A neutral terminology to define ‘invasive’ species

By R. Colautti, H. MacIsaac. 2004

1,039 citations recorded by the source corpus.

The use of simple terms to articulate ecological concepts can confuse ideological debates and undermine management efforts. This problem is particularly acute in studies of nonindigenous species, which alternatively have been called ‘exotic’, ‘introduced’, ‘invasive’ and ‘naturalised’, among others. Attempts to redefine commonly used terminology have proven difficult because authors are often partial to particular definitions. In an attempt to form a consensus on invasion terminology, we synthesize an invasional framework based on current models that break the invasion process into a series of consecutive, obligatory stages. Unlike previous efforts, we propose a neutral terminology based on this framework. This ‘stage‐based’ terminology can be used to supplement terms with ambiguous meanings (e.g. invasive, introduced, naturalized, weedy, etc.), and thereby improve clarity of future studies. This approach is based on the concept of ‘propagule pressure’ and has the additional benefit of identifying factors affecting the success of species at each stage. Under this framework, invasions can be more objectively understood as biogeographical, rather than taxonomic, phenomena; and author preferences in the use of existing terminology can be addressed. An example of this recommended protocol might be: ‘We examined distribution data to contrast the characteristics of invasive species (stages IVa and V) and noninvasive species (stages III and IVb)’.

Subfields: Ecological Modeling, Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/359d246ceb147a35eb308319187e940244a77107

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecological Modeling

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Verified non-indigenous amphibians and reptiles in Florida from 1863 through 2010: Outlining the invasion process and identifying invasion pathways and stages (2011, background): “…have proposed similar invasion models and definitions regarding establishment, we follow the definition of establishment to mean evidence of reproduction (see Introduction; stage 3 following Colautti & MacIsaac 2004) in the wild with the presence of different size classes (juveniles and adults).”
Quantifying levels of biological invasion: towards the objective classification of invaded and invasible ecosystems (2011, background): “A prerequisite for characterizing invasibility is the ability to compare levels of invasion across ecosystems.”
Reducing redundancy in invasion ecology by integrating hypotheses into a single theoretical framework (2009, background): “…weeds can test hypotheses based on the separate evolutionary histories of non-indigenous invaders (e.g. specialist–generalist and novel weapons hypotheses, Table 3; Colautti & MacIsaac, 2004; Mitchell et al., 2006), and may help to disentangle the effect of biotic interactions (B) from P and A.”
Invasive species in Europe: ecology, status, and policy (2011, background): “Thus, propagule pressure can largely explain the intensity and diversity of established non-native species in aquatic environments [3,20].”
Biological invasions and biocultural diversity: linking ecological and cultural systems (2008, background): “…ongoing conceptual debates defining native versus exotic (or ‘alien’) species ∗Correspondence: Dr Jeanine Pfeiffer e-mail: jmpfeiffer@ucdavis. edu (Colautti & MacIsaac 2004; Townsend 2005; Larson 2007; Warren 2007), in general the term ‘invasive species’ refers to anthropogenically introduced…”
Propagule pressure: a null model for biological invasions (2006, methodology): “V) after Colautti and MacIsaac (2004) .”
Changes in the plant community of a Brazilian grassland savannah after 22 years of invasion by Pinus elliottii Engelm (2011, background): “This could have created a rupture in the biotic filter (Colautti and MacIsaac 2004) composed by the local species assemblage, thus opening up a window for invasion (Johnstone 1986) and allowing settlement of the first invasive founders.”
Individual behavioural consistency and plasticity in an urban spider (2012, neutral): “Similarly to invasive species, many urban species can proliferate rapidly, increase in abundance in a short time, outcompete other less tolerant species and become locally dominant (Kolar & Lodge 2001; Colautti & MacIsaac 2004).”
An alien approach to invasive species: objectivity and society in invasion biology (2007, background): “greater objectivity in invasion biology (Slobodkin 2001; Colautti and MacIsaac 2004; Vermeij 2005).”
Explaining and predicting the success of invading species at different stages of invasion (2006, background): “…people (e.g. Williamson and Brown 1986; Williamson 1996, 1999, 2000; Richardson et al. 2000; Heger and Trepl 2003; Ruiz and Carlton 2003, p. 462; Colautti and MacIsaac 2004; Lockwood et al. 2005) have pointed out that an invasion can go through a series of stages, and can get stuck at any of…”
Another call for the end of invasion biology (2013, background): “…Simberloﬀ 2011a for a very detailed historical analysis), the restriction of the ﬁ eld that it introduces is considered by many researchers today as one founding principle of the discipline (Richardson et al. 2000, Colautti and MacIsaac 2004, Richardson and Pysek 2004, 2006, Wilson et al. 2009a).”
Alien Invertebrates and Fish in European Inland Waters (2009, background): “Their spread, thus, seems to be a function of the intensity and diversity of imports as a consequence of “propagule pressure” (Williamson 1996; Colautti and MacIsaac 2004).”