Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T14:25:42.828Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - Rethinking Invasibility

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2022

Cang Hui
Affiliation:
Stellenbosch University, South Africa
David Richardson
Affiliation:
Stellenbosch University, South Africa
Get access

Summary

Humanity’s rise is rapidly moulding the structure and functioning of the biosphere over the surface of our planet, while human-mediated translocations of organisms – an inevitable consequence of this rise – is driving further transformation (Pyšek et al. 2020b). Drawing inspiration and concepts from population ecology, Invasion Science 1.0 (see Chapter 1) has explored the myriad ways a focal alien species can negotiate geographical, ecological and environmental barriers to establish and potentially invade in new novel environments. Coordinated efforts have been made to classify introduction pathways (Hulme et al. 2008; Wilson et al. 2009); forecast invasion risks (Kumschick and Richardson 2013) and impacts (Jeschke et al. 2014); model invasive spread (Hui and Richardson 2017); unify invasion frameworks (Wilson et al. 2020); and prescribe management strategies such as early detection and rapid response to prevent, contain and eradicate problematic species (Wilson et al. 2017). However, the phenomenon of biological invasions involves all types of organisms, ecosystems and a wide range of contexts and framings; this has given rise to a plethora of invasion hypotheses and theories that seek to explain and ultimately predict aspects of invasion dynamics and the expected outcome of specific management actions (Jeschke and Heger 2018). Most invasion hypotheses are relevant in specific contexts and often fail when faced with the reality of contextual complexity. This has led to a wave of syntheses that have attempted to classify invasion cases and hypotheses based largely on three aspects – invasive traits, site characteristics and invasion pathways (Pyšek et al. 2020a). To embrace considerations that arise when attempting to merge insights from all these perspectives, a paradigm shift began emerging at the turn of the millennium, together with the rise of network science. It embraces the complexity of biotic interaction networks (Figure 7.1; e.g., Segar et al. 2020), the trait paradigm in community ecology (Figure 7.2; e.g., McGill et al. 2006; Salguero-Gómez et al. 2018), and considers how functional traits of species dictate their ecology and roles in networks (Figure 7.3; e.g., Mello et al. 2019). This new lens for drawing together threads pertaining to all facets of biological invasions (Invasion Science 2.0) seeks to elucidate the structure and function of an ecological network facing biological invasions. This book has laid out a road map of signposts, hazard warnings and shortcuts for the journey to Invasion Science 2.0, framing and classifying research topics and offering tentative solutions and travel advisories.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

