2003).
As another factor, environmental stress is hypothesised to be important
for ecosystem invasibility. Stress can be caused by specific factors which are
limiting for plant growth, such as the availability of nutrients, water and
light, by the presence of toxins (incl. saline soils) or by other extreme condi-
tions. The majority of studies found that ecosystem invasibility decreases
with increasing stress or that invasion increases when limiting resources,
such as nutrients, are provided (Alpert et al. 2000). Therefore, adding nutri-
ents such as nitrogen or phosphorus can raise invasibility and promote a
smaller number of faster-growing species. Depending on interactions with
other factors, a complete shift of community structure was observed in sev-
eral directions (Alpert et al. 2000 and references therein). For one, there is
evidence of some interaction between stress and disturbance. When stress is
low (i.e. resource availability is high), only little change in a typical distur-
I. Kühn and S.Klotz186
bance regime is needed to facilitate invasions whereas when stress is high, a
high deviation from the typical disturbance regime is needed (Alpert et al.
2000).
In terms of specific community structure, ecosystem invasibility involves
several processes. Still, the basic concept behind this idea is that of the niche.
The realised niche of a species may be altered by specific members of a com-
munity within the potential given by the fundamental niche. One classical
example is Ellenberg’s (1953) experiment, where he showed that several grass
species (amongst others,Bromus erectus,Arrhenatherum elatius and Alopecu-
rus pratensis) had the same optimal growth along a water gradient in single-
species plots but displayed a considerable shift in multi-species plots (e.g.Bro-
mus erectus towards dryer sites and Alpoecurus pratensis towards moister
sites). Also, different members of a community can have very strong interac-
tions which may either inhibit invasions (e.g. due to the depletion of
resources) or facilitate these (e.g. nitrogen-fixing acacias, Holmes and Cowl-
ing 1997; see also Chap.10).
Besides effects on resources, community structure can also determine the
availability of natural enemies, thus creating a ‘natural enemy escape oppor-
tunity’ (Shea and Chesson 2002).This is explicitly explained by two important
hypotheses – the enemy release hypothesis (ERH; Keane and Crawley 2002),
and the evolution of increased competitive ability (EICA) hypothesis (Blossey
and Nötzold 1995). The former states that plant species in their introduced
range should experience a decrease in regulation by herbivores and other nat-
ural enemies when their specific enemies are absent. This would result in
higher abundances and, thus, wider distributions of alien species in their
introduced range. The latter hypothesis states that introduced species do not
need to invest resources in the defence against enemies. They can therefore
invest these resources in the evolution of increased competitive ability
(Blossey and Nötzold 1995). There are examples both corroborating and
rejecting these hypotheses (Chap.6).
Important – though long overlooked – interactions exist between soil
micro-organisms and macro-organisms. These seem to play an important
role in the invasibility of ecosystems. Callaway and Aschehoug (2000) found
that Centaurea diffusa, a noxious alien weed in North America, had much
stronger negative effects on grass species from North America than on closely
related grass species from communities to which Centaurea is native.On ster-
ile soils, these differences disappeared.They argue that Centaurea’s advantage
against North American species appears to be due to differences in the effects
of its root exudates, indicating that micro-organisms are responsible for the
invasion success of the species in its introduced range. More recently,
Klironomos (2002) was able to show several interactions between soil micro-
organisms and plant species.Rare native plant species cultivated in their own
soils were smaller than those cultivated in soils of other species. Invasive
species,on the other hand,grew better (cf. relative increase in growth) in their
From Ecosystem Invasibility to Local,Regional and Global Patterns of Invasive Species 187
home soils than in soils of other species. Klironomos also found that rare
native plant species accumulated species-specific pathogens quickly in their
own soils and, therefore, maintained low densities. By contrast, invasive
species benefited from interactions with mycorrhizal fungi.
The examples above show that biodiversity plays a major role in commu-
nity structure and community susceptibility to biological invasions. Indeed,
following the ideas of Elton (1958), biological diversity is considered to be a
key element of invasion resistance. In a recent review, Levine at al. (2002)
showed that in most experimentally assembled systems, species diversity
enhances invasion resistance whereas those studies examining natural inva-
sion patterns more often reported positive correlations between natural
species diversity and invasion, rather than negative ones. This apparent con-
tradiction has been widely discussed in the literature,and has spawned some
idiosyncratic views of invasion processes and invaded systems. Nevertheless,
this contradiction can be resolved within a general conceptual framework by
distinguishing between local factors affecting biodiversity and those factors
associated with diversity patterns across communities, i.e. on a larger scale
(Shea and Chesson 2002; Levine et al.2002). In the model of Shea and Chesson
(2002), negative relationships between alien and native species numbers can
be observed in each case for groups of locations where a given group shows
little variation in environmental factors. When these data are combined
across several groups together spanning highly variable environmental fac-
tors, the result is a large-scale positive relationship (Fig. 11.1). Levine at al.
(2002) consider that small-scale diversity as such causes resistance against
I. Kühn and S.Klotz188
Fig. 11.1 Hypothesised rela-
tionship between native and
alien species richness at dif-
ferent scales.At a local scale
with little environmental
variation within communi-
ties, a negative relationship
between alien and native
species richness can be
observed due to small-scale
neighbourhood processes
such as competition.Across
these communities, environ-
mental heterogeneity
increases and affects alien
and native species richness
in similar ways, through
covarying factors (after
Shea and Chesson 2002,
using randomly generated
data)
biological invasions.However,this could also be a consequence of small-scale
ecological processes such as competition (even if it were simply competition
for space). The positive correlation between diversity and invasion success
across communities would result from the combined effects of these local fac-
tors and additional covarying factors (Levine et al.2002). The latter may act at
larger scales, such as gradients in disturbance regime, climate, soil properties,
and dispersal (propagule pressure). Therefore, such larger-scale processes
drive not only native species richness but, to a large extent, also alien species
richness (Kühn et al. 2003), and can dominate over small-scale species inter-
actions or neighbourhood effects. In Fig. 11.2, we present a causal framework
to summarise these different scale-dependent processes, acting in the same
direction on both alien and native species richness at larger scales but in
opposite directions through well-documented local-scale neighbourhood
processes such as competition.
Within the framework, we combine ideas of Brandl et al. (2001), Levine at
al. (2002) and Shea and Chesson (2002) which can reconcile the niche con-
cepts of Grinnell (1928) and Hutchinson (1957) discussed above, and the
seemingly contrasting patterns of alien and native species richness on local
and larger scales. Large-scale geographic gradients act mainly on more
regional processes, especially as constraints for specific climates, soils, habi-
tats, etc. Due to biogeographic constraints, however, there are direct influ-
ences of large-scale gradients on species distributions,e.g. through individual
From Ecosystem Invasibility to Local,Regional and Global Patterns of Invasive Species 189
Fig. 11.2 A conceptual framework to reconcile small-scale neighbourhood processes (as
explained by Hutchinson’s (1928) niche concept) and large-scale environmental
processes (as explained by Grinnell’s (1957) niche concept). Thick arrows represent
strong effects, thin arrows weak effects. Plus symbols indicate effects in the same direc-
tion (either both positive or both negative), and the minus symbol indicates effects in
opposite directions
evolutionary histories, dispersal, movements or recolonisation after the last
glaciation. These processes, of course, work at more local scales but neverthe-
less are constrained by large-scale processes which may hinder natural new
species occurrences far outside a species’ range. On a regional scale, those
processes determining native species richness, such as resource availability
(e.g. temperature,water, nutrients,habitats) act also on alien species diversity,
these being the ones relevant in Grinnell’s (1928) niche concept. It can there-
fore be expected that species richness patterns of native and alien species are
positively correlated at larger scales.It is only at a very local scale that neigh-
bourhood effects and other local-scale processes, inferred by Hutchinson
(1957), come into play, so that native species richness can increase resistance
to biotic invasions. These local patterns,however,are often much more weakly
expressed than are the larger-scale patterns.
11.5 Local, Regional and Global Patterns
As described above,the relationship between species richness and ecosystem
invasibility is scale-dependent. It should therefore be possible to recognise
these patterns, and some possible turning point, in a nested analysis. We ana-
lyzed 30 plots, each 1 ¥20 m in size, in tall herb communities along the river
Elbe in Saxony, Germany,in 2002.Within each of these randomly selected plots,
we used five point estimates by counting the number of native and alien species
which touched a stake regularly put to the ground.We also noted all species
present within each of the 30 plots.A species inventory at a landscape scale for
the Elbe River region was available from the atlas of Hardtke and Ihl (2000),
with a resolution of 5¢longitude and 3¢latitude (i.e. ca.30 km2). A major axis
regression on log-transformed species numbers clearly exhibited a negative
relationship at the point scale, no relationship at the 20 m2scale,and a positive
relationship at the ca. 30 km2scale (Fig. 11.3). Thus, we were able to demon-
strate the scale dependence of the relationship between native and alien species
number for a single observatory frame within a restricted region.
Our study did not show any clear relationship at a resolution of 20 m2.
However, other studies have reported significant positive relationships at
even smaller scales. Plots with sizes of 1 m2showed weak positive relation-
ships (Stohlgren et al. 2003) or significant positive and negative relationships
between alien and native plant species richness in grasslands of the USA
(Stohlgren et al. 1999) whereas only positive correlations were observed by,
for example,Sax (2002) at all scales between 1 and 400 m2in scrub communi-
ties of Chile and California.
Within Germany, we were able to show that the positive relationship
between alien and native plant species was caused by a similar set of envi-
ronmental factors, thus corroborating the notion of common large-scale
I. Kühn and S.Klotz190
environmental factors driving both native as well as alien plant species rich-
ness at all but neighbourhood scales. Analysing 40 randomly selected plots
of size 250 ¥250 m in an urban and an agricultural landscape near Halle,
Wania et al. (2006) confirmed the expected positive correlation, and showed
that especially habitat diversity was able to explain both native and alien
plant species richness. At a slightly larger scale, 5¢longitude and 3¢latitude
in the district of Dessau (central Germany), Deutschewitz et al. (2003)
explained increases in native and alien plant richness in terms of moderate
levels of natural and/or anthropogenic disturbances, coupled with high lev-
els of habitat and structural heterogeneity in these urban, riverine, and
small-scale rural ecosystems. For Germany (at a scale of 10¢longitude and 6¢
latitude, i.e. ca. 130 km2), the diversity of geological substrates proved to be
the best predictor for both alien and native plant species richness (Kühn et
al. 2003).Nevertheless, native plant species richness was further explained by
other natural parameters whereas alien plant species richness was addition-
ally explained by urban land cover.
From Ecosystem Invasibility to Local,Regional and Global Patterns of Invasive Species 191
Fig. 11.3a–c Relationships between native
species richness and alien species rich-
ness at three different,nested scales along
the river Elbe in Saxony, Germany.
a,bStumpf, Klotz and Kühn (unpub-
lished data; overlaying data points have
been slightly shifted for better visualisa-
tion). cHardtke and Ihl (2000)
Similarly, environmental heterogeneity was able to account for species
richness of natives and aliens in the USA (Stohlgren et al. 2006).Although this
pattern of positive correlation between native and exotic species was also
observed at a global scale (Lonsdale 1999), we are not aware of any analysis
demonstrating a set of common drivers behind this relationship. Neverthe-
less, it is very likely that the same variables, i.e. energy (temperature) and
water availability (Francis and Currie 2003), are able to at least largely explain
this pattern for both alien and native plant species.
11.6 Scale-Dependent Consequences for Biodiversity
of Invaded Ecosystems
We showed that patterns of ecosystem invasibility changed with spatial scale,
especially resolution.What will the consequences of this be for biodiversity? It
seems short-sighted to focus simply on biodiversity and disregard other well-
documented impacts of biological invasions involving nutrient cycling (espe-
cially by nitrogen fixers such as Acacia or Myrica faya,the fayatree,Chap.10),
water table depletion (Acacia or Tamarix ramosissima, the salt cedar), alter-
ation of soil structure through salt accumulation (Mesembryanthemum crys-
tallinum, the ice plant) or soil perturbation by digging (the feral pig Sus scrofa
domestica), which additionally disperse seeds of alien plant species and fer-
tilise the soil (Williamson 1996). However, it is biodiversity or rather, its ele-
ments (i.e. species) which largely drive ecosystem processes. Still, most con-
servation actions are concerned with species as such, not with the goods and
services they provide as integral parts of an ecosystem.
We discussed several studies showing an increase of alien species at
higher native species levels at larger spatial scales. At the global scale, how-
ever, alien species are considered to be among the major causes of species
extinctions (e.g. Diamond 1989; Sala et al. 2000; Chaps. 13, 15, 16). This
impact seems inevitable, given that global extinction rates cannot be com-
pensated by speciation rates. At a global scale, the introduction of species
into a new habitat or biogeographical region does not add to biodiversity but
the loss of a single species due to this introduction decreases biodiversity.
Within regions (i.e.areas which are intermediate in size between those of the
globe and small study plots), Sax and Gaines (2003) show for a variety of
groups of organisms and across many different parts of the world that the
net gain of species due to biological invasions is higher than the loss of
species. As an example from Europe, the German Red List of endangered
vascular plant species (Korneck et al. 1996) lists 47 taxa as extinct and 118
as threatened. On the other hand, 470 vascular plant species are considered
to be naturalised aliens (neophytes; Klotz et al. 2002), and alien species are
not among the major causes for species extinctions in Germany (Korneck et
I. Kühn and S.Klotz192
al. 1998). Indeed, theoretical approaches (Rosenzweig 2001) and palaeonto-
logical records (Vermeij 1991) suggest that diversity increases after faunal
mixing of formerly separated biota.
At the local scale, extirpations of rare native species have been observed.
More common, however, are shifts in abundance. Sax and Gaines (2003)
reported that the diversity of intact systems has often increased locally but
can decrease or remain unchanged as well.
What are the consequences for formerly distinct biota? The introduction of
alien species across biogeographical barriers into previously isolated regions
was termed a ‘new Pangaea’ (Rosenzweig 2001). The idea is that formerly dis-
tinct biota become more similar, a process termed biotic homogenisation
(McKinney and Lockwood 1999). Again, at a global scale, biotic homogenisa-
tion is the predictable result in the short term.At local or regional scales,how-
ever, patterns of homogenisation but also of differentiation can be observed.
Which of these patterns predominates is again scale-dependent: at a local
scale, differentiation seems predominant whereas, at a more regional scale,
homogenisation can become important.Also,it seems that alien species from
less-distant areas tend to promote homogenisation whereas species from
more-distant areas tend to promote differentiation (Kühn et al. 2003; McKin-
ney 2004; 2005; Kühn and Klotz 2006).
To better understand the consequences of biological invasions, and to be
able to provide plausible scenarios for the future, it is not only necessary to
study the problem at an appropriate scale.It is also necessary to use appropri-
ate assumptions of future biodiversity in modelling ecosystem responses.
However, most concepts postulate a decrease in biodiversity at all scales –
actually, it would be meaningful to also examine the effects of biodiversity
increase on ecosystems.
11.7 Conclusions
Patterns of ecosystem invasibility are scale-dependent.Though it seems obvi-
ous, we showed that it is indeed necessary to use the appropriate scale to
analyse invasibilty. This choice of scale,however, is crucial not only in investi-
gating relationships between biotic and abiotic factors but also for the selec-
tion of an appropriate theoretical framework and, hence, to understand a sys-
tem correctly. We discussed that, at smallest scales, high native species
richness enhances the invasion resistance of ecosystems through various
neighbourhood interactions and processes, consistent with Hutchinson’s
(1957) niche concept.At larger scales, environmental heterogeneity increases
and native as well as alien species richness is determined by largely the same
environmental factors, and therefore covary. These larger-scale relationships
can be explained by Grinnell’s (1928) niche concept.
From Ecosystem Invasibility to Local,Regional and Global Patterns of Invasive Species 193
To increase the quality of future scenarios for invasive species, it is essen-
tial to fully comprehend the exact causal relationship between native and
invasive species richness at relevant scales.For this, it is also crucial to use cor-
rect assumptions about the direction of future (native and invasive) species
richness in a system which is also scale-dependent. To date, many analyses of
invasibilty have been too descriptive or correlative,and lack a true mechanis-
tic understanding of processes at different scales.This gap in our knowledge
can probably be minimised by joint research programmes combining obser-
vational,experimental and mechanistic approaches across spatial scales.
Acknowledgements. Support by funding of the European Union within the FP 6 inte-
grated project ALARM (GOCE-CT-2003-506675) and by the specific targeted research
project DAISIE (SSPI-CT-2003-511202) is gratefully acknowledged.
References
Alpert P, Bone E, Holzapfel C (2000) Invasiveness, invasibility and the role of environ-
mental stress in the spread of non-native plants.Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 3:52–66
Blossey B, Nötzold R (1995) Evolution of increased competitive ability in invasive non-
indigenous plants: a hypothesis. J Ecol 83:887–886
Brandl R, Klotz S,Stadler J,Auge H (2001) Nische,Lebensgemeinschaft und biologische
Invasionen. In: Reichholf JH (ed) Gebietsfremde Arten, die Ökologie und der
Naturschutz. Friedrich Pfeil,München, Rundgespräche der Kommission für Ökologie
22:81–98
Brown JH (1975) Geographical ecology of desert rodents. In: Cody ML, Diamond JM
(eds) Community ecology.Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 314–341
Brown JH, Lomolino MV (1998) Biogeography. Sinauer,Sunderland
Callaway RM,Aschehoug ET (2000) Invasive plants versus their new and old neighbors:
a mechanism for exotic invasion. Science 290:521–523
Case TJ,Bolger DT (1991) The role of introduced species in shaping the distribution and
abundance of island reptiles. Evol Ecol 5:272–290
Cherrett JM (1989) Key concepts: the results of a survey of our members’ opinion. In:
Cherret JM (ed) Ecological concepts. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 1–161
Chytr´y M, Pyšek P, Tichy L, Knollová I,Danihelka J (2005) Invasions by alien plants in the
Czech Republic: a quantitative assessment across habitats. Preslia 77:339–354
Davis MA, Grime JP, Thompson K (2000) Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a
general theory of invasibility. J Ecol 88:528–534
Deutschewitz K, Lausch A,Kühn I, Klotz S (2003) Native and alien plant species richness
in relation to spatial heterogeneity on a regional scale in Germany.Global Ecol Bio-
geogr 12:299–311
di Castri F (1990) On invading species and invaded ecosystems: the interplay of histori-
cal chance and biological necessity.In: di Castri F, Hansen AJ, Debussche G (eds) Bio-
logical invasions in Europe and the Mediterranean Basin.Kluwer, Dordrecht,pp 3–16
Diamond JM (1989) The present, past and future of human-caused extinctions. Philos
Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 325:469–477
I. Kühn and S.Klotz194
Duncan RP, Blackburn TM, Sol D (2003) The ecology of bird introductions. Annu Rev
Ecol Evol Syst 34:71–98
Ellenberg H (1953) Physiologisches und ökologisches Verhalten derselben Pflanzen-
arten. Ber Dt Bot Ges 65:351–362
Elton C (1958) The ecology of invasions by animals and plants. Methuen,London
Francis AP, Currie DJ (2003) A globally consistent richness-climate relationship for
angiosperms. Am Nat 161:523–536
Grinnell J (1928) Presence and absence of animals. Univ California Chronicle 30:429–450
Grinnell J, Swarth H (1913) An account of the birds and mammals of the San Jacinto area
of Southern California. Univ California Publ Zool 10:197–406
Hardtke H-J, Ihl A (2000) Atlas der Farn- und Samenpflanzen Sachsens. Materialien zu
Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege. Sächsisches Landesamt für Umwelt und Geolo-
gie, Dresden
Holmes PM, Cowling RM (1997) The effects of invasion by Acacia saligna on the guild
structure and regeneration capabilities of South African fynbos shrublands. J Appl
Ecol 34:317–332
Hutchinson GE (1957) Concluding remarks. Cold Spring Harbor Symp Quant Biol
22:427
Jäger EJ (1988) Möglichkeiten der Prognose synanthroper Pflanzenausbreitungen.Flora
180:101–131
Keane RM, Crawley MJ (2002) Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis.
Trends Ecol Evol 17:164–170
Klironomos JN (2002) Feedback with soil biota contributes to plant rarity and invasive-
ness in communities. Nature 417:67–70
Klotz S, Kühn I, Durka W (2002) BIOLFLOR – eine Datenbank zu biologisch-ökologis-
chen Merkmalen der Gefäßpflanzen in Deutschland. Bundesamt für Naturschutz,
Bonn, Schriftenreihe für Vegetationskunde 38
Korneck D, Schnittler M, Vollmer I (1996) Rote Liste der Farn- und Blütenpflanzen
(Pteridophyta et Spermatophyta) Deutschlands. In: Ludwig G, Schnittler M (eds)
Rote Liste gefährdeter Pflanzen Deutschlands. Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn,
Schriftenreihe für Vegetationskunde 28:21–187
Korneck D, Schnittler M, Klingenstein F, Ludwig G, Takla M, Bohn U, May R (1998)
Warum verarmt unsere Flora? Auswertung der Roten Liste der Farn- und
Blütenpflanzen Deutschlands. In: Klingenstein F, Ludwig G (eds) Ursachen des
Artenrückgangs von Wildpflanzen und Möglichkeiten zur Erhaltung der Arten-
vielfalt. Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn, Schriftenreihe für Vegetationskunde
29:299–444
Kühn I, Klotz S (2006) Urbanization and homogenization – comparing the floras of
urban and rural areas in Germany.Biol Conserv 127:292–300
Kühn I, May R, Brandl R, Klotz S (2003) Plant distribution patterns in Germany – will
aliens match natives? Feddes Repert 114:559–573
Levine JM (2000) Species diversity and biological invasions: relating local process to
community pattern. Science 288:852–854
Levine JM, Kenedy T, Naeem S (2002) Neighborhood scale effects of species diversity on
biological invasions and their relationship to community patterns. In: Loreau M,
Naeem S, Inchausti P (eds) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: synthesis and
perspectives. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 114–124
Lonsdale WM (1999) Global patterns of plant invasions and the concept of invasibility.
Ecology 80:1522–1536
Loope LL, Mueller-Dombois D (1989) Characteristics of invaded islands. In: Drake J,
diCastri F,Groves R, Kruger F, Mooney H,Rejmanek M,Williamson M (eds) Biologi-
cal invasions: a global perspective.Wiley,Chichester, pp 257–280
From Ecosystem Invasibility to Local,Regional and Global Patterns of Invasive Species 195
Mack MC, D’Antonio CM (1998) Impacts of biological invasions on disturbance regimes.
Trends Ecol Evol 13:195–198
McKinney ML (2004) Do exotics homogenize or differentiate communities? Roles of
sampling and exotic species richness. Biol Invasions 6:495–504
McKinney ML (2005) Species introduced from nearby sources have a more homogeniz-
ing effect than species from distant sources: evidence from plants and fishes in the
USA. Diversity Distrib 11:367–374
McKinney ML, Lockwood JL (1999) Biotic homogenization: a few winners replacing
many losers in the next mass extinction. Trends Ecol Evol 14:450–453
Pyšek A, Pyšek P, Jarosik V, Hajek M, Wild J (2003) Diversity of native and alien plant
species on rubbish dumps: effects of dump age, environmental factors and toxicity.
Diversity Distrib 9:177–189
Rice WR,Sax DF (2005) Testing fundamental evolutionary questions at large spatial and
demographic scales – species invasions as an underappreciated tool. In: Sax DF, Sta-
chowicz JJ, Gaines SD (eds) Species invasions: insights into ecology, evolution, and
biogeography. Sinauer,Sunderland,pp 291–308
Rosenzweig ML (2001) The four questions: what does the introduction of exotic species
do to diversity? Evol Ecol Res 3:361–367
Rouget M, Richardson DM (2003) Inferring process from pattern in plant invasions: a
semimechanistic model incorporating propagule pressure and environmental fac-
tors.Am Nat 162:713–724
Sala OE, Chapin FS,Armesto JJ, Berlow E,Bloomfield J, Dirzo R, Huber-Sanwald E, Huen-
neke LF, Jackson RB, Kinzig A, Leemans R, Lodge DM, Mooney HA, Oesterheld M,
Poff NL, Sykes MT, Walker BH, Walker M,Wall DH (2000) Global biodiversity scenar-
ios for the year 2100.Science 287:1770–1774
Sax DF (2002) Native and naturalized plant diversity are positively correlated in scrub
communities of California and Chile. Diversity Distrib 8:193–210
Sax DF, Gaines SD (2003) Species diversity: from global decreases to local increases.
Trends Ecol Evol 18:561–566
Shea K, Chesson P (2002) Community ecology theory as a framework for biological inva-
sions. Trends Ecol Evol 17:170–176
Stadler J, Trefflich A, Klotz S, Brandl R (2000) Exotic plant species invade diversity hot
spots: the alien flora of northwestern Kenya. Ecography 23:169–176
Stohlgren TJ, Binkley D,Chong GW, Kalkhan MA, Schell LD, Bull KA, Otsuki Y, Newman
G, Bashkin M,Son Y (1999) Exotic plant species invade hot spots of native plant diver-
sity.Ecol Monogr 69:25–46
Stohlgren TJ, Barnett DT, Kartesz JT (2003) The rich get richer: patterns of plant inva-
sions in the United States. Frontiers Ecol Environ 1:11–14
Stohlgren TJ, Barnett D, Flather C, Fuller P, Peterjohn B, Kartesz J, Master LL (2006)
Species richness and patterns of invasion in plants, birds, and fishes in the United
States. Biol Invasions 8:427–447
Thuiller W, Richardson DM, Pysek P, Midgley GF, Hughes GO, Rouget M (2005) Niche-
based modelling as a tool for predicting the risk of alien plant invasions at a global
scale. Global Change Biol 11:2234–2250
Vermeij GJ (1991) When biotas meet – understanding biotic interchange. Science
253:1099–1104
Wania A,Kühn I,Klotz S (2006) Biodiversity patterns of plants in agricultural and urban
landscapes in Central Germany – spatial gradients of species richness. Landscape
Urban Planning 75:97–110
Welter-Schultes FW, Williams WR (1999) History, island area and habitat availability
determine snail species richness of Aegean islands. J Biogeogr 26:239–249
Williamson M (1996) Biological invasions. Chapman & Hall, London
I. Kühn and S.Klotz196
12 Will Climate Change Promote
Alien Plant Invasions?
Wilfried Thuiller, David M. Richardson, and Guy F. Midgley
12.1 Introduction
Invasive alien plant species pose significant challenges to managing and
maintaining indigenous biodiversity in natural ecosystems. Invasive plants
can transform ecosystems by establishing viable populations with growth
rates high enough to displace elements of the native biota (Rejmánek 1999) or
to modify disturbance regimes (Brooks et al. 2004),thereby potentially trans-
forming ecosystem structure and functioning (Dukes and Mooney 2004).
Because the numbers of invasive plant species and the extent of invasions are
increasing rapidly in many regions, concern has grown about the stability of
these novel,emerging ecosystems (Hobbs et al.2006).The question of how cli-
mate change will interact in this global process of ecosystem modification is
becoming highly relevant for natural resource management.
Although many studies have addressed the potential threats to ecosystems
from invasive alien plants and climate change separately, few studies have
considered the interactive and potentially synergistic impacts of these two
factors on ecosystems (but see Ziska 2003). Climatic and landscape features
set the ultimate limits to the geographic distribution of species and determine
the seasonal conditions for establishment, recruitment, growth and survival
(Rejmánek and Richardson 1996; Thuiller et al. 2006b). Human-induced cli-
mate change is therefore a pervasive element of the multiple forcing functions
which maintain, generate and threaten natural biodiversity.
A widely stated view is that climate change is likely to enhance the capac-
ity of alien species to invade new areas, while simultaneously decreasing the
resistance to invasion of natural communities by disturbing the dynamic
equilibrium maintaining them. Links between invasion dynamics and cli-
mate change are, nevertheless, particularly difficult to conceptualize
(Fig. 12.1).The determinants of plant invasiveness per se are extremely com-
plex (Rejmánek et al. 2005). Consequently, efforts to combat plant invasions
Ecological Studies,Vol. 193
W. Nentwig (Ed.)
Biological Invasions
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007
have been largely reactive in nature: another species becomes invasive, and
a plan must then be developed to combat it. Similarly, the question of
whether invasibility is positively or negatively related to community diver-
sity (defined in various ways) is still under debate (Lonsdale 1999).Given the
level of uncertainty around determinants of invasiveness and invasibility,
even without the additional complexity introduced by changed climatic con-
ditions, it is clear that precise forecasts of the dynamics of invasions with cli-
mate change is a very tall order. Therefore, while climate change is a rela-
tively slow ongoing process, human-induced fragmentation and disruption
of disturbance regimes have probably a much greater impact on the dynamic
of both native and alien species than does climate change in the short to
medium term (Bond and Richardson 1990). Still, does this pragmatic view
conceal underlying pressures which could eventually thwart current man-
agement approaches to alien species?
Changing climate affects natural communities,ecosystems and habitats in
many ways (Parmesan and Yohe 2003) but most immediately through shifts in
geographic range. Not all ecosystems seem equally vulnerable to global envi-
ronmental change (Walther et al. 2002).For instance, arctic-alpine communi-
ties might see their distributions substantially reduced to the benefit of more
temperate ones (Grabherr et al. 1994), and early work on climate impacts on
ecosystems focused on potential geographic range shifts of species assem-
blages or even of biomes. However, given the idiosyncratic responses of
species to past climate change (e.g. Prentice 1986), we can be sure that ongo-
ing and future climate change will not harm or benefit all component species
W. Thuiller,D.M.Richardson, and G.F. Midgley198
GLOBAL CHANGE
Climate change CO
2
increase N deposition Land-use change
Disturbance – habitat fragmentation
ANTHROPOGENIC EXPANSION - TRANSPORTATION
Propagule pressure Dispersal rate and distance
CHANCE FOR NEW INVASIONS
PREVALENCE OF INVADERS
ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS
Nitrogen – fire – nutrient cycling
ECOSYSTEM GOODS AND SERVICES
GLOBAL CHANGE
Climate change CO
2
increase N deposition Land-use change
Disturbance – habitat fragmentation
ANTHROPOGENIC EXPANSION - TRANSPORTATION
Propagule pressure Dispersal rate and distance
CHANCE FOR NEW INVASIONS
PREVALENCE OF INVADERS
ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS
Nitrogen – fire – nutrient cycling
ECOSYSTEM GOODS AND SERVICES
Fig. 12.1 Impacts of global change on invasions and the associated processes
in any assemblage to the same extent. Shifts in the range of individual indige-
nous species under climate change involve processes closely akin to those dri-
ving the spread of alien species; the two can thus be addressed using a similar
theoretical approach.This theory relates both to the demographic impacts of
climate change as a consequence of individual physiological constraints, and
also to changes in the outcomes of interactions between species – and not
simply between species at the same trophic level (e.g. plants, but also
plant–animal interactions; Davis et al.1998).Finally,regional changes in com-
munity and ecosystem structure have the potential to influence both micro-
and regional climate, providing a complex feedback effect which might exac-
erbate or retard the rate of ecosystem change.
Is it possible to simplify this plethora of impacts and interactions? As a
starting point, it seems likely that the response of a few species (positive or
negative) or functional groups will determine ecosystem resistance to biolog-
ical invaders and changes in ecosystem functioning (Zavaleta and Hulvey
2004). Also, recent empirical evidence has provided support for the biomass
ratio hypothesis (Grime 1998), showing that biogeochemical pools and fluxes
are controlled by the expression of individual traits of the dominant plant
species. This is especially the case in stressful environments such as alpine
and artic ecosystems, where fewer than 10 species of higher plants make up
more than 90% of the vascular-plant biomass (Chapin III and Körner 1996).
If such keystone species suffer population declines under climate change,
then this is highly likely to increase the susceptibility of these communities to
invasion by aliens, and to the disruption of key processes (Zavaleta and Hul-
vey 2004).Understanding how changes in species distributions resulting from
global change may cascade to changes in ecosystem processes therefore
requires advancing simultaneously our understanding of the processes deter-
mining community assembly and of the mechanisms through which species
influence ecosystem functioning.
Climate change may, however, favour a subset of species with certain sets of
traits (particularly those related to dispersal abilities and tolerance of distur-
bance) or species well adapted to,or tolerant of, warmer and/or drier environ-
ments and responsive to elevated atmospheric CO2levels.There are a number
of pathways by which invasive species and climate change can interact
(Fig. 12.1, Dukes and Mooney 1999). The system of complex interactions can
be considered transient because the main players – anthropogenic environ-
ment, invasive species, and the components of the “host” ecosystem – are all
dynamic (Sutherst et al. 2000). Climate change will likely increase this
dynamism and transience, leading to a substantial impact on an already com-
plex and almost certainly non-equilibrium relationship between invasive
species and the host ecosystem. For example, climate change has been pre-
dicted to lead to greatly increased rates of species turnover (exceeding 40%)
in local communities in Europe (Thuiller et al. 2005a). Such species turnover
will undoubtedly lead to severe ecological perturbation (disruption/distur-
Will Climate Change Promote Alien Plant Invasions? 199
bance) of these communities. Disturbance is a crucial mechanism in mediat-
ing the establishment, persistence and dramatic expansion (explosion in
numbers) of invasive alien species (hence, ecosystem invasion; Brooks et al.
2004). Additionally, these new communities and ecosystems will have
unknown properties, including the likely presence of species which exhibit all
the traits of invasive alien species.This is the concern of an emerging concept,
that of “novel ecosystems” (Hobbs et al. 2006),which we discuss below within
a climate change context.
We first review the current knowledge of the potential synergies between
climate change and invasive alien species,and then provide some perspectives
and areas of research needed to manage biological invasions in the face of cli-
mate change.
12.2 Current and Emerging Knowledge
It is widely considered that climate change will enhance the success of inva-
sive alien species (Dukes and Mooney 1999; Mooney and Hobbs 2000). For
instance, the Union of Concerned Scientists (2001), synthesizing the views of
many scientists in the USA, issued a press release stating that “Climate
change could potentially favor invasive non-native species by either creating
more favourable environmental conditions for them, e.g., increasing fire fre-
quency, or by stressing native species to the point of being unable to com-
pete against new invasives.” Climate change could alter almost very facet of
invasion dynamics and every interaction between different factors. In this
section, we discuss some important aspects. Invasions generally have two
distinct phases, separated by a time lag ranging from decades to a century:
a quiescent phase, during which ranges shift only slightly, followed by a
phase of active population growth and expansion. Numerous factors poten-
tially act as trigger to start the rapid growth phase, notably natural or
human-induced disturbances (Mooney and Hobbs 2000). Changing climate
could provide new triggers, or fine-tune existing triggers, for instance, by
creating disturbance events which open opportunities for previously quies-
cent alien species, e.g. by facilitating reproduction, survival, or enhancing
competitive power.
Sutherst et al. (2000) suggest that climate change may impact on the over-
all invasion process by affecting three significant constraints: sources of inva-
sive species, pathways of dispersal, and the invasion process in host ecosys-
tems. Of these, we suggest that the last is by far the most important and
relevant constraint, since climate change is not likely to generate additional
sources of invasive species, and pathways of dispersal are overwhelmingly
defined by human economic and trade activity. How, then, might climate
change affect the process of invasion? This topic has been explored most suc-
W. Thuiller,D.M.Richardson, and G.F. Midgley200
cinctly by Dukes and Mooney (1999),and we build on elements of their argu-
ment. Essentially, we argue that climate change is likely to affect patterns of
alien plant invasions through its effect on three overarching aspects: the inva-
sibility of the host ecosystem, the invasive potential of the alien species, and
climate impacts on indigenous species. Synergistic combinations between
two or, in a worst-case scenario, all three elements is likely to lead to signifi-
cantly increased vulnerability to climate change. What are the probabilities
that positive synergies (i.e. increased invasiveness) will result? In the next sec-
tion, we review these possibilities by assessing the potential impacts of impor-
tant elements of climate change.
12.2.1 Elevated Carbon Dioxide
12.2.1.1 Observations and Experimental Findings
The significance of the direct CO2effect on vegetation and on invasive alien
species is important – ambient CO2levels are currently 30% higher than the
pre-industrial level, and are higher than at any time in at least the last
750,000 years. There is general consensus on the direct physiological impact
of increasing CO2on plant photosynthesis and metabolism (Ainsworth and
Long 2005). Increasing CO2stimulates growth and development significantly
in hundreds of plant species (Drake et al. 1997).Increasing atmospheric CO2
generally increases the resource-use efficiency of plants (Drake et al. 1997),
due to direct stimulation of photosynthetic CO2uptake rate or a reduction
in stomatal conductance. Thus, more carbon is fixed per unit of water or
nitrogen used in the process of fixation. This effect is evident in plants with
both C3and C4photosynthetic pathways; species with these pathways dom-
inate the world’s flora. Preliminary work suggests that CAM plants also
respond to higher CO2levels by increasing carbon uptake and metabolism
(Dukes 2000).
The benefits of CO2stimulation predicted purely by photosynthetic theory
and single-species experiments are difficult to extrapolate to multi-species
communities. Nonetheless, the few experiments which have been done on
invasive alien species suggest a strong positive response to elevated CO2
(Dukes and Mooney 1999). However, it is difficult to tease species-specific
effects from effects on native species vs. invasive species. For example,Hatten-
schwiler and Körner (2003) show that two indigenous European temperate
forest species had a muted response to elevated CO2whereas an indigenous
ivy, an indigenous deciduous species,and the invasive alien Prunus laurocera-
sus showed significant responses.By contrast, Nagel et al. (2004) show a clear
CO2stimulation of an invasive grass species, and lack of response in a co-
occurring native species. This is corroborated by Smith et al. (2000) who
Will Climate Change Promote Alien Plant Invasions? 201
found that aboveground production and seed rain of an invasive annual grass
increase more at elevated CO2than in several species of native annuals in the
deserts of western North America. They also suggest that this increase in pro-
duction would have the potential to accelerate the fire cycle, reduce biodiver-
sity, and alter ecosystem function in these arid ecosystems. In some cases,
species-specific effects are maintained in multi-species communities (Polley
et al. 2002) but, to date, the number of case studies is too small to be able to
make general conclusions.
Should we expect invasive alien species to have different responses than
native species? It is possible that faster-growing species may benefit more
than slower growers in more productive environments. Since rapid growth
rate is a typical characteristic of invasive plant species,this may underpin the
stronger response of the aliens. Combined with a higher reproductive output
(Nagel et al. 2004) and possibly greater seedling survivorship (Polley et al.
2002), elevated CO2may well provide significant advantages to fast-growing
alien species within the context of the host ecosystem,especially for invasive
woody plants. Recently, Ziska (2003) suggested that increases in atmospheric
CO2during the 20th century may have been a factor in the selection of six
plant species widely recognised as among the most invasive weeds in the con-
tinental United States.
Ecosystem feedbacks through changes in the fire, water and nutrient
cycles also complicate the issue. Recently, Kriticos et al. (2003) concluded
that the invasive potential of the woody species Acacia nilotica in Australia
may be enhanced by elevated CO2, through improvements in plant water-use
efficiency. Woody species invasions, which have the potential to subdue fire
regimes in currently grass-dominated ecosystems,could drive rapid switches
in ecosystem structure and function, with significant implications for the
biodiversity of both flora and fauna. For example, invasion of grasslands by
Quercus macrocarpa seedlings in the American Midwest may necessitate
focused fire management strategies (Danner and Knapp 2003).Alternatively,
it is conceivable that CO2-driven increases in flammable woody or herba-
ceous plants will accelerate fire regimes in fire-prone systems (Grigulis et al.
2005).
12.2.1.2 Future Expectations
Looking at effects on host ecosystems,some simulations suggest that ecosys-
tem structure might be significantly altered by elevated CO2(Bond et al.
2003), leading to switches in plant-functional type dominance and the
opportunity for increased success of woody invaders, for example. In his
experiments, Ziska (2003) argued that the average stimulation of plant bio-
mass among invasive species from current (380 μmol mol–1) to future
(719 μmol mol–1) CO2levels averaged 46%, with the largest response (+72 %)
W. Thuiller,D.M.Richardson, and G.F. Midgley202
observed for Canada thistle Cirsium arvense. This study suggests that the
CO2increase during the 20th century has selected for invasive alien species
based on their positive response, and that further CO2increase into the
future, as predicted by IPCC, will enhance the invasive potential of these
recognised weeds.
In a more theoretical perspective, Gritti et al. (2006) using LPJ-GUESS, a
generalized ecosystem model based on dynamic processes describing estab-
lishment, competition, mortality and ecosystem biogeochemistry, simulated
the vulnerability of Mediterranean Basin ecosystems to climate change and
invasion by exotic plant species. They simulated the vegetation dynamics
using a set of native plant-functional types based on bioclimatic and physio-
logical attributes (tree and shrub) and two invasive plant-functional types, an
invasive tree type and invasive herb type, according to two climate change and
CO2increase scenarios projected for 2050.The major point of relevance here
is that these simulations suggested that the effect of climate change alone is
likely to be negligible in several of the simulated ecosystems. The authors
pointed out that the simulated progression of an invasion was highly depen-
dent on the initial ecosystem composition and local environmental condi-
tions, with a particular contrast between drier and wetter parts of the
Mediterranean, and between mountain and coastal areas. They finally con-
cluded that, in the longer term, almost all Mediterranean ecosystems will be
dominated by exotic plants, irrespective of disturbance rates. Although there
is no way of validating such projections, they do shed light on the extreme
complexity of attempts to predict invasion success, especially when invoking
synergies between climate change, CO2increase, disturbance regimes, and
initial conditions.
12.2.2 Changing Climate with Respect to Temperature and Rainfall
There is overwhelming evidence of individual species responses to changing
temperature regimes over the past century, the vast majority of range shift
responses having been recorded in insect, bird and marine species (Parmesan
and Yohe 2003). By contrast, plant responses to temperature increases over the
past century have been mainly phenological (i.e. a change in timing of grow-
ing season). Changes in moisture regime are far more difficult to attribute to
anthropogenic climate change, and therefore studies of these have been
mainly experimentally based, rather than focused on historical trends and
their impacts. With a few exceptions (e.g. tundra invasion by indigenous
woody species, alpine range shifts,tree invasion in boreal regions,“laurophyl-
lization” of European forests (Walther et al. 2002), plant range shifts appear
unsurprisingly much slower that those of animals.The implications of this lag
between animals and plants are most obvious in North American forests,
where an indigenous insect species (pine bark beetle) appears to have
Will Climate Change Promote Alien Plant Invasions? 203
extended its poleward range limit, with devastating consequences for indige-
nous forest tree species. Therefore, in addition to alien species invading new
habitats/countries as a result of climate change, concern has also been raised
over the potential of those species currently causing problems in managed
ecosystems to becoming more widespread and damaging (Cannon 1998).
These impacts are best observed on sub-Antarctic islands, where invasive
plant species currently benefit from increasing temperature and decreasing
rainfall trends, in synergy with enhanced success of invasive small mammals
(Frenot et al. 2005).
12.2.3 Future Expectations
The impacts of temperature and rainfall change on plant species and ecosys-
tems have been extensively investigated using modelling approaches, which
fall into two main groups: mechanistically based models which simulate sim-
plified, abstract versions of ecosystems, and statistically based (i.e. niche-
based) models which match individual species to their ecological niches and
simulate potential changes in range. Such models seem poorly capable of pro-
jecting the complex interactions observed in the natural world (cf. above).
Nevertheless, they may provide guidelines on which ecosystems are vulnera-
ble to the development of such interactive effects.
In general, dynamic global vegetation models predict quite significant
changes in vegetation structure and function at a global scale (Cramer et al.
2001). This type of approach yields some insights into the potential structural
and functional changes accompanying climate change. For instance, Gritti et
al. (2006) projected that, although climate change alone could enhance exotic
invasion in Mediterranean landscapes, the interaction with the direct effect of
CO2was the most important driver controlling the invasion by shrubs. This
interaction between climate change and CO2to drive vegetation distribution
and structure was corroborated by Harrison and Prentice (2003),who showed
that both climate change and CO2 controlled the global vegetation distribu-
tion during the last glacial maximum.
Alternatively to dynamic global vegetation models, niche-based models
(Guisan and Thuiller 2005) have been the tools of choice when addressing the
biodiversity implications of climate change (Thuiller et al. 2005a) and inva-
sion potentials (Welk et al. 2002; Thuiller et al. 2005b). Niche-based models
simulate quite strong negative effects of climate change on species range sizes
in specific ecosystems such as Alpine environments (Guisan and Theurillat
2000), dry and hot areas (Thuiller et al. 2006a) or Mediterranean ecoregions
(Midgley et al. 2003).
Such negative impacts on native ecosystems are likely to trigger and pro-
mote invasion. However, very few studies have investigated potential climate
change impacts on exotic species ranges. Interestingly, potential range con-
W. Thuiller,D.M.Richardson, and G.F. Midgley204
tractions are projected for a number of invasive alien species in South Africa
(Richardson et al. 2000), in a pattern matching projections for indigenous
species.
Given the strong interactions between plants and insect “pests”, it is rele-
vant to briefly highlight applications of the CLIMEX model to several species
(Sutherst et al. 2000). These generally focus on areas which may become bio-
climatically suitable,as opposed to areas from which the exotic species may be
lost (although exceptions do occur, such as the models for the New Zealand
flatworm, Arthurdendyus triangulatus; Evans and Boag 1996), and therefore
provide a skewed impression of future range change of invasive and pest
species. In addition, some models may not be based on the total suitable cur-
rent climate space (e.g. Thuiller et al.2004). In the UK, nevertheless, increases
amounting to 102% of suitable climate space by 2060–2070 are predicted for
the Colorado potato beetle (Leptinotarsa decemlineata; Baker et al.2000), and
a substantial increase in the risk of the Southern pine beetle (Dendroctonus
frontalis) has also been predicted (Evans and Boag 1996). Similarly, simula-
tions at global scales are likely to shed light on the potential new areas suscep-
tible to be invaded by specific species (Roura-Pascual et al. 2004) or even
species from specific biomes (Thuiller et al. 2005b). For instance, the Argen-
tine ant (Linepithema humile), native to central South America, is now found
in many Mediterranean and subtropical regions around the world. Projec-
tions using niche-based models onto four general circulation model scenarios
of future (2050s) climates predicted the species to retract its range in tropical
regions but to expand in higher-latitude areas, tropical coastal Africa and
southeast Asia. Although niche-based models lack the predictive rigour of
more mechanistic models – the inherent correlative approach relies indeed
on many assumptions – they nevertheless offer rapid and useful tools for
screening purposes (Panetta and Lawes 2005).
Alternatively, more process-based models, principally based on the
description of plant-functional types,have shown that worldwide ecosystems
are likely to experience change which can be likened to a sustained and inten-
sifying disturbance, in that ongoing plant-functional type distribution and
dynamic changes will occur in combination with (and possibly accelerated
by) changes in structure and function (Cramer et al. 2001). This will alter the
availability of resources, and create the physical and niche space to favour
species or plant-functional types with opportunistic responses to increasing
resource availability.
Examples can be found across the spectrum of plant-functional types:
aggressive shrub species such as sagebrush, for example, require only minor
disturbance and space creation through the removal of herbaceous species to
establish in the Sierra Nevada of California (Berlow et al. 2002). Increasing
minimum temperatures reduce productivity in indigenous short grass prairie
dominants, favouring invasive herbaceous species (Alward et al.1999). In the
forests of Panama,a slight lengthening of the dry season is projected to cause
Will Climate Change Promote Alien Plant Invasions? 205
extinction of 25 % of indigenous species,and favour drought-tolerant invasive
species (Condit et al. 1996).
Greater niche availability may also occur for insect herbivores.This may be
due to a combination of increased levels of disturbance, and a potential
increase in resources.This may be affected through an increase in plant height
and changes in plant architecture, which may provide additional feeding and
sheltering sites, as well as through an increase in the growing season and,
thus, a lengthening in the temporal availability of resources. Additionally,
departures (extinctions) of native species as their climatic tolerances are
exceeded may also provide vacant niches.
12.2.4 Other Factors
Besides elevated CO2levels,warming, and changes in rainfall patterns, climate
change is also expected to increase the frequency of droughts, floods, storms,
and extreme events such as hurricanes and wildfires (Chaps. 13–17).Not only
are these likely to cause large-scale ecosystem disturbances but can also affect
the composition and structure of ecosystems, and these factors may provide
opportunities for invasion (due to niche availability) and increase in abun-
dance of alien species.Variability in climate is predicted to change, with mod-
els indicating that there may be greater extremes in dry and wet seasons,and
also in temperature,and this may allow non-native species to become problem-
atical, even in areas where the average climate is unsuitable.Reservoirs of such
species may occur in urban areas or in protected environments such as green-
houses.In other cases,propagule pressure will be high, and establishment and
spread may take place during these windows of opportunity.For example,the
CLIMEX model run for the Colorado potato beetle (L.decemlineata) in Norway
suggests that both in the last decade and in the future,there w ill be periods dur-
ing which it is possible for establishment to take place over a substantial area,
although average climate is unsuitable in most locations (Rafoss and Sæthre
2003). Climatic variability may also lead to disruptions in the synchrony
between natural enemies and their hosts, and may alter the effectiveness of bio-
control agents which have been released against non-native species. Under
intensifying climate change conditions, it is conceivable that novel niches will
become available,mainly to species with high rates of fecundity and dispersal
– typical of exotic species and attributes of an invasive.
12.2.5 Increased Fire Frequency
Overall predictions of climate change on fire frequency are strongly limited by
the lack of a globally applicable model of fire in ecosystems.A substantial frac-
tion of the world’s natural ecosystems are strongly influenced by fire,especially
W. Thuiller,D.M.Richardson, and G.F. Midgley206
but not exclusively in the southern Hemisphere (Bond et al. 2005). Changing
fire regimes have the strong potential to radically alter ecosystems,leading to
switches in vegetation dominance and structure with substantial implications
for management strategies and biodiversity (Briggs et al. 2002).
Invasive C4grasses are causing accelerated fire cycles (Brooks et al. 2004),
reduced nutrient availability, and leading to forest loss in Asia,Africa and the
Americas (Sage and Kubien 2003),and on oceanic islands (Cabin et al. 2002).
Fecundity and dispersal potential may be key attributes in such invasions –
the invasion of Hyparrhenia grass species in South America is due to seed
availability at post-fire sites, fire-stimulated seed germination, and rapid
seedling growth (Baruch and Bilbao 1999). C4grass invasions may be further
promoted by even warmer and drier conditions (Sage and Kubien 2003),
which may have ever stronger negative impacts on indigenous species and fire
regimes.
Overall, it seems feasible that increasing temperatures and dry spells, com-
bined with the positive effects of rising atmospheric CO2on plant productiv-
ity, may facilitate an increased fire frequency in fire-prone ecosystems. How-
ever, an even more powerful interaction may arise where invasive species
themselves generate sufficient biomass to fuel accelerated fire regimes, such
as in the Cape Floristic Region, or even introduce fire as a novel disturbance
(Brooks et al. 2004). Even in the Cape Floristic Region, where extensive work
on invasive alien species has been done, little is known about how fire and
invasive alien species will interact in the future (van Wilgen and Richardson
1985). However, it is clear that the interaction has the potential to significantly
increase extinction risk for many species (Mooney and Hobbs 2000).
In summary, the possible synergy between warmer conditions and pro-
ductive exotic species has the potential to transform host ecosystems, with
major negative implications for biodiversity.
12.3 Perspectives
The above sections have outlined and explored key facets of the complexity
challenging our developing understanding of how climate change and CO2
increase could potentially affect the dynamics of alien plant invasions around
the globe. We show that it is difficult to identify clear determinants of future
invasibility of ecosystems and invasion potential of introduced species,due to
the complexity of both main drivers of change, to interactions with distur-
bance, and to species interactions. Some already-established alien plant
species are likely to be strongly favoured whereas others will probably show
little response or even a negative response, where their bioclimatic require-
ments closely match those of the invaded ecosystem.Given the multiple link-
ages and complex feedback and feed-forward loops implicated, we need to
Will Climate Change Promote Alien Plant Invasions? 207
draw heavily on natural experiments and ongoing observations to inform us
of the nature and magnitude of effects which are likely or possible.Manipula-
tive experiments are currently underway – these will shed light on crucial
aspects which will fine-tune our understanding and our ability to model the
spread of alien plant invasions within the context of global environmental
change. Finally, dynamic modelling tools must continue to guide new
research questions and identify key unknowns to accelerate our understand-
ing of this critical issue.
New paradigms for conservation are needed to accommodate potential
changes in the status of biological invasions worldwide. For example, alien
species, even those known to be highly invasive, may well be better than no
species in some ecosystems, e.g. where such species provide essential
cover/binding or other key ecosystem services, or act as nurse plants for
native species. There is a clear need to give urgent attention to building such
scenarios into frameworks for conservation planning.
Acknowledgements D.M.R.acknowledges support from the DST-NRF Centre of Excel-
lence for Invasion Biology.W.T., G.F.M. and D.M.R. received support from the Interna-
tional Research Network (GDRI) project “France South Africa – Dynamics of biodiver-
sity in Southern African ecosystems and sustainable use in the context of global change:
processes and mechanisms involved”
References
Ainsworth EA, Long SP (2005) What have we learned from 15 years of free-air CO2
enrichment (FACE)? A meta-analytic review of the responses of photosynthesis,
canopy properties and plant production to rising CO2. New Phytol 165:351–372
Alward RD,Detling JK, Milchunas DG (1999) Grassland vegetation changes and noctur-
nal global warming. Science 283:229–231
Baker RHA, Sansford CE, Jarvis CH, Cannon RJC, MacLeod A, Walters KFA (2000) The
role of climatic mapping in predicting the potential geographical distribution of
non-indigenous pests under current and future climates. Agric Ecosyst Environ
82:57–71
Baruch Z, Bilbao B (1999) Effects of fire and defoliation on the life history of native and
invader C-4 grasses in a Neotropical savanna. Oecologia 119:510–520
Berlow EL, D’Antonio CM, Reynolds SA (2002) Shrub expansion in montane meadows:
the interaction of local-scale disturbance and site aridity. Ecol Appl 12:1103–1118
Bond WJ, Richardson DM (1990) What can we learn from extinctions and invasions
about the effects of climate change? S Afr J Sci 86:429–433
Bond WJ, Midgley GF, Woodward FI (2003) The importance of low atmospheric CO2and
fire in promoting the spread of grasslands and savannas. Global Change Biol
9:973–982
Bond WJ,Woodward FI, Midgley GF (2005) The global distribution of ecosystems in a
world without fire. New Phytol 165:525–538
W. Thuiller,D.M.Richardson, and G.F. Midgley208
Briggs JM, Knapp AK, Brock BL (2002) Expansion of woody plants in tallgrass prairie: a
fifteen-year study of fire and fire-grazing interactions.Am Midl Nat 147:287–294
Brooks ML,D’Antonio CM,Richardson DM, Grace J,Keeley JE, DiTomasso JM, Hobbs RJ,
Pellant M, Pyke D (2004) Effects of invasive alien plants on fire regimes. BioScience
54:677–688
Cabin RJ,Weller SG,Lorence DH,Cordell S, Hadway LJ, Montgomery R, Goo D, Urakami
A (2002) Effects of light, alien grass, and native species additions on Hawaiian dry
forest restoration.Ecol Appl 12:1595–1610
Cannon RJC (1998) The implications of predicting climate change for insects pests in the
UK, with emphasis on non-indigenous species. Global Change Biol 4:785–796
Chapin FS III, Körner C (1996) Artic and alpine biodiversity: its patterns, causes and
ecosystem consequences. In: Mooney HA, Cushman JH, Medina E, Sala OE, Schulze
E-D (eds) Functional role of biodiversity: a global perspective. Wiley,Chichester,pp
7–32
Condit R, Hubbell SP, Foster RB (1996) Assessing the response of plant functional types
to climatic change in tropical forests.J Veg Sci 7:405–416
Cramer W, Bondeau A,Woodward FI,Prentice IC,Betts RA, Brovkin V, Cox PM,Fisher V,
Foley JA, Friend AD,Kucharik C, Lomas MR, Ramankutty N, Sitch S, Smith B,White
A, Young-Molling C (2001) Global response of terrestrial ecosystem structure and
function to CO2and climate change: results from six dynamic global vegetation mod-
els. Global Change Biol 7:357–373
Crawley MJ (1989) Chance and timing in biological invasions.In: Drake JA,Mooney HA,
di Castri F,Groves RH,Kruger FJ, Rejmánek M, Williamson M (eds) Biological inva-
sions: a global perspective.Wiley, Chichester,pp 407–424
Danner BT, Knapp AK (2003) Abiotic constraints on the establishment of Quercus
seedlings in grassland. Global Change Biol 9:266–275
Davis AJ, Lawton JH, Shorrocks B,Jenkinson LS (1998) Individualistic species responses
invalidate simple physiological models of community dynamics under global envi-
ronmental change.J Anim Ecol 67:600–612
Drake BG, Gonzalez-Meler MA, Long SP (1997) More efficient plants: a consequence of
rising atmospheric CO2? Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol 48:609–639
Dukes JS (2000) Will the increasing atmospheric CO2concentration affect the success of
invasive species? In: Mooney HA, Hobbs HA (eds) Invasive species in a changing
world. Island Press,Washington,DC, pp 95–113
Dukes JS, Mooney HA (1999) Does global change increase the success of biological
invaders.Trends Ecol Ecol 14:135–139
Dukes JS, Mooney HA (2004) Disruption of ecosystem processes in western North
America by invasive species. Rev Chil Hist Nat 77:411–437
Evans KA, Boag B (1996) The New Zealand flatworm: will climate change make it a
potentially European problem? Aspects Appl Biol 45:335–338
Frenot Y, Chown SL,Whinam J,Selkirk PM, Convey P, Skotnicki M, Bergstrom DM (2005)
Biological invasions in the Antarctic: extent, impacts and implications. Biol Rev
80:45–72
Grabherr G, Gottfried M, Pauli H (1994) Climate effects on mountain plants. Nature
369:448–450
Grigulis K, Lavorel S, Davies ID, Dossantos A, Lloret F, Vilà M (2005) Landscape-scale
positive feedbacks between fire and expansion of the large tussock grass,
Ampelodesmos mauritanica in Catalan shrublands.Global Change Biol 11:1042–1053
Grime JP (1998) Benefits of plant diversity to ecosystems: immediate,filter and founder
effects. J Ecol 86:902–910
Gritti E, Smith B, Sykes MT (2006) Vulnerability of Mediterranean basin ecosystems to
climate change and invasion by exotic plant species.J Biogeogr 33:145–157
Will Climate Change Promote Alien Plant Invasions? 209
Guisan A,Theurillat J-P (2000) Assessing alpine plant vulnerability to climate change: a
modelling perspective. Integr Assessment 1:307–320
Guisan A, Thuiller W (2005) Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple
habitat models. Ecol Lett 8:993–1009
Harrison SP, Prentice IC (2003) Climate and CO2controls on global vegetation distribu-
tion at the last glacial maximum: analysis based on paleovegetation data,biome mod-
elling and paleoclimate simulations.Global Change Biol 9:983–1004
Hattenschwiler S, Körner C (2003) Does elevated CO2facilitate naturalization of the non-
indigenous Prunus laurocerasus in Swiss temperate forests? Funct Ecol 17:778–785
Hobbs RJ,Arico A,Aronson J, Baron JS, Bridgewater P, Cramer VK, Epstein PR, Ewel JJ,
Klink CA, Lugo AE,Norton D,Ojima D,Richardson DM,Sanderson EW, Valladares F,
Vilà M, Zamora R, Zobel M (2006) Emerging ecosystems: theoretical and manage-
ment aspects of the new ecological world order. Global Ecol Biogeogr 15:1–7
Kriticos DJ, Brown JR, Maywald GF, Radford ID, Nicholas DM, Sutherst RW, Adkins SW
(2003) SPAnDX: a process-based population dynamics model to explore manage-
ment and climate impacts on an invasive alien plant, Acacia nilotica.Ecol Modell
163:187–208
Lonsdale WM (1999) Global patterns of plant invasions and the concept of invasibility.
Ecology 80:1522–1536
Midgley GF, Hannah L, Millar D, Thuiller W, Booth A (2003) Developing regional and
species-level assessments of climate change impacts on biodiversity in the Cape
Floristic Region. Biol Conserv 112:87–97
Mooney HA, Hobbs RJ (2000) Invasive species in a changing world. Island Press, Wash-
ington, DC
Nagel JM, Huxman TE, Griffin KL, Smith SD (2004) CO2enrichment reduces the ener-
getic cost of biomass construction in an invasive desert grass. Ecology 85:100–106
Panetta FD,Lawes R (2005) Evaluation of weed eradication programs: the delimitation of
extent.Diversity Distrib 11:435–442
Parmesan C, Yohe G (2003) A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts
across natural systems.Nature 421:37–42
Polley HW, Tischler CR, Johnson HB, Derner JD (2002) Growth rate and survivorship of
drought: CO2effects on the presumed tradeoff in seedlings of five woody legumes.
Tree Physiol 22:383–391
Prentice IC (1986) Vegetation response to past climatic variation.Vegetatio 67:131–141
Rafoss T, Sæthre M-G (2003) Spatial and temporal distribution of bioclimatic potential
for the codling moth and Colorado potato beetle in Norway: model predictions ver-
sus climate and field data from the 1990s.Agric Forest Entomol 5:75–85
Rejmánek M (1999) Invasive plant species and invasible ecosystems. In: Sandlund OT,
Schei PJ,Vilken A (eds) Invasive species and biodiversity management. Kluwer,Dor-
drecht,pp 79–102
Rejmánek M, Richardson DM (1996) What attributes make some plant species more
invasive? Ecology 77:1655–1661
Rejmánek M, Richardson DM, Higgins SI, Pitcairn MJ, Grotkopp E (2005) Ecology of
invasive plants: state of the art. In: Mooney HA, Mack RN, McNeely JA, Neville L,
Schei PJ,Waage J (eds) Invasive alien species: a new synthesis,Island Press,Washing-
ton, DC, pp 104–161
Richardson DM, Bond WJ, Dean WRJ, Higgins SI, Midgley GF, Milton SJ, Powrie LW,
Rutherford MC, Samways MJ,Schulze RE (2000) Invasive alien organisms and global
change: a South African perspective.In: Mooney HA, Hobbs RJ (eds) Invasive species
in a changing world. Island Press,Washington, DC,pp 303–349
W. Thuiller,D.M.Richardson, and G.F. Midgley210
Roura-Pascual N,Suarez AV, Gómez C, Pons P, Touyama Y, Wild AL, Peterson AT (2004)
Geographical potential of Argentine ants (Linepithema humile Mayr) in the face of
global climate change. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:2527–2534
Sage RF, Kubien DS (2003) Quo vadis C-4? An ecophysiological perspective on global
change and the future of C4 plants. Photosynth Res 77:209–225
Smith SD, Huxman TE, Zitzer SF, Charlet TN, Housman DC, Coleman JS, Fenstermaker
LK, Seemann JR, Nowak RS (2000) Elevated CO2increases productivity and invasive
species success in an arid ecosystem.Nature 408:79–82
Sutherst RW, Maywald HF, Russel BL (2000) Estimating vulnerability under global
change: modular modelling of pests. Agric Ecosyst Environ 82:303–319
Thuiller W, Brotons L, Araújo MB, Lavorel S (2004) Effects of restricting environmental
range of data to project current and future species distributions. Ecography 27:165–
172
Thuiller W, Lavorel S, Araújo MB, Sykes MT, Prentice IC (2005a) Climate change threats
to plant diversity in Europe. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:8245–8250
Thuiller W, Richardson DM, Pyšek P, Midgley GF, Hughes GO,Rouget M (2005b) Niche-
based modelling as a tool for predicting the risk of alien plant invasions at a global
scale. Global Change Biol 11:2234–2250
Thuiller W, Midgley GF, Hughes GO, Bomhard B,Drew G, Rutherford MC, Woodward FI
(2006a) Endemic species and ecosystem vulnerability to climate change in Namibia.
Global Change Biol 12:759–776
Thuiller W, Richardson DM, Rouget M, Proches S, Wilson JRU (2006b) Interactions
between environment,species traits and human uses describe patterns of plant inva-
sions. Ecology 87:1755–1769
van Wilgen BW, Richardson DM (1985) The effects of alien shrub invasion on vegetation
structure and fire behavior in South African fynbos shrublands: a simulation study.J
Appl Ecol 22:955–966
Walther G-R, Post E, Convey P, Menzel A, Parmesan C, Beebee TJC, Fromentin J-M,
Hoegh-Gudberg O, Bairlein F (2002) Ecological responses to recent climate change.
Nature 416:389–395
Welk E, Schubert K, Hoffman MH (2002) Present and potential distribution of invasive
garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) in North America. Diversity Distrib 8:219–233
Zavaleta ES,Hulvey KB (2004) Realistic species loss disproportionately reduce grassland
resistance to biological invaders.Science 306:1175–1177
Ziska LH (2003) Evaluation of the growth response of six invasive species to past,present
and future atmospheric carbon dioxide. J Exp Bot 54:395–404
Will Climate Change Promote Alien Plant Invasions? 211
Section IV
Ecological Impact of Biological Invasions
Short Introduction
Wolfga n g N e ntw i g
It is well known that some invasive alien species have a very strong influence
on ecological interactions with other species. Such case studies are numerous
and range from mere anecdotal reports to very well-analysed quantifications.
Here, we present two of these in detail. The one dealing with marine jellyfish
belongs to a group of hardly credible stories in ecology,where a few individu-
als of a few alien species transferred into a supposedly stable and well-
buffered ecosystem have changed all major ecological patterns within a
remarkably short time period (Chap. 14).
Our other case study concerns the river Rhine, subjected to heavy inva-
sions by a whole armada of alien species, arriving by their own means or by
ship via artificial waterways overcoming biogeographical barriers. The
impact has been tremendous: the existing species assemblage has been com-
pletely replaced by aliens,causing a dramatic loss of biodiversity (Chap.15).
Such a loss of species is deplorable, but it is feared that this and other such
stories are not yet over – we can apprehend even more the next cascade of
effects caused by invaders, i.e.possible alterations of ecosystem services, such
as energy, nutrient and water cycling, and also of many biotic community
interactions. Strong effects on ecosystem services, usually not recognized by
our society as being important, urgently need to be counteracted because of
tremendous potential economic consequences (Chap. 13).
A hidden danger within the context of alien species is hybridization.
Genetically, a foreign species may completely absorb a native species or it
may introduce parts of its own genome into a native species. The results are
similar: the native species disappears and biodiversity is reduced. Hybridiza-
tion or introgression has long been underestimated but today is considered
to represent one of the most dangerous aspects of biological invasion (Chap.
16).
In this book on biological invasions,it may at first glance seem surprising
to find a chapter dealing with genetically modified organisms. Though these
are not alien species in a strict sense, they differ from their ancestors in at
least one newly modified property, and this may suffice to already cause an
ecologically modified behaviour. We still have very limited experience with
genetically modified organisms under field conditions. Thus, it seems justi-
fied, within the framework of our broader knowledge on invasive alien
species, to take a closer look at such organisms (Chap.17).
Section IV · Short Introduction216
13 Impacts of Invasive Species on Ecosystem Services
Heather Charles and Jeffrey S. Dukes
13.1 Introduction
The impacts of invasive species on ecosystem services have attracted world-
wide attention. Despite the overwhelming evidence of these impacts and a
growing appreciation for ecosystem services, however, researchers and poli-
cymakers rarely directly address the connection between invasions and
ecosystem services. Various attempts have been made to address the ecosys-
tem processes that are affected by invasive species (e.g., Levine et al. 2003;
Dukes and Mooney 2004), but the links between these mechanisms and
ecosystem services are largely lacking in the literature. Assessments of the
economic impacts of invasive species cover costs beyond those associated
with ecosystem services (e.g., control costs),and generally do not differentiate
by ecosystem service type. Additionally, while advances have been made in
quantifying non-market-based ecosystem services, their loss or alteration by
invasive species is often overlooked or underappreciated.
Ecosystem services are the benefits provided to human society by natural
ecosystems, or more broadly put, the ecosystem processes by which human
life is maintained. The concept of ecosystem services is not new, and there
have been multiple attempts to list and/or categorize these services, especially
as the existence of additional services has been recognized (e.g., Daily 1997;
NRC 2005).For the purposes of this chapter,we address ecosystem services in
the framework put forward by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005).
The services we list are primarily those enumerated in the Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment (2005), with minimal variation in wording, and inclu-
sion of several additional services not explicitly stated in this assessment.This
framework places services into four categories (in italics). Provisioning ser-
vices are products obtained from ecosystems, and include food (crops, live-
stock, fisheries, etc.), freshwater, fiber (timber, cotton, silk, etc.), fuel, genetic
resources,biochemicals/pharmaceuticals/natural medicines, and ornamental
resources. Regulating services are obtained from the regulation of ecosystem
Ecological Studies,Vol. 193
W. Nentwig (Ed.)
Biological Invasions
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007
processes,and include air quality regulation,climate regulation,water regula-
tion (timing and extent of flooding, runoff, etc.), water purification, waste
treatment, disease regulation, natural pest control, pollination, erosion con-
trol,and coastal storm protection. Cultural services are non-material benefits,
and include aesthetic values, recreation/tourism, spiritual/religious values,
educational/scientific values, cultural heritage values, inspiration, and sense
of place.Supporting services are overarching, indirect,and occur on large tem-
poral scales, but are necessary for the maintenance of other services. They
include photosynthesis, primary production, nutrient cycling, water cycling,
soil formation and maintenance of fertility, as well as atmospheric composi-
tion. This framework includes both goods, which have direct market values,
and services that in turn maintain the production of goods and biodiversity,
and directly or indirectly benefit humans (Daily 1997).
In this chapter, we introduce concepts associated with the valuation of
ecosystem services, and discuss how costs generated by invasions relate to
impacts on ecosystem services.We link the effects of invasive species on com-
munity dynamics and ecosystem processes to effects on ecosystem services.
Risks for specific ecosystem types and the organism types most likely to
change particular services are discussed.Finally,we present examples of inva-
sive species that alter each of these services. While the majority of these
species negatively affect ecosystem services, several exceptions exist.We con-
clude by assessing the overall vulnerability of each category of ecosystem ser-
vice to alteration by invasive species, suggesting future research needs, and
discussing educational and collaborative opportunities in this field.
13.2 Relating Costs of Invasives to Valuation
of Ecosystem Services
13.2.1 Valuing Ecosystem Services
In order to understand how invasive species affect ecosystem services, one
must first understand how ecosystem services are valued, and how these values
relate to the costs of invasive species.Economic valuation of ecosystem services
(and goods) typically involves several components.All goods and services are
categorized within a framework of total economic value (Fig. 13.1), and sub-
sequently assigned monetary value (Costanza et al.1997).
The framework initially differentiates between use and non-use values. Use
values further divide into direct and indirect use values. Direct use values
involve human interaction with nature, and include both consumptive and
non-consumptive uses. Consumptive use refers to products consumed locally
or sold in markets, whereas non-consumptive use typically refers to cultural
H. Charles and J.S. Dukes218
services such as recreation and tourism. Indirect use values encompass
species that humans rely on indirectly through trophic and other interactions
(e.g., natural pest control), and services that are closely tied to ecosystem
processes. Examples are productive inputs such as soil fertility, pollination,
water purification, and flood control, all of which are extremely important in
agriculture. Non-use values, while less tangible, are critical to a comprehen-
sive assessment of economic valuation.They derive from the continued exis-
tence and intrinsic value of a service, good, species, habitat, etc., and include
existence, option and bequest values.
These three values are succinctly explained by an example taken from
Daily (1997), where non-use values for a hypothetical freshwater site include
the value of knowing the site exists, irrespective of whether or not an individ-
ual visits the site (existence value); the value of preserving the option of
enjoying the site in the future (option or future use value); and the value of
ensuring that one’s descendants will be able to enjoy the site (bequest value).
While the literature on ecological economics includes several variations of
this framework, all versions include the same basic principles (e.g., Daily
1997; NRC 2005; Born et al. 2005).
We link the total economic value framework to our discussion of ecosys-
tem services and invasive species in two ways. First,the categories of ecosys-
tem services can be connected to the categories of valuation in a generalized
manner (Fig. 13.1).Provisioning services, which include all goods, fall into the
consumptive use category. Most cultural services are considered to have non-
consumptive use values. Regulating and supporting services are typically
classified as having indirect use values. As mentioned above, the framework
Impacts of Invasive Species on Ecosystem Services 219
Bequest
Value
Option Value
Existence
Value
Non-
consumptive
Use Value
Consumptive
Use Value
Indirect Use
Value
Use Value
Total Economic Value
Direct Use Value
Non-Use Value
Provisioning
Services
Cultural
Services
Provisioning Services
Cultural Services
Regulating Services
Supporting Services
Regulating
Services
Supporting
Services
Fig. 13.1 Framework for economic valuation of ecosystem services (see text for further
explanation)
can include multiple values for a service, and thus all four categories of ser-
vices can be assessed for their non-use value as well. For example, genetic
resources and certain plant/animal species may have an option value for
future medicines and gene therapy targets, both provisioning services.
Endangered species and locations with high endemism, such as the Galapagos
Islands, may have a high existence value and a correspondingly high tourism
value. Sites or species with spiritual, religious, or cultural importance may
have a significant bequest value, owing to their cultural services.
Second, with a measure of the value of an ecosystem service available, it is
easier to assess the magnitude of alteration by invasive species.Invasives pose
threats to human society that are proportional to the value of the services they
threaten. Overall, because ecosystem services are defined by their contribu-
tion to human society, the significance of any alteration due to invasive
species is dependent on their valuation. However, it should be noted that ser-
vices may be undervalued if they are poorly understood or underappreciated.
13.2.2 Interpreting Invasive Impacts
Invasive impacts or costs are often classified as economic, environmental, or
social in nature. Economic impacts are those of direct consequence to
humans, typically leading to monetary losses. Environmental impacts are
those that affect ecosystem structure and function, often referring to loss of
biodiversity or unique habitats. Social impacts focus predominantly on
human health and safety, but can also cover quality of life,recreational oppor-
tunities, cultural heritage, and other aspects of social structure. Where do
ecosystem services fit into this classification? A unique facet of the concept of
ecosystem services is the conjoining of ecological integrity and human bene-
fit.As such, impacts will fall into all three categories with a good deal of over-
lap. Thus, all three types of impacts are useful in determining which services
are affected by invasive species,and the magnitude of these effects.
