Hubbry Logo
Invasive speciesInvasive speciesMain
Open search
Invasive species
Community hub
Invasive species
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Invasive species
Invasive species
from Wikipedia

North American beaver (Castor canadensis) dam in Tierra del Fuego
Kudzu growing over and smothering trees in Atlanta, Georgia
Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis) as a roadside weed in Poland
Vinca in a garden[1]

An invasive species is an introduced species that harms its new environment.[2] Invasive species adversely affect habitats and bioregions, causing ecological, environmental, and/or economic damage. Since the 20th century, invasive species have become serious economic, social, and environmental threats worldwide.

Invasion of long-established ecosystems by organisms is a natural phenomenon, but human-facilitated introductions have greatly increased the rate, scale, and geographic range of invasion. For millennia, humans have served as both accidental and deliberate dispersal agents, beginning with their earliest migrations, accelerating in the Age of Discovery, and accelerating again with the spread of international trade. Notable invasive plant species include the kudzu vine, giant hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum), Japanese knotweed (Reynoutria japonica), and yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis). Notable invasive animals include European rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus), domestic cats (Felis catus), and carp (family Cyprinidae).

Terminology

[edit]

Invasive species are the subset of established non-native alien or naturalized species that are a threat to native species and biodiversity.[3] The term "invasive" is poorly defined and often very subjective.[4] Invasive species may be plants, animals, fungi, and microbes; some include native species that have invaded human habitats such as farms and landscapes.[5] Some broaden the term to include indigenous or "native" species that have colonized natural areas.[4] Some sources name Homo sapiens as an invasive species,[6][7] but broad appreciation of human learning capacity and their behavioral potential and plasticity may argue against any such fixed categorization.[8] The definition of "native" can also be controversial. For example, the ancestors of modern horses (Equus ferus) evolved in North America and radiated to Eurasia before becoming extinct in North America. Upon being introduced to North America in 1493 by Spanish conquistadors, it is debatable whether the feral horses were native or exotic to the continent of their evolutionary ancestors.[9]

While invasive species can be studied within many subfields of biology, most research on invasive organisms has been in ecology and biogeography. Much of the work has been influenced by Charles Elton's 1958 book The Ecology of Invasion by Animals and Plants which creates a generalized picture of biological invasions.[10][11] Studies remained sparse until the 1990s.[11] This research, largely field observational studies, has disproportionately been concerned with terrestrial plants.[11] The rapid growth of the field has driven a need to standardize the language used to describe invasive species and events. Despite this, little standard terminology exists. The field lacks any official designation but is commonly referred to as "invasion ecology" or more generally "invasion biology".[10][11] This lack of standard terminology has arisen due to the interdisciplinary nature of the field, which borrows terms from disciplines such as agriculture, zoology, and pathology, as well as due to studies being performed in isolation.[12][10]

Colautti and MacIsaac nomenclature[4]
Stage Characteristic
0 Propagules residing in a donor region
I Traveling
II Introduced
III Localized and numerically rare
IVa Widespread but rare
IVb Localized but dominant
V Widespread and dominant

In an attempt to avoid the ambiguous, subjective, and pejorative vocabulary that so often accompanies discussion of invasive species even in scientific papers, Colautti and MacIsaac proposed a new nomenclature system based on biogeography rather than on taxa.[4] By discarding taxonomy, human health, and economic factors, this model focused only on ecological factors. The model evaluated individual populations rather than entire species. It classified each population based on its success in that environment. This model applied equally to indigenous and to introduced species, and did not automatically categorize successful introductions as harmful.[4]

The USDA's National Invasive Species Information Center defines invasive species very narrowly. According to Executive Order 13112, "'Invasive species' means an alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health."[13]

Causes

[edit]

Typically, an introduced species must survive at low population densities before it becomes invasive in a new location.[14] At low population densities, it can be difficult for the introduced species to reproduce and maintain itself in a new location, so a species might need to reach a location multiple times before it becomes established. Repeated patterns of human movement, such as ships sailing to and from ports or cars driving up and down highways, offer repeated opportunities for establishment (referred to as a high propagule pressure).[15]

Ecosystem-based mechanisms

[edit]