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

References

Afkhami, ME, McIntyre, PJ, Strausss, SY (2014) Mutualist-mediated effects on species’ range limits across large geographic scales. Ecology Letters 17, 12651273.Google Scholar
Allesina, S, Tang, S (2012) Stability criteria for complex ecosystems. Nature 483, 205208.Google Scholar
Bak, P, Tang, C, Wiesenfeld, K (1988) Self-organized criticality. Physical Review A 38, 364.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barks, PM, et al. (2018) Among-strain consistency in the pace and shape of senescence in duckweed. Journal of Ecology 106, 21322145.Google Scholar
Bastolla, U, et al. (2009) The architecture of mutualistic networks minimizes competition and increases biodiversity. Nature 458, 10181020.Google Scholar
Beckage, B, Gross, LJ, Kauffman, S (2011) The limits to prediction in ecological systems. Ecosphere 2, 112.Google Scholar
Beggs, JM, Plenz, D (2003) Neuronal avalanches in neocortical circuits. Journal of Neuroscience 23, 1116711177.Google Scholar
Bohan, DA, et al. (2017) Next-generation global biomonitoring: Large-scale, automated reconstruction of ecological networks. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 32, 477487.Google Scholar
Bronstein, J (ed.) (2015) Mutualism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brundu, G, et al. (2020). Global guidelines for the sustainable use of non-native trees to prevent tree invasions and mitigate their negative impacts. NeoBiota 6, 65116.Google Scholar
Caswell, H (2001) Construction, Analysis, and Interpretation. Sunderland: Sinauer.Google Scholar
Catford, JA, Bode, M, Tilman, D (2018) Introduced species that overcome life history tradeoffs can cause native extinctions. Nature Communications 9, 2131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chave, J, et al. (2009) Towards a worldwide wood economics spectrum. Ecology Letters 12, 351366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davis, MA, et al. (2009) Don’t judge species on their origins. Nature 474, 153154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demertzi, A, et al. (2019) Human consciousness is supported by dynamic complex patterns of brain signal coordination. Science Advances 5, eaat7603.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Díaz, S, et al. (2015) A Rosetta stone for nature’s benefits to people. PLoS Biology 13, e1002040.Google Scholar
Díaz, S, et al. (2016) The global spectrum of plant form and function. Nature 529, 167171.Google Scholar
Dieckmann, U, Law, R (1996) The dynamical theory of coevolution: A derivation from stochastic ecological processes. Journal of Mathematical Biology 34, 579612.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Divišek, J, et al. (2018) Similarity of introduced plant species to native ones facilitates naturalization, but difference enhance invasion success. Nature Communications 9, 4631.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Enders, M, et al. (2020) A conceptual map of invasion biology: Integrating hypotheses into a consensus network. Global Ecology and Biogeography 29, 978991.Google Scholar
Essl, F, et al. (2015) Crossing frontiers in tackling pathways of biological invasions. BioScience 65, 769782.Google Scholar
Geritz, SAH, et al. (1998) Evolutionarily singular strategies and the adaptive growth and branching of the evolutionary tree. Evolutionary Ecology 12, 3557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerstner, W, et al. (1997) Neural codes: Firing rates and beyond. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 94, 1274012741.Google Scholar
Gross, N, et al. (2017) Functional trait diversity maximizes ecosystem multifunctionality. Nature Ecology and Evolution 1, 0132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herbold, B, Moyle, PB (1986) Introduced species and vacant niches. The American Naturalist 128, 751760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobbs, RJ, et al. (2014) Managing the whole landscape: Historical, hybrid, and novel ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12, 557564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, RD (2009) Bringing the Hutchinsonian niche into the 21st century: Ecological and evolutionary perspectives. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 106, 1965919665.Google Scholar
Hubbell, SP (2001) The Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hui, C, Richardson, DM (2017) Invasion Dynamics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hui, C, et al. (2016) Defining invasiveness and invasibility in ecological networks. Biological Invasions 18, 971983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hui, C, et al. (2021) Trait positions for elevated invasiveness in adaptive ecological networks. Biological Invasions 23, 19651985.Google Scholar
Hulme, PE, et al. (2008) Grasping at the routes of biological invasions: A framework for integrating pathways into policy. Journal of Applied Ecology 45, 403414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchinson, GE (1957) Concluding remarks. Population Studies: Animal Ecology and Demography. Cold Spring Harbor Symposium on Quantitative Biology 22, 415457.Google Scholar