Economic impact assessments give clues to some of the most significant
impacts to humans by way of ecosystem services, but two caveats exist. First,
economic assessments include control and management costs that are critical
in determining control vs.prevention strategies,but do not address ecosystem
services. Second, and more pertinent, economic assessments do not fully
assess the alteration of certain ecosystem services, due to their subjective
nature and the difficulty of assigning value. This includes almost all support-
ing services, and many regulating and cultural services. Since market values
are easier to assign, and changes to these values are felt sooner and more
acutely, economic assessments are necessarily biased toward provisioning
services. Environmental impact assessments cover many of these remaining
services, but often indirectly (e.g., biodiversity itself is not an ecosystem ser-
vice per se), and without connections made to human benefits lost or gained.
H. Charles and J.S. Dukes220
Social impact assessments cover a smaller range of services, and some are not
tied to ecosystem services (e.g., invasive insects that bite humans).
Nevertheless,we can make a few generalizations from impact assessments.
Impacts of invasive species on ecosystem services related to agriculture,
industry,and human health are substantial,well quantified,and typically neg-
ative (Chap. 18). These impacts affect the delivery of food, freshwater, and
fiber, as well as water purification, pollination, natural pest control, disease
regulation, soil fertility, and nutrient and water cycling. Invasives are having
substantial,if not fully quantified, impacts on cultural services including aes-
thetic values, recreation, and tourism, in both riparian and upland areas
(Eiswerth et al. 2005). Decreased biodiversity and species extinctions linked
to invasive species threaten the continued delivery and quality of many
ecosystem services. Finally, negative alterations of ecosystem services far out-
weigh positive alterations. Chapter 19 provides further discussion of eco-
nomic and social impacts, as well as methods of impact assessment.Table 13.1
lists several studies that have quantified invasive species’ impacts on specific
ecosystem services, and includes both positive and negative impacts.
Impacts of Invasive Species on Ecosystem Services 221
Ecological Studies Vol 193, page proofs as of 9/15, 2006,by Kröner,Heidelberg
Table 13.1 Monetary impacts to ecosystem services associated with various invasive
species
Invasive Geographic Ecosystem services Monetary Reference
species location altered impacta
Acacia
melanoxylon
(blackwood),
Acacia
cyclops
(rooikrans),
Eucalyptus
spp. (gum
trees) and
other woody
shrubs and
trees
Cape Floristic
Region, South
Africa (fynbos)
Food (sour figs, honey-
bush tea), fiber (thatch-
ing reed, timber),orna-
mental resources (flowers,
greens, ferns), medicine,
essential oils (buchu)
Water (mountain
catchments)
Pollination (bee keeping)
Ecotourism
Fuel (Acacia cyclops as
firewood)
–2,852,984b
–67,836,059b
–27,783,728b
–830,683b
+2,799,492b
Turpie et
al. (2003)
Bemisia tabaci
(whitefly)- and
B. tabaci-trans-
mitted viruses
Mexico
Brazil
Florida, USA
North America,
Mediterranean
Basin, Middle
East
Food (melon, sesame),
fiber (cotton)
Food (beans, tomatoes,
melon, okra, cabbage)
Food (tomato, due to
Tomato mottle virus)
Food (lettuce, sugar
beets, melon,due to
Lettuce infectious yellow
virus)
–33 million
–5 billion (for
5–6 years)
–140 million
–20 million
Oliveira
et al.
(2001)
H. Charles and J.S. Dukes222
Melaleuca
quinque-
nervia
South Florida,
USA (wetlands,
open-canopied
forests)
Recreation (park use)
Tourism (Everglades
National Park and rest
of south Florida)
Natural hazard regula-
tion (increased fires)
Various cultural services
(endangered species loss)
Ornamental resources
(nurseries)
Food (honey production)
–168 to
250 million
–250 million
to 1 billion
–250 million
–10 million
–1 million
+15 million
Serbe-
soff-King
(2003)
Table 13.1 (Continued)
Invasive Geographic Ecosystem services Monetary Reference
species location altered impacta
aCosts are indicated with a negative sign (–) and benefits with a positive sign (+). Val-
ues are in US $ and represent annual losses, unless otherwise indicated
bValues were converted from year 2,000 Rands (R) to US $; 7 R=1 $
Myriophyllum
spicatum
(Eurasian
watermilfoil)
Western Nevada
and northeast
California;
Truckee River
watershed, USA
Recreation (swimming,
boating, fishing, etc.)
Water quality, water sup-
plies, non-use value
–30 to 45
million
Unquantified
negative costs
Eiswerth
et al.
(2000)
Pomacea
canaliculata
(golden apple
snail)
Philippines (rice
systems)
Productivity losses (rice
output)
–12.5 to
17.8 million
Naylor
(1996)
Sus scrofa
domestica
(feral pig)
Florida, USA
(three state
parks; forest
and wetland)
Habitat degradation
(with implications for
recreation, tourism,
aesthetics, endangered
species loss, erosion
control,water quality)
–5,331 to
43,257 ha–1,
depending on
park, season,
and ecosystem
type
Engeman
et al.
(2003)
Tamarix spp.
(tamarisk)
Western United
States, especially
Colorado River
Irrigation water
Municipal water
Hydropower
Natural hazard regula-
tion (flood control)
–38.6 to
121 million
–26.3 to
67.8 million
–15.9 to
43.7 million
–52 million
Zavaleta
(2000)
13.3 Mechanisms of Alteration
Ecosystems are characterized by their structure (composition and biologi-
cal/physical organization) and functions or processes, which lead to the pro-
duction and maintenance of ecosystem services. Invasive species alter the
production, maintenance, and quality of services by a variety of mechanisms.
As understanding of invasion biology has increased, so too has recognition
and comprehension of these mechanisms. The mechanisms are interrelated,
since they all affect aspects of the defining characteristics of ecosystem struc-
ture and function. However, they can be grouped into three categories to
enhance ease in understanding (Fig. 13.2).
13.3.1 Species Extinctions and Community Structure
Invasive effects on native biodiversity and community structure are well
known, but few studies have examined the mechanisms that lead to these
effects (Levine et al. 2003). Invasive species may alter community structure
through exploitation competition (indirect interactions such as resource use),
and interference competition (direct interactions such as allelopathy in
plants; Callaway and Ridenour 2004).Invasive impacts on other species inter-
actions, including predation, herbivory, parasitism, and mutualisms, can
change the abundance of species with certain key traits that influence ecosys-
Impacts of Invasive Species on Ecosystem Services 223
Biotic Factors
•Species diversity
•Community composition
& interactions
Natural Cycles
•Energy
•Nutrients
•Water
Other Abiotic Factors
•Disturbance regime
•Climate & Atmos. Comp.
•Physical habitat
Spread of
Invasive
Species
Ecosystem
Goods & Services
Human Society
&
Impacts
- alter trophic dynamics &
food webs
- change productivity
- change rate of decomposition
- alter soil resources
- change water use efficiency
- decrease biodiversity
- cause species extinctions
- alter species interactions
( e.g. competition, allelopathy,
predation, herbivory,
parasitism, mutualisms)
- add functional group or guild
- community disassembly
- alter fire frequency
& intensity
- increase soil erosion
& change flooding regime
- change climate/microclimate
(e.g. albedo/canopy roughness)
- alter emission of VOCs,
nitrogen gases, CO
2
, etc.
- secrete salts, change pH, etc.
NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS (Ecosystem Structure & Function)
Fig. 13.2 Mechanisms of ecosystem service alteration by invasive species
tem processes (Chapin et al. 2000). A handful of nonnative animals, plants,
and pathogens have also been implicated in extinctions of native species, in
particular invasive animals on islands.
Changes in species and community structure can affect ecosystem services
both directly and indirectly.Direct effects include the decline in abundance of
economically valuable species, in particular those used for food, forage, fiber,
fuel, or medicine.Aesthetic values are commonly lost with the arrival of “nui-
sance species”such as invasive vines or aquatic floating plants. Invasives that
disrupt mutualisms pose risks particularly for pollination and natural pest
control services. Decreased genetic diversity and species extinctions also lead
to loss of option value. For example, the brown tree snake (Boiga irregularis)
is blamed for the extinction of multiple bird and other species in Guam,with
negative impacts on tourism, and unknown costs in genetic resources (Fritts
and Rodda 1998). Indirect effects include a potential decrease in ecosystem
resistance and resilience to change,due to the hypothesized link between sta-
bility and changes in biodiversity (Hooper et al. 2005). Finally, positive feed-
backs due to interactions of invasive species may lead to increased vulnerabil-
ity to further invasion, and potential degradation of ecosystem services
(Simberloff and Von Holle 1999).
13.3.2 Energy,Nutrient,and Water Cycling
Invasive species’impacts also operate at the ecosystem level through the alter-
ation of natural cycles. Energy flows can be altered by changes in trophic
interactions, food webs and keystone species. For example, the herbivore
Pomacea canaliculata (golden apple snail) has dramatically decreased aquatic
plant populations in wetlands in Southeast Asia. This in turn has led to the
dominance of planktonic algae, high nutrient levels, high phytoplankton bio-
mass, and turbid waters, with implications for water quality and purification
(Carlsson et al. 2004).Productivity can be altered by invasive species that use
resources more efficiently,or that eliminate a prominent life form (Dukes and
Mooney 2004). Since primary productivity is itself an ecosystem service, this
shift could be detrimental to humans.Changes in decomposition rate,such as
might occur if an invasive species altered litter chemistry, can affect nutrient
cycling as well.
Nutrient cycling can also be altered by invasive plants that fix nitrogen,
leach chemicals that inhibit nitrogen fixation by other species, release com-
pounds that alter nutrient availability or retention, including nitrogen and
phosphorus, and alter topsoil erosion or fire frequency (Dukes and Mooney
2004). The best studied of these mechanisms is the introduction of legumi-
nous species with mutualistic nitrogen-fixing microorganisms, largely due to
the dramatic effects of the invaders Myrica faya (fire tree) in Hawaii, New
Zealand and Australia, and Acacia mearnsii (black wattle) in South Africa
H. Charles and J.S. Dukes224
(Levine et al.2003). Ehrenfeld (2003) has shown that invasive plant impacts on
nutrient cycling can vary in magnitude and direction across both invader
types and sites, indicating that patterns are not universal, and that effects on
ecosystem services can be either positive or negative. Alteration of nutrient
cycling has additional implications for maintenance of soil fertility and pri-
mary production.
Invasive plant species have been shown to alter hydrological cycles by
changing evapotranspiration rates and timing, runoff, and water table levels.
Impacts are greatest when the invaders differ from natives in traits such as
transpiration rate, leaf area index, photosynthetic tissue biomass, rooting
depth, and phenology (Levine et al.2003). Changes to water cycles may affect
both water supply and regulation. Well-studied examples of invasive plants
using more water than do native plants, and thus decreasing the water supply
for humans,include Tamarisk spp.(salt cedar) in riparian zones of the south-
western United States,and pines in the Cape region of South Africa.
13.3.3 Disturbance Regime, Climate,and Physical Habitat
Several invasive species alter disturbance regimes (including fire,erosion,and
flooding), or act as agents of disturbance themselves, particularly in soil dis-
turbance (Mack and D’Antonio 1998). Fire enhancement can occur when
grasses invade shrublands and increase fire frequency, extent, or intensity,
whereas fire suppression is more likely to occur when trees invade grasslands
and decrease fine fuel load and fire spread (Mack and D’Antonio 1998).These
impacts are significant since they can cause a shift in ecosystem type and
related species – for example, from shrublands to grasslands.Affected ecosys-
tem services might include air purification or quality,atmospheric composi-
tion (e.g., through increased nitrogen volatilization),forage quality for cattle,
and primary production. Mammalian invaders often increase erosion and soil
disturbance, whereas woody plant invaders are more likely to affect water reg-
ulation by causing flooding and sedimentation in aquatic settings.
Maintenance of climate and atmospheric composition, both ecosystem
services, are two of the least-studied mechanisms, perhaps because changes
can occur over large temporal and spatial scales. Hoffmann and Jackson
(2000) used modeling simulations to show that conversion of tropical savanna
to grassland could both reduce precipitation and increase mean tempera-
tures. However, the impetus for this study was land use change, not invasive
species per se. On a smaller scale, experiments have shown that even a hand-
ful of invasive plants can alter a given microclimate. Finally, invasive species
may alter atmospheric composition by changing rates of carbon dioxide
sequestration, or the emission of volatile organic compounds and other bio-
logically important gases (Dukes and Mooney 2004). Huxman et al. (2004)
note that CO2and water flux to the atmosphere will be affected by the species-
Impacts of Invasive Species on Ecosystem Services 225
specific soil microclimate,and show differences in these fluxes between native
and invasive grasses.
Invasive species can also alter the physical habitat. Both plant and animal
invaders are capable of outcompeting natives and taking over habitat, and cer-
tain invaders additionally make the habitat less suitable for other species.
Invasive plants may decrease the suitability of soil for other species by secret-
ing salts (e.g., Tamarisk, Zavaleta 2000; the iceplant Mesembryanthemum crys-
tallinum, Vivrette and Muller 1977), by acidifying the soil, or by releasing
novel chemical compounds, as in allelopathy (Callaway and Ridenour 2004).
13.4 Which Ecosystems Are at Risk and Which Invasives
Have the Greatest Impact?
Predicting which invasive species will have the greatest impact on ecosystem
services would have both economic and societal benefits, and allow us to
improve our prevention and management strategies. Unfortunately, the rela-
tionships between ecosystem impacts and ecosystem service impacts are dif-
ficult to characterize. We expect that species with the greatest ecological
impacts will also have the greatest impacts on ecosystem services, but this has
not been tested. Likewise, the relationship between community invasibility
and the intensity of impacts is also debatable (Levine et al.2003). Some gener-
alizations can be made regarding the species most likely to alter ecosystem
processes. Invasives that add a new function or trait have the potential to sig-
nificantly impact ecosystem processes as their ranges expand, often by the
addition of a new functional type based on traits related to resource use (e.g.,
nitrogen fixers), phenology, feeding habits, habitat preference,etc. (Chapin et
al. 1996).Even without the addition of a new function or trait, an invader that
comprises a large proportion of the biomass at a given trophic level may mea-
surably alter ecosystem structure and function (Dukes and Mooney 2004).
Invasive species of all taxa are capable of altering ecosystem services.
Which invasive species might pose the greatest threat to a given ecosystem
service in a given system? This question is difficult to answer; few concrete
patterns exist, and we currently rely on a handful of species-specific exam-
ples.We can broadly say that specific ecosystem types are susceptible to alter-
ation of particular ecosystem services (Table 13.2). For simplicity, we use the
six ecosystem types delineated by The State of the Nation’s Ecosystems (The
H. John Heinz III Center for Science Economics and the Environment 2002):
coasts and oceans, farmlands, forests, fresh waters, grasslands and shrub-
lands, and urban and suburban areas. These generalizations are necessarily
subjective, based on our review of the literature.One notable source of infor-
mation on a broad range of invader taxa and habitat and ecosystem types is
the Global Invasive Species Database (http://www.issg.org/database).
H. Charles and J.S. Dukes226
Impacts of Invasive Species on Ecosystem Services 227
Table 13.2 Ecosystem types differ in ecosystem services most at risk and prevalent inva-
sive species types
Ecosystem Ecosystem Prevalent Invader examples Other
type services most invader types and impacts
at risk
Coasts and
oceans
– Commercial
fisheries
– Shellfish beds
– Water puri-
fication
– Waste treat-
ment
– Disease regula-
tion
– Recreation,
tourism
– Alga,
seaweeds
– Mollusks
– Crustaceans
– Fish
Caulerpa seaweed
(Caulerpa taxifolia)
– Forms dense mats in
Mediterranean Sea
– Negative impacts on
aquaculture/fishing
(Verlaque 1994)
Green crab (Carcinus
maenus)
– Consumes native
commercially
important clams in
Tasmania (Walton
et al. 2002)
– Isolated areas
more suscep-
tible (e.g.,
Mediter-
ranean and
Black seas)
– Long-distance
dispersal
makes eradi-
cation diffi-
cult
Farmlands
and crop-
lands
– Natural pest
control
– Pollination
– Nutrient
cycling
– Primary pro-
duction
– Insects
– Pathogens
– Grasses
– Forbs
– Birds
Sweet potato whitefly
(Bemisia tabaci)
– Consumes crops,
transmits plant
viruses and fungi;
affects crops and
ornamentals
(Oliveira et al. 2001)
Banana bunchy
top virus
– Invaded tropical
Asia,Africa, Aus-
tralia by vector
aphid; damages fruit
(Dale 1987)
– Large eco-
nomic losses
can result
from intro-
duced pests
and crop-spe-
cific
pathogens
Forests – Timber
– Nonwood
products
– Genetic
resources
– Ornamental
resources
– Aesthetic
value
– Fungal
pathogens
– Forbs
– Shrubs
and vines
– Insects
– Mammals
Chestnut blight (Cry-
phonectria parasitica)
Dutch elm disease
(Ophiostoma ulmi)
White pine blister rust
(Cronartium ribicola)
– Species–specific fun-
gal pathogens with
negative aesthetic
and genetic impacts
– Subsistence
economies at
risk due to
dependence
on forest
products
(Daily 1997)
H. Charles and J.S. Dukes228
Table 13.2 (Continued)
Ecosystem Ecosystem Prevalent Invader examples Other
type services most invader types and impacts
at risk
Fresh waters
(rivers,
streams,
lakes, ponds,
wetlands,
riparian
areas)
– Water puri-
fication
– Water regula-
tion
– Erosion
control
– Disease
regulation
– Recreation,
tourism
– Aquatic
plants
– Fish
– Mollusks
– Amphibians
Zebra mussel (Dreis-
sena polymorpha)
– Threatens water
supply, quality,
and native clams
following rapid
dispersal through
Great Lakes (Grif-
fiths et al. 1991)
Whirling disease
(Myxobolus cerebralis)
– Threatens trout in
rivers in the USA, with
impacts on recreation
(Koel et al. 2005)
– Isolated lakes
very suscepti-
ble
– Rivers and
riparian areas
difficult to
control; can
easily trans-
port propag-
ules
Grasslands
and shrub-
lands
(including
desert and
tundra)
– Livestock
forage
– Genetic
resources
– Air quality
regulation
– Nutrient
cycling
– Cultural
heritage
– Grasses
– Forbs
– Shrubs
– Trees
– Mammals
Starthistle (Centau-
rea solstitialis)
– Decreases livestock
forage yield and
quality,and depletes
soil moisture (Ger-
lach 2004)
Mesquite (Prosopsis
glandulosa), Acacia
spp.
– Alter nitrogen and
carbon cycling in
arid lands world-
wide (Geesing et al.
2000)
– Invasive
species have
decreased
rangeland
quality in
many regions
of the world
Urban and
suburban
– Disease
regulation
– Aesthetic
value
– Cultural
heritage
– Weedy plants
– Small
mammals
– Birds
– Pathogens
House mouse
(Mus musculus)
Norway rat
(Rattus norvegicus)
Grey squirrel
(Sciurus carolinensis)
– Can spread disease,
and decrease aesthetic
value by invading frag-
mented landscapes
– Close proxim-
ity of humans
adds to adverse
impacts on dis-
ease regulation
13.5 Case Studies and Examples
13.5.1 Provisioning Ecosystem Services
We have identified a range of examples of invasive species that covers a sub-
stantial breadth of services, species, and locations. Provisioning services are
perhaps the easiest to assess, since impacts occur on a shorter time scale and
are often felt more acutely,at least initially,than for other services. Crops are
negatively impacted by invasives eating them, such as the European starling
(Sturnus vulgaris) feeding on grain and fruit crops such as grapes (Somers
and Morris 2002), and by decreases in land productivity and agricultural
yields. Livestock are impacted indirectly by invasives that decrease forage
quality or quantity, such as the unpalatable leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula)
avoided by cattle in the mid-western United States (Kronberg et al. 1993), or
directly by pathogens such as rinderpest, which is fatal to cattle and has led to
famines in many parts of the world. Although many economically important
crop and livestock species are invasive, they are typically under human man-
agement.
Marine food resources can be impacted by invasive predators such as the
European green crab (Carcinus maenus; Table 13.2), and by competition with
invasives such as the comb jelly (Mnemiopsis leidyi), which has devastated
fisheries in the Black Sea as well as other seas (Shiganova et al. 2001). Impacts
of invasives on water resources are among the best studied, particularly in the
South African fynbos. Water is a critical resource in this semiarid region, and
multiple invasive species, including Melia azedarach, pines, wattle (Acacia
mearnsii), mesquite (Prosopis spp.) and Lantana camara, have substantially
decreased available surface water and streamflow through their high evapo-
transpiration rates (Gorgens and van Wilgen 2004).
Timber and other structural support materials are particularly suscepti-
ble to termite (Coptotermes spp.) damage in South America (Constantino
2002) and other parts of the world. Fuel resources such as wood presumably
share the same threats. Cotton and other fiber crops are susceptible to vari-
ous invasive agricultural pests such as the red imported fire ant (Solenopsis
invicta), which consumes beneficial arthropods (Eubanks 2001). Ornamen-
tal resources, especially trees, are susceptible to attack, and even death from
the aphid Cinara cupressi throughout Europe and Africa (Watson et al. 1999),
as well as from pathogens such as Phytophthora spp. It is important to note
that many invasive plants have been introduced because they have ornamen-
tal value, despite negative impacts they may now have caused. Finally, due to
their high option value, genetic resources, biochemicals, pharmaceuticals,
and the like are at risk whenever there is a loss of biodiversity. Invasives that
lead to species extinctions, such as the small Indian mongoose (Herpestes
javanicus) or the rosy wolf snail (Euglandina rosea), may irretrievably alter
Impacts of Invasive Species on Ecosystem Services 229
these services. In addition, invasions into hotspots of biodiversity such as the
tropics and aridlands pose significant risks to current and future sources of
these provisioning services.
13.5.2 Regulating Ecosystem Services
Invasive species also alter regulating services, with far-reaching effects on
human society. Fires release particulates, carbon monoxide and dioxide, and
nitrogen oxides, leading to decreased air quality. Thus, invasives such as
cheat grass (Bromus tectorum) that increase fire frequency will enhance these
emissions. In addition, several invasive plants, including kudzu (Pueraria
montana) and eucalyptus, emit large amounts of isoprene, which is highly
reactive in the atmosphere and enhances the production of air pollutants
(Wolfertz et al. 2003). Emission of isoprene and other volatile organic com-
pounds also leads to the production of ozone and greenhouse gases such as
carbon monoxide and methane, thereby altering climate regulation. On a
smaller scale, invasives may alter microclimates. For example, smooth cord-
grass (Spartina alterniflora) reduces light levels in salt marsh plant canopies,
potentially decreasing estuarine algal productivity (Callaway and Josselyn
1992).
Invasives generally have a negative effect on water regulation. Salt cedar
(Tamarix spp.) forms thickets along riparian corridors enhancing sediment
capture and channel narrowing. This has decreased the water holding capac-
ity of many waterways in the southwestern United States,leading to more fre-
quent and extensive flooding and associated flood control costs (Zavaleta
2000). Water purification occurs in multiple types of ecosystems, but most
notably in wetlands. The common carp (Cyprinus carpio) has been shown to
decrease water quality in a degraded wetland in Spain by increasing turbidity
and nutrient concentrations (Angeler et al. 2002). Aquatic invasive plants and
mollusks may also impact waste treatment by clogging water pipes.
Disease regulation is altered by the invasion of human disease pathogens
themselves (e.g., Vibrio cholerae, cholera-causing bacteria), or the invasion of
disease vectors, particularly invasive mosquitoes such as Aedes aegypti,
native to Africa, which enhanced the spread of yellow fever in the Americas
and of dengue in tropical Asia (Juliano and Lounibos 2005). Natural pest
control and pollination are well studied, due to wide recognition of their
high economic value. Pest control is altered directly by invasives that con-
sume or compete with either beneficial or detrimental insects, and indirectly
by invasives that harbor additional pests. This complicated role is illustrated
by the red imported fire ant (Solenopsis invicta), an intraguild predator that
consumes both insect pests of soybeans and native biological control agents
(Eubanks 2001). Impacts on pollination are equally complex. Honey bees
(Apis mellifera) have been introduced worldwide for pollination services, but
H. Charles and J.S. Dukes230
research suggests they may competitively displace native bee faunas, which
are typically better pollinators (Spira 2001). Invasive plants may also
threaten pollination services by luring pollinators from native species, as was
shown with Impatiens glandulifera in central Europe (Chittka and Schurkens
2001).
Alteration of erosion control is linked to a large number of invasives.
Despite the fact that many invasives were originally introduced to dampen
erosion, many in fact increase erosion. Examples range from large mammals
such as feral pigs (Sus scrofa domestica), which uproot plants,disturb soil, and
are particularly damaging on islands (Mack and D’Antonio 1998), to small
invertebrates such as the isopod Sphaeroma quoyanum, which has increased
marsh erosion in California due to its burrowing activities (Talley et al. 2001).
Since marshes also protect coasts from natural hazards,including hurricanes
and strong waves,this loss of sediment is likely to decrease this service as well.
13.5.3 Cultural Ecosystem Services
Alteration of cultural services is far more difficult to assess, given the subjec-
tive nature of these services. For example, purple loosestrife (Lythrum sali-
caria) may actually increase the aesthetic value of wetlands for some
observers, due to its brightly colored profusion of flowers, whereas others
might find the sight distasteful,given their concerns about the species’effects
on water quality and wildlife habitat provision. By the same token, the ability
of natural ecosystems to provide inspiration is very personal and has the
potential to change over time, even for one individual.In addition,the specific
cultural, spiritual, religious, or other values held by an individual or group
may be unknown. Nevertheless, the impacts of many invasives can be
assumed to apply to a majority of individuals. For example, aesthetic values
are lost during intense Asian gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar) invasions into
forests in the northeastern United States, due to defoliation and correspond-
ing high tree mortality (Hollenhorst et al. 1993).Invaders also cause substan-
tial losses to recreation and tourism, particularly ecotourism. Aquatic macro-
phytes that form dense layers or beds are a notorious nuisance for boating,
swimming, and diving. Examples are found worldwide in both fresh and salt
water, and include Caulerpa taxifolia,Hydrilla verticillata, and Sargassum
muticum (cf. Global Invasive Species Database). Terrestrial invasive plants
may also form dense stands crowding out native species,and impacting recre-
ation and tourism by making natural areas less accessible and by potentially
reducing wildlife and rare-plant viewing. Examples include Melaleuca quin-
quenervia,Mimosa pigra, Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica),and the cac-
tus Opuntia stricta (cf. Global Invasive Species Database).
Several invasives have provided positive recreation and tourism opportu-
nities, especially in the area of fishing. These include large mouth bass
Impacts of Invasive Species on Ecosystem Services 231
(Micropterus salmoides), brown trout (Salmo trutta) and rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss; Global Invasive Species Database). To put this in per-
spective, however, most of these invasives cause damage to other ecosystem
services. Educational values are certainly lost whenever species become
extinct, particularly in areas with high endemism such as the Galapagos
Islands, considered a natural laboratory for evolutionary studies. Several
endemic plants are considered to have disappeared from these islands due to
Lantana camara invasion (Mauchamp et al. 1998). Overall, we conclude that
all cultural services are altered by invasive species,with some positive effects,
but predominantly negative effects.Despite the challenge in placing monetary
values on these services, it is critical to recognize their widespread influence.
13.5.4 Supporting Ecosystem Services
Invasive species also directly alter supporting services. These impacts can be
elusive, since they occur on large temporal and spatial scales to services not
used directly by humans (i.e., they have non-use value).However, supporting
services are necessary for the maintenance of all other services – when inva-
sive species alter these, they often alter other, supported services. Thus, most
of the examples given in Sects. 13.3.2 and 13.3.3 are not only mechanisms of
alteration by invasive species, but also impacts on supporting services. A few
additional examples are presented here. Studies of direct alteration to photo-
synthesis are limited in number. Aquatic plants that form floating mats, such
as water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), can decrease macroinvertebrate
abundance by blocking light transmission and decreasing photosynthesis by
phytoplankton and other plants, leading to anoxic conditions (Masifwa et al.
2001). Primary production may increase or decrease if an invasion leads to a
shift in the major vegetation type of an area. In many cases, invasive plants
increase net primary productivity, as is the case with giant reed (Arundo
donax) and Phragmites in marshes (Ehrenfeld 2003). However, a recent study
of buffelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare), which has been introduced to the Sonoran
desert in Mexico to serve as cattle forage, shows that converted areas have
lower net primary productivity than areas with native desert vegetation
(Franklin et al. 2006).
Soil formation may be indirectly affected by changes in decomposition
rates, soil carbon mineralization, and geomorphological disturbance
processes (e.g., erosion), as well as succession (Mack and D’Antonio 1998).
Maintenance of soil fertility is directly connected to nutrient cycling.Japanese
barberry (Berberis thunbergii) and Japanese stilt grass (Microstegium
vimineum), which have invaded forests in the eastern United States, can sig-
nificantly alter microbial communities, leading to changes in nitrification and
increased soil nutrient concentrations (Ehrenfeld 2003). Finally, atmospheric
composition can be altered by changes in net ecosystem carbon exchange.
H. Charles and J.S. Dukes232
Reduced carbon sequestration rates in sagebrush communities invaded by
annual grasses (Prater et al. 2006) will contribute to climate warming, illus-
trating the linkages among these global changes (Chap.12).
13.6 Conclusions
Across invader taxa, ecosystem types, and geographic locations, invasive
species are capable of altering ecosystem services by affecting populations,
community interactions,ecosystem processes,and abiotic variables.Virtually
all ecosystem services can be negatively impacted by invasive species,
although positive impacts do exist. Many invasive species cause cascading
effects in communities and/or affect both biotic and abiotic components of
ecosystems.This usually leads to an influence on multiple ecosystem services.
Different ecosystem types are susceptible to the alteration of specific services.
Option values illustrate how invasive species may impact future ecosystem
services by threatening native species and communities.
Our assessment found a general lack of work in the area of invasive
species and their alteration of ecosystem services. To date, scientific research
has focused largely on predicting invasibility, comparing invader and native
traits, and assessing environmental impacts, particularly on biodiversity.
Ecological economics has generally addressed a limited number of ecosys-
tem services, namely, those with direct market valuation. More recently, sev-
eral papers have examined the causal mechanisms underlying invasive
species’ impacts. These studies have begun to link invasive species, ecosys-
tem structure and function, and ecosystem goods and services. Several stud-
ies also hint at impacts to ecosystem services, but do not directly address
these services. Research in this area is critical for several reasons. First,
impact assessments for invasive species are not complete without consider-
ing implications for human society. Comprehensive assessments allow us to
better predict impacts, particularly for species in similar taxa. Second, this
research has the potential to increase our understanding of invasive impacts
on ecosystem structure and function outside the domain of ecosystem ser-
vices. Because invasive species’ impacts on ecosystem services overlap with
environmental impacts (e.g., altered biodiversity), scientists will gain knowl-
edge relating to impacts on all native species.This may also lead to advances
in understanding invasibility and community interactions. Third, increased
awareness of invasive species’ impacts could inform decisions on allocating
resources for the control of invasives, and for the protection of ecosystem
services and “natural” ecosystems. Finally, increased research efforts will be
critical in predicting the effects of invasive species in conjunction with other
global changes, including climate and land use, which have been shown to
affect ecosystem service supply (Schroter et al. 2005).Dialogue between ecol-
Impacts of Invasive Species on Ecosystem Services 233
ogists, economists, and policymakers is critical to moving this research
agenda forward.
The four categories of ecosystem services provide a useful framework for
assessing our overall knowledge of invasive species’ impacts on ecosystem
services. Table 13.3 gives a qualitative assessment of several aspects of these
four types of services, and suggests a path forward by identifying areas cur-
rently lacking research. In particular, supporting and regulating services
both have a high value, but a low level of research. Given that their suscepti-
bility to invasive impacts is uncertain and high, respectively, this is evidently
an area where research is needed. Recognition of the value of ecosystem ser-
vices, and the many examples and mechanisms by which invasive species
affect ecosystem services, leads to several additional opportunities. The gen-
eral public is still largely unaware of the extent of invasive species’ impacts.
In addition, society does not often appreciate the extent of its dependence
on natural ecosystems (Daily 1997). This creates an opportunity to educate
the general public about both issues in tandem, leading to better under-
standing and appreciation for both. Specific examples of alteration to ecosys-
tem services will also allow policymakers and land managers to prioritize
eradication and control campaigns. As with many unquantified threats to
human society attributable to global changes, it would be prudent to err on
the side of caution in estimating and managing the threats posed by invasive
species (i.e., the precautionary principle). As our understanding of the links
between invasive species, ecosystem structure and function, and provision of
ecosystem goods and services increases, so too will our ability to recognize
invasive species’ impacts on ecosystem services, and to better manage these
impacts.
H. Charles and J.S. Dukes234
Table 13.3 Qualitative assessment of the value of ecosystem services and current knowl-
edge of their susceptibility to, and the amount of research focused on, invasive species’
impacts
Services Provisioning Regulating Cultural Supporting
Value High High Medium Very high
Susceptibility to High High Medium Uncertain
to alteration to low
by invasive species
Amount of research Medium Low Medium Very low
on invasive impacts
References
Angeler DG, Alvarez-Cobelas M, Sanchez-Carrillo S, Rodrigo MA (2002) Assessment of
exotic fish impacts on water quality and zooplankton in a degraded semi-arid flood-
plain wetland.Aquat Sci 64:76–86
Born W, Rauschmayer F, Brauer I (2005) Economic evaluation of biological invasions – a
survey.Ecol Econ 55:321–336
Callaway JC, Josselyn MN (1992) The introduction and spread of smooth cordgrass
(Spartina alterniflora) in South San-Francisco Bay. Estuaries 15:218–226
Callaway RM,Ridenour WM (2004) Novel weapons: invasive success and the evolution of
increased competitive ability. Frontiers Ecol Environ 2:436–443
Carlsson NOL, Bronmark C, Hansson LA (2004) Invading herbivory: the golden apple
snail alters ecosystem functioning in Asian wetlands. Ecology 85:1575–1580
Chapin FS, Reynolds HL, D’Antonio CM, Eckhart VM (1996) The functional role of
species in terrestrial ecosystems. In:Walker B,Steffen W (eds) Global change and ter-
restrial ecosystems. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge,pp 403–428
Chapin FS, Zavaleta ES, Eviner VT, Naylor RL,Vitousek PM, Reynolds HL, Hooper DU,
Lavorel S, Sala OE, Hobbie SE, Mack MC, Diaz S (2000) Consequences of changing
biodiversity.Nature 405:234–242
Chittka L, Schurkens S (2001) Successful invasion of a floral market – an exotic Asian
plant has moved in on Europe’s river-banks by bribing pollinators.Nature 411:653
Constantino R (2002) The pest termites of South America: taxonomy, distribution and
status. J Appl Entomol 126:355–365
Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M,Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S,
O’Neill RV, Paruelo J, Raskin RG, Sutton P, van den Belt M (1997) The value of the
world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260
Daily GC (ed) (1997) Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems.
Island Press,Washington,DC
Dale JL (1987) Banana bunchy top - an economically important tropical plant-virus dis-
ease.Adv Virus Res 33:301–325
Dukes JS, Mooney HA (2004) Disruption of ecosystem processes in western North
America by invasive species. Rev Chil Hist Nat 77:411–437
Ehrenfeld JG (2003) Effects of exotic plant invasions on soil nutrient cycling processes.
Ecosystems 6:503–523
Eiswerth ME, Donaldson SG, Johnson WS (2000) Potential environmental impacts and
economic damages of Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) in western
Nevada and northeastern California.Weed Technol 14:511–518
Eiswerth ME, Darden TD, Johnson WS,Agapoff J, Harris TR (2005) Input-output model-
ling, outdoor recreation, and the economic impacts of weeds.Weed Sci 53:130–137
Engeman RM, Smith HT, Shwiff SA, Constantin B,Woolard J,Nelson M,Griffin D (2003)
Prevalence and economic value of feral swine damage to native habitat in three
Florida state parks. Environ Conserv 30:319–324
Eubanks MD (2001) Estimates of the direct and indirect effects of red imported fire ants
on biological control in field crops. Biol Control 21:35–43
Franklin KA, Lyons K, Nagler PL, Lampkin D, Glenn EP, Molina-Freaner F, Markow T,
Huete AR (2006) Buffelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare) land conversion and productivity
in the plains of Sonora, Mexico. Biol Conserv 127:62–71
Fritts TH, Rodda GH (1998) The role of introduced species in the degradation of island
ecosystems: a case history of Guam.Annu Rev Ecol Syst 29:113–140
Impacts of Invasive Species on Ecosystem Services 235
Geesing D, Felker P, Bingham RL (2000) Influence of mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa) on
soil nitrogen and carbon development: implications for global carbon sequestration.
J Arid Environ 46:157–180
Gerlach JD (2004) The impacts of serial land-use changes and biological invasions on
soil water resources in California, USA.J Arid Environ 57:365–379
Global Invasive Species Database (http://www.issg.org/database)
Gorgens AHM,van Wilgen BW (2004) Invasive alien plants and water resources in South
Africa: current understanding, predictive ability and research challenges. S Afr J Sci
100:27–33
Griffiths RW, Schloesser DW, Leach JH, Kovalak WP (1991) Distribution and dispersal of
the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) in the Great-Lakes Region. Can J Fish
Aquat Sci 48:1381–1388
Hoffmann WA, Jackson RB (2000) Vegetation-climate feedbacks in the conversion of
tropical savanna to grassland.J Climate 13:1593–1602
Hollenhorst SJ, Brock SM, Freimund WA, Twery MJ (1993) Predicting the effects of
gypsy-moth on near-view aesthetic preferences and recreation appeal. Forest Sci
39:28–40
Hooper DU, Chapin FS,Ewel JJ, Hector A, Inchausti P, Lavorel S, Lawton JH, Lodge DM,
Loreau M,Naeem S,Schmid B, Setala H, Symstad AJ,Vandermeer J,Wardle DA (2005)
Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge.
Ecol Monogr 75:3–35
Huxman TE, Cable JM, Ignace DD, Eilts JA, English NB, Weltzin J, Williams DG (2004)
Response of net ecosystem gas exchange to a simulated precipitation pulse in a semi-
arid grassland: the role of native versus non-native grasses and soil texture. Oecolo-
gia 141:295–305
Juliano SA, Lounibos LP (2005) Ecology of invasive mosquitoes: effects on resident
species and on human health.Ecol Lett 8:558–574
Koel TM, Bigelow PE, Doepke PD, Ertel BD, Mahony DL (2005) Nonnative lake trout
result in Yellowstone cutthroat trout decline and impacts to bears and anglers. Fish-
eries 30:10–19
Kronberg SL, Muntifering RB, Ayers EL, Marlow CB (1993) Cattle avoidance of leafy
spurge – a case of conditioned aversion. J Range Manage 46:364–366
Levine JM, Vila M, D’Antonio CM, Dukes JS, Grigulis K, Lavorel S (2003) Mechanisms
underlying the impacts of exotic plant invasions.Proc Roy Soc Lond B Biol 270:775–
781
Mack MC, D’Antonio CM (1998) Impacts of biological invasions on disturbance regimes.
Trends Ecol Evol 13:195–198
Masifwa WF, Twongo T, Denny P (2001) The impact of water hyacinth,Eichhornia cras-
sipes (Mart) Solms on the abundance and diversity of aquatic macroinvertebrates
along the shores of northern Lake Victoria, Uganda. Hydrobiologia 452:79–88
Mauchamp A,Aldaz I, Ortiz E,Valdebenito H (1998) Threatened species, a re-evaluation
of the status of eight endemic plants of the Galapagos. Biodiversity Conserv 7:97–107
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis.
Island Press,Washington,DC
NRC (2005) Valuing ecosystem services: toward better environmental decision-making.
National Research Council, National Academy Press,Washington,DC
Naylor R (1996) Invasions in agriculture: assessing the cost of the golden apple snail in
Asia.Ambio 25:443–448
Oliveira MRV,Henneberry TJ,Anderson P (2001) History, current status, and collabora-
tive research projects for Bemisia tabaci. Crop Protect 20:709–723
Prater MR,Obrist D,Arnone JA, DeLucia EH (2006) Net carbon exchange and evapotran-
H. Charles and J.S. Dukes236
spiration in postfire and intact sagebrush communities in the Great Basin. Oecologia
146:595–607
Schroter D, Cramer W, Leemans R, Prentice IC,Araujo MB,Arnell NW, Bondeau A,Bug-
mann H, Carter TR,Gracia CA, de la Vega-Leinert AC,Erhard M,Ewert F, Glendining
M, House JI, Kankaanpaa S, Klein RJT, Lavorel S, Lindner M, Metzger MJ, Meyer J,
Mitchell TD, Reginster I, Rounsevell M, Sabate S, Sitch S, Smith B, Smith J, Smith P,
Sykes MT, Thonicke K,Thuiller W, Tuck G, Zaehle S,Zierl B (2005) Ecosystem service
supply and vulnerability to global change in Europe.Science 310:1333–1337
Serbesoff-King K (2003) Melaleuca in Florida: a literature review on the taxonomy, dis-
tribution, biology, ecology,economic importance and control measures.J Aquat Plant
Manage 41:98–112
Shiganova TA, Mirzoyan ZA, Studenikina EA, Volovik SP,Siokou-Frangou I, Zervoudaki
S, Christou ED, Skirta AY, Dumont HJ (2001) Population development of the invader
ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi, in the Black Sea and in other seas of the Mediter-
ranean basin. Mar Biol 139:431–445
Simberloff D, Von Holle B (1999) Positive interactions of nonindigenous species: inva-
sional meltdown? Biol Invasions 1:21–32
Somers CM, Morris RD (2002) Birds and wine grapes: foraging activity causes small-
scale damage patterns in single vineyards. J Appl Ecol 39:511–523
Spira TP (2001) Plant-pollinator interactions: a threatened mutualism with implications
for the ecology and management of rare plants.Nat Area J 21:78–88
Talley TS, Crooks JA, Levin LA (2001) Habitat utilization and alteration by the invasive
burrowing isopod, Sphaeroma quoyanum, in California salt marshes. Mar Biol
138:561–573
The H. John Heinz III Center for Science Economics and the Environment (2002) The
state of the nation’s ecosystems. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge
Turpie JK, Heydenrych BJ,Lamberth SJ (2003) Economic value of terrestrial and marine
biodiversity in the Cape Floristic Region: implications for defining effective and
socially optimal conservation strategies. Biol Conserv 112:233–251
Verlaque M (1994) Checklist of introduced plants in the Mediterranean – origins and
impact on the environment and human activities. Oceanol Acta 17:1–23
Vivrette NJ, Muller CH (1977) Mechanism of invasion and dominance of coastal grass-
land by Mesembryanthemum crystallinum.Ecol Monogr 47:301–318
Walton WC,MacKinnon C,Rodriguez LF, Proctor C,Ruiz GA (2002) Effect of an invasive
crab upon a marine fishery: green crab, Carcinus maenas, predation upon a venerid
clam, Katelysia scalarina, in Tasmania (Australia). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 272:171–189
Watson GW, Voegtlin DJ, Murphy ST, Foottit RG (1999) Biogeography of the Cinara
cupressi complex (Hemiptera:Aphididae) on Cupressaceae,with description of a pest
species introduced into Africa. Bull Entomol Res 89:271–283
Wolfertz M, Sharkey TD, Boland W, Kuhnemann F, Yeh S, Weise SE (2003) Biochemical
regulation of isoprene emission.Plant Cell Environ 26:1357–1364
Zavaleta E (2000) The economic value of controlling an invasive shrub.Ambio 29:462–
467
Impacts of Invasive Species on Ecosystem Services 237
14 Biological Invasions by Marine Jellyfish
William M. Graham and Keith M. Bayha
14.1 Introduction
Comparatively little research has been conducted on the ecology of invasive
organisms in marine ecosystems when balanced against their terrestrial
counterparts (Carlton and Geller 1993). Perhaps rates of invasions in marine
systems are simply lower than in other systems, but more likely lack of
scrutiny, difficulty with taxonomic resolution, and unusual life-history char-
acters of marine organisms cause the vast majority of invasions to go unre-
ported. Regardless, those few well-studied marine invasions have resulted in
tremendous ecological, economic,social, and health problems (e.g., Carlton et
al. 1990; Hallegraeff and Bolch 1992; Kideys 1994; Grosholz and Ruiz 1995;
Chaps. 4 and 5).Among marine communities that have been extensively stud-
ied (e.g., the Chesapeake Bay, San Francisco Bay, and the Black Sea), non-
indigenous species are extremely common, and encompass a broad range of
taxonomic and trophic groups (Ruiz et al. 1997). Moreover, many marine
communities contain remarkably large numbers of ‘cryptogenic’ species (i.e.,
species that have unknown origins) that are, in fact,likely to have been intro-
duced (Carlton 1996; Dawson et al. 2005).
Gelatinous zooplankton, broadly referred to here as jellyfish, extend sys-
tematically across several phyla including Cnidaria (medusae,siphonophores,
and a variety of other forms),Ctenophora (comb jellies), and Chordata (pelagic
tunicates including the sea gooseberries and close allies). Not unexpectedly,
jellyfish present an unusual and difficult set of issues when considering their
potential as bioinvaders. The first,and perhaps the most critical, is the proba-
bility that far more invasions have actually occurred than are being described
in the literature, due to incomplete historical systematic treatment, generally
poor taxonomic appreciation by non-specialists, and species crypsis. Con-
tributing to the latter is the ability of jellyfish to exhibit morphological plastic-
ity when introduced into a new abiotic or trophic environment. Such plasticity
creates great confusion over diagnostic traits used in species identification.A
Ecological Studies,Vol. 193
W. Nentwig (Ed.)
Biological Invasions
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007
second issue is that most jellyfish have the ability to appear or disappear sud-
denly,creating difficulty in tracking the progression or tracing the history of
invasion.Jellyfish ‘blooms’are also implicated in dramatic ecological and eco-
nomic problems ranging from fisheries damage to the clogging of seawater
intakes of power plants and ships. Third, life-histories of gelatinous animals
often involve cryptic benthic stages, rapid asexual propagation, or self-fertil-
ization. This also severely limits our ability to understand origins and fates of
invasions. We present below details of a few important jellyfish invasions,
including medusae and ctenophores (note that no documented reports of inva-
sive planktonic tunicates exist), and then discuss further critical issues imped-
ing a complete understanding of jellyfish invasions.
14.2 Ctenophores
14.2.1 Mnemiopsis leidyi
The premiere example of a marine bioinvasion is the introduction of the
ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi into the Black Sea during the late 1980s. The
chronological history of the Mnemiopsis invasion of the Black Sea ecosystem
has been extensively reviewed elsewhere (GESAMP 1997; Bilio and Niermann
2004), but a brief synopsis in provided here. M. leidyi is native to the eastern
seaboard of the Americas, from Massachusetts (USA) to the Patagonian coast
of Argentina, including the Caribbean Sea (Agassiz 1860; Mayer 1912; Mian-
zan 1999). In the Black Sea region, M. leidyi was first reported from the coast
of the Crimean peninsula in 1982, and had spread to the whole of the Black
Sea and the Sea of Azov by 1988 (Vinogradov et al. 1989; GESAMP 1997). By
this time, the ctenophore population had increased dramatically, with local
biomass reaching 1.2 kg m–3 (Vinogradov et al. 1989) to 2.0 kg m–3 (Mutlu et
al. 1994). Vinograov et al. (1989) estimated a total of 840,000,000 t over the
entire sea.
By the early 1990s, ctenophore populations had spread through the Sea of
Marmara to include the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean (Kideys and
Niermann 1993, 1994). While biomass declined modestly during the 1990s,
occasional intense blooms,such as one in 1995,still occurred (Shiganova et al.
2001; Kideys and Romanova 2001). Major concern among scientists and
resource managers grew when Mnemiopsis was found in the Caspian Sea in
1999. Spread was rapid, and the species occupied the entire sea by 2000
(Ivanov et al. 2000), with concentrations as high as 2,285 individuals m–2
(Kideys and Moghim 2003).
Coincident with increased ctenophore biomass was substantial reduction
in fishery harvest, including the collapse of the planktivorous anchovy
W.M. Graham and K.M. Bayha240
Engraulis encrasiclolus fishery. In 1990, total harvest of this species was
66,000 t, which reflected a ~78% reduction from 295,000 t harvested in 1988
(GFCM 1993, as referenced in Kideys 1994).It was hypothesized that M. leidyi
triggered the massive decline in the harvest of E. encrasicolus both by direct
feeding on eggs and larvae, and by competition with adults and larval
anchovies for zooplankton food (Vinogradov and Shushkina 1992; Kideys
1994). In the Caspian Sea, reductions in zooplankton biomass and diversity
followed Mnemiopsis blooms, to the extent that only the calanoid copepod
Acar tia could be found in measurable concentrations (Stone 2005). Similarly
to harvest reductions in the Black Sea, catches of the zooplanktivorous fish
Clupeonella sp. dropped precipitously in the Caspian Sea (Kideys 2001a,
2001b, as referenced in Kideys 2002 and Stone 2005).
It was previously assumed that invasions into both the Black and Caspian
seas were mediated by ballast water discharge (Vinogradov et al. 1989;Ivanov
et al. 2000).Although it has been both insinuated (Kideys 2002; Shiganova et
al. 2003) and explicitly illustrated (http://www.zin.ru/projects/invasions/gaas/
mnelei_d.htm) that the invaded M. leidyi populations originated from the
Atlantic seaboard of the United States, we emphasize that there has been no
definitive evidence to support this.A recent genetic study indicated a source
region in the Southern US Atlantic (south of Cape Hatteras) or Gulf of Mex-
ico, and could rule out South America but not the Caribbean Sea as source of
the Black/Caspian Sea invaders (Bayha 2005). Given the widespread natural
range of this ctenophore,as well as its subtle population genetic structure, the
source region remains unresolved.
14.2.2 Beroë ovata
The invasion by Mnemiopsis leidyi was followed in 1997 by that of Beroë ovata
(Vinogradov et al. 2000), a ctenophore that feeds almost exclusively on other
ctenophores,especially Mnemiopsis (Kremer and Nixon 1976).With the inva-
sion of Beroë into the Black Sea, Mnemiopsis concentrations decreased
(Shiganova et al. 2001, 2003) and zooplankton concentrations, including fish
eggs and larvae, increased (reviewed by Kideys 2002; Gordina et al. 2005).
Given the perceived success the Beroë invasion has had in the Black Sea,there
have been calls for the purposeful introduction of this ctenophore predator
into the Caspian Sea. However, with the checkered past history of purposeful
animal introductions (Chap. 23), many have advised caution for the Caspian
Sea, until Beroë’s survival (Volovik and Korpakova 2004; Kideys et al. 2004a)
and trophic ecology (Kideys et al. 2004b) are studied further.
Biological Invasions by Marine Jellyfish 241
14.3 Medusae (Cnidaria)
14.3.1 Phyllorhiza punctata (Scyphozoa)
The scyphomedusa Phyllorhiza punctata appeared suddenly and in spectacu-
lar numbers in the northern Gulf of Mexico during the summer of 2000 (Gra-
ham et al. 2003). Phyllorhiza punctata was first described from Pt. Jackson,
Australia (von Lendenfeld 1884), and, presumably due to its conspicuous
medusa stage, has a relatively well-documented history of invading tropical
and subtropical environments around the globe over the past 200 years. The
first recorded invasion of P. punctata was into the Swan-Canning estuary,
Perth (Western Australia) between 1837–1838, presumably by early Aus-
tralian shipping (Rippingale and Kelly 1995). P. punctata subsequently
appeared in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, USA (1941; Devaney and Eldridge 1977),
Laguna Joyunda, Puerto Rico (1945 at the latest; Garcia-Sais and Durbin
1993), San Diego, California, USA (1990 at the latest; Colin and Arneson 1995),
Danajon Bank, Bohol Island, The Philippines (Heeger et al. 1992), and Bahia
de Todos os Santos, Brazil (between 1991–1999; da Silveira and Cornelius
2000). P. punctata also appeared in the eastern Mediterranean (in 1965, as ref-
erenced by Galil et al. 1990), but apparently did not persist there. This well-
documented history of invasion over an extended period may make P. p u n c -
tata a particularly instructive model toward understanding invasions of
jellyfish in particular, and of invasive marine species in general.
The occurrence of the very large population estimated at 10 ¥106medusae
across the north-central Gulf of Mexico (Alabama, Mississippi, and Loui-
siana) in the summer of 2000 was unexpected, as the species had never been
documented north of the Caribbean Sea. The timing of the occurrence was
coincident with the incursion of tropical water from the Caribbean into the
Gulf of Mexico. Using a modeling approach to assess transport mechanisms
via currents measured during the 2000 bloom, Johnson et al. (2005) were able
to suggest a plausible advection of medusae out of the Caribbean Sea by the
northward-flowing Loop Current in the Gulf of Mexico. However, in the
absence of direct evidence of transport of medusae from the Caribbean to the
northern Gulf via this current (Johnson et al. 2005), we must also consider
that cryptic populations have existed for some time in the Gulf of Mexico.
This is supported by anecdotal reports by fishermen of this species occurring
as small populations around coastal Louisiana for at least several years prior
to 2000. P. punctata has been documented in the coastal waters of south-cen-
tral Louisiana in each summer since 2000 (unpublished data).
The potential ecological and economic impacts of P. punctata were judged
as high, and it was feared that the ecology of the northern Gulf of Mexico
would be altered permanently, along with the valuable fishing industry that
depends on it (Graham et al. 2003). These fears were fueled by the costs of P.
W.M. Graham and K.M. Bayha242
punctata to the shrimp industry – for Mississippi alone,these have been esti-
mated to be US$ 10 million for 2000 (Graham et al. 2003, and references
therein).
14.3.2 Cassiopea andromeda (Scyphozoa)
The ‘upside-down’ jellyfishes (Cassiopea spp.) are common in tropical to sub-
tropical shallow water ecosystems such as mangroves,in both the Atlantic and
Pacific, and including the Indo-Pacific. While the medusa stage is capable of
swimming, it is best described as sedentary,with the algal symbiont-contain-
ing oral mass oriented upward (i.e.,bell pointing downward).Large dispersal
distances by this medusa are not realistic, lending further credence to the
probability that invasive scyphozoan populations are spread during the poly-
poid stage. While human health, fisheries, or other commercial impacts are
not documented in assessments of either indigenous or invasive populations
(Spanier 1989; Holland et al. 2004), the sedentary nature of Cassiopea spp.
medusae allows us to gain some insight into possible human-mediated spread
of other problematic jellyfish.
The systematics of Cassiopea, similarly to that of other jellyfish, is compli-
cated by historical introductions. Holland et al. (2004) derived a global mole-
cular phylogeny of Cassiopea spp., in an attempt to gain historical clarity on
the putative C. andromeda invasion of the Hawaiian islands. Using mitochon-
drial sequence information (cytochrome c oxidase I), they resolved six
species based upon reasonable genetic divergence. Moreover, they proposed
that the invasive population of Hawaiian C. andromeda represents two sepa-
rate invasion events, one from the Indo-Pacific, the other from the Atlantic.
Holland et al. (2004) suspected that the Indo-Pacific invasion was due to US
naval ships during World War II.However, ship activity between the Hawaiian
islands and the western Indo-Pacific was also heavy in the decades prior to the
war.
Another invasion of C. andromeda into the Mediterranean Sea is perhaps
the only instance of a ‘smoking gun’ where the actual invasion event has been
observed. Galil et al. (1990) reviewed several early publications not readily
available,but descriptive nonetheless of a sequence of interesting events. The
first was the observation of ‘large numbers’ of C. andromeda within the Suez
Canal itself near Toussuom south of Lake Timsah in 1886, only 17 years after
completion of the canal (Keller 1888, as referenced in Galil et al. 1990). This
was followed 15 years later by the first documented report of C. andromeda in
the Mediterranean along the coast of Cyprus (Maas 1903, as referenced in
Galil et al. 1990).
Biological Invasions by Marine Jellyfish 243
14.3.3 Rhopilema nomadica (Scyphozoa)
Another example of Lessepsian invasion (Chap. 5) is the tropical medusa,
Rhopilema nomadica.Recognized by sea bathers as a painful stinger, seasonal
blooms of R. nomadica create problems along recreational beaches of the
eastern Mediterranean (Lotan et al.1993, 1994; Gusmani et al. 1997).Medusae
concentrations reported by Lotan and colleagues during the late 1980s were
on the order of ‘600,000 per nautical mile’ (Lotan et al. 1992, 1993), sufficient
to create local problems such as clogging of fishing nets. Kideys and Gucu
(1995) suggest the first appearance of this species into the Mediterranean to
be in the mid-1970s. Subsequent to the initial period of colonization, popula-
tions were qualitatively noted to increase (Galil et al. 1990). The species
appears to be limited to the eastern Mediterranean Sea, with reports of it
occurring along the coasts of Egypt, Israel, Lebanon,Syria, and Turkey (Galil
et al. 1990; Kideys and Gucu 1995).
14.3.4 Aurelia spp. (Scyphozoa)
The genus Aurelia, known as moon jellyfish, is a conspicuous member of
coastal ecosystems from polar to tropical seas (Kramp 1961,1970).As perhaps
the most studied of all the scyphomedusae (literally 100s of publications,
ranging from fundamental ecology to microgravitational impacts on sensory
development), the genus is known to school children and scientists alike.
Until recently, three generally accepted species had been recorded within the
genus: the polar A. limbata, the north Pacific A. labiata, and the cosmopolitan
A. aurita (Dawson and Jacobs 2001). However, recent molecular genetic work
by Dawson and colleagues has described a far more diverse genus (Dawson
and Jacobs 2001; Dawson and Martin 2001; Dawson 2003; Dawson et al. 2005),
with most species considered ‘cryptic’, since general morphological charac-
ters alone are not sufficient to differentiate between these (sensu Mayr and
Ashlock 1993).Surprising to many, the common moon jellyfish was not a sin-
gle species, A. aurita, but perhaps as many as 12 species (Dawson 2003) with
enough morphological similarity to confuse traditional taxonomists (Sect.
14.6).
Since medusae of Aurelia spp.,similarly to those of most scyphomedusae,
persist for weeks to months, diffusion processes, ocean currents, and active
swimming could potentially disperse this stage over 1,000s of kilometers (e.g.,
Johnson et al. 2005). However, Dawson et al. (2005) showed that, despite the
high dispersal potential of Aurelia spp., a molecular phylogeny of the genus
exhibits substantial biogeographic regionalization, indicating that genetic
isolation is more common than previously recognized.
W.M. Graham and K.M. Bayha244
Dawson et al. (2005) did note, however,a key exception where one cryptic
species (Aurelia sp. 1) showed global distribution likely related to historical
shipping activity.They concluded,based on this species’limited ability to tra-
verse the Pacific Ocean,that its global distribution was invasive and mediated
(possibly multiple times) by shipping (Dawson 2003; Dawson et al. 2005).
Another of their species (Aurelia sp. 4) was also identified as invasive in
Hawaii from an Indo-Pacific origin (Dawson et al. 2005). In sum, these find-
ings illustrate a realization that many of our highly recognizable ‘cosmopoli-
tan’species are, in fact, probably historically invasive.
14.3.5 Maeotias marginata, Blackfordia virginica,
and Moerisia lyonsii (Hydrozoa)
Three species of invasive hydromedusae are noteworthy: Maeotias marginata,
Blackfordia virginica, and Moerisia lyonsii.All three are believed native to the
Black Sea/Sea of Azov region: M. marginata: Borcea (1928) and Ostroumoff
(1896), both as discussed in Mills and Sommer (1995); B. virginica: Thiel
(1935), as discussed in Mills and Sommer (1995); M. lyonsii: Kramp (1959),as
discussed in Calder and Burrell (1967). However, all three have successfully
invaded regions of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian (except M. marginata)
oceans (Calder and Burrell 1967; Mills and Sommer 1995; Mills and Rees
2000; Väinölä and Oulasvirta 2001). Interestingly, all have been found in the
Chesapeake Bay (Mayer 1910; Calder and Burrell 1967, 1969) and San Fran-
cisco Bay (Mills and Sommer 1995; Mills and Rees 2000).While no major neg-
ative impacts have been described for any of these three invasive hydrome-
dusae, M. lyonsii was noted by several authors for its ability to foul
experimental or culturing mesocosms (Sandifer et al. 1974; Petersen et al.
1998; Purcell et al.1999).
14.4 Jellyfish Invasions: Blooms and Ecosystem Controls
Gelatinous zooplankton blooms exert tremendous pressure on marine plank-
tonic food webs, including in regions of important commercial fisheries (Pur-
cell 1985, 1989;Purcell and Arai 2001; Purcell et al.2001). In its native range M.
leidyi seasonally forms large blooms, especially in enclosed bays and estuar-
ies, exerting significant predation pressure on zooplankton species (Feigen-
baum and Kelly 1984; Purcell and Decker 2005),as well as on the eggs and lar-
vae of economically important fish and shellfish (Purcell et al. 1991, 1994).
This is especially true for the Chesapeake Bay (USA), where M. leidyi, along
Biological Invasions by Marine Jellyfish 245
with the scyphozoan jellyfish Chrysaora quinquecirrha, has been termed a
keystone predator (Purcell and Decker 2005). Because M. leidyi has broad
environmental tolerances to both salinity and temperature, inhabiting both
estuarine and coastal regions (Kremer 1994; GESAMP 1997),its ‘invasiveness’
is perceived to be particularly high.
Interestingly, though, definitive negative relationships between fish popu-
lations and gelatinous zooplankton predation or competition are difficult to
resolve. Still, if a common relationship between jellyfish and fisheries does
exist, it could be best exemplified by the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi inva-
sion into the Black Sea and Sea of Azov. The arrival of this ctenophore into the
Black Sea in the early 1980s (Kideys 1994; Shiganova 1998; Shiganova and Bul-
gakova 2000) resulted in heavy predation on the eggs and larvae of anchovies,
as well as on a shared zooplankton prey resource of anchovies, and likely con-
tributed to the collapse of the regionally important anchovy fishery (Sect.
14.2.1).
The connection between increased ctenophore biomass and the collapse of
fisheries is a compelling one,and the reduction in the Black Sea anchovy har-
vest has repeatedly been linked to food competition and predation by large
ctenophore populations (Kideys 1994; GESAMP 1997). Recent studies, how-
ever, triggered a reexamination of this generally accepted interpretation
(reviewed by Bilio and Niermann 2004), and indicated that the answer is far
more complex than the simple top-down pressures of predation and competi-
tion. For instance, modeling work (Gucu and Oguz 1998; Wiesse et al. 2002)
has indicated the Black Sea would be incapable of sustaining the 840,000,000 t
of Mnemiopsis estimated by Vinogradov et al.(1989),and cited errors in inter-
polation. Other studies have indicated that over-harvesting of anchovy may
have had a greater role in the fishery collapse than have had either ctenophore
predation or food competition (Gucu 2002).Additionally, a reanalysis of the
economic impact of the Mnemiopsis invasion by Knowler (2005) indicated
that earlier assessments may have overestimated this impact as much as ten-
fold.
Bilio and Niermann (2004) concluded that the Black Sea anchovy collapse
was probably due to numerous factors, including over-harvesting of the
anchovy stock exacerbated by predation and food competition by Mnemiop-
sis, as well as a long-term regime shift in the composition of the Black Sea
plankton that may have favored Mnemiopsis. The significance of the
ctenophore’s invasion impact in explaining the anchovy collapse is not
entirely clear (although likely substantial), but that the story is more compli-
cated than originally thought is not surprising, given the many factors nega-
tively influencing anchovy populations in a water body as anthropogenically
impacted as the Black Sea.
W.M. Graham and K.M. Bayha246
14.5 The Role of Life-Histories
Studies into the ecology of invasions by hydromedusae and scyphomedusae
are hampered by their complex bipartite life-history: a typically cryptic ses-
sile, asexually reproducing polypoid stage is followed by a pelagic, sexually
reproducing medusa stage.Depending upon food availability and other envi-
ronmental variables, the polypoid stages of scyphozoans can asexually pro-
duce large numbers of planktonic young medusae, or remain dormant for
extended periods, perhaps even years or decades. Such a life-history trait is
not only important as a potential vector (Sect. 14.7),but makes monitoring for
invasions all the more difficult, since polyps are typically inconspicuous
members of a larger fouling community. In addition, similarly to the P. p u n c -
tata invasion of the Gulf of Mexico in 2000, little warning would likely precede
the sudden onset of an invasive jellyfish bloom.
Lotan et al. (1992) conducted a study involving the culture and growth of
the asexual polyp stage of Rhopilema nomadica. They determined that the
period from planula settlement, through polyp generation, to the release of
new medusae was on the order of 3–4 months.This would suggest that several
cohorts of medusae could be produced from newly recruited planula larvae
2–3 times per year.Likewise,Phyllorhiza punctata also has a bipartite life-his-
tory involving both medusa and polyp.Rippingale and Kelly (1995) provided
laboratory measured growth rates of polyps, and they report fully grown
polyps after only 2–3 days post-settlement of planula larvae. This may be of
little value to the Gulf of Mexico invasive population, as this P. punctata pop-
ulation is entirely male (Graham et al.2003; Bolton and Graham 2004).[Inter-
estingly, a purported invasive population of Cassiopea andromeda sampled
along fish farm canals on Oahu (Hawaii) by Hofmann and Hadfield (2002)
was also entirely male, though the ecological implications of this observation
were not discussed.]
While the ctenophore Mnemiopsis is holoplanktonic (i.e., no sessile stage),
it has its own life-history peculiarity.Mnemiopsis is a simultaneous hermaph-
rodite capable of an extremely high degree of fecundity (Mayer 1912; Reeve et
al. 1989).This ctenophore is capable of reproduction within days of hatching
(Martindale 1987), producing thousands of eggs with very little energy invest-
ment (Reeve et al. 1989). As a result, Mnemiopsis is able to very rapidly
increase its population size in response to higher food concentrations
(Feigenbaum and Kelly 1984; Kremer 1994). Accordingly, an initial invading
population, say contained within ballast water, could be very small (theoreti-
cally,only one), but still lead to a successful invasion.
Biological Invasions by Marine Jellyfish 247
14.6 Taxonomic Confusion,Species Crypsis,
and Morphological Plasticity
Historical taxonomic confusion has often complicated initial efforts to study
jellyfish invasions,and nowhere is that more true than in the case of the Black
Sea ctenophore invasions. Initially, the Black Sea Mnemiopsis was identified
alternatively as M. mccradyi (Zaika and Sergeeva 1990) or M. leidyi (Vino-
gradov et al. 1989), the two most recently recognized Mnemiopsis species.
However, many doubted these terminologies (Seravin 1994; Harbison and
Volovik 1994), and the validity of the two Mnemiopsis species has been ques-
tioned based on morphological grounds (Seravin 1994; Harbison and Volovik
1994; Oliveira and Migotto 2006).A recent molecular study has indicated that
one species exists worldwide, i.e., M. leidyi (Bayha 2005). Another notable
example of such confusion is that of the ctenophore Beroë.The same name (B.
ovata) had historically been used for two morphologically different animals
(one from the western Atlantic and Caribbean, the other from the Mediter-
ranean), and it was initially believed that Beroë may have invaded from the
Mediterranean. However,both genetic (Bayha et al. 2004) and morphological
(Seravin et al. 2002) evidence indicated that the invasive animal has a western
Atlantic origin (eastern seaboard of the Americas and the Caribbean). Conse-
quently, Bayha et al. (2004) proposed that, pending a thorough systematic
revision of the genus Beroë, the species be termed Beroë ovata sensu Mayer
(as opposed to the incorrect Beroë ovata Mayer 1912).
Species crypsis and morphological plasticity can also hinder efforts to
study invasive animals. Invasive patterns of Aurelia and Cassiopea are excel-
lent examples of the problems associated with species crypsis. Neither inva-
sion was fully appreciated until genetic techniques were employed (Green-
berg et al. 1996; Holland et al. 2004; Dawson et al. 2005), because the invaders
were historically confused with morphologically similar natives. Where
species crypsis confuses multiple species for one, morphological plasticity
may confound species invasion patterns by having only one invading species
recognized as multiple others. This phenomenon has hindered studies of the
invasion of Phyllorhiza punctata into the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere
(Bolton and Graham 2004). Again, only molecular genetic approaches will
allow us to fully unravel interrelationships between invasive jellyfish exhibit-
ing morphological plasticity.
W.M. Graham and K.M. Bayha248
14.7 Transport of Invasive Marine Jellyfish
The primary vector for the introduction of non-indigenous species into
marine ecosystems is widely perceived to be shipping traffic, which enables
organisms to cross natural oceanic barriers (Carlton and Geller 1993; Holland
2000; Chap.4). Over the past 20–30 years, increases in the speed, size,and vol-
ume of shipping traffic on a global scale, along with stricter regulation of the
use of anti-fouling paints,have resulted in concomitantly accelerating rates of
non-indigenous species introductions into marine ecosystems (Ruiz et al.
1997, and references therein). In addition, oil and gas drilling platforms are
routinely moved over large distances, sometimes between ocean basins, as
new fields or markets emerge for exploration. In terms of the total number of
fixed platforms in the sea,individual drill platform movements are extremely
small. Still, the relocation of even a single platform via ocean towing will
transport not only individuals, but perhaps entire exotic populations or
mature communities.
Both ballast water and hull fouling are plausible mechanisms of jellyfish
introductions.While ships carry large volumes of ballast water containing an
enormous variety of potentially invasive organisms (Carlton and Geller
1993), only the holoplanktonic ctenophores appear suited to ballast water-
mediated introduction. By contrast, hull fouling transport, either by ships or
on drill platforms, is more likely for the hydrozoans and scyphozoans, owing
to their bipartite life-histories that include a sessile polypoid stage. Despite
the early observations described by Galil et al. (1990) of C. andromeda
medusae swimming into the Mediterranean through the Suez Canal,it is more
likely that translocation occurs not by the medusa stage,but rather by the ses-
sile polyps, a counterintuitive argument supported by recent molecular
genetic research (Dawson et al.2005).
The aquarium trade has also received extensive attention as an important
mode of marine introductions of ornamental fish and invertebrates.Recently,
Bolton and Graham (2006) reported on incipient introductions resulting from
the transport of ‘live rock’ materials associated with the aquarium trade.‘Live
rock’, either naturally collected or artificially cultured, refers to rock coated
with algae, invertebrates, and microorganisms that is used for the purpose of
increasing the aesthetics of home aquaria. Live rock became apparent as a
potential vector of invasive organisms when material collected in the Indo-
Pacific (likely Indonesia or Fiji) was imported to a local pet store in Florida
(USA). Several weeks after purchase, a home aquarium enthusiast reported
the appearance of numerous small jellyfish that ultimately were identified as
‘upside-down’ jellyfish Cassiopea spp., a recognized globally invasive genus
(Sect. 14.3.2).The fact that the live rock trade in the United States receives lit-
tle attention, much less appropriate quarantine measures, makes it a concern
for aquatic invasive research (Bolton and Graham 2006).
Biological Invasions by Marine Jellyfish 249
14.8 Conclusions
Due to a few noteworthy cases described in this chapter, jellyfish have gained
notoriety as potentially invasive animals. In fact, when one considers the
physiological, ecological, and life-history traits of jellyfish (i.e., rapid growth,
asexual propagation,intensive predators, crypsis, and morphological plastic-
ity), this make them almost perfectly suited as invasive organisms. Yet, the
limited examples presented here reflect the paucity of information we have
regarding rates of jellyfish invasions in marine ecosystems. The likelihood
remains that many invasions of jellyfish have gone undetected. Perhaps the
greater concern should be that, until appropriate techniques and taxonomic
appreciation are further developed, many more invasions by jellyfish will
occur in the future.
Acknowledgements. While we owe the body of this work to numerous researchers, we
especially appreciate communications and collaborations with T.F.Bolton,M.N. Dawson,
G.R. Harbison, and A.E. Kideys.Funds in support of the authors’own research were pro-
vided by the Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium (WMG), and Sigma Xi GIAR
(KMB).
References
Agassiz L (1860) Contributions to the Natural History of the United States of America,
vol 3. Little, Brown & Co,Boston
Bayha KM (2005) The molecular systematics and population genetics of four coastal
ctenophores and scyphozoan jellyfish of the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. PhD
Dissertation, The University of Delaware,Newark
Bayha KM,Harbison GR,McDonald JH,Gaffney PM (2004) Preliminary investigation on
the molecular systematics of the invasive ctenophore Beroe ovata. In: Dumont H,
Shiganova TA, Niermann U (eds) Aquatic invasions in the Black, Caspian and
Mediterranean Seas. Kluwer,Dordrecht,pp 167–176
Bilio M, Niermann U (2004) Is the comb jelly really to blame for it all? Mnemiopsis leidyi
and the ecological concerns about the Caspian Sea.Mar Ecol Prog Ser 269:173–183
Bolton TF, Graham WM (2004) Morphological variation among populations of an inva-
sive jellyfish. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 278:125–139
Bolton TF, Graham WM (2006) Jellyfish on the rocks: bioinvasion threat of the interna-
tional trade in aquarium live rock. Biol Invasions 8:651–653
Calder DR, Burrell VG Jr (1967) Occurrence of Moerisia lyonsi (Limnomedusae,Moerisi-
idae) in North America.Am Midl Nat 78:540–541
Calder DR, Burrell VG Jr (1969) Brackish water hydromedusa Maeotias inexpectata in
North America. Nature 222:694–695
Carlton JT (1996) Biological invasions and cryptogenic species. Ecology. 77:1652–1655
Carlton JT, Geller JB (1993) Ecological roulette: the global transport of nonindigenous
marine organisms. Science 261:78–82
W.M. Graham and K.M. Bayha250
Carlton JT, Thompson JK, Schemel, LE, Nichols FH (1990) Remarkable invasion of San
Francisco Bay (California USA) by the Asian clam Potamocorbula amurensis.I.Intro-
duction and dispersal. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 66:81–94
Colin PL, Arneson C (1995) Tropical Pacific invertebrates. Coral Reef Foundation, Coral
Reef Press, Beverly Hills
Cowan JH, Houde ED (1992) Size-dependent predation on marine fish and larvae by
ctenophores,scyphomedusae, and planktivorous fish. Fisheries Oceanogr 1:113–126
da Silveira FL, Cornelius PFS (2000) New observations on medusae (Cnidaria, Scypho-
zoa, Rhizostomeae) from northeast and south Brazil.Acta Biol Leopold 22:9–18
Dawson MN (2003) Macro-morphological variation among cryptic species of the moon
jellyfish, Aurelia (Cnidaria: Scyphozoa). Mar Biol 143:369–379
Dawson MN, Jacobs DK (2001) Molecular evidence for cryptic species of Aurelia aurita
(Cnidara, Scyphozoa). Biol Bull 200:92–96
Dawson MN,Martin LE (2001) Geographic variation and ecological adaptation in Aure-
lia (Scyphozoa, Semaeostomeae): some implications from molecular phylogenetics.