In ecosystems, the availability of resources determines the impact of additional species on the ecosystem. Stable ecosystems have a resource equilibrium, which can be changed fundamentally by the arrival of invasive species.[16] When changes such as a forest fire occur, normal ecological succession favors native grasses and forbs. An introduced species that can spread faster than natives can outcompete native species for food, squeezing the natives out. Nitrogen and phosphorus are often the limiting factors in these situations.[17] Every species occupies an ecological niche in its native ecosystem; some species fill large and varied roles, while others are highly specialized. Invading species may occupy unused niches, or create new ones.[18] For example, edge effects describe what happens when part of an ecosystem is disturbed, as in when land is cleared for agriculture. The boundary between the remaining undisturbed habitat and the newly cleared land itself forms a distinct new habitat, creating new winners and losers, and potentially hosting species that would not otherwise thrive outside the boundary habitat.[19]

In 1958, Charles S. Elton claimed that ecosystems with higher species diversity were less subject to invasive species because fewer niches remained unoccupied.[20] Other ecologists later pointed to highly diverse, but heavily invaded ecosystems, arguing that ecosystems with high species diversity were more susceptible to invasion.[21] This debate hinged on the spatial scale of invasion studies. Small-scale studies tended to show a negative relationship between diversity and invasion, while large-scale studies tended to show the reverse, perhaps a side-effect of invasives' ability to capitalize on increased resource availability and weaker species interactions that are more common when larger samples are considered.[22][23] However, this pattern does not seem to hold true for invasive vertebrates.[24]

The brown tree snake (Boiga irregularis) has had an impact on the native bird population of the island ecosystem of Guam.

Island ecosystems may be more prone to invasion because their species face few strong competitors and predators, and because their distance from colonizing species populations makes them more likely to have "open" niches.[25] For example, native bird populations on Guam have been decimated by the invasive brown tree snake (Boiga irregularis).[26]

In New Zealand the first invasive species were the dogs and rats brought by Polynesian settlers around 1300. These and other introductions devastated endemic New Zealand species.[27][28] The colonization of Madagascar brought similar harm to its ecosystems.[29] Logging has caused harm directly by destroying habitat, and has allowed non-native species such as prickly pear (Opuntia) and silver wattle (Acacia dealbata) to invade.[30][31] The water hyacinth (Pontederia crassipes) forms dense mats on water surfaces, limiting light penetration and hence harming aquatic organisms, and creating substantial management costs.[32][33] The shrub lantana (Lantana camara) is now considered invasive in over 60 countries, and has invaded large geographies in several countries prompting aggressive federal efforts to control it.[34][35]

Primary geomorphological effects of invasive plants are bioconstruction and bioprotection. For example, kudzu (Pueraria montana), a vine native to Asia, was widely introduced in the southeastern United States in the early 20th century to control soil erosion. The primary geomorphological effects of invasive animals are bioturbation, bioerosion, and bioconstruction. For example, invasions of the Chinese mitten crab (Eriocheir sinensis) have resulted in higher bioturbation and bioerosion rates.[36]

A native species can also become harmful and effectively invasive to its native environment after human alterations to its food web. This has been the case with the purple sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus purpuratus), which has decimated kelp forests along the northern California coast due to overharvesting of its natural predator, the California sea otter (Enhydra lutris).[37]

Species-based mechanisms

[edit]
Japanese knotweed (Reynoutria japonica) is considered one of the world's worst invasive species.
Cats (Felis catus) (here, killing a woodpecker) are considered invasive species in Australia and negatively impact wildlife worldwide.

Invasive species appear to have specific traits or specific combinations of traits that allow them to outcompete native species. In some cases, these characteristics include rates of growth and reproduction. In other cases, invasive species interact with native species other more directly. One study found that 86% of invasive species could be identified from such traits alone.[38] Another study found that invasive species often had only a few of the traits, and that noninvasive species had these also.[38][39][40] Common invasive species traits include fast growth and rapid reproduction, such as vegetative reproduction in plants;[38] association with humans;[41] and prior successful invasions.[42] Domestic cats (Felis catus) are effective predators of wildlife. They have become feral and invasive in places such as the Florida Keys.[43]

An introduced species might become invasive if it can outcompete native species for resources. If these species evolved under great competition or predation, then the new environment may host fewer able