Huxley, TH (1869) Nature: Aphorisms by Goethe. Nature 1, 911.Google Scholar
Ibisch, PL, Hobson, PR (2014) MARISCO: Adaptive Management of Vulnerability and Risk at Conservation Sites. A Guidebook for Risk-robust, Adaptive and Ecosystem-based Conservation of Biodiversity. Eberswalde: Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management.Google Scholar
Jeschke, J, Heger, T (eds.)(2018) Invasion Biology: Hypotheses and Evidence. Wallingford: CAB International.Google Scholar
Jeschke, JM, et al. (2014). Defining the impact of non-native species: Resolving disparity through greater clarity. Conservation Biology 28, 11881194.Google Scholar
Kull, CA, et al. (2018) Using the ‘regime shift’ concept in addressing social-ecological change. Geographical Research 56, 2641.Google Scholar
Kumschick, S, Richardson, DM (2013) Species-based risk assessments for biological invasions: Advances and challenges. Diversity and Distributions 19, 10951105.Google Scholar
Kumschick, S et al. (2015). Ecological impacts of alien species: Quantification, scope, caveats and recommendations. BioScience 65, 5563.Google Scholar
Latombe, G, et al. (2019) A four-component classification of uncertainties in biological invasions: Implications for management. Ecosphere 10, e02669.Google Scholar
Le Roux, JJ, et al. (2017) Co-introduction versus ecological fitting pathways to the establishment of effective mutualisms during biological invasions. New Phytologist 215, 13541360.Google Scholar
Lonsdale, WM (1999) Global patterns of plant invasions and the concept of invasibility. Ecology 80, 15221536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mack, RN, et al. (2000) Biotic Invasions: Causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecological Applications 10, 689710.Google Scholar
Marchiori, M, Latora, V (2000) Harmony in the small-world. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 285, 539546.Google Scholar
May, RM (1974) Biological Populations with nonoverlapping generations: Stable points, stable cycles, and chaos. Science 186, 645647.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCann, KS (2000) The diversity-stability debate. Nature 405, 228233.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGill, BJ, et al. (2006) Rebuilding community ecology from functional traits. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21, 178185.Google Scholar
Mello, MAR, et al. (2019) Insights into the assembly rules of a continent-wide multilayer network. Nature Ecology & Evolution 3, 15251532.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Minoarivelo, HO, Hui, C (2016) Invading a mutualistic network: To be or not to be similar. Ecology and Evolution 6, 49814996.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Minoarivelo, HO, Hui, C (2018) Alternative assembly processes from trait-mediated co-evolution in mutualistic communities. Journal of Theoretical Biology 454, 146153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morin, A (2006) Levels of consciousness and self-awareness: A comparison and integration of various neurocognitive views. Consciousness and Cognition 15, 358371.Google Scholar
Morris, RJ, et al. (2014) Antagonistic interaction networks are structured independently of latitude and host guild. Ecology Letters 17, 340349.Google Scholar
Novoa, A, et al. (2018). A framework for engaging stakeholders on the management of alien species. Journal of Environmental Management 205, 286297.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nowak, M, Sigmund, K (1993) A strategy of win-stay, lose-shift that outperforms tit-for-tat in the Prisoner’s Dilemma game. Nature 364, 5658.Google Scholar
Nuwagaba, S, Zhang, F, Hui, C (2015) A hybrid behavioural rule of adaptation and drift explains the emergent architecture of antagonistic networks. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 282, 20150320.Google Scholar
Pyšek, P, et al. (2020a). Macroecological Framework for Invasive Aliens (MAFIA): Disentangling large-scale context dependency in biological invasions. NeoBiota 62, 407461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pyšek, P, et al. (2020b) Scientists’ warning on invasive alien species. Biological Reviews 95, 15111534.Google Scholar
The QUINTESSENCE Consortium (2016) Networking our way to better ecosystem service provision. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 31, 105115.Google Scholar
Richardson, DM (2015) Conservation is complicated, and all approaches need to be on the table. Dispatches from the front line suggest an important role for a novel ecosystem approach to conservation. Ensia Available online at https://ensia.com/voices/conservation-is-complicated-and-all-approaches-need-to-be-on-the-table/ (accessed 22 February 2021).Google Scholar
Rodriguez-Cabel, MA, et al. (2012) Disruption of ant-seed dispersal mutualisms by the invasive Asian needle ant (Pachycondyla chinensis). Biological Invasions 14, 557565.Google Scholar