Hydrobiologia 451:259–273
Dawson MN,Sen Gupta A,England MH (2005) Coupled biophysical global ocean model
and molecular genetic analyses identify multiple introductions of cryptogenic
species. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:11968–11973
Devaney DM, Eldridge LG (1977) Reef and shore fauna of Hawaii. Section 1. Protozoa
through Ctenophora.Bishop Mus Spec Publ 64:1–277
Elton CS (1958) The ecology of invasion by plants and animals. Methuen,London
Feigenbaum D, Kelly M (1984) Changes in the lower Chesapeake Bay food chain in the
presence of the sea nettle Chrysaora quinquecirrha (Scyphomedusa). Mar Ecol Prog
Ser 19:39–47
Galil BS, Spanier E, Ferguson WW (1990) The scyphomedusae of the Mediterranean
coast of Israel, including two Lessepsian migrants new to the Mediterranean. Zool
Mediterr 64:95–105
Garcia-Sais JR, Durbin E (1993) Zooplanktivorous predation by large scyphomedusae
Phyllorhiza punctata (Cnidaria: Scyphozoa) in Laguna Joyuda. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol
173:71–93
GESAMP (1997) Opportunistic settlers and the problem of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis
leidyi invasion in the Black Sea. International Maritime Organization, London,
GESAMP Reports and Studies 58
Gordina AD, Zagorodnyaya JA, Kideys AE, Bat L, Satilmis HH (2005) Summer ichthy-
oplankton, food supply of fish larvae and impact of invasive ctenophores on the
nutrition of fish larvae in the Black Sea during 2000 and 2001. J Mar Biol Assoc UK
85:537–548
Graham WM, Martin DL, Felder DL, Asper VL, Perry HM (2003) Ecological and eco-
nomic implications of a tropical jellyfish invader in the Gulf of Mexico.Biol Invasions
5:53–69
Greenberg N, Garthwaite RL, Potts DC (1996) Allozyme and morphological evidence for
a newly introduced species of Aurelia in San Francisco Bay, California. Mar Biol
125:401–410
Grosholz ED, Ruiz GM (1995) The spread and potential impact of the recently intro-
duced European green crab, Carcincus maenas, in central California. Mar Biol
122:239–247
Gucu AC (2002) Can overfishing be responsible for the successful establishment of Mne-
miopsis leidyi in the Black Sea? Estuar Coastal Shelf Sci 54:439–451
Gucu AC, Oguz T (1998) Modeling trophic interrelationships in the Black Sea.In: Ivanov
LI, Oguz T (eds) Ecosystem modeling as a management tool for the Black Sea. In:
NATO-TU Black Sea Project, vol 2. Kluwer,Dordrecht, pp 359–371
Biological Invasions by Marine Jellyfish 251
Gusmani L, Avian M, Galil B, Patriarca P, Rottini G (1997) Biologically active polypep-
tides in the venom of the jellyfish Rhopilema nomadica. Toxicon 35:637–648
Hallegraeff GM (1993) A review of harmful algal blooms and their apparent global
increase. Phycologia 32:79–99
Hallegraeff GM, Bolch CJ (1992) Transport of diatom and dinoflagellate resting spores in
ships’ ballast water: implications for plankton biogeography and aquaculture. J
Plankton Res 14:1067–1084
Harbison GR, Volovik SP (1994) The ctenophore, Mnemiopsis leidyi, in the Black Sea: a
holoplanktonic organism transported in the ballast of ships. In: Proc Conf Workshop
Non-Indigenous Estuarine & Marine Organisms (NEMO) and Introduced Marine
Species. NOAA Tech Rep,US Dept Commerce,US Govt Print Office,Washington,DC,
pp 25–36
Heeger T, Piatkowski U,Moeller H (1992) Predation on jellyfish by the cephalopod Arg-
onauta argo. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 88:293–296
Hofmann DK, Hadfield MG (2002) Hermaphroditism, gonochorism, and asexual repro-
duction in Cassiopea sp. – an immigrant in the islands of Hawai’i. Invert Reprod
Develop 41:215–221
Holland BS (2000) Genetics of marine bioinvasions.Hydrobiologia 420:63–71
Holland BS, Dawson MN, Crow GL, Hofmann DK (2004) Global phylogeny of Cassiopea
(Scyphozoa: Rhizostomeae): molecular evidence for cryptic species and multiple
invasions of the Hawaiian Islands. Mar Biol 145:1119–1128
Ivanov VP, Kamakin AM, Ushivtez VB, Shiganova TA, Zhukova O, Aladin N, Wilson SI,
Harbinson GR, Durmont HJ (2000) Invasion of the Caspian Sea by comb jellyfish
Mnemiopsis leidyi (Ctenophora).Biol Invasions 2:255–258
Johnson DR, Perry HM, Graham WM (2005) Using nowcast model currents to explore
transport of non-indigenous jellyfish into the Gulf of Mexico. Mar Ecol Prog Ser
305:139–146
Kideys AE (1994) Recent dramatic changes in the Black Sea ecosystem: the reason for the
sharp decline in Turkish anchovy fisheries. J Mar Syst 5:171–181
Kideys AE (2002) Fall and rise of the Black Sea ecosystem.Science 297:1482–1484
Kideys AE, Gucu AC (1995) Rhopilema nomadica: a Lessepsian scyphomedusan new to
the Mediterranean coast of Turkey. Israel J Zool 41:615–617
Kideys AE,Moghim M (2003) Distribution of the alien ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi in
the Caspian Sea in August 2001.Mar Biol 143:163–171
Kideys AE,Niermann U (1993) Intrusion of Mnemiopsis mccradyi (Ctenophora; Lobata)
into the Mediterranean Sea. Senckenbergiana marit 23:43–47
Kideys AE, Niermann U (1994) Occurrence of Mnemiopsis along the Turkish coasts
(from northeastern Mediterranean to Istanbul).ICES J Mar Sci 51:423–427
Kideys AE, Romanova ZA (2001) Distribution of gelatinous macrozooplankton in the
southern Black Sea during 1996-1999. Mar Biol 139:535–547
Kideys AE,Finenko GA,Anninsky BE, Shiganova TA, Roohi A,Tabari MR, Youseffyan M,
Rostamian MT, Rostami H,Negarestan H (2004a) Physiological characteristics of the
ctenophore Beroe ovata in Caspian Sea water.Mar Ecol Prog Ser 266:111–121
Kideys AE, Finenko GA, Anninsky BA, Shiganova TA, Roohi A, Tabari MR, Youseffan M,
Rostamiya MT (2004b) Feeding, reproduction and growth of ctenophore Beroe cf
ovata in the low salinity conditions of the Caspian Sea. In: Dumont H, Shiganova TA,
Niermann U (eds) Aquatic invasions in the Black, Caspian and Mediterranean Seas.
Kluwer, Dordrecht,pp 193–200
Knowler D (2005) Reassessing the costs of biological invasion: Mnemiopsis leidyi in the
Black Sea. Ecol Econ 52:197–199
Kramp PL (1961) Synopsis of the medusae of the world.J Mar Biol Assoc UK 40:1–469
W.M. Graham and K.M. Bayha252
Kramp PL (1970) Zoogeographical studies on Rhizostomeae (Scyphozoa). Vid Medd
Dansk Naturhist For 133:7–30
Kremer P (1994) Patterns of abundance for Mnemiopsis in US coastal waters – a compar-
ative review. ICES J Mar Sci 51:347–354
Kremer P, Nixon S (1976) Distribution and abundance of the ctenophore, Mnemiopsis
leidyi in Narragansett Bay. Estuar Coastal Mar Sci 4:627–639
Lotan A,Ben-Hillel R, Loya Y (1992) Life cycle of Rhopilema nomadica: a new immigrant
scyphomedusan in the Mediterranean. Mar Biol 112:237–242
Lotan A,Ben-Hillen R, Loya Y (1993) Aggregation and dispersal of R. nomadica,a tropi-
cal immigrant medusa in the Mediterranean Sea. Israel J Zool 39:67
Lotan A,Fine M, Ben-Hillel R (1994) Synchronization of the life cycle and dispersal pat-
tern of the tropical invader scyphomedusan Rhopilema nomadica is temperature
dependent. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 109:59–65
Martindale MQ (1987) Larval reproduction in the ctenophore Mnemiopsis mccradyi
(Order Lobata).Mar Biol 94:409–414
Mayer AG (1910) Medusae of the World. Hydromedusae, vol II. Carnegie Institute,Wash-
ington, DC
Mayer AG (1912) Ctenophores of the Atlantic Coast of North America. Carnegie Insti-
tute, Washington, DC
Mayr E,Ashlock PD (1993) Principles of systematic zoology.McGraw-Hill,New York
Mianzan HW (1999) Ctenophora. In: Boltovskoy D (ed) South Atlantic zooplankton.
Backhuys, Leiden, pp 561–573
Mills CE, Rees JT (2000) New observations and corrections concerning the trio of inva-
sive hydromedusae Maeotias marginata (=M. inexpectata),Blackfordia virginica and
Moerisia sp. in the San Francisco estuary. Scientia marina 64 suppl 1:151–155
Mills CE, Sommer F (1995) Invertebrate introductions in marine habitats: two species of
hydromedusae (Cnidaria) native to the Black Sea, Maeotias inexspectata and Black-
fordia virginica, invade San Francisco Bay. Mar Biol 122:279–288
Mooney HA, Hobbs RJ (eds) (2000) Invasive species in a changing world. Island Press,
Washington, DC
Mutlu E,Bingel F, Gucu AC, Melnikov VV,Niermann U, Ostr NA, Zaika VE (1994) Distri-
bution of the new invader Mnemiopsis sp. and the resident Aurelia aurita and Pleuro-
brachia pileus populations in the Black Sea in the years 1991-1993. ICES J Mar Sci
51:407–421
Oliveira OM, Migotto AE (2006) Pelagic ctenophores from the Sao Sebastiao Channel,
southeastern Brazil. Zootaxa 1183:1–26
Petersen JE,Sanford LP, Kemp WM (1998) Coastal plankton responses to turbulent mix-
ing in experimental ecosystems.Mar Ecol Prog Ser 171:23–41
Pimental D, Lach L, Zuniga, Morrison D (2000) Environmental and economic costs of
nonindigenous species in the United States.Bioscience 50:53–65
Purcell JE (1985) Predation of fish eggs and larvae by pelagic cnidarians and
ctenophores.Bull Mar Sci 37:739–755
Purcell JE (1989) Predation on fish larvae and eggs by hydromedusae Aequorea victoria
at a herring spawning ground in British Columbia.Can J Fish Aquat Sci 46:1415–1427
Purcell JE,Arai MN (2001) Interactions of pelagic cnidarians and ctenophores with fish:
a review.Hydrobiologia 451:27–44
Purcell JE, Decker MB (2005) Effects of climate on relative predation by scyphomedusae
and ctenophores on copepods in Chesapeake Bay during 1987-2000. Limnol
Oceanogr 50:376–387
Purcell JE, Cresswell FP, Cargo DG, Kennedy VS (1991) Differential ingestion of bivalve
larvae by the scyphozoan Chrysaora quinquecirrha and the ctenophore Mnemiopsis
leidyi. Biol Bull 180:103–111
Biological Invasions by Marine Jellyfish 253
Purcell JE, Nemazie DA,Dorsey SE,Houde ED,Gamble JC (1994) Predation mortality of
bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli eggs and larvae due to scyphomedusae and
ctenophores in the Chesapeake Bay.Mar Ecol Prog Ser 114:47–58
Purcell JE, Båmstedt U,Båmstedt A (1999) Prey, feeding rates,and asexual reproduction
rates of the introduced oligohaline hydrozoan Moerisia lyonsi. Mar Biol 134:317–325
Purcell JE, Shiganova TA, Decker MB,Houde ED (2001) The ctenophore Mnemiopsis lei-
dyi in native and exotic habitats: US estuaries versus the Black Sea basin. Hydrobiolo-
gia 451:145–176
Reeve MR, Syms MA, Kremer P (1989) Growth dynamics of a ctenophore (Mnemiopsis)
in relation to variable food supply. 1. Carbon biomass, feeding, egg production,
growth and assimilation efficiency.J Plankton Res 11:535–552
Rippingale RJ, Kelly SJ (1995) Reproduction and survival of Phyllorhiza punctata
(Cnidaria: Rhizostomeae) in a seasonally fluctuating salinity regime in Western Aus-
tralia. Mar Freshwater Res 46:1145–1151
Ruiz GM,Carlton JT, Grosholz ED, Hines AH (1997) Global invasions of marine and estu-
arine habitats by non-indigenous species: mechanisms, extent, and consequences.
Am Zool 37:621–632
Sandifer PA, Smith TLJ, Calder DR (1974) Hydrozoans as pests in closed-system culture
of larval decapod crustaceans. Aquaculture 4:55–59
Seravin LN (1994) The systematic revision of the genus Mnemiopsis (Ctenophora,
Lobata). 2. Species attribution on Mnemiopsis from the Black Sea and the species
composition of the genus Mnemiopsis (in Russian).Zool Zhurnal 73:19–34
Seravin LN, Shiganova TA, Luppova NE (2002) History of studying the ctenophore Beroe
ovata (Ctenophora, Atentaculata, Beroida) and some structural features of its repre-
sentative from the Black Sea (in Russian). Zool Zhurnal 81:1193–1200
Shiganova TA (1998) Invasion of the Black Sea by the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and
recent changes in pelagic structure. Fisheries Oceanogr 7:305–310
Shiganova TA, Bulgakova YV (2000) Effects of gelatinous zooplankton on Black Sea and
Sea of Azov fish and their food resources.ICES J Mar Sci 57:641–648
Shiganova TA, Mirzoyan ZA, Studenika EA,Volovik SP,Siokou-Frangou I, Zervoudaki S,
Christou ED, Skirta AY, Dumont HJ (2001) Population development of the invader
Mnemiopsis leidyi, in the Black Sea and in other sea of the Mediterranean basin. Mar
Biol 139:431–445
Shiganova TA, Musaeva EI,Bulgakova YuV, Mirzoyan ZA,Martynyuk ML (2003) Invaders
Mnemiopsis leidyi (A. Agassiz) and Beroe ovata Mayer 1912, and their influence on
the pelagic ecosystem of northeastern Black Sea. Biol Bull 30:180–190
Spanier E (1989) Swarming jellyfishes along the Mediterranean coast of Israel. Israel J
Zool 36:55–56
Stone R (2005) Attack of the killer jellies. Science 309:1805–1806
Väinölä R,Oulasvirta P (2001) The first record of Maeotias marginata (Cnidaria, Hydro-
zoa) from the Baltic Sea: a Pontocaspian invader. Sarsia 86:401–404
Vinogradov ME,Shushkina EA (1992) Temporal changes in community structure in the
open Black Sea. Oceanology 32:485–491
Vinogradov ME, Shushkina EA, Musayeva EI, Sorokin PY (1989) A newly acclimated
species in the Black Sea: the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi (Ctenophora: Lobata).
Oceanology 29:220–224
Vinogradov ME, Shishkina EA, Anokhina LL,Vostokov SV, Kucheruk NV, Lukashova TA
(2000) Dense aggregations of the ctenophore Beroe ovata (Eschscholtz) near the
north-east shore of the Black Sea. Oceanology 40:46–49
Volovik SP, Korpakova IG (2004) Introduction of Beroe cf ovata to the Caspian Sea
needed to control Mnemiopsis leidyi. In: Dumont H,Shiganova TA,Niermann U (eds)
W.M. Graham and K.M. Bayha254
Aquatic invasions in the Black, Caspian and Mediterranean Seas. Kluwer,Dordrecht,
pp 177–192
von Lendenfeld R (1884) Über eine Übergangsform zwischen Semostomen und Rhizos-
tomen. Zool Anz 5:380–383
Wiesse T, Gomoiu MT, Scheffel U, Bordrecht F (2002) Biomass and size composition of
the comb jelly Mnemiopsis sp. in the north-western Black Sea during spring 1997 and
summer 1995. Estuar Coastal Shelf Sci 54:423–437
Wilcove DS, Rothstein D, Dubow D, Phillips, Losos E (1998) Quantifying threats to
imperiled species in the United States. Bioscience 48:607–615
Zaika VE, Sergeeva NG (1990) Morphology and development of Mnemiopsis mccradyi
(Ctenophora,Lobata) in the Black Sea. Hydrobiol J 26:1–6
Biological Invasions by Marine Jellyfish 255
15 Effects of Invasive Non-Native Species
on the Native Biodiversity in the River Rhine
Bruno Baur and Stephanie Schmidlin
15.1 Introduction
Besides habitat degradation, the impacts of non-native invasive species are a
major cause of extinction of native species (Groombridge 1992; Sala et al.
2000; Cox 2004).Invading species may interact with the native biota in a vari-
ety of ways, for example, by competition, predation, parasitism, disease and
hybridization. Some non-native species may enter an ecosystem and remain
at low densities for many years or disappear gradually whereas others might
have a profound impact on the existing community by changing species
abundance, food webs and energy fluxes. Linking invasion patterns with
interspecific processes is often difficult but such information is crucial to pre-
dict the impacts of non-native species on the biodiversity of newly invaded
locations (Moyle and Light 1996; Williamson 1996, 1999).
The Convention on Biodiversity exhorts the contracting parties to “prevent
the introduction, control or eradicate those alien species which threaten
ecosystems, habitats or species” (Glowka et al. 1994). To implement these
directives, detailed knowledge on native biodiversity, and on potential inter-
actions between invading non-native species and native species is required.
Compared to the attention paid to extinctions in terrestrial habitats, much
less focus has been given to species loss in freshwater ecosystems, and this
despite several studies demonstrating a growing number of extinctions in
freshwater animal species (fishes, molluscs, crayfishes; e.g. Kaufman 1992;
Strayer 1999; Ricciardi and Rasmussen 1999).
This chapter examines the impact of invasive non-native species on the
biodiversity in the river Rhine. The occurrence and spread of non-native
species are relatively well documented in the Rhine (e.g. Tittizer et al. 2000;
Geitler et al. 2002; Rey et al. 2004). Quantitative studies on changes in abun-
dance of non-native species and on species composition of native communi-
ties complement these reports (e.g. Van den Brink et al. 1990, 1996; Haas et
Ecological Studies,Vol. 193
W. Nentwig (Ed.)
Biological Invasions
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007
al. 2002). We review major changes in the biota of the river Rhine, focusing
on mechanisms underlying changes in species abundance following the
invasion of non-native species. Our emphasis is on benthic macroinverte-
brates but interactions with other animals are also considered. Along the
way, we identify important gaps in knowledge and suggest areas for further
research.
15.2 The River Rhine
With a length of 1,320 km and a catchment area of 185,000 km2, the river
Rhine is one of the largest rivers in central Europe (Van Urk 1984; Friedrich
and Müller 1984). It originates in the Eastern Swiss Alps, flows north to form
the frontier with Liechtenstein and Austria (Alpenrhein), and empties into
Lake Constance (Fig. 15.1). The Rhine (High Rhine) then re-emerges and
flows west, mainly on the border between Switzerland and Germany. In
Basel, it turns to the north and forms the southern part of the border
between France and Germany (Upper Rhine) in a wide valley, before enter-
ing Germany exclusively (Middle Rhine). Here, the Rhine encounters some
of its main tributaries (the Neckar, the Main and then the Moselle). Between
Bingen and Bonn, the Rhine flows through the Rhine gorge, a formation cre-
ated by erosion (this gorge is a UNESCO World Heritage Site since 2002).
After passing the Ruhr area, the Rhine (Lower Rhine) turns west into The
Netherlands. After crossing the border, it splits into three main distribu-
taries, the Waal, the IJssel and the Nederrijn/Lek, before discharging into the
North Sea.
The flow regime can be characterized as rain-fed/snow-fed, the highest
water levels usually being attained in March–May and the lowest in August–
November. The mean annual river discharge of the Rhine is 1,032 m3 s–1 in
Basel and 2,260 m3s–1 (range 800–12,000 m3 s–1) at the Dutch border. This
results in the minimum and maximum water levels differing by up to 8 m in
The Netherlands (Van Geest et al. 2005).
The deterioration of the Rhine started in the Middle Ages, with the defor-
estation of large areas on the floodplains (Nienhuis and Leuven 1998).By the
early 18th century, almost all beech and oak forests had been replaced by
grassland. The river morphology became increasingly degraded because of
straightening, reduction of channel networks to a single channel, and discon-
nection from the floodplain. In the 19th century,major river regulations in the
Upper and Lower Rhine modified the river bed. For example, in the so-called
Tulla-correction carried out between 1817 and 1874 and also in subsequent
channelisations,the Upper Rhine north of Basel was transformed from a river
system up to 6 km wide, with numerous branches, slow-flowing meanders,
islands, and sand and gravel flats,into a 130-m-wide, fast-flowing sealed canal
B. Baur and S. Schmidlin258
Effects of Invasive Non-Native Species on the Native Biodiversity in the River Rhine 259
Ecological Studies Vol 193, page proofs as of 10/4, 2006,by Kröner,Heidelberg
Main
Neckar
0 100 km
Ruhr
HighRhine
Lake
Constance
Alpenrhein
Aare
UpperRhine
MiddleRh
ine
Waal
Nederrijn
Moselle
IJssel
North
Sea
Lower Rhine
Basel
Rotterdam
Bonn
Karlsruhe
IJsselmeer
Köln
Fig. 15.1 Map of the river Rhine, with most of the locations mentioned in the text
(Grand Canal d’Alsace). During channelisation, flood control dams were
built, stone groynes were constructed to strengthen the channel, and some
parts of the river bank were reinforced by stones.
Since Roman times, the Rhine has been a navigable waterway, carrying
travellers and goods deep inland. As the river became more important as
transport route, it was channelled even more to increase its discharge and
maintain its depth. In modern times, cargo shipping on the Rhine is possible
from Rotterdam (North Sea) to Rheinfelden, 20 km upstream of Basel. The
importance of international shipping increased further with the construction
of river-connecting canals. The Rhine-Main-Danube Canal connects the
Rhine via the Danube with the Black Sea which,in turn, is connected by canals
and rivers to the Caspian Sea (see Chap. 5). Another navigation route to the
Black Sea and Caspian Sea is the German Mittelland-Elbe-Vistula-Pripyat-
Bug-Dnieper canal system.
Parallel to the channelisation, the floodplain of the Rhine has been exten-
sively modified to extend agricultural and industrial areas and settlements.
Nowadays, the Rhine is a completely man-manipulated river, more intensively
used than ever before (Tittizer and Krebs 1996). Besides its function as trans-
portation route, it provides water for communities and industry, is used to
generate hydroelectric power,provides cooling water and a means of effluent
transport, and is increasingly a focus for recreation. Despite profound alter-
ations of river characteristics, the river still has a large (albeit not unlimited)
self-cleaning capacity, and natural and semi-natural banks and areas of the
floodplain, with abandoned meanders,brooks, sand and gravel pits, and rem-
nants of riparian forest still harbour an extraordinarily high diversity of
plants and animals, and are therefore of high conservation value (e.g. LfU
2000; Baur et al.2002).
15.3 Native Biodiversity and Invasion History
Faunal diversity decreased dramatically in the river Rhine between 1900 and
1970 (Kinzelbach 1972; Van den Brink et al. 1990; Streit 1992). For example,
species richness of selected groups of macroinvertebrates in the Dutch sec-
tion of the Rhine declined from 83 species in 1900 to 43 species in 1940 and to
41 species in 1981/1987 (Van den Brink et al. 1990; Den Hartog et al. 1992).
Omitting the non-native species arriving in the 20th century, however, the
total number of species for 1940 would be 40,and only 27 for 1981/1987.Schöll
(2002) presented a list of 21 typical riverine macroinvertebrate species (seven
mayflies, 10 stoneflies and four caddis flies) occurring in the German part of
the Rhine in 1900 – none were found in the river between 1960 and 2000.Most
probably, these specialized benthic species went extinct in the river Rhine.
However, the actual causes of extinction are unknown. In the Rhine near
B. Baur and S. Schmidlin260
Basel, the number of stonefly species declined from 13 to four between 1910
and 1990, and those of mayflies from 19 to 13 (Küry 1994).
The decline of the freshwater fauna in the river Rhine is linked to extensive
habitat deterioration caused by channelisation and flow regulation by weirs,
stream fragmentation,organic pollution from land-use activities, toxic conta-
minants from municipal and industrial sources, and interactions with an
increasing number of non-native species (Streit 1992; Baur and Ringeis 2002;
Van der Velde et al. 2002; Nehring 2003). Since the industrial revolution and
the construction of sewage systems, domestic and industrial pollution have
led to a gradual deterioration in water quality, and this from the second half of
the 19th century to the end of the 1960s. Water quality was very poor during
the period 1950–1970, with low oxygen levels, serious eutrophication, high
chemical and organic pollution loads, salination caused by French potassium
mines and mining water from brown coal mines in Germany, and thermal
pollution (Rhine river water temperature has risen by approximately 2 °C
above its natural value; Admiraal et al. 1993).
Faunal diversity in the river Rhine was lowest in the late 1960s,when levels of
toxicants were highest and oxygen levels extremely low (Kinzelbach 1972; Streit
1992). During the period 1970–1986, waste water treatment plants were con-
structed along the river,resulting in improvements of water quality including an
increase in oxygen levels and a reduction of some heavy metals and organic pes-
ticides. Also, faunal diversity began to recover (Admiraal et al. 1993). Driven
partly by the toxic spill following the Sandoz accident (see below), ministers
from riparian countries decided in 1986 to establish the Rhine Action Pro-
gramme. One of its aims is the restoration of the river ecosystem.
Haas et al. (2002) described three successional phases in the development
of benthic communities in the German section of the Rhine, following the
extreme toxic and organic contamination which the river has known in ear-
lier times.
1. From 1970 to 1986,the aquatic community was species-poor and still in an
early recovery. Because of the remaining organic pollution, only sewage-
resistant taxa such as the leech Erpobdella octoculata, the isopod Asellus
aquaticus, the snail Radix ovata, sponges, chironomids and oligochaetes
occurred. The non-native zebra mussel Dreissena polymorpha started to
colonise hard substrates. However, the major Sandoz industrial accident
near Basel in 1986, when runoff from water used in firefighting carried
nearly 30 t of toxic chemicals (insecticides, fungicides and herbicides) into
the Rhine, caused serious damage to the flora and fauna over hundreds of
kilometres, resetting the recovery process.In 1987, benthic faunal densities
were still close to zero (Den Hartog et al.1992).Yet, D. polymorpha was able
to quickly recolonise the Rhine following the Sandoz spill because of the
immigration of pelagic larvae from unaffected sites.
2. In 1987 and 1988, the non-native amphipod Corophium curvispinum
(=Chelicorophium curvispinum), and the Asiatic clams Corbicula fluminea
Effects of Invasive Non-Native Species on the Native Biodiversity in the River Rhine 261
and C. fluminalis invaded the Rhine (Sect. 15.4).Already in 1989,the popu-
lation density of C. curvispinum in the Middle and Lower Rhine was so
high that the hard substrate of the channel bottom had been essentially
completely overgrown due to the species’ engineering activity.The D. poly-
morpha population collapsed because adult shells were rapidly overgrown
by C. curvispinum, and their muddy tubes inhibited the development of
new D. polymorpha patches – the planktonic larvae can settle only on hard
surfaces (Van der Velde et al. 1994; Tittizer and Krebs 1996; Haas et al.
2002).
3. A new phase started with the invasion of the amphipod Dikerogammarus
villosus in 1995 (Sect. 15.4). In 2000, maximum densities of 3,000 individu-
als m–2 were recorded. Since 1996, the population densities of C.
curvispinum have decreased whereas D. polymorpha has recovered and
again reached high densities. Subsequent to the appearance of D. villosus,
two other amphipods, Gammarus tigrinus and Echinogammarus ischnus,
have declined in the Upper Rhine; G. tigrinus finally disappeared in 1999.
In 1997 and 1998, three new non-native invertebrates reached the river
Rhine, originating from the Danube and the Ponto-Caspic region: the iso-
pod Jaera istri, the turbellarian worm Dendrocoelum romanodanubiale
and the polychaete Hypania invalida (Haas et al.2002).
There is an accelerating colonisation rate of non-native macroinvertebrate
species in the Rhine (Fig. 15.2). The shape of the cumulative colonisation
curve shows that 55% of the total number of colonisations were recorded
after 1970. Thus, more than half of all colonisations in the 175-year record
have been reported these last 35 years. The average rate of colonisation has
increased from 0.15 new species established per year in the period 1831–1970
to 0.74 new species per year for the period 1971–2005.Considering exclusively
the period 1991–2005, the current rate of colonisation averages 1.27 new
species per year.
Similarly to macroinvertebrates, fish species composition in the river
Rhine has altered in the past century. There is ample evidence that the river
engineering works have had deleterious effects on the species number and
abundance of fish (Lelek and Köhler 1989). Associated river modifications
have led to the disappearance of specific spawning grounds, feeding biotopes
and nursery areas, and to the obstruction of migration routes. The construc-
tion of fish passes at almost every weir along the main stream section seems
to have been insufficient to prevent the decline of the migrating fish popula-
tions. Low oxygen concentration and the massive discharge of toxic materials
contributed substantially to this decline. Since the water quality of the Rhine
began to improve in the 1970s, however, the fish community has been recov-
ering (Cazemier 1988; Lelek and Köhler 1989).
Lelek (1996) presented a list of 27 non-native fish species for the German
part of the Rhine. Eighteen of the 27 species (67%) were intentionally intro-
B. Baur and S. Schmidlin262
duced by fishermen, another seven species (26 %) having been inadvertently
introduced by the aquarium trade. Interestingly, among the phytoplankton,
an ecologically important group, no non-native species have yet been
observed in the Rhine (Nehring 2005).
About one of two non-native aquatic species entering German rivers could
spread over large areas, and about one of five non-native species have become
invasive (Nehring 2003). In the Rhine delta in The Netherlands, the propor-
tion of non-native species in the biodiversity of river channels and floodplain
lakes ranges from 7–10% among macrophytes to 5–12% among macroinver-
tebrates and 17–19% among fish (Van den Brink et al. 1996). In the Middle
and Upper Rhine, non-native species represent 10–15 % of total species rich-
ness (Haas et al. 2002). Non-native species dominate in terms of total abun-
dance and biomass, however, the values exceeding 80 % (Tittizer et al. 2000;
Haas et al. 2002).
Thus, species composition in the river Rhine has changed remarkably in
the past four decades.Replacing characteristic riverine species, large numbers
of euryoecious and non-native species, in particular macroinvertebrates and
fish, have invaded this river system (e.g.Van den Brink et al. 1988,1990).Some
of the species entered the river via ports and estuaries, and then moved
upstream whereas others moved downstream after entering via canals. Sev-
eral of these species have penetrated into the larger, still-water expanses but
Effects of Invasive Non-Native Species on the Native Biodiversity in the River Rhine 263
0
10
20
30
40
50
1831-1850
1911-1930
1851-1870
1871-1890
1891-1910
1971-1990
1931-1950
1951-1970
1991-2005
Cumulative number of species
Fig. 15.2 Increasing number of non-native macroinvertebrate species colonising the
river Rhine. Cumulative data are shown for periods of 20 years (note: the last bar
includes data for only 15 years). The exponential model was fitted by least-squares
regression (y=5.5936 x 10–22 e0.0265t,n=9, R2=0.98, t indicates the year). Data were
obtained from Tittizer et al.(2000), Geitler et al.(2002) and Rey et al.(2004)
others seem to be restricted to flowing water (Van der Velde et al. 2002). Cargo
shipping appears to influence the velocity of spread in invasive species. For
example, the clam C. fluminea spread approximately 150 km per year in the
navigable part of the Rhine but only 2.4 km per year upstream of Basel, where
cargo shipping is largely reduced (Schmidlin and Baur 2006). Corbicula flu-
minea may also be displaced by waterfowl, because juvenile clams use their
mucous secretions to stick to ducks’ feet.
Interestingly, the number of non-native species decreases significantly
upstream of Rheinfelden where cargo shipping ends (Rey et al. 2004). How-
ever, the weir in Rheinfelden is not an absolute barrier for the spread of invad-
ing species. In fact, several non-native species have crossed the weir and are
now spreading upstream (e.g. D. polymorpha,C. fluminea, and the annelids
Branchiura sowerbyi and Caspiobdella fadejewi), some having even entered
the tributary Aare (e.g. the gastropod Potamopyrgus antipodarum and the
flatworm Dugesia tigrina; Rey et al.2004).
15.4 Species Interactions and Mechanisms of Replacement
15.4.1 Amphipods
The amphipod Corophium curvispinum, originating from the Ponto-Caspic
region, was first observed in the Middle and Lower Rhine in 1987 (Schöll
1990). A few years later, C. curvispinum was found to be by far the most
numerous macroinvertebrate species in the Lower Rhine (Van den Brink et al.
1991). Its density increased up to 200,000 specimens m–2 on groynes (Van den
Brink et al. 1993).It has been claimed that C. curvispinum had filled an ‘empty
niche’ because it was the first tubiculous amphipod to colonise the Rhine
(Den Hartog et al. 1992).The animals produced extensive mats of dense silty
tubes which covered all available hard surface. As a consequence, other
epilithic invertebrates were negatively affected by this muddy layer. Signifi-
cant declines in population densities were recorded for the amphipod Gam-
marus tigrinus, the zebra mussel Dreissena polymorpha, the gastropod Pota-
mopyrgus antipodarum,the caddis fly Hydropsyche contubernalis,and several
species of Chironomidae (Van den Brink et al. 1993). The former three are
non-native species whereas H. contubernalis is native. It has been suggested
that these changes in abundance were at least partly the result of competition
for food – C. curvispinum,D. polymorpha and H. contubernalis are all filter-
feeders (Rajagopal et al. 1999). In fact, the exponential increase in the density
of C. curvispinum during 1989–1991 coincided with a decrease in the concen-
trations of total organic carbon and total suspended matter in the Lower
Rhine, which may be related to an increase in filtration capacity in the river.
B. Baur and S. Schmidlin264
Stable isotope analysis showed very similar values for carbon and nitrogen
sources in the stone-dwelling C. curvispinum,D. polymorpha and the sand-
dwelling Asiatic clams Corbicula fluminea and C. fluminalis,indicating a com-
mon source of phytoplankton and particulate organic matter for these filter-
feeding animals (Marguillier et al. 1998).
Besides competition for food, there might also have been competition for
space among benthic macroinvertebrates.For example, specimens of D. poly-
morpha were observed to be completely overgrown by the tubes of C.
curvispinum. Moreover, in building its muddy tubes, the amphipod modifies
the substrate, thereby preventing the settlement of larvae of D. polymorpha.
However, relatively little is known about the fundamental features of tube
building activity and filtration rate in C. curvispinum.
The impact of the population explosion of C. curvispinum on the density of
other macroinvertebrates has also resulted in a shift in the diet of the Euro-
pean eel Anguilla anguilla. In 1989, prior to the population explosion of C.
curvispinum,Gammarus tigrinus and Dreissena polymorpha dominated the
diet of the eel (Van der Velde et al. 1998). In 1994, however, C. curvispinum
occurred in 80 % of the eels sampled whereas G. tigrinus decreased in per-
centage occurrence from 32 to 4%.Similarly, D. polymorpha was eaten to a far
lesser extent in 1994 than in 1989 (Van der Velde et al. 1998). The perch Perca
fluviatilis showed a similar shift in diet (Kelleher et al. 1998).
The amphipods C. curvispinum and Dikerogammarus villosus and the iso-
pod Jaera istri act as intermediate hosts for a variety of parasites of the eel. In
the German part of the Rhine,nine metazoan species were found to infest eels
(Sures et al.1999). Among-site differences in eel parasite diversity was related
to the presence and abundance of invading crustacean species (Sures and
Streit 2001).
Since 1984, there has also been a significant increase in the distribution
and abundance of the amphipod Gammarus tigrinus, which originated from
North America.In many sections of the Rhine, G. tigrinus has displaced Gam-
marus duebeni,a native and originally widespread species in Western Europe
(Tittizer et al. 2000). In the late 1990s, however, the abundance of G. tigrinus
declined sharply,coincidental with the invasion of the amphipod Dikerogam-
marus villosus. This species is native to the Ponto-Caspian region and has
invaded Western Europe via the Main-Danube canal, appearing in the river
Rhine at the German-Dutch border in 1994–1995 (Tittizer et al. 2000).D. vil-
losus has wide environmental tolerances in terms of temperature and salinity,
and thus is able to colonise various microhabitats.
Stable isotope analyses have shown that D. villosus is a predatory species
whereas G. duebeni is a detrivorous/herbivorous amphipod. It was hypothe-
sized that the rapid expansion of D. villosus, and its devastating impact on G.
duebeni and related species may involve intraguild predation, rather than
interspecific competition. In laboratory experiments, survival of female G.
duebeni was lower when male D. villosus – rather than male G. duebeni – were
Effects of Invasive Non-Native Species on the Native Biodiversity in the River Rhine 265
present (Dick and Platvoet 2000). Similarly, D. villosus preyed upon G. tigri-
nus.D. villosus killed and consumed recently moulted and, less frequently,
intermoult victims. Thus, the predatory impact of D. villosus is not restricted
to the short (approximately 12 h) period of post-moult vulnerability,facilitat-
ing rapid eliminations of all stages of reproducing females (Dick and Platvoet
2000). No male G. duebeni was killed during the experiment, indicating that
the larger males are more able to fend off any predatory attack,although this
may not be the case at moult (Dick 1996). Compared to other freshwater
amphipods, the large size of D. villosus might partly explain its successful
predatory behaviour.
Gut content analyses showed that D. villosus preyed also on C. curvi-
spinum in the wild, thereby interfering in the interspecific competition for
space between the two filter-feeders C. curvispinum and D. polymorpha.In
amphipods and many other arthropods, intraguild predation has been
increasingly recognized as an important mechanism in structuring commu-
nities (e.g. Polis et al. 1989). In many cases, intraguild predation may over-
ride interspecific competition. In the present example, intraguild predation
also appears to be the mechanism for the exclusion of both non-native and
native species.
15.4.2 Molluscs
The zebra mussel Dreissena polymorpha, originating from the Caspian and
Black Sea region, was first recorded in the Lower Rhine near Rotterdam in
1826. In the following decades, it expanded upstream and reached large den-
sities (Kinzelbach 1972). However, water pollution in the mid-20th century,
and subsequent competitive interactions with C. curvispinum strongly
reduced D. polymorpha populations in the Rhine. Continuous improvement
in water quality these past decades and reduced C. curvispinum densities have
allowed the D. polymorpha populations to recover; nowadays, they have again
attained densities of up to 40,000 individuals m–2.
The zebra mussel attaches to solid surfaces using adhesive byssal fibres,
and possesses a planktonic larval (veliger) stage which can remain in the
water column for several weeks before settlement. Native unionid mussels
have a complex life cycle in which the larvae are obligate parasites of fish, with
survivorship dependent on the availability of appropriate fish hosts and
accessibility to favourable habitats. Adult unionid mussels live partially
buried in the sediments of lakes and rivers,with their posterior shell exposed
to the water column,providing a suitable surface for colonisation by D. poly-
morpha. Infestation by D. polymorpha is considered to impair the metabolic
activity (feeding, respiration, excretion) and locomotion of unionid mussels,
thereby depleting their energy reserves and effectively starving them to death
(Haag et al. 1993). Moreover, data from North America demonstrate that D.
B. Baur and S. Schmidlin266
polymorpha can also harm other suspension-feeding bivalves by depleting
food resources (phytoplankton) through massive filtration (Caraco et al.
1997).
Dreissena polymorpha has virtually eliminated the native unionid fauna in
many parts of the lower Great Lakes in North America (Ricciardi et al. 1998;
Strayer 1999). In the Rhine, the decline of the highly specialized and endan-
gered unionid mussels and other filter-feeding macroinvertebrates could also
partly be due to competition with D. polymorpha. However, D. polymorpha is
not harmful to all riverine species. In North America, the clam provides other
benthic invertebrates with nourishment (in the form of faecal deposits) and
shelter (interstitial spaces between clumped mussel shells),resulting in a local
enhancement of abundance and diversity for these other species (Ricciardi
2005). Non-native deposit feeders may increase in abundance whereas native
filter-feeders are out-competed by D. polymorpha. Among the invertebrates
responding positively to zebra mussel colonisation are non-native oligo-
chaetes, leeches, amphipods, gastropods, larval chironomids and aquatic
weeds (Ricciardi et al.1997; Karatayev et al. 2002).Thus,invading species may
also have synergistic impacts which facilitate the establishment of other
invaders.
The clams Corbicula fluminea and C. fluminalis, originating from South-
east Asia, were first recorded in the Lower Rhine in The Netherlands in 1985
(Bij de Vaate and Greijdanus-Klaas 1990). Six years later,the clams were found
near Karlsruhe in the Upper Rhine and,in 1995,C. fluminea was reported near
Basel in Switzerland (Rey et al. 2004). C. fluminea is restricted to the gravely–
sandy river bottom because sticking structures are lacking. The clam reached
densities of 1,800 individuals m–2 in the Rhine (Haas et al. 2002). Den Hartog
et al. (1992) suspected that the spill of toxic waste from the Sandoz accident in
1986, affecting the Rhine over hundreds of kilometres, contributed to the
clams’ success because most macroinvertebrates were killed and, as a conse-
quence, their niches were unoccupied.
Several mechanisms by which Corbicula may affect native bivalves have
been proposed (Strayer 1999). Dense populations of Corbicula may deplete
concentrations of phytoplankton and other edible suspended particles,
thereby ‘starving out’ native bivalves. Modest to dramatic declines in phyto-
plankton or seston have been recorded in habitats with high Corbicula density
in North America (Leff et al.1990; Phelps 1994). Dense populations of Corbic-
ula may ingest large numbers of unionid sperm, glochidia and newly meta-
morphosed juveniles (Strayer 1999).Because Corbicula pedal feeds on edible
particles in the sediments, it may deplete also this food resource, affecting
some sphaeriids and juvenile unionids which use benthic organic matter as
food. Corbicula actively disturbs the sediments, so dense populations may
reduce habitat quality and space for native bivalves.
Several studies show that the impact of C. fluminea on native benthic
species depends on both site and community characteristics (Leff et al. 1990;
Effects of Invasive Non-Native Species on the Native Biodiversity in the River Rhine 267
Strayer 1999).The clam severely affected native mollusc assemblages in some
North American rivers but can coexist with other bivalves at other sites. Sim-
ilar information on the impact of Corbicula on native macroinvertebrates in
the river Rhine is not yet available.
15.5 Why Are There so many Non-Native Species
in the Rhine?
The number of non-native animal species colonising the river Rhine is still
increasing (Fig. 15.2).Furthermore, non-native plant species constitute a sig-
nificant proportion of the vegetation of the river bank and floodplain
(Schwabe and Kratochwil 1991).A variety of mutually non-exclusive hypothe-
ses have been suggested to explain the success of invaders in the river Rhine:
(1) vacant niches, (2) disturbances preventing strong interspecific competi-
tion, (3) the creation of new niches by invasive species,(4) ecosystem instabil-
ity (invasional meltdown), (5) groups of co-adapted invaders,and (6) enemy-
free space.
It has been argued that human alterations of habitat make a community
vulnerable to invasions and that extreme natural disturbances facilitate the
establishment of non-native species (Mack et al. 2000). Community vulnera-
bility to invasions has been ascribed to a combination of several factors, such
as the presence of vacant niches,habitat modification,and disturbance before
and after invasion.Recent findings indicate that species-rich communities are
less vulnerable to invasions (at least,in terrestrial habitats; Cox 2004). More-
over, invasibility is known to increase if a community lacks certain species
present under normal conditions (Chap. 11).
The invasional meltdown model (Chap. 6) predicts that ecosystems sub-
jected to a chronically high frequency of species introduction will become
progressively unstable and easier to invade,as each introduced species has the
potential to facilitate subsequent invaders (Simberloff and Von Holle 1999).
Invasional meltdown may occur through one of two processes: frequent dis-
turbance through species introductions progressively lowers community
resistance to invasion,and increased introductions lead to a higher frequency
of potential facilitations and synergies between invaders (Ricciardi 2005).
Highly active invasion corridors (in the present case, canals) may introduce
numerous species from one and the same region (e.g. the Ponto-Caspic
region), and thus may reunite groups of co-adapted species,either in simulta-
neous introductions (e.g. a host arriving with its parasites) or in successive
introductions,thereby assembling contiguous links of a non-native food web.
If co-adaptation reduces the intensity of predation and parasitism, then
positive interactions probably dominate invasion ‘groups’, and successive
introductions of co-adapted species might result in a higher success of
B. Baur and S. Schmidlin268
invaders than would introductions of unacquainted species (Ricciardi 2005).
This could be an alternative to the enemy release hypothesis, which relates the
success of an invader to the absence of its natural predators and parasites in
the invaded region (Chap. 6). Each of the examples presented in Sect. 15.4
could be explained by at least one of these six hypotheses. However, experi-
mental tests of these hypotheses are lacking for the Rhine.
15.6 Conclusions
The river Rhine is a good example for how a combination of different factors
structure benthic communities. River modification deteriorated certain habi-
tats but also created new habitats. Prolonged pollution changed the original
communities and caused the loss of certain species, creating open niches for
pollution-tolerant invaders. Major disturbances, such as the Sandoz accident
in 1986, subsequently enabled the invasion of many new species which
reached unprecedented densities. The Rhine-Main-Danube Canal, opened in
1992–1993, provided additional opportunities for the immigration of non-
native species from the Ponto-Caspian region, some of them being co-
adapted.After reduction of the pollution in the Rhine, recolonisation seemed
to favour invaders, rather than native species. These invaders suppressed the
development of populations of native species. At the present day, the number
of invaders is still increasing.
For the development of appropriate conservation strategies for the river
Rhine, detailed knowledge of the ecological consequences of invasive non-
native species for the native biota is required. The present review shows that,
in most cases, negative impacts of invasive species on native species have been
deduced from correlative evidence. Evidently, there is an urgent need for
experimental studies on interactions between invasive and native species.
Numerous rare native species in the Rhine are threatened with extinction by
the combined impacts of environmental degradation and species invasions
(e.g. by D. polymorpha). From a conservation perspective, the habitat require-
ments, population dynamics and persistence of rare native species deserve
increased attention. Restoration to pristine conditions is not feasible in the
Rhine. However, several promising ecological restoration projects are of vital
importance to preserve those facets of the originally unique biodiversity of
the river Rhine and its floodplain still present today.
Acknowledgements. We thank A. Baur and P. Stoll for constructive comments on the
manuscript.
Effects of Invasive Non-Native Species on the Native Biodiversity in the River Rhine 269
References
Admiraal W,Van der Velde G, Smit H, Cazemier WG (1993) The rivers Rhine and Meuse
in the Netherlands – present state and signs of ecological recovery. Hydrobiologia
265:97–128
Baur B,Ringeis B (2002) Changes in gastropod assemblages in freshwater habitats in the
vicinity of Basel (Switzerland) over 87 years. Hydrobiologia 479:1–10
Baur B,Zschokke S,Coray A, Schläpfer M, Erhardt A (2002) Habitat characteristics of the
endangered flightless beetle Dorcadion fuliginator (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae):
implications for conservation. Biol Conserv 105:133–142
Bij de Vaate A, Greijdanus-Klaas M (1990) The Asiatic clam,Corbicula fluminea Müller,
1774 (Pelecypoda, Corbiculidae),a new immigrant in the Netherlands.Bull Zool Mus
Amsterdam 12:173–178
Caraco NF, Cole JJ, Raymond PA, Strayer DL, Pace ML, Findlay SEG, Fischer DT (1997)
Zebra mussel invasion in a large,turbid river: phytoplankton response to increased
grazing. Ecology 78:588–602
Cazemier WG (1988) Fish and their environment in large European river ecosystems.
The Dutch part of the river Rhine. Science Eau 7:95–116
Cox GW (2004) Alien species and evolution. Island Press,Washington, DC
Den Hartog C,Van den Brink FWB, Van der Velde G (1992) Why was the invasion of the
river Rhine by Corophium curvispinum and Corbicula species so successful? J Nat
Hist 26:1121–1129
Dick JTA (1996) Post-invasion amphipod communities of Lough Neagh, Northern Ire-
land: influences of habitat selection and mutual predation.J Anim Ecol 65:756–767
Dick JTA, Platvoet D (2000) Invading predatory crustacean Dikerogammarus villosus
eliminates both native and exotic species. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:977–983
Friedrich G, Müller D (1984) Rhine. In: Whitton BA (ed) Ecology of European rivers.
Blackwell, Oxford, pp 265–315
Geitler O,Homma S,Kinzelbach R (2002) Bestandesaufnahme und Bewertung von Neo-
zoen in Deutschland. Umweltbundesamt Berlin,UBA Texte 25/02:1–290
Glowka L, Burhenne-Guilmin F, Synge H (1994) A guide to the convention on biological
diversity. IUCN, Gland
Groombridge B (ed) (1992) Global biodiversity: status of the earth’s living resources.
Chapman and Hall, London
Haag WR, Berg DJ, Garton DW, Farris JL (1993) Reduced survival and fitness in native
bivalves in response to fouling by the introduced zebra mussel (Dreissena polymor-
pha) in western Lake Erie. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 50:13–19
Haas G, Brunke M, Streit B (2002) Fast turnover in dominance of exotic species in the
Rhine river determines biodiversity and ecosystem function: an affair between
amphipods and mussels.In: Leppäkoski E, Gollasch S,Olenin S (eds) Invasive aquatic
species of Europe. Distribution, impacts and management. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp
426–432
Karatayev AY,Burlakova LE, Padilla DK (2002) Impacts of zebra mussels on aquatic com-
munities and their role as ecosystem engineers. In: Leppäkoski E,Gollasch S, Olenin
S (eds) Invasive aquatic species of Europe. Distribution, impacts and management.
Kluwer, Dordrecht,pp 433–446
Kaufman L (1992) Catastrophic change in species-rich freshwater ecosystems. Bio-
Science 42:846–858
Kelleher B, Bergers PJM, Van den Brink FWB, Giller PS,Van der Velde G, Bij de Vaate A
(1998) Effects of exotic amphipod invasions on fish diet in the Lower Rhine. Arch
Hydrobiol 143:363–382
B. Baur and S. Schmidlin270
Kinzelbach R (1972) Einschleppung und Einwanderung von Wirbellosen in Ober- und
Mittelrhein. Mainzer Naturwiss Arch 11:150–190
Küry D (1994) Die Wirbellosenfauna der Fliessgewässer in der Region Basel.Verh Naturf
Ges Basel 104:19–44
Leff LG,Burch JL,McArthur JV (1990) Spatial distribution , seston removal,and potential
competitive interactions of the bivalves Corbicula fluminea and Elliptio complanata
in a coastal plain stream. Freshwater Biol 24:409–416
Lelek A (1996) Die allochthonen und die beheimateten Fischarten unserer grossen
Flüsse – Neozoen der Fischfauna. In: Gebhardt H, Kinzelbach R, Schmidt-Fischer S
(eds) Gebietsfremde Tierarten: Auswirkungen auf einheimische Arten, Lebensge-
meinschaften und Biotope,Situationsanalyse. Ecomed, Landsberg, pp 197–215
Lelek A, Köhler C (1989) Zustandsanalyse der Fischartengemeinschaften im Rhein
(1987–1988). Fischökologie 1:47–64
LfU (2000) Vom Wildstrom zur Trockenaue: Natur und Geschichte der Flusslandschaft
am südlichen Oberrhein. Landesanstalt für Umweltschutz Baden-Württemberg,Ver-
lag Regionalkultur, Ubstadt-Weiher
Mack RN, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM, Evans H, Clout M, Bazzaz FA (2000) Biotic inva-
sions: causes,epidemiology,global consequences,and control.Ecol Appl 10:689–710
Marguillier S, Dehairs F,Van der Velde G, Kelleher B,Rajagopal S (1998) Initial results on
the trophic relationship based on Corophium curvispinum in the Rhine traced by sta-
ble isotopes. In: Nienhuis PH, Leuven RSEW, Ragas AMJ (eds) New concepts for sus-
tainable management of river basins.Backhuys, Leiden, pp 171–177
Moyle PB,Light T (1996) Biological invasions of fresh water: empirical rules and assem-
bly theory.Biol Conserv 78:149–161
Nehring S (2003) Gebietsfremde Arten in den deutschen Gewässern – ein Risiko für die
Biodiversität. Schriftenr BMVEL Angew Wiss 498:40–52
Nehring S (2005) International shipping – a risk for aquatic biodiversity in Germany. In:
Nentwig W, Bacher S, Cock MJW, Dietz H, Gigon A, Wittenberg R (eds) Biological
invasions – from ecology to control.Neobiota 6:125–143
Nienhuis PH,Leuven RSEW (1998) Ecological concepts for the sustainable management
of lowland river basins: a review. In: Nienhuis PH, Leuven RSEW, Ragas AMJ (eds)
New concepts for sustainable management of river basins.Backhuys,Leiden,pp 7–33
Phelps HL (1994) The Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea) invasion and system-level eco-
logical change in the Potomac River estuary near Washington DC. Estuaries
17:614–621
Polis GA, Myers CA, Holt RD (1989) The ecology and evolution of intraguild predation:
potential competitors that eat each other.Annu Rev Ecol Syst 20:297–330
Rajagopal S,Van der Velde G, Paffen BGP, Van den Brink FWB, Bij de Vaate A (1999) Life
history and reproductive biology of the invasive amphipod Corophium curvispinum
(Crustacea: Amphipoda) in the Lower Rhine. Arch Hydrobiol 144:305–325
Rey P, Ortlepp J, Küry D (2004) Wirbellose Neozoen im Hochrhein. Ausbreitung und
ökologische Bedeutung. BUWAL, Bern, Schriftenr Umwelt 380:1–88
Ricciardi A (2005) Facilitation and synergistic interactions between introduced aquatic
species. In: Mooney HA, Mack RN, McNeely JA, Neville LE, Schei PJ,Waage JK (eds)
Invasive alien species. Island Press,Washington,DC, pp 162–178
Ricciardi A,Rasmussen JB (1999) Extinction rates of North American freshwater fauna.
Conserv Biol 13:1220–1222
Ricciardi A,Whoriskey FG, Rasmussen JB (1997) The role of the zebra mussel (Dreissena
polymorpha) in structuring macroinvertebrate communities on hard substrata.Can J
Fish Aquat Sci 54:2596–2608
Effects of Invasive Non-Native Species on the Native Biodiversity in the River Rhine 271
Ricciardi A, Neves RJ, Rasmussen JB (1998) Impending extinctions of North American
freshwater mussels (Unionoida) following the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha)
invasion.J Anim Ecol 67:613–619
Sala OE, Chapin FS III,Armesto JJ, Berlow E, Bloomfield J, Dirzo R, Huber-Sannwald E
(2000) Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100.Science 287:1770–1774
Schmidlin S, Baur B (2006) Distribution and substrate preference of the invasive clam
Corbicula fluminea in the river Rhine in the region of Basel (Switzerland, Germany,
France).Aquat Sci (in press)
Schöll F (1990) Zur Bestandessituation von Corophium curvispinum Sars im Rheinge-
biet. Lauterbornia 5:67–70
Schöll F (2002) Das Makrozoobenthos des Rheins 2000. Kommission zum Schutz des
Rheins, Koblenz, Bericht Nr 128
Schwabe A,Kratochwil A (1991) Gewässer-begleitende Neophyten und ihre Beurteilung
aus Naturschutz-Sicht unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Südwestdeutschlands.
NNA-Berichte 4/1:14–27
Simberloff D, Von Holle B (1999) Positive interactions of nonindigenous species: inva-
sional meltdown? Biol Invasions 1:21–32
Strayer DL (1999) Effects of alien species on freshwater mollusks in North America. J N
Am Benthol Soc 18:74–98
Streit B (1992) Zur Ökologie der Tierwelt im Rhein. Verh Naturforsch Ges Basel 102:
323–342
Sures B, Streit B (2001) Eel parasite diversity and intermediate host abundance in the
River Rhine, Germany.Parasitology 123:185–191
Sures B, Knopf K, Wurtz J, Hirt J (1999) Richness and diversity of parasite communities
in European eels Anguilla anguilla of the River Rhine, Germany, with special refer-
ence to helminth parasites.Parasitology 119:323–330
Tittizer T, Krebs F (eds) (1996) Ökosystemforschung: Der Rhein und seine Auen – eine
Bilanz. Springer,Berlin Heidelberg New York
Tittizer T, Schöll F,Banning M, Haybach A, Schleuter M (2000) Aquatische Neozoen im
Makrozoobenthos der Binnenwasserstrassen Deutschlands.Lauterbornia 39:1–172
Van den Brink FWB, Van der Velde G, Geelen JFM (1988) Life history parameters and
temperature-related activity of an American crayfish, Orconectes limosus
(Rafinesque, 1817) (Crustacea, Decapoda), in the area of the major rivers in The
Netherlands.Arch Hydrobiol 114:275–289
Van den Brink FWB, Van der Velde G, Cazemier WG (1990) The faunistic composition of
the freshwater section of the River Rhine in The Netherlands: present state and
changes since 1900. In: Kinzelbach R, Friedrich G (eds) Biologie des Rheins. Limnol
Aktuell 1:192–216
Van den Brink FWB, Van der Velde G, Bij de Vaate A (1991) Amphipod invasion on the
Rhine. Nature 352:576
Van den Brink FWB, Van der Velde G, Bij de Vaate A (1993) Ecological aspects, explosive
range extension and impact of a mass invader, Corophium curvispinum Sars, 1895
(Crustacea: Amphipoda), in the Lower Rhine (The Netherlands). Oecologia
93:224–232
Van den Brink FWB, Van der Velde G, Buijse AD, Klink AD (1996) Biodiversity in the
Lower Rhine and Meuse river-floodplains: its significance for ecological river man-
agement. Neth J Aquat Ecol 30:129–149
Van der Velde G, Paffen BGP, Van den Brink FWB, Bij de Vaate A, Jenner HA (1994)
Decline of zebra mussel populations in the Rhine. Competition between two mass
invaders (Dreissena polymorpha and Corophium curvispinum). Naturwissenschaf ten
81:32–34
B. Baur and S. Schmidlin272
Van der Velde G, Rajagopal S, Van den Brink FWB, Kelleher B, Paffen BGP, Kempers AJ,
Bij de Vaate A (1998) Ecological impact of an exotic amphipod invasion in the river
Rhine. In: Nienhuis PH,Leuven RSEW, Ragas AMJ (eds) New concepts for sustainable
management of river basins. Backhuys, Leiden, pp 159–169
Van der Velde G, Nagelkerken I, Rajagopal S, Bij de Vaate A (2002) Invasions by alien
species in inland freshwater bodies in Western Europe: the Rhine delta. In: Lep-
päkoski E, Gollasch S,Olenin S (eds) Invasive aquatic species of Europe. Distribution,
impacts and management. Kluwer,Dordrecht, pp 360–372
Van Geest GJ, Coops H, Roijackers RMM, Buijse AD, Scheffer M (2005) Succession of
aquatic vegetation driven by reduced water-level fluctuation in floodplain lakes. J
Appl Ecol 42:251–260
Van Urk G (1984) Lower Rhine-Meuse. In: Whitton BA (ed) Ecology of European rivers.
Blackwell, Oxford, pp 437–468
Williamson M (1996) Biological invasions. Chapman and Hall, London
Williamson M (1999) Invasions. Ecography 22:5–12
Effects of Invasive Non-Native Species on the Native Biodiversity in the River Rhine 273
16 Hybridization and Introgression Between Native
and Alien Species
Carlo R. Largiadèr
16.1 Introduction
Human activities, such intentional and unintentional transplantations, and
habitat alterations including the establishment of migration corridors, gener-
ate increasing opportunities for formerly allopatric taxa to meet and to
hybridize. There is indeed increasing evidence that these introduced plant
and animal taxa (including crop plants and domesticated animal taxa) fre-
quently hybridize with native relatives and with other introduced taxa, lead-
ing to a growing concern that these hybridizations may compromise the
genetic integrity of native taxa to the point of causing extinctions (Abbott
1992; Rhymer and Simberloff 1996; Levin et al. 1996; Ellstrand and Schieren-
beck 2000; Vilà et al. 2000). A decade ago, Rhymer and Simberloff (1996)
stated in their review on this topic that the known cases are probably just the
tip of the iceberg. Using the search term ‘hybridization and introgression’, the
Web of Science database yields a total of 1,178 research articles, of which 935
(or 80%) have been published after 1995 (Fig. 16.1). Indeed, the evidence for
natural and man-induced hybridization and introgression appears to have
increased exponentially these last few years.
Presently, we still cannot answer the questions of how widespread and how
important these processes are in the context of biological invasions. However,
regarding the dramatic increase of evidence in the literature, we can already
conclude that natural and anthropogenic hybridization and introgression are
very frequent,and play an important role in animal and plant species, both at
the inter- and intraspecific level. It is also very likely that this evidence will
continue to grow – probably many cases of hybridization and introgression
have so far remained unnoticed,because hybrids may be rare and because,in
morphologically uniform groups, they are difficult to recognize. Further-
more, many taxa are still unknown, and many taxonomic groups and geo-
graphic areas are understudied. Finally, the manner in which hybridization
Ecological Studies,Vol. 193
W. Nentwig (Ed.)
Biological Invasions
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007
and species are defined also strongly influences the perception of the prob-
lem.
Recently, Mallet (2005) reviewed studies of natural interspecific hybridiza-
tion in plants and a variety of animals. He estimated that at least 25% of plant
species, and 10% of animal species are involved in hybridization and poten-
tial introgression with other species.Plants seem more prone to hybridization
than are animals.However, this difference may at least partly be due to the dif-
ferent historical attitudes of botanists and zoologists toward hybridization,
which resulted possibly in greater attention being paid to this phenomenon
by botanists (Dowling and Secor 1997).While botanists viewed hybridization
and introgression as important processes in adaptive evolution (Rieseberg
1997), zoologists have tended to see them rather as problems being the con-
verse of reproductive isolation,and thus challenging the ‘reality’ of biological
species. However, there is increasing evidence that hybridization and intro-
gression have also played an important role in the evolution of animals (Grant
and Grant 1996; Dowling and Secor 1997). Taking into account the potential
evolutionary importance of these processes changes considerably how we
may perceive them in the context of biological invasions, e.g., that they may
act as a stimulus for the evolution of invasiveness in transplanted species (Ell-
strand and Schierenbeck 2000).
In this chapter, I intend to give a non-exhaustive overview on the empirical
evidence of hybridization and introgression in the context of biological inva-
sions. When any two taxa hybridize, the outcome of this event is difficult to
generalize, and is modulated by many interacting external (e.g., habitat mod-
ifications) and evolutionary factors (e.g.,mate preferences, heterosis etc.): the
two taxa can merge completely, forming a ‘hybrid swarm’ leading to the
extinction of the native taxon, which is replaced by a single mongrel species.
Hybridization can be asymmetrical, i.e., genes introgress directionally from
one taxon into the gene pool of the other,and hence lead to an acceleration of
C.R. Largiadèr276
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
1956-60
1961-65
1966-70
1971-75
1976-80
1981-85
1986-90
1991-95
1996-00
2001-05
Years
Number of Publication
s
Fig. 16.1 Development of
natural and anthro-
pogenic hybridization
and introgression as
research topics.The lit-
erature search was car-
ried out in the Web of
Science (Thomson Sci-
entific) citation data-
base, using the search
string ‘hybridization and
introgression’
the replacement of a native gene pool. Even if hybridization ends with the for-
mation of completely sterile first-generation (F1) hybrids, it may still acceler-
ate the process of replacing native taxa through the wasting of reproductive
efforts. Finally, in some cases, new genetic adaptations are generated in
hybrids, leading to hybrid speciation. Thus, this complexity of possible out-
comes, and the multitude of potential factors involved make a systematic
treatment of the subject rather difficult.Here,I start with the definition of rel-
evant terms, and review some technical aspects. I then summarize empirical
studies of anthropogenic introgressive and non-introgressive hybridization. I
continue by briefly discussing hybridization as a process capable of inducing
invasiveness and leading to new biological diversity. By asking the question
whether we can predict hybridization and its outcome, I examine some of the
main factors that promote and affect the outcome of anthropogenic
hybridization. Cases of gene flow from genetically modified organisms into
wild populations are subject of Chap. 17, and will thus not be discussed here.
16.2 Definitions and Technical Aspects
16.2.1 Definition of Hybridization and Introgression
In this text, hybridization is defined as the interbreeding of genetically differ-
entiated forms, regardless of their current taxonomic status. Accordingly,
introgression is defined as the movement of genes between genetically differ-
entiated forms (again regardless of their current taxonomic status) mediated
by backcrossing (Avise 1994). Such broad definitions of hybridization and
introgression are now widely used in the current literature. They account for
the fact that inter- and intraspecific hybridization are both relevant in the
context of biological invasions, and circumvent the difficulty and much
debated issue of defining species. From a conservation perspective, we are
concerned about loosing genetic diversity not only at the inter- but also at the
intraspecific level. Firstly, intraspecific hybridization can homogenize the
unique characteristics of geographically distinct populations and incipient
species, which reduces the ‘raw material’ for future allopatric speciation, and
thus reduces the source of future species diversity (Perry et al. 2002; Olden et
al. 2004). Secondly, outbreeding depression, i.e., a reduction in fitness due to
the mating of genetically divergent individuals,may occur in invaded popula-
tions. Outbreeding depression may arise through underdominance (heterozy-
gote disadvantage) between alleles of the two parental populations, or
through a breakup of coadapted gene complexes (Dobzhansky 1950; Lynch
1991). Similarly to the evolution of local adaptations by natural selection,
coadapted gene complexes arise as intrinsic adaptations to the genetic envi-
Hybridization and Introgression Between Native and Alien Species 277
ronment of local populations, i.e., the evolution of ‘local’ complexes of genes
that interact in a mutually favorable manner (Lynch 1996).An important fea-
ture of outbreeding depression through the breakup of coadapted gene com-
plexes is that it theoretically may occur between populations that have
adapted to similar extrinsic environments.An increasing number of studies
presenting empirical evidence of outbreeding depression have been reported
for several animal and plant taxa (e.g., Butcher and Williams 2002; Goldberg
et al. 2005; Sagvik et al. 2005). Finally,the loss of locally adapted populations
through introgressive hybridization leads to a general reduction of fitness of
a species and its adaptive potential, and may thus make it even more vulnera-
ble to invasions (Mallet 2005).
The gene exchange by introgression between native and invading species
has been given many different names, most having pejorative connotations,
e.g., ‘genetic pollution’ or ‘contamination’ (Rhymer and Simberloff 1996). So
far, there has been no general agreement on a specific term to denote the
genetic effects of man-induced introgressive hybridization. Also, most of the
terms applied so far in this context have been used also in various other con-
texts. Here, I follow the suggestion of Rhymer and Simberloff (1996), and use
the non-value-laden term ‘mixing’ to denote a mixing of gene pools associ-
ated, or not, with a decline in fitness.
16.2.2 Genetic and Statistical Tools
As was predicted by Rhymer and Simberloff (1996), this increase in evidence
of genetic interactions between genetically distinct taxa is directly connected
to the advent of various new molecular genetic tools, which have facilitated
the detection of hybridization and introgression in cases where hybrid indi-
viduals were morphologically difficult to distinguish from their parental
forms. Within this context, particularly important roles are played by the
polymerase chain reaction (PCR; Mullis et al. 1986) for the in vitro amplifica-
tion of specific DNA sequences, and the techniques and genetic markers
based on PCR technology,such as rapid DNA sequencing methods (e.g., cycle
sequencing) and microsatellite DNA markers (Tautz 1989). The latter allow a
genetic resolution at the level of individuals (Estoup and Angers 1998).
Besides that these techniques have become very much more efficient, afford-
able for small laboratories and easy to use even for non-molecular biologists,
the major advantage of PCR-based technologies is their non-destructive and
minuscule tissue requirements, enabling a non-invasive way to study rare or
endangered species (Morin and Woodruff 1996).
Furthermore, recent statistical developments have facilitated the detection
of hybridization and hybrid individuals in cases where no taxa-specific mark-
ers are available. For example, model-based Bayesian statistical techniques,
which utilize the information of highly polymorphic markers such as
C.R. Largiadèr278
microsatellites (Pritchard et al. 2000; Anderson and Thompson 2002), have
already been widely applied to the study of hybridization and introgression in
natural and man-induced cases (e.g.,Beaumont et al.2001; Barilani et al.2005;
Williams et al. 2005; Lecis et al. 2006).
The simultaneous use of cytoplasmic (mitochondrial and chloroplast
DNA) and nuclear genetic markers has become an important standard in
studies of introgressive hybridization. The combination of these two marker
classes allow us to gain very detailed insight into the processes of hybridiza-
tion and introgression (as reviewed, e.g., for aquatic organisms by Avise
2000).
These studies take advantage of the fact that these cytoplasmic genomes
are usually maternally inherited, and thus show a pattern of inheritance dif-
ferent to that of recombining nuclear markers. A joint use of these marker
classes provides information that cannot be obtained by using either marker
class alone. For example, if only one sex of the invaded taxon hybridizes, then
the maternally inherited markers will introgress asymmetrically in relation to
nuclear makers, which are inherited by both sexes equally. The direction of
the asymmetry will give us information on which combinations of mating
occur in the interbreeding of the two parental taxa. If the interbreeding is
restricted to males of the invading taxon with females of the native taxon,
then we would observe that hybrid individuals always carry a mitochondrial
genotype of the native taxon, while having a mixture of alleles of the two
parental taxa at the nuclear markers. Thus, measures of association between
specific alleles at nuclear markers and cytoplasmic genotypes can be used to
formulate hypotheses of factors involved in hybrid formation, and the rate
and direction of genetic introgression in hybridization events. This develop-
ment of a cytonuclear theory and of statistical models provided an important
framework for hypothesis testing using empirical data in hybridizing taxa
(Asmussen et al.1987; Scribner et al. 2000).
16.3 Basic Types of Anthropogenic Hybridization:
Empirical Examples
16.3.1 Hybridization Without Introgression
Hybridization may contribute to the decline of native species even if F1-
hybrids are all completely sterile. In this case,although hybridization is not a
threat through genetic mixing, part of the reproductive effort will be wasted
in the production of sterile hybrids (Rhymer and Simberloff 1996; Allendorf
et al. 2001).A genetic model suggests that hybridization with sterile hybrids
has little effect on the dynamics of the displacement (Huxel 1999), which pri-
Hybridization and Introgression Between Native and Alien Species 279
marily depends on the relative fitness of invaders and their immigration rate.
However, the model assumed a constant population size, and that the two
parental species produce (at their respective proportions) a sufficient number
offspring to account for the loss of hybrid individuals in each generation.
Thus, the accelerating effect in replacing the native species of hybridization
without introgression may strongly depend on the fecundity of the native
species, which may be further reduced indirectly by competition with hybrids
for limited habitat resources.
So far, empirical evidence for such cases has been quite rare in animals. I
also have not found a single well-documented case in plants,though there are
several examples of crosses of plant species yielding sterile hybrid progeny
(Ellstrand 1992). However, it may well be that many such cases have remained
unnoticed, since computer models predict that such replacements of local
populations may occur very rapidly within a few generations (Huxel 1999;
Wolf et al. 2001).Furthermore, if sterile hybrid individuals have reduced vigor
(e.g., die at very early life stages), then their presence may be overlooked. A
case where the latter could apply concerns the formerly widespread and now
threatened European mink (Mustela lutreola), whose populations have
declined almost everywhere throughout its range. Several hypotheses have
been put forward to explain the disappearance of this species.One important
cause seems competition with the American mink (M. vison), which was
introduced for fur farming or accidentally released in many parts of Europe in
the 1920s–1930s. Based on crossing experiments with the two species, which
showed that hybrid embryos are resorbed, it was suggested that, because the
breeding season of M. vison starts earlier and because M. vison males are
stronger than the European mink males, the M. vison males would mate with
the native M. lutreola females, thereby preventing M. lutreola reproduction
(Maran and Henttonen 1995).
Current genetic evidence for hybridization confined primarily to the F1-
generation involves freshwater fish species. In a first example, genetic data
collected over a period of 8 years from a stream in western Montana (north-
western North America) indicated a rapid displacement of native bull trout
(Salvelinus confluentus) by introduced brook trout (S. fontinalis), with very
low introgression (Leary et al. 1993).Only two of 75 hybrids detected through-
out western Montana were not F1-individuals, and a comparison of the
genetic data of mtDNA and ten diagnostic nuclear markers showed that both
sexes of each species interbreed with the corresponding sex of the other.
A second, more recent example concerns two freshwater minnow species
(Pseudorasbora pumila and P. parva) in Japan (Konishi and Takata 2004). P.
parva native to western Japan has been accidentally introduced during the
transplantations of other cyprinid fish species into eastern Japan. Over the
last 30 years,P. parva has largely replaced P. p u m il a native to eastern Japan. In
the contact zone of the two species, only F1-hybrids showing exclusively
mtDNA haplotypes of P. p u m i l a have been detected, even after following the
C.R. Largiadèr280
genetic structure of hybridizing populations over a 5-year period. The data
indicate that the F1-hybrids are sterile, and resulted from mating only
between P. p u mi l a females and P. parva males. The data also suggest that the
rapid replacement of P. p u m i l a by P. parva has been promoted by asymmetri-
cal hybridization without introgression, but with P. p u m i l a females wasting
considerably greater reproductive efforts than did P. parva males.
16.3.2 Hybridization with Introgression
The primary genetic consequence of introgressive hybridization is that the
genomes of the two hybridizing forms are recombined, i.e., genes from one
taxon introgress into the gene pool of the other taxon,and thus lead to a mix-
ing of the two gene pools. This introgression may be asymmetrical at the level
of the taxa involved, as well as at the level of genes. For example,in the case of
the brown trout (Salmo trutta) and its sister species the Atlantic salmon (S.
salar), experimentally backcrossing F1-hybrids to Atlantic salmon yielded
viable offspring, whereas all attempts of backcrosses to brown trout failed,
suggesting that an asymmetric introgression of brown trout genes into the
Atlantic salmon gene pool is possible (Garcia-Vazquez et al. 2004).
