Geographical and taxonomic biases in invasion ecology.

By Petr Pyšek, D. Richardson, Jan Pergl, V. Jarošı́k, Zuzana Sixtová, E. Weber. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2008

804 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Insect Science, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e993a8c0b962fc998c150829c2f05364c768c981

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

1. Petr Pyšek
2. D. Richardson
3. Jonathan M. Jeschke
4. P. Hulme
5. I. Kühn
6. V. Jarošı́k
7. M. van Kleunen
8. Jan Pergl

In Insect Science

1. Petr Pyšek
2. D. Richardson
3. Jan Pergl
4. V. Jarošı́k
5. John R. U. Wilson
6. M. van Kleunen
7. P. Hulme
8. I. Kühn

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

1. Petr Pyšek
2. D. Richardson
3. M. Vilà
4. P. Hulme
5. Jonathan M. Jeschke
6. I. Kühn
7. Jan Pergl
8. V. Jarošı́k

Citations in the corpus

• Secondary invasion: The bane of weed management (2016, background): “Furthermore, studies were skewed towards North America, reflecting the bias in research efforts directed at invasive species (Pyšek et al., 2008; Kettenring and Adams, 2011).”
• Machine learning and deep learning—A review for ecologists (2022, background): “Biased data may be a significant problem for E&E, as geographic (Martin et al., 2012; Meyer et al., 2016 ) and taxonomic (Pyšek et al., 2008; Trimble & van Aarde, 2012 ) sampling biases are common.”
• Global indicators of biological invasion: species numbers, biodiversity impact and policy responses (2010, methodology): “…availability’) was compiled for each country, using a combination of previously published estimates of research effort on alien species by region (major continents and their surrounding islands; see Pyšek et al., 2008) and information provided in Third National Reports to the CBD (Appendix S4).”
• Fouling of European freshwater bivalves (Unionidae) by the invasive zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) (2011, background): “The zebra mussel Dreissena polymorpha (Pallas, 1771) is the most intensively studied invasive species worldwide, as a result of its rapid expansion and serious ecological and economic impacts (Pyšek et al., 2008).”
• The maximum relative growth rate of common UK plant species is positively associated with their global invasiveness (2011, background): “Despite the explosion in invasion ecology literature in recent years (Pyšek et al., 2008), there are frustratingly few generalizations that can be made regarding the determinants of invasiveness among alien species and across studies (Hayes & Barry, 2008).”
• The importance of assessing positive and beneficial impacts of alien species (2020, background): “…have investigated the unwanted deleterious consequences of alien taxa introductions in order to counterbalance a favourable attitude from many stakeholders towards alien taxa intentionally introduced for agriculture and forestry (Simberloff and Stiling 1996; Louda et al. 2003; Pyšek et al. 2008).”
• Invasive plants as drivers of regime shifts: identifying high‐priority invaders that alter feedback relationships (2014, background): “Py sek et al. (2008) showed that invasive species with the greatest impact are best studied, and we consider our list of 173 species to be a representative sample of invasive plant species that cause major impacts.”
• Tree invasions: a comparative test of the dominant hypotheses and functional traits (2011, background): “However, all the tree species were not equally studied and some tree species dominate the literature to date, which can partially explain the geographical and taxonomic biases in invasion ecology highlighted by Pysek et al. (2008) .”
• Ecological impacts of invasive alien plants: a meta-analysis of their effects on species, communities and ecosystems. (2011, background): “Current understanding of invasive plant impacts is restricted to relatively few dominant alien species (Pyšek et al. 2008).”
• The role of species charisma in biological invasions (2020, background): “While the taxonomic focus is largely driven by IAS impacts (Pyšek et al. 2008), there is, overall, a greater focus on invasive vertebrates than invertebrates, and on large and charismatic species (Wilson et al.”
• A global meta-analysis of the ecological impacts of nonnative crayfish (2013, methodology): “Meta-analyses are limited only by the taxonomy and geography of available data on nonnative species (Pyšek et al. 2008) and will continue to be an important tool in invasion biology.”
• Plant Invasions in Protected Areas (2013, background): “That invasions in European PAs are seriously understudied is rather surprising since in general terms, this continent is among those where plant invasions are most intensively studied (Pyšek et al. 2008).”
• A vision for global monitoring of biological invasions (2017, background): “…in information and capacity and difficulties of keeping most inventories regularly updated, along with taxonomic gaps, have impeded globally harmonized monitoring of invasions (Bellard and Jeschke, 2016; Canhos et al., 2015; Jeschke et al., 2012; McGeoch et al., 2010; Pyšek et al., 2008, 2013).”
• Diversity, biogeography and the global flows of alien amphibians and reptiles (2017, background): “This limits a comprehensive understanding of mechanisms and patterns of invasions at large scales (Pyšek et al., 2008; Richardson & Ricciardi, 2013) and, in turn, prevents the imple-”
• Reproductive biology of Australian acacias: important mediator of invasiveness? (2011, background): “Unfortunately, invasive taxa among Australian acacias are far better studied than are non-invasive taxa; this is in line with a general bias in invasion ecology whereby invasive species that exert greater impacts on invaded environment are better studied (Pyšek et al., 2008).”
• Ecological Impacts of Nonnative Freshwater Fishes (2011, background): “Based on an extensive literature review, Pyšek et al. (2008) found that our current knowledge is severely biased toward a very small number of species with imminent or realized ecological impacts (i.e., those species for which funding is more likely to be obtained).”
• The Potential Conservation Value of Non‐Native Species (2011, background): “The consequences of these biases are difficult to quantify, but they almost certainly have resulted in an emphasis on documenting the negative economic and biological effects of non-native species (Pyšek et al. 2008).”