Differentiating Successful and Failed Invaders: Species Pools and the Importance of Defining Vector, Source and Recipient Regions
Attempts to understand the dynamics of biological invasions continue to abound in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Identifying the biological attributes of successful invaders, or what makes a good invader, are among the most tantalizing questions still to be answered, especially in marine ecosystems. Numerous studies across a range of taxonomic groups have examined species characteristics to determine whether certain species level factors strongly differentiate successful from failed invaders (see Rejmánek and Richardson 1996; Williamson and Fitter 1996; Reichard and Hamilton 1997; Miller 2000; Kolar and Lodge 2002; Prinzing et al. 2002; Cassey et al. 2004a,b; Miller et al. 2007). At the heart of these analyses is the comparison of successful and failed species pools, which are defined in various ways with specific consequences for the inferences that can result.
When trying to understand the effects of species characteristics on invasion outcome, most studies compare physiological tolerances, life history characteristics, and behavior of successful and failed invaders. Although it is certainly valid to compare any two groups to understand differences in their respective attributes, only a subset of such comparisons can answer questions about the invasion process. More specifically, invasions have a specific context and result from interactions among source regions, recipient regions, and transfer mechanisms (vectors). Thus, comparing invaders from one source region to non-invaders from a different source region may tell us little about attributes of successful invaders, because the latter group may not share the same opportunities for transfer and invasion, thereby introducing additional variables and confounding interpretation.
KeywordsSource Region Great Lake Ballast Water Invasion Success Species Pool
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 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, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
- Carlton JT (1979) History, biogeography, and ecology of the introduced marine and estuarine invertebrates of the Pacific coast of North America. PhD dissertation. University of California, Davis. 904 ppGoogle Scholar
- Carlton JT, Ruiz GM (2005) Vector science and vector management in bioinvasion ecology: conceptual frameworks. In: Mooney HA, Mack RN, McNeely JA et al. (eds) Invasive alien species, a new synthesis. Island Press, Covelo, California, USA, pp 36–58Google Scholar
- Cassey P, Blackburn TM, Jones KE, Lockwood JL (2004b) Mistakes in the analysis of exotic species establishment: source pool designation and correlates of introduction success among parrots (Aves: Psittaciformes) of the world. J Biogeogr 31:277–284Google Scholar
- 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. A report for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. and the National Sea Grant College Program Connecticut Sea Grant. 272 ppGoogle Scholar
- Daehler CT, Strong DR (1993) Prediction and biological invasion. Trends Ecol Evol 10:380 Duncan RP, Blackburn TM, Veltman CJ (1999) Determinants of geographical range sizes: a test using introduced New Zealand Birds. J Anim Ecol 68:963–975Google Scholar
- Elton CS (1958) The ecology of invasions of animals and plants. Methuen, London, UKGoogle Scholar
- Miller AW (2000) Assessing the importance of biological attributes for invasion success: Eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) introductions and associated molluscan invasions of Pacific and Atlantic coastal systems. D.Env. dissertation. University of California, Los Angeles 209 ppGoogle Scholar
- Prinzing A, Durka W, Klotz S, Brandl R (2002) Which species become aliens? Evol Ecol Res 4:385–405Google Scholar
- Ruesink JL (2005) Global analysis of factors affecting the outcome of freshwater fish introductions. Conserv Biol 19:1883–1893Google Scholar
- Simberloff D (1989) Which insect introductions succeed and which fail? In: Drake JA, Mooney HA, di Castri F, Groves RH, Kruger FJ, Rejmánek M, Williamson M (eds) Biological invasions: a global perspective. . Wiley, New York, pp 61–75Google Scholar