In natural hybrid zones, asymmetric introgression patterns may be
observed for different genes,indicating that some genes introgress ‘more eas-
ily’ than others (Avise 1994). While some of these asymmetries arise through
selective advantages conferred by particular alleles in the new genetic back-
ground of the introgressed species,others may arise from different behaviors
or fitnesses between the sexes. For example, in plants, male and female gene
flow is generally strongly decoupled through different dispersal modes of
pollen and seeds (Arnold 1992), resulting in asymmetrical introgression pat-
terns of nuclear and maternally inherited gene markers (Arnold et al. 1991).
These observations of natural cases of hybridization have important implica-
tions for man-induced introgressive hybridization. Firstly, this is not a uni-
form process leading to a single predictable outcome. Secondly, it is modu-
lated by various factors, such as behavioral components, which may be
changed in disturbed habitats or in domesticated varieties, as will be dis-
cussed in more detail in the examples presented below.
Examples of man-induced introgressive hybridization have been reported
for many taxonomic groups of plants and animals. However, invertebrates,
although being the most diverse group of animals, are clearly underrepre-
sented, which reflects the fact that research of genetic effects of biological
invasions is strongly focused on birds,mammals, and fishes.Perry et al. (2002)
have recently reviewed the importance of anthropogenic hybridization in the
freshwater fauna as a threat to North American biodiversity, and suggested
that hybridization with introduced species may represent an underestimated
threat for crayfish species. This country harbors about 75 % (ca. 390 species)
Hybridization and Introgression Between Native and Alien Species 281
of the world’s known crayfish species, of which about 30% are threatened or
endangered (Lodge et al. 2000). Indeed, the rusty crayfish (Orconectes rusti-
cus) has been shown to be hybridizing with, and displacing native O. propin-
quus (Perry et al. 2001). O. rusticus is native to southwestern Ohio, and has
been introduced widely as fish bait throughout the United States,where it has
become a serious pest over the last 35 years. A detailed study by Perry et al.
(2001) revealed a quite interesting situation. Patterns of cytonuclear disequi-
librium between allozymes and mtDNA suggested that the majority of F1-
hybrids were offspring of matings between O. rusticus females and O. propin-
quus males, although O. rusticus males were expected to outcompete the
native O. propinquus males, which are smaller in size than their introduced
congeners. Compared to both parental forms, these authors also found no
reduction of fecundity and early survivorship, but rather a competitive supe-
riority in hybrids. They stated that these results,at first sight, seemed to be at
odds with the expectation that introgressive hybridization would enhance the
displacement of the native gene pools by the invading genes, since the asym-
metrical gene flow of native nuclear genes into the invaders gene pool should
operate rather in the opposite direction.However, by assuming that the higher
competitive ability of early-generation hybrids translates into higher relative
fitness, and using a simple one-locus model, they estimated that introgressive
hybridization would accelerate the elimination of pure O. propinquus by
4.8–36.3 % above that due to the previously documented ecological interac-
tion.
Among birds, several duck species have been intensively studied in the
context of anthropogenic hybridization. These studies provide impressive
examples on how habitat modifications and transplantations, followed by
introgressive hybridization, have led to declines of several native taxa
throughout the world (Kulikova et al. 2004; Williams et al. 2005). A nearly
complete genetic mixing of the New Zealand grey duck (Anas s. superciliosa)
with introduced mallards (A. platyrhynchos) threatens the native taxa to
become extinct, and to be replaced by a new mongrel species (Rhymer et al.
1994). An especially noteworthy example concerning duck species involves
the American black duck (A. rubripes) and A. platyrhynchos. These two
species have been primarily allopatric prior to the settlement by Europeans
of North America. Habitat alteration and game-farm mallard releases during
the 20th century enabled mallards to extend their range, and to come into
contact and interbreed with the morphologically and behaviorally similar
black duck (Mank et al. 2004). Molecular data based on modern specimens
suggested the black duck to be a recent evolutionary derivative of a more
broadly distributed mallard–black duck ancestor (Avise et al. 1990). How-
ever, the genetic analysis of modern and museum specimens clearly showed
a dramatic decrease in genetic differentiation between the two taxa, indicat-
ing that the present-day genetic similarity is the consequence of gene flow
through introgressive hybridization (Mank et al. 2004). This study is a nice
C.R. Largiadèr282
example on the usefulness of historical museum specimens to study such
dynamic processes.
At the intraspecific level,an interesting case of anthropogenic introgressive
hybridization in birds in the wild concerns common quails (Coturnix c. con-
turnix) and domesticated Japanese quails (Conturnix c. japonica). The com-
mon quail’s breeding range extends from the Atlantic to Lake Baikal,and from
the Arctic Circle to the tropics (Guyomarc’h et al. 1998). Its breeding range
overlaps only in small areas with the natural distribution of the Japanese
quail. The decline of the common quail at northern latitudes over the last few
decades has stimulated the release of Japanese quail as game species. Wild
common quails migrate toward North Africa, while such migratory behavior
is absent or reduced in domesticated Japanese or hybrid quails (Deregnau-
court et al. 2005).The long-distance migration is thought to be an adaptation
to avoid unfavorable winter conditions in Northern and Central Europe,
where the common quail is generally not observed during this time (Guy-
omarc’h et al. 1998). Hybrids between common and Japanese quails have
recently been detected in the wild in several European countries and in Africa,
and also in some captive-reared stocks of Japanese quail (Barilani et al.2005).
Thus, this introgressive hybridization may potentially lead to a gradual
decline of the migratory behavior of wild common quail populations (Dereg-
naucourt et al. 2005).
Among vertebrates, fishes seem to hybridize most frequently at the inter-
specific level, which has been explained by their generally external mode of
fertilization, coupled with weakly developed reproductive isolating mecha-
nisms (Hubbs 1955). Many freshwater fishes have been intensively trans-
planted or hybridized in aquaculture in order to increase yields. Canals and
river diversions have removed isolating barriers that historically prevented
the range overlap of allopatric species (Chap. 5). Finally, natural habitats of
many freshwater fish have been altered, e.g., through canalizations of rivers,
often resulting in a consolidation of spawning activities in reduced or altered
habitats of decreasing complexity. Thus, it is not surprising that there should
be numerous documented cases of anthropogenic introgressive hybridization
for this group of species. Scribner et al. (2000) report that about 50% (or 81)
of a total of 163 reviewed cases of interspecific hybridization, encompassing
168 species from 19 freshwater fish families, could be attributed to the afore-
mentioned types of human impact. There are also many studies reporting
introgressive hybridization at the intraspecific level, encompassing mainly
economically important salmonid species that have been extensively trans-
planted over a century for harvest enhancement, and to compensate for pop-
ulation declines due to habitat deterioration.This has involved often massive
introductions from domesticated hatchery strains (Largiadèr and Scholl
1995). Utter (2000) reviewed the patterns of subspecific introgression in two
salmonid genera of North America (Oncorhynchus spp.) and Europe (Salmo
spp.). He found that freshwater resident populations were more susceptible
Hybridization and Introgression Between Native and Alien Species 283
than anadromous ones to introgression from genetically distinct lineages,
including some lineages that had been isolated for more than a million years.
By contrast,within major genetic lineages,anadromous populations appear to
be more susceptible to introgression. In general, there is a great variability
observed in the extent of introgression in different populations,ranging from
hardly detectable introgression of exotic genes following several decades of
intensive introductions (Largiadèr and Scholl 1996), to nearly complete dis-
placement of the native gene pools (Largiadèr and Scholl 1995).
Regarding the literature on anthropogenic introgressive hybridization in
mammals, evidence of gene flow between domesticated varieties and wild
conspecifics or closely related species seems to have particularly increased in
the last few years. This involves, for example, the European wildcat (Felis sil-
vestris silvestris) and domestic cats (F. s. catus; Beaumont et al. 2001; Lecis et
al. 2006),domestic ferrets (Mustela furo) and the European polecat (M. puto-
rius; Davison et al. 1999), wolves (Canis lupus) and domestic dogs (C. l. famil-
iaris; Randi and Lucchini 2002; Vilà et al. 2003), coyotes (C. latrans) and dogs
(Adams et al. 2003), bison (Bison bison) and domestic cattle (Bos taurus; Hal-
bert et al. 2005), and other bovine species (Nijman et al. 2003).
Although there is no systematic survey dealing specifically with man-
induced inter- and intraspecific introgressive hybridization in plant species to
assess the extent of these phenomena as a threat to native biological diversity,
plants still represent probably the best-studied group in this context.Vilà et al.
(2000) have recently compiled and reviewed a large number of human-medi-
ated plant hybridizations, which encompass a wide range of taxonomic
groups and the full range of potential outcomes, as described above for ani-
mal species.Also, the gene flow between domesticated and wild plant species
has received increased attention since the advent of transgenics. A recent
review reports that 12 of the world’s 13 most important crop species hybridize
with wild relatives (Ellstrand et al. 2002), and substantial evidence has now
been compiled that at least 48 cultivated plant taxa hybridize with one or
more wild relatives somewhere in the world (Ellstrand 2003a,2003b). Two fur-
ther reviews focused on the extinction of rare species through hybridization
with numerically superior invading species (Ellstrand and Elam 1993; Levin
et al. 1996).Yet, there are also cases of small invading populations threatening
larger populations of native species. For example, smooth cord grass
(Spartina alterniflora), which was introduced into the salt marshes of San
Francisco Bay in the mid-1970s, shows a much higher male fitness than does
the native California cord grass (S. foliosa). This fitness difference seems to
reverse the direction of gene flow,which would normally be expected to occur
from the more abundant to the rarer taxon, and thus may ultimately lead to
the extinction of the more widespread, abundant native species (S. foliosa)
through progressive introgression of genes of the rare invader (S. alterniflora)
into the native gene pool (Anttila et al. 1998).
C.R. Largiadèr284
16.4 Hybridization as a Stimulus for the Evolution
of Invasiveness and the Emergence of Anthropogenic
Hybrid Taxa
The effect of anthropogenic hybridization and introgression is not always
restricted to accelerating the replacement of native taxa and locally adapted
populations,leading to a loss of genetic diversity at the species and subspecies
level. In some cases, hybridization, often combined with habitat modifica-
tions, may generate new invasive hybrid taxa that are better adapted than
their parental species, and thus induce invasiveness in situ (Abbott 1992).
Hybridization may directly produce distinct taxa, either through (allo-) poly-
ploidisation or the generation of clonally reproducing unisexual lineages,
whereas introgression could lead to stable, independent lineages defined by
unique genetic combinations (cf. Rieseberg 1997; Dowling and Secor 1997).A
classical textbook example of a hybrid taxon is the common cord grass
Spartina anglica (Gray et al. 1991), which originated from hybridization
between S. maritima and S. alterniflora. In the early 19th century, the latter
was introduced accidentally (probably as shipping ballast) from North Amer-
ica into Southampton,UK, where it hybridized with the local S. maritima,pro-
ducing a sterile hybrid.A chromosome doubling event in the hybrid led to the
generation of new fertile species, S. anglica.This very aggressive hybrid taxon
now occupies large areas of the British Isles, and has successfully colonized a
zone of mudflats not occupied by its parents, thereby endangering other
species by its spread.
Recently, in a non-exhaustive review, Ellstrand and Schierenbeck (2000)
compiled a list of 28 well-documented examples of the evolution of invasive-
ness in 12 plant families following a spontaneous hybridization event between
a native and an introduced taxon. A striking common feature is that these
examples all occur in human-disturbed areas.In all, 24 of the 28 examples are
herbaceous species,the majority being outcrossing perennials.As the authors
point out, these characteristics are also found to be frequent among cases of
natural hybridization (Ellstrand et al.1996),indicating that some groups seem
to be more prone to generate new hybrid taxa.
Compared to plants, the formation of new hybrid taxa appears to be rela-
tively rare in animals.However, as in the case of the rate of hybridization,this
may be partly due to the negative attitudes toward hybridization in zoology
(Dowling and Secor 1997). An interesting recent example in animals involves
a freshwater sculpin of the genus Cottus (Nolte et al. 2005). Over the past two
decades in the Rhine river system in Central Europe, a rapid upriver invasion
of new habitats,previously free of sculpins and atypical for the known species
C. gobio, has been observed. Genetic analysis revealed that the invasive fish
are hybrids between two old C. gobio lineages, the one from the river Rhine
drainage, the other from the river Scheldt drainage. It seems that artificial
Hybridization and Introgression Between Native and Alien Species 285
connections between the two river systems have provided the opportunity for
hybridization between long-separated groups, leading to the emergence of a
new,adaptationally distinct sculpin lineage.
16.5 Can we Predict Introgressive Hybridization
and its Outcome?
16.5.1 Genetic Differentiation Between Taxa as an Indicator
In the case of biological invasions,it would be useful for managers to be able
to predict whether an invader will hybridize with a local relative,and if so, to
what extent.A recent review on experimental hybridization (Edmands 2002)
clearly showed that, although pre- and postzygotic isolation are roughly cor-
related with divergence time, there is tremendous variation in divergence
time, resulting in variable hybrid vigor, outbreeding depression, or only par-
tial reproductive compatibility within and among different taxonomic
groups. Thus, the extent of variation observed in this relationship does not
allow one to predict the consequences of a specific encounter of invading and
native taxa based on their genetic divergence.
16.5.2 Habitat Modifications
As can be easily deduced from the examples given in this text, anthropogenic
disturbance of local habitats is a major factor promoting hybridization, and
also affecting the outcome of hybridization. Rhymer and Simberloff (1996)
discuss in detail three forms of habitat modifications.
1. The first form is local habitat modification, leading to a mixing of previ-
ously distinct gene pools. There are indeed many examples, in plants and
in animals, reporting that introgressive hybridization occurs at higher fre-
quency in disturbed or artificial habitats than in undisturbed natural sites
(e.g., Bleeker and Hurka 2001; Riley et al. 2003).
2. As a second form, they defined regional habitat change promoting geo-
graphic range expansion of one taxon into the range of another, which
would provide an opportunity for hybridization. One notable example is
the genetic introgression between mallards and black ducks described
above.
3. A third type of habitat modification promoting hybridization is the con-
struction of permanent migration corridors between the ranges of
allopatric taxa. For example, this has presumably led to the emergence of
the new invasive hybrid Cottus taxon described above.
C.R. Largiadèr286
As a further important category of habitat modifications in this context,we
should also mention habitat fragmentation. This modification does not pro-
mote hybridization by itself, but it makes small, local isolated populations
more vulnerable to extinction through introgressive hybridization, as is the
case for rare species (Levin et al.1996).
16.5.3 Introduction Intensity
Even if we have some a priori knowledge on the fitness of hybrids or existing
prezygotic barriers, e.g.,from experimental crossings or natural hybrid zones,
there is an important general difference between natural and most artificial
cases of hybridization, making the prediction of hybridization nearly impos-
sible. In human-mediated cases, the contacts between invading and native
taxa usually do not occur along narrow contact zones, in contrast with many
natural cases. Rather, exotic species are often introduced repeatedly across
large parts of the native species range. This applies in particular to cultivated
plant species, to many freshwater fish species, of interest to anglers and com-
mercial fisheries, and also to game species including many birds and mam-
mals. In such situations, the frequency of occasions for interbreeding is
greatly enhanced. This artificially high rate of contact increases the probabil-
ity that genetic incompatibilities are eventually broken down. Even if there is
selection against hybrids or against the introduced species, this disadvantage
is simply overcome by the fact that the invaders are reproduced artificially,
e.g., in hatcheries.At the same time,declining numbers in local populations of
the invaded species may not be compensated through immigration from
neighboring ‘pure’ populations, due either to habitat fragmentation (e.g.,
migration obstacles, such as dams), or to the introductions being geographi-
cally widespread.
16.5.4 Differences Between Populations
Besides the two important factors of introduction intensity and habitat mod-
ifications affecting the intensity and outcome of introgressive hybridization
between native and invading taxa,there is probably an additional modifying
factor that has been greatly overlooked in the past. Local populations of a
species may naturally greatly differ in their ecology and genetic composition,
due to specific adaptations to their local environment or due to historical
demographic processes, and this may also apply to the introduced species,
which perhaps already represent a mixture of different source populations or
are introduced from several different sources. Consequently, we may also
expect these to differ in their susceptibility to introgression.Recently, experi-
mental studies (Kodric-Brown and Rosenfield 2004) showed that males from
Hybridization and Introgression Between Native and Alien Species 287
different populations of Pecos pupfish (Cyprinodon pecosensis) differ in ago-
nistic behavior,territoriality,and in mating success when competing with the
introduced sheepshead minnow (C. variegatus). This suggests that in local
populations of C. pecosensis, the rate of introgressive hybridization with C.
variegatus may vary depending on differences in the competitive ability of
males in these populations.
16.6 Conclusions
Anthropogenic introgressive hybridization is a widespread phenomenon, and
it will certainly continue to increase in importance. Many habitat modifica-
tions are irreversible, and there are also many situations where the mixing of
gene pools by introgression has occurred to a point where it is irreversible.
Facing this reality, managers now need to answer important questions as to
whether introgressed populations should also be conserved in some cases,
and to what degree introgression is acceptable (Allendorf et al. 2001). Should
we, for example, also conserve new taxa that have been created through
hybridization between native and introduced species, or the hybrid swarm
that has completely replaced the formerly native taxon? In this context, it is
also worth mentioning that distinguishing between natural and man-induced
hybridization is a difficult, but crucial task (Allendorf et al. 2001; Petit et al.
2004).
Predicting hybridization and its outcomes is probably an unsolvable task,
due to the complexity of potential interactions between the factors involved.
Nevertheless, for an improved management and conservation of native taxa
that are threatened by hybridization with invading taxa, it is of primary
importance to conduct more long-term studies, which systematically inte-
grate information on environmental and biological (including genetic) char-
acteristics at the level of local populations.
Finally, hybridization is an evolutionary process that plays an important
part in the context of biological invasions, which in turn are a key driving
force of current evolutionary change (Mooney and Cleland 2001). Thus, the
recent progress toward integrating evolutionary biology into invasion biology
(Lee 2002; Levin 2003) provides an important basis for further advance in
research on anthropogenic hybridization.
C.R. Largiadèr288
References
Abbott RJ (1992) Plant invasions, interspecific hybridization and the evolution of new
plant taxa. Trends Ecol Evol 7:401–405
Adams JR, Leonard JA,Waits LP (2003) Widespread occurrence of a domestic dog mito-
chondrial DNA haplotype in southeastern US coyotes. Mol Ecol 12:541–546
Allendorf FW,Leary RF,Spruell P,Wenburg JK (2001) The problems with hybrids: setting
conservation guidelines. Trends Ecol Evol 16:613–622
Anderson EC, Thompson EA (2002) A model-based method for identifying species
hybrids using multilocus genetic data.Genetics 160:1217–1229
Anttila CK, Daehler CC, Rank NE, Strong DR (1998) Greater male fitness of a rare
invader (Spartina alterniflora, Poaceae) threatens a common native (Spartina
foliosa) with hybridization.Am J Bot 85:1597–1601
Arnold ML (1992) Natural hybridization as an evolutionary process.Annu Rev Ecol Syst
23:237–261
Arnold ML, Buckner CM,Robinson JJ (1991) Pollen-mediated introgression and hybrid
speciation in Louisiana irises.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 88:1398–1402
Asmussen MA, Arnold J, Avise JC (1987) Statistics of natural populations. 4. Definition
and properties of disequilibrium statistics for associations between nuclear and
cytoplasmic genotypes. Genetics 115:755–768
Avise JC (1994) Molecular markers,natural history and evolution. Chapman & Hall, New
Yo r k
Avise JC (2000) Cytonuclear genetic signatures of hybridization phenomena: rationale,
utility, and empirical examples from fishes and other aquatic animals. Rev Fish Biol
Fisheries 10:253–263
Avise JC, Ankney CD, Nelson WS (1990) Mitochondrial gene trees and the evolutionary
relationship of mallard and black ducks.Evolution 44:1109–1119
Barilani M, Deregnaucourt S, Gallego S, Galli L, Mucci N, Piombo R, Puigcerver M,
Rimondi S, Rodriguez-Teijeiro JD, Spano S,Randi E (2005) Detecting hybridization in
wild (Coturnix c. coturnix) and domesticated (Coturnix c. japonica) quail popula-
tions. Biol Conserv 126:445–455
Beaumont M, Barratt EM, Gottelli D, Kitchener AC, Daniels MJ, Pritchard JK, Bruford
MW (2001) Genetic diversity and introgression in the Scottish wildcat. Mol Ecol
10:319–336
Bleeker W, Hurka H (2001) Introgressive hybridization in Rorippa (Brassicaceae): gene
flow and its consequences in natural and anthropogenic habitats. Mol Ecol
10:2013–2022
Butcher PA, Williams ER (2002) Variation in outcrossing rates and growth in Eucalyptus
camaldulensis from the Petford Region, Queensland; evidence of outbreeding
depression.Silvae Genetica 51:6–12
Davison A,Birks JDS,Griffiths HI, Kitchener AC,Biggins D,Butlin RK (1999) Hybridiza-
tion and the phylogenetic relationship between polecats and domestic ferrets in
Britain. Biol Conserv 87:155–161
Deregnaucourt S, Gyomarc’h JC,Belhamra M (2005) Comparison of migratory tendency
in European quail Coturnix c. coturnix,domestic Japanese quail Coturnix c. japonica
and their hybrids. Ibis 147:25–36
Dobzhansky T (1950) Genetics of natural populations. 19. Origin of heterosis through
natural selection in populations of Drosophila pseudoobscura. Genetics 35:288–302
Dowling TE, Secor CL (1997) The role of hybridization and introgression in the diversi-
fication of animals.Annu Rev Ecol Syst 28:593–619
Hybridization and Introgression Between Native and Alien Species 289
Edmands S (2002) Does parental divergence predict reproductive compatibility? Trends
Ecol Evol 17:520–527
Ellstrand NC (1992) Gene flow by pollen – implications for plant conservation genetics.
Oikos 63:77–86
Ellstrand NC (2003a) Current knowledge of gene flow in plants: implications for trans-
gene flow. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 358:1163–1170
Ellstrand NC (2003b) Dangerous liaisons: when crops mate with their wild relatives.
John Hopkins University Press,Baltimore, MD
Ellstrand NC, Elam DR (1993) Population genetic consequences of small population-size
– implications for plant conservation.Annu Rev Ecol Syst 24:217–242
Ellstrand NC, Schierenbeck KA (2000) Hybridization as a stimulus for the evolution of
invasiveness in plants? Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:7043–7050
Ellstrand NC, Whitkus R, Rieseberg LH (1996) Distribution of spontaneous plant
hybrids. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:5090–5093
Ellstrand NC, Prentice H,Hancock JF (2002) Gene flow and introgression from domesti-
cated plants into their wild relatives. In: Syvanen M, Kado CI (eds) Horizontal gene
transfer.Academic Press, San Diego,pp 217–236
Estoup A,Angers B (1998) Microsatellites and minisatellites for molecular ecology: the-
oretical and empirical considerations. In: Carvalho GR (ed) Advances in molecular
ecology.IOS Press,Amsterdam,pp 55–86
Garcia-Vazquez E, Perez J, Ayllon F, Martinez JL, Glise S, Beall E (2004) Asymmetry of
post-F-1 interspecific reproductive barriers among brown trout (Salmo trutta) and
Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar).Aquaculture 234:77–84
Goldberg TL, Grant EC, Inendino KR, Kassler TW, Claussen JE, Philipp DP (2005)
Increased infectious disease susceptibility resulting from outbreeding depression.
Conserv Biol 19:455–462
Grant PR, Grant BR (1996) Speciation and hybridization in island birds. Philos Trans R
Soc Lond B Biol Sci 351:765–772
Gray AJ, Marshall DF, Raybould AF (1991) A century of evolution in Spartina anglica.
Adv Ecol Res 21:1–62
Guyomarc’h JC, Combreau O, Puigcerver M, Fontoura P, Aebischer NJ. (1998) Coturnix
coturnix quail. BWP Update 2:27–46
Halbert ND, Ward TJ, Schnabel RD, Taylor JF, Derr JN (2005) Conservation genomics:
disequilibrium mapping of domestic cattle chromosomal segments in North Ameri-
can bison populations.Mol Ecol 14:2343–2362
Hubbs CL (1955) Hybridization between fish species in nature.Syst Zool 4:1–20
Huxel GR (1999) Rapid displacement of native species by invasive species: effects of
hybridization.Biol Conserv 89:143–152
Kodric-Brown A, Rosenfield JA (2004) Populations of Pecos pupfish (Cyprinodon
pecosensis) differ in their susceptibility to hybridization with sheepshead minnow (C.
variegatus).Behav Ecol Sociobiol 56:116–123
Konishi M,Takata K (2004) Impact of asymmetrical hybridization followed by sterile F-
1 hybrids on species replacement in Pseudorasbora. Conserv Gen 5:463–474
Kulikova IV, Zhuravlev YN, McCracken KG (2004) Asymmetric hybridization and sex-
biased gene flow between Eastern spot-billed ducks (Anas zonorhyncha) and mal-
lards (A. platyrhynchos) in the Russian Far East.Auk 121:930–949
Largiadèr CR, Scholl A (1995) Effects of stocking on the genetic diversity of brown trout
populations of the Adriatic and Danubian drainages in Switzerland. J Fish Biol
47:209–225
Largiadèr CR, Scholl A (1996) Genetic introgression between native and introduced
brown trout Salmo truttaL populations in the Rhone River Basin. Mol Ecol 5:417–426
C.R. Largiadèr290
Leary RF, Allendorf FW, Forbes SH (1993) Conservation genetics of bull trout in the
Columbia and Klamath river drainages.Conserv Biol 7:856–865
Lecis R, Pierpaoli M, Biro ZS, Szemethy L, Ragni B,Vercillo F, Randi E (2006) Bayesian
analyses of admixture in wild and domestic cats (Felis silvestris) using linked
microsatellite loci.Mol Ecol 15:119–131
Lee CE (2002) Evolutionary genetics of invasive species.Trends Ecol Evol 17:386–391
Levin DA (2003) Ecological speciation: lessons from invasive species. Syst Bot
28:643–650
Levin DA,Francisco Ortega J,Jansen RK (1996) Hybridization and the extinction of rare
plant species.Conserv Biol 10:10–16
Lodge DM, Taylor CA, Holdich DM, Skurdal J (2000) Nonindigenous crayfishes threaten
North American freshwater biodiversity: lessons from Europe.Fisheries 25:7–20
Lynch M (1991) The genetic interpretation of inbreeding depression and outbreeding
depression.Evolution 45:622–629
Lynch M (1996) A quantitative-genetic perspective on conservation issues. In: Avise JC,
Hamrick JL (eds) Conservation genetics: case histories from nature. Chapman &
Hall, New York, pp 471–501
Mallet J (2005) Hybridization as an invasion of the genome.Trends Ecol Evol 20:229–237
Mank JE, Carlson JE, Brittingham MC (2004) A century of hybridization: decreasing
genetic distance between American black ducks and mallards. Conserv Gen
5:395–403
Maran T, Henttonen H (1995) Why Is the European mink (Mustela lutreola) disappear-
ing – a review of the process and hypotheses.Ann Zool Fenn 32:47–54
Mooney HA, Cleland EE (2001) The evolutionary impact of invasive species. Proc Natl
Acad Sci USA 98:5446–5451
Morin PA, Woodruff DS (1996) Noninvasive genotyping for vertebrate conservation.In:
Smith TB, Wayne RK (eds) Molecular genetic approaches in conservation. Oxford
University Press,Oxford,pp 298–313
Mullis K,Faloona F, Scharf S, Saiki R, Horn G,Erlich H (1986) Specific enzymatic ampli-
fication of DNA invitro - the polymerase chain reaction. Cold Spring Harbor Symp
Quant Biol 51:263–273
Nijman IJ, Otsen M, Verkaar ELC,de Ruijter C, Hanekamp E, Ochieng JW, Shamshad S,
Reges JEO,Hanotte O, Barwegen MW, Sulawati T, Lenstra JA (2003) Hybridization of
banteng (Bos javanicus) and zebu (Bos indicus) revealed by mitochondrial DNA,
satellite DNA,AFLP and microsatellites. Heredity 90:10–16
Nolte AW, Freyhof J, Stemshorn KC, Tautz D (2005) An invasive lineage of sculpins, Cot-
tus sp (Pisces, Teleostei) in the Rhine with new habitat adaptations has originated
from hybridization between old phylogeographic groups. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci
272:2379–2387
Olden JD, Poff NL, Douglas MR, Douglas ME, Fausch KD (2004) Ecological and evolu-
tionary consequences of biotic homogenization.Trends Ecol Evol 19:18–24
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
Perry WL, Lodge DM, Feder JL (2002) Importance of hybridization between indigenous
and nonindigenous freshwater species: An overlooked threat to North American bio-
diversity.Syst Biol 51:255–275
Petit RJ,Bialozyt R, Garnier-Gere P, Hampe A (2004) Ecology and genetics of tree inva-
sions: from recent introductions to Quaternary migrations. Forest Ecol Manage
197:117–137
Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P (2000) Inference of population structure using
multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155:945–959
Hybridization and Introgression Between Native and Alien Species 291
Randi E, Lucchini V (2002) Detecting rare introgression of domestic dog genes into wild
wolf (Canis lupus) populations by Bayesian admixture analyses of microsatellite vari-
ation. Conserv Gen 3:31–45
Rhymer JM, Simberloff D (1996) Extinction by hybridization and introgression. Annu
Rev Ecol Syst 27:83–109
Rhymer JM, Williams MJ,Braun MJ (1994) Mitochondrial analysis of gene flow between
New-Zealand mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) and grey ducks (A. superciliosa). Auk
111:970–978
Rieseberg LH (1997) Hybrid origins of plant species.Annu Rev Ecol Syst 28:359–389
Riley SPD, Shaffer HB, Voss SR, Fitzpatrick BM (2003) Hybridization between a rare,
native tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) and its introduced congener. Ecol
Appl 13:1263–1275
Sagvik J, Uller T, Olsson M (2005) Outbreeding depression in the common frog, Rana
temporaria.Conserv Gen 6:205–211
Scribner KT, Page KS, Bartron ML (2000) Hybridization in freshwater fishes: a review of
case studies and cytonuclear methods of biological inference. Rev Fish Biol Fisheries
10:293–323
Tautz D (1989) Hypervariability of Simple Sequences as a general source for polymor-
phic DNA markers.Nucleic Acids Res 17:6463–6471
Utter F (2000) Patterns of subspecific anthropogenic introgression in two salmonid gen-
era. Rev Fish Biol Fisheries 10:265–279
Vilà C,Walker C, Sundqvist AK, Flagstad O, Andersone Z, Casulli A,Kojola I,Valdmann
H, Halverson J, Ellegren H (2003) Combined use of maternal, paternal and bi-
parental genetic markers for the identification of wolf-dog hybrids. Heredity
90:17–24
Vilà M, Weber E, D’Antonio CM (2000) Conservation implications of invasion by plant
hybridization.Biol Invasions 2:207–217
Williams CL, Brust RC, Fendley TT, Tiller GR, Rhodes OE (2005) A comparison of
hybridization between mottled ducks (Anas fulvigula) and mallards (A. platyrhyn-
chos) in Florida and South Carolina using microsatellite DNA analysis. Conserv Gen
6:445–453
Wolf DE, Takebayashi N, Rieseberg LH (2001) Predicting the risk of extinction through
hybridization.Conserv Biol 15:1039–1053
C.R. Largiadèr292
17 Genetically Modified Organisms
as Invasive Species?
Rosie Hails and Tracey Timms-Wilson
17.1 Introduction
The release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is a controversial
subject. Some perceive it to be the single most important development in
biology since the discovery of natural selection. Others are concerned that
the movement of genes with no reference to natural species boundaries
could pose new ecological risks. One conjectural risk is that transgenes will
either cause the host species to become invasive or they will escape from the
original host species and cause other species to become invasive. Gene flow
between species occurs naturally, although the frequency varies within and
across kingdoms. Such gene flow is responsible for creating new combina-
tions of genes, with the potential for introgression or speciation. Hybridisa-
tion has been proposed as a stimulus for the evolution of invasiveness in
plants (Ellstrand and Schierenbeck 2000), suggesting that new combinations
can create genotypes with different, and perhaps surprising ecological
behaviours. Do transgenes pose particular risks in this respect? Is it possible
to predict the probability that transgenes will cause invasiveness in recipient
organisms?
17.2 Quantitative Measures of Invasion Risk
To answer this question, we present a quantitative framework for the estima-
tion of the probability of invasiveness. The risk assessment of genetically
modified organisms has adapted approaches developed for pesticides and
other potentially toxic substances in the environment. In its simplest form,
quantifying risk involves estimating the expression of toxicity and the likeli-
Ecological Studies,Vol. 193
W. Nentwig (Ed.)
Biological Invasions
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007
hood of exposure. Risk (R) may then be defined as the product of the proba-
bility of toxicity (Pt) and the probability of exposure (Pe), i.e.
R = Pe¥Pt
This has been successfully applied to the case of the Monarch butterfly and
its risk from Bt corn (containing insecticidal transgenes from the soil bac-
terium Bacillus thuringiensis) through ingestion of pollen expressing cry pro-
teins, giving an estimate of 1 in 10,000 larval mortality if 20 % of corn grown
was Bt, rising to 1 in 2,000 if the legal maximum uptake led to 80% of corn
being transgenic (Sears et al. 2001).It was concluded that Bt corn posed a neg-
ligible risk to the Monarch, and the real threats to this species lay elsewhere,
for example,in habitat destruction. This quantitative approach to risk assess-
ment has also been adapted for GM plants (Poppy 2004; Raybould 2004) and
transgenic fish (Muir 2004).We use a similar framework here to facilitate our
discussion of the invasive potential of transgenic organisms. We break down
the risk of transgenes causing invasiveness through escape into new recipient
species into three steps:
–P(Transgene escape) ¥P(Transgene spread/Escape) ¥P(Harm/Exposure)
This can be read as the probability of transgene escape, multiplied by the
probability of transgene spread – given that escape has occurred, multiplied
by the probability of ecosystem harm – given exposure to the transgene.
Escape of transgenes would be through hybridisation (plants and animals) or
transformation/conjugation/transduction (bacteria), moving organisms
beyond the genetic context in which they were originally produced. The rate
at which transgenes spread through a recipient population will then depend
upon the fitness consequences of carrying those transgenes. Finally, organ-
isms are usually classed as invasive only if their spread causes economic or
ecological harm, and so we discuss possible measures of harm. These three
steps will now be reviewed for three taxa of GMOs – bacteria, plants and ani-
mals – drawing particularly on soil- and plant-associated bacteria, oilseed
rape and salmon as case studies.
The genes which have been introduced into bacteria are hugely varied,
many of them acting as marker genes,but the majority of these have been cre-
ated for laboratory purposes. One potential application of genetic modifica-
tion (GM) is to use transgenes to alter existing metabolic pathways, for exam-
ple, to degrade pollutants. Few naturally occurring microorganisms possess
the pathways required to mineralise the more recalcitrant xenobiotic com-
pounds such as pentachlorophenols (PCPs and PCBs; Johri et al. 1999). GM
technology has the potential to improve existing catabolic pathways or to
extend such pathways to include additional target compounds which may
otherwise not be degraded (Timmis et al. 1994; Brazil et al. 1995), and may
R. Hails and T. Timms-Wilson294
also be applied to overcome the toxic or inhibitory effect of a particular pol-
lutant or a metabolite (Mason et al. 1997). These GM microorganisms, or
GMMs, have yet to be released in the field. However, experimental field
releases of GMMs of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria containing
marker genes (Bailey et al. 1994, 1997) and antifungal genes to explore the
improved potential of biocontrol agents against fungal phytopathogens
(Timms-Wilson et al.2000; Glandorf et al. 2001) have taken place.
The majority of GM plants have been manipulated to contain transgenes
for herbicide tolerance or insect resistance.As anticipated,it has been demon-
strated that herbicide-tolerant transgenes do not enhance fitness or invasive-
ness in the absence of the herbicide (Crawley et al. 1993, 2001). Insect-resis-
tance genes are usually derived from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis.
Bt plants express partially activated toxins which provide resistance to a
range of Lepidopteran and Coleopteran pests (gene-dependent). Other GM
plants include those with resistance to viruses (using coat protein genes),
fungi (using chitinases), and a range of other features.We will focus here on
transgenes which confer resistance to natural enemies,as it is postulated that
such transgenes may alter invasiveness.
Fish have been modified to express growth factor genes, which cause juve-
nile transgenic fish to grow as much as 4–6 times faster than their wild coun-
terparts. Other genetic modifications have improved resistance to bacterial
diseases or tolerance to cold temperatures (Muir 2004).In our case studies, we
focus on growth hormone (GH) transgenic fish, as there are concerns that
these will interbreed with, and outcompete wild fish.
17.3 Gene Flow: the First Step to Invasiveness of Transgenes
An early step in genetically modified organisms causing invasiveness is for
the transgenes to move from the domesticated species in which they were first
introduced into other species or habitats. Rates of gene flow have been
increasingly measured in many systems only since there has been concern
about the escape of transgenes, leading to a realisation that some species bar-
riers are more ‘leaky’ than previously supposed.
17.3.1 Gene Escape in Bacterial Communities
In terms of movement of genes between genotypes, bacteria are the extreme
case: genomic studies continue to reveal examples of natural gene exchange
across huge phylogenetic distances. There are three ways in which they can
transfer genes and acquire new DNA:(1) by transformation (direct uptake), (2)
or by the transfer of genes by mobile genetic elements,which is termed conju-
Genetically Modified Organisms as Invasive Species? 295
gation when involving plasmids or transposons and (3) transduction when by
bacteriophage. Laboratory and field experiments over the years and, more
recently, phylogenetic data have revealed the extent and central role of natural
gene transfer in bacterial ecology and evolution (Bailey et al.1994; Lorenz and
Wackernagel 1994), including horizontal gene transfer between evolutionary
unrelated bacteria (for a review,see Gogarten and Townsend 2005).
17.3.1.1 Transformation
Most simply, bacteria can actively take up free DNA in the form of plasmids or
fragments of chromosomal DNA from their external environment.The newly
acquired DNA may then recombine into the recipients genome and be
expressed to confer a novel or modified phenotype.
17.3.1.2 Conjugation
Plasmids are key in maintaining the fluidity of the horizontal gene pool in
bacterial populations. They are autonomously replicating, extra-chromoso-
mal genetic elements, ubiquitous in natural bacterial communities. Plasmids
provide accessory, albeit generally non-essential functions such as antibiotic
resistance to their host. Genetic traits which confer adaptations to local envi-
ronments tend to form clusters on plasmids and, consequently, are often
viewed as desirable elements (symbiotic), even though they can impose an
energetic drain onto the host bacterium. The transfer of plasmids between
bacteria is the process of conjugation, an active, regulated process in part
stimulated by direct cell–cell contact. It is normally unidirectional (from
donor to recipient) but occasionally reciprocal (Ankenbauer 1997).
17.3.1.3 Transduction
Transduction involves the movement of bacterial DNA by viral infection
(bacteriophage; McKane and Milkman 1995; Chiura 1997). Transduction is a
central, if not the most important gene transfer mechanism in the genera-
tion of genomic diversity and bacterial evolution between closely related
taxa. Two types of transduction are recognised, these being (1) generalised
(or unrestricted) and (2) specialised (or restricted). In generalised transduc-
tion, any genetic element (chromosomal and plasmid) within a host cell has
equal probability of being transduced. Specialised transduction involves the
transfer only of specific genetic elements. The exchange of genetic material
by this mechanism has been shown in a variety of environmentally impor-
tant bacteria.
R. Hails and T. Timms-Wilson296
Transgenes placed on the chromosome will have much lower rates of escape
than those placed on plasmids within the bacteria, even though gene flow
between chromosomes of unrelated bacteria does occur in evolutionary time,
via conjugation or, more commonly, transduction.
17.3.1.4 Evidence for Gene Transfer from GMMs
Most, if not all studies of the field and microcosm release of GMMs have
included a component to specifically study the possibility of gene transfer to
or from the transgenic bacteria, allowing us to test the prediction posed
above. To date, no investigation has revealed an outcome which had not been
predicted and no evidence has been provided demonstrating the invasion of
transgenes from genetically stable constructs. Therefore, from existing evi-
dence,it is apparent that the likelihood of gene transfer directly equates to the
method of genetic construction. When introduced genes were located on
mobile genetic elements such as conjugative plasmids, transfer has been
observed in laboratory investigations. However, as this outcome was entirely
predictable,field releases have involved bacteria genetically modified to carry
transgenes on their chromosomes. Insertions have been mediated by the use
of transposons, disarmed transposons or by site-directed homologous
recombination. The order in which these three approaches are listed repre-
sents their relative genetic stability and, therefore, the likelihood of being
transferred (Bailey et al. 1995; Troxler et al. 1997). In all the reports of field
testing of bacteria modified to carry transgenes on their chromosomes,none
have found either the transfer or loss of the transgenes. Even in the most
appropriately designed laboratory investigations, transfer frequencies were
negligible or effectively zero (Bailey et al.1995; Troxler et al.1997).
17.3.2 Gene Escape in Plant Communities
Gene escape from a plant species involves two steps:hybridisation with a wild
relative, and the survival and reproduction of resulting hybrids. Successful
hybridisation between crop plants and wild relatives was earlier thought to be
infrequent (Ellstrand et al. 1999).This is probably because gene flow was not
perceived to be of significant concern – people had simply not looked.A com-
prehensive review of the world’s most important food crops has found that
most spontaneously hybridise somewhere in their range, although rates vary
considerably (Ellstrand 2003a).Oilseed rape can hybridise with close relatives
(reviewed in Hails and Morley 2005), principally wild turnip, Brassica rapa,
with national estimates of 32,000±26,000 hybrids being formed annually in
the UK (Wilkinson et al. 2003).Although this represents a hybridisation rate
of only 0.019 (i.e. 19 hybrids for every 1,000 B. rapa), the sheer number of
Genetically Modified Organisms as Invasive Species? 297
opportunities for hybridisation means that this translates into 1,000s of
hybrid plants each year.
Hybridisation does not equate to escape of genes from a plant species, as
both hybridisation rate and the relative fitness of subsequent generations of
hybrids will determine gene flow.Those species crosses for which F1 hybrids
are sterile represent only very limited opportunities for gene escape (wheat,
for example, van Slageren 1994) but hybrids between Brassica napus and B.
rapa can survive and reproduce.Conventional wisdom would suggest that the
introduction of genes from a domesticated genotype would be deleterious to
the wild relative, and that fitness would be context-dependent. Experimental
data for B. napus ¥B. rapa hybrids support both of these expectations. If the
hybrids are protected from plant competition, then the F1 generation is found
to be intermediate in fitness vis-à-vis the parents (Hauser et al.1998a). Under
such conditions,crop genes could be positively advantageous.Even when sub-
ject to competition from either parent, however, one component of fitness –
seed production – was enhanced in hybrids (Hauser et al. 2003). Without
whole life-cycle estimates, it is not possible to conclude if this would translate
into enhanced fitness, as there may be trade-offs between different parts of
the life cycle. Later hybrid and backcross generations had reduced fitness rel-
ative to both parents (Hauser et al. 1998b) but, nevertheless, the evidence
illustrates that the species barrier between B. napus and B. rapa is permeable.
This permeability has been demonstrated for other crop–wild relative combi-
nations, albeit to varying degrees (Ellstrand 2003b; Hails and Morley 2005).
17.3.3 Gene Escape in Animal Populations
Escape of transgenes from animals is more likely to occur through escape of the
GM animal, followed by within-species gene flow, rather than through hybridi-
sation with related species.Escape of GM fish from fish farms is a case in point,
with transgenes conferring cold or salt tolerance allowing the transgenic fish to
occupy new niches. Further gene flow could occur through mating with wild
fish of the same species, so P(Transgene escape) in these cases equates to the
probability that the fish will physically escape from the fish farm and subse-
quently breed.How ever fish pens are constructed,there will always be the pos-
sibility of destruction through extreme weather events or vandalism and, in
fact, it is estimated that around 2,000,000 farmed salmon escape each year in
the North Atlantic region (McGinnity et al.2003). If transgenic fish are grown
in conventional facilities, then GM fish would also escape,spread rapidly and
interbreed. One solution to this is to ensure the transgenic fish are sterile. If
eggs are subjected to heat or pressure shock, then they retain an extra set of
chromosomes and the resulting triploid fish are sterile.Still, this is unlikely to
be 100 % reliable. This term in the risk equation is possibly relatively high for
within-species risk but low for between-species escape of the transgene.
R. Hails and T. Timms-Wilson298
17.4 Transgene Spread
Gene flow creates the opportunities for transgene spread but the rate at which
this will occur depends upon the relative fitness of transgenic versus wild
type genotypes.
17.4.1 Transgene Spread in Bacterial Populations
There is only one experiment which has directly compared the fitness of
transgenic and non-transgenic bacteria in ‘semi-field’ conditions, when the
transgene has been located on plasmids. The transgene in this case was a
marker. This was conducted in an ecotron (http://www.cpb.bio.ic.ac.uk/
ecotron/ecotron.html), a facility which houses replicated microcosms con-
taining simplified ecological communities. The aim of the experiment was to
compare the population dynamics of Pseudomonas fluorescens SBW25R (the
control) with the same bacterium carrying a gene cassette which had been
introduced into the genome in three different ways: directly inserted into the
bacterial chromosome (SBW25R::KX), as a similar insertion but including a
lysogenic phage (SBW25::KX-F101), and inserted into a conjugative plasmid
(SBW25R pQBR11::KX). Following seed dressing, all bacterial strains suc-
cessfully colonized the phytosphere of chickweed (Stellaria media) and
became established. However, densities of the introduced strain in the lyso-
genic-phage treatment were consistently lower than in the other treatments,
at times approaching the limits of detection. The lower density of this strain
was attributed to cell deaths caused by lysis following phage induction,
which was expected in the phytosphere (Ashelford et al. 1999). In the plas-
mid treatment, the densities of P. fluorescens SBW25R (pQBR11::KX) on day
53 were significantly lower on roots and leaves than was the case for the
plasmid-free control, with plasmid carriage resulting in a marked reduction
in colonizing fitness. However, from day 53 onwards, in each of the four
chambers the population density of the plasmid-carrying strain increased
significantly on roots (25-fold) and leaves (13-fold) until, by day 95, these
densities either matched or slightly exceeded those of the control. These
results can be explained if carriage of the plasmid were typically associated
with a cost to the host (as has frequently been demonstrated; Lilley and Bai-
ley 1997) but that, periodically, an unidentified plasmid gene (or genes)
improves the fitness of the bacteria, perhaps by conferring the ability to
utilise or tolerate certain substrates exuded by the plants as they mature.
Variation in the fitness of bacteria carrying plasmids is correlated with plant
growth stage in the field.
Because of the rates of horizontal gene flow expected,there has yet to be a
field release of bacteria containing transgenic plasmids. However, there have
Genetically Modified Organisms as Invasive Species? 299
been experimental field releases of bacteria with introduced genes on the
chromosome, where there is still the potential for transgene spread through
fitness advantages to the host bacterium, carrier proliferation and vertical
transfer. A study of P. fluorescens SBW25 in wheat compared two transgenic
bacteria, with one or two marker genes. As predicted, it was found that the
genotype carrying two markers was less fit than the genotype carrying one
marker because of the extra burden brought about by expressing the extra
phenotype (DeLeij et al. 1995). Other field studies have involved transgenic
lines with functional genes designed to promote growth or protect the plant.
The use of transgenic P. fluorescens SBW25 in several field releases (Bailey et
al. 1994) showed that the bacterium survived well in the plant phytosphere.
During the growing season, the GMM flourished but,after harvest,it could no
longer be detected, unable to persist once the host plant was removed. This
means the use of these GMMs is very seasonal and would need to be reintro-
duced for a second growing season, if required. Thus, although there is a
degree of transgene invasion and spread within the season, this is predictably
transient in this case (Fig. 17.1).
17.4.2 Transgene Spread in Plant Populations
Empirical studies to determine the potential impact of transgenes on plant
fitness fall into two categories: (1) those which measure fitness impacts under
‘near-agricultural’ conditions with manipulated densities of the plant’s nat-
ural enemies (herbivores or pathogens) and (2) those which measure fitness
impacts in semi-natural habitats.These two types of study are providing dif-
ferent classes of evidence.
R. Hails and T. Timms-Wilson300
Bacteria
Transgenes
New habitats
Other genotypes
New habitats
Horizontal gene
transfer
GM
Dispersal and selection
Fig. 17.1 Dispersal of
transgenes through
microbial ecosystems
In the first group,crop–wild relative hybrids containing the transgene were
grown under experimental conditions often close to the conditions found in
cultivation and, most particularly, with the experimental plants being
released from plant competition. The densities of those natural enemies
which were transgene targets were then manipulated, the results illustrating
that, under appropriate conditions, those hybrids containing the transgenes
have greater fitness. For example, F1 hybrids between B. napus and B. rapa
containing Bt transgenes were found to have a fecundity advantage under
high insect pressure (Vacher et al. 2004). These studies do little more than
illustrate that the transgene will behave as expected in the hybrid as well as
the crop plant,conferring a selective advantage when those plant populations
are affected by the natural enemy (herbivore or pathogen) targeted by the
transgene.
In the second group, far fewer studies have addressed the same questions
under natural field conditions,without manipulating natural enemy pressure.
One exception to this involved a Bt gene backcrossed into wild sunflower pop-
ulations. The transgenic backcrossed line had significantly higher fecundity,
compared to the backcrossed control line (Snow et al. 2003). All else being
equal, this would lead to enhanced fitness of plants carrying this transgene.
The difference between these two classes of study is crucial in determining
the frequency of those conditions under which the transgene would be
expected to confer a selective advantage and, therefore, the rate at which it
would spread.The difficulties associated with estimating the relative fitness of
transgenic hybrids may in part explain why the first class of studies is so
much more common than the second. Herbivores and pathogens occur spo-
radically in space and time in natural communities: over many years and at
numerous sites,pathogen-resistance genes may provide little advantage until
that one year when a new, virulent pathogen sweeps through an area. Thus,
experiments conducted over a limited number of years and sites run the risk
of being unable to detect any fitness differences. The temptation is then to
manipulate natural enemy pressure to demonstrate the obvious – as long as
some significant result is obtained. The key question is ‘what role do natural
enemies play in regulating existing plant populations?’ So, the most informa-
tive studies will not necessarily involve transgenic plants at all but, rather,
underpinning ecological processes in natural communities.
Another parameter in determining the relative selective advantage of
transgenic plants is the cost of carrying the transgene in the absence of the
target. Costs would contribute to the rate at which transgene frequency may
decline when the population is not under that specific selection pressure.
Again, studies of natural herbivore and pathogen resistance in non-trans-
genic plants can be highly informative. A recent review revealed that, if
genetic background is controlled, then 82% of studies demonstrated fitness
costs associated with carrying herbivore-resistance genes (Strauss et al. 2002),
either as direct costs, such as a trade-off in resources allocated to defence or
Genetically Modified Organisms as Invasive Species? 301
reproduction, or indirect costs depending upon interactions with other
species. However,there is yet to be a clear demonstration of costs of carrying
transgenes in the absence of selection. As with studies of natural resistance,
controlling the genetic background is important. Most studies are based on
material from only one transformation event, so that the effect of the trans-
gene is confounded with those of other factors, such as positional effects.
Thus, the costs detected cannot be unequivocally attributed to the transgene
(Hails et al. 1997; Snow et al. 1999). One study used replicate lines from multi-
ple transformation events in Arabidopsis thaliana, and found that the pres-
ence of the transgene significantly reduced fecundity (Bergelson et al. 1996;
Purrington and Bergelson 1997). However, this is most likely due to a disrup-
tion of genes by the insertion of the herbicide-resistance transgene, rather
than to enhanced allocation of resources. It may also be that, compared to
other species, such costs are most likely to be detected in A. thaliana because
it has a very small genome, which may explain why these results have yet to be
replicated in other genomes (Fig.17.2).
17.4.3 Transgene Spread in Animal Populations
Empirical data on the relative fitness of transgenic and non-transgenic fish
raise a number of issues of relevance to other sexually reproducing organ-
isms. Growth hormone transgenic salmon have dramatically increased feed-
ing rates, feed conversion efficiency and, ultimately,growth rates (Cook et al.
2000). If this growth potential were to be realised in the wild, then transgenic
R. Hails and T. Timms-Wilson302
Transgenes
Domesticated plants
Feral Crops Wild relatives
Plant escape Hybridisation
GM
Increased weediness
Invasion of new habitats
Seed & pollen dispersal
and selection
Fig. 17.2 Dispersal of
transgenes through plant
communities
escapees could be superior competitors, directly threatening already vulnera-
ble wild populations. Experiments in aquaria have illustrated that the higher
feeding motivation of transgenic fish does make them superior competitors,
transgenic coho salmon consuming 2.5 times more food than did the non-
transgenic controls, and being significantly larger (Devlin et al. 1999). Other
studies have suggested that the increase in feeding motivation comes with a
cost.Transgenic fish are willing to incur an increased level of risk when forag-
ing, so mortality rates from predators are likely to be higher (Abrahams and
Sutterlin 1999). More recent studies have investigated the potential impact of
food abundance and predation risk on growth and survival of transgenic
salmon, attempting to simulate near-natural environments. Landscaped
stream aquaria with live food and predators illustrated that the relative fitness
of transgenic and non-transgenic salmon is dependent on the environment.
The enhanced vulnerability of transgenic hatchlings to predation is amplified
as food abundance decreases. Transgenic fish were also found to grow more
slowly than non-transgenics at low food abundance.So,both food abundance
and predation pressure will influence relative fitness, with the competitive
superiority of growth hormone transgenic salmon most likely to be manifest
at times of high food abundance (Fig. 17.3).
Genetically Modified Organisms as Invasive Species? 303
Transgenes
GM
Fish
Transgenic fish Wild fish with transgenes
Animal escape Breeding between transgenic& wildtype
Invasion of wild populations by transgenes
Invasion of existing wildtype habitats
Invasion of new habitats
Dispersal
Fig. 17.3 Dispersal of
transgenes through fish
populations
17.5 Ecological Impact
A considerable amount of research effort has been expended in measuring
the rates at which transgenes may spread into a population.A key question,
however, is ‘do es transgene spread matter?’The answer will, of course,depend
upon the transgene and the receiving environment but the circumstances
under which transgene spread will be ecologically unacceptable (and, there-
fore,considered ‘invasive’) remain ill defined.
17.5.1 Detecting Impacts in Bacterial Populations
Bacteria are attributed with many key ecological roles. In soil, these include
soil formation, the promotion of plant growth, plant protection, mineralisa-
tion of chemicals including pollutants, and the cycling of nitrogen, carbon,
sulphur, iron and phosphorus. The question arises as to whether the altered
behaviour of bacteria carrying or acquiring transgenes (especially those
expressing traits of relevance in that habitat) may result in the sustained per-
turbation of the indigenous community to the detriment of its normal func-
tions or displacement of specific species engaged in key activities (Tiedje et al.
1989).
A field release of a functionally active GMM showed minor changes in
diversity. The GMM, a fluorescent pseudomonad containing a constitutively
expressed antifungal compound, survived well throughout the growing sea-
son in the rhizosphere of spring wheat, and had a transient effect (in the first
2 months) on the microbial diversity measured by several culture-dependent
and culture-independent methods (Timms-Wilson et al. 2002). Population
function was measured by examining carbon utilisation profiles of the rhizos-
phere microbial community. Over the entire growing season, impacts were
not significant and, once the plants were removed, the isolate was no longer
detected. In fact, several field-based and laboratory-based studies have shown
that the presence of phytopathogens has a greater effect on microbial diver-
sity than do GMMs, and that individual plant species will also have a huge
impact on the diversity of indigenous microbes (Timms-Wilson et al. 2002;
Houlden 2005). So, although biodiversity impacts can be detected, these are
small in magnitude and have not translated into functional differences.
Microbial communities are highly heterogeneous,consisting of large num-
bers of diverse populations (Dykhuizen 1998).It is often assumed in macrobi-
ological scientific communities that populations occupy distinct niches, play
distinct roles and may be displaced by more efficient competitors.However,it
appears that microbial communities support coexisting populations occupy-
ing similar or heavily overlapping niches (Atlas 1984).This leads to functional
redundancy where the loss of species may be compensated for by the activity
R. Hails and T. Timms-Wilson304
of others (Kennedy and Smith 1995). Thus, if impact is measured in terms of
a change in ecosystem function, then no significant impacts have been
detected and, indeed,seem unlikely (Timms-Wilson et al. 2002; Griffiths et al.
2003).
17.5.2 Potential Impacts in Plant Populations
Transgenes which would alter the invasiveness of plants, ultimately causing
the extinction of other species, would be unacceptable. Fitness and invasive-
ness are sometimes used interchangeably in the literature, yet this is not
always appropriate. In fact, only when a species is invading a habitat for the
first time is it appropriate to equate fitness and invasiveness – under those cir-
cumstances,population growth rate (fitness) can be used as a measure of how
invasive that genotype is. When considering the invasion of transgenes into
wild populations,enhanced fitness may result in a change in gene frequencies
but not necessarily a change in invasiveness. This latter attribute depends
upon the factors responsible for limiting and regulating the population. For
example, the extent to which the enhanced fecundity of Bt wild sunflowers
(Snow et al.2003) will enhance invasiveness depends upon the extent to which
wild sunflowers are seed-limited and the herbivores remain susceptible to the
transgene products. Rates of co-evolution may be quite rapid in response to Bt
genes (Shelton et al.1993; Ferré and van Rie 2002),in which case any increases
in fitness may be transient.If wild sunflower populations are seed-limited and
herbivore populations remain susceptible, then enhanced fitness may trans-
late into increased abundance.A review of seed sowing experiments aimed at
unravelling the extent to which natural populations are seed-limited (Turn-
bull et al. 2000) demonstrated that approximately 50% of seed augmentation
experiments showed some evidence of seed limitation; this tends to occur in
early successional habitats and with early successional species. In other
words, if succession proceeds, any changes in abundance resulting from
enhanced fecundity may also be transient. The most likely problems to occur
are in disturbed (agricultural) habitats.
17.5.3 Potential Impacts in Animal Populations
Theoretical scenarios have been raised in which the release of transgenic fish
could have very detrimental impacts on wild populations, and one of these is
the Trojan gene hypothesis. This hypothesis illustrates how data on relative
fitness for part of the life cycle could mislead as to the potential long-term
impact of released transgenic salmon. If transgenic escapees have a mating
advantage but viability of offspring is reduced, then models predict that the
transgene will spread through the wild population but that reduced viability
Genetically Modified Organisms as Invasive Species? 305
of offspring will cause local extinction of populations (Muir and Howard
1999). Thus, a transgene invasion could have the ultimately undesirable out-
come of population extinction. The mating advantage of transgenics is based
on the idea that mature transgenic fish would be larger than non-transgenics.
However, faster growth does not necessarily lead to larger size at maturity,
and the genotype-by-environment interactions discussed above should also
be taken into account.If food abundance is low, then the lower survival of the
risk-prone transgenic juveniles may prevent transgene spread in the popula-
tion.Whether the Trojan gene is a real threat remains an open question,albeit
a theoretical possibility (Reichhardt 2000).
17.6 Conclusions
Much of the current disquiet about the creation of GMOs is that their intro-
duction into the natural environment could be irreversible, causing a pertur-
bation to the ecological community which will propagate and possibly grow
in magnitude as it ripples through the ecosystem. The pathways by which
transgenes could invade ecosystems have been considered for microbes,
plants and fish (Figs. 17.1 to 17.3). In bacteria, if genes are introduced into
chromosomes,then horizontal gene flow will be low (hard to detect in ecolog-
ical time) but dispersal of bacteria per se is very high. The traditional view is
that the dispersal of bacteria is unhindered by geographic boundaries – the
environment selects (Finlay 2002; Whitfield 2005). This view of ecological
panmixis is peculiar to the microbiological world, and from this arise two
possible consequences.Firstly,the phenotype of the transgenic bacteria is all
important – it will determine the conditions under which selection will occur.
Secondly, panmixis leads to the functional redundancy discussed above. So,
perhaps counter-intuitively, greater mixing means less impact of altered phe-
notypes on ecosystem services.
Studies of natural systems can be used to illustrate the same principles of
horizontal gene flow and selection which we have been discussing with
GMMs, the introduction of Lotus corniculatus to New Zealand being one
example.At first sowing, the seeds needed to be inoculated with a natural iso-
late,Mesorhizobium loti, a nitrogen-fixing symbiont which passes ammonium
to the plant,in exchange for nutrients.Subsequent inoculation was not neces-
sary. However, this did not correlate with the establishment of the original
inoculated bacterium, as this strain could no longer be detected in the field.
The symbiotic genes carried on a conjugative element had been acquired by
indigenous Mesorhizobium species, better adapted to the prevailing soil con-
ditions but now able to maximise use of a new niche – the roots of L. cornicu-
latus (Sullivan and Ronson 1998).This dataset serves two purposes: it demon-
strates the resilience of indigenous bacteria to invasion by an alien strain but
R. Hails and T. Timms-Wilson306
it warns that, if selection is strong enough, then these indigenous strains will
acquire beneficial traits.
A study of potential gene flow between alien North American gooseberry
species (resistant to the co-evolved American gooseberry mildew) and
mildew-susceptible native British gooseberries provides a very similar pic-
ture.Hybrid seedlings containing resistance genes were found to have a selec-
tive advantage (Warren and James 2006), illustrating the potential for crop
gene escape to alter the ecological behaviour of native British gooseberries in
much the same way as does transgenic disease resistance.Furthermore,plants
containing the alien genes supported significantly more,albeit smaller inver-
tebrates.
The key questions arising from these last two examples are the same as
those we have discussed for transgenic organisms – what impact does the
transgene target (for example, mildew) have on native populations, and what
is the significance of the ‘unpredicted’side effects of the introduced genes? We
need to understand the mechanisms and impacts of naturally or deliberately
introduced genes to predict the path of invasions. The principles and
processes of gene flow, selection and invasion are essentially the same.
Whether this results in significant changes in biodiversity or ecosystem func-
tion is yet to be documented,and the risk assessment of transgenic organisms
remains to be resolved on a case-by-case basis.
References
Abrahams MV, Sutterlin A (1999) The foraging and antipredator behaviour of growth-
enhanced transgenic Atlantic salmon.Anim Behav 58:933–942
Ankenbauer RG (1997) Reassessing forty years of genetic doctrine: retrotransfer and
conjugation.Genetics 145:543–549
Ashelford KE,Day MJ, Fry JC (1999) Elevated abundance of bacteriophage infecting bac-
teria in soil. Appl Environ Microbiol 69:285–289
Atlas RM (1984) Diversity in microbial communities.Adv Microb Ecol 7:1–47
Bailey MJ, Kobayashi N, Lilley AK, Powell BJ, Thompson IP (1994) Potential for gene
transfer in the phytosphere: isolation and characterisation of naturally occurring
plasmids. In: Bazin MJ, Lynch JM (eds) Environmental gene release. Models, experi-
ments and risk assessment.Chapman and Hall, London, pp 77–98
Bailey MJ,Lilley AK,Thompson IP, Rainey PB, Ellis RJ (1995) Site directed chromosomal
marking of a fluorescent pseudomonad isolated from the phytosphere of sugar beet;
stability and potential for marker gene transfer. Mol Ecol 4:755–763
Bailey MJ,Lilley AK,Ellis RJ,Bramwell PA, Thompson IP (1997) Microbial ecology,inoc-
ulant distribution, and gene flux within populations of bacteria colonizing the sur-
face of plants: case study of a GMM field release in the United Kingdom. In: Van Elsas
JD, Trevors JT, Wellington EMH (eds) Modern soil microbiology. Dekker, New York,
pp 479–500
Bergelson J, Purrington CB, Palm CJ, Lopez-Gutierrez JC (1996) Costs of resistance: a test
using transgenic Arabidopsis thaliana.Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 263:1659–1663
Genetically Modified Organisms as Invasive Species? 307
Brazil GM, Kenefick L, Callanan M, Haro A, de Lorenzo V, Dowling DN, O’gara F (1995)
Construction of a rhizosphere pseudomonad with potential to degrade polychlori-
nated-biphenyls and detection of bph gene-expression in the rhizosphere.Appl Env-
iron Microbiol 61:1946–1952
Chiura HX (1997) Generalized gene transfer by virus-like particles from marine bacte-
ria. Aquat Microb Ecol 13:75–83
Cook JT, McNiven MA,Richardson GF, Sutterlin AM (2000) Growth rate, body composi-
tion and feed digestibility/conversion of growth-enhanced transgenic Atlantic
salmon (Salmo salar).Aquaculture 188:15–32
Crawley MJ, Hails RS, Rees M, Kohn D, Buxton J (1993) Ecology of transgenic oilseed
rape in natural habitats.Nature 363:620–623
Crawley MJ, Brown SL, Hails RS, Kohn DD, Rees M (2001) Transgenic crops in natural
habitats.Nature 409:682–683
DeLeij FAAM, Sutton EJ,Whipps JM,Fenlon JS, Lynch JM (1995) Impact of field release
of genetically modified Pseudomonas fluorescens on indigenous microbial popula-
tions of wheat. Appl Environ Microbiol 61:3443–3453
Devlin RH, Johnsson JI, Smailus DE, Biagi CA,Jonsson E,Bjornsson BT (1999) Increased
ability to compete for food by growth hormone-transgenic coho salmon
Oncorhynchus kisutch (Walbaum).Aquacult Res 30:479–482
Dykhuizen DE (1998) Santa Rosalisa revisited: why are there so many species of bacte-
ria? Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 73:25–33
Ellstrand NC (2003a) Current knowledge of gene flow in plants: implications for trans-
gene flow. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 358:1163–1170
Ellstrand NC (2003b) Dangerous liaisons? When cultivated plants mate with their wild
relatives.John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore
Ellstrand NC, Schierenbeck KA (2000) Hybridization as a stimulus for the evolution of
invasiveness in plants? Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:7043–7050
Ellstrand NC, Prentice HC,Hancock JF (1999) Gene flow and introgression from domes-
ticated plants into their wild relatives.Annu Rev Ecol Syst 30:539–563
Ferré J, van Rie J (2002) Biochemistry and genetics of insect resistance to Bacillus
thuringiensis.Annu Rev Entomol 47:501–533
Finlay BJ (2002) Global dispersal of free-living microbial eukaryote species. Science
296:1061–1063
Glandorf DCM, Verheggen P, Jansen T, Jorritsma JW, Smit E, Leeflang P, Wernars K,
Thomashow LS,Laureijs E, Thomas-Oates JE, Bakker P, Van Loon LC (2001) Effect of
genetically modified Pseudomonas putida WCS358r on the fungal rhizosphere
microflora of field-grown wheat. Environ Microbiol 67:3371–3378
Gogarten PJ, Townsend JP (2005) Horizontal gene transfer,genome innovation and evo-
lution. Nature Rev Microbiol 3:679–687
Griffiths RI, Whiteley AS,O’Donnell AG, Bailey MJ (2003) Physiological and community
responses of established grassland bacterial populations to water stress.Appl Envi-
ron Microbiol 69:6961–6968
Hails RS, Morley K (2005) Genes invading new populations: a risk assessment perspec-
tive. Trends Ecol Evol 20:245–252
Hails RS, Rees M, Kohn DD, Crawley MJ (1997) Burial and seed survival in Brassica
napus subsp. oleifera and Sinapis arvensis including a comparison of transgenic and
non-transgenic lines of the crop.Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 264:1–7
Hauser TP, Shaw RG, Ostergard H (1998a) Fitness of F-1 hybrids between weedy Brassica
rapa and oilseed rape (B. napus). Heredity 81:429–435
Hauser TP, Jorgensen RB, Ostergard H (1998b) Fitness of backcross and F-2 hybrids
between weedy Brassica rapa and oilseed rape (B. napus).Heredity 81:436–443
R. Hails and T. Timms-Wilson308
Hauser TP, Damgaard C, Jorgensen RB (2003) Frequency-dependent fitness of hybrids
between oilseed rape (Brassica napus) and weedy B. rapa (Brassicaceae). Am J Bot
90:571–578
Houlden A (2005) Bacteria and fungal diversity effects and the activity of biocontrol
agents in the rhizosphere of crop plants. PhD Thesis,Cardiff University,Cardiff
Johri AK,Dua M,Singh A, Sethunathan N,Legge RL (1999) Characterization and regula-
tion of catabolic genes. Crit Rev Microbiol 24:245–273
Kennedy AC, Smith KL (1995) Soil microbial diversity and the sustainability of agricul-
tural soils. Plant Soil 170:78–86
Lilley AK,Bailey MJ (1997) Impact of plasmid pQBR103 acquisition and carriage on the
phytosphere fitness of Pseudomonas fluorescens SBW25: burden and benefit. Appl
Environ Microbiol 63:1584–1587
Lorenz G,Wackernagel W (1994) Bacterial transfer by natural genetic transformation in
the environment.Microbiol Rev 58:563–602
Mason J R, Briganti F, Wild JR (1997) Protein engineering for improved biodegradation
of recalcitrant pollutants. In: Wild JR (ed) Perspectives in bioremediation. Kluwer,
Dordrecht, pp 107–118
McGinnity P, Prodohl P, Ferguson A,Hynes R,Maoileidigh NO,Baker N,Cotter D, O’Hea
B, Cooke D,Rogan G, Taggart J,Cross T (2003) Fitness reduction and potential extinc-
tion of wild populations of Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, as a result of interactions
with escaped farm salmon. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 270:2443–2450
McKane M, Milkman R (1995) Transduction, restriction and recombination patterns in
Escherichia coli. Genetics 139:35–43
Muir WM (2004) The threats and benefits of GM fish. EMBO Rep 5:654–659
Muir WM, Howard RD (1999) Possible ecological risks of transgenic organism release
when transgenes affect mating success: sexual selection and the Trojan gene hypoth-
esis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:13853–13856
Poppy GM (2004) Geneflow from GM plants – towards a more quantitative risk assess-
ment. Trends Biotechnol 22:436–438
Purrington CB, Bergelson J (1997) Fitness consequences of genetically engineered her-
bicide and antibiotic resistance in Arabidopsis thaliana.Genetics 145:807–814
Raybould AF (2004) A decade of gene flow research: improved risk assessments or
missed opportunities? In: van Emden HF, Gray AJ (eds) GM crops – ecological
dimensions. AAB Wellesbourne, Warwick, pp 27–33
Reichhardt T (2000) Will souped up salmon sink or swim? Nature 406:10–12
Sears MK, Hellmich RL, Stanley-Horn DE, Oberhauser KS, Pleasants JM, Mattila HR,
Siegfried BD, Dively GP (2001) Impact of Bt corn pollen on monarch butterfly popu-
lations: a risk assessment.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:11937–11942
Shelton AM, Robertson JL, Tang JD, Perez C, Eigenbrode SD, Preisler HK, Wilsey WT,
Cooley RJ (1993) Resistance of diamondback moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) to
Bacillus thuringiensis in the field. J Econ Entomol 86:697–705
Snow AA, Andersen B, Jorgensen RB (1999) Costs of transgenic herbicide resistance
introgressed from Brassica napus into weedy B. rapa.Mol Ecol 8:605–615
Snow AA,Pilson D, Rieseberg LH, Paulsen MJ, Pleskac N, Reagon MR,Wolf DE, Selbo SM
(2003) A Bt transgene reduces herbivory and enhances fecundity in wild sunflowers.
Ecol Appl 13:279–286
Strauss SY, Rudgers JA,Lau JA,Irwin RE (2002) Direct and ecological costs of resistance
to herbivory. Trends Ecol Evol 17:278–285
Sullivan JT, Ronson CW (1998) Evolution of rhizobia by acquisition of a 500-kb symbio-
sis island that integrates phe-tRNA gene. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:5145–5149
Genetically Modified Organisms as Invasive Species? 309
Tiedje JM, Colwell RK, Grossman YL, Hodson RE,Lenski RE, Mack RN, Regal PJ (1989)
The planned introduction of genetically engineered organisms-ecological consider-
ations and recommendations.Ecology 70:298–315
Timmis KN,Steffan RJ,Unterman R (1994) Designing microorganisms for the treatment
of toxic wastes.Annu Rev Microbiol 48:525–557
Timms-Wilson TM,Ellis RJ, Renwick A,Rhodes DJ, Mavrodi DV, Weller DM, Thomashow
LS, Bailey MJ (2000) Chromosomal insertion of phenazine-1-carboxylic acid biosyn-
thetic pathway enhances efficacy of damping-off disease control by Pseudomonas flu-
orescens. Mol Plant-Microbe Interact 13:1293–1300
Timms-Wilson TM,Kilshaw K, Bailey MJ (2002) Risk assessment for engineered bacte-
ria used in biocontrol of fungal disease in agricultural crops. Plant Soil 266:57–67
Troxler J,Azelvandre P, Zala M,Defago G,Haas D (1997) Conjugative transfer of chromo-
somal genes between fluorescent pseudomonads in the rhizosphere of wheat. Appl
Environ Microbiol 63:213–219
Turnbull LA, Crawley MJ,Rees M (2000) Are plant populations seed-limited? A review of
seed sowing experiments. Oikos 88:225–238
Vacher C, Weis AE, Hermann D,Kossler T,Young C, Hochberg ME (2004) Impact of eco-
logical factors on the initial invasion of Bt transgenes into wild populations of bird-
seed rape (Brassica rapa).Theor Appl Genet 109:806–814
van Slageren MW (1994) Wild wheat: a monograph of Aegilops L. and Amblyopyrum
(Jaub & Spach) Eig (Poacae).Veenman Druckers,Wageningen
Warren J, James P (2006) The ecological effects of exotic disease resistance genes intro-
gressed into British gooseberries. Oecologia 147:69–75
Whitfield W (2005) Biogeography: is everything everywhere? Science 310:960–961
Wilkinson MJ,Elliott LJ,Allainguillaume J,Shaw MW, Norris C,Welters R, Alexander M,
Sweet J, Mason DC (2003) Hybridization between Brassica napus and B. rapa on a
national scale in the United Kingdom.Science 302:457–459
R. Hails and T. Timms-Wilson310
Section V
Economy and Socio-Economy of Biological Invasions
Short Introduction
Wolfga n g N e ntw i g
With their limited view, natural scientists often do not realize that alien
species not only interact with native species but that they also entail economic
costs. The public, on the other hand,often recognizes some costs but does not
attribute these to biological invasion by alien species. Additionally, with the
exception of single instances, the general pattern of biological invasions has
hardly been deciphered.
What do feral cats,feral domestic pigeons and imported red fire ants have
in common? Each year, by killing millions of birds or fouling buildings or pro-
voking other problems,each of these alien species causes damages or control
costs in the range of billions of US$ worldwide. Feral domestic pigeons are
vectors of many human and livestock diseases, analogous to alien aphids
transferring pathogens to crop plants.Many human pathogens are also aliens,
and the history of AIDS would arguably have developed differently without
the spread of this virus from remote parts of Africa into the world (Chap.18).
The perception of one and the same alien species may be extremely differ-
ent in various sectors of our society, and the assessment of their effects as
well. One well-known example is that of the Nile perch, intentionally intro-
duced to African lakes and which resulted in the extirpation of several 100
native fish species.Although this also enabled a prospering, export-oriented
fish industry, it promoted a degeneration of societal structures, and even
increased malnutrition and starvation among local populations (Chap. 19).
Was the Nile perch really the cause of all these changes? Could these have
been foreseen at the time, when a fisheries inspector intended only to
“increase”the fish production of a lake? This example,including far-reaching
effects in a general socio-economic sphere,cautions us to recognize that even
a single event should not be considered as isolated. The framework of our
society is highly complex, all happenings are widely interconnected and, ulti-
mately, all effects of alien species can be expressed in terms of costs, notably
on a monetary basis.
18 Plant, Animal,and Microbe Invasive Species
in the United States and World
David Pimentel, Marcia Pimentel, and Anne Wilson
18.1 Introduction
Approximately 50,000 plant,animal, and microbe invasive species are present
in the United States, and an estimated 500,000 plant, animal, and microbe
invasive species have invaded other nations of the world. Immediately, it
should be pointed out that the US and world agriculture depend on intro-
duced food crops and livestock.Approximately 99% of all crops and livestock
in all nations are intentionally introduced plants, animals, and microbes
(Pimentel 2002). Worldwide, the value of agriculture (including beneficial
non-indigenous species) is estimated to total $ 30 trillion per year. Other
exotic species have been introduced for landscape restoration, biological pest
control, sport, and food processing, also contributing significant benefits.
Unfortunately,some invasive species are causing major economic losses in
the United States and worldwide in agriculture, forestry, fisheries, public
health, and natural ecosystems. Documenting the full extent of the environ-
mental and economic damages caused by exotic species, and the number of
species extinctions is difficult because little is known about the estimated
750,000 species that exist in the US and the estimated 15 million that exist
worldwide (McNeeley 1999). Only an estimated 2 million species have been
described worldwide. In the US, an estimated 40 % of those species forced to
extinction can be accounted for by the impacts of invasive species (Pimentel
et al. 2005). In some regions of the world, as many as 80 % of endangered
species have been threatened and forced to extinction due to the pressures of
nonnative species (Armstrong 1995). In addition, many other species world-
wide, even if they have not been forced to extinction or endangered status,are
negatively affected by various alien species or ecosystem changes caused by
alien species.
Calculating the negative economic impacts associated with the invasion of
exotic species is difficult.For a few species, there are sufficient data to estimate
Ecological Studies,Vol. 193
W. Nentwig (Ed.)
Biological Invasions
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007
some impacts on agriculture, forestry,fisheries, public health,and the natural
ecosystem in the US and worldwide.In this article, we estimate the magnitude
of the economic benefits, and environmental and economic costs associated
with a variety of invasive species that exist in the United States and elsewhere
in the world.
18.2 Agricultural and Forestry Benefits
from Introduced Species
The value of the US food system is more than $ 800 billion per year (USCB
2004–2005), and the value of the world food system is estimated at more than
$ 30 trillion per year.According to the World Health Organization (Pimentel
2004a), the world’s food system is not providing adequate amounts of food for
all people on earth, more than 3.7 billion of the current population of 6.5 bil-
lion being malnourished. In addition, food production per capita has been
declining each year for the past 21 years (FAOSTAT 1960–2004). This assess-
ment is based on cereal grains, since cereal grains provide about 80 % of the
world’s food. Clearly, more needs to be done to increase food production per
capita, at the same time significantly reducing the rate of growth of the world
population (Pimentel and Pimentel 2001).
18.3 Environmental Damages and Associated Control Costs
Most plant and vertebrate animal introductions in the US and world have
been intentional, whereas most invertebrate animal and microbe introduc-
tions have been accidental. During the past 60 years,the total number of intro-
ductions of all species has nearly doubled in the world. The rate of introduc-
tions of exotic species has increased enormously because of high human
population growth, rapid movement of people, and alteration of the environ-
ment everywhere in the world. In addition, significantly more goods and
material are being exchanged among nations than ever before, creating
greater opportunities for unintentional introductions (USCB 2004–2005).
Some of the estimated 50,000 species of plants, animals, and microbes that
have invaded the US,and 500,000 species of plants,animals, and microbes that
have invaded the total world ecosystem provide significant benefits but also
many types of damage to managed and natural ecosystems, as well as public
health.
D. Pimentel, M.Pimentel, and A.Wilson316
18.3.1 Plants
Most exotic plant species now established in the United States and elsewhere
in the world were introduced for food, fiber, or ornamental purposes.An esti-
mated 5,000 introduced plant species have escaped and now exist in US nat-
ural ecosystems (Morse et al. 1995), compared with a total of approximately
17,000 species of native plants (Morin 1995). In Florida, of the approximate
25,000 alien plant species (mostly introduced ornamental species), more that
900 have escaped and become established in neighboring natural ecosystems
(Frank et al. 1997; Simberloff et al. 1997). More than 3,000 plant species have
been introduced into California, and many of these have escaped into this nat-
ural ecosystem as well (Dowell and Krass 1992).
Worldwide, an estimated 30,000 species of exotic plants have been inten-
tionally introduced as crops, and have escaped to become established in vari-
ous natural ecosystems.Most of the non-indigenous plants that have escaped
and become established have adapted well to the favorable living conditions
characteristic of moist tropical regions in countries such as India, Brazil, and
Australia.
Some of the invasive plants established in the US and world have displaced
native plant species.In the United States, introduced plant species are spread-
ing and invading approximately 700,000 ha of US natural ecosystems per year
(Babbitt 1998). For instance, the European purple loosestrife (Lythrum sali-
caria), which was introduced in the early19th century as an ornamental plant
(Malecki et al. 1993), has been spreading at a rate of 115,000 ha per year,
strongly altering the basic structure of the wetlands that it has invaded
(Thompson et al. 1987). Stands of purple loosestrife have reduced the abun-
dance of 44 native plant species, and endangered many wildlife species,
including turtles and ducks (Gaudet and Keddy 1988). Loosestrife is present
in 48 states,and about $ 45 million are spent each year for control of the weed
(ATTRA 1997).
Many of these exotic species have become established in national parks.In
the Great Smokey Mountains National Park,for example,400 of the 1,500 vas-
cular plant species are exotic, and 10 of these are currently displacing and
threatening native plant species (Hiebert and Stubbendieck 1993). The prob-
lem of introduced plants is particularly serious in Hawaii, where 946 of the
total of 1,690 plant species on the island are non-indigenous (Elredge and
Miller 1997).
In some cases, one exotic plant species may competitively overcome an
entire ecosystem. In California, the yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitalis),
for example, dominates more than 4 million ha of northern grassland in the
state, resulting in the total loss of this once productive forage system (Camp-
bell 1994). In addition, the European cheat grass (Bromus tectorum) is dra-
matically altering the vegetation and fauna of many natural ecosystems in the
western US. Cheat grass is an annual that has invaded and spread throughout
Plant,Animal, and Microbe Invasive Species in the United States and World 317
the shrub-steppe habitat of the Great Basin in Idaho and Utah, predisposing
the altered habitat to fires (Kurdila 1995). Before the invasion of cheat grass,
fire burned once every 60 to 110 years,and shrubs in the region had a chance
to become reestablished.Currently, fires occur once every 3 to 5 years,and this
has led to a decrease in shrubs and other vegetation, and the occurrence of
monocultures of cheat grass on more than 5 million ha in Idaho and Utah.
The reason that the alteration of original vegetation is so significant is that all
the animals and microbes that were dependent on the original vegetation
have been reduced or totally eliminated.
Insufficient information exists concerning invasive plants in the United
States and other countries. This is true even in countries that are dominated
by invasive plants, such as the British Isles. For example, of the 27,515 total
plant species on the British Isles, only 1,515 species are considered native
(Crawley et al. 1996). More than 80% of alien plant species in the British Isles
are established in disturbed habitats (Clement and Foster 1994; Crawley et al.
1996).
One group of agriculturalists introduced 463 species of plants as potential
forage species in Australia (Lonsdale 1994). Only 21 species of this group of
463 plant species turned out to be beneficial, many others had little impact,
but several became serious pest weeds in Australia. In India, weeds are esti-
mated to cause a 30% loss in potential crop production each year (Singh
1996), amounting to about $ 90 billion in reduced crop yields. Assuming that
42 % of the weeds in crops are alien (Nandpuri et al.1986), the total cost asso-
ciated with the alien plants in India is about $ 37.8 billion per year.
18.3.2 Mammals
About 20 mammal species have been intentionally introduced into the United
States, including dogs, cats,horses, cattle, sheep,pigs, and goats (Layne 1997).
Several of these mammal species escaped into the wild, and have become
pests by preying on native animals,grazing on native vegetation, or intensify-
ing soil erosion. Goats (Capra aegagrus hircus), for instance, introduced on
San Clemente Island, California, have caused the extinction of 8 endemic
plant species and have endangered 8 others (Kurdila 1995).
Several small mammal species, especially rodents, have been introduced
into the United States.These include the European rat (Rattus rattus), the Asi-
atic rat (Rattus norvegicus), the house mouse (Mus musculus), and the Euro-
pean rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus; Layne 1997). Some of the introduced rats
and mice have become particularly abundant and destructive on farms. On
poultry farms, there is about 1 rat per 5 chickens (Smith 1984; D. Pimentel,
unpublished data).Using this ratio,it is estimated that the rat number is more
than 1.8 billion on farms in the US.Another 250 million rats are estimated to
be in homes and stores in cities and towns. If it is estimated that each rat
D. Pimentel, M.Pimentel, and A.Wilson318
causes $ 15 in damages each year, then the damage per year would be about
$30billion.
Although the cost of the impact of invasive mammals is relatively high,the
percentage of alien mammals introduced into the United States is relatively
low, or 6%; in the United Kingdom, the percentage is relatively high, or 31 %
(Pimentel et al. 2001). The UK introduced mammals include those species
recorded in the US, plus many others.
Australia is another nation that has a large number of alien mammals. In
Australia, pigs native to Eurasia and North Africa were introduced and now
number from 4 to 20 million (Emmerson and McCulloch 1994). Feral pigs
cause soil erosion, damage agricultural crops, fences, native plants and ani-
mals, and are a threat to livestock and humans; they also spread various ani-
mal diseases, including tuberculosis, brucellosis, rabies, and foot-and-mouth
disease (Lever 1994). The estimate of pig damage in Australia is more than
$ 80 million per year (Emmerson and McCulloch 1994).
Rodents, including the European and Asiatic rats and the house mouse,
have invaded all countries in the world. In addition, domestic dogs, cats, and
European rabbits have been introduced into all nations of the world. In Aus-
tralia, feral cats are a serious problem,killing native bird,mammal,marsupial,
and amphibian populations. The estimate is that there are 3 million pet cats,
and 18 million feral cats in Australia (Anon 1996). The cats are considered
responsible for having exterminated 23 native Australian species of animals
(Low 1999).Assuming that each bird has a minimum value of $ 30 in the US
(Pimentel et al.2000),then the total impact from cats in Australia is $ 540 mil-
lion per year. In the US, it is estimated that cats kill an estimated 570 million
birds per year, with an estimated damage of $ 17 billion (Pimentel et al.2000).
18.3.3 Birds
Of the 1,000 species of birds in the United States, nearly 100 are exotic (Tem-
ple 1992). Approximately 5 % of the introduced birds are beneficial, such as
the chicken.
One of the bird pest species is the English sparrow (Passer domesticus),
introduced in 1853 into the US for the control of canker worm and other pest
caterpillars (Roots 1976). By 1900, English sparrows were reported to be a
pest, consuming wheat, corn, and the buds of fruit trees (Laycock 1966). In
addition, they harass native birds,including robins,Baltimore orioles,and the
yellow-billed and black-billed cuckoos, and they displace bluebirds, wrens,
purple martins, and cliff swallows (Long 1981). English sparrows are also
associated with the spread of about 30 human and livestock diseases (Weber
1979).
One of the most serious bird pests is the common pigeon (Columbia livia),
which has been introduced to all cities in the world (Robbins 1995). Pigeons
Plant,Animal, and Microbe Invasive Species in the United States and World 319
present a nuisance because they foul buildings, statues, cars, and sometimes
people, and they feed on grains (Smith 1992). It is estimated that pigeons
cause an estimated $ 1.1 billion in damages per year in the United States.They
also serve as reservoirs and vectors of more than 50 human and livestock dis-
eases, including parrot fever, ornithosis, histoplasmosis, and encephalitis
(Long 1981).
Another serious bird pest in the US is the European starling (Sturnus vul-
garis), a species that in some cases occurs at densities of more than one per
hectare in agricultural regions (Moore 1980). They are capable of destroying
as much as $ 2,000 worth of cherries ha–1 in the spring (Feare 1980). They also
destroy large quantities of grain crops (Feare 1980).The estimate is that they
are responsible for damages amounting to $ 800 million per year (Pimentel et
al. 2000).
Information on other bird species that have invaded other nations is not as
abundant as one would expect. Of the other nations, the UK has some of the
best data. Of the 542 species of birds in the UK, 47 are alien (Gooders 1982).
Pigeons in the UK are as serious a problem as they are in the US. In the UK,
pigeons are estimated to cause more than $ 270 million in damages each year
(Alexander and Parsons 1986; Bevan and Bracewell 1986).
18.3.4 Amphibians and Reptiles
About 53 species of amphibian and reptile species have been introduced into
the United States. These species invasions have all occurred in the warmer
regions. For example, Florida is host to 30 species (Lafferty and Page 1997).
The negative impacts of these invasive species have been enormous.
The brown tree snake (Boiga irregularis) is one of the worst. It was intro-
duced into the US territory of Guam immediately after World War II, when
military equipment was transferred to the island (Fritts and Rodda 1995).The
snake population reached high densities of 100 snakes ha–1, and dramatically
reduced populations of native bird species, small mammals, and lizards. A
total of 10 bird species and 9 lizard species were exterminated from Guam
(Rodda et al. 1997). The brown tree snake also eats chickens, eggs, pet birds,
and causes major problems to farmers. In some cases,the snake enters houses
and bites small children in cribs and playpens (OTA 1993). Another costly
impact is that the snake is causing power failures by damaging electric trans-
formers. The estimate is that the brown tree snake causes more than $ 2 mil-
lion in damages per year on Guam.A major worry is that the snake will invade
Hawaii, and cause major extinctions of birds, mammals, and amphibians on
the island.
An estimated 700 species of reptiles and amphibians exist in Australia (Fox
1995). However, only two of these are exotic. One of the introduced species is
the cane toad (Bufo marinus),introduced from South America for insect con-
D. Pimentel, M.Pimentel, and A.Wilson320
trol in cane fields. However, it was soon reported to be a serious pest (Fox
1995). The cane toad is poisonous to dogs, cats, and other mammals (Sabath
et al. 1981). In South Africa, there have been 13 species of reptiles and 11
species of amphibians introduced (Siegfried 1989). One of the invasive species
is the red-eared slider (Chrysemys scripta elegans) that was introduced from
North America.This invasive turtle has become a major threat to the 12 native
turtle species (Boycott and Bourquin 1988).
18.3.5 Fishes
A total of 138 invasive fish species have been introduced into the United
States (Courtenay et al. 1991; Courtenay 1997). Most of the invaders are
found in the warmer regions such as Florida, which has at least 50 of these
species (Courtenay 1997). Introduced fish species frequently alter the ecol-
ogy of aquatic ecosystems. In the Great Lakes, for instance, nearly 50 inva-
sive species are found, and these invaders are causing an estimated $ 5 bil-
lion in damages to the fisheries per year (Pimentel 2005). In addition, most
of the alien fish species in South Africa are regarded as pests (Bruton and
Van As 1985). In total, alien fish species are responsible for the reduction or
local extinction of at least 11 species of fish in South Africa (Bruton and Van
As 1985).
18.3.6 Arthropods
An estimated 4,500 arthropod species (more than 2,500 species in Hawaii
alone, and more than 2,000 in continental US) have been introduced into the
United States (OTA 1993). Approximately 95% of these introductions were
accidental,the remainder being intentional for purposes of biological control
and pollination. About 1,000 invasive species of insects and mites are crop
pests in the US. Introduced insects account for 98% of the crop insect pests in
Hawaii (Beardsley 1991). Approximately 40% of the insect and mite pests in
crops in continental US are pests of agricultural crops. The major group of
pests consists of native insects and mites that switched from feeding on native
vegetation to feeding on crops (Pimentel et al.2000). Pest insects are estimated
to destroy $ 14 billion worth of crops per year. One ant species, the red
imported fire ant, is alone causing $ 6 billion in damages and control costs
(Linn 2005).
Of the 360 species of invasive species in US forests, about 30 % are now
serious pests in these forests (Liebold et al.1995), causing about $ 7 billion in
losses each year (Hall and Moody 1994).A new introduction, the Asian long-
horn beetle, is threatening maple and ash trees in New York and Illinois
(Hajek 2005).
Plant,Animal, and Microbe Invasive Species in the United States and World 321
Of the 80,000 species of insects, and 6,000 species of spiders and numerous
other arthropod species that exist in South Africa, several invasive species are
causing problems (South Africa 1998). One of the most serious invaders is the
Argentine ant (Linepithema humile), which is destroying native vegetation,
including endangered plants (Macdonald et al. 1986). This ant species is also
negatively affecting native ants and other beneficial arthropod species. In
addition, the Argentine ant is a serious pest in agriculture.
18.3.7 Mollusks
A total of about 88 species of mollusks have been introduced and established
in United States aquatic ecosystems (OTA 1993). The two most serious pest
species introduced are the zebra mussel,Dreissena polymorpha, and the Asian
clam, Corbicula fluminea (see also Chaps. 5 and 15).
The zebra mussel was introduced from Europe, and probably gained
entrance via ballast water released into the Great Lakes by ships traveling
from Europe (Benson and Boydstun 1995).The mussel was first noted in Lake
St. Clair, has spread into most of the Great Lakes and most aquatic ecosystems
in the eastern United States,and is expected to invade most freshwater habi-
tats throughout the nation. Large mussel populations (up to 700,000 m2; Grif-
fiths et al. 1991) reduce food and oxygen for the native fauna. Zebra mussels
have been observed covering native mussel,clams, and snails,and threatening
the survival of these and other species (Benson and Boydstun 1995; Keniry
and Marsden 1995).
In addition to ecological effects on other aquatic organisms, the zebra
mussel also invades and clogs water intake pipes in water infiltration and elec-
tric power plants.It is estimated that the mussels will cause $ 5 billion in dam-
ages and associated control costs in the US.In the Great Lakes alone, they are
reported to cause $ 1 billion in damages and control costs (Pimentel 2005).
Although the Asian clam grows and disperses less quickly than the zebra mus-
sel, it also causes significant damage to native organisms and damage to water
filtration plants and electric power plants. Costs associated with this animal
are estimated to be more than $ 1 billion per year (OTA 1993). In various US
coastal bay regions,the introduced shipworm (Teredo navalis) is estimated to
cause from $ 205 million to $ 750 million in damages per year (Cohen and
Carlton 1995; D. and M. Pimentel,unpublished data).
Unfortunately, there are not data available on mollusk invaders in other
nations. This is due to the general lack of knowledge concerning the ecology
and systematics of mollusks in the world; they appear to be causing a rela-
tively small amount of damage to aquatic ecosystems in other regions world-
wide, and/or few biologists have investigated these organisms.
D. Pimentel, M.Pimentel, and A.Wilson322
18.4 Livestock Pests
For a start, it should be pointed out that the majority of livestock worldwide
are introduced species. For example, in the United States more than 99% of
the livestock species are introduced (Pimentel 2004b). Microbial and other
parasitic organisms have generally been introduced when the livestock
species have been introduced. In addition, to the more than 100 species of pest
microbes and other parasitic species that have already invaded the United
States (Pimentel 2005), there are more than 60 additional microbes and other
parasitic species that could easily invade the United States and become seri-
ous pests of US livestock (Pimentel 2005). A conservative estimate of the
losses to US livestock from exotic microbes and other parasitic species is
more than $ 9 billion per year.
Australia already has several species of alien diseases infecting and causing
losses to livestock. In addition, there are an estimated 44 exotic diseases in
other regions of the world that could infect Australian livestock, if they were
introduced (Meischke and Geering 1985). At present, 3 alien insect and mite
species already cause $ 228 million per year damage to the wool and sheep
industry (Slater et al. 1996).
In India, there are more than 50 exotic species of disease and parasitic
organisms that are causing major problems for the introduced livestock and
native wildlife. Already present in India is the serious foot-and-mouth dis-
ease. Recently, it was reported that there were more than 50,000 cases of foot-
and-mouth disease (Foot-and-Mouth Disease Leak 2004), treatment costs
being about $ 20,000 per year.
South Africa also reports problems with introduced livestock pests. The
exotic diseases include tuberculosis,brucellosis, East Coast fever,anthrax,and
rinderpest. Estimates are that Brucellosis alone is causing livestock losses of
more than $ 100 million per year (Coetzer et al. 1994). In Brazil and other
Latin American countries, imported bovine tuberculosis has become a seri-
ous threat to the beef and dairy industry. These losses are estimated to be
about $ 100 million per year (Cosivi et al.1998).
18.5 Human Diseases
Various influenza virus types, originating mostly in the Far and Near East,
have quickly spread to the United States and other nations in the past.
Recent disease epidemics have been associated with SARS, and now there is
the major threat of bird flu that is infecting some people in the Far and Near
East. The current influenza strains are responsible for nearly 10 % of all
human deaths in the US (USCB 2004–2005). The costs of hospitalization for
Plant,Animal, and Microbe Invasive Species in the United States and World 323
a single outbreak of influenza, such as type A, can exceed $ 500 million per
year.
One of the most notorious of all alien human disease is HIV/AIDS. The
pathogen is reported to have originated in East Africa, probably from some
species of monkey. The disease now occurs in all parts of the world. The costs
of treatment of HIV/AIDS in the world today are estimated to be $ 100 billion
per year. In addition to influenza and HIV/AIDS, there are numerous other
diseases infecting humans in various parts of the world. These include
syphilis, Lyme disease, and tuberculosis. These diseases are causing an esti-
mated $ 20 billion in losses and damages per year.
New influenza strains in the UK are reported to cause from 3,000 to 4,000
deaths per year (Kim 2002). In total, both influenza and HIV/AIDS claim the
lives of more than 4,000 people per year. The treatment costs are in excess of
$ 1 billion per year. Influenza and tuberculosis in India are reported to cause
more than 3 million deaths per year (Kim 2002). Several non-indigenous
human diseases threaten people in South America. These diseases include
HIV/AIDS, influenza, malaria, cholera, yellow fever, and dengue. More than
2 million people are infected per year, associated with more than $ 100 billion
in damages and treatment costs per year.
18.6 The Situation Today and Projections for the Future
The number of invading species worldwide has been increasing rapidly, an
estimated tenfold increase having been recorded in the past 100 years. Some
countries with a rapidly increasing population, growing population move-
ment, and increasing global trade, such as the United States, are suffering a
greater problem from invaders than is the case for other nations. Approxi-
mately 500,000 species of plants, animals, and microbes have invaded the
nations of the world, with about 50,000 in the US alone. It must be pointed
out that, for all nations combined, about 5 % of all these species were inten-
tionally introduced as crops and livestock. Unfortunately, an estimated
10–20 % of the introduced species are, or have become, pests and are caus-
ing major environmental problems. Although relatively few of these species
become really serious pests, some species do inflict significant damage to
natural and managed ecosystems, and cause serious public health problems.
Various ecological factors help exotic species become abundant and emerge
as serious ecological threats in their new habitat.These factors include exotic
plant and animal species being introduced without their natural enemies
(e.g., purple loosestrife); the existence of favorable predator–prey conditions
in the new habitat (e.g., for house cats); the development of new associations
between alien parasites and hosts (e.g., HIV/AIDS and humans); the occur-
rence of disturbed habitats that promote invasion by some species (e.g., crop
D. Pimentel, M.Pimentel, and A.Wilson324
weeds); the occurrence of favorable, newly created artificial habitats for inva-
sives (e.g., cheat grass); and the occurrence of species-specific traits promot-
ing invasion by highly adaptable alien species (e.g., the water hyacinth and
zebra mussel).
This investigation reports on various economic damages associated with
invasive species in various nations of the world that total more than $ 1.4 tril-
lion per year (Pimentel 2002). This amounts to about 5 % of the world GNP
(USCB 2004–2005). Unfortunately, precise economic costs associated with
some of the most ecologically damaging species of invasives are not available.
For example,cats and pigs have been responsible for the extinction of various
animals, and perhaps some plants. For these invasive animals, however, only
minimal cost impact data are available. In addition, it is impossible to assess
the value attached to various species that have been forced to extinction. If
economic values could be assigned to species forced to extinction, then in
terms of losses in biodiversity, ecosystem services, and esthetics, the costs of
destructive invasive species would be extremely high. The value of $ 1.4 tril-
lion cited above already suggests that exotic species are extracting major envi-
ronmental and economic tolls worldwide.
As mentioned above, 95–99 % of all crop and livestock are introduced
species. These alien crops (e.g., corn and rice) and livestock (e.g., cattle and
poultry) are vital to maintaining world agriculture and the food system. The
food system has an estimated value of $ 30 trillion worldwide. However, these
benefits do not compensate for the enormous negative impacts of exotic pest
species.
A real challenge lies in preventing further damage from invading exotic
species to natural and managed ecosystems of the world. This is especially
true in view of rapid population growth and increasing global trade. The
United States has taken a few steps to protect and prevent the invasion of
exotic species into the nation. Many governments of other nations have
taken, and are taking, additional steps to combat non-indigenous species.
Evidently, it is being increasingly recognized that investing a few million dol-
lars to prevent future introduced species from invading a country, where
they might cause billions of dollars worth of damage and control costs, is
worthwhile.
Specific laws are needed in all nations to diminish or prevent invasive
species introductions. All introductions of exotic species of plants, animals,
and microbes – for whatever purpose – should be strictly regulated. In addi-
tion, governments should make efforts to inform the public concerning the
serious environmental and economic threats that are associated with the
invasion of exotic species.
Plant,Animal, and Microbe Invasive Species in the United States and World 325
18.7 Biological Control of Invasives
Introducing a new species into a nation for the control of a plant, animal, or
microbe pest invasive species is sometimes criticized as being a hazardous
technology. In the past, where vertebrate species such as mammals, amphib-
ians, birds, and fishes were introduced for biological control, several became
pests themselves (Chaps.2 and 23). For instance, the Indian mongoose, intro-
duced for rat control in the West Indian Islands and Hawaiian Islands,and the
English sparrow, introduced into the US for caterpillar control, have both
turned out to be disasters. However, introductions of insect species, such as
the vedalia beetle Rodolia cardinalis into the US,and of a virus species for the
control of the European rabbit in Australia,have been notable successes. Con-
trols of cacti in Australia, knapweed in the US, and the cassava mealy bug in
Africa, all employing biocontrol insects, have also been successful.
The first response after detecting an invasive pest in a country should be to
immediately travel to the country of origin of the pest, and attempt to intro-
duce natural enemies of the pest.This is sometimes successful,but not always.
There have been almost as many successful biological controls employing
new associated biocontrol agents. In new associated biocontrol,the biological
control agents are sought from a related species of the pest invasive in another
country. The new association biocontrol agent offers an ecological advantage
because the biocontrol agent has never interacted with the invasive pest
species, and often this advantage makes the new biocontrol agent highly path-
ogenic to the invasive pest species.The advantage of biological controls is that
they reduce the invasive pest species without the need for using pesticides in
the new ecosystem, and with minimal or no damage to the new ecosystem
(Hokkanen and Pimentel 1989). Details on the pros and cons of biological
control are given in Chap. 23.
References
Alexander DJ,Parsons G (1986) Pathogenicity for chickens of avian paramyxovirus type
I isolates obtained from pigeons in Great Britain 1983-1985. Avian Pathol 15:487–494
Anon (1996) Menace of moggies. The Christchurch Press, Christchurch
Armstrong S (1995) Rare plants protect Cape’s water supplies.New Scientist 11:8
ATTRA (1997) Purple loosestrife: public enemy #1 on federal lands. Interior Helper,
Washington, DC
Babbitt B (1998) Statement by Secretary of the Interior on invasive alien species.In: Proc
National Weed Symp. Bureau of Land Management,Denver, CO
Beardsley JW (1991) Introductions of arthropod pests into the Hawaiian Islands.
Micronesica suppl 3:1–4
Benson AJ, Boydstun CP (1995) Invasion of the zebra mussel into the United States. In:
LaRoe ET, Farris GS, Puckett CE, Doran PD, Mac MJ (eds) Our living resources: a
D. Pimentel, M.Pimentel, and A.Wilson326
report to the nation on the distribution, abundance, and health of U.S. plants, ani-
mals, and ecosystems. US Dept Interior,National Biological Service,Washington,DC,
pp 445–446
Bevan BJ, Bracewell CD (1986) Chlamydiosis in birds in Great Britain. 2. Isolations of
Chlamydia psittaci from birds sampled between 1976 and 1984.J Hygiene 96:453–458
Boycott RC, Bourquin O (1988) The South African tortoise book: a guide to South
African tortoises, terrapins and turtles.South African Book Publishers,Johannesburg
Bruton MN,Van As J (1985) Faunal invasions of aquatic ecosystems in Southern Africa,
with suggestions for their management. In: Macdonald AIW, Kruger FJ, Ferrar AA
(eds) Proc National Synthesis Symp Ecology and Management of Biological Inva-
sions in Southern Africa.Oxford University Press, Cape Town,pp 47–61
Campbell FT (1994) Killer pigs, vines, and fungi: alien species threaten native ecosys-
tems. Endangered Species Tech Bull 19:3–5
Clement EJ, Foster MC (1994) Alien plants of the British Isles. Botanical Society of the
British Isles, London
Coetzer JAW,Thomson GR,Tustin RC (1994) Infectious disease of livestock with special
reference to Southern Africa.Oxford University Press,Cape Town
Cohen AN, Carlton JT (1995) Nonindigenous aquatic species in a United States estuary:
a case study of the biological invasions of the San Francisco Bay and Delta. US Fish
and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC
Cosivi O, Grange JM, Daborn CJ, Raviglione MC, Fujikura T, Cousins D, Robinson RA,
Huchzermeyer HFAK, Kantor I, Meslin FX (1998) Zoonotic tuberculosis due to
Mycobacterium bovis in developing countries. Emerg Infect Diseases 4:1–16
Courtenay WR (1997) Nonindigenous fishes. In: Simberloff D, Schmitz DC, Brown TC
(eds) Strangers in paradise. Island Press,Washington,DC, pp 109–122
Courtenay WR, Jennings DP, Jennings DP, Williams JD (1991) Appendix 2. Exotic fishes
of the United States and Canada.In: Robins CR (ed) A list of common and scientific
names of fishes from the United State and Canada. American Fisheries Society,
Bethesda, MD, Spec Publ 20
Crawley MJ,Harvey PH,Purvis A (1996) Comparative ecology of the native and alien flo-
ras of the British Isles. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Biol Sci 351:1251–1259
Dowell RV, Krass CJ (1992) Exotic pests pose growing problem for California. California
Agriculture 46:6–10
Eldredge LG, Miller SE (1997) Numbers of Hawaiian species: supplement 2, including a
review of freshwater invertebrates. Bishop Mus Occas Pap 48:3–32
Emmerson G, McCulloch J (1994) Feral peril. Queensland’s introduced plants and ani-
mals. Queensland Parliamentary Library, Brisbane
FAOSTAT (1960–2004) Quarterly bulletin of statistics. FAO,Rome
Feare CJ (1980) The economics of starling damage. In: Wright EN, Inglis IR, Feare CJ
(eds) Bird problems in agriculture.The British Crop Protection Council,Croydon
Foot-and-Mouth Disease Leak (2004) Foot-and-mouth disease leak at Plum Island BSL-
3 Lab. GeneWatch 17(5/6):22 (www.gene-watch.org)
Fox MD (1995) Conserving biodiversity: impact and management of exotic organisms.
In: Bradstock RA, Auld TD, Keith DA, Lunney RUT (eds) Conserving biodiversity:
threats and solutions.Surrey Beatty,Chipping Norton,NSW, pp 177–183
Frank JH, McCoy ED, Hall HG, O’Meara F, Tschinkel WR (1997) Immigration and intro-
duction of insects. In: Simberloff D, Schmitz DC, Brown TC (eds) Strangers in par-
adise. Island Press,Washington, DC,pp 75–100
Fritts TH, Rodda GH (1995) Invasions of the brown tree snake. In: LaRoe ET, Farris GS,
Puckett CE, Doran PD, Mac MJ (eds) Our living resources. A report to the nation on
the distribution, abundance, and health of US plants animals and ecosystems. US
Dept Interior, National Biological Service, Washington, DC, pp 454–456
Plant,Animal, and Microbe Invasive Species in the United States and World 327
Gaudet CL, Keddy PA (1988) Predicting competitive ability from plant traits: a compar-
ative approach. Nature 334:242–243
Gooders J (1982) Collins British birds. Harper Collins, London
Griffiths DW, Schloesser DW, Leach JH, Koalak WP (1991) Distribution and dispersal of
the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) in the Great Lakes Region. Can J Fish Aquat
Sci 48:1381–1388
Hall JP, Moody B (1994) Forest depletions caused by insects and diseases in Canada
1982-1987. Forest insect and disease survey information. Forest Insect and Disease
Survey,Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources,Ottawa,Rep ST-X-8
Hajek AE (2005) Asian longhorned beetle: ecology and control. In:Pimentel D (ed) Ency-
clopedia of pest management.Dekker, New York
Hiebert RD,Stubbendieck J (1993) Handbook for ranking exotic plants for management
and control.US Dept Interior, National Park Service, Denver, CO
Hokkanen HMT, Pimentel D (1989) New associations in biological control: theory and
practice. Can Entomol 121:828–840
Keniry T, Marsden JE (1995) Zebra mussels in southwestern Lake Michigan. In: LaRoe
ET, Farris GS, Puckett CE, Doran PD, Mac MJ (eds) Our living resources: a report to
the nation on the distribution, abundance, and health of US plants, animals, and
ecosystems. US Dept Interior, National Biological Service, Washington, DC, pp
445–448
Kim Y (2002) World exotic diseases. In: Pimentel D (ed) Biological invasions: economic
and environmental costs of alien plant, animal and microbe species. CRC Press,Boca
Rotan,FL, pp 331–354
Kurdila J (1995) The introduction of exotic species into the United States: there goes the
neighborhood. Environ Affairs 16:95–118
Lafferty KD, Page CJ (1997) Predation of the endangered tidewater goby, Eucyclogobius
newberryi, by the introduced African clawed frog, Xenopus laevis, with notes on the
frog’s parasites. Copeia 3:589–592
Laycock G (1966) The alien animals. Natural History Press,New York
Layne JN (1997) Nonindigenous species. In: Simberloff D, Smitz DC, Brown TC (eds)
Strangers in paradise. Island Press,Washington,DC, pp 157–186
Lever C (1994) Naturalized animals: the ecology of successfully introduced species.
Poyser Natural History, London
Liebold AM, MacDonald WL, Bergdahl D, Mastro VC (1995) Invasion by exotic forest
pests: a threat to forest ecosystems.Forest Sci 41(2):1–49
Linn M (2005) Ant warfare: science fights fire with flies: natural enemy central to effort
to limit spread of the insects. USA Today (Nation), 18 November 2005, p 3A
Long JL (1981) Introduced birds of the world: the worldwide history, distribution, and
influence of birds introduced to new environments. Universe Books,New York
Lonsdale WM (1994) Inviting trouble: introduced pasture species in northern Australia.
Austral J Ecol 19:345–354
Low T (1999) Feral future: the untold story of Australia’s exotic invaders.Viking Penguin
Books, Melbourne
Macdonald IAW, Kruger FS, Ferrar AA (1986) Ecology and management of biological
invasions in Southern Africa.Oxford University Press,Cape Town
Malecki RA, Blossey B,Hight SD, Schroeder D,Kok LT,Coulson JR (1993) Biological con-
trol of purple loosestrife. BioScience 43:680–686
McNeely JA (1999) Biodiversity: man is one among 15 million species. IUCN,Gland
Meischke HRC, Geering WA (1985) Exotic animal diseases. In: Gibbs A, Meischke R (eds)
Pests and parasites as migrants.Cambridge University Press,Cambridge,pp 28–39
D. Pimentel, M.Pimentel, and A.Wilson328
Moore NW (1980) How many wild birds should farmland support? In: Wright EN,Inglis
IR, Feare CJ (eds) Bird problems in agriculture.The British Crop Protection Council,
Croydon,pp 2–6
Morin N (1995) Vascular plants of the United States. In:LaRoe ET, Farris GS, Puckett CE,
Doran PD,Mac MJ (eds) Our living resources: a report to the nation on the distribu-
tion, abundance, and health of US plants, animals,and ecosystems.US Dept Interior,
National Biological Service, Washington, DC,pp 200–205
Morse LE, Cartes JT, Center L (1995) Native vascular plants. In: LaRoe ET, Farris GS,
Puckett CE, Doran PD, Mac MJ (eds) Our living resources: a report to the nation on
the distribution, abundance, and health of US plants, animals, and ecosystems. US
Dept Interior, National Biological Service, Washington, DC, pp 205–209
Nandpuri KS,Singh B, Kolar JS,Kang MS, Chahal BS (1986) Field problems of important
crops. Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana,India
OTA (1993) Harmful non-indigenous species in the United States. Office of Technology
Assessment,United States Congress,Washington, DC
Pimentel D (2002) Biological invasions: economic and environmental costs of alien
plant, animal, and microbe species.CRC Press,Boca Raton,FL
Pimentel D (2004a) Agriculture: changing genes to feed the world.Science 306:815
Pimentel D (2004b) Livestock production and energy use. In: Cleveland C (ed) Encyclo-
pedia of energy. Elsevier,Amsterdam, pp 671–676
Pimentel D (2005) Aquatic nuisance species in the New York State Canal and Hudson
River system and the Great Lakes Basin: an economic and environmental assessment.
Environ Manage 35:692–701
Pimentel D, Pimentel M (2001) Agriculture, technology,and natural resources.In: Dorf R
(ed) Technology, humans and society: toward a sustainable world. Academic Press,
San Diego, pp 356–363
Pimentel D, Lach L, Zuniga R, Morrison D (2000) Environmental and economic costs of
non-indigenous species in the United States.BioScience 50:53–65
Pimentel D, McNair S,Janecka J,Wightman J, Simmons C, O’Connell C,Wong E, Russel L,
Zern J, Aquino T, Tsomondo T (2001) Ecological and economic threat of alien plant,
animal, and microbe invasions in the world.Agric Ecosyst Environ 84:1–20
Pimentel D, Zuniga R, Morrison D (2005) Update on the environmental and economic
costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecol Econ
52:273–288
Robbins CC (1995) Non-native birds. In:LaRoe ET, Farris GS, Puckett CE,Doran PD, Mac
MJ (eds) Our living resources: a report to the nation on the distribution, abundance,
and health of US plants, animals, and ecosystems.US Dept Interior, National Biolog-
ical Service, Washington, DC, pp 437–440
Rodda GH,Fritts TH, Chiszar D (1997) The disappearance of Guam’s wildlife.BioScience
47:565–574
Roots C (1976) Animal invaders. Universe Books,New York
Sabath MD, Boughton WC, Easteal S (1981) Expansion of the range of the introduced
toad Bufo marinus in Australia 1935-1974.Copeia 1981:676–680
Siegfried WR (1989) Preservation of species in Southern Africa nature reserves. In:
Huntley BJ (ed) Biotic diversity in Southern Africa: concepts and conservation.
Oxford University Press, Oxford,pp 186–201
Simberloff D, Smitz DC, Brown TC (1997) Strangers in paradise. Island Press, Washing-
ton, DC
Singh SP (1996) Biological control.In: Paroda RS, Chadha KL (eds) 50 years of crop sci-
ence research in India. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi, pp
88–116
Plant,Animal, and Microbe Invasive Species in the United States and World 329
Slater PD,Lewington D,Prathey JE (1996) An investigation into the effects of redlegged
earth mite and Lucerne flea on the performance of subterranean clover in annual
pasture in S. New South Wales. Plant Protect Quarant 11:6–8
Smith R (1984) Producers need not pay startling “rodent tax” losses. Feedstuffs
56(22):13–14
Smith RH (1992) Rodents and birds as invaders of stored-grain ecosystems.In: Jayas DS,
White NDG, Muir WE (eds) Books in soils,plants,and the environment: stored-grain
ecosystems. Dekker, New York, pp 289–323
South Africa (1998) South Africa government online (http://www.gov.za)
Temple SA (1992) Exotic birds, a growing problem with no easy solution. The Auk
109:395–397
Thompson DG, Stuckey RL, Thompson EB (1987) Spread, impact, and control of purple
loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) in North American wetland.US Fish and Wildlife Ser-
vice, and Fish and Wildlife Research 2,Washington, DC
USCB (2004–2005) United States statistical abstracts. US Census Bureau, Washington,
DC
Weber WJ (1979) Health hazards from pigeons, starlings and English sparrow: disease
and parasites associated with pigeons, starlings, and English sparrows. Thomson
Publications, Fresno, CA
D. Pimentel, M.Pimentel, and A.Wilson330
19 Socio-Economic Impact and Assessment
of Biological Invasions
Rosa Binimelis, Wanda Born, Iliana Monterroso,
and Beatriz Rodríguez-Labajos
19.1 Introduction
Biological invasions have been object of ecological research for years.As one
objective, natural scientists investigate the effects of invasive species on
ecosystems and their functioning (Levine et al. 2003). However, impacts on
ecosystems are also of relevance for society. Changes in ecosystems affect
humans insofar as ecosystems provide goods and services, such as fresh
water, food and fibres or recreation, which might be altered due to invasive
species. Therefore, impacts of biological invasions should be an object of
socio-economic interest, which is also demanded by the Convention on Bio-
logical Diversity (2002).
This chapter aims at providing elements for the analysis of impacts of inva-
sive species from the socio-economic point of view.Such an analysis is politi-
cally relevant, since impacts are the focal point of every decision to establish
an appropriate management regime. For an all-encompassing analysis, an
integrative framework is needed to structure the information on impacts. For
that purpose, the concept of ecosystem services (Chap. 13) is introduced
(Sect. 19.2).Alternative decisions on the appropriate management of invasive
species face trade-offs between outcomes and impacts. For handling such
trade-offs, evaluation is needed.As discussed in Sect. 19.3,perception presents
the prerequisite of an explicit evaluation. Finally, different evaluation meth-
ods are introduced so as to value the information about impacts during the
decision-making process (Sect. 19.4).
Ecological Studies,Vol. 193
W. Nentwig (Ed.)
Biological Invasions
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007
19.2 Impacts on Ecosystems from the Perspective
of Human Wellbeing
Identifying the impacts of invasive species is required in order to evaluate the
consequences of invasion processes and to implement management mea-
sures. The purpose of this section is to present an integrated framework for
structuring the information on impacts in order to describe what happens if
an invasion occurs.First, this is done by defining what type of impacts can be
associated with bioinvasions. Second, the concept of ecosystem services is
used for classifying these impacts. As humans depend on ecosystems and
ecosystem processes, effects caused by biological invasions can be of high
socio-economic relevance. Perceptions and assessment of these effects will
determine policy-making.
From a socio-economic point of view, impacts caused by biological inva-
sions are changes of recipient ecosystems which are perceived by humans. In
addition to impacts on ecosystem services, biological invasions can have
impacts on human-made goods and services, such as road systems or
artificial waterways and reservoirs. Although damages to human-made
infrastructure can be considerable, in the following the focus is on im-
pacted services supplied by natural or semi-natural ecosystems (Kühn et al.
2004).
Two types of impacts can be identified. The first type includes direct
impacts of invasions on ecosystem functions and on human wellbeing. The
second type refers to indirect impacts which stem from the implementation of
response actions, such as control costs or side effects of the introduction of
biological control agents (Tisdell 1990). A comprehensive decision-making
process demands reviewing both types of impacts. However, impact assess-
ment studies do not always distinguish between the two.
By affecting the ecological processes at the level of genes, species and
ecosystems, biological invasions modify the provision of ecosystem services.
Defined as “the conditions and the processes through which natural ecosys-
tems, and the species that make them up, sustain and fulfil human life”
(Daily 1997), ecosystem services are foundations of human wellbeing. Thus,
ecosystem services encompass both ecological and socio-economic aspects
of ecosystems, illustrating the human dependence on ecosystem functioning.
Impacts of biological invasions on ecosystems are of socio-economic
concern because they alter the benefits provided by ecosystems for human
life.
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) is based on a taxonomy of
ecosystem services encompassing four main categories (Fig. 19.1):
1. Supporting services are those necessary for the production of all other
ecosystem services;
2. Provisioning services refer to the products obtained from ecosystems;
R. Binimelis et al.332
3. Regulating services are benefits supplied by self-maintenance properties of
ecosystems;
4. Cultural services generate non-material benefits derived from ecosystems.
Table 19.1 compiles examples illustrating the impacts of various well-
known invasive species. It reveals the impacts of invaders on certain ecosys-
tem services by describing their alteration.
As can be noted,there are many mechanisms by which biological invasions
can impact different types of ecosystem services. The most evident examples
are effects on the provisioning of food. For instance,agricultural and forestry
yields are affected by pests such as the Russian wheat aphid (Diuraphis noxia;
Brewer et al. 2005), the sirex wasp (Sirex noctillo) and the skeleton weed
(Chondrilla juncea; Cullen and Whitten 1995). Other impacts, such as those
caused by the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha), affect human-made
Socio-Economic Impact and Assessment of Biological Invasions 333
Supporting services
Soil formation and retention
Production of atmospheric
oxygen
Water cycling
Nutrient cycling
Primary production
Habitat stability
Provisioning services
Food, fibre and fuel
Fresh water
Genetic resources
Biochemicals
Ornamental resources
Regulating services
Climate regulation
Air quality
Water regulation
Water purification and waste removal
Biological control
(invasion resistance and pest regulation)
Pollination and seedling survival
Disease regulation
Natural hazard protection
Erosion regulation
Cultural services
Spiritual and religious values
Recreation and aesthetic values
Education and inspiration
Sense of place
Cultural diversity
Social relations
Knowledge system
Fig. 19.1 Classification of ecosystem services according to the Millennium Assessment
categories
R. Binimelis et al.334
Table 19.1 Impacts of biological invasions on ecosystem services
Ecosystem service Impact description/effect Associated species (examples) Reference
Supporting services
Soil
formation
Changes in biochemical
characteristics of soils
Grand fir (Abies grandis)Griffiths et al.(2005)
Increase in soil aggregation Barb goatgrass (Aegilops triuncialis)Batten et al.(2005)
Nutrient Reduction of food and oxygen availability Zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha)Minchin et al. (2002)
cycling Alteration of soil nitrogen levels Grand fir (Abies grandis)Griffiths et al. (2005)
Black wattle (Acacia mearnsii)De Wit et al. (2001)
Primary
production
Alteration of biomass production of native
plants
European purple loosestrife (Lyt hr um
salicaria); black wattle (Acacia mearnsii)
Pimentel et al.(2005)
Reduction in aquatic vegetation Grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)Pimentel et al.(2005)
Competition for grazing primary production Horse (Equus caballus)Beever and Brussard (2004)
Habitat
stability
Changes in vegetation cover affecting
community assemblages
Green alga (Caulerpa taxifolia and
C. racemosa)
Cavas and Yurdakoc (2005)
Common reed (Phragmites australis)Maheu-Giroux and Blois
(2005)
Food Loss in commercial production and harvest
(agriculture,forestry,fisheries, aquaculture)
Russian wheat aphid (Diuraphis noxia)
Skeleton weed (Chondrilla juncea)
Rice field rat (Rattus argentiventer)
Comb jelly (Mnemiopsis leidyi)
Brewer et al.(2005)
Cullen and Whitten (1995)
Stenseth et al. (2003)
Knowler (2005)
Fuel,wood Loss of forest produc ts Gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar)Sharov and Liebhold (1998)
Fresh water Losses in water catchments Acacia (Acacia longifolia); black wattle
(Acacia mearnsii)
Galatowitsch and Richardson
(2005)
Genetic
resources
Threat to the viability of endangered
species
Indo-Pacific soft coral (Stereonephthya
aff.curvata)
Lages et al. (2006)
Genetic hybridization Baculoviruses (Autographa californica
nucleopolyhedrovirus, AcNPV)
Hails et al.(2002)
Provisioning services
Socio-Economic Impact and Assessment of Biological Invasions 335
Regulating services
Wa te r
regulation
Choking waterways Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) Pimentel et al.(2005)
Wa te r
purification
Reduction of water quality Acacia (Acacia longifolia); black wattle
(Acacia mearnsii)
Galatowitsch and Richardson
(2005)
Increase in water filtration Zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha)Minchin et al.(2002)
Wa st e
regulation
Colonization of industrial waste dumps Bacterivorous nematodes (Acrobeloides
nanus;Panagrolaimus rigidus)
Hánel (2004)
Biological
control
Displacement of native and endemic species Brown trout (Salmo trutta)Quist and Hubert (2004)
Pollination Reduction in the reproductive success of flora Argentine ant (Linepithema humile)Blancafort and Gomez (2005)
Seedling
survival
Depression of the diversity and abundance
of seedlings
Shrub (Lonicera maackii)Webster et al. (2005)
Disease
regulation
Infection of native fauna Chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium
dendrobatidis)
Beard and O’Neill (2005)
Production of toxic substances Green alga (Caulerpa racemosa)Cavas and Yurdakoc (2005)
Vectors of human and livestock diseases
(e.g.dengue)
Mosquito (Aedes aegypti)Takahashi et al. (2005)
Natural haz-
ard protection
Disruption in flood control mechanisms
Increase predisposition to fires
Salt cedar (Tamarix sp.)
Cheat grass (Bromus tectorum)
Lesica and Miles (2004)
Vitousek et al.(1996)
Erosion
regulation
Intensification of soil erosion Goat (Capra aegagrus hircus)Pimentel et al. (2005)
Recreational Reduction of recreational use of rivers
and lakes
Emerging sport fisheries
Black wattle (Acacia mearnsii)
Brown trout (Salmo trutta)
De Wit et al.(2001)
Quist and Hubert (2004)
Aesthetics Changes in the character of rural and urban
landscapes
Rhododendron (Rhododendron ponticum)
Horse chestnut leaf-miner (Cameraria
ohridella)
Dehnen-Schmutz et al.(2004)
Gilbert et al. (2003)
Use as ornamental flora Salt cedar (Tamarix ramosissima)Knowler and Barbier (2005)
Residential weeds Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale)Pimentel et al.(2005)
Education Threat to the value of protected areas Salt cedar (Tamarix ramosissima)Lesica and Miles (2004)
Cultural
diversity
Loss of subsistence fisheries which shaped
local cultures
Brown trout (Salmo trutta)Quist and Hubert (2004)
Cultural services
goods and services, damaging many different hydraulic infrastructures
worldwide (Minchin et al. 2002). Further examples and discussion on these
issues are provided by Chaps.13 and 18.
Table 19.1 also illustrates that one single species can have a variety of
effects. For instance, the black wattle (Acacia mearnsii) affects the regional
water table,local vegetation cover, i.e. species composition,and also alters the
recreational function of the Cape region in South Africa,since people gain less
access to rivers and lakes (Galatowitsch and Richardson 2005).
By structuring the information about impacts using the ecosystem ser-
vices categories, two general characteristics can be outlined: (1) the variety
of impacts caused by invasive species, and (2) the complexity of impacts on
ecosystem services. Ecosystem services and impacts on these are not only
manifold but also complex,as can be illustrated with the example of the Nile
perch (Lates niloticus). Its intentional introduction to Lake Victoria in Africa
for aquaculture and sport fishing resulted in the extirpation of 200 native
fish species (Kasulo 2000). This led to a shift of the whole ecosystem, as the
availability of phytoplankton changed, altering the local fish species compo-
sition (Chu et al. 2003). This introduction favoured a prospering fish indus-
try in the vicinity of the lake, due to increased profits from perch exports.
However, relatively cheap native fish was no longer available, and local
inhabitants could not afford the more expensive perch and, therefore, could
not complement their diet. Additionally, the availability of fuel wood
decreased because this was used to dry the perch, necessary to preserve it.
By contrast, the smaller native fish could be sun-dried, rather than being
smoked. In this example, the intentional modification of an ecosystem to
improve the services of recreation (sport fishing) and the provisioning of
food for exports (aquaculture) had important side effects, such as the
decrease of habitat stability. Furthermore, cultural practices and social rela-
tions changed, and the basic diet of the local inhabitants deteriorated, rather
than being improved (www.darwinsnightmare.com).
The Nile perch example serves to highlight the complexity of affected
ecosystem services. It also shows the interlinked ecological and socio-eco-
nomic dimensions of impacts – in this case, some impacts show a direct influ-
ence on human wellbeing, such as the alteration of the provisioning service of
food and fuel.
19.3 Perception as a Prerequisite for Valuation
Invasive species cause manifold effects. How these are valued depends on
human perception at a given point in time. Interests embedded within
cultural contexts and production patterns configure the personal attribution
of either a positive or negative character to a given effect. Thus, when
R. Binimelis et al.336
including these individual or collective appraisals into the decision-
making process, their context dependency should be taken into account
(Sect. 19.4).
Certain impacts of invasive species are of public concern, such as health
problems, e.g. asthma and allergies caused by the rag weed (Ambrosia
artemisiifolia; Zwander 2001). Others, such as alterations in ecosystem
integrity, are not a subject of public discussion. For instance, ecosystem
integrity in Canada is strongly affected by the common reed (Phragmites aus-
tralis; Maheu-Giroux and Blois 2005). Although this changes habitat condi-
tions, these impacts generally lie outside the set of social concerns. As the
linkage between these impacts on the ecosystem and human wellbeing is not
obvious, people who are not involved in conservation issues care little.Indeed,
invasions in waters take place mostly in a hidden manner (Nehring 2005).
Lack of social concern about the ecologically damaging green alga Caulerpa
racemosa is a good example (Cavas and Yurdakoc 2005; Piazzi et al.2005; Ruit-
ton et al. 2005). In fact, plant invaders (not only aquatic) which affect ecosys-
tem integrity are often not of public concern.
Another aspect of perception is that,from a utilitarian point of view,not all
the effects are damages. For instance, soil aggregation is enhanced by barb
goatgrass (Aegilops triuncialis; Batten et al. 2005), and black wattle (Acacia
mearnsii) increases nitrogen levels in soils (De Wit et al. 2001; Le Maitre et al.
2002). Whereas ecologically concerned people may regard these changes as
undesirable, farmers might take advantage of them. In fact, many introduced
species are valued both positively and negatively by different stakeholders.An
example is brown trout (Salmo trutta), which displaces native species and
affects cultural practices dependent on these but also promotes economic
activities related to recreational angling (Quist and Hubert 2004). Indeed,
invasive fish species favouring emergent sport fisheries are often associated
with a positive public rating, and this despite their adverse ecological impacts.
This example illustrates that personal or social interest can give importance
to some effects of an invasive species but neglect others.
As explained above,valuation is dependent on perception. The perception
of impacts is heterogeneous,context-dependent and dynamic. The alien inva-
sive acacia (Acacia sp.) was introduced for pulp production and tanning-com-
pound extraction in plantations in South Africa (De Wit et al. 2001).Its spread
out of control has been associated with changes in water regulation. Different
positions taken by the stakeholders reflect the heterogeneous character of this
species’ impacts – on the one hand, communities suffer from water scarcity
and, on the other,they benefit from increased access to fuel wood and timber
for building materials. The example also shows the dynamic and context-
dependent character of valuation.The effects of acacia growth on water regu-
lation is a main concern of the affected communities. Information on the
problem allowed the creation of social partnerships for the control of the aca-
cia. In South Africa, the fight against plant invaders has been boosted by
Socio-Economic Impact and Assessment of Biological Invasions 337
means of the Working for Water Program (www.dwaf.gov.za/wfw) – in this
case, information evidently led to higher awareness.
The reasoning presented above demonstrates the need of identifying the
stakeholders and their roles as prime perceivers and promoters of impacts.
Due to the reflexive nature of the invasion processes (new relevant attributes
are continuously added to the relationship between people and invasive
species), the participation of stakeholders in both the identification of out-
comes and the analysis of priorities is needed in the evaluation processes. The
advantage of the concept of ecosystem services lies in the structuring of infor-
mation about impacts. Further analysis can be done to discuss stakeholder
perception of the impacts. Such impacts can be taken into account in the val-
uation concerning the appropriate management of the species.
By revealing the direct and indirect influence of invasive species on human
wellbeing, the ecosystem service concept also supports a reflection on uncer-
tainty and ignorance. Uncertainty exists if outcomes are known but the distri-
bution of probabilities cannot be identified. Ignorance can be defined as the
situation where the probability neither of the potential outcome nor of the
outcome itself is known.In other words,“we don’t know what we don’t know”
(Wynne 1992). One key feature of invasive species processes is often the lack
of knowledge. Due to the complexity of interlinked ecological processes, the
predictive power of information available about dispersal rates, traits and
ecological behaviour is small (Williamson 1996). Furthermore, often there is
no such information available, especially not on the social impacts of invasive
species.However, for decision making it is necessary to structure the available
information on impacts. The use of the ecosystem services concept can serve
this aim because this reveals whether the information about impacts is avail-
able or not. Under conditions of uncertain outcomes and irreversible effects,
a precautionary approach should be employed concerning management deci-
sions on invasive species.
19.4 Alternatives for the Evaluation of Impacts:
from Valuation to Deliberation
Decision making requires evaluation because trade-offs between different
management options occur, e.g. if a certain management option promotes one
impact and concurrently diminishes another. For instance, eradicating the
black wattle (Acacia mearnsii) in the Cape region on the one hand implies
diminished access to fuel wood for the local population and, on the other, it
increases fresh water availability.Furthermore, decisions about invasive species
management should take the perceptions of affected people into account.The
acceptance and outcome of these decisions will be highly dependent on the indi-
vidual or social perception of the impacts caused by invasive species.
R. Binimelis et al.338
Socio-Economic Impact and Assessment of Biological Invasions 339
Table 19.2 Overview of evaluation approaches for the management of invasive species
Risk
assessment
Cost-benefit
analysis
Cost-
effectiveness
Multi-criteria
analysis
Scenario
development
Management
purpose
Introduction Introduction
and/or control
Control Introduction
and/or control
Introduction
and/or control
Purpose of
the evaluation
Risk level Ranking (opti-
misation)
Ranking (opti-
misation)
Deliberation
and ranking
Deliberation
and prospec-
tive storylines
Type of
impacts
Associated
with invasion
species
(hazards)
Caused
directly by
invasive
species and
those derived
from manage-
ment responses
(cost of dam-
age, cost of
control and
benefits)
Associated
with manage-
ment
responses
(cost of con-
trol)
Associated
with invasive
species and/
or those
derived from
management
(criteria)
Associated
with invasive
species and/or
those derived
from manage-
ment (refer-
ence indica-
tors)
Type of infor-
mation used
Quantitative
and qualitative
Quantitative
(monetary)
Quantitative
(monetary and
physical units)
Quantitative
and qualitative
Quantitative
and qualitative
Participation
potential
Low Low/medium Medium High High
Consideration
of uncertainty
Uncertainty
reduced to prob-
ability or pre-
cautionary
approach
Sensitivity
analysis
Sensitivity
analysis
Robustness
analysis,
accounting for
fuzzy data
Integrated set
of assump-
tions
Operative
constraints
Low cost and
time require-
ment
Low–medium
cost and time
requirement
Low–medium
cost and time
requirement
Medium–high
cost and time
requirement
Medium–high
cost and time
requirement
Methodolo-
gical con-
straints
Intrinsic uncer-
tainties, risk
thresholds
Trade-offs
between nat-
ural capital and
human-made
capital, use of
discount rate
Definition of
thresholds
Definition of
thresholds
Lack of precise
results, non-
replicable
results
References OTA (1993),
Landis (2003),
Andersen et al.
(2004), Sim-
berloff (2005)
Bertram
(1999), De Wit
et al. (2001),
Le Maitre et al.
(2002),
McConnachie
et al. (2003),
Pimentel et al.
(2005)
De Groote et
al. (2003),
Buhle et al.
(2005),
Dehnen-
Schmutz et al.
(2004)
Maguire
(2004),
Monterroso
(2005)
Chapman et al.
(2001),
Rodriguez-
Labajos (2006)
Management is essentially concerned with how to deal with impacts of
biological invasions. This takes place at different stages of the invasion
process,either preventing an introduction (accidental or intentional) or man-
aging an invasive species once it is established. Uncertainties linked to the
process will vary depending on the invasion stage.A sound decision-making
process should also reflect on this (Born et al.2005).
The purpose of this section is to introduce five approaches to the evalua-
tion of management alternatives concerning invasive species. In this context,
operational implications of assessing impacts of biological invasions by
means of these approaches are discussed. Table 19.2 presents the main char-
acteristics of each approach. However, it is important to note that every
approach features a variety of specific methodologies and techniques. There-
fore, specific processes and operational constraints can differ depending on
the specificities of the implementation process. Alternatively, a combination
of methods is sometimes advisable.
19.4.1 Risk Assessment
One of the approaches most used as a predictive tool concerning biological
invasions is risk assessment.This aims at measuring risk by determining the
likelihood of an introduction and the potential adverse effects,given available
knowledge about alien invasive species and the recipient ecosystem. Risk
assessment for invasive species is generally adopted in order to assess deci-
sions regarding the introduction of potentially invasive species, their path-
ways and vectors before establishment. However, it might also be used for
allocating resources to management measures once the species is already
established.For instance,the US Environmental Protection Agency developed
a framework for using three main steps: (1) problem formulation; (2) analysis
of exposure and effects, and (3) risk characterisation (EPA 1998). For invasive
species exposure, the analysis involves estimating the likelihood of introduc-
tion, establishment and/or spread, taking into account the quantity, timing,
frequency, duration and pathways of exposure as well as number of species,
their characteristics and the characteristics of the recipient ecosystem
(Andersen et al. 2004).As this approach is based on expert judgement,partic-
ipation of other interested groups is not foreseen.Results from the assessment
can be both quantitative and qualitative, although the former is usually the
goal (Simberloff 2005). Expenditure and time requirements usually remain
low, since mainly standard procedures are involved (e.g. guidelines estab-
lished by the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization,
EPPO, www.eppo.org).
R. Binimelis et al.340
19.4.2 Cost-Benefit Analysis
Cost-benefit analysis is the traditional evaluation instrument within the
framework of welfare economics analysis. It assesses current and future
costs and benefits in monetary units, associated with a range of alternatives,
projects or policy instruments. It intends to consider all impacts of invasive
species which can be valued in monetary terms, including the direct costs
and benefits of invasives. This implies that the valuation of environmental
damages as well as of environmental services has to be conducted in mone-
tary units, guaranteeing the substitutability between ecosystem services and
human-made goods and services, even if no markets exists for the service at
hand. This method provides an “optimal solution” by ranking the alterna-
tives. Participation of social groups is not necessary but might be consid-
ered, for instance, in the assessment of their willingness to pay. Time and
cost requirements will depend on the specific techniques employed in the
assessment. For instance, carrying out a contingent valuation (assessing the
willingness to pay or willingness to accept) will be associated with increased
costs, compared to the use of secondary source data.A representative exam-
ple of this method is the extensive work on the fynbos biome of the Cape
Floristic Region in South Africa, where cost-benefit analysis was used to
investigate the consequences of plant invasions (e.g. Acacia sp., Eucalyptus
sp.) on water supply (Enright 2000; De Wit et al. 2001; McConnachie et al.
2003). Another contribution consistent with this approach is the highly ref-
erenced work developed by Pimentel et al. (2005). To consider all impacts,
again uncertainty must be ruled out. Essentially, cost-benefit analysis is a
monetisation of risk assessment to generate substitutability. Thus, it allows
one to obtain optimal solutions.
19.4.3 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
When benefits of control actions of invasive species are difficult to assess,
economics can use cost-effectiveness analysis to find the policy instrument
or alternative best suited to avoid surpassing a given threshold of invasion.
To reach the defined goal, several alternatives are compared so as to obtain
an optimal solution by evaluating the direct and indirect costs associated
with the implementation of these management options. The costs of keeping
the invasion below the threshold are expressed in monetary units but the
threshold itself is in physical terms (Baumol and Oates 1988). Assuming the
objective is to diminish the presence of an invasive species by 50%, this
method reveals the cheapest control option – the most “cost-effective instru-
ment” – to decrease current infestation level to this socially desired thresh-
old. Reduction thresholds are established from outside strict economic rea-
Socio-Economic Impact and Assessment of Biological Invasions 341
soning, so this approach can require a higher level of participation. Expen-
diture and time associated with the implementation of this method may vary
according to the techniques employed. This approach has been used by
Dehnen-Schmutz et al. (2004) to analyse private and public expenditure allo-
cated to different control options to manage Rhododendrum ponticum in the
British Isles. All ignorance/uncertainty around the definition of the thresh-
old lies outside the methodology. For the impacts of the management
options, again uncertainty is assumed not to exist (otherwise, no well-
defined optimum exists).
19.4.4 Multi-Criteria Analysis
Limitations in achieving monetary accountings of impacts, existence of con-
flicting values and uncertainties inherent to the invasion and the decision-
making process are challenging conditions to assess invasive species. A
methodological response is multi-criteria analysis, a family of methods rooted
in operational research.This compares different alternatives by contrasting the
performance of a set of alternatives according to different criteria (Munda
2004). In the context of invasive species, alternatives exist concerning the
choice of management options to encounter impacts. The multi-criteria
approach allows us to incorporate multiple dimensions of effects, and to
include both qualitative and quantitative information associated with impacts
of invasive species and those related to the implementation of management
responses.Results from most multi-criteria methods provide a ranking of fea-
sible alternatives.These can be achieved either by a vertical approach where no
compensability exists (i.e. no trade-offs; e.g. lexicographic methods) or by a
horizontal approach which encompasses varying degrees of compensability
(e.g. multi-attribute theory, outranking methods). This approach has been
used by Maguire (2004) to analyse trade-offs among conflicting objectives for
controlling feral pigs (Sus scrofa) in Hawaii. In multi-criteria evaluation, the
selection of alternatives and criteria may be decided during a participative
deliberation exercise; therefore,attention is placed on the learning process and
achieving a compromise solution, rather than an optimal solution.Application
will usually require longer time periods and higher costs.
19.4.5 Scenario Development
Another analytical technique which has been used to face uncertainty and to
integrate different values is scenario development.As opposed to predictions
implying no uncertainties, this method is designed to deliver results in situa-
tions characterized by uncertainty. A variety of methods employ the term
“scenario” referring to possible outcomes of different management alterna-
R. Binimelis et al.342
tives. However, scenario development is also a method in itself. In this
approach, scenarios are descriptions of alternative images of the future, cre-
ated from mental models which reflect different perspectives on past, present
and future events (Rotmans et al. 2000). These provide representations of
plausible futures and typically include a narrative element called storyline,
sometimes supported by quantitative indicators (Berkhout et al. 2002).
Impacts of alien invasive species and effects associated with the implementa-
tion of response measures can be included when conducting deliberation on
causal processes and outcomes of biological invasions.Social participation is
desired to increase internal coherence of scenario development and to incor-
porate different perspectives. Its main purpose is to decrease uncertainty by
discourse-based decisions. Cost and time requirements can vary depending
on the specific process – as in other methods which pursue participation,
these can be high. For instance, Chapman et al. (2001) used this approach to
analyse different management scenarios of invasive species in South Africa to
improve decision support.
19.5 Concluding Remarks
This chapter illustrates impacts of invasive species from the socio-economic
point of view, within the integrative framework of ecosystem services. This
framework facilitates a comprehensive review of the variety of impacts caused
by invasive species.It links ecological effects of invasive species with the foun-
dations of human wellbeing, as humans are dependent on ecosystems and
their functioning in supplying special services to society. Invasive species can
disrupt such ecosystem services.
Throughout the variety of examples displayed in the chapter, it can be seen
that both the effects and the response impacts are perceived differently by
various social groups. Individual or social perception is considered to be a
prerequisite for the valuation of impacts in the context of decision making for
appropriate management. Using ecosystem service categories helps to orga-
nize impacts when presenting information to interest groups, and it can help
to include many perspectives during the valuation processes. In this way, the
multidimensional character of impacts is highlighted.
Additionally, assessment approaches deal with impacts differently. Every
method has different potentials and constraints which shape its use for sup-
porting decision making. Choosing the most suitable approach may rest on
different reasons,such as the type of information employed,the participation
potential,the consideration of uncertainty and,especially,the type of impacts
which are taken into account. In fact, the further away the impact is from
holding a market price, the more relevant is social participation in the delib-
eration process.
Socio-Economic Impact and Assessment of Biological Invasions 343
Acknowledgements. We would like to thank Ingo Bräuer, Ingolf Kühn, Joan Martinez
Alier, Johannes Schiller and Joaquim Spangenberg for useful comments on an earlier
draft. The ICTA-UAB group on the socio-economics of biological invasions is funded by
the EC within the FP 6 integrated project ALARM (COCE-CT-2003-506675), and Wanda
Born by the project “Invasions: The Invasion Potential of Alien Species – Identification,
Assessment, and Risk Management”, within the BioTEAM-Programme (Grant 01 LM
0206), financed by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.
References
Andersen MC,Adams H,Hope B, Powell M (2004) Risk analysis for invasive species: gen-
eral framework and research needs. Risk Analysis 24:893–900
Batten KM, Six J, Scow KM,Rillig MC (2005) Plant invasion of native grassland on ser-
pentine soils has no major effects upon selected physical and biological properties.
Soil Biol Biochem 37:1177–1183
Baumol W, Oates W (1988) The theory of environmental policy. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge
Beard KH, O’Neill EM (2005) Infection of an invasive frog Eleutherodactylus coqui by the
chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in Hawaii. Biol Conserv 126:591–595
Beever EA, Brussard PF (2004) Community- and landscape-level responses of reptiles
and small mammals to feral-horse grazing in the Great Basin.J Arid Environ 59:271–
297
Berkhout F, Hertin J, Jordan A (2002) Socio-economic futures in climate change impact
assessment: using scenarios as ‘learning machines’.Global Environ Change 12:83–95
Bertram G (1999) The impact of introduced pests on the New Zealand economy. In:
Hackwell K, Bertram G (eds) Pests and weeds, a blueprint for action. New Zealand
Conservation Authority,Wellington,pp 45–71
Blancafort X, Gomez C (2005) Consequences of the Argentine ant, Linepithema humile
(Mayr), invasion on pollination of Euphorbia characias (L.) (Euphorbiaceae). Acta
Oecol 28:49–55
Born W, Rauschmayer F, Bräuer I (2005) Economic evaluation of biological invasions – a
survey.Ecol Econ 55:321–336
Brewer MJ,Noma T,Elliott NC (2005) Hymenopteran parasitoids and dipteran predators
of the invasive aphid Diuraphis noxia after enemy introductions: temporal variation
and implication for future aphid invasions.Biol Control 33:315–323
Buhle ER, Margolis M, Ruesink JL (2005) Bang for buck: cost-effective control of invasive
species with different life histories.Ecol Econ 52:355–366
Cavas L,Yurdakoc K (2005) A comparative study: Assessment of the antioxidant system
in the invasive green alga Caulerpa racemosa and some macrophytes from the
Mediterranean. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 321:35–41
Chapman RA, Le Maitre DC, Richardson DM (2001) Scenario planning: understanding
and managing biological invasions in South Africa. In: McNeely JA (ed) The great
reshuffling. Human dimensions of invasive alien species. IUCN, Gland,pp 195–208
Chu D, Strand R, Fjelland R (2003) Theories of complexity. Common denominators of
complex systems.Complexity 8:19–30
Convention on Biological Diversity (2002) Decision VI/23. Alien species that threaten
ecosystem, habitats or species. Proc 6th Ordinary Meet Conf Parties to the Conven-
tion on Biological Diversity,http://www.biodiv.org
Cullen JM, Whitten MJ (1995) Economics of classical biological control: a research per-
spective. In: Hokkanen H, Lynch MT, James M (eds) Biological control: benefits and
risks. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, pp 270–276
R. Binimelis et al.344
Daily GC (ed) (1997) Nature’s services. Societal dependence on natural ecosystems.
Island Press,Washington,DC
De Groote H, Ajuonu O, Attignon S, Djessou R, Neuenschwander P (2003) Economic
impact of biological control of water hyacinth in Southern Benin. Ecol Econ
45:105–117
Dehnen-Schmutz K, Perrings C, Williamson M (2005) Controlling Rhododendron pon-
ticum in the British Isles: an economic analysis. J Environ Management 70:323–332
De Wit MP, Crookes DJ,Van Wilgen BW (2001) Conflicts of interest in environmental
management: estimating the costs and benefits of a tree invasion. Biol Invasions
3:167–178
Enright WD (2000) The effect of terrestrial invasive alien plants on water scarcity in
South Africa.Phys Chem Earth 25:237–242
EPA (1998) Guidelines for ecological risk assessment.Risk Assessment Forum, US Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency Press,Washington,DC, Rep no EPA/630/R-95/002F
Galatowitsch S,Richardson DM (2005) Riparian scrub recovery after clearing of invasive
alien trees in headwater streams of the Western Cape, South Africa. Biol Conserv
122:509–521
Gilbert M, Svatos A, Lehmann M, Bacher S (2003) Spatial patterns and infestation
processes in the horse chestnut leafminer Cameraria ohridella: a tale of two cities.