Rohde, K (2005) Nonequilibrium Ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Salguero-Gómez, R, et al. (2016) Fast-slow continuum and reproductive strategies structure plant life-history variation worldwide. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 113, 230235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salguero-Gómez, R, et al. (2018) Delivering the promises of trait-based approaches to the needs of demographic approaches, and vice versa. Functional Ecology 32, 14241435.Google Scholar
Saul, W, Jeschke, JM (2015) Eco-evolutionary experience in novel species interactions. Ecology Letters 18, 236245.Google Scholar
Sax, DF, et al. (2007) Ecological and evolutionary insights from species invasions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 22, 465471.Google Scholar
Schick, A, et al. (2017) Conservation and sustainable development in a VUCA world: The need for a systemic and ecosystem-based approach. Ecosystem Health and Sustainability 3, e01267.Google Scholar
Schittko, C, et al. (2020) A multidimensional framework for measuring biotic novelty: How novel is a community? Global Change Biology 26, 44014417.Google Scholar
Segar, ST, et al. (2020) The role of evolution in shaping ecological networks. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 35, 454466.Google Scholar
Shea, K, Chesson, P (2002) Community ecology theory as a framework for biological invasions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 17, 170176.Google Scholar
Simberloff, D (1981) Community effects of introduced species. In Nitecki, MH (ed.) Biotic Crises in Ecological and Evolutionary Time, pp. 5381. New York: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
Simberloff, D (2009) The role of propagule pressure in biological invasions. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 40, 81102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stachowicz, J (2012) Niche expansion by positive interactions: Realizing the fundamentals. A comment on Rodriguez-Cabal et al. Ideas in Ecology and Evolution 5, 4243.Google Scholar
Steidinger, BS, et al. (2019) Climatic controls of decomposition drive the global biogeography of forest-tree symbioses. Nature 569, 404408.Google Scholar
Thompson, JN (2013) Relentless Evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilman, D (2004) Niche tradeoffs, neutrality, and community structure: A stochastic theory of resource competition, invasion, and community assembly. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 101, 1085410861.Google Scholar
Vacher, C, et al. (2016) Learning ecological networks from next-generation sequencing data. Advances in Ecological Research 54, 139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valdovinos, FS, et al. (2018) Species traits and network structure predict the success and impacts of pollinator invasions. Nature Communications 9, 2153.Google Scholar
Vasseur, F, et al. (2018) Adaptive diversification of growth allometry in the plant Arabidopsis thaliana. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 115, 34163421.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walker, TD, Valentine, JW (1984) Equilibrium models of evolutionary species diversity and the number of empty niches. The American Naturalist 124, 887899.Google Scholar
Wallace, AR (1889) Darwinism. London: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Wilson, JR, Panetta, FD, Lindgren, C (2017) Detecting and Responding to Alien Plant Incursions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, JRU, et al. (2009) Something in the way you move: Dispersal pathways affect invasion success. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24, 136144.Google Scholar
Wilson, JRU, et al. (2020) Frameworks used in invasion science: Progress and prospects. NeoBiota 62, 130.Google Scholar
Wilting, J, Priesemann, V (2019) 25 years of criticality in neuroscience: Established results, open controversies, novel concepts. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 58, 105111.Google Scholar
Wright, IJ, et al. (2004) The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Nature 428, 821827.Google Scholar
Zhang, F, Hui, C (2014) Recent experience-driven behaviour optimizes foraging. Animal Behaviour 88, 1319.Google Scholar
Zimmern, V (2020) Why brain criticality is clinically relevant: A scoping review. Frontiers in Neural Circuits 14, 54.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Rethinking Invasibility
  • Cang Hui, Stellenbosch University, South Africa, David Richardson, Stellenbosch University, South Africa
  • Book: Invading Ecological Networks
  • Online publication: 05 May 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108778374.008
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Rethinking Invasibility
  • Cang Hui, Stellenbosch University, South Africa, David Richardson, Stellenbosch University, South Africa
  • Book: Invading Ecological Networks
  • Online publication: 05 May 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108778374.008
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Rethinking Invasibility
  • Cang Hui, Stellenbosch University, South Africa, David Richardson, Stellenbosch University, South Africa
  • Book: Invading Ecological Networks
  • Online publication: 05 May 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108778374.008
Available formats
×