Entomol Exp Appl 107:25–37
Griffiths R, Madritch M, Swanson A (2005) Conifer invasion of forest meadows trans-
forms soil characteristics in the Pacific Northwest.Forest Ecol Manage 208:347–358
Hails RS, Hernandez-Crespo P, Sait SM, Donnelly CA, Green BM,Cory JS (2002) Trans-
mission patterns of natural and recombinant baculoviruses. Ecology 83:906–916
Hánel L (2004) Colonization of chemical factory wastes by soil nematodes.Pedobiologia
48:373–381
Kasulo V (2000) The impact of invasive species in African lakes. In: Perrings C,
Williamson M, Dalmazzone S (eds) The economics of biological invasions. Edward
Elgar,Cheltenham, pp 183–207
Knowler D (2005) Reassessing the costs of biological invasion: Mnemiopsis leidyi in the
Black Sea. Ecol Econ 52:187–199
Knowler D, Barbier E (2005) Importing exotic plants and the risk of invasion: are mar-
ket-based instruments adequate? Ecol Econ 52:341–354
Kühn I, Brandenburg M, Klotz S (2004) Why do alien plant species that reproduce in nat-
ural habitats occur more frequently? Diversity Distrib 10:417–425
Lages BG, Fleury BG,Ferreira CEL,Pereira RC (2006) Chemical defense of an exotic coral
as invasion strategy. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 328:127–135
Landis WG (2003) Ecological risk assessment conceptual model formulation for non-
indigenous species. Risk Analysis 24:847–858
Le Maitre DC, Van Wilgen BW, Gelderblom CM, Bailey C, Chapman RA, Nel JA (2002)
Invasive alien trees and water resources in South Africa: case studies of the costs and
benefits of management. Forest Ecol Manage 160:143–159
Lesica P, Miles S (2004) Ecological strategies for managing tamarisk on the C.M. Russell
National Wildlife Refuge,Montana,USA. Biol Conserv 119:535–543
Levine JM, Vilà M, D’Antonio CM, Dukes JS, Grigulis K, Lavorel S (2003) Mechanisms
underlying the impacts of exotic plant invasions.R Soc Rev 270:775–781
Maguire LA (2004) What can decision analysis do for invasive species management? Risk
Analysis 24:859–868
Maheu-Giroux M, Blois SD (2005) Mapping the invasive species Phragmites australis in
linear wetland corridors. Aquat Bot 83:310–320
McConnachie AJ, De Wit MP, Hill MP, Byrne MJ (2003) Economic evaluation of the suc-
cessful biological control of Azolla filiculoides in South Africa. Biol Control 28:25–32
Socio-Economic Impact and Assessment of Biological Invasions 345
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) Ecosystems and human well-being. A frame-
work for assessment.Island Press,Washington, DC
Minchin D,Lucy F,Sullivan M (2002) Zebra mussel: impacts and spread. In: Olenin S (ed)
Invasive aquatic species of Europe – distribution, impact and management.Kluwer,
Dordrecht,pp 135–146
Monterroso I (2005) Comparison of two socio-economic assessment methods for the
analysis of the invasion process of Hydrilla verticillata in Lake Izabal, Guatemala.
Master Thesis, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra (http://selene.uab.es/
brodriguezl)
Munda G (2004) Social multi-criteria evaluation:methodological foundations and oper-
ational consequences.Eur J Operat Res 158:662–677
Nehring S (2005) International shipping - A risk for aquatic biodiversity in Germany. In:
Nentwig W, Bacher S, Cock MJW, Dietz H, Gigon A, Wittenberg R (eds) Biological
invasions – from ecology to control.Neobiota 6:125–143
OTA (1993) Harmful non-indigenous species in the United States.US Congress,Office of
Technology Assessment,Washington, DC
Piazzi L, Balata D,Ceccherelli G, Cinelli F (2005) Interactive effect of sedimentation and
Caulerpa racemosa var. cylindracea invasion on macroalgal assemblages in the
Mediterranean Sea. Estuarine Coastal Shelf Sci 64:467–474
Pimentel D, Zuniga R, Morrison D (2005) Update on the environmental and economic
costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecol Econ 52:273–
288
Quist MC, Hubert WA (2004) Bioinvasive species and the preservation of cutthroat trout
in the western United States:Ecological, social,and economic issues.Environ Sci Pol-
icy 7:303–313
Rodríguez-Labajos B (2006) Interlinked biological invasions in the Ebro River. A multi-
scale scenario approach. Master Thesis, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bel-
laterra (http://selene.uab.es/brodriguezl)
Rotmans J,van Asselt M,Anastasi C,Greeuw S, Mellors J,Peters S,Rothman D, Rijkens N
(2000) Visions for a sustainable Europe. Futures 32:809–831
Ruitton S,Javel F, Culioli JM, Meinesz A,Pergent G,Verlaque M (2005) First assessment of
the Caulerpa racemosa (Caulerpales, Chlorophyta) invasion along the French
Mediterranean coast. Mar Pollut Bull 50:1061–1068
Sharov AA, Liebhold AM (1998) Bioeconomics of managing the spread of exotic species
with barrier zones. Ecol Appl 8:833–845
Simberloff D (2005) The politics of assessing risk for biological invasions: the USA as a
case study.Trends Ecol Evol 20:216–222
Stenseth NC, Leirs H, Skonhoft A,Davis SA,Pech RP, Andreassen HP, Singleton GR, Lima
M, Machangu RM,Makundi RH, Zhang Z,Brown PB, Shi D, Wan X (2003) Mice and
rats: the dynamics and bioeconomics of agricultural rodents pests. Frontiers Ecol
Environ 1:1–12
Takahashi LT, Maidana NA, Ferreira J, Wilson Castro P, Yang HM (2005) Mathematical
models for the Aedes aegypti dispersal dynamics: travelling waves by wing and wind.
Bull Math Biol 67:509–528
Tisdell CA (1990) Economic impact of biological control of weeds and insects. In: Mack-
auer M, Ehler LE, Roland J (eds) Critical issues in biological control. Interdept,
Andover, pp 301–316
Vitousek PM, D’Antonio CM, Loope LL, Westbrooks R (1996) Biological invasions as
global environmental change.Am Sci 84:468–478
Webster CR,Nelson K,Wangen SR (2005) Stand dynamics of an insular population of an
invasive tree, Acer platanoides. Forest Ecol Manage 208:85–99
Williamson M (1996) Biological Invasions. Chapman and Hall, London
R. Binimelis et al.346
Wynne B (1992) Uncertainty and environmental learning.Reconceiving science and pol-
icy in the preventive paradigm.Global Environ Change 2:111–127
Zwander H (2001) Der Pollenflug im Klagenfurter Becken (Kärnten) 1980 bis 2000.
Carinthia II 191:117–134
Socio-Economic Impact and Assessment of Biological Invasions 347
Section VI
Prevention and Management of Biological Invasions
Short Introduction
Wolfga n g N e ntw i g
We have plenty of possibilities to manage and control,or prevent and avoid, or
sometimes even to undo or reverse a biological invasion.The first approach in
such a project is usually a discussion on the nature of the means which should
be used. Economists conclude that biological invasions are simply the result of
basic economic principles, and they predict that redefining the rules of the
game will prevent further alien species from spreading or, at least, identify
someone who would pay for any damages (Chap.20).
Scientists involved in the often frustrating, everyday business of food quar-
antine and transportation stowaways have their own ideas about more inten-
sive inspections (Chap. 21). The new ghost of globalization with unlimited
trade around the globe could stigmatise protective measures as trade imped-
iment. Is this the end of control possibilities?
In principle, conservation biologists are able to eradicate an invasive alien
species once it has been established.There are, however,narrow limits to such
techniques, making a successful eradication dependent on very specific cir-
cumstances (Chap. 22). In addition, biological control, once considered as a
unique tool to eradicate alien species,initially dispersed even more aliens and
caused more problems than it solved. Today, the situation has completely
changed and modern biocontrol is a valuable tool (Chap. 23).Still, is it realis-
tic to assume that at least one biological control agent would be available
against each invasive alien species?
Would the precautionary principle not be a more appropriate reaction to
the global threat of biological invasions? This would mean, of course, that
stricter steps are urgently needed to manage the increasing hazard stemming
from biological invasions. Public information and awareness are critical in
this respect, and we certainly need specific education programs for the gen-
eral public. The precautionary principle also includes a full spectrum of mea-
sures, from economically based tools to all control and eradication means
suitable. It is easy to set up such long to-do lists but more difficult, and prob-
ably also frustrating, to work for their implementation. This, however, is
exactly what is needed now (Chap.24).
20 Economic Analysis of Invasive Species Policies
Julia Touza, Katharina Dehnen-Schmutz, and Glyn Jones
20.1 Introduction
The economic aspects of invasive alien species (IAS) are increasingly being
recognised as highly significant (Perrings et al. 2000; McNeely 2001). Even
though the economics of invasive species is often associated solely with eco-
nomic consequences of species,economics is equally important for the analy-
sis of reasons for invasions. That IAS impose costs upon society is unchal-
lenged. Pimentel et al.(2000, 2005 and Chap. 18) assess the costs of IAS to the
US, and the latter paper estimates these at $ 120 billion per annum. These
costs are borne by the whole of society and not only those responsible for the
initial introductions.
IAS introductions are typically unintended or intended consequences of
economic activities. These are not only responsible for first bringing species
into an area where they are non-native but they also influence the direction
and frequency of repeated introductions, and the pattern of spread of estab-
lished species. Whether a species is introduced deliberately or unintention-
ally,research has shown that trade plays a significant role (Chaps. 2 and 3).For
deliberately introduced species,it has been shown that trade variables seem to
be a good explanatory variable for the successful invasion of species (Cassey
et al. 2004; Semmens et al. 2004; Dehnen-Schmutz et al. 2006; Duggan et al.
2006). For unintentional introductions, Levine and D’Antonio (2003) found a
positive relationship between the rate of establishment of unintentionally
introduced alien species and import volumes in the USA.Economic pathways
for unintentional introductions are, for example, ship ballast water (Chap. 4),
wood packaging, and ornamental plants. In addition, that the invasibility of
host ecosystems is affected by human impacts is widely accepted, although
there are only a few studies exploring the link directly (Dalmazzone 2000;Vilà
and Pujadas 2001).
Perrings et al. (2002) argue that, since the causes of the problem are pri-
marily economic,they also require economic solutions.The role of economics
Ecological Studies,Vol. 193
W. Nentwig (Ed.)
Biological Invasions
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007
in the control of IAS is multi-facetted.It includes the analysis of the economic
drivers of biological invasions, their impact (by single-species impact analy-
ses and cost-benefit appraisals), as well as constructing and analysing policy
options for prevention and control.
There are several strategies to counter invasive species: (1) prevention of
the introduction of potential IAS, (2) eradication in the early invasion stages
and (3) control of fully established IAS (Mack et al. 2000; see also Chaps.
21–23). Among these, prevention – by identifying future invaders before
introduction – and eradication – by detecting harmful invasions soon after
initial establishment – are often seen as the most successful approaches. In
economic terminology,policies to manage IAS are termed public goods (Per-
rings et al. 2000).This means that the provision of IAS policy is “non-rival” in
that additional beneficiaries from its provision do not increase the cost. That
is, one person’s “consumption” of control of IAS is not at the expense of
another’s. Furthermore, IAS policies are “non-excludable” in that no one can
be prevented from consuming the benefits, i.e. both payers and non-payers
receive the benefits.This means that there is potentially a strong incentive for
individuals (people,businesses or countries) to free-ride on the management
efforts of others. These two characteristics (“non-rival” and “non-exclud-
able”) of public goods will result in an under-provision of policies for manag-
ing biological invasions if policies are left to market forces,and the two partly
explain why the responsibility for environmental protection lies with national
governments. The level of provision of some of these policies is also influ-
enced by the manner in which they are provided. IAS management provision
is only as good as the least effective provider, i.e.the weakest link determines
the total provision of the IAS protection (Perrings et al. 2002). For example,
the effectiveness of international measures to control the spread (or eradica-
tion) of a plant pathogen depends on the country with the weakest biosecurity
policy, as the failure of its biosecurity measures would prevent any other
country from controlling (or eradicating) the pathogen because of persistent
reintroductions.
This chapter examines economic studies in terms of their contribution to
increasing the understanding of policy decisions on biological invasions. It
considers three areas where economics can contribute most to the manage-
ment of IAS. First, we introduce different economic instruments to protect
against IAS which have been suggested in the literature. The second area
explored is the cost-effectiveness of policy. Although the prevention of the
introduction of IAS intuitively seems to be the best way to avoid any IAS prob-
lems, it may not necessarily be the most cost-effective strategy, and any deci-
sions as to how to allocate limited resources between prevention and reactive
policies are subject to an analysis of the trade-offs between the two. The third
area is the inclusion of uncertainty in economic analysis of IAS policy
options.All policy decisions have to take into account the high level of uncer-
tainty surrounding biological invasions, which makes it all but impossible to
J. Touza, K.Dehnen-Schmutz,and G. Jones354
Economic Analysis of Invasive Species Policies 355
Table 20.1 Summary of economic studies of policies to manage biological invasions
Study Content
Costello and McAusland (2003) Evaluation of the relationship between traded
goods, import tariffs, and the damages arising
from accidental introductions
Eiswerch and van Kooten (2002) Identification of optimal strategies using expert
opinion to incorporate uncertainty into the
management decisions
Heikkila and Peltola (2004) Evaluation of cost-effectiveness of the Finnish
protection system against Colorado potato bee-
tle (Leptinotarsa decemlineata)
Horan et al.(2002) Analysis of biosecurity measures taken by firms
under uncertainty
Horan and Lupi (2005) Investigation into the possible effectiveness of
tradable permits as an alternative IAS control
mechanism
Finnoff et al. (2005) Dynamic ecological-economic model of interac-
tions between the environment and society’s
responses to IAS (private agents and social man-
ager)
Jensen (2002) Economic evaluation of invasion risk and strate-
gies for prevention versus control efforts
Knowler and Barbier (2005) Modelling of the risk of deliberate introduction
of plants by the horticulture industry and analy-
sis of the possibility of using taxes to regulate
this industry
Leung et al.(2002) Bioeconomic model to evaluate optimal invest-
ment in prevention and control strategies
Leung et al.(2006) Evaluation of “rules of thumb” to guide preven-
tion and control expenditures
Margolis et al. (2005) Model of tariff formation taking into account
invasion externality and the influence of lobby
groups
McAusland and Costello (2004) Analysis of the optimal combination of import
tariffs and inspections to reduce the risk of acci-
dental introductions
Mumford et al. (2000) Examine the rationale of the UK Government’s
Plant Health Programme and consider its effec-
tiveness in the deployment of resources
Perrings (2005) Analysis of efficiency and effectiveness of pre-
vention and control based on the stochastic
process of IAS
Olson and Roy (2002) Evaluation of eradication and control strategies
taking into account that the spread of the
invader is subject to environmental disturbances
Waage et al. (2004) Estimation of the nature and magnitude of
future non-native species risks in order to evalu-
ate an efficient allocation of resources between
these
predict, for example, which species will establish in new environments, start
to spread, and what sort of impacts they will have (Williamson 2001; Ander-
sen et al. 2004). Table 20.1 offers an overview of the studies reviewed in this
chapter.
20.2 Economic Instruments as Measures
for Preventing Invasions
In economics, invasions are externalities because they occur from the failure
of markets or regulatory institutions to account for all damages the invasive
species may cause to society (Perrings et al.2000).An externality occurs when
the decisions of one agent have an impact on the welfare or profit of another
agent(s) in an unintended way, and when neither compensation nor payment
is made by the generator of the impact to the affected party (Perman et al.
2003). This means that the market prices of potential IAS,or of species acting
as host for pest/pathogens, do not reflect societal preferences about avoiding
the costs of invasion.In the absence of instruments to correct the externality,
responsibility for protection against IAS lies with national governments and
their prevention programmes, which can include a set of regulatory measures
(black and white lists, inspections,quarantine, etc.) which are conventionally
applied to prevent/lower the risk of invasions. The regulator also has the
option of applying economic instruments (taxes, tradable permits, etc.) as
management tools which are coherent with the “Polluters Pay Principle”, to
try to guarantee the optimal level of prevention. These instruments directly
address the effects of invasion-externalities because they confront those caus-
ing the problem with the social costs of their activities. So far, few economic
studies have considered the use of such economic instruments to reduce the
risk of invasions. The economic instruments explored here are risk-related
taxes (at a national level), risk-related import tariffs (at an international
level), and tradable permits.
20.2.1 Risk-Related Taxes
At a national level, Knowler and Barbier (2005) consider the possible use of
taxes in the horticultural market.These authors model the horticulture indus-
try as a source and pathway for the deliberate introduction of potential inva-
sive plants. They recognise that the commercial sale of non-native plants
implies a risk that invasions may occur but that they also provide benefits for
the nursery industry and for consumers. The risk of invasion is assumed to
depend on the characteristics of the plants and on the number of nurseries
selling the plants.Therefore, the calculation of the socially optimal number of
J. Touza, K.Dehnen-Schmutz,and G. Jones356
nurseries takes into account both the contribution to the probability that an
ornamental plant becomes invasive (from allowing one more nursery to sell
the plant) and the losses to the industry if the invasion occurs (additional
control costs and restrictions on stock movements). Knowler and Barbier
(2005) conclude that this socially optimal number of nurseries is lower than
that of the existing nursery market, and they evaluate the use of taxes to
restrict the number of nurseries to the social optimum. The optimal level of
taxes was shown to be highly dependent on how the probability of invasion
changes with even a marginal increase in the number of nurseries.
At the moment, the use of risk-related taxes to regulate the national trade
of potential IAS and species which may act as a source of IAS is only a theo-
retical proposal. For deliberate introductions, voluntary codes of conduct are
used as an alternative policy option. In the gardening sector, they have been
applied in Australia, New Zealand, the USA and Britain (Baskin 2002; DEFRA
2005; Moss and Walmsley 2005).They aim to encourage risk-aware behaviour
among the different stakeholder groups (e.g. the gardening public, the nurs-
ery industry and landscape gardeners), leading to the voluntary removal of
invasive plants from the trade. Their voluntary nature makes them largely
dependent on the effort with which they are promoted to the public and the
industry. However, the pure public good nature of the environmental aware-
ness created by these codes implies that it is in the best interest of the contrib-
utors to sit back and free-ride on the efforts of others in applying the codes of
conduct.In addition,these policy schemes are applied without specific targets
or time frames, and without the option for decision makers to introduce a reg-
ulatory approach if compliance with the codes is low. Therefore, voluntary
schemes have so far failed to have a significant impact on the scale and range
of invasive plants sold (Moss and Walmsley 2005).
20.2.2 Risk-Related Import Tariffs
At an international level,the use of market-based instruments such as import
tariffs is limited by international trade agreements such as the World Trade
Organization’s General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, GATT (Werksman
2004; Perrings et al. 2005). Nevertheless,the use of import tariffs has formally
been examined in the theoretical economic literature. Costello and McAus-
land (2003) analyse the relationships among volume of traded goods, import
tariffs, and impacts of accidental introductions.They argue that,although tar-
iffs (i.e. higher protectionism) may reduce imported volumes of risky prod-
ucts, they may also change the composition of traded products, which may
have an effect on the level of the disturbance in ecosystems in the importing
country, and on their susceptibility to IAS. For example, a higher tariff may
imply an increase in the volume of domestic agricultural output which, in
turn, implies a potentially higher quantity of crops susceptible to invasions
Economic Analysis of Invasive Species Policies 357
and of disturbed land. A more recent paper by the same authors examines
import tariffs in combination with regulatory measures, such as import
inspections (McAusland and Costello 2004). They show that the interaction
between inspections and tariffs is determined by the level of infection/infes-
tation of the traded goods. Both policies (inspections and tariffs) increase
with the proportion of traded goods which may become invasive but this pro-
portion may reach a point after which inspections are decreasing.This means
that, when the level of infection/infestation of the imported material reaches
a given level, it is optimal to inspect less and to have tariffs as the dominant
prevention policy. McAusland and Costello (2004) also conclude that
importers should apply a tariff which covers the inspection costs, and the
expected damage from infested goods received which were undetected during
inspections. Furthermore, the optimal level of these tariffs should depend on
the characteristics of the trade partners in terms of the risk and potential
damage of accidentally introduced IAS. This view, requiring an analysis of the
risk characteristics of the trading partners, surfaces again in research on IAS
and tradable permits discussed below.
Such tariffs are not possible under the non-discriminatory policies (i.e.
discriminating against foreign goods are prohibited) which characterise
international trade agreements. Margolis et al. (2005) argue that, if national
governments could select tariffs freely, import tariffs should include the
potential invasive species damages. However, tariffs may be used as instru-
ments of disguised protectionism if pressure from lobby groups lead to tariffs
that exceed the optimum level. Such pressure for protectionism could be
avoided if there were an international agreement on how to measure damage
from invasive species. However, the lack of such agreement makes it difficult
to recognise when disguised protectionism may be occurring. It should also
be noted that regulatory measures (inspections, quarantine, black and white
lists, etc.) are not free from the potential influence of interest groups. For
example, the appropriateness of quarantine regulations depends on the com-
plex economic interests of stakeholders, different attitudes to risks,the uncer-
tainties associated with these risks, and the considerable costs for the trading
partners of over-controlled national borders (Mumford 2002). Even the effi-
ciency of risk assessments is compromised because of political influence and
regulators’ competing requirements to, for example, facilitate exports and
control invasion risk (Simberloff et al. 2005).
20.2.3 Tradable Permits
This section deals with an increasingly popular economic instrument to con-
trol environmental “bads”: systems of tradable permits. Such systems are
based on the principle that any increase in “emissions” must be offset by an
equivalent decrease elsewhere (Perman et al. 2003).There is usually a limit set
J. Touza, K.Dehnen-Schmutz,and G. Jones358
on the amount of emissions allowed. In the case of IAS, no “emissions” are
allowed but there is always a risk of “emissions”. In their analysis of introduc-
tions of IAS to the Great Lakes of North America via the ballast water of
marine vessels, Horan and Lupi (2005) consider control of IAS by the use of
tradable risk permits. Since IAS emissions cannot generally be directly mea-
sured (particularly for ballast water), they cannot be directly traded. Horan
and Lupi consider a system where permits are denominated in terms of the
probability of an IAS invasion. They list a series of problems particular to IAS
which compromise the most efficient outcome from the use of tradable per-
mits thus defined. The system would be too complex, due to the information
requirements that all potential invaders and the likelihoods of invasion (the
ex-ante nature of the permit denomination) be known. In addition,the poten-
tial expected damages from invasions would need to be known. The optimal
solution would also require an excessive number of different permit types
(one per IAS) which must be traded at vessel-specific rates. As it would be
impossible to know exactly the species transported and their potential dam-
age, a permit system at the species level could not be considered. Therefore,
Horan and Lupi (2005) relax the denomination of a permit to one which
restricts the probability of invasion from any species, as opposed to different
permits for different species.This reduces efficiency when different IAS have
different damage impacts. The degree of inefficiency is dependent upon
(amongst other things) the heterogeneity of the marginal damage impacts of
IAS.Nevertheless, this form of permit denomination does significantly reduce
the information requirements. Horan and Lupi’s application of a multiple-
species permit approach to shipping and the risk of IAS via ballast in the
Great Lakes suggests that risk reductions can be achieved at lower costs than
those associated with uniform technology standards applied to all partici-
pants. The gains depend upon the agreed level of aggregate invasion risk,and
arise from the heterogeneity in invasion risks and biosecurity cost structures
associated with different market agents. As the agreed levels of invasion risk
in the model are reduced, the potential savings using the permit system are
decreased.
20.3 Trade-offs Between Prevention and Control Strategies
Prevention is often defined as the first and, usually, the most cost-effective line
of protection against invasive species (Mack et al.2000; Meyerson and Reaser
2002). However, a completely effective prevention strategy which reduces the
invasion risk to zero is unrealistic and, therefore, policies for tackling inva-
sions include control or post-invasion actions.Whereas prevention measures
are expected to influence the expected probability of successful invasion,con-
trol tools focus on reducing the impact of the invasion on the environment.
Economic Analysis of Invasive Species Policies 359
From an economic perspective, it would be efficient to select these strategies
such that the expected marginal benefits of the policy equal its marginal
social costs (Perrings 2005). Therefore, the optimal combination of preven-
tion and control efforts depends on the conditions of invasion (Jensen 2002;
Finnoff et al. 2005; Leung et al. 2006).
Leung et al. (2006) derive some “rules of the thumb” relating to optimal
expenditure on prevention and control. Their study shows that optimal pre-
vention expenditure depends on the probability of invasions and it should
decrease as invasions become more unpreventable; optimal control resources
should increase with the value of the invaded habitat and decrease with
uncontrollable damages (i.e.impacts which can not be reduced, regardless of
control efforts). Jensen (2002) include the effect of time to explore the interac-
tions between current prevention to protect against invasions and future con-
trol to reduce the damages.Similarly to Leung et al.(2006), he shows that pre-
vention expenditures should be smaller for those invasions more likely to
occur (i.e. higher natural hazard rate).In addition, they are also influenced by
the relative weight of future benefits in present decisions.The lower the rate is
at which future benefits are discounted, the higher is the investment in pre-
vention because future wellbeing, when the invasion may occur, has a higher
weight in policy decisions. Jensen (2002) also argues that it is optimal to
undertake prevention expenditures if – and only if – the damage costs are
high enough.
Finnoff et al. (2005) include the fact that policies often involve private and
public actions, and explore their possible interactions. They argue that if pri-
vate agents’ beliefs over the environment are incomplete (i.e.they behave as if
there is no change),the social planner either free-rides on private investments
or is sole responsible for control actions (limiting the resources on preven-
tion) and, therefore, the risk and abundance of IAS increase. This means that,
if there is no invasion,private agents will never apply control measures and, if
invasions occur in the future, then the social planner would be forced to
employ greater collective resources in control at the expense of an investment
into prevention policies. This, in turn, would cause an increase in invasions.
By contrast,if the ecosystem is highly invaded,then the private agents’control
will always be high, the social planner would therefore free-ride on the private
control efforts, public prevention and control would be neglected, and inva-
sions would also increase. However, if the social planner ignores or is not
aware of the actions of the private agents,then he will either over-prevent and
over-control (if he believes that private agents behave as if there were no inva-
sion) – and invasions decrease – or he will neglect prevention and control (if
he believes that private agents behave as if there were an invasion) – and inva-
sions increase. Finnoff et al. (2005) conclude that neglecting these potential
feedbacks can have a strong impact on the policy outcomes.
The cost-effectiveness of prevention and control efforts has also been stud-
ied, and results so far show that pre-invasion strategies are to be preferred.
J. Touza, K.Dehnen-Schmutz,and G. Jones360
Leung et al.(2002) focus on the invasion of zebra mussel (Dreissena polymor-
pha) in North America, and show that the costs of optimal control in an
invaded lake reduce the social welfare (measured as the benefits from eco-
nomic activities minus the costs of managing IAS) by one-half relative to wel-
fare in a lake in which optimal prevention measures were adopted before the
invasion. Therefore, they conclude that prevention is the best investment.
More recently, Heikkila and Peltola (2004) analysed strategies to manage the
Colorado potato beetle (Leptinotarsa decemlineata) in Finland. These authors
compare the current public policy based on eradication or pre-emptive con-
trol, preventing the pest from establishing permanent populations, with a
potential alternative in which reactive control,to limit the damage costs,is left
to private agriculture producers.Their results show that,for most of their sim-
ulations, the total costs of pre-emptive control are smaller than those for the
reactive control, so protection against pest establishment is recommended.
Reactive policy is preferred only when the magnitude of the invasion is low
and there are moderate–low damages.In an evaluation of the economic effec-
tiveness of the UK’s Plant Health Programme, Mumford et al. (2000) consider
the costs and benefits of five single-organism case studies and one case study
of protecting potatoes as a commodity. The lowest ratio of benefits to costs of
the plant health programme (the publicly funded UK plant protection sys-
tem) was 3.1:1, rising to almost 30:1.For all but one of the organism-specific
studies, no change in the exclusion/eradication policy (pre-invasion policy)
was recommended. For the other, a review of this policy was recommended
due to expected falls in the benefits and expected rises in the costs.
20.4 Uncertainty Surrounding Invasion Risk
Uncertainty is a key feature of biological invasions and,therefore, determines
the appropriateness and feasibility of the responses to invasions (Williamson
2001; Perrings 2005; Caley et al. 2006). Uncertainty surrounds the risk of
introduction, establishment and spread of IAS, the potential severity of their
impacts in the environment, and even the effectiveness of management
instruments. For example, for the tradable permit system described above to
function, one needs to know a significant number of these uncertain parame-
ters, and the system provides gains only when stakeholders are prepared to
accept a higher level of invasion risk.
Horan et al. (2002) compare prevention strategies when there is full infor-
mation with those when there is ignorance or uncertainty. They focus on
biosecurity measures by firms which may release invasive species into the
environment.They show that, when there is information about the probabil-
ity of invasion and its potential damages, the firms minimize damages plus
control costs by using prevention measures up to the point where the cost of
Economic Analysis of Invasive Species Policies 361
the last unit of prevention equals the additional benefits. This condition
would include the uncertain effects which the measures taken have on the
invasion.Their analysis implies that, when there are a large number of firms,
it is not optimal for any of the firms to undertake biosecurity actions because
chances are that the species will invade anyway. When there is uncertainty,
however, it is optimal to employ more resources in preventing high-damage
events which are considered possible. The key factor is thus the level of sur-
prise that the decision makers will expect if the invasion takes place,and pre-
vention expenditures focus on those potential invasions with low levels of
surprise.
From a post-invasion perspective,Olson and Roy (2002) include the uncer-
tainty of the effects of environmental disturbances on the spread of an
invader when examining the conditions under which it is optimal to eradi-
cate. They recognise that there may be disturbances which make the invasion
small enough for eradication to be inevitable. They conclude that eradication
is optimal if the marginal costs of controlling a small invasion are less than
the marginal damage (i.e. marginal benefits of controlling), including future
damages due to the expected spread of the invader. Note that because future
damages are included in this condition, eradicating may be optimal even if
the marginal costs of control are larger than the current damages.
Using expert opinions may reduce uncertainty in management decisions.
Eiswerch and van Kooten (2002) identified optimal control management by
consulting experts about the state of the invasion, its spread and its impacts.
Their study of the agricultural weed yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis)
demonstrates that,as the productivity of the land increases, the optimal man-
agement strategy should have higher levels of control activities but, in this
case, it would not be optimal to eradicate the species.Waage et al. (2004) use
Monte Carlo analysis simulation to include uncertainty in a range of biologi-
cal and economic parameters (which may reflect a range of expert opinion or
historic evidence). The uncertain parameters include likelihood of entry, the
intrinsic rate of spread, potential yield losses, and export losses. This paper
seeks to develop tools to aid governments in their need to know the identity
and magnitude of future non-native species risks, and uses this information
to anticipate and allocate resources efficiently between IAS.
20.5 Discussion
Given the importance of human interactions in determining the scale and
speed of invasions, economists have become increasingly interested in the
analysis of policies to manage IAS. In this chapter,we surveyed this economic
literature mainly from the perspective of prevention measures. This analysis
shows that,so far,few economic studies have concentrated on the assessment
J. Touza, K.Dehnen-Schmutz,and G. Jones362
of market-based instruments (e.g. national taxes, import tariffs and tradable
permits) to directly address invasion-externalities. These instruments create
incentives for those trading in risky material to avoid the risk of invasions
and, therefore, the costs to the society which these may cause. They create sig-
nals in the market so that private and society interests coincide and,therefore,
induce changes in the individual’s behaviour to reduce the likelihood of inva-
sion. Economic instruments should be combined with existing regulatory
measures (e.g. standards, inspections, quarantine, black/white lists, etc.) to
tackle the causes of invasions (Perrings et al. 2005).Therefore, economic stud-
ies which further explore these policies in the context of invasive species are
required. Furthermore, other economic instruments to be investigated in the
future are graduated license fees,cost-sharing instruments, and environmen-
tal bonds. The first capture the risk of invasion by applying more expensive
licences to more risky products. The second split up the responsibility
between the government and industry. Examples of this type of mechanism
include government compensations, lobbies, cost funding approaches, and
insurance. Currently, the possibility of insuring commercially against future
environmental effects is limited by the uncertainty surrounding the risk of
invasion and the expected high value of invasion damages.
Environmental bonds have been proposed for those industries where there
is a high level of uncertainty about the nature or severity of the damages
which they may cause (Costanza and Perrings 1990). The bond will be equal
to the best estimate of the potential future damages,and it would be returned
(plus some interests) when the firm could prove that the damages have not
occurred or would not occur. This system stimulates research on the conse-
quence of firms’ activities and technologies which reduce their environmen-
tal impacts. At international level,Perrings et al. (2002,2005) propose institu-
tional changes to support counter-invader measures in developing countries,
given that invasion policies in these countries (i.e.the weakest members of the
society) determine the level of protection against invasive species at a global
scale. The budget of developing countries in prevention efforts is limited or
non-existent (Mumford 2002). Therefore, international agreements are neces-
sary to guarantee the provision of rich countries’resources for poor countries’
policies against IAS.
Responses to prevent the threat of invasions range from government agen-
cies’policies to multiple individual actions. This review shows that the poten-
tial interactions between these responses need to be taken into account in the
development of counter-invader policies. In the 1980s, the interaction
between private agents and the regulator in the case of the invasion of the UK
by the western flower thrips (Frankliniella occidentalis), about which neither
group was well informed, illustrates the sometimes strained relationship
between regulators and regulated.To eradicate the new arrival, very high costs
were imposed (in the form of prescribed control and marketing restrictions)
upon a small number of private agents. It is therefore necessary to establish
Economic Analysis of Invasive Species Policies 363
mechanisms for the exchange of information, cooperation and coordination
among government agencies and the private sector, and even among govern-
ments of neighbouring countries and trading partners (Meyerson and Reaser
2002). This chapter also shows that most papers on the economics of IAS
examine the risk of accidental introductions, i.e. when traded goods are a
source of IAS. However, studies in which the traded good itself may be a
potential invader are lacking (with the exception of Knowler and Barbier
2005), despite the increasing evidence that the availability of alien species in
national and international trade is a significant factor for the success of the
invasions.
Economic instruments have proven to be useful in other areas of environ-
mental problems.For example,tradable permits have been applied to sulphur
dioxide (Stavins 1998; Burtraw 1999) emissions in the US, resulting in pollu-
tion reduction at lower costs than those for command and control policies.
Environmental taxes have been used more recently, for example,in the area of
waste management (landfill taxes) and vehicle emissions (differential tax
rates). However,the uncertainty surrounding IAS and limitations of interna-
tional rules make the construction of economic instruments for biological
invasion problems more difficult and partly explain why they have not been
employed in this field to date. Nevertheless, the increasing collaboration
between economists and invasion biologists, and the growing economic liter-
ature on the subject are steps in the right direction.
Acknowledgements. We are grateful to Charles Perrings and Mark Williamson for their
comments and suggestions.JT and KDS acknowledge funding by the Leverhulme Trust,
and GJ thanks ESRC/NERC for financial support.
References
Andersen MC,Adams H,Hope B,Powell M (2004) Risk assessments for invasive species.
Risk Analysis 24:787–793
Baskin Y (2002) The greening of horticulture: new codes of conduct aim to curb plant
invasions.BioScience 52:464–471
Burtraw D (1999) Cost savings, market performance and economic benefits of the US
Acid Rain Program.In: Sorrell S, Skea J (eds) Pollution for sale: emissions trading and
joint implementation. Edward Elgar,Cheltenham,pp 43–62
Caley P, Lonsdale WM, Pheloung PC (2006) Quantifying uncertainty in predictions of
invasiveness,with emphasis on weed risk assessment.Biol Invasions 8:277–286
Cassey P, Blackburn TM, Russell GJ, Jones KE, Lockwood JL (2004) Influences on the
transport and establishment of exotic bird species: an analysis of the parrots
(Psittaciformes) of the world. Global Change Biol 10:417–426
Costanza R, Perrings C (1990) A flexible assurance bonding system for improved envi-
ronmental management. Ecol Econ 2:57–75
J. Touza, K.Dehnen-Schmutz,and G. Jones364
Costello C, McAusland C (2003) Protectionism, trade, and measures of damage from
exotic species introductions.Am J Agric Econ 85:964–975
Dalmazzone S (2000) Economic factors affecting vulnerability to biological invasions.
In: Perrings C,Williamson M,Dalmazzone S (eds) The economics of biological inva-
sions. Edward Elgar,Cheltenham, pp 17–30
DEFRA (2005) Helping to prevent the spread of invasive non-native species. Horticul-
tural code of practice. Dept Environment, Food and Rural Affairs,UK, pp 1–20
Dehnen-Schmutz K, Touza J, Perrings C, Williamson M (2006) The horticultural trade
and ornamental plant invasions in Britain. Conserv Biol (in press)
Duggan IC, Rixon CAM, MacIsaac HJ (2006) Popularity and propagule pressure: deter-
minants of introduction and establishment of aquarium fish. Biol Invasions 8:377–
382
Eiswerch ME, van Kooten GC (2002) Uncertainty, economics, and the spread of an inva-
sive plant species.Am J Agric Econ 84:1317–1322
Finnoff D, Shogren JF, Leung B, Lodge D (2005) The importance of bioeconomic feed-
back in invasive species management. Ecol Econ 52:367–381
Heikkila J, Peltola J (2004) Analysis of the Colorado potato beetle protection system in
Finland.Agric Econ 31:343–352
Horan RD, Lupi F (2005) Tradable risk permits to prevent future introductions of inva-
sive alien species into the Great Lakes.Ecol Econ 52:289–304
Horan RD, Perrings C, Lupi F, Bulte EH (2002) Biological pollution prevention strategies
under ignorance: the case of invasive species.Am J Agric Econ 84:1303–1310
Jensen R (2002) Economic policy for invasive species. Dept Economics, University of
Notre Dame, http://www.nd.edu/%7Erjensen1/workingpapers/InvasiveSpecies.pdf
Knowler D, Barbier E (2005) Importing exotic plants and the risk of invasion: are mar-
ket-based instruments adequate? Ecol Econ 52:341–354
Leung B, Lodge DM, Finnoff D, Shogren JF, Lewis MA, Lamberti G (2002) An ounce of
prevention or a pound of cure: bioeconomic risk analysis of invasive species. Proc R
Soc Biol Sci 269:2407–2413
Leung B, Finnoff D, Shogren JF, Lodge DM (2006) Managing invasive species: rules of
thumb for rapid assessment.Ecol Econ 55:24–36
Levine JM, D’Antonio CM (2003) Forecasting biological invasions with increasing inter-
national trade. Conserv Biol 17:322–326
Mack RN, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM, Evans H, Clout M, Bazzaz FA (2000) Biotic inva-
sions: causes,epidemiology,global consequences,and control.Ecol Appl 10:689–710
Margolis M, Shogren JF, Fischer C (2005) How trade politics affect invasive species con-
trol. Ecol Econ 52:305–313
McAusland C,Costello C (2004) Avoiding invasives: trade related policies for controlling
unintentional exotic species introductions.J Environ Econ Manage 48:954–977
McNeely JA (ed) (2001) The great reshuffling. Human dimensions of invasive alien
species. IUCN, Gland
Meyerson LA, Reaser JK (2002) Biosecurity moving toward a comprehensive approach.
BioScience 52:593–600
Moss W, Walmsley R (2005) Controlling the sale of invasive garden plants: why voluntary
measures alone fail. WWF Australia discussion paper. World Wide Fund for Nature
Australia, Sydney, http://wwf.org.au/publications/InvasivesVoluntaryMeasures
Mumford JD (2002) Economic issues related to quarantine in international trade. Eur
Rev Agric Econ 29:329–348
Mumford JD, Temple ML, Quinlan MM, Gladders P, Blood-Smyth JA, Mourato SM,
Makuch Z, Crabb RJ (2000) Economic policy evaluation of MAFF’s plant health pro-
gramme. Report to Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food, London
Economic Analysis of Invasive Species Policies 365
Olson LJ,Roy S (2002) The economics of controlling a stochastic biological invasion.Am
J Agric Econ 84:1311–1316
Perman RJ, Ma Y, McGilvray J, Common M (2003) Natural resource and environmental
economics.Pearson Education,Harlow
Perrings C (2005) Mitigation and adaptation strategies for the control of biological inva-
sions. Ecol Econ 52:315–325
Perrings C,Williamson M,Dalmazzone S (eds) (2000) The economics of biological inva-
sions. Edward Elgar,Cheltenham
Perrings C, Williamson M, Barbier EB,Delfino D, Dalmazzone S, Shogren J,Simmons P,
Watkinson A (2002) Biological invasion risks and the public good: an economic per-
spective. Conserv Ecol 6:1, http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss1/art1/
Perrings C, Dehnen-Schmutz K, Touza J,Williamson M (2005) How to manage biological
invasions under globalization.Trends Ecol Evol 20:212–215
Pimentel D, Lach L, Zuniga R, Morrison D (2000) Environmental and economic costs of
nonindigenous species in the United States.BioScience 50:53–56
Pimentel D, Zuniga R, Morrison D (2005) Update on the environmental and economic
costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecol Econ 52:273–
288
Semmens BX, Buhle ER,Salomon AK,Pattengill-Semmens CV (2004) A hotspot of non-
native marine fishes: evidence for the aquarium trade as an invasion pathway. Mar
Ecol Prog Ser 266:239–244
Simberloff D,Parker IM,Windle PN (2005) Introduced species policy, management, and
future research needs.Frontiers Ecol Environ 3:12–20
Stavins RN (1998) What can we learn from the grand policy experiment? Lessons from
SO2allowance trading. J Econ Perspect 12:69–88
Vilà M, Pujadas J (2001) Land-use and socio-economic correlates of plant invasions in
European and North African countries. Biol Conserv 100:397–401
Waage JK, Fraser RW, Mumford JD,Cook DC, Wilby A (2004) A new agenda for biosecu-
rity.Faculty of Life Sciences,Imperial College London
Werksman J (2004) Invasive alien species and the multilateral trading system. In: Miller
ML, Fabian RN (eds) Harmful invasive species: legal responses. Environmental Law
Institute,Washington, DC, pp 203–214
Williamson M (2001) Can the impacts of invasive species be predicted? In: Groves RH,
Panetta FD,Virtue JG (eds) Weed risk assessment. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood,
pp 20–33
J. Touza, K.Dehnen-Schmutz,and G. Jones366
21 Phytosanitary Measures to Prevent
the Introduction of Invasive Species
Guy J. Hallman
21.1 Introduction
Regulatory animal and plant protection strives to safeguard agricultural
species from pests, diseases, and competition from foreign non-beneficial
species. The traditional concern for protecting only economic species (crops,
livestock, grazing lands) has recently been broadened to include endangered
native species and ecosystems in general, upon the acceptance that ecosys-
tems other than agricultural also provide tangible economic benefits to
humanity (Perrings et al. 2000), not to mention what are considered the
more intangible benefits arising from our innate affinity with nature (Wil-
son 1984).
The problem with invasive species is as critical now as it has ever been. It
could be argued that regulatory animal and plant protection has not done a
good job at protecting economic species,let alone performing its more recent
task of protecting ecosystems. Still, that apparent failure in the prevention of
invasive species must be measured in light of the magnitude of the ever
increasing problem, the modest amount of resources directed toward it, and
educated guesses about what shape the world would be in without regulatory
protections.
Changes in climate,habitats,soil nitrogen levels,atmospheric carbon diox-
ide levels, trade, and travel make the job of regulating potential invasive
species more difficult (Schwalbe and Hallman 2002). Changes in global cli-
mates may exacerbate problems with invasive species by more than simply
making temperatures more amenable to the survival of organisms from
warmer climates (Chap. 12). Parker et al. (2006) argue that invasive “melt-
down” occurs when exotic herbivores replace native ones that were better at
controlling invasive plants. In essence, exotic invasive plants thrive not by
escaping their natural herbivores but by following them.Atmospheric turbu-
lence from hurricanes in Florida in 2005, the increased intensity of which is
Ecological Studies,Vol. 193
W. Nentwig (Ed.)
Biological Invasions
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007
thought to be due to climate change, resulted in the spread of citrus canker,
Xanthamonas axonopodis pv. citri, and the abandonment of that eradication
program.
The tropics hold more potentially invasive species than do temperate
regions. Conversion of subtropical areas to more tropical-like environments
will result in greater varieties of invasive species moving into new territories
than if the reverse were happening; i.e., temperate areas were growing at the
expense of tropical regions.Predictions of the limits of establishment of trop-
ical and subtropical invasive species may be outdated as changes in climate
and host availability facilitate a greater poleward spread of these organisms
(Coley 1999; Parmesan et al. 1999).
Trade places burdens on the struggle against biological invaders. Massive
amounts of commodities are shipped across oceans and skies every day,and
regulations and ongoing programs must be continually in place to prevent
pests from being transported along with these commodities. For example,
each year the European Union imports over €20 billion worth of horticultural
products, including fresh fruits and vegetables, nuts, dried fruits,and flowers,
from all over the world. Getting these products into the European Union
involves strict controls in the growing areas to reduce quarantine pest levels
to virtually undetectable levels, safeguarding of the commodity after harvest
until packing to prevent infestation of the commodities from a variety of
potentially invasive species that may or may not actually feed on the com-
modity, and possible phytosanitary measures, such as trapping, inspection,
treatment, and certification. The number of potentially invasive species
accompanying these products could be staggering, although the abundance of
control and regulatory methods applied keeps levels of invasive species
remarkably low in commercial trade.
Compounding the problem, the integration of the European economy
widens the risk factor, as commodities entering one country that may not be
of risk for a certain invasive species may be transported more freely than
before to another country that is at risk. For example, tropical fruit flies
(Tephritidae) were historically not considered a risk for Scandinavian coun-
tries, whereas they are definite risks for Mediterranean countries.
Smuggling of agricultural commodities carries a high risk of introduction
of invasive species. The availability of legal methods to transport these com-
modities across quarantine barriers may not alleviate smuggling significantly
because it usually requires a significant expense, and is often done in quanti-
ties considered too small for “importers” to avail themselves of these meth-
ods.
Invasive species arrive in non-biological commodities. Ceramic and mar-
ble tiles from Italy are a major source of finds of quarantined land snails at
ports of entry to the United States, and brass from India often contains the
quarantined grain-infesting Khapra beetle, Trogoderma granarium, found in
accompanying packing material.
G. J. Hallman368
Pallets, packing crates, and packing materials are significant sources of
invasive species.Wooden crates and pallets have been the suspected routes of
entry for tree-infesting pests, such as the Asian long-horned beetle, Anoplo-
phora glabripennis. International guidelines for regulating wood packaging
materials in international trade have been developed (FAO 2002).
Packing materials may comprise a variety of organic and inorganic mate-
rials, such as paper, plant fiber, and a variety of plastics. Besides directly
infesting organic materials, invasive species may be casually collected with
the dunnage,or enter the containers during or after packaging. Packing under
bright artificial lighting at night in semi-open facilities often results in flying
insects being included in the packages.
21.2 International Regulatory Organizations
The International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) is an international
treaty in force since 1952 to prevent the spread and introduction of pests of
plants and plant products, and promote measures for their control.Four-fifths
of the nations of the world are members. It adopts International Standards for
Phytosanitary Measures and sets standards for settling disputes among mem-
ber countries. Member countries have national plant protection organizations
established according to the IPPC with authority in areas of quarantine con-
trol, risk analysis, and measures required to prevent the establishment and
spread of invasive alien species that are pests of plants. Parties agree to coop-
erate on information exchange and on the development of International Stan-
dards for Phytosanitary Measures.
There are nine regional organizations that concentrate on phytosanitary
and sometimes animal health issues within their own regions, and coordinate
with the IPPC to gather information and implement phytosanitary measures.
Some countries are members of overlapping regional organizations. For
example, Mexico is member of the Caribbean Plant Protection Commission,
the Organismo Internacional Regional de Sanidad Agropecuario (comprises
Central America and Mexico), and the North American Plant Protection
Organization.
The Convention on Biological Diversity, in force since 1993, expands the
management of invasive species to include not strictly economic products. It
calls on member countries to “prevent the introduction of, control or eradi-
cate those alien species which threaten ecosystems, habitats or species.” This
convention has been very popular among United Nations members, being rat-
ified by all except the small countries of Andorra, Brunei Darussalam, and
East Timor, as well as Somalia,Iraq, and the United States of America.
The Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Mea-
sures (SPS Agreement) is a supplementary to the World Trade Organization
Phytosanitary Measures to Prevent the Introduction of Invasive Species 369
(WTO), and, therefore, adhered to by WTO members, which now number 149
since the WTO entered into force in 1995. The SPS Agreement provides a uni-
form interpretation of measures governing food safety and plant and animal
health regulations, and is applicable to all like measures affecting interna-
tional trade. These measures include any applied to protect animal or plant
health within a member’s territory from the entry, establishment,or spread of
pests (broadly interpreted to include diseases and weeds). Regulations must
be based on transparent science,and should be applied only to the extent nec-
essary to protect human, animal, or plant health. They should not discrimi-
nate between countries where similar conditions prevail. Member countries
are encouraged to use international standards and recommendations, and
may use measures that result in greater levels of control, given scientifically
defensible justification.
In the WTO, a specific food safety, or animal or plant health requirement
established by one country and that leads to a trade restriction, can be chal-
lenged by another country if the latter believes that there is not sufficient sci-
entific evidence supporting the need for the restriction. Challenges to phy-
tosanitary trade barriers have been made a number of times since the WTO
came into effect a little over a decade ago. Failure of a country to accept a
WTO-brokered decision may result in retaliatory trade practices by other
countries.
21.3 Phytosanitary Measures
The IPPC definition of a phytosanitary measure includes legislation, regula-
tions,or official procedures,including treatments, to prevent the introduction
and/or spread of quarantine pests (FAO 2004).A variety of methods are avail-
able to reduce the risk of invasive species accompanying commodities
shipped across natural barriers to invasion. These can roughly be subdivided
into two groups – methods that avoid the need to treat the shipped commod-
ity,and those that require treatment.
21.3.1 Phytosanitary Measures that Do not Involve Commodity
Trea t ment
Non-treatment methods include demonstration that a previously quaran-
tined commodity is in fact of negligible risk for certain invasive species,pos-
sibly under specific circumstances,or a risk management system that reduces
the overall risk to acceptable levels before the commodity is shipped.
G. J. Hallman370
21.3.1.1 Non-Host Status
Devising a list of hosts of any pest is one of the fundamental steps of pest
management, and has repercussions for regulatory agriculture and trade.
Host lists form one of the primary sources for deciding which commodities
are quarantined because of certain pests. If host lists contain errors, then
commodities may be needlessly quarantined.Armstrong (1994) gives several
examples of quarantines arising from dubious host lists.
The IPPC defines the host range of a plant pest as the “Species of plants
capable, under natural conditions, of sustaining a specific pest” (FAO 2004).
Key words in this definition are “under natural conditions”,as some pests can
infest some commodities under forced conditions, but may never have been
found infesting these in the field.
Armstrong (1986) presents a broad definition of host: “A quarantine host is
any commodity which, at one or more of its growth stages, can be naturally
infested by a quarantine pest in the field and on, or in which the quarantine
pest either can complete its life cycle or otherwise use the commodity for
transportation to any area where [the pest] does not already exist and become
established as an economic pest.” This definition is appropriate to phytosani-
tary issues because it includes the possibility that a quarantine pest may not
use the host for sustenance, but be transported on it casually. This type of
organism is referred to as a “contaminating”or “hitch-hiker”pest (FAO 2004),
and they comprise a significant and diverse group of quarantined organisms.
The IPPC definition of a pest risk analysis is “The process of evaluating
biological or other scientific or economic evidence to determine whether a
pest should be regulated and the strength of any phytosanitary measures to
be taken against it” (FAO 2004). A pest risk analysis is usually done at some
point when a commodity is being considered for export (FAO 1996, 2003).Via
the pest risk analysis, it may be discovered that a commodity traditionally
thought to be at risk of carrying a quarantine pest is not, in fact, a significant
risk. False identification as a pest may have resulted from infestation under
unnatural conditions, dubious literature citations,or misidentification of the
organism and/or commodity. In that case, no regulatory action is needed
against that pest on that commodity, and the commodity can be considered a
non-host for that pest.
If a commodity is reported in the literature as a host but that status seems
questionable, additional research may be needed to support non-host status.
Hennessey et al. (1992) determined that ‘Tahiti’ lime fruits were not at appre-
ciable risk for infestation by the Caribbean fruit fly, Anastrepha suspensa,
although several publications listed the fruit as a host of the fly. As a precau-
tion, researchers should be careful and relatively sure that an organism really
belongs on a pest list before placing it there, to avoid creating unnecessary
trade barriers. Cowley et al. (1992) provide guidelines for determination of
host status of fruits to tephritid fruit flies. They argue for precise terms in the
Phytosanitary Measures to Prevent the Introduction of Invasive Species 371
literature to describe host status; terms such as “rarely infested” are not help-
ful in defining host range.
21.3.1.2 Systems Approach
A systems approach to achieving quarantine security is “[t]he integration of
different pest risk management measures, at least two of which act indepen-
dently, and which cumulatively achieve the appropriate level of phytosanitary
protection” (FAO 2004).Pest risk management measures are available options
to reduce the risk of introduction of a pest,and may be applied at appropriate
times when they will have an effect in reducing pest risk at any point from
before a commodity is planted to before it arrives at market (Table 21.1).
These measures usually form part of an official protocol that must be fol-
lowed, and achieve a specific goal, such as maintain pest trapping numbers
below a predetermined level. If that level is exceeded, then export may be
halted until corrective measures restore risk to acceptable levels. Jang and
Moffitt (1994) present a thorough discussion of the systems approach.
Pre-plant or pre-season measures include those that define the pest preva-
lence in the area through trapping and sampling,host suitability, and the pest
population level when susceptible stages of the host part to be exported are
present. Off-season pest mitigation measures often must be carried out even
though the commodity in its exported stage is not present. The use of attrac-
tants to detect and suppress pests is discussed by Robacker and Landolt
(2002).
During the growing stages when the exportable part of the commodity is
present in the fields,attention is focused directly on preventing infestation of
the commodity. Survey trapping may be increased, and toxic baits may be
employed to keep population levels from exceeding the limit of tolerance.
Field applications of pesticides may be employed.
After harvest, the only methods for reducing pest infestation levels are
culling of infested commodities, or a disinfestation treatment. If a disinfesta-
tion treatment is used as part of a systems approach to phytosanitary security,
theoretically the treatment would not need to achieve the same level of con-
trol as a stand-alone phytosanitary treatment. Cowley et al. (1991) developed
a methyl bromide fumigation treatment for watermelons that depended on
the poor host status of watermelons, fruit fly control in the field, and culling
of damaged, softened or misshapen fruit to reduce infestation levels of the
fruit fly Bactrocera xanthodes to levels that would be controlled by a lower
than usual dose of methyl bromide. For this scheme to be a true systems
approach, each of the steps in the system would be precisely defined in the
protocol.
Although systems approaches avoid the expense of treatment,they require
a continual expense of the pest risk management measures required to keep
G. J. Hallman372
pest risk below a predetermined level for an entire region, including areas that
are not cultivated for the commodities being regulated. If the risk should
exceed the predetermined level, then a phytosanitary treatment may be the
only solution to uninterrupted export. Therefore, it may be wise to have a phy-
tosanitary treatment available to back up a systems approach to overcoming a
phytosanitary barrier to trade. A systems approach can result in more cost per
unit of exported commodity than does a phytosanitary treatment. The entire
cost might not be directly to the exporter; some of it may be born by publicly
funded regulatory agencies who, for example, conduct sampling programs
and sterile insect releases.
Phytosanitary Measures to Prevent the Introduction of Invasive Species 373
Table 21.1 Systems approach for exporting pink tomatoes from Morocco and the West-
ern Sahara to the US. Risk of infestation by the Mediterranean fruit fly,Ceratitis capitata
(Medfly), is reduced to acceptable levels
Step Role in reducing risk
Limit production to provinces
El Jadida, Safi (Morocco) and Dahkla
(W. Sahara)
Sparse vegetation is poor habitat for Medfly
Only from “insect-proof ”greenhouses
inspected by and registered with
Moroccan regulatory agency
Restricts Medfly from entering production
area
Export between 1 Dec. and 30 April Period of low activity for Medfly
Maintain Medfly traps from 1 Oct.to
30 April
Detects populations of Medfly
Capture of one Medfly in trap in
greenhouse shuts it down until re-reg-
istration
Avoids shipping infested tomatoes
Capture of flies outside of greenhouse
leads to increased number of traps and
bait sprays
Reduce risk that outside fly population
will enter greenhouse
Must be packed within 24 h of harvest Reduce time exposed to Medfly infestation
in packing house
Safeguarded in insect-proof covering
in transit
Prevent access by Medfly
Tomatoes must be pink when packed Pink tomatoes at less risk than red ones of
having Medfly
Packed in insect-proof boxes Prevent Medfly infestation after packing
21.3.2 Phytosanitary Treatments
Phytosanitary treatments are done directly to the commodity at some point
before it is released to the market in the importing country or region to
reduce the risk of infestation of that commodity by invasive species to accept-
able levels. Virtually any physical, chemical, or biological technique that can
be used to kill an organism or prevent its reproduction could theoretically be
used as a phytosanitary treatment (Table 21.2). Commercially used treat-
ments are limited by several concerns:
1. The controlling factor must reach the organism, which may be inside the
commodity with no easy access from the outside. For example, tephritid
fruit fly and weevil (Curculionidae) larvae mine deep inside fruit and other
plant parts with no opening to the outside of the plant, making their con-
trol more difficult than surface-infesting organisms.
2. The level of control must be near 100%. The risk of an imported commod-
ity resulting in the establishment of an invasive species depends on,among
other things,the infestation rate of the species in the commodity,shipment
size, and level of treatment efficacy.Because it takes only one mating pair
or one parthenogenic organism to start an infestation, the level of control
should ensure that this does not occur within an appropriate margin of
error.Landolt et al. (1984) were among the first to consider using pest risk
to determine the necessary level of treatment efficacy, rather than setting
the level arbitrarily high. Follett and McQuate (2001) review the interven-
ing literature on this topic, and give citations for calculating pest risk asso-
ciated with treatments, along with real-world examples.
3. The treatment cannot harm the commodity significantly, or pose a health
or environmental hazard.Virtually any physical treatment designed to kill
organisms on fresh commodities, which are also alive, could harm or kill
that commodity or accelerate decomposition and shorten shelf life. Bioci-
dal chemical treatments may harm a live vegetative commodity, and are
limited by health and environmental concerns.Many approved phytosani-
tary treatments cause some recognizable, albeit tolerable, damage to the
commodity,and commercial interests should check tolerance of the items
they wish to treat before investing in the treatment technology.More treat-
ment options are available for durable commodities, such as bulk grain,
lumber, hay, and tobacco,which are harder to damage than fresh produce.
4. The treatment must be commercially viable from the standpoint of price
and logistics. This criterion may not keep a phytosanitary treatment out of
the regulations, but it will keep it from being used commercially for very
long.
Quarantine treatments are presented below in approximate chronological
order of their development and commercial application.
G. J. Hallman374
21.3.2.1 Cold Treatment
Sustained temperatures in the range of –0.6 to 3.3 °C for 7 to 90 days are one
of the oldest and most widely used treatments. Temperate insects, which may
undergo diapause during winter, require longer treatment times than do trop-
ical insects that do not diapause. For example, at 2.2 °C or below,the Mediter-
ranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata, requires 15 days, while the apple maggot,
Rhagoletis pomonella, requires 42 days (FAO 1984).
Advantages to cold treatment are its tolerance by a wide variety of fruits,
including many tropical ones. Some fruits, such as apples, are stored for
months at temperatures that are lethal to apple pests. Cold treatment can be
applied to fruits after packing and during lengthy transport in ships. The
chief disadvantage is the long treatment times; no other treatment requires
such long time periods to conduct.The lengthy treatment period exposes the
treatment to greater risk of interruption caused by equipment or power fail-
ures. If a cold treatment is interrupted and the temperature rises by as little as
1 °C for even a relatively short period of time, then the treatment may have to
be initiated again.
Although cold is one of the most widely used phytosanitary treatments, it
has not been researched to any significant degree for use on cut flowers and
Phytosanitary Measures to Prevent the Introduction of Invasive Species 375
Table 21.2 Comparison of phytosanitary treatments for various factors
Treatment Commodity Cost Speed Logistics Accepted by
tolerance organic
growers
Cold Moderate Low Very slow Easy Yes
Heated air Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Yes
Methyl bromide Moderate Low Fast Easy No
fumigation
Sulfuryl fluoride Low Low Fast Easy No
fumigation
Hot water Moderate Low Fast Moderate Yes
immersion
Pesticide dips High Low Fast Easy No
or sprays
Ionizing High Moderate Fast Moderate No
irradiation
Low oxygen/ Moderate Moderate Slow Moderate Yes
high CO2
Radiofrequency Moderate Moderate Fast Moderate Yes
heating
foliage, even though many of these commodities tolerate the temperatures
and time periods required to kill insects (Hardenburg et al. 1986). Tempera-
tures that cause freezing of commodities that will be further processed, such
as fruit pulp for juices, are used as phytosanitary treatments in limited cases.
Freezing for about 1 day kills most insects that are not in diapause. Quick
freezing at =–15 °C will usually result in quick kill of insects, including those
in diapause.
21.3.2.2 Heated Air
The first commercial heated air treatment was done in 1929 during the first
Mediterranean fruit fly outbreak in Florida (Hallman and Armstrong 1994).
Early treatments were at a relatively low temperature (43.3 °C),humidity near
saturation, and for long periods of time (14–16 h). The heated air was circu-
lated in a room stacked with citrus fruits in field boxes. Subsequent research
showed that many fruits could tolerate higher temperatures, and treatments
today use air temperatures as high as 52 °C. Higher temperature results in
shorter treatment time periods; some current heated air treatments can be
done in as little as 3 h.
Reducing the humidity was shown to decrease damage to fruits in many
instances, by keeping the fruit from getting wet due to condensation from the
hot, moist air contacting the cooler fruit (Jones et al. 1939).Wetting the fruit
was thought to restrict fruit respiration and promote decay. In many of today’s
heated air treatments,the dew point is kept below the surface temperature of
the fruit to prevent condensation on the fruit. In the last 20 years, heated air
treatments have been modified by forcing air through a fruit load to achieve
faster and more uniform temperatures, rather than having circulating air in a
treatment chamber gradually and slowly penetrating to the most protected
fruits.
Heated air treatments are one of the most challenging groups of phy-
tosanitary treatments to manage because many variables may affect efficacy
and damage to treated commodities. Speed of treatment is dependent on the
temperature, moisture content of the air, size of treatment chamber, air
speed and flow-through load, size density, arrangement of individual com-
modities, and packaging. The speed of treatment may affect efficacy and
damage to the commodity. A slower speed might allow for pests to accom-
modate to the raised temperature through heat-shock proteins (Denlinger
and Yocum 1998), as well as produce less damage to treated commodities
(McGuire 1991).
In general, heated air treatments are not tolerated well by temperate fruits,
such as apples, pears, peaches, and plums. They are currently used to treat
some tropical fruits, such as papaya and mango, imported by Japan, and for
some papaya shipped from Hawaii to the continental US. A heated air treat-
G. J. Hallman376
ment has been used to ship citrus fruits from Mexico to the US,although qual-
ity problems have been reported.Dry air treatments up to 100 °C are used to
treat meal, grain, straw, and dried plants. Steam treatments are used to disin-
fest rice straw and packaging materials of fungal spores.
21.3.2.3 Hydrogen Cyanide Fumigation
Hydrogen cyanide (HCN) is one of the oldest fumigants; as early as the 1870s,
it was used to fumigate museum specimens for control of dermestid beetles
and other insects. It was used as a phytosanitary treatment for cut flowers,
dormant nursery stock, and dried plant products until methyl bromide
replaced it. Compared with methyl bromide and other fumigants, HCN has
several disadvantages: it reacts with many substances, such as paper, paint,
and oils, it is extremely soluble in water, making it readily absorbed and
retained by moist commodities,its low vapor pressure makes it difficult to use
in large areas, and it has a short shelf life, about 6 months in the cylinder.
Uncertainty about the future of methyl bromide has resulted in some research
being refocused on HCN for insects on cut flowers and foliage (Hansen et al.
1991a, 1991b;Weller and Graver 1998).
21.3.2.4 Methyl Bromide Fumigation
Fumigation with methyl bromide has been one of the major phytosanitary
treatments since its development in the 1950s.Its importance increased in the
1980s when it was used to replace some of the uses of ethylene dibromide
fumigation, which was banned as a probable carcinogen and mutagen. It was
generally not as favorable as ethylene dibromide, requiring often a doubling
of doses to achieve the same effect (up to 50 g m–3 for some applications), and
sometimes resulting in damage to fresh commodities. For example, methyl
bromide cannot be used on mangoes or papayas without the fruits suffering
considerable damage; ethylene dibromide was the fumigant of choice for
these two fruits.
Methyl bromide fumigation is relatively cheap, the chemical being only a
fraction of the cost of application, and can be done in fairly simple facilities.
The main consideration is that fumigation chambers do not measurably leak.
Treatment times are short, most being done in 0.5–2 h. Chief disadvantages
are that a number of tropical fruits do not tolerate the treatment,and organic
shippers will not accept it.
Methyl bromide has been implicated as a significant stratospheric ozone-
depleting substance, and is regulated under the Montreal Protocol. Post-har-
vest phytosanitary uses have been indefinitely exempted from restrictions.
However, the price of the chemical has risen several-fold since regulation was
Phytosanitary Measures to Prevent the Introduction of Invasive Species 377
initiated, and there is no guarantee that phytosanitary uses will be exempted
forever. Users are researching alternatives, and funding has been directed
toward that effort, leading to other treatment advances discussed in this chap-
ter.
Methyl bromide is a versatile treatment when combined with other treat-
ments,such as preceding or following cold (FAO 1984). The reasoning for this
is that certain commodities may not tolerate either treatment alone to the
degree necessary for complete control,but will tolerate reduced doses of both
treatments applied sequentially.Another reason would be to apply a shorter
than efficacious cold treatment in ship transit following a reduced methyl
bromide fumigation when the transit time is insufficient for a full cold treat-
ment.The main disadvantage is the complication in having to do two separate
treatments.
21.3.2.5 Phosphine Fumigation
Phosphine has typically not been used on living plants or parts thereof, such
as fresh fruits and vegetables, because of the damage it causes to these.
Another disadvantage is that phosphine requires several days to achieve the
complete kill necessary for phytosanitary purposes. The potential use of
phosphine broadened with its formulation as a gas (ECO2FUME®) containing
2±0.2 % phosphine, with the remainder carbon dioxide. It shows promise for
use on fresh produce, and has been registered as an interstate phytosanitary
treatment for cut flowers in Australia. Williams et al. (2000) concluded that
ECO2FUME® fumigation (48 h) would be efficacious against fruit fly larvae
and eggs in citrus fruits.
21.3.2.6 Sulfuryl Fluoride Fumigation
Sulfuryl fluoride penetrates wood more easily than does any other available
fumigant, and is extensively used to kill termites and other wood-boring
insects. It is approved to disinfest non-food items of ticks, and is registered for
a number of food items in the US, such as meat, cheese,coconut, cottonseed,
peanut,ginger,and legumes (EPA 2005).Sulfuryl fluoride did not control Cal-
ifornia red scale, Aonidiella aurantii,on lemons at a dose level tolerated by the
fruit (Aung et al. 2001). It showed promise at killing larvae of Lepidoptera in
walnuts and almonds, especially at low atmospheric pressure (Zettler and
Leesch 2000).
G. J. Hallman378
21.3.2.7 Hot Water Immersion
Immersion of mangoes in 46.1 °C water for 65–110 min, depending on shape
and weight, is used to disinfest nearly all mangoes imported by the US from
Latin America of tephritid fruit fly eggs and larvae. This treatment replaced
ethylene dibromide when it was banned in the mid-1980s. It is also approved
for disinfesting longans and lychees of tephritids from Hawaii for export to
the continental US.
Fresh commodities often tolerate heated air better than heated water (Shel-
lie and Mangan 2000).Damage in heated water can be alleviated in some cases
by gradual heating (McGuire 1991), or preconditioning the fruit with sub-
lethal heating before the actual heat treatment (Jacobi et al. 2001). A unique
problem with heated water treatments is that people have actually died from
eating hot-water treated fruit! Mangoes absorb a small amount of water
through the stem end upon heating,and a widely dispersed case of salmonella
poisoning in the US in late 1999 was traced to an unsanitary hot water immer-
sion facility. This problem should be avoidable with proper levels of chlorina-
tion of both the water used for heating, and any water used for cooling fruit
after heating.
21.3.2.8 Pesticidal Dips or Sprays
Insecticides are often used as phytosanitary treatments for items not to be
consumed, such as bulbs, seeds, other plant propagative materials, and dry
plant material.Some insecticides may be allowed on tobacco; for example,the
insect growth regulator, methoprene, considered rather safe for mammals,is
permitted by some countries for control of cigarette beetle, Lasioderma serri-
corne, and tobacco moth, Ephestia elutella. Many countries do not permit
post-harvest insecticide applications to fresh fruits or vegetables. Australia is
an exception; fenthion or dimethoate at 400 ppm in water are used for inter-
state movement of quarantined fruit, but are not used for any fruit exported
from that country (Heather 1994).
21.3.2.9 Ionizing Irradiation
Irradiation using an ionizing source to remove electrons from their normal
orbits, resulting in free radicals that often recombine in ways different from
the original, was postulated as a phytosanitary treatment in the 1920s (Hall-
man 2001). It was not until 1995 that it began to be used as a commercial
phytosanitary treatment on a continuous basis. Unlike all other commercial
phytosanitary treatments, irradiation does not provide acute mortality;
Phytosanitary Measures to Prevent the Introduction of Invasive Species 379
organisms may be alive for days after treatment.However, they will not com-
plete development nor reproduce, because of the damage done to genetic
macromolecules through faulty recombination after ionization.
On a commercial scale, irradiation is used to disinfest produce grown in
Hawaii and Florida of a variety of quarantine insects for shipment to other US
states (Fig. 21.1). Internationally, it has been used since late 2004 to treat Aus-
tralian mangoes for shipment to New Zealand.The US has approved a default
dose of 150 Gy for all tephritid fruit flies on all hosts, and 400 Gy for all insects
except pupae and adults of Lepidoptera (APHIS 2006). Irradiation has great
potential, in that it is the most widely tolerated phytosanitary treatment for
several uses.For example,very few fruits are known to not tolerate the tephri-
tid default dose of 150 Gy, given a dose uniformity ratio of 2 (Hallman 2001).
Irradiation has the advantage of application after packing and palletizing.
21.3.2.10 Miscellaneous Treatments
A number of treatments have been used in unique cases,such as pressure, at
times combined with phosphine fumigation, to kill Hessian fly, Mayetiola
G. J. Hallman380
Fig. 21.1 Boxes of papayas two boxes deep on a conveyor system to be irradiated by X-
rays for phytosanitary control of tephritid fruit flies in Hawaii before export
destructor, and cereal leaf beetle, Oulema melanopus, in baled hay shipped
from the US to Japan and Canada (Yokoyama and Miller 2002,2003).Cleaning
and inspection may be used to remove surface pests. Cherimoya and limes
from Chile may be washed and waxed as a phytosanitary treatment for the
mite Brevipalpus chilensis for export to the US.
21.3.2.11 Researched but not yet Applied Treatments
Considerable research has been carried out on a number of phytosanitary
treatment possibilities that have not yet reached commercial application
(Hallman 2002). Atmospheres with very little oxygen and high levels of car-
bon dioxide have been used successfully to disinfest commodities of pests.
One successful trial shipment of asparagus, held for 4.5 days at 0–1 °C and
60 % CO2to disinfest it of aphids and thrips, was exported from New Zealand
to Japan (Carpenter and Potter 1994).
Low oxygen/high carbon dioxide treatments combine well with elevated
temperatures. For example, diapausing spider mites, Tetranychus urticae,
were killed in one-seventh of the time at 40 °C when treated in an atmosphere
of 0.4 % O2and 20 % CO2,compared with ambient atmosphere (Whiting and
van den Heuvel 1995). Low oxygen/high carbon dioxide phytosanitary treat-
ment research is frequently carried out at low temperatures,and often it is the
low temperature alone, with apparently no benefit from the modified atmos-
phere, that causes pest mortality (Hallman 1994).
Radiofrequency heating has been researched as a phytosanitary treatment
since the late 1920s, with no commercial application yet (Hallman 2002). The
potential benefits are that radiofrequency could heat a commodity uniformly,
as opposed to heated air and water that heat from the outside in, and that
radiofrequency could heat commodities rapidly,in a matter of seconds and as
part of a conveyor line,rather than during 1 to many hours per batch load, as
is done with heated air and water. In practice, radiofrequency heating has had
problems with uniformity when heating fresh produce. The drier nature of
nuts and dried fruit might offer an advantage to radiofrequency heating, as
this type of heating selectively heats water; thus, moist insects inside of dry
products might be selectively heated (Wang et al. 2001).
21.4 Future Challenges
To satisfy the demand for world trade in products quarantined because of
invasive species as well as reduce the temptations to smuggle these products,
improvements in the efficacy, ease of application, and cost of phytosanitary
methods should be sought. Because methyl bromide fumigation is a key phy-
Phytosanitary Measures to Prevent the Introduction of Invasive Species 381
tosanitary treatment that is being more heavily regulated because of its role as
a stratospheric ozone-depleting substance,alternatives to all of its phytosani-
tary uses should be developed. Furthermore, it is desirable to have more than
one solution to any quarantine,in case some are rejected because of questions
about efficacy, an unacceptable side effect, excessive cost, unavailability, or
another unforeseen problem.To avoid creating unnecessary barriers to trade,
researchers should be careful when constructing host lists of pests, and give
extent of infestation and precise conditions under which a commodity has
been found to be a host.
One way to reduce the risk of invasive species through trade is to reduce the
amount of imported products, especially fresh ones that can support a greater
quantity and variety of invasive species.Although it is argued that present reg-
ulatory controls preclude international trade from being a significant source of
invasive species, it is not known by what route the great majority of invasive
species became established, and the massive amount and variety of trade pro-
vide abundant avenues for invasion.Voucher specimens of pests used in host
determinations and development of phytosanitary measures should be
deposited in a curated collection for future questions on identification.
The energy banker and author Matthew Simmons, who predicts very high
oil prices in the near future, says that off-season trade in fresh commodities
“will become a thing of the past” (Ward 2006). He argues that this would be
favorable because fresh produce that is shipped long distances is not of good
quality, and that increased supply and canning of locally grown produce,
picked at its optimum in flavor and nutrition, can more favorably fulfill our
nutritional needs than is the case for fresh imported produce that is often
picked well before its optimum stage of ripening in order to survive the long
trip to market (Goldman et al. 1999). Higher transportation costs will make
local farming more competitive by reducing competition from cheap
imported food, and could paradoxically help the rural poor of the world, most
of who are involved in farming (Lindskog 2005).
References
APHIS (2004) Mexican avocado import program. Federal Register 69:69747–69774
APHIS (2006) Treatments for fruits and vegetables.Federal Register 71:4451–4464
Armstrong JW (1986) Pest organism response to potential quarantine treatments. In:
Proc Regional Conf Plant Quarantine Support for Agricultural Development, 1985,
Serdang, Malaysia, pp 25–31
Armstrong JW (1994) Commodity resistance to infestation by quarantine pests. In:
Sharp JL, Hallman GJ (eds) Quarantine treatments for pests of food plants.Westview
Press, Boulder,pp 199–211
Aung LH, Leesch JG, Jenner JF, Grafton-Cardwell EE (2001) Effects of carbonyl sulfide,
methyl iodide, and sulfuryl fluoride on fruit toxicity and insect mortality.Ann Appl
Biol 139:93–100
G. J. Hallman382
Carpenter A, Potter M (1994) Controlled atmospheres. In: Sharp JL, Hallman GJ (eds)
Quarantine treatments for pests of food plants.Westview Press, Boulder, pp 171–198
Coley PD (1999) Hungry herbivores seek a warmer world.Science 284:2098–2099
Cowley JM, Baker RT, Englberger KG, Langi TG (1991) Methyl bromide fumigation of
Tongan watermelons against Bactrocera xanthodes (Diptera: Tephritidae) and analy-
sis of quarantine security.J Econ Entomol 84:1763–1767
Cowley JM, Baker RT, Harte DS (1992) Definition and determination of host status for
multivoltine fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) species. J Econ Entomol 85:312–317
Denlinger DL, Yocum GD (1998) Physiology of heat sensitivity. In: Hallman GJ, Den-
linger DL (eds) Temperature sensitivity in insects and application in integrated pest
management.Westview Press,Boulder, pp 7–53
EPA (2005) Sulfuryl fluoride; pesticide tolerance.Federal Register 70:40899–40908
FAO (1984) International plant quarantine treatment manual. FAO,Rome,Plant Produc-
tion and Protection Paper no 50
FAO (1996) Guidelines for pest risk analysis. FAO, Rome, ISPM Publ no 2
FAO (2002) Guidelines for regulating wood packaging materials in international trade.
FAO, Rome, ISPM Publ no 15
FAO (2003) Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests including analysis of environmental
risks. FAO,Rome,ISPM Publ no 11
FAO (2004) Glossary of phytosanitary terms. FAO,Rome,ISPM Publ no 5
Follett PA, McQuate GT (2001) Accelerated development of quarantine treatments for
insects on poor hosts. J Econ Entomol 94:1005–1011
Goldman IL, Kader AA, Heintz C (1999) Influence of production, handling and storage
on phytonutrient content of foods. Nutrition Rev 57:S46–S52
Hallman GJ (1994) Controlled atmospheres. In: Paull RE, Armstrong JW (eds) Insect
pests and fresh horticultural products: treatments and responses. CAB International,
Wallingford, pp 121–136
Hallman GJ (2001) Irradiation as a quarantine treatment.In: Molins R (ed) Food irradi-
ation principles and applications.Wiley,New York, pp 113–130
Hallman GJ (2002) Quarantine treatments: achieving market access for agricultural
commodities in the presence of invasive pests. In: Hallman GJ, Schwalbe CP (eds)
Invasive arthropods in agriculture: problems and solutions. Science Publishers,
Enfield, pp 271–291
Hallman GJ,Armstrong JW (1994) Heated air treatments.In: Sharp JL, Hallman GJ (eds)
Quarantine treatments for pests of food plants.Westview Press, Boulder, pp 149–163
Hansen JD,Chan HT Jr, Hara AH, Tenbrink VL (1991a) Phytotoxic reaction of Hawaiian
cut flowers and foliage to hydrogen cyanide fumigation.Hort Sci 26:53–56
Hansen JD, Hara AH, Chan HT Jr, Tenbrink VL (1991b) Efficacy of hydrogen cyanide
fumigation as a treatment for pests of Hawaiian cut flowers and foliage after harvest.
J Econ Entomol 84:532–536
Hardenburg RE,Watada AE,Wang CY (1986) The commercial storage of fruits, vegeta-
bles, and florist and nursery stocks.Frederick, MD, USDA-ARS Handb no 66
Heather NW (1994) Pesticide quarantine treatments. In: Sharp JL, Hallman GJ (eds)
Quarantine treatments for pests of food plants.Westview Press, Boulder, pp 89–100
Hennessey KK, Baranowski RM, Sharp JL (1992) Absence of natural infestation of
Caribbean fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) from commercial Florida ‘Tahiti’ lime
fruits. J Econ Entomol 85:1843–1845
Jacobi KK, MacRae EA, Hetherington SE (2001) Loss of heat tolerance in ‘Kensington’
mango fruit following heat treatment. Postharvest Biol Technol 21:321–330
Jang EB, Moffitt HR (1994) Systems approaches to achieving quarantine security. In:
Sharp JL, Hallman GJ (eds) Quarantine treatments for pests of food plants.Westview
Press, Boulder,pp 225–237
Phytosanitary Measures to Prevent the Introduction of Invasive Species 383
Jones WW, Holzman JJ, Galloway AG (1939) The effect of high-temperature sterilization
on the Solo papaya. Hawaii Agric Exp Station Circ no 14
Landolt PJ,Chambers DL, Chew V (1984) Alternative to the use of probit 9 mortality as a
criterion for quarantine treatments of fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae)-infested fruit. J
Econ Entomol 77:285–287
Lindskog P (2005) How to cut world hunger in half.Science 310:1768
McGuire RG (1991) Market quality of grapefruit after heat quarantine treatments. Hort
Sci 26:1393–1395
Parker JD, Burkepile DE,Hay ME (2006) Opposing effects of native and exotic herbivores
on plant invasions. Science 311:1459–1461
Parmesan C, Ryerholm N, Stefanescu C, Hill JK, Thomas CD, Descimons H, Huntley B,
Kaili L, Kullberg J, Thomas JA, Warren M (1999) Poleward shifts in geographical
ranges of butterfly species associated with regional warming. Nature 399:579–583
Perrings C,Williamson M,Dalmazzone S (eds) (2000) The economics of biological inva-
sions. Edward Elgar,Cheltenham
Robacker DC, Landolt PJ (2002) Importance and use of attractants. In: Hallman GJ,
Schwalbe CP (eds) Invasive arthropods in agriculture: problems and solutions. Sci-
ence Publishers, Enfield, pp 169–205
Schwalbe CP, Hallman GJ (2002) An appraisal of forces shaping the future of regulatory
entomology. In: Hallman GJ, Schwalbe CP (eds) Invasive arthropods in agriculture:
problems and solutions.Science Publishers,Enfield, pp 425–433
Shellie KC, Mangan RL (2000) Postharvest disinfestation heat treatments: response of
fruit and fruit fly larvae to different heating media. Postharvest Biol Technol 21:51–60
Wang S, Ikediala JN, Tang J, Hansen JD,Mitcham E, Mao R, Swanson B (2001) Radio fre-
quency treatments to control codling moth in in-shell walnuts. Postharvest Biol
Technol 22:29–38
Ward S (2006) Twilight for oil? Barron’s Magazine 86(1):30–32
Weller GL, van S Graver JE (1998) Cut flower disinfestation: assessment of replacement
fumigants for methyl bromide. Postharvest Biol Technol 14:325–333
Whiting DC, van den Heuvel J (1995) Oxygen, carbon dioxide, and temperature effects
on mortality responses of diapausing Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae). J
Econ Entomol 88:331–336
Williams P, Hepworth G, Goubran F, Huhunthan M, Dunn K (2000) Phosphine as a
replacement for methyl bromide for postharvest disinfestation of citrus. Postharvest
Biol Technol 19:193–199
Wilson EO (1984) Biophilia.Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Yokoyama VY, Miller GT (2002) Bale compression and hydrogen phosphide fumigation
to control cereal leaf beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in exported rye straw. J
Econ Entomol 95:513–519
Yokoyama VY, Miller GT (2003) Quarantine control of Hessian fly (Diptera: Cecidomyi-
idae) in exported hay: a new treatment for large-size, polypropylene fabric-wrapped
bales and a 3-d fumigation for compressed standard bales. J Econ Entomol
96:1340–1344
Zettler JL, Leesch JG (2000) Sulfuryl fluoride: a disinfestation treatment for walnuts and
almonds. Methyl Bromide Alternatives 2:5–6
G. J. Hallman384
22 Limits and Potentialities of Eradication
as a Tool for Addressing Biological Invasions
Piero Genovesi
22.1 Introduction
22.1.1 Definition
Eradication is the complete and permanent removal of all wild populations of
an alien plant or animal species from a defined area, by means of a time-lim-
ited campaign. This measure is therefore different from control,i.e.the reduc-
tion of population density and abundance in order to keep damage at an
acceptable level,and containment,aimed at limiting the spread of a species by
containing its presence within defined geographical boundaries (Bomford
and O’Brien 1995). Following this definition, also the removal of very few
individuals is an eradication, if these have the potentialities of reproducing
and establishing in the wild (i.e. this does not include the removal of single
animal individuals but includes removal of seeds or plant propagules in the
wild, or of a few pairs of animals).
Eradication of unwanted alien species is an increasingly important tool for
conservation of biological diversity. In fact, although the most effective way
for mitigating the impacts caused by biological invasions is the prevention of
new unwanted introductions, once prevention has failed and an alien species
has invaded a new area, eradication is the best alternative, considering the
costs and undesired effects related to permanent control or to a “do-nothing”
policy.
This general approach has been identified as the key for action on invasive
aliens species by the Convention on Biological Diversity which,with Decision
VI/23 on Alien Species that threaten ecosystems, habitats and species (adopted
at COPVI, The Hague, April 2002), has called parties to adopt a hierarchical
approach for addressing biological invasions. Prevention of unwanted intro-
duction of invasive alien species between and within states is the priority.If an
Ecological Studies,Vol. 193
W. Nentwig (Ed.)
Biological Invasions
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007
invasive alien species has been introduced, then early detection and rapid
eradication are crucial to prevent its establishment.Only when prevention has
failed and an unwanted alien species has established into the wild is eradica-
tion the preferred response, when this option is feasible. If eradication does
not appear to be feasible, then containment and long-term control measures
should be implemented,if appropriate.
22.1.2 History and Recent Developments
With his arrival on earth, Homo sapiens has directly caused the extinction of
many species, either from localised geographic areas or from the entire bios-
phere. The history of human-mediated extirpations ranges from mass extinc-
tions of megafauna through overharvesting in the Pleistocene (Lyons et al.
2004) to more recent cases, such as the passenger pigeon Ectopistes migrato-
rius which became extinct at the beginning of the last century (Blockstein and
Tordoff 1985). Extermination of species has been in some cases the result of a
clear commitment and policy by man, as in the case of all large carnivore
species eradicated from western Europe in the 19th century because of preda-
tion on livestock,or of eradications carried out for health purposes.For exam-
ple, smallpox has been successfully extirpated from earth, and mosquito
species have been eradicated from many areas of the world to combat malaria
(e.g. Anopholes labranchiae eradicated from Sardinia between 1946 and 1951;
Hall 2004).
We humans have indeed a unique ability to exterminate organisms from all
taxonomic groups, even if long-established or inhabiting very large areas. In
most cases, this is simply a matter of time and perseverance.The fast-growing
number of biological invasions calls upon us now to use this ability to pre-
serve biological diversity,rather than reducing it.
The first eradications of alien species have been carried out for sanitary
purposes; for example, Anopheles gambiae from over 30,000 km2of Brazil in
the 1950s, to combat a yellow fever outbreak and prevent a spread of the dis-
ease to North America (Davis and Garcia 1989). Eradications carried out for
conservation purposes started in the 1930s, and have become a routine man-
agement action only in the 1980s. Over 156 eradications have been success-
fully carried out so far in New Zealand to protect native species, 23 on islands
of NW Mexico and 48 on islands of NW Australia. Most eradications have
involved terrestrial vertebrates but there have also been many successful cam-
paigns in other taxonomic groups,including freshwater fishes (e.g.Copp et al.
2005) and several terrestrial invertebrates, such as the fruit fly, successfully
eradicated from Nauru (Allwood et al. 2002) or the screw-worm (Cochiomyia
hominivorax) extirpated from the south-eastern United States, Central Amer-
ica and North Africa (Myers et al. 2002). Even some marine organisms have
been eradicated (when invasion was still localised),such as a mussel (Mytilop-
P. Genovesi386
sis sp.) inadvertently introduced in Cullen Bay (Australia; Bax et al.2002) and
a sabellid polychaete (Terebrasabella heterouncinata) successfully removed
from a mariculture facility in California (Galil 2002). An eradication of the
alien algae Caulerpa taxifolia is being completed in the lagoon of Agua
Hedionda, in southern California (Anderson 2005). Within the context of the
latter case, it should be noted that, despite the eradication of plants being
much more challenging than that of animals, many plant eradications have
been carried out worldwide. In most cases, these were for infestations which
occurred in isolated areas or which were still in an early stage (Timmins and
Braithwaite 2001; Rejmánek and Pitcairn 2002).
The recent increase in the number (Figs. 22.1, 22.2) and complexity of
eradication projects is due to both an increased awareness of the need to mit-
Limits and Potentialities of Eradication as a Tool for Addressing Biological Invasions 387
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020
Year
Completed eradications in Europe
Fig. 22.1 Successfully
completed eradications
in Europe (Genovesi
2005)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Europe
New Zealand
West Australia
Aleutinian
Hawaii
n
ch oversee islands
Mexican islands
Alaska
Fig. 22.2 Number
of successfully
completed eradi-
cations on islands
(Pascal 1999; Bur-
bridge and Mor-
ris 2002; Tershy et
al. 2002; Cour-
champ et al. 2003;
Genovesi 2005; D.
Veitch, personal
communication)
igate the impacts of invasive alien species and also significant advances in
technical aspects of eradications (Veitch and Clout 2002). For example, the
development of second-generation anti-coagulant poisons has made it possi-
ble to increase the size of islands from which rats have been successfully erad-
icated. This was confirmed by the successful removal, completed in 2003, of
the Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus) from sub-Antarctic Campbell Island (over
11,000 ha), by far the largest area in the world successfully eradicated from
rats (Fig. 22.3).
22.1.3 Outcomes
Successful eradications can lead to significant effects in terms of recovery of
native species and habitats. Rat eradications from islands have promoted the
recovery of many colonial nesting seabirds, including the storm petrel
(Hydrobates pelagicus) and the Cory’s shearwater (Calonectris diomedea) in
the Mediterranean (Martín et al. 2000), or of terrestrial bird species such as
the dunnock (Prunella modularis),the wren (Troglodytes troglodytes) and the
rock pipit (Anthus petrosus) (Kerbiriou et al.2003).
In many cases, the removal of alien species is an essential prerequisite for
subsequent recovery programs. For example, the recently completed rat erad-
ication from Campbell Island was considered an essential condition for start-
ing a recovery program for the endemic Campbell Island teal (Anas nesiotis),
P. Genovesi388
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Area of islands successfully eradicated
from brown rats (log ha)
Fig. 22.3 Eradica-
tions of Rattus
rattus in New
Zealand: increas-
ing size of islands
successfully eradi-
cated (modified
from Veitch 1995)
a flightless bird very vulnerable to rat predation. Cat eradication from Long
Cay Island (Caicos Bank,British West Indies) was essential for carrying out a
recovery program for the highly endangered iguana Cyclura carinata (Mit-
chell et al. 2002).
Eradications bring benefits not only in terms of preservation and recovery
of biodiversity but also in economic terms, health and human wellbeing.
Before successful eradication, Anopheles gambiae, introduced in northeast
Brazil, was responsible for an outbreak of malaria which caused over 30,000
casualties. Eradication of three species of introduced fruit flies from Nauru
Island allowed people to again eat mangoes and breadfruit, after a decade of
collapse in fruit production (Allwood et al. 2002). Eradication of the coypu
from East Anglia prevented severe impacts on wetland biological diversity but
also severe economic losses (Panzacchi et al. 2006).
22.2 Key Elements of Eradications
22.2.1 Biological Aspects
In general, it is said that an eradication is biologically feasible when all repro-
ductive individuals of the target population can be removed, and risk of rein-
vasion is zero (or close to zero).As both vulnerability to removal methods and
ability to re-invade largely depend on the biological traits of the target
species, eradication programs require a good understanding of the species’
biology. In particular, the dispersal ability of the target species, its reproduc-
tive biology and, more generally,its life history should be carefully taken into
account for evaluating the feasibility of eradication (Myers et al.2000). In gen-
eral, eradications are more complex when target species have a dormant life
stage (e.g. soil seed bank), or for species with high dispersal capacity and
reproductive rates. This is the main reason why plants are particularly diffi-
cult to eradicate once they are established; furthermore, eradication of plant
species commonly requires many years of monitoring before completion can
be verified. The complex challenges linked to plant eradications explain why
there is, in fact, no known case of successful eradication of a well-established
alien plant whereas many plant invasions detected early enough have been
successfully eradicated from both island and mainland areas (e.g. Timmins
and Braithwaite 2001; Rejmánek and Pitcairn 2002).
Successful eradication requires the complete removal of all reproductive
individuals or, at least, the reduction of the population well below a threshold
of viability (Liebhold and Bascompte 2003).This is obviously a very challeng-
ing aspect of eradication campaigns, as the failure to remove the very last
individuals can promote the recovery of the target species, totally undermin-
Limits and Potentialities of Eradication as a Tool for Addressing Biological Invasions 389
ing all the removal efforts. The ability of the species to establish and expand
from a nucleus of very few individuals is thus another aspect to carefully take
into account in eradications. For example, eradication of squirrel species is
complicated by the ability of many species to establish and expand from a
nucleus of only two or three pairs (Bertolino and Genovesi 2005).
Nevertheless, analysing the target species’ life history may not be enough,
as ecological interactions with other species can play a major role in the final
outcomes of the eradication. For example, the eradication of rabbits from two
islands of the Kerguelen archipelago led to an overall increase in plant species
richness but also in the decline of some native species (Chapuis et al. 2004).
Eradication of two introduced brushtail possums and brushtail rock wallabies
from Rangitoto and Motutapu islands also resulted in a proliferation of sev-
eral weed species (Mowbray 2002). In general, when eradications are carried
out in areas invaded by more than one alien species, as in the case of islands
with domestic cats, rats,and rabbits,eradication of superpredators (cats) may
result in an explosion of mesopredators (rats), with the risk of aggravating
impacts on native species. Conversely, eradication of rats can cause a shift of
the diet of cats towards native species. Multi-species interactions also have
effects on the feasibility of eradication: Courchamp and Sugihara (1999)
showed that the removal of alien prey is in some cases an essential condition
to successfully eradicate alien predators, because abundant prey populations
may substantially limit the efficacy of predator removal efforts. Therefore,
eradication planning requires also an understanding of the ecological interac-
tion of the target species with other alien and native species and, in some
cases, concurrent control of more than one alien species can be the best alter-
native.
22.2.2 Lag Phase
Biological invasions are often characterized by a lag phase followed by a rapid
expansion (Williamson 1996), and this common pattern calls for starting
eradications at the earliest possible stage, when the chances of successfully
removing the infestation are highest.Prompt removal has been the key to suc-
cess in the few cases of eradications of marine organisms attempted to date as
well as eradications of freshwater fishes (e.g.Jackson et al. 2004), of the Cana-
dian beaver from France (Rouland 1995) and of alien plants (Rejmánek and
Pitcairn 2002).On the contrary,when the start of control activities is delayed,
eradication often becomes impractical (e.g. the American grey squirrel;
Bertolino and Genovesi 2003).
The case of Caulerpa taxifolia is paradigmatic of the need to adopt a pre-
cautionary approach when addressing alien species. This alien alga was acci-
dentally detected in 1984 in France when the invaded area covered only 1 m2;
by 1989,this had increased to 3 ha,and to 31 ha by 1991.Response was delayed
P. Genovesi390
by an academic debate within the French and the international academic
world, concerning the origin of the alga, its impact and potential long-term
effects. It was only in 1995 that a first formal recommendation was approved,
calling affected states to control the proliferation of the alga. This decision
arrived far too late because the so-called killer alga had by then expanded its
range to many areas of the Mediterranean basin, making its eradication an
unrealistic option (Meinesz 1999).The reaction to an analogous infestation by
this alga in California was very different – in this case,containment and treat-
ments of the infestation by C. taxifolia were initiated only 17 days after dis-
covery, based on timely identification, proactive approach by competent
authorities, availability of emergency funds, and involvement of local diver
crews (Anderson 2005).
Prompt eradication is usually cost-beneficial even when costs are high; for
example, the prompt eradication of Himalayan porcupines from Devon
required ca. €230,000 for the removal of only 12 animals but likely prevented
much more severe economic losses in the long term,considering the potential
impact of the species on crops (Smallshire and Davey 1989).The duration of the
lag phase can vary strongly from case to case,also with regard to the potential
increase of the species and its ability to spread and, consequently, the period
after which eradication becomes unpractical varies, too.For example,the erad-
ication of the Canadian beaver Castor canadensis from a river in France was
carried out 9–10 years after its introduction into the wild,when the population
was still very localised (24 individuals; Rouland 1985).
22.2.3 Removal Methods
Removal methods applied to eradications can be very diverse, including hand
removal of plants,mechanical means such as traps, shooting,and the applica-
tion of poisons and toxicants against plants. Also, biological control agents
and introduced pathogens have been applied to eradications,although in gen-
eral pathogens can only reduce population abundance, and total eradication
requires the integrated application of other techniques (Courchamp and Sug-
ihara 1999). More recently, the use of engineered viruses has been investi-
gated, although this technique has yet not been applied to any actual eradica-
tion campaign and remains in an experimental phase.
The integration of different methods has sometimes proved to be a very
effective strategy,and should be considered when planning an eradication.In
domestic cat eradications,for example,toxins and biological controls are con-
sidered more effective at an early stage of the campaign whereas, once the
population has been reduced, hunting and trapping are usually necessary to
remove the remaining animals (Nogales et al. 2004).
Removal means,based either on single methods or integrated,should have
the potentiality to affect all individuals of the target species. Therefore, the
Limits and Potentialities of Eradication as a Tool for Addressing Biological Invasions 391
efficacy of removal techniques strongly depends on the species’ biology; for
example, the eradication of flies from Nauru Island was possible because the
target species could be sterilized by irradiation.
A particularly complex aspect to take into account when implementing an
eradication is that removal methods need to be effective also when the density
of the target species decreases to a very low level. Predicting the effort
required to complete an eradication can thus be difficult,as the removal of the
very last individuals can require very significant and scarcely predictable
efforts and resources.
Impact of control on non-target species is often a major concern, and the
selection of removal methods should thus be carefully evaluated when plan-
ning an eradication campaign. This risk is evident when using toxicants or
poison baits. In the case of rodent eradications, for example, the numerous
successful programs completed in New Zealand have been facilitated by the
absence of any native rodent species in that country,thereby enabling the use
of aerial poison baiting. The situation is different in other regions of the
world, where islands are often inhabited by both native and alien rodents. In
these cases, eradications must often be carried out with the use of selective
baiting stations, which prevent the access to bait for non-target species. For
example, in planning the eradication of the house mice on Thevenard Island
in Western Australia, where also the native short-tailed mouse Leggadina
lakedownensis is present, a tailored poison-delivering station was developed
in which the small entrance hole could be used only by the smaller alien
species, access for young native individuals being prevented through a careful
timing of baiting (Moro 2001). Poisoning can have secondary effects on scav-
engers or non-target species (e.g.Howald et al.1999) which,in some cases, can
be prevented by carefully selecting bait dispensers, the time of year of appli-
cation, and the attractants used.
In other cases, it may be impossible to carry out an eradication without
impacting on non-target species. One notable example is the rat eradication
program in the Channel Islands National Park (California), where several
endemic subspecies of Peromyscus maniculatus are also present. To avoid
impacting the native taxa,the eradication plan included the translocation of P.
maniculatus from treatment islands before dispersing poisoned bait,and sub-
sequent reintroduction once the eradication had been completed (Pergams et
al. 2000).
There are also cases in which foreseen impacts on non-target species can
be considered acceptable. For eradications carried out in freshwater or
marine environments, the only available removal method is generally the
extensive use of toxicants. For example, when in 1999 an alien Mytilopsis
species was recorded in the Cullen Bay Marina (Darwin, North-East Aus-
tralia), in order to prevent severe impacts on aquaculture, fishery, tourism and
industrial activities at the site, the local authorities decided to immediately
treat the entire bay with chlorine and copper sulphate, managing to success-
P. Genovesi392
fully eradicate the alien mollusc species.In all, 187 t liquid sodium hypochlo-
rite and 7.5 t copper sulphate were pumped into the area.The decision to pro-
ceed with the treatment of the bay was taken considering that, once the erad-
ication was completed, all native species could re-colonize the area from
nearby coastal environments (Bax et al. 2002). It is interesting to note that
even when using toxicants in marine environments, it may be possible to
avoid the large-scale diffusion of chemicals. In the eradication of C. taxifolia
from California (cf. above), chlorine was applied by using underwater tarps,
anchored and sealed to the bottom, thereby much reducing the diffusion of
the chemical into these waters.
Aside from environmental risks,it should be noted that the use of toxicants
can also affect human wellbeing and health, in some cases causing serious
concern to local residents.For the eradication of malaria from Sardinia,some
10,000 t of DDT mixture were doused on the island in 5 years,associated with
risks to the local population and livestock.Still, the campaign eradicated this
pathology from the island where, in the 1930s,over 70,000 Sardinians suffered
from malaria (Hall 2004).
Not only toxicants can cause undesired effects. If not properly planned,
also biological control agents or genetically engineered viruses can severely
impact non-target species (Chaps.17 and 23), and require careful risk evalua-
tion before being released in the wild (Cory and Myers 2000).
Considering the risks of undesired effects of removal methods, an ade-
quate monitoring program should always be carried out during and after the
eradication,in order to facilitate the prompt detection of any impacts on non-
target species, to assess the achievement of objectives, and to enable rapid
response in case of reinvasion. This latter aspect is a particularly challenging
element of eradications,as removing single reinvading individuals can be dis-
proportionately difficult (Russell et al. 2005).
22.2.4 Costs
The economics of eradications has scarcely been investigated so far, although
the cost/benefit ratio of removal campaigns is indeed a critical element for
defining future policies on invasive alien species.In fact, in order for eradica-
tions to progress from an anecdotic to a routine management tool,it would be
necessary to identify those resources required to ensure the ability of compe-
tent authorities to rapidly remove new, unwanted introduced species and to
implement large-scale eradication campaigns.
Eradications are often viewed as extremely costly programs and, indeed,
many campaigns (albeit not necessarily the most successful ones) have
required huge monetary resources. In only 2 years, an attempt to eradicate
the medfly from California required (converted into €) over €80 million
(Myers et al. 2000). Coypu eradication in East Anglia cost €5 million in
Limits and Potentialities of Eradication as a Tool for Addressing Biological Invasions 393
11 years (Panzacchi et al. 2006). The Ruddy duck eradication campaign
launched in the United Kingdom is predicted to cost €5–13 million. Even
small-scale eradications can sometimes be very costly: for example, the
removal of only twelve Himalayan porcupines from Devon cost a staggering
€230,000.
One of the problems in assessing how much eradications have cost on aver-
age is that the available literature (either scientific or “grey”) often does not
report such data, and the results of prompt eradication projects (cf. removals
carried out in the early stages of invasions) are often not published at all. If it
is complex to assess costs,it is even more difficult to compare costs with ben-
efits of eradications, because these depend on parameters which have very
high levels of uncertainty, such as the probability of the target species, if not
removed,to establish,expand and cause damage.The eradication of the Cana-
dian beaver (Castor canadensis) from France required only one operator
working for a limited amount of time but likely prevented very costly impacts
if the species had been allowed to expand (Rouland 1985). In an attempt to
compare costs of eradication vs. permanent control, Panzacchi and co-
authors (2006) showed that the successful eradication of the coypu from East
Anglia, costing about €5 million in 11 years, may have prevented much more
severe economic impacts in the long term, considering that permanent con-
trol of the species in Italy causes losses of over €3.4 million per year and that
future annual costs are predicted to exceed €12 million (see also Chaps. 18
and 19).
In the case of the invading alga C. taxifolia, successful eradication from
California required (converted into €) over €2.5 million in 3 years, and addi-
tional costs will be necessary for medium-term monitoring. In Europe, when
the species was initially detected, it could have been removed within a few
days of work (cf. above) – nowadays,it is widespread, and permanent control
in many areas of the Mediterranean basin is costing huge amounts of money.
In the case of the black-striped mussel from Cullen Bay in Australia,the deci-
sion of eradicating the invasive – at a cost of (converted into €) over €1.3 mil-
lion “only”– was taken because of the risk that an expansion of the alien mol-
lusc could have impacted the local €24 million pearl fishery.
More comprehensive economic assessments of eradications are evidently
needed, in order to provide state governments with critical data for revising
their policies on the issue, and to assist the authorities competent of taking
decision about when to start an eradication (see also Chaps. 18 and 19).
22.2.5 Legal and Organizational Constraints
Invasive alien species are a cross-cutting issue, involving many different
aspects (such as agriculture, forestry, horticulture, aquaculture and hunting),
and implementation of eradications is often regulated by different laws. For
P. Genovesi394
example, a common legal constraint to eradication is that several national
and supra-national legislations automatically protect alien species, and often
do not explicitly include eradication as a management tool (Shine et al.
2000).
This complex situation causes an unclear repartition of roles and respon-
sibilities in eradication, and equivocal decision and authorisation processes.
As a result of these legal and organizational constraints,eradications are often
delayed for too long or, in many cases, never even start. For example, an
attempt to eradicate the American grey squirrel from Italy failed also because
of the unclear legal status of alien species under the Italian legal framework,
and the inadequate repartition of responsibilities between the national and
local institutions (Genovesi and Bertolino 2001).
One of the reasons for the successful eradication of C. taxifolia from Cali-
fornia (cf. above) is the extraordinary commitment by all competent authori-
ties in the invaded area. These formed a contingency body and ensured ade-
quate powers and funds to the program, thereby enabling a prompt and
effective response to the invasion.Similarly, the eradication of the coypu from
East Anglia was also made possible by the strong commitment and the rele-
vant resources mobilised by the decision makers.
More generally, eradications should be integrated into national strategies,
and particular attention should be paid to the coordination of all involved
departments and agencies. For example, the many eradications carried out in
New Zealand are also the result of a coordinated policy, with a clear reparti-
tion of roles and authorisation process under the Hazardous Substances and
New Organisms Act of 1996.The successful eradication of over 53 infestations
of 16 weed species in California has also been made possible by the coordi-
nated policy to prevent and control weeds, formalised in 2005 through the
adoption of a Noxious and Invasive Weed Action Plan (Rejmánek and Pitcairn
2002; Shoenig 2005).
In order to enable the competent agencies to carry out eradications and,
more generally, to mitigate the impacts caused by invasive alien species,state
authorities should review national institutional and legal frameworks, and
develop coherent, comprehensive and consistent policies on biological inva-
sions. In particular, legal constraints to the application of the necessary miti-
gation measures should be removed, legal tools should adopt terminology
consistent with international definitions, and the competent authorities
should be equipped with adequate powers to take the appropriate actions
(Shine et al. 2000; Genovesi and Shine 2004). Establishing a coordination
body,with access to adequate contingency funds, can be a critical element for
resolving the institutional fragmentation of competencies on the different
issues related to eradications.
Limits and Potentialities of Eradication as a Tool for Addressing Biological Invasions 395
22.2.6 Human Dimensions
Biological invasions are a product of human action, and human dimensions
are thus critical for effectively addressing the threats posed by invasive alien
species (McNeely 2001). An analysis of the eradication programs so far
attempted – or, even more important,non-attempted – shows how public sup-
port is essential for successful eradication projects,and how opposition to the
control methods – or, more generally, to removing an alien population – has
been the major factor obstructing the implementation of many eradication
projects. For example, the eradication of the Barbary sheep from the Canary
Islands or of the Tahr from New Zealand (Bomford and O’Brien 1995) and
South Africa have been strongly opposed by hunters and the general public,
who fought to maintain an important game or ornamental species.The erad-
ication of the American grey squirrel from Italy did not fail for technical rea-
sons but rather because of opposition from animal rights groups (Genovesi
and Bertolino 2001). On the other hand, one of the main reasons for the suc-
cess in eradicating C. taxifolia from California was the involvement of local
key stakeholders.
In planning eradications, particular attention should be given to the con-
flicts which could arise in implementing the projects, and methods for man-
aging these conflicts should be identified and used. Social science has shown
us there can be different types of conflicts, including cognitive ones (cf.differ-
ent knowledge leads to different conclusions), values conflicts (e.g. different
importance given by different societal groups to the protection of biodiversity
with respect to animal welfare), conflicts caused by different perceptions of
the cost/benefits of the project and, last but not least,conflicts caused by a dis-
trust of the authorities involved in the program (Bath 1999; see also Chaps.19
and 20).
Before attempting an eradication, detailed analysis of the human dimen-
sions involved in the presence and removal of the target species should be car-
ried out, and key beliefs of all potentially affected societal sectors should be
considered. If the results of these analyses show that there are gaps of infor-
mation which can cause an opposition to the program, then information cam-
paigns aimed at bridging these specific gaps should be launched. Also, when
presenting eradication campaigns, it is important to emphasize the recovery
scope of the programs,rather than simply focusing on the removal of an alien
species – the language used to communicate this should be carefully chosen
accordingly (Larson 2005).
All sectors directly affected by the target species should be involved in the
decision-making process of how to manage the problem, and this at the earli-
est possible stage. For example, the cat eradication from Isla Isabel (Pacific
coast of Mexico) was made possible by the involvement of hundreds of fisher-
men, also through a 2.5-year education program. The fishermen voluntarily
not only helped in removing the cats and in the post-eradication monitoring
P. Genovesi396
but, more importantly, their involvement was critical for preventing further
releases of domestic cats (Rodriguez et al. 2006).
Prompt, transparent and credible public information should be ensured.
This is important not only for the eradication being planned but also to
demonstrate the credibility of the responsible authorities, thereby creating a
positive basis for any future program to be developed.In the Hebridean mink
project, aimed at eradicating the American mink from some of the Western
Islands (Scotland), a bulletin, both in Gaelic and English, is regularly and
widely circulated to both experts and the general public, informing on all
updates of the project,including the numbers of trapped minks and trapping
areas.
22.3 Management Implications
22.3.1 How to Plan an Eradication
The many successful eradications carried out in recent years,and the increas-
ing technical challenges overcome in terms of target taxa and eradication
areas clearly indicate that, with proper planning, substantial funds, and ade-
quate political and social support,it is possible to successfully eradicate many
alien animal and plant species in all kinds of environment,also from non-iso-
lated areas. However, eradication remains a challenging management option
and should always be based on a rigorous assessment of feasibility, and a care-
ful planning of key biological, technical,organizational,sociological and eco-
nomic elements.
Many lessons can also be drawn from the numerous failures recorded to
date, in particular the many cases of unwanted introduced species which
could easily have been removed with only limited efforts but where this failed
because of ignorance, scarce awareness by decision makers, gaps in the legal
framework or authorisation process, or because of social opposition. Here, a
synthetic overview of technical guidelines for increasing the ability of states,
public agencies or others to plan,implement and evaluate eradication projects
is provided.
22.3.2 Rapid Response to New Invasions
Prompt removal of newly detected invaders – before they become established
– is the best option for preventing any future impact to biological diversity
and human wellbeing. Considering the difficulty in predicting the chances of
establishment and impacts of the alien species, eradication should not be
Limits and Potentialities of Eradication as a Tool for Addressing Biological Invasions 397
delayed by lengthy assessments of such aspects – rather, as soon as a new
incursion of a non-authorised alien species is detected,the eradication should
be promptly started.
To facilitate prompt reaction to invasions, it is important to increase the
ability to detect new alien species through an early warning system, focused
on most harmful species and most vulnerable areas. Early warning systems,
focusing especially on key areas, should be set up, also based on lists of most
dangerous alien species.Also,the competent authorities should establish con-
tingency plans for eradicating specific taxa or groups with similar character-
istics (e.g. plants, invertebrates, marine organisms, freshwater organisms,
freshwater fishes, reptiles, amphibians, birds, small mammals, large mam-
mals). Information management is particularly critical for reducing the time
lag before a new invasion is detected and, for this reason, it is important to set
up mechanisms for collecting and circulating information,including identifi-
cation keys for different taxonomic groups but also references to experts for
the various taxa, control methods, etc.
The authorisation process should be streamlined, in order to allow rapid
response; where urgent eradication action is needed, the use of emergency
orders should be considered. Competent authorities should be equipped in
advance with powers to take appropriate mitigation measures. The founding
of a national coordination body should be considered, and adequate funds
and equipment for rapid response to new invasions should be secured. Rele-
vant staff should be trained to use the eradication methods (see also Chap.
21).
22.3.3 Planning the Eradication of Established Populations
Eradications of long-established alien species require proper planning, based
on an assessment of key biological,technical and economical aspects,and the
involved human dimensions. In many cases, public information and aware-
ness are critical, and the development of specific education programs or pub-
lic awareness campaigns should be considered.Participation of local commu-
nities should be encouraged, and relevant societal sectors (hunters, NGOs,
foresters, landowners, fishermen, etc.) should be engaged in the eradication
programs whenever possible.
22.3.4 Legal-Organizational Aspects
National legislation and local regulatory tools should be reviewed to ensure
that the legal status of alien species is compatible with control measures,and
that the roles and competencies of the relevant authorities are clearly defined.
In order to improve coordination and reduce the time for initiating the
P. Genovesi398
response to an invasion,it can be very useful to establish an advisory commit-
tee, involving all the competent public agencies and the relevant private orga-
nizations.
22.3.5 Removal Methods
Removal methods,either single or integrated,should be selected primarily on
the basis of their efficacy but also taking into account the selectivity and risks
of causing unnecessary stress and pain to target animal species. To avoid
undesired effects of eradications, a feasibility study should assess the ecology
of the species to be removed,ecological interactions with native and any other
alien species present in the area, and the functional role of the target alien
species.
22.3.6 Eradication vs.Control
Compared with control or geographic containments, and as a general rule,
eradication should be considered a better alternative because it prevents
potential future impacts caused by the introduced species, and allows us to
avoid permanent costs and undesired effects of removal methods. However,
eradication is not always a practicable alternative and, thus, it is important to
define explicit criteria in a decision-making process aimed at selecting
between either eradication, sustained harvest, geographic containment or a
“do-nothing”alternative.Decisions should take into account the success prob-
ability of eradication, required effort,impacts and economic costs of the inva-
sion, and monitoring costs.
22.3.7 Monitoring
Monitoring during and after the eradication is essential to detect undesired
effects of removal methods, assess results of eradication, detect cases of re-
invasion, and collect information useful for preventing new invasions. Ade-
quate funds should be secured for monitoring, which should be based on the
best available scientific and other expertise. It may be useful that completion
of eradication be verified by an independent body, not involved in the eradi-
cation. Eradication programs should be periodically reviewed on the basis of
monitoring.
Limits and Potentialities of Eradication as a Tool for Addressing Biological Invasions 399
Acknowledgements. Funding of the European Union within the FP 6 by the specific tar-
geted research project DAISIE (SSPI-CT-2003-511202) is gratefully acknowledged. Mick
Clout, Maj De Poorter,Alan Saunders and Dick Veitch provided data, shared ideas and
gave valuable insights on the topics of this chapter.
References
Allwood AJ, Vueti ET, Leblanc L, Bull R (2002) Eradication of introduced Batrocera
(Diptera: Tephritidae) in Nauru using male annihilation and protein bait application
techniques. In: Veitch CR, Clout MN (eds) Turning the tide: the eradication of inva-
sive species.IUCN, Gland,pp 19–25
Anderson LWJ (2005) California’s reaction to Caulerpa taxifolia: a model for invasive
species rapid response.Biol Invasions 7:1003–1016
Bath A (1999) Human dimension in wildlife management – gaining public acceptance.
Environ Encounters 41:121–125
Bax N, Hayes K,Marshall A,Parry D, Thresher R (2002) Man-made marinas as sheltered
islands for alien marine organisms: establishment and eradication of an alien inva-
sive marine species. In: Veitch CR, Clout MN (eds) Turning the tide: the eradication
of invasive species.IUCN,Gland, pp 26–39
Bertolino S, Genovesi P (2003) Spread and attempted eradication of the grey squirrel
(Sciurus carolinensis) in Italy, and consequences for the red squirrel (Sciurus vul-
garis) in Eurasia. Biol Conserv 109:351–358
Bertolino S, Genovesi P (2005) The application of the European strategy on invasive alien
species: an example with introduced squirrels.Hystrix Ital J Mammal 16:59–69
Blockstein DE, Tordoff HB (1985) A contemporary look at the extinction of the passen-
ger pigeon.Am Birds 39:845–852
Bomford M, O’Brien P (1995) Eradication of Australia’s vertebrate pests: a feasibility
study.In: Grigg GC, Hale PT, Lunney D (eds) Conservation through sustainable use of
wildlife. Centre for Conservation Biology, University of Queensland
Burbridge AA,Morris KD (2002) Introduced mammal eradications for nature conserva-
tion on Western Australian islands: a review. In:Veitch CR, Clout MN (eds) Turning
the tide: the eradication of invasive species. IUCN,Gland, pp 64–70
Chapuis JL, Frenot Y, Lebouvien M (2004) Recovery of native plant communities after
eradication of rabbits from the subantarctic Kerguelen Islands, and influence of cli-
mate change. Biol Conserv 117:167–179
Copp GH,Wesley KJ,Vilizzi L (2005) Pathways of ornamental and aquarium fish intro-
ductions into urban ponds of Epping Forest (London,England): the human vector. J
Appl Ichthyol 21:1–12
Cory J, Myers J (2000) Direct and indirect ecological effects of biological control.Trends
Ecol Evol 15:137–139
Courchamp F, Sugihara G (1999) Biological control of alien predator populations to pro-
tect native island prey species from extinction.Ecol Appl 9:112–123
Courchamp F, Pascal M,Chapuis JL (2003) Mammal invaders on islands,impact,control
and control impact.Biol Rev 78:347–383
Davis JR, Garcia R (1989) Malaria mosquito in Brazil. In: Dahlsten DL, Garcia JR (eds)
Eradication of exotic pests.Yale University Press, New Haven,pp 274–283
Galil BS (2002) Between serendipity and futility: control and eradication of aquatic
invaders.Ballast Water News 11:10–12
P. Genovesi400
Genovesi P (2000) Guidelines for eradication of terrestrial vertebrates: a European con-
tribution to the invasive alien species issue. Council of Europe,T-PVSs65e:1–61
Genovesi P (2005) Eradications of invasive alien species in Europe: a review. Biol Inva-
sions 7:127–133
Genovesi P, Bertolino S (2001) Human dimension aspects in invasive alien species issues:
the case of the failure of the grey squirrel eradication project in Italy.In: McNeely JA
(ed) The great reshuffling: human dimensions of invasive alien species. IUCN,Gland,
pp 113–119
Genovesi P, Shine C (2004) European strategy on invasive alien species. Council of
Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, Nature and Environment 137
Hall M (2004) Today Sardinia, tomorrow the world: killing mosquitoes. BardPolitik
5:21–28
Howald GR,Mineau P, Elliott JE,Cheng KM (1999) Brodifacoum poisoning of avian scav-
engers during rat control on a seabird colony. Ecotoxicology 8:431–447
Jackson JE, Raadik TA, Lintermans M, Hammer M (2004) Alien salmonids in Australia:
impediments to effective impact management, and future directions. N Z J Mar
Freshwater Res 38:447–455
Kerbiriou C, Pascal M, Le Viol I, Goroche J (2003) Conséquences sur l’avifaune terrestre
de l’Ile de Trielen (Réserve naturelle d’Iroise, Bretagne) de l’éradication du rat sur-
mulot (Rattus norvegicus). Rev Evol – Terre et Vie 59:319–329
Larson BMH (2005) The war of the roses: demilitarizing invasion biology. Frontiers Ecol
Environ 3:495–500
Liebhold AM,Bascompte J (2003) The allee effect, stochastic dynamics and the eradica-
tion of alien species. Ecol Lett 6:133–140
Lyons SK, Smith FA, Brown JH (2004) Of mice, mastodons and men: human-mediated
extinctions on four continents.Evol Ecol Res 6:339–358
Martín A (2002) Rabbit eradication on the islet of Montaña Clara (Lanzarote, Canary
Islands). Proc Workshop Invasive Alien Species on European Islands and Evolution-
ary Isolated Ecosystems and Group of Experts on Invasive Alien Species. Council of
Europe,T-PVS/INF 33:23–25
Martín JL, Thibault JC, Bretagnolle V (2000) Black rats, island characteristics and colo-
nial nesting birds in the Mediterranean: consequences of an ancient introduction.
Conserv Biol 14:1452–1466
McNeely JA (2001) The great reshuffling: human dimensions of invasive alien species.
IUCN, Gland
Meinesz A (1999) Killer algae.University of Chicago Press,Chicago
Mitchell N, Haeffner R,Veer V, Fulford-Gardner M, Clerveaux W, Veitch CR, Mitchell G
(2002) Cat eradication and the restoration of endangered iguanas (Cyclura carinata)
on Long Cay, Caicos Bank, Turks and Caicos Islands, British West Indies. In: Veitch
CR, Clout MN (eds) Turning the tide: the eradication of invasive species. IUCN,
Gland, pp 206–212
Moro D (2001) Evaluation and cost benefits of controlling house mice Mus domesticus
on islands: an example from Thevenard Island, Western Australia. Biol Conserv
99:355–364
Mowbray SC (2002) Eradication of introduced Australian marsupials (brushtail possum
and brushtailed rock wallaby) from Rangitoto and Motutapu Islands, New Zealand.
In: Veitch CR, Clout MN (eds) Turning the tide: the eradication of invasive species.
IUCN, Gland,pp 226–232
Myers JH, Simberloff D, Kuris AM, Carey JR (2000) Eradication revisited: dealing with
exotic species. Trends Ecol Evol 15:316–320
Nogales M, Martín A, Tershy BR, Donlan CJ,Veitch D,Puerta N, Wood B, Alonso J (2004)
A review of feral cat eradication on islands. Conserv Biol 18:310–319
Limits and Potentialities of Eradication as a Tool for Addressing Biological Invasions 401
Panzacchi M, Bertolino S, Cocchi R, Genovesi P (2006) Population control of coypu in
Italy vs.eradication in UK: a cost/benefit analysis.Wildlife Biol (in press)
Pascal M (1999) Eradication of mammals introduced in the islands. In: Proc Worksh
Control and Eradication of Non-Native Terrestrial Vertebrates. Council of Europe,
Environ Encounters 41:31–42
Pergams ORW, Lacy RC, Ashley MV (2000) Conservation and management of Anacapa
Island deer mice. Conserv Biol 14:819–832
Rejmánek M, Pitcairn J (2002) When is eradication of exotic pest plants a realistic goal?
In: Veitch CR, Clout M (eds) Turning the tide: the eradication of invasive species.
IUCN, Gland,pp 249–253
Rodriguez C, Torres R, Drummond H (2006) Eradicating introduced mammals from a
forested tropical island.Biol Conserv 130:98–105
Rouland P (1985) Les castors canadiens de la Puisaye. Bull Mens Office Natl Chasse
91:35–40
Russell JC, Towns DT,Anderson SH, Clout MN (2005) Intercepting the first rat ashore.
Nature 437:1107
Schoenig S (2005) California noxious and invasive weed action plan. http://www.cdfa.
ca.gov/phpps/ipc/noxweedinfo/pdfs/noxious_weed_plan.pdf
Shine C, Williams N, Gündling L (2000) A guide to designing legal and institutional
frameworks on alien invasive species. IUCN, Gland
Smallshire D, Davey JW (1989) Feral Himalayan porcupines in Devon. Nature in Devon
10:62–69
Tershy BR, Donlan CJ, Keitt BS, Croll DA, Sanchez JA, Wood B, Hermosillo MA, Howald
GR, Biavaschi N (2002) Island conservation in north-west Mexico: a conservation
model integrating research,education and exotic mammal eradication.In: Veitch CR,
Clout MN (eds) Turning the tide: the eradication of invasive species.IUCN, Gland,pp
293–300
Timmins SM, Braithwaite H (2002) Early detection of invasive weeds on islands. In:
Veitch CR, Clout MN (eds) Turning the tide: the eradication of invasive species.
IUCN, Gland,pp 311–318
Veitch CR (1995) Habitat repair: a necessary prerequisite to translocation of threatened
birds. In: Serena M (ed) Reintroduction biology of Australian and New Zealand
fauna. Surrey Beatty,Chipping Norton,pp 97–104
Veitch CR, Clout MN (2002) Turning the tide: the eradication of invasive species.IUCN,
Gland
Williamson M (1996) Biological invasion. Chapman & Hall, London
P. Genovesi402
23 Pros and Cons of Biological Control
Dirk Babendreier
23.1 Introduction
Biological control involves the deliberate introduction of natural enemies for
the control of pest organisms, including insects,weeds and diseases.A general
difference exists between augmentative releases where biological control
agents are used periodically, i.e. once or several times within a season, and
classical biological control where agents are released with the aim of estab-
lishment and,ideally,a permanent pest control.Whereas native candidates are
generally given preference in augmentative biological control, in some cases
exotic species have been used. By contrast, for classical biological control the
rule is that exotic natural enemies are introduced for the control of exotic
pests. Pest species may either interfere with agricultural production without
being invasive per se or may be invasive on a larger scale,thereby threatening
ecosystems and natural reserves. Whereas arthropod biological control gen-
erally applies to the former, it is in the weed control section that biological
control agents are often released to control invasive species. This means that
biological control finds itself in the unique position of being both an impor-
tant strategy for the control of alien invasive species and also a route by which
potentially damaging new alien species (i.e. the natural enemies) are them-
selves introduced and spread (Chap. 2).
This chapter will briefly review the positive aspects of biological control
and will highlight a few examples. It will further review negative aspects of
biological control introductions. One of the examples where biological con-
trol led to detrimental environmental effects was the introduction of the lady-
beetle Harmonia axyridis, and this case will be outlined in more detail. This
example will also be used to explore some of the population biology mecha-
nisms which can contribute to the net effects of introduced natural enemies.
Finally,some information on recent developments and improvements in risk
assessment of biological control agents is provided.
Ecological Studies,Vol. 193
W. Nentwig (Ed.)
Biological Invasions
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007
23.2 Pros of Biological Control
Since the spectacular success of the vedalia beetle Rodolia cardinalis which
was released to control a scale insect in California more than 100 years ago,
there is hardly any doubt that biological control can be a very effective strat-
egy. One of the most striking advantages is that, if biological control works,
then it virtually works forever. This means that it can be an extremely cost-
effective pest control method, and the benefits may exceed the initial costs of
the projects by several orders of magnitude (Hoddle 2004). A clear advantage
of a successful biological control program is the saving of sometimes huge
amounts of pesticides, of which many are known to be harmful for numerous
non-target insects, vertebrates and even humans.For example, the biological
control program against alfalfa weevil conducted in the US reduced pesticide
use by 95% from 1968 to 1983, and is saving farmers more than $ 100 million
each year in insecticide and application costs. Similarly, the use of biological
control agents against greenhouse pests altogether has saved substantial
amounts of pesticides. More than 100 species of beneficial organisms are
commercially available for control of nearly all important insect and mite
pests. As an example, we can take the parasitoid Encarsia formosa which is
successfully being used against whiteflies since more than 20 years. Special
advantages in augmentative biological control are that agents can be used
where pesticides are no longer efficient due to resistance, and also that the
growers of vegetables can make use of bumblebees for pollination, which
would be prohibited with the use of pesticides.
Probably the most impressive advantage of biological control is that it may
be the single one solution for restoration of ecosystems which have been
impacted by invasive species. For example, the invasion of purple loosestrife
(Lythrum salicaria) into North American freshwater wetlands has altered
decomposition rates and nutrient cycling, led to reductions in wetland plant
diversity, reduced pollination and seed output of the native Lythrum alatum,
and reduced habitat suitability for several specialized wetland bird species
(Blossey et al. 2001).After years of research in Europe,it was determined that
potential benefits outweigh risks, and four biocontrol agents were introduced
in 1992 and 1994. These species are attacking flowers, leaves and roots, and
this combination was predicted to enhance control. At some of the early
release sites, the attack by the host-specific insects has resulted in dramatic
declines of purple loosestrife and,often, the once monotypic stands of L. sali-
caria are replaced by a diverse wetland plant community (Blossey et al. 2001).
There are clearly many more such success stories, of which only a very few
have been touched upon here. For a comprehensive review of successes in all
disciplines of biological control, I would like to refer to Gurr and Wratten
(2000).
D. Babendreier404
23.3 Cons of Biological Control
As mentioned above,biological control can work forever.Nevertheless,a quite
common problem is that, in very many cases, biological control simply fails to
control the pest sufficiently. In classical biological control of insects, for
instance, only about one third of the introduced agents have been able to
establish, from which again about one third is able to suppress pest popula-
tions. Though success rates are somewhat higher for weed biological control,
this means that numerous exotic natural enemies have been added to the
native fauna without noticeable benefits.
Despite the fact that both classical biological control and augmentative
biological control were regarded safe for much of their history, concerns
about detrimental effects of introduced exotic species on the native fauna
have been increasingly expressed over the last two decades. This development
led to the release of several papers which reviewed the impact of biological
control agents on non-target species and, more importantly, reported that
many effects may have passed unnoticed because no study had been con-
ducted (Howarth 1991; Simberloff and Stiling 1996; Samways 1997; Lynch et
al. 2001).
Potential risks concerning the introduction of exotic biological control
agents include those to human health, to the economics and to the environ-
ment. No serious health risks are known for any macro-organisms, though
some cases of allergy in the mass-production of predatory mites or nema-
todes may occur. Economic issues are dealt with in Chap.18 and I thus would
like to focus on environmental risks and non-target effects here.Although the
term non-target effect is not very well defined, it clearly encompasses a large
spectrum varying from very small effects, e.g. 2% parasitization of a para-
sitoid biological control agent on a non-target insect,to massive effects at the
population or even ecosystem level.Until now, there is no general agreement
on how to judge the magnitude of non-target effects, and whether these
effects can be tolerated or are unacceptable. Clearly,the most serious negative
aspect of biological control would be the displacement of non-target species
on a large, geographical scale or even globally, and the change of complete
ecosystems.
23.3.1 Weed Biological Control
In weed biological control, the most serious concern is that an exotic intro-
duced herbivore would be able to feed on crop plants,thereby becoming a pest
itself. As a consequence, the assessment of the candidate’s host range became
routine already several decades ago, and only herbivores with a narrow host
range are considered for release. Compared to agents released against arthro-
Pros and Cons of Biological Control 405
pods, agents released for weed control indeed generally have a better safety
record,although in some cases non-target effects have materialized.One of the
hotly debated cases is the flower head weevil Rhinocyllus conicus which was
introduced to North America already in 1969, and later also into other coun-
tries for control of weedy thistles. This decision was taken at that time by the
national authorities despite host range tests indicating that some non-target
thistles may be attacked as well to some degree.In fact,feeding on the seeds of
some non-target Cirsium spp.did occur shortly after introduction,and there is
evidence from field experiments that populations of these thistles are decreas-
ing due to lower seed production (Louda 2000; Louda et al.2003).In addition,
Louda (2000) showed that populations of a native floral-feeding tephritid
decreased simultaneously, indicating that also indirect effects are associated
with the introduced beetle. This case reflects the former lack of concern over
non-target effects on non-economic species.More generally, it reflects a differ-
ent perception of risks and benefits of the authorities at that time, as the pre-
dicted feeding on several non-economic plants was disregarded in light of the
high pest pressure and the probability of solving this problem.
Another interesting case is the Argentine pyralid moth Cactoblastis cacto-
rum. In 1926, this moth was introduced against Opuntia spp. in Australia
where it is clearly one of the major success stories. In 1957,it was introduced
into the Caribbean islands and also reduced populations of the target species.
It was considered for introduction into the US but this was not permitted
because feeding on native Opuntia spp. was suspected. However, C. cactorum
did accidentally arrive in Florida by the end of the 1960s, and the moth was
indeed found to feed on non-target Opuntia spp.Included in its diet were sev-
eral endangered species, which led to increasing efforts to prevent these from
going extinct. The most important conclusion here is that even a successful
biological control agent with a narrow host range can cause serious non-tar-
get effects in specific geographical areas. The case further suggests to include
adjacent regions within potential dispersal distance in pre-release risk assess-
ments (Louda and Stiling 2004).
23.3.2 Arthropod Biological Control
In contrast to weed biological control, the potential risks for non-target
organisms have only recently received attention and, consequently, most of
the relevant studies have been published only within the last 10–15 years
(Babendreier et al. 2005).In an attempt to quantify the number of cases where
non-target effects have occurred and also the relevance of these effects, Lynch
et al. (2001) screened the BIOCAT database. Of the 5,279 classical introduc-
tions of insects listed in BIOCAT, 80 were associated with one or more such
non-target effect records. However, this includes all kinds of smaller effects
such as low parasitism of a non-target species at a single location – indeed,
D. Babendreier406
these cases constitute the great majority. By contrast,the evidence for popula-
tion reduction or extinction is fairly weak in many cases. Those cases where
more serious effects were observed have virtually always happened on
islands. For instance, the introduction of predatory land snails (especially
Euglandina rosea) for control of the alien giant African snail into Hawaiian
Islands in the 1950s – and later even into other countries – had disastrous con-
sequences for the non-target mollusc fauna (Howarth 1991). There is good
evidence that the extirpation of endemic tree snails is caused by this intro-
duced predator.In addition to this,more cases of non-target effects were doc-
umented and reviewed by Howarth (1991) and Hoddle (2004).A common fea-
ture of these cases is that polyphagous predators are largely responsible for
the observed effects, as demonstrated in several projects conducted early in
the 20th century. Some of the most serious effects originated from the intro-
duction of vertebrate predators (e.g. mongoose against rats) – conducted not
by biological control experts but rather by other stakeholders.Nevertheless,a
critical question still is whether these known negative reports represent only
the tip of an iceberg – many non-target effects may simply have escaped our
attention (Howarth 1991; Simberloff and Stiling 1996).
In an attempt to address this concern, several post-release studies were
conducted recently with a focus on those biological control projects where
population declines of non-target species have been observed or on projects
where the potential for non-target effects have been judged high due to the
polyphagous nature of the biological control agent. Obviously, such a selec-
tion is strongly biased and, thus, can not be representative. In one of these
cases, Barron et al. (2003) evaluated parasitism by the introduced biological
control agent Pteromalus puparum on the New Zealand red admiral butterfly
Bassaris gonerilla, in comparison to other mortality factors. From an exten-
sive dataset,Barron et al.(2003) constructed a partial life table and concluded
that the level of mortality caused by P. puparum is low relative to egg para-
sitism by Tel e n o m u s sp., and also low in comparison to larval disappearance
and pupal parasitism caused by the accidentally introduced ichneumonid
Echthromorpha intricatoria.
Similarly, Benson et al. (2003) tested whether the introduced parasitoids
Cotesia glomerata and C. rubecula may have been responsible for the decline
of the native butterfly Pieris virginiensis in New York and Ontario.Although P.
virginiensis is an acceptable and suitable host, Benson et al.(2003) concluded
that populations of this butterfly do not appear to be at risk because both C.
glomerata and C. rubecula do not forage in forested habitats, even when they
are locally present in adjacent meadows.
Extensive studies have been carried out on potential risks of the poly-
phagous egg parasitoid Trichogramma brassicae, which is being mass-
released against the European corn borer in many countries. Although T. bra s -
sicae did parasitize various butterfly species (including rare ones) under field
cage conditions (Babendreier et al. 2003a), subsequent studies have demon-
Pros and Cons of Biological Control 407
strated that parasitism of non-target species under field conditions is zero or
restricted to a few meters from the release field (Orr et al. 2000; Babendreier
et al. 2003a, 2003b). All these studies concluded that non-target effects of the
biological control agent have been negligible, which is remarkable in light of
the fact that such effects were presumed in these cases.Although still no com-
prehensive answer is possible on whether we have missed many non-target
effects, evidence is increasing from the abovementioned studies and others
that at least the more serious effects would have been detected.
23.4 Harmonia axyridis, a Case Study
Already in the section above it was mentioned that especially the polyphagous
predators have the potential to cause serious non-target effects if introduced
into foreign countries. The multicoloured Asian ladybeetle, Harmonia axy-
ridis, is native to large parts of Asia and definitely is a polyphagous predator.
It is a voracious feeder,preying mostly on aphids but also on immature stages
of various other insects – psyllids, butterflies and aphid predators, including
other ladybeetles. Moreover, cannibalism is often observed in adults and lar-
vae of H. axyridis, which consume conspecific eggs and sometimes smaller
larvae. Due to its effects on native coccinellids in the US and its recent inva-
sion in Europe, H. axyridis has attracted quite some attention. Many studies
have already been conducted and, thus, H. axyridis may serve as a case study
to be examined in greater detail.
Since H. axyridis feeds voraciously on aphids and has strong dispersal
capacities, it was released as a classical biological control agent in the United
States already in 1916.However, these early introductions failed and periodic
releases continued until the 1980s. First established populations were docu-
mented only in 1988 and,subsequently, the beetle spread rapidly across North
America. Currently, H. axyridis occurs throughout much of the continental
United States and also in southern Canada. The ability of H. axyridis to feed
on many non-target herbivores, intraguild prey and conspecifics may con-
tribute to its success to invade new ecosystems but also to control aphid num-
bers. After the introduction in North America, it provided control of pests in
several systems.For instance, H. axyridis provides effective biological control
of Aphis spiraecola in apple orchards (Brown 2004), and the biological control
of several citrus pests may also be benefiting from the establishment of H.
axyridis (Michaud 2002a). Harmonia axyridis has also been utilized success-
fully in augmentative biological control in Asia, Europe and North America. In
Europe,releases were first undertaken in 1982, i.e. before the negative impact
had emerged, but continued until only a few years ago.
However, the same attributes responsible for the effectiveness of H.
axyridis against aphids may also cause less desirable effects. A number of
D. Babendreier408
recent studies indicated that the establishment of exotic ladybeetles may
have adverse affects on native coccinellids. In South Dakota, the abundance
of Coccinella transversoguttata richardsoni and Adalia bipunctata was
approximately 20 times lower after the establishment of an exotic coccinel-
lid, C. septempunctata (Elliott et al. 1996). Evidence is building to indicate
that H. axyridis may be having similar adverse effects on native Coccinelli-
dae. Over a 13-year period, Brown and Miller (1998) monitored the
abundance of various coccinellid species in apple orchards. The abundance
of native coccinellids decreased after the establishment and rapid rise to
dominance of the exotics, C. septempunctata and H. axyridis (Brown and
Miller 1998). A 9-year study of the abundance of various Coccinellidae in an
agricultural landscape showed a decrease in the abundance of Brachiacan-
tha ursina,Cycloneda munda and Chilocorus stigma after the establishment
of H. axyridis (Colunga-Garcia and Gage 1998). Similarly, a field study con-
ducted in the major citrus-producing regions of Florida over 5 years showed
that the introduced H. axyridis has increased in abundance while the for-
merly dominant ladybeetle Cycloneda sanguinea has declined (Michaud
2002b). The author concluded that competitive displacement of C. sanguinea
by H. axyridis may be in progress in this citrus ecosystem in Florida.
Recently, a study conducted on the coccinellid community inhabiting potato
crops in northern Maine over 31 years showed dramatic changes. Prior to
the arrival of the exotic species, ladybeetle communities were comprised
almost exclusively of the two native ladybeetles, Coccinella transversoguttata
and Hippodamia tredecimpunctata. Starting 1980, the exotic C. septempunc-
tata became permanently established and quickly began to dominate the
ladybeetle community (Alyokhin and Sewell 2004). Two other exotic species,
H. axyridis and Propylea quatuordecimpunctata, became prominent mem-
bers of the ladybeetle community in 1995 and 1996. Altogether, these stud-
ies conducted in the US demonstrate the profound effects that the exotic nat-
ural enemy H. axyridis may have on the abundance of native coccinellid
species.
To date, research has concentrated on the effect of common natural ene-
mies of agricultural crops because of fears regarding the loss of biocontrol
function. As a consequence, there is a paucity of studies on the potential
adverse effects of H. axyridis on coccinellids in non-agricultural settings or
generally on less common coccinellids. In addition, few studies have been
conducted on other non-target insects. In one of those few studies, Koch et al.
(2003) recently identified H. axyridis as a potential hazard to immature
Monarch butterflies, Danaus plexippus. In laboratory and field-cage studies,
eggs and larvae of D. plexippus incurred significant predation by H. axyridis
adults and larvae.A follow-up study showed that this effect is mediated by the
presence of aphids, the preferred prey of H. axyridis. However,although pre-
dation on the monarch decreased in the presence of aphids, some monarch
larvae were nevertheless consumed (Koch et al.2005).
Pros and Cons of Biological Control 409
In addition to the concerns for non-target effects, H. axyridis has been
identified as a potential pest in the fruit and wine industry, as aggregations
can occur on fruit during harvest. The beetles are particularly difficult to
remove from grapes, and this can lead to tainted wine due to contamination
by alkaloids from the ladybeetle (Koch 2003). Last not least, H. axyridis has
started to disturb local communities in North America, since aggregations
can also occur on house walls, leading not only to the staining of the outside
walls but also to the invasion of houses. In the latter case, the reflex-bleeding
of huge numbers of beetles can cause staining of furniture. Due to these char-
acteristics, H. axyridis has become a significant pest in several regions of the
United States.
Although several studies have unequivocally demonstrated effects on coc-
cinellids in agricultural habitats,the addition of H. axyridis to an existing sys-
tem apparently does not negatively affect aphid control.For instance,Lucas et
al. (2002) showed that the addition of H. axyridis to the predator guild on
apple trees did not hinder the suppression of Aphis citricola and Tetra n y chus
urticae, which is consistent with the findings of other studies. Thus,it gener-
ally appears as if the main effect of the H. axyridis invasion in North America
is not that of causing new problems with pest control but rather a decrease in
populations of native ladybirds and potentially other non-targets.
Harmonia axyridis has also been released in Europe as a biological control
agent.It was first introduced to France for the control of various aphid species
in 1982, i.e.before the negative effects were known from the US. In the 1990s,
H. axyridis was commercialized for the control of aphids in greenhouses and
field crops in several European countries (e.g. Katsoyannos et al. 1997).
Reports are now accumulating which show that this ladybeetle established
feral populations in several countries. After the first sightings in Germany,
Belgium and The Netherlands in the period 2000–2002, monitoring studies
have indicated a rapid spread of populations in all three countries (Fig. 23.1).
The beetle is now being found also in parts of France and the United Kingdom
(www.harlequin-survey.org). Harmonia axyridis has also been released in
Italy but so far no beetles have been found in the field.
Based on the most recent records of massive numbers of H. axyridis at sev-
eral sites in The Netherlands, Belgium and Germany, and the rapid spread in
these countries (Fig. 23.1),it is inevitable that the beetle will soon spread over
larger parts of Europe.At present, however,it is impossible to predict what its
precise impact might be. In contrast to many studies conducted in North
America, so far hardly any data are available on the potential impact this bee-
tle may have in Europe.To what extent data obtained in North America can be
extrapolated remains unclear. One might presume that the situation in
Europe will become comparable to that in North America,though it should be
acknowledged that North America is characterized by a different set of native
and also exotic coccinellid species. Besides H. axyridis, probably the most
important exotic coccinellid in North America is C. septempunctata, which is
D. Babendreier410
native to Europe. The situation in the US therefore warrants being concerned
about the invasion of H. axyridis but can not be used to predict the potential
environmental impact in Europe with high certainty.
23.5 Why Has H. axyridis Become Invasive?
Since it is well known that, once established,only a small fraction of all exotics
subsequently become invasive,the question posed here more generally relates
to our ability to predict whether a species will become invasive or not.Despite
the many studies conducted on H. axyridis, the reasons for the displacement
of native coccinellids by H. axyridis and its general success in North America
are still not well understood. Intraguild predation has been examined as a
mechanism leading to displacement of native species by H. axyridis. Several
studies showed that H. axyridis is intrinsically superior to many other coc-
cinellids (e.g. Michaud 2002b),and results of Yasuda et al. (2004) suggest that
intraguild predation by H. axyridis strongly influence aphidophagous guild
structure. Thus, H. axyridis acts as a top predator in the guild of aphi-
dophagous insects, which may be one factor for its success as an invader.
Pros and Cons of Biological Control 411
2000
2001
2003
2004
2002
2005
Fig. 23.1 Map showing the invasion of Harmonia axyridis in Europe from the first sight-
ings in the year 2000. This ladybeetle has been used for the biocontrol of aphids in green-
houses and the field since 1982 (map extracted from Crop Protection Compendium and
based on information provided by A.J.M. Loomans, Plant Protection Service NL, photo-
graph A.J.M. Loomans)
As another factor, it was demonstrated that H. axyridis suffered less from
attack by parasitoids, compared to native species (Lamana and Miller 1996;
Firlej et al. 2005). This gives H. axyridis an enemy-free space and, thus, an
advantage compared to other competing coccinellids. The beetle is also
known to be tolerant of a wide range of climatic conditions, and shows a high
plasticity in the number of generations per year. In most temperate regions,
two generations are developed but the number can increase to four or five
generations in the Mediterranean, and even more in southern India. This
undoubtedly gives H. axyridis an advantage over coccinellids native to
Europe,which generally are limited to one generation per year.
Important factors for the displacement or coexistence of species may be
specific life history traits. In citrus groves, Michaud (2002b) showed that H.
axyridis was a more voracious predator and had higher fecundity and fertility
than was the case for Coccinella sanguinea.This is clearly important in using
resources efficiently when abundant but may become a disadvantage when
prey is scarce.However, coccinellids and especially H. axyridis react to this sit-
uation of prey limitation through an increase in the number of infertile eggs,
which are used as food for the hatched larvae. This allows the hatched larvae
to consume a higher number of eggs, increasing the amount of energy avail-
able to search for other prey over greater distances (Perry and Roitberg 2005).
Furthermore, the broad host range may allow H. axyridis populations to sur-
vive even if the main prey (aphids) is scarce. Last not least, H. axyridis is
known to be a strong disperser which flies long distances to overwintering
sites in autumn and to new breeding sites in spring. Many of these traits are
correlated with body size and, thus, being one of the largest coccinellids might
be an advantage in itself for H. axyridis.Altogether, these factors may allow H.
axyridis to adapt to new environments,to invade new territories and to estab-
lish new populations (see also Chaps.6 and 8).
23.6 How to Avoid ‘Harmonia Cases’?
There is now general agreement that the potential for non-target effects has to
be evaluated before releasing biological control agents. As noted above, a
rather stringent host range assessment procedure is already in place in weed
biological control, and this since decades. This approach was shown to be
effective because it allows us to reliably judge risks to native flora before intro-
duction (Pemberton 2000) – and the overall need for doing so is now also
acknowledged in arthropod biological control.A problem specific to the latter
is that there are also companies involved which are selling biological control
agents for augmentative releases. Within the last two decades, augmentative
biological control has become a major success story, especially in fighting
greenhouse pests, and it is feared that any strong obligations to conduct host
D. Babendreier412
range tests prior to putting new agents on the market would “kill” the busi-
ness. However, also for all other forms of biological control,there is a risk that
fewer projects will be developed and fewer agents will be approved if hurdles
of host range testing or risk assessment in general are becoming too high.
Thus, the question basically becomes how to prevent ‘Harmonia cases’ with-
out overly hampering biological control.
During the last 10 years, several international activities have addressed the
assessment of non-target effects and the regulation of arthropod biological
control agents. A starting point towards international regulation was marked
by the FAO Code of Conduct for the Import and Release of Exotic Biological
Control Agents; this was adopted in 1995 by the FAO Conference and pub-
lished in 1996 as the International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures No.3
(IPPC 1996). One objective of the Code was to provide a standard for those
countries lacking adequate legislation and procedures to regulate importation
and to analyze risks related to biological control agents.The revised version of
this Code of Conduct has extended its range from classical biological control
to inundative biological control,native natural enemies,microorganisms and
other beneficial organisms, and it also includes evaluation of environmental
impacts (IPPC 2005). This standard will certainly continue to provide guid-
ance for countries which are developing their own legislative systems for bio-
logical control regulation.
Shortly after the Code’s first publication, the European and Mediterranean
Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) broadly endorsed the FAO Code but
recommended that regulation should not slow the importation of import of
biological control agents. Several workshops resulted in two guidance docu-
ments and a ‘positive list’ of organisms for safe use in EPPO countries (EPPO
1999, 2001, 2002). The documents concluded that a certification system
should be put in place for Europe, rather than a registration procedure, to
ensure a ‘light’ regulatory system with efficient and rapid mechanisms. The
reasoning behind this decision was based on previous experience with the
registration system for microbial biological control agents in Europe: the EU
Directive and its implementation is so stringent that it is basically impossible
to register a new microorganism in EU countries.
In 2000, the North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) pub-
lished its Guidelines for Petition for Release of Exotic Entomophagous Agents
for the Biological Control of Pests (RSPM No.12; NAPPO 2000).These guide-
lines are intended to assist researchers and companies in drafting a petition
for the release of exotic entomophagous agents for biological control of pest
insects and mites. It will also assist reviewers and regulators in assessing the
risk of exotic introductions intended for biological control.
Island nations,such as Australia and New Zealand, have had serious prob-
lems with invasive species and,thus, have set up stringent rules to regulate the
import of any organisms from abroad. The 1996 Hazardous Substances and
New Organisms (HSNO) Act in New Zealand (http://www.legislation.govt.nz)
Pros and Cons of Biological Control 413
has attracted considerable attention internationally as very environmentally
focused legislation, and its implementation by ERMA NZ has been observed
with interest.In Australia, biological control agents are regulated by two agen-
cies under three separate Acts,and have been similarly heralded as a thorough
and biosafety-conscious approach. The two systems have some key differ-
ences in approach, and the notability of these approaches, particularly in the
area of scope of the regulatory process,is in the opportunity for public partic-
ipation, and the degree of risk-aversion of the regulatory agencies.
An initiative of OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development) countries resulted in the development of a guidance document
for biological control agents. The document (OECD 2003) proposes guidance
to member countries on information requirements for (1) the characteriza-
tion and identification of the organism, (2) the assessment of safety and
effects on human health, (3) the assessment of environmental risks and (4)
the assessment of efficacy of the organism. In Europe, the biological control
industry expressed concern when the OECD guidance document was pub-
lished, as the information requirements were considered to be too stringent.
As a result, a Commission of the IOBC/WPRS was established in 2003 and a
meeting of scientists, together with the biocontrol industry and regulators,
resulted in the production of a document which gives detailed guidance on
regulation procedures for exotic and indigenous biocontrol agents (Bigler et
al. 2005). Most recently, the European Commission released a call for project
applications with the aim to develop a new, appropriate and balanced system
for regulation of biological control agents (micro- and macro-organisms),
semiochemicals and botanicals. It is expected that, in the foreseeable future,
the EU members and other European countries may regulate invertebrate bio-
logical control agents under uniform principles (but see also Chap. 20).
From this overview on activities worldwide,it is becoming evident that the
potential for non-target effects of biological control agents has become an
important issue recently, and that important progress has been achieved.
However, it was recognized that all these initiatives and guidelines generally
highlight what should be done or what knowledge is required but they are not
designed to provide detailed methods on how one should test for non-target
effects. This gap was addressed by a guide to best practice in host range test-
ing published by Van Driesche and Reardon (2004). In addition,a comprehen-
sive review on the current methods used to assess potential risks of biological
control agents was provided by Babendreier et al.(2005), and a recently pub-
lished book attempts to go a step further by providing guidance on methods
to be used to assess non-target effects of invertebrate biological control agents
of insect pests (Bigler et al. 2006).
Though several different aspects may become relevant for risk assessment
of arthropod biological control agents, including the potential for establish-
ment (in augmentative biocontrol only) or hybridisation (Chap. 16), host
range is the pivotal point in most cases. As Hoddle (2004) pointed out, the
D. Babendreier414
most promising agents are those which exhibit high levels of host and habitat
fidelity,and maximal impact on the target species, ensuring at the same time
minimal impact off target. Host range assessment is essential to all of the
abovementioned documents, and many recent introductions have already
been accompanied by appropriate host range tests. Therefore, there is reason
to expect that polyphagous predators such as H. axyridis will no longer be
released as biological control agents into foreign countries in the future or, if
so, then only after a thorough assessment of possible risks.
23.7 Conclusions
The vast majority of non-native species pose no threat to native biota in the
new environment. However, a small number are highly invasive.In parallel, by
far most introductions of classical biological control agents of both weeds and
arthropods have not caused any harm to the environment, only a small num-
ber leading to unwanted non-target effects. It should be stressed, however,
that those negative cases which have been documented to date (1) mostly
result from projects conducted relatively early in the history of biological con-
trol and (2) most often relate to the introduction of vertebrate top predators
in arthropod biological control. Nowadays, biological control is conducted in
a much more reasonable manner and,as Frank (1998) noted correctly, it may
not be appropriate to criticize today’s biological control for disastrous intro-
ductions of the distant past.
However, adding species to ecosystems (new environments) can have com-
plicated consequences and, undoubtedly, a variety of factors can influence
host use by biological control agents under field conditions. This means that
precluding any negative effects of new biological control introductions will be
notoriously difficult, if at all possible. To reduce this potential as far as possi-
ble, host range testing and general risk assessment procedures must be con-
ducted. Fortunately, much progress has been made in terms of regulation of
biological control agents and methods to be used for assessing potential
effects before introduction into new environments. In fact, the predictive
power of the outcome of biological control introductions (in terms of realized
host range) is rather good, assuming that sound ecological studies have been
conducted beforehand (Babendreier et al. 2005).Saying this, I would even like
to suggest that the large experience and the many data available from the pur-
poseful introduction of biological control agents could be used more inten-
sively to the benefits of invasion biology in general.
In this chapter, I provided some examples of detrimental environmental
effects stemming from introductions of biological control agents but also
showed that many deliberate introductions for biological pest control have
resulted in long-term ecological and economic benefits. Altogether, I suggest
Pros and Cons of Biological Control 415
conducting careful and well-balanced analyses of potential risks and benefits
for biological control projects in the future,keeping in mind that all plant pro-
tection methods as well as the ‘doing nothing’ strategy bear risks and benefits
which all need to be evaluated and weighed up against each other. Clearly,the
value of such analyses much depends on our knowledge on the potential for
non-target effects as well as on the potential benefits. It further depends on
our scale of rating of risks. In view of the current shift towards a ‘risk-free
world’ and overly stringent regulations, there might even be a risk that
promising agents will not be developed because the potential of non-target
effects is judged too high.
References
Alyokhin A,Sewell G (2004) Changes in a lady beetle community following the establish-
ment of three alien species.Biol Invasions 6:463–471
Babendreier D, Kuske S, Bigler F (2003a) Parasitism of non-target butterflies by Tri-
chogramma brassicae Bezdenko (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae) under field
cage and field conditions. Biol Control 26:139–145
Babendreier D,Schoch D, Kuske S,Dorn S, Bigler F (2003b) Non-target habitat exploita-
tion by Trichogramma brassicae (Hym. Trichogrammatidae): what are the risks for
endemic butterflies? Agric Forest Entomol 5:199–208
Babendreier D,Bigler F, Kuhlmann U (2005) Methods used to assess non-target effects of
invertebrate biological control agents of arthropod pests.BioControl 50:821–870
Barron MC, Barlow ND,Wratten SD (2003) Non-target parasitism of the endemic New
Zealand Red Admiral Butterfly (Bassaris gonerilla) by the introduced biological con-
trol agent Pteromalus puparum. Biol Control 27:329–335
Benson J, Pasquale A, Van Driesche R, Elkinton J (2003) Assessment of risk posed by
introduced braconid wasps to Pieris virginiensis, a native woodland butterfly in New
England. Biol Control 26:83–93
Bigler F, Bale J, Cock M, Dreyer H, GreatRex R, Kuhlmann U, Loomans A, van Lenteren J
(2005) Guideline on information requirements for import and release of invertebrate
biological control agents in European countries. Biocontrol News Information,10 pp
Bigler F, Babendreier D, Kuhlmann U (2006) Environmental impact of invertebrates for
biological control of arthropods: methods and risk assessment. CABI, Wallingford,
299 pp
Blossey B, Skinner LC, Taylor J (2001) Impact and management of purple loosestrife
(Lythrum salicaria) in North America. Biodiversity Conserv 10:1787–1807
Brown MW (2004) Role of aphid predator guild in controlling Spirea aphid populations
on apple in West Virginia,USA. Biol Control 29:189–198
Brown MW, Miller SS (1998) Coccinellidae (Coleoptera) in apple orchards of eastern
West Virginia and the impact of invasion by Harmonia axyridis. Entomol News
109:143–151
Colunga-Garcia M, Gage SH (1998) Arrival, establishment, and habitat use of the multi-
colored Asian lady beetle (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) in a Michigan landscape.Envi-
ron Entomol 27:1574–1580
Elliott N, Kieckhefer R, Kauffman W (1996) Effects of an invading coccinellid on native
coccinellids in an agricultural landscape. Oecologia 105:537–544
D. Babendreier416
EPPO (1999) First import of exotic biological control agents for research under con-
tained conditions. EPPO Bull 29:271–272
EPPO (2001) Import and release of exotic biological control agents. EPPO Bull 31:33–35
EPPO (2002) List of biological control agents widely used in the EPPO region. EPPO Bull
32:447–461
Firlej A, Boivin G, Lucas E, Coderre D (2005) First report of Harmonia axyridis Pallas
being attacked by Dinocampus coccinellae Schrank in Canada. Biol Invasions
7:553–556
Frank JH (1998) How risky is biological control? Comm Ecol 79:1829–1834
Gurr G,Wratten S (2000) Biological control:measures of success.Kluwer, Hingham, MA,
429 pp
Hoddle MS (2004) Restoring balance: using exotic species to control invasive exotic
species. Conserv Biol 18:38–49
Howarth FG (1991) Environmental impacts of classical biological control. Annu Rev
Entomol 36:485–509
IPPC (1996) Code of conduct for the import and release of exotic biological control
agents. FAO, Rome,International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures no 3,21 pp
IPPC (2005) Guidelines for the export,shipment,import and release of biological control
agents and other beneficial organisms. FAO, Rome, International Standards for Phy-
tosanitary Measures no 3, 12 pp
Katsoyannos P, Kontodimas DC, Stathas GJ, Tsartsalis CT (1997) Establishment of Har-
monia axyridis on citrus and some data on its phenology in Greece. Phytoparasitica
25:183–191
Koch R (2003) The multicoloured Asian lady beetle, Harmonia axyridis: a review of its
biology,uses in biological control,and non target impacts. J Insect Sci 3:1–16
Koch RL, Hutchison WD, Venette RC, Heimpel GE (2003) Susceptibility of immature
monarch butterfly, Danaus plexippus (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae: Danainae), to pre-
dation by Harmonia axyridis (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Biol Control 28:265–270
Koch RL,Venette RC, Hutchison WD (2005) Influence of alternate prey on predation of
monarch butterfly (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) larvae by the multicolored Asian
lady beetle (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae).Environ Entomol 34:410–416
Lamana ML, Miller JC (1996) Field observations on Harmonia axyridis Pallas
(Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) in Oregon.Biol Control 6:232–237
Louda SM (2000) Negative ecological effects of the musk thistle biological control agent,
Rhinocyllus conicus.In: Follett PS, Duan JJ (eds) Nontarget effects of biological con-
trol. Kluwer,Norwell, MA, pp 215–243
Louda SM,Stiling P (2004) The double-edged sword of biological control in conservation
and restoration.Conserv Biol 18:50–53
Louda SM, Pemberton RW, Johnson MT, Follett PA (2003) Nontarget effects – the
Achilles’ heel of biological control? Retrospective analyses to reduce risk associated
with biocontrol introductions.Annu Rev Entomol 48:365–396
Lucas E,Gagne I, Coderre D (2002) Impact of the arrival of Harmonia axyridis on adults
of Coccinella septempunctata and Coleomegilla maculata (Coleoptera: Coccinelli-
dae). Eur J Entomol 99:457–463
Lynch LD, Hokkanen HMT, Babendreier D, Bigler F, Burgio G, Gao ZH, Kuske S,
Loomans, A, Menzler-Hokkanen I, Thomas MB, Tommasini G, Waage JK, vanLen-
teren JC, Zeng QQ (2001) Insect biological control and non-target effects: a European
perspective. In: Wajnberg E, Scott JK,Quimby PC (eds) Evaluating indirect ecological
effects of biological control.CABI, New York, pp 99–125
Michaud JP (2002a) Biological control of Asian citrus psyllid, Diaphorina citri
(Hemiptera: Psyllidae) in Florida: a preliminary report. Entomol News 113:216–222
Pros and Cons of Biological Control 417
Michaud JP (2002b) Invasion of the Florida citrus ecosystem by Harmonia axyridis
(Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) and asymmetric competition with a native species,
Cycloneda sanguinea.Environ Entomol 31:827–835
NAPPO (2000) Guidelines for petition for release of exotic entomophagous agents for
the biological control of pests.Secretariat of North American Plant Protection Orga-
nization, Ottawa
OECD (2003) Guidance for information requirements for regulations of invertebrates as
biological control agents.OECD Environment, Health and Safety Publications,Series
on Pesticides 21:1–22
Orr DB, GarciaSalazar C,Landis DA (2000).Tri cho g ramma nontarget impacts: a method
for biological control risk assessment.In: Follett PA, Duan JJ (eds) Nontarget effects
of biological control.Kluwer,Norwell,MA, pp 111–125
Pemberton RW (2000) Predictable risk to native plants in weed biological control.
Oecologia 125:489–494
Perry JC, Roitberg BD (2005) Ladybird mothers mitigate offspring starvation risk by lay-
ing trophic eggs. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 58:578–586
Samways M (1997) Classical biological control and biodiversity conservation: what risks
are we prepared to accept? Biodiversity Conserv 6:1309–1316
Simberloff D, Stiling P (1996) How risky is biological control? Ecology 77:1965–1974
Van Driesche RG,Reardon R (2004) Assessing host ranges for parasitoids and predators
used for classical biological control: a guide to best practice. Forest Health Technol-
ogy Enterprise Team, Morgantown, WV
Van Lenteren JC, Bale J, Bigler F, Hokkanen HMT, Loomans AJM (2006) Assessing risks of
releasing exotic biological control agents of arthropod pests. Annu Rev Entomol
51:609–634
Yasuda H, Evans EW, Kajita Y,Urakawa K, Takizawa T (2004) Asymmetric larval interac-
tions between introduced and indigenous ladybirds in North America. Oecologia
141:722–731
D. Babendreier418
24 General Conclusion, or what Has to be Done now?
Wolfga n g N e ntw i g
Now, after numerous experts have given their detailed and well-founded
statements on various aspects of biological invasions in this book,it is time to
settle back for a moment and to rethink this flood of information. Two points
come immediately to mind:
1. The number of alien and invasive species is still increasing, no change is
yet visible,many habitat modifications are irreversible, and earlier pristine
conditions of nature can no longer be restored.
2. There are many recommendations and conclusions which should be fol-
lowed as consequentially as possible – and as soon as possible – to mitigate
the impact of biological invasions. Most of these recommendations can be
attributed to one of the following five categories: scientific research, man-
agement, technical solutions, legislation and administration, and socio-
economy, including education of the public.
24.1 Need for more Research
Though alien species and biological invasions have become very topical in
recent years,it is astonishing (or, should I say, embarrassing) how limited our
knowledge still is. We lack information on the specific characteristics (traits)
of those species which become invasive,and we do not really know how suc-
cessful invaders differ from closely related non-invaders. This makes plausible
prognoses extremely difficult (if these will ever be possible) but it has also to
be stressed that explanation and prediction are two different things.We know
that it is unrealistic to expect to detect single characteristics, or even syn-
dromes, which fully explain invasiveness. Biological invasions are to a large
extent idiosyncratic, triggered by a huge variety of events and driven by spe-
cific factors. A far more realistic approach, therefore, focuses on a complex
interaction of many factors, including species traits, environmental aspects
and human influence, which need to be more fully unravelled. Today, it is
Ecological Studies,Vol. 193
W. Nentwig (Ed.)
Biological Invasions
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007
widely accepted that it is futile to manage particular invasions without
attending to ill-managed landscapes.
We have only limited information on the spreading capabilities of species,
their pathways to the invaded habitats,and on the differences in invasibility of
ecosystems. Apart from expressing concern, we can often offer too few reli-
able, concrete data on the impact of an alien species in an invaded ecosystem.
This point is particularly important because more precise information would
enable us to prioritize a given set of aliens, and to focus at first on those
species with the most detrimental impact. In addition, high-quality invento-
ries of alien species and of experts working on these species are rare.
Thus, one of our utmost urgent needs is to intensify research on alien
species and biological invasions.More experimental research is needed at the
ecosystem level,notably on how invasive species alter ecosystem services. We
also need to learn more about the effects of invasive species in conjunction
with global change, including climate and land use,and other key factors such
as the cycling and enrichment of N, P or other critical substances, hydrologi-
cal changes and impacts of fire. In particular, supporting and regulating ser-
vices presently feature only low levels of research, although both are highly
significant elements of our combat against biological invasions. Recognition
of the value of ecosystem services would,among others,raise the awareness of
the general public.
For the development of appropriate conservation strategies, detailed
knowledge of the ecology of alien species is required. Currently, in many cases
negative impacts of invasive species on native species have been deduced
from correlative evidence, since experimental studies on interactions between
invasive and native species are largely lacking. Also, the management and
conservation of native taxa threatened by hybridization with invading taxa
need more studies which integrate ecological (including genetic) information
at the level of local populations.
One special group of alien species are genetically modified organisms,
which will become increasingly part of our future environment. Similarly to
alien species, their introduction into the natural environment is also irre-
versible,potentially causing hazard to ecosystems.We need to understand the
mechanisms and impacts of introduced genes as well as their potential
impact on biodiversity or ecosystem functions.
24.2 Management from Detection to Eradication or Control
Greater efforts have to be made to eradicate several key alien species in cer-
tain regions. Experience clearly shows that, with proper planning, substantial
financial support and adequate political and social assistance, it is indeed
possible to successfully eradicate alien species. However, there are numerous
W. Nentwig420
cases of alien species which could easily have been removed but where this
has not occurred because of ignorance, little awareness by decision makers,
gaps in the legal framework or authorization process, or because of opposi-
tion by society.
Since our best strategy is the immediate removal of newly detected
invaders before they become established, early detection of any new alien
species through an early warning system is essential. This includes paying
special attention to key areas, based also on lists of most dangerous alien
species (e.g. warning lists). To act quickly, and as a precautionary measure,
the authorities responsible need to have established contingency plans
for the eradication of specific taxa. This rests heavily not only on an appro-
priate information management but also on the ready availability of exper-
tise for the identification of relevant taxa as well as alternative control
methods.
Eradication of an alien species is always better than its control because the
latter implies the persistence of the alien, and affords no full guarantee against
potential future ecological and economical impacts. In cases where eradica-
tion is no longer possible,biological control may be a suitable solution,at least
to minimize the impact of some alien species. Within the last century, a large
body of evidence has accumulated showing that the principle of biological
control is sound and that the approach is effective – its high value in control-
ling alien species needs to be acknowledged. Current levels of biological con-
trol and associated risk assessment analyses need, however,to be intensified.
24.3 Technical Solutions
Overall, it is obvious that screening systems and border controls of traded
goods and travellers have to be expanded and intensified.This includes tech-
nologies to prevent invasive organisms from being transported via contain-
ers, ships,planes, or other introduction vectors. These control costs are well-
invested money, and prevent much higher ecological and economical
follow-up costs. For the methods existing to date, further improvements in
efficacy,ease of application,and cost-benefit tradeoffs have to be found.Addi-
tionally, it is necessary to foresee more than one solution for any particular
problem, in the event of some measures having to be abandoned because of
unexpected turns of event.
Since waterborne transport will continuously increase in future, a rise in
the number of alien species translocated with ships could be the unavoidable
result.For aquatic organisms,the most prominent invasion vectors are ballast
water and hull fouling of ships. Convincing solutions need to be found for
both these problematical aspects. Important pathways are the waterway net-
works in Europe or maritime channels, and both need also technical solutions
General Conclusion,or what Has to be Done now? 421
to minimize the spread of aliens. This may be achieved by the installation of
barriers such as deterrent electrical systems, and chloride or pH-altered
locks.
24.4 Legislation and Administration
As one of the products of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, the Convention on Bio-
logical Diversity has been signed by most countries of the world (among the
few exceptions are Andorra, Iraq,Somalia and the United States of America).
Article 8 (h) of the Convention states that contracting parties should, as far as
possible and wherever appropriate, “prevent the introduction of, control or
eradicate those alien species which threaten ecosystems, habitats or species”.
In Annex I of the Convention, the parties recommend adherence to “the pre-
cautionary approach” and, in Annex II, alien species are defined as “one of
three priority issues” (www.biodiv.org). As parties of this Convention,
national governments have to adapt this framework regulation to national
law. Though there has been some progress in doing so, overall there is a con-
siderable delay in fulfilling the commitments to this international treaty.
On a global scale, our level of protection against invasive species is weak-
ened most by those countries with the poorest regulations against alien
species (i.e. either no regulations or no execution of existing regulations).
Since the budget of many developing countries engaged in prevention is small
or negligible, it is meaningful to support these countries financially, thereby
enabling them to better implement those measures and actions necessary to
reduce the risk of dispersal of alien species.
National legislation and local regulations have to be reviewed to ensure
that the legal status of alien species does not obstruct optimal management
measures. The competencies of all involved authorities and various stake-
holders need to be clearly defined. The authorization process should be
streamlined, in order to facilitate rapid response. It is recommendable to
establish a national coordination body and an independent advisory commit-
tee. It is also advisable to include into these bodies and structures not only rel-
evant state agencies but also regional and local entities as well as industry,
non-governmental organisations and other interest groups.
The management of alien species also requires effective international
cooperation of neighbouring states. This includes exchange of information,
cooperation and coordination among governmental agencies, non-govern-
mental organisations and the private sector, e.g. trading companies and the
hardly supervised aquaculture industries.
W. Nentwig422
24.5 Socio-Economy and Education
Through their effect on our environment,alien species have huge implications
for society. However, our society usually does not appreciate the extent of its
dependence on natural ecosystems. This indicates that public information
and awareness are critical, and specific education programs or public aware-
ness campaigns are necessary. This education has to start at the school level
and, ideally, should reach the whole society.Special attention should be given
to include relevant societal sectors such as hunters,fishermen, foresters, gar-
deners, landscape architects, landowners, scientists, those involved in aqua-
culture and the pet trade, and non-governmental organisations, especially
animal rights organisations.
Public awareness has to be created for two important principles. The pre-
cautionary principle implies that future species introductions should be
avoided wherever possible. Further, it is wise to be on the safe side and to
eradicate aliens as soon as they are detected. The costs-by-cause principle
applies economic costs to the damage caused by alien species, which have to
be refunded by the responsible party. Thus, a direct link exists between alien
species,ecosystem structure and function, and ecosystem goods and services,
especially those with direct market valuation.This contrasts strongly with the
widely spread laissez-faire mentality of our society.
It is desirable to create market-based instruments (e.g. national taxes,
import tariffs and tradable permits) to directly address invasion-externalities,
and to offer incentives for those who trade in high-risk material to avoid such
risks and, therefore, any costs which these could entail for society. Such eco-
nomic instruments may include licence fees (risky products would be more
expensive), insurances or other cost-sharing instruments. By creating signals
in the market,private and society interests should coincide and induce changes
in the individual’s behaviour to reduce the likelihood of invasion.
A concrete example serves to illustrate such possible effects. Since many
exotic birds and fish are released or escape from captivity into the wild where
they cause problems, the selling price of such exotic species should be raised
considerably, making it unattractive for most lovers of birds and fish to buy and
keep them. Concurrently, restrictions to keep native bird and fish species
should be lowered. This would make breeding natives more attractive and,
within a few animal generations, these species would become more accus-
tomed to captivity,i.e. breeding success would improve and market demands
would be easily met based on captivity breeding. Escape of these species would
not cause any harm to the environment, on condition that local provenance be
secured to avoid eroding effects on the genetic diversity of wild populations.
Such pilot projects have a highly significant value and should be tested under
real conditions.In general,more economic studies which further explore eco-
nomic policies in the context of alien species are urgently required.
General Conclusion,or what Has to be Done now? 423
Subject Index
A
Abies grandis 334
abundance 409
Acacia 113, 164, 166, 192, 228, 241, 341
–cyclops 221
–longifolia 334, 335
–mearnsii 224, 229, 334–337
–melanoxylon 221
–nilotica 202
acclimatisation society 2, 130
Achatina fulica 21
acidification 169, 170, 226
Acridotheres cristatellus 136
Adalia bipunctata 409
adaptive evolution 86, 91,92, 276
adhesion 40, 41
administration 419, 422
Aedes 24
–aegypti 230, 335
–albopictus 12
Aegilops triuncialis 334, 337
Aesculus hippocastanum 14
aesthetic 154, 218, 221–228, 231, 236,
249, 333, 335
Ageratum 98, 118
agriculture 30, 83, 147, 185, 219, 221,
229, 300, 305, 315, 316, 320, 321, 325,
333, 334, 357, 361, 362, 367, 371, 394,
409, 410
Agropyron 118
Agrostis 118
–stolonifera 185
AIDS 2, 324
air quality 153, 218,228, 230, 333
airport 12, 13
– malaria 12
Aix galericulata 23
Albizia 164
–falcataria 165, 166
Aleutian disease 18
alfalfa weevil 404
alga 9, 49, 52, 224, 227, 230, 243, 249,
252, 334–337, 344, 346, 387, 390, 391,
394
alkaloid 410
Allee effect 128, 133
allelopathy 77, 83, 169, 223, 226
allergenic 34
allergy 337, 405
alligator 24
allopatric 275, 277, 282, 283, 286
allopolyploid 109
Alopecurus pratensis 187
Ambrosia artemisiifolia 34, 337
ambrosia beetle 17
Ameiurus melas 21
–nebulosus 21
American black duck 282
– catfish 21
– mink 18, 280, 397
ammonium 163–177
amphibian 24, 228, 319–321, 321, 326,
398
amphipod 62, 63, 261–267
Amsinckia 118
Anas nesiotis 388
–platyrhynchos 282
–rubripes 282
–superciliosa 282
Anastrepha suspensa 371
anchovy 240, 246
angler 20, 287
Anguilla anguilla 21, 265
Anguillicola crassus 21
animal rights organisation 396, 423
annelid 5, 264
Anobiidae 16
Anopheles gambiae 386, 389
–labranchiae 386
Anoplophora glabripennis 17, 369
ant 13, 17, 205, 229, 230, 321, 322
anthrax 323
Anthus petrosus 388
anti-fouling 54, 246
antler 19
Aonidiella aurantii 378
Aphanomyces astaci 21
aphid 16, 227, 229, 381, 408–412
Aphis citricola 410
–gossypii 16
–spiraecola 408
Apis mellifera 230
apple maggot 375
– snail 222, 224
aquaculture 11, 33, 49–55, 63, 227, 263,
334–336, 392, 394, 422, 423
aquarium 25, 37, 249, 263
Arabidopsis thaliana 302
arachnid 5
archaeophytes 30
area of origin 14, 116
Argentine ant 13, 92, 205,322, 335
Arrhenatherum elatius 187
arthropod 5, 11, 229, 266, 321, 322, 403,
406, 412–415
Arthurdendyus triangulates 17, 205
Arundo donax 173, 232
Arvicola terrestris 184
Ascaridia columbae 19
Asellus aquaticus 261
Asian ladybeetle 408–415
– longhorn beetle 17, 321,369
– tapeworm 22
– tiger mosquito 12
ass 19
Asteraceae 118
asthma 337
Asworthius sidemi 19
Atlantic salmon 281
atmosphere 150, 153, 163, 168, 170–174,
199, 201, 202, 207, 218, 225, 232, 333,
367, 378
Atriplex 118
attractant 372, 384, 392
augmentative biocontrol 403, 412, 414
Aurelia 244, 245
authority 70, 396, 398, 406, 421, 422
Autographa californica 334
Ave n a 174
Axis axis 19
B
Bacillus thuringiensis 294, 295
backcrossing 86, 90, 277, 281
bacteria 2, 52, 84, 169, 230, 294–307
bacteriophage 296
Bactrocera xanthodes 372
Baculovirus 334
bait 282, 372, 373, 392
ballast material 15, 38, 44,285
– water 15, 16, 33, 49–55, 63, 68–70, 241,
247, 249, 322, 353, 359, 421
barb goatgrass 334, 337
Barbary sheep 396
barrier 49–55, 112, 128, 129, 135, 137,
148, 149, 181, 193, 215, 249, 264, 283,
287, 295, 298, 370–373, 382, 422
Bassaris gonerilla 407
Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis 335
Baylisascaris procyonis 18
beaver 184, 390, 391, 394
beekeeper 37
beetle 16, 17, 23, 203, 205, 206, 321, 326,
355, 361, 369, 377, 379, 381, 403–412
Bemisia tabaci 16, 221, 227
Berberis thunbergii 232
Beroë ovata 241, 248
Bidens 118
biennial 105, 107
biodiversity 2, 6, 13, 22, 24, 29, 97, 163,
164, 188, 192, 193, 197, 202, 204, 207,
218–221, 224, 229, 230, 233, 257, 263,
269, 281, 304, 325, 385, 389, 396, 420
bioeconomic model 355
biogeochemistry 163, 164, 169, 199, 203
biogeography 1, 9, 11, 15, 107, 112, 135,
181, 182, 189, 193, 215, 244
biological control 11, 22, 23, 89,230,
315, 321, 326, 332–335, 351, 391, 393,
403–416, 421
biophilia 1
biosafety 414
biosecurity 354, 355, 359–362
biotic resistance hypothesis 82–85,
88–91
Subject Index426
bird 5, 22, 130–138, 203, 227, 228, 281,
282, 287, 319, 320, 326, 423
– flu 323
Bison bison 284
–bonasus 19
Bivalvia 15, 50–52, 267, 268
black cherry 35
– list 356
– wattle 224, 334–338
Blackfordia viginica 245
blackwood 221
Blatta germanica 13
–orientalis 13
boating 222, 231
Boiga irregularis 14, 224, 320
Bos taurus 19, 284
Bostrichidae 16
Bothriocephalus opsarichthydis 22
bottleneck 29, 66, 86, 87, 90, 91
Brachiacantha ursina 409
brackish 53, 63, 64
brain 133, 137
Branchiura sowerbyi 264
Branta canadensis 23
brass 368
Brassica napus 38, 298, 301
–rapa 297, 298, 301
breeding system 103, 105, 109,117
Brevipalpus chilensis 381
Bromus 118, 174
–erectus 187
–tectorum 42, 46, 123, 230, 317, 318,
335
brook trout 280
brown rat 15 388
– tree snake 224, 320
– trout 20, 232, 281, 335, 337
brucellosis 319, 323
Bruchidae 16
brushtail possum 390
– rock wallabies 390
Bt corn 294
– transgene 301
Bucephalus polymorphus 15
buffalo 19
buffelgrass 232
Bufo marinus 320
bull trout 280
bullfrog 21, 24
burning 115, 118, 148
butterfly 174, 294, 407
byssal fibre 266
C
C4175, 201, 207
Cactoblastis cactorum 406
caddis fly 260
Calamagrostis villosa 170
California cord grass 284
– red scale 378
Calluna vulgaris 170
Calonectris diomedea 388
CAM plant 201
Cameraria ohridella 14, 335
Campbell Island teal 388
Canada goose 23
– thistle 203
Canadian beaver 391, 394
canal 15, 49, 51, 59–71, 243, 260, 265,
268, 269, 283
cane toad 320, 321
Canis latrans 284
–lupus 19, 284
cannibalism 408
canola 42
Capillaria 19
Capobrotus 118
Capra aegagrus hircus 19, 318, 335
Capreolus capreolus 19
Carassius auratus 25
carbon 201, 228, 232, 233, 264, 304
– dioxide 198, 199–204, 225, 230, 367,
378, 381
carcinogen 377
Carcinus maenus 227, 229
Carduus nutans 169
Carex nudata 185
carnivore 134, 386
carp 230
Caspiobdella fadejewi 264
cassava mealy bug 326
Cassiopea andromeda 243, 247, 249
Castanea sativa 31
Castor canadensis 391, 394
–fiber 184
casual 30, 33, 100, 108, 113, 120
Casuarina equitesifolia 165
cat 19, 22, 284, 318, 319, 325, 389–391,
396, 397
cattle 19, 20, 42, 148, 174, 225, 229, 284,
318, 319, 325
Caulerpa racemosa 335, 337
–taxifolia 227, 231, 334, 387, 390, 391,
394
Subject Index 427
CBD 257, 331, 369, 385, 422
Celastrus 118
Centaurea 83, 118
Centaurea dissusa 187
–solstitalis 228, 317, 362
Ceratitis capitata 373, 375
Cercopagis pengoi 63, 64
cereal 31, 316
– leaf beetle 381
Cervus canadensis 19
–elaphus 19
–nippon 19
channel 9, 70, 230, 258–260, 263, 421
chaparral 174
Chara connivens 50
cheat grass 230, 317, 318,325, 335
Chelicorophium curvispinum 62
chestnut blight 227
Chilocorus stigma 409
Chinese mitten crab 63
– water deer 19
Chironomidae 261, 264, 267
chital 19
Chlamydophila psittaci 19
chlorophyll 116
chloroplast 279
cholera 52, 230, 324
Chondrilla juncea 34, 333, 334
chromosome 299, 306
Chrysaora quinquecirrha 246
Chrysemys scripta elegans 321
cigarette beetle 379
Cinara cupressi 229
Cirsium arvense 185, 203
CITES 23
citrus canker 368
climate 218, 223–226, 230, 233, 333, 367,
420
– change 59, 68, 137, 145, 163, 183,
197–208, 233, 368
clonal 103, 105, 108, 109, 112, 173, 174,
285
Clupeonella 241
Cnidaria 5, 239, 242–245
coast 15, 20, 40, 49–51, 54, 63–70, 167,
168, 171, 174, 203, 205, 218, 226, 227,
231, 240, 246, 322, 323, 393, 396
coccid 16
Coccinella sanguinea 412
–septempunctata 409, 410
–transversoguttata 409
Coccinellidae 408–415
Cochiomyia hominivorax 386
cockroach 13
co-evolution 94, 185, 305
cold treatment 375
Coleosoma floridanum 16
Colorado potato beetle 16, 205, 206,
355, 361
Columbia livia 19, 319
comb jelly 229, 334
Commelina 118
commensalism 133, 137
common cord grass 285
– garden experiment 88
– reed 334, 337
community structure 62, 63,67, 134,
152, 166, 168, 176, 183–188, 223, 224
competition 34, 81, 84, 85, 90–92, 108,
134, 150, 154–156, 170, 171, 175,
186–189, 203, 223, 229, 241, 246, 257,
264–268, 280, 298, 301, 334, 367, 382
confamilial 106, 113, 115, 120
congeneric 98, 101, 106–110, 113–121,
282
conjugation 294–297
connectivity 148
Connochaetes taurinus 19
conservation 5, 33, 137, 147, 154, 155,
192, 208, 260, 269, 277, 288, 337, 385,
386, 420
container 12, 14, 15, 70, 369, 421
contaminant 11, 371, 410
control 234, 332, 354, 362
– strategy 359–361
convention on biological diversity 257,
331, 369, 385, 422
cooling water 64, 260
copepod 52, 241
Coptotermes 229
Corbicula fluminalis 62
–fluminea 64, 65, 261, 265–268, 322
Cornigerius maeoticus 63, 64
Corophium curvispinum 261–266
corridor 9, 29, 38–43, 59–70, 152, 268,
275, 286
Cortaderia 118
Cory’s shearwater 388
Corylus avellana 35
cost 3, 18, 25, 59, 71, 116, 133, 134, 160,
163, 169, 217–224, 242, 299, 301–303,
316–325, 332, 339, 341–343,
353–364, 373–375, 377, 381, 382, 385,
391–396, 399, 404, 421, 423
Subject Index428
cost-benefit 339, 341–343, 354, 421
cost-sharing 363, 423
Cotesia glomerata 407
cotton 217, 229
Cottus gobio 285
Coturnix c. conturnix 283
coyote 284
coypu 184, 389, 393–395
Crataegus 118
crayfish 21, 257, 281, 282
– plague 21
crested myna 136
Cronartium ribicola 227
crop 1, 16, 30–38, 42, 44, 120, 217, 221,
227, 229, 284, 297, 301, 315–321, 324,
357, 367, 391, 405, 409, 410
CR-strategist 103
crustacean 5, 15, 62, 63, 67, 227, 265
Cryphonectria parasitica 227
cryptogenic 239, 244
CSR strategy 105
C-strategist 103
Ctenopharyngodon idella 22, 334
Ctenophora 63, 239–241
Cucujidae 16
Culex 24
cultivation 16, 31, 35–38, 44, 103, 114,
301
cultural 155, 218–222, 228, 231–234,
333–337
– heritage 218, 220, 228
Curculionidae 16, 374
Cyatheaceae 118
Cycloneda munda 409
Cyclura carinata 389
Cyprinodon pecosensis 288
–variegatus 288
Cyprinus carpio 230
cytonuclear theory 279
D
Dactylis glomerata 34
Dama dama 19
Danaus plexippus 409
dandelion 335
DDT 393
decapod 67, 69
decision maker 4, 343, 357, 362,395,
397, 421
decomposing 157, 169, 223, 224, 232,
258, 404
demographic 79–84, 86, 91, 128, 135,
199, 287
Dendrocoelum romanodanubiale 262
Dendroctonus frontalis 205
dengue fever 12, 230, 324,335
Dermestidae 16, 377
Deschampsia flexuosa 170
desert 153, 154, 175, 202, 228, 232
developing country 363
Diabrotica virgifera 12, 13, 80
diapause 375, 376
diatom 52
Dikerogammarus bispinosus 63
–villosus 62, 262, 265, 266
Diptera 16, 23
disease 2, 12, 18–20, 24, 53, 84, 150, 218,
221, 227, 228, 230, 257, 295, 307, 313,
319, 320, 323, 324, 333, 335, 367, 370,
386, 403
dispersal 1, 9, 11, 18, 29–31, 36–43, 49,
50, 59–68, 101, 103, 105, 110–114,
117, 119, 120, 147, 150, 151, 153, 154,
158, 189, 190, 198–200, 206, 207, 227,
228, 243, 244, 281, 300–306, 338, 389,
406, 408, 422
displacement 279–284, 304, 335, 405,
409, 411, 412
distribution 1, 14, 16, 18, 19, 25, 34,
39–41, 64, 69, 87, 99–101, 106, 109,
171, 181–183, 187, 189, 197–199, 205,
245, 265, 283, 338
disturbance 40, 82, 130, 148, 150, 157,
163, 164, 168, 172, 185–189, 191,
197–200, 203, 205–207, 223–226,
232, 268, 286, 318, 355, 357, 362
disturbance hypothesis 82
Diuraphis noxia 333, 334
DNA 278, 279, 295, 296
dog 19, 22, 284, 318, 319
domesticated 1, 18–21, 42, 158, 275, 281,
283, 295, 302
dormancy 103, 117
Dreissena polymorpha 15, 52, 53, 61–64,
228, 261–268, 322, 333–335, 361
drought 117, 206
dry season 205
Dugesia tigrina 264
dung 42
dunnock 388
Dutch elm disease 227
Subject Index 429
E
early warning system 55, 398, 421
earthworm 5, 17
East African giant snail 21
– Coast fever 323
Eastern cottontail 20
Echinogammarus ischnus 262
Echium 118
Echthromorpha intricatoria 407
ecological niche 182, 183,204
– theory 79–93
economic 18, 22, 25, 80, 223, 233–234,
353–364, 367, 371, 389, 393, 394, 397,
399, 405, 421
– assessment 220, 394
– cost 3, 59, 313, 315–326, 399, 423
– damage 3, 16, 315, 325
– impact 53, 79, 81, 169, 217, 220, 242,
246, 315, 394
– incentive 154
– problem 80, 240
– value 218, 219, 230, 325
ecosystem 2, 17, 21, 33, 56, 62, 63, 89,
106, 138, 145, 147–160, 164–170,
181–194, 197–208, 217–234,
315–326, 331–340, 357, 360,
367–369, 403–405, 409, 415, 420–423
– function 168, 199, 202, 305, 307,
331–336, 420
– service 208, 215, 217–234, 325,
331–338, 341–343, 420, 423
ecotourism 221, 231
Ectopistes migratorius 386
education 4, 218, 333, 335, 396, 419, 423
eel 21, 265
Ehrharta calycina 167
EICA hypothesis 82, 85–92, 187
Eichhornia crassipes 232
Eimeria 19
El Niño 69
electric power plant 322
Elodea canadensis 37
empty niche hypothesis 82, 83, 88
Emys orbicularis 24
Encarsia formosa 404
encephalitis 18, 320
endangered species 23, 177, 192,220,
222, 267, 278, 282, 315–318, 322, 334,
367, 389, 406
endemic 14, 21, 34, 220, 232, 318, 335,
388, 392, 407
endozoochory 42
enemy release hypothesis 82, 84,87–91,
187, 269
energy 145, 192, 215, 223, 224, 247, 257,
266, 382, 412
Engraulis encrasiclolus 241
Ephestia elutella 379
–kuehniella 16
EPPO 340, 413
Equus asinus asinus 19
–caballus 19, 334
eradication 4, 17, 18, 55, 153, 155, 227,
234, 338, 351, 354, 355, 361, 363, 368,
369, 385–399, 420, 421
Ergalatex contracta 70
Eriocheir sinensis 63
ermine 22
erosion 2, 155, 157, 218, 222–225, 228,
231, 232, 258, 319, 333, 335
Erpobdella octoculata 261
escape 11, 17–25, 85, 103, 114, 128, 129,
187, 293–307, 317, 407, 423
estuary 63, 64, 230, 242, 246, 263
ethylene dibromide 377, 379
Eucalyptus 36, 118, 221, 230, 341
–saligna 166
Euglandina rosea 229, 407
Eupatorium 98, 118
Euphorbia esula 229
European beaver 184
–bison 19
– corn borer 407
– pond terrapin 24
– starling 229
eutrophication 145, 163–177, 261
Evadne anonyx 63, 64
evapotranspiration 225, 229
evolution 1, 11, 29, 79–93, 132, 181,
185–187, 276–278, 285–288, 293, 296
evolutionary theory 79–93
externality 355, 356, 363, 423
extinction 21–23, 128, 133, 206, 207,
221–224, 229, 257, 260, 269, 275, 284,
305, 306, 315, 318, 321, 407
extirpation 193, 313, 336, 386, 407
F
Fabaceae 118
Fallopia 36, 37
–japonica 231
Subject Index430
fallow deer 19
famine 229
farming 11, 382
farmland 226, 227
fecundity 25, 79, 81, 115, 117, 119, 206,
207, 247, 280, 282, 301, 302, 305, 412
Felis silvestris 19, 284
ferret 284
fertility 154, 157, 173, 177, 218–221, 225,
232, 412
fertilization 103, 105, 150, 157, 174, 240,
283
fertilizer 145, 169, 174
fiber 217, 221, 229, 331, 333
Ficus 109
fire 117, 153–159, 169, 174–177, 200,
202, 206, 207, 222–225, 230, 318, 335,
420
– tree 224
firewood 221
fish 5, 20, 67–70, 227, 228, 241, 257, 262,
263, 266, 280–283, 287, 294, 298,
302–306, 321, 326, 337, 386, 390, 423
fishermen 396–398, 423
fishery 55, 63, 217, 227, 229, 241,
243–246, 287, 315, 316, 321, 334, 335,
392, 394
fishing 222, 227, 231, 242, 244, 336
fitness 84–86, 183, 277–284, 299–303,
305
flatworm 205, 264
flood 145, 157, 206, 218, 219, 222, 225,
230, 335
flowering 103, 105, 108–112, 117, 119
food 6, 19, 21, 24, 50, 60, 128, 133–137,
217, 221–224, 229, 241, 245–247, 257,
264–267, 297, 303, 315–317, 322, 325,
331–334, 370, 378, 382, 412
foot-and-mouth disease 319, 323
forest 17, 22, 31, 34–36, 42, 155, 157, 165,
170, 172, 173, 177, 201–207, 222, 226,
227, 231, 258, 260, 315, 316, 321, 333,
334, 394, 398, 407
forester 398, 423
forestry 35, 36, 315, 316, 333, 334, 394
founder effect 36, 41, 82,86–89, 128,130
fox 22
fragmentation 137, 198, 261, 287, 395
Frankliniella intonsa 16
–occidentalis 363
freshwater 53, 54, 67, 217, 221, 228, 257
fruit fly 368, 371–380,386
fuel 217, 333, 334
– combustion 169
– wood 336–338
fumigation 372, 375–378, 381
functional type 113, 176, 202–205,226
fundamental niche 183
fungicid 261
fungus 5, 17, 21, 227, 235, 344
fur farm 11, 17,18, 280
G
game 11, 19–21, 282, 283, 287, 396
Gammarus duebeni 265
–tigrinus 262–265
gardener 4, 357, 423
Gastropoda 52, 264, 267
GATT 3, 357
gene flow 86, 293–307
– therapy 220
general public 234, 351, 396,397, 420
generalized linear mixed model 130,
131
generation time 53, 54, 86,117, 120,182,
247, 277, 280, 285, 296, 298, 388, 412,
423
genetic architecture 82, 87
– integrity 275
– marker 279
– pollution 278
genetically modified organism 215, 277,
293–307, 420
genome 279
genotype 86, 87, 279, 293, 295, 298–300,
305
geophyt 103
germination 43, 103, 105, 117, 119, 207
giant reed 232
glassy-winged sharpshooter 84
global change 163, 164,198, 199, 233,
420
– warming 66, 69, 177
globalization 3, 11, 59, 67–69, 70, 145,
351, 363
GloBallast 49
GMM 295, 297, 300, 304
GMO 293–307, 420
GNP 3, 6, 16
goat 19, 148, 318, 319, 335
goldband goatfish 68
goldfish 24, 25
Subject Index 431
goods 4, 9, 11, 12, 25, 30, 31, 34, 37–39,
44, 66, 70, 192, 198, 217–219, 223,
233, 234, 260, 316, 331, 332, 336, 341,
355–358, 364, 421, 423
gooseberry 307
gooseberry mildew 307
government 354–358, 362–364, 394, 422
grand fir 334
grass carp 22, 334
grassland 34, 148, 168, 170, 172, 174,
183, 185, 190, 202, 225–228, 258, 317
grazing 148, 174, 318, 334, 367
green crab 227, 229
greenhouse 16, 42, 208, 230, 373, 404,
410–412
grey squirrel 24, 228,390,395
Grime’s life strategy 108, 118
groundwater 64, 170
growth form 116
– hormone 295, 302, 303
guild 223, 410, 411
gum tree 221
gypsy moth 231, 334
H
hairiness 105
Hakea 118
Haplochromis 21
harbour 38
Harmonia axyridis 403, 408–415
hazelnut 35
health 20, 55, 155, 220, 221, 239, 244,
315, 316, 324, 337, 361, 370, 386, 393,
405, 414
heated air treatment 375–377
heathland 170
heavy metal 261
Helianthus tuberosus 174
Heliothrips haemorroidalis 16
hemicryptophyt 103
hemipteran 16, 23
Heracleum mantegazzianum 37
herbicide 156–158, 261, 295
herbicide-resistance–302
herbivore 22, 84, 117, 118, 134, 183, 187,
206, 224, 301, 301, 305, 367, 405, 408
hermaphrodite 105, 109, 247
Herpestes javanicus 229
Hessian fly 380
Heteropoda venatoria 17
heterozygote disadvantage 277
Hieracium 173
Hippodamia tredecimpunctata 409
histoplasmosis 320
hitch-hiker 371
HIV 3, 324
Homalodisca coagulata 84
homogenisation 2, 11, 193, 277
honey bee 230
horizontal gene flow 296, 297,299, 300
horse 18, 19, 42, 318, 319, 334
– chestnut 14
– chestnut leaf miner 14, 335
horticulture 35, 37, 43, 355, 356, 368, 394
host 22, 84, 85, 88–91, 185, 199–202, 206,
207, 265–268, 293, 296, 299, 300, 320,
324, 353, 356, 368, 371, 372, 380, 382,
404–407, 412–415
hot water immersion 375, 379
hotspot 171
house mouse 15, 228, 318,392
hull fouling 15, 49–55, 68,249,421
hunter 19, 394, 396, 398, 423
hurricane 206, 231, 367
hybrid swarm 276, 288
– zone 281
hybridisation 33, 34, 86, 90–92, 275–288,
293, 294, 297, 298, 302, 334, 414, 420
– hypothesis 82
hydomedusae 247
Hydrilla verticillata 231, 335
Hydrobates pelagicus 388
hydroelectric power 222, 260
hydrogen cyanide 377
Hydropotes inermis 19
Hydropsychoe contubernalis 264
Hydrozoa 245
Hymenoptera 23
Hypania invalida 262
Hyparrhenia 207
I
iceplant 226
ICES 53
ichneumonid 407
idiosyncratic 99, 132, 186, 188, 198, 419
iguana 389
IMO 53
Impatiens 118
–glandulifera 37, 231
Subject Index432
inbreeding depression 86
Indian mongoose 229, 326
industry 3, 4, 20, 64, 147, 171, 201, 221,
242, 243, 260, 261, 313, 323, 335, 336,
355–357, 363, 392, 410, 414, 422
infection 17, 24, 296, 335, 358
influenza 2, 323, 324
insect 5, 12, 16, 23, 80, 103, 109, 174,
203–206, 221, 227, 230, 295, 320–323,
326, 369, 373, 375–380, 403–409, 411,
413
insecticide 12, 261, 294, 379, 404
inspection 351, 355–358, 363, 368
insurance 4, 363, 423
interbreeding 277, 279, 287
intraguild predation 265, 266, 411
introduction 4, 6, 11, 12, 18, 23, 24, 25,
29–35, 43, 44, 49–55, 59, 62, 64, 68,
81, 86, 90–92, 98, 101, 103, 105, 111,
112, 127, 128–138, 164, 168, 181, 186,
192, 224, 240–243, 249, 257, 268,
283–287, 298, 306, 316, 321, 325, 326,
332, 336, 339, 340, 353–361, 364, 368,
385, 391, 403–408, 412–415, 420–423
introgression 275–288
invasibility 64, 89, 121, 145, 149, 155,
164, 170–172, 177, 181–194, 198, 201,
207, 226, 233, 268, 353, 420
invasive meltdown 82, 84, 268,367
invasiveness 80, 81, 86, 89, 93, 97–121,
198, 201, 285, 293, 305
ionizing irradiation 375, 379, 380
IPPC 369–371, 413
irradiation 375, 379, 380, 392
irrigation 18, 59, 222
island 22, 38, 130, 165, 171, 184–186,
204, 207, 231, 318, 387, 392, 413
isopod 62, 231, 262, 265
isoprene 230
J
Jaera istri 262, 265
Japanese barberry 232
– knotweed 231
– stilt grass 232
jellyfish 16, 239–250
K
keystone species 148, 199,224
Khapra beetle 368
K-strategy 103, 105, 108
kudzu 230
L
ladybeetle 403, 408–415
lag phase 31, 390, 391
lake 1, 21, 37, 53, 67, 104, 228, 253, 258,
263, 266, 267, 313, 335, 336, 361
land management 147–160
– use 89, 147–160, 163, 185, 198, 225,
233, 261, 420
landowner 398, 423
landscape 29, 31, 35–37, 41, 101,
148–160, 190, 191, 197, 204, 228, 303,
315, 335, 357, 409, 420, 423
Lantana camara 229, 232
largemouth brass 21
Lasioderma serricorne 379
Lates niloticus 21, 336
laurophyllization 203
law 155, 325
leaf texture 105
leafy spurge 229
leech 267
Leggadina lakedownensis 392
legislation 370, 394, 395, 398, 413, 414,
419, 421, 422
leguminous 224
Lepidoptera 16, 23, 378, 380
Lepomis auritius 25
Leptinotarsa decemlineata 16, 205, 206,
355, 361
Lessepsian migration 15, 51, 244
Leucaena 164
liberation action 18
license fee 363
life cycle 84, 112, 298
– form 103, 105, 107, 113, 116, 157, 224
– history 98, 101, 112, 128, 129,
133–135, 137, 247, 250, 389
– strategy 103, 105108, 116
– table 407
Linepithema humile 13, 92, 205, 322, 335
litter 164–167, 169, 224
Littorina littorea 50
Subject Index 433
livestock 18, 19, 30, 42, 148, 155, 217,
228, 229, 315, 319, 323, 324, 335, 367,
386, 393
lizard 320
– fish 68
lock 61, 66, 67, 70, 71, 422
Lolium 174
Lonicera 118
–maackii 335
Lotus corniculatus 306
Lupinus arboreus 165, 167
–polyphyllus 42, 165
Lymantria dispar 231, 334
Lyme disease 324
Lythrum alatum 404
–salicaria 231, 317, 334, 404
M
macrobenthic 62
macrophyt 22, 67, 231, 263
Mactrinula tryphera 70
Maeotias marginata 245
malaria 12, 24, 324, 386, 389, 393
mallard 282
mammal 5, 16–19, 22, 130, 138, 184, 204,
225–228, 281, 284, 287, 318–321, 326,
379, 398
management 29, 43, 54, 55, 89, 97,
147–160, 197, 198, 202, 207, 226, 229,
288, 331, 339–344, 354–356, 361, 362,
369–371, 386, 393, 395–398, 420–422
Mandarin duck 23
mangrove 243
manure 44
mapping 171, 177
Marenzelleria neglecta 63
mariculture 11, 21, 387
marine 16, 33, 38, 49–55, 67–71, 203,
229, 239–250, 386, 390–394, 398
market 18, 35, 69, 70, 217–220, 233, 249,
341, 343, 356, 359, 363, 374, 382, 413,
423
marsh 18, 230–232, 284
marsupial 319
Matricaria discoida 35
Mayetiola destructor 380
mayfly 260
medfly 373, 393
medicine 217, 220, 221, 224
Mediterranean mussel 21
medusa 239–245
megafauna 386
Megalops atlanticus 67
Melaleuca quinquenervia 222, 231
Melia azedarach 229
Mesembryanthemum crystallinum 192,
226
mesopredator 390
Mesorhizobium loti 306
mesotrophic 170
mesquite 228, 229
methane 230
methyl bromide 372, 375,377, 381
Metrosideros polymorpha 169
microclimate 223, 225, 226, 230
Micropterus salmoides 21, 232
microsatellite 278
microsite 153
Microstegium vimineum 232
migration 2, 9, 15, 30, 40, 41, 49, 51, 70,
89, 133, 138, 261, 269, 275, 283, 286
Mikania 118
Mimosa pigra 231
mineralisation 232, 304
mining 147
mink 18, 280, 397
minnow 280
mite 321, 323, 381, 405
mitigation 55, 372, 395, 398, 419, 424
Mnemiopsis leidyi 16, 63, 229, 240, 241,
246–248, 334
Moerisia lyonsii 245
moisture 105, 149, 153, 203, 228, 376
mollusc 5, 67–70, 227, 228, 230, 257,
266–268, 322
Monarch butterfly 294, 409
monetary 218–222, 232, 339, 341, 342,
393
mongoose 407
monitoring 53, 154, 171, 173, 247, 389,
393–396, 399, 410
monk parakeet 24
monoecious 103, 105, 109
Monomorium pharaonis 13
Montreal Protocol 377
mortality 129, 157, 203, 231, 294, 303,
379, 381, 407
mosquito 12, 24, 51, 230, 335, 386
mouth bass 231
mucous secretion 264
Muntiacus reevesi 19
muntjac 19
Subject Index434
Murdannia 118
Mus musculus 15, 228, 318
muskrat 18, 184
Mustela erminea 22
–furo 284
–lutreola 18, 280
–putorius 284
–vision 18, 280
mutagen 377
mutualism 84, 90, 92, 223, 224
mutualist facilitation hypothesis 82
Mya arenaria 50
Mycetophagidae 16
mycorrhiza 84, 167, 168, 174
Myiopsitta monachus 24
Myocastor coypus 17, 18, 22, 184
Myrica faya 164–168, 192, 224
Myriophyllum spicatum 222
Mytilopsis 386, 392
Mytilus galloprovincialis 21
Myxobolus cerebralis 228
Myxomatosis 20
N
NAPPO 413
nematode 5, 19, 335, 405
neophyte 30, 102, 104, 192
Neosciurus carolinensis 24
New Zealand flatworm 17
– grey duck 282
NGO 398
niche 77, 82–84, 88, 108, 128, 129, 133,
135–137, 182–184, 187–190,
204–206, 267–269, 304, 306
Nile perch 21, 336
Nitidulidae 16
nitrate 163–177
nitrification 150, 232
nitrogen 116, 118, 149, 150, 153,
163–177, 186, 198, 223–226, 228, 230,
265, 306, 334, 337, 367, 420
– fixing 163–168, 176, 187, 224, 306
nitrophilic 170, 171
non-governmental organisation 422,
423
non-target 37, 43, 53, 159, 392, 404–416
North American bullfrog 21
Norway rat 228, 388
Nothofagus 173
novel ecosystem 200
– weapons hypthesis 82, 83
nutria 17, 18, 22
nutrient 103, 117, 149, 150, 153–156,
163–177, 182, 183, 186, 190, 192, 198,
202, 207, 215, 218, 221–228, 230, 232,
306, 333, 334, 404
Nyctereutes procyonoides 17
O
Obesogammarus obsesus 63
ocean 1, 9, 15, 42, 49–55, 59, 60, 63, 67,
112, 171, 185, 196, 207, 226, 227, 244,
249, 368
Odocoileus virginianus 19
Odontella sinensis 52
OECD 414
Oenothera 118
oilseed rape 38, 297
Oleaceae 118
oligochaete 261, 267
oligotrophic 170
ombrothrophic bog 170
Oncorhynchus 283
–mykiss 20, 232
Ondathra zibethicus 18, 184
Ophiostoma ulmi 227
Opuntia 406
–stricta 231
Orconectes limosus 21
–propinquus 282
–rusticus 282
ornamental 1, 4, 23–25, 31–37, 44, 150,
217, 222, 227, 229, 249, 317, 333, 335,
353, 357, 396
ornithosis 320
Oryctolagus cuniculus 19, 20, 318, 319
Oulema melanopus 381
outbreeding depression 277, 278,286
outcrossing 84, 86, 91, 285
Ovis ammon aries 19
Oxyura jamaicensis 23
–leucocephala 23
oyster 21
ozone 230
– depleting 377, 382
Subject Index 435
P
Pacifastacus leniusculus 21
packing material 368, 369,377
Panama Canal 15, 59, 67–71
paramyxovirus 19
parasite 1, 2, 11, 15, 19–21, 53, 84, 91,
128, 265–269, 323, 324
parasitism 88, 90, 91, 223, 407
parasitoid 404–407, 412
park 24, 222
parrot fever 320
Parthenocissus 118
parthenogenic 374
participation 338–343, 398, 414
passenger pigeon 386
Passer domesticus 138, 319
pastoralism 147, 148
pasture 34, 42, 169
pathogen 1, 2, 12, 13, 19, 24, 35, 52, 84,
188, 227–230, 300, 301, 313, 324, 326,
354, 356, 391
pathway 7, 11–47, 64, 90, 101, 103, 105,
148, 168, 181, 199–201, 294, 306, 340,
353, 356, 420, 421
PCR 278
Pecos pupfish 288
Pennisetum ciliare 232
pentachlorophenol 294
Perca fluviatilis 265
perception 276, 331, 332, 336–338, 396,
406
perch 265
perennial 34, 103, 105, 107, 285
Periplaneta americana 13
Peromyscus maniculatus 392
pest 2, 4, 12, 16–24, 61, 67, 80, 205, 227,
229, 230, 282, 295, 318–326, 333, 356,
361, 368–376, 381, 382, 403–410,
412–415
pest control 3, 218–221,227, 230,315,
341, 403, 404, 410, 415
pesticide 5, 261, 293, 326, 372, 375, 379,
404
pet 1, 4, 9, 11, 17, 19, 23, 319, 320, 423
phanerophyt 103, 108
pharaoh ant 13
pharmaceutical 217, 229
Phasianus colchicus 20
pheasant 20
phosphine 378
phosphorus 116, 118, 166–168, 186, 224,
420
photosynthesis 116–119, 201, 218, 232
Phragmites 232
–australis 334, 337
Phyllorhiza punctata 242–248
phylogenetic correction 100, 105,
107–110
phytopathogen 295
Phytophthora 2, 229
phytoplankton 52, 54, 224, 232, 263, 265,
267, 336
phytosanitary 367–382, 413
Pierce’s disease 84
Pieris virginiensis 407
pig 19, 192, 222, 231, 318, 319, 325, 342
pigeon 19, 313, 319, 320, 386
pike-perch 21
pine bark beetle 203
Pinus 118, 119
–strobus 36
plankton 16, 54, 246
Planococcus citri 16
plant protection 304, 361,367, 369,416
Plantago 118
–major 42, 185
plantation 35–37, 147, 166, 337
plant-functional type 202–205
plasmid 296, 299
Plodia interpunctella 16
Poaceae 118
polecat 284
policy 332, 341, 360–363, 385, 386, 393,
395
policymaker 217, 234
pollen 103, 105, 109, 117, 281, 302
pollination 84, 103, 105, 218–221, 227,
230, 231, 333, 335, 404
pollinator 84, 109, 148, 231
Polluters Pay Principle 356
pollution 2, 53, 62, 153, 261, 269, 278,
364
polycarpic 108
Polychaeta 52, 63, 262, 387
Polygonum 118
polymerase chain reaction 278
polyploidisation 285
Pomacea canaliculata 222, 224
porcupine 391, 394
port 12, 54, 263
Potamopyrgus antipodarum 264
Subject Index436
potato 361
poultry 318, 325
power station 64, 65
prairie 175, 185, 205
prawn 67, 68
preadaptation hypothesis 82, 83
precautionary approach 55, 234, 338,
339, 351, 390, 421–423
precipitation 128, 225
predation 90, 128, 223, 229, 303, 390,
407–412, 415
pre-industrial 201
prevention 43, 55, 220, 226, 354–363,
367, 385, 422
primary production 218, 225,227,232,
333, 334
Proasellus coxalis 62
Procambarus clarkii 21
Procyon lotor 18
propagule 29–31, 37–44, 103, 105, 110,
117, 149–155, 159, 185–187, 189, 385
Propylea quatuordecimpunctata 409
Prosopis 229
Prosopsis glandulosa 228
Proteaceae 118
protectionism 357, 358
Prunella modularis 388
Prunus laurocerasus 201
–serotina 35, 36
Pseudomonas fluorescens 299, 300
Pseudorasbora parva 22, 280
–pumila 280, 281
Pseudotsuga menziesii 36
psittacosis 19
Psittacula krameri 24
psocid 16
psyllid 16, 408
Pteromalus puparum 407
Ptinidae 16
pubescence 105
public awareness 4, 6, 398,423
Pueraria montana 230
pumpkinseed 25
purple loosestrife 231, 317,334, 404
pyralid 406
pyrophytic 164
Q
quail 283
quarantine 4, 16, 25, 31, 249, 351, 356,
358, 363, 368–382
Quercus macrocarpa 202
–rubra 36
R
rabbit 19, 20, 318, 319, 326, 390
rabies 319
racoon 18
–dog 17
– roundworm 18
radiofrequency heating 375, 381
Radix ovata 261
rag weed 337
railway 14, 39
rainbow trout 20, 232
rainfall 61, 153, 203, 204, 206
Rana catesbeiana 21, 24
rat 318, 319, 326, 390, 407
Rattus argentiventer 334
–norvegicus 15, 228, 318, 388
–rattus 318, 388
Raunkiaer’s schema 107
realised niche 183, 187
recreation 42, 147, 218–222, 227, 228,
231, 244, 260, 331–337
red admiral butterfly 407
– deer 19
– imported fire 229, 230,321
– List 192
– squirrel 24
red-eared slider 24, 321
redundancy 304
registration 373, 413
regulation 4, 29, 88, 197, 217, 221–230,
249, 258, 261, 333, 335, 337, 356, 368,
370, 374, 377, 413–416
release 4, 11, 17–25, 35–45, 51, 82,
84–92, 117, 129–132, 155, 187, 200,
206, 224, 230, 247, 269, 280–282, 293,
295, 297, 299–301, 304, 305, 322, 361,
373, 374, 393, 394, 403–415
religious 218, 220, 231, 333
reptile 320, 321
resistance 35, 59, 82–91, 184, 188, 190,
193, 197, 224, 268, 296, 301, 302, 307,
333, 404
Subject Index 437
resource 85–92, 119, 128, 133, 136,
148–156, 159, 170, 173, 183, 187, 206,
217, 223, 226–229, 267, 302, 333, 334,
340, 355, 363, 367
resource-enemy release hypothesis 89
restoration 158, 167, 175, 261, 269, 315,
404
revegetation 154–159
Reynoutria 118
Rhagoletis pomonella 375
Rhine 257–269
Rhinocyllus conicus 406
Rhizobium 165, 295
Rhododendron ponticum 35, 335, 342
Rhopilema nomadica 244, 247
rice 222
rinderpest 229, 323
ring-necked parakeet 24
risk 14, 53, 127, 135–138, 205, 207, 218,
222, 224, 226–229, 292–294,
301–339, 340, 355–360, 369–382,
403–407, 413–416, 421–423
risk assessment 53, 129, 293,294, 304,
339, 340, 341, 358, 403, 406, 413–415,
421
river 15, 18, 20–22, 25, 37, 43, 59–66, 184,
190, 191, 215, 222, 228, 257–269, 283,
285, 335, 336, 391
road 38, 39, 148, 151–154
roadside 39, 40, 153, 154
Robinia pseudoacacia 36, 165, 167
rock pipit 388
Rodolia cardinalis 326, 404
roe deer 19
rosy wolf snail 229
rotifer 52
roundworm 19
r-strategist 108
Rubus 118
ruddy duck 23, 394
– shelduck 23
Russian wheat aphid 333, 334
rusty crayfish 282
S
sage scrub 174
sagebrush 205, 233
salination 261
salinity 54, 66–71, 246, 265
Salmo 283
–salar 281
–trutta 20, 232, 281, 335, 337
salmon 283, 298, 302, 303
Salmonella 19, 379
salt 226
– cedar 225, 230, 335
Salvelinus confluentus 280
–fontinalis 280
Sander lucioperca 21
Sandoz accident 261, 267,268
Sargassum muticum 231
SARS 323
Saurida undosquamis 68
savanna 183, 225
Sciurus carolinensis 228
–vulgaris 24
screw-worm 386
sculpin 285, 286
scyphomedusa 242, 247
Scyphozoa 242–245
sea gooseberry 239
seaweed 227
sedimentation 225
seed 33–41, 110, 113–119, 154, 172, 202,
207, 281, 302, 305, 404, 406
– bank 103, 105, 117–119, 389
seedling 103, 119, 116–118, 202, 207,
307, 333, 335
self-compatibility 109, 117
self-incompatible 105, 109
semiochemicals 414
Senecio 118
–inaequidens 39, 41
serpentine 174
sewage 43, 261
sexual selection 133, 134
sheep 19, 20, 42, 148, 318, 319
sheepshead minnow 288
ship 9, 15–17, 38, 49–55, 67–71, 215, 240,
243, 249, 322, 353, 375, 377, 421
shipping 1, 12, 15, 18, 25, 49–55, 59,
63–71, 242, 245, 249, 260, 264, 285
shipworm 322
shrubland 225–228
Siberian chipmunk 24
sika deer 19
silk 217
Silvanidae 16
silviculture 147
siphonophore 239
Subject Index438
Sirex noctillo 333
sirex wasp 333
Sitatroga cerealella 16
skeleton weed 333, 334
smallpox 386
smooth cord grass 230, 284
snail 16, 21, 222, 224, 229, 261, 332, 368,
407
snake 14, 24, 83, 224, 320
society 4, 215, 217, 220, 223, 230, 233,
234, 313, 331, 343, 353, 355, 356, 363,
421, 423
socio-economy 331–343, 419, 423
soil 15–17, 21, 34, 36, 105, 110, 111, 115,
145, 152–159, 164–177, 187–189,
192, 218, 219, 221–228, 231, 232, 294,
304, 306, 318, 319, 333–337, 367, 369
Solenopsis invicta 229, 230
Solidago cannadensis 174
Southern pine 205
sparrow 24, 137, 138, 319, 326
Spartina 109, 118
–alterniflora 230, 284, 285
–anglica 285
–foliosa 284
–maritima 285
spatial scale 107, 171, 172,181, 188–194
specific leaf area 109, 116–119
Sphaeroma quoyanum 231
spider 16, 322
– mite 381
spinescence 105
spiritual 218, 220, 231, 333
sponge 261
SPS agreement 369, 370
squirrel 4, 24, 228, 390, 395, 396
stakeholder 337, 338, 357, 358, 361, 396,
407, 422
starling 24, 136, 229, 320
starthistle 228
steam treatment 377
steppe 175, 318
stepping stone 16, 67
Stereonephthya aff. curvata 334
sterile 187, 277, 279–281, 285, 298, 373
sterilized 392
stocking 20, 49, 53
stone moroko 22
stonefly 260
storm 206, 218
– petrel 388
storyline 343
stowaway 9, 11, 12, 15, 351
stress 20, 43, 164, 169, 175, 184–187, 199,
200, 399, 415, 419
Sturnus vulgaris 136, 229, 320
succession 67, 108, 167, 168, 232, 261,
305
succulence 105
Suez Canal 15, 49, 52,59, 67–71,243
sulfuryl fluoride 375, 378
sulphur dioxide 364
sunflower 301, 305
superpredator 390
survival 16, 20, 69, 109, 117, 128, 134,
166, 197, 200, 241, 265, 297, 303, 306,
322, 333, 335, 367
Sus scrofa 19, 192, 222, 231, 342
Sylvilagus floridanus 20
symbiont 176, 243, 306
symbiosis 164, 165
Syncereos caffer 19
syphilis 324
T
Tadorna ferruginea 23
tahr 396
tamarisk 80, 225, 226
Tamarix 37, 222, 230, 335
–ramosissima 192
–sibiricus 24
Taraxacum officinale 335
tariff 355–358, 363, 423
tax 355–357, 363, 364, 423
TBT 54
Telen o mus 407
temperature 37, 64, 67–69, 128, 145, 190,
192, 203–207, 225, 246, 261, 265, 295,
367, 375, 376, 381
Tenebrionidae 16
Tephrididae 368, 371, 374, 379, 380
Terebrasabella heterouncinata 387
Teredo navalis 322
termite 229, 378
Tetranychus urticae 381, 410
therophyt 103, 108
thistle 169, 203, 217, 228, 262, 406
thrips 363, 381
tick 378
timber 17, 217, 221, 227, 229, 337
Subject Index 439
time lag 55, 132,200, 398
tire 12, 40
toad 22
tobacco moth 379
tolerance 4, 20, 35, 105, 117, 185, 199,
206, 246, 265, 295, 298, 372–375
tomato 43
tourism 218–224, 227, 228, 231, 392
toxicity 105, 293, 294
Trachemys scripta elegans 24
Trachyzelotes 17
tradable permit 355–364, 423
trade 4, 11, 23–25, 33, 66–70, 200, 249,
263, 324, 325, 353, 357, 358, 364, 367,
368, 370–373, 381, 382, 421, 423
trade-off 298, 301, 331, 339, 342, 354,
359–361, 421
Tradescantia 118
traffic 39–41, 172, 181, 249
train 38–44
trait 87, 97–121, 131–138, 225, 226, 233,
338, 389, 419
tramp 12, 13
transduction 294–297
transformation 294–297
transgene 293–307
transgenic organism 293–307
transhumance 42
transport 9, 11–17, 37–44, 49–52, 59, 60,
63, 66–70, 101, 116, 152, 198, 228,
242, 249, 260, 351, 358, 368, 371, 375,
382, 421
transposon 296
Trialeurodes vaporarium 16
tri-butyl-tin 54
Trichogramma brassicae 407
Trichomonas gallinae 19
Trifolium repens 169
triploid 298
Troglodytes troglodytes 388
Trogoderma granarium 368
Trojan gene hypothesis 305
trophy hunter 19
trout 20, 228, 232, 280, 281, 335, 337
tuberculosis 319, 323, 324
Tulipa sylvestris 37
Tulla-correction 258
tundra 203, 228
tunicate 239, 240
turbellarian 262
tyre 12, 40
U
Ulex europaeus 167
Uloborus plumipes 16
uncertainty 338–343, 354, 355, 358,
361–364
ungulate 131, 183
unionid mussel 266, 267
Upeneus moluccensis 68
urban 147, 171, 191, 206, 226, 228, 335
V
vacant niche 108, 183, 184,206, 268
Vaccinium myrtillus 170
valuation 218–222, 233, 336–338, 341,
343, 423
vector 12, 13, 19, 24, 29, 33, 36, 38–44,
49–55, 63, 68, 84, 103, 105, 109, 111,
112, 117, 148, 153, 227, 230, 247, 249,
320, 335, 340, 421
vedalia beetle 326, 404
vegetation 18, 22, 42, 108, 120, 148–150,
152–156, 159, 166, 204, 232, 318, 334,
336, 373
vehicle 12–14, 33, 38–44, 150–154, 158,
364
vehicular route 151–154
veliger 266
vertebrate 111, 112, 120, 127–138, 415
Vibrio cholerae 52, 230
Viking 50
virus 2, 5, 12, 19, 20, 24, 221, 227, 295,
313, 323, 326, 334, 391, 393
volatile organic compound 225, 230
volcanic 166
W
wapiti 19
warning list 421
waste 36, 37, 39, 44, 97, 218, 227, 230,
261, 267, 279, 333, 335, 364
water 12, 15, 20, 24, 25, 37, 52, 54, 62, 64,
68–71, 105, 110, 111, 116, 118, 119,
145, 159, 169, 173, 175, 190, 201,
218–232, 242, 246, 258, 260–263, 266,
331–338, 341, 377, 379, 381
– hyacinth 232, 325
Subject Index440
– table 92, 225, 336
– vole 184
watermilfoil 222
waterway 9, 12, 15, 49, 59–71, 184, 230,
260, 332, 335, 421
weasel 22
weed 23, 33–36, 44, 97, 98, 167, 187, 202,
228, 267, 317, 318, 335, 362, 370, 390,
395, 403, 405, 412, 415
weediness 302
weevil 374, 406
West Nile virus 12
Western corn root worm 12, 13, 80
– flower thrip 363
wetland 18, 105, 222, 224, 228, 230, 317,
389, 404
WGITMO 53
whirling disease 228
white amure 22
– list 356, 358, 363
whitefly 16, 221, 227, 404
white-headed duck 23
white-tailed deer 19
wild turnip 297
wildcat 284
wildebeest 19
wilderness 147–160
wildtype 303
willingness to pay 341
wind 103, 105, 110–112, 153
wolf 284
wood 17, 129, 334–338, 353, 369, 378
– packaging 353, 369
wool 33, 38, 39, 44
wren 388
WTO 3, 4, 357, 369
X
Xanthamonas axonopodis 368
Xanthium spinosum 39, 42
X-ray 380
Xylella fastidiosa 84
Xylosandrus germanus 17
Y
yellow fever 230, 324, 386
– starthistle 317, 362
Yersinia pestis 2
Z
zebra mussel 15, 52, 53,228, 261, 264,
266–268, 322, 325, 333–335, 361
Zodarion rubidium 14
zooplankton 54, 239, 241, 245, 246
Subject Index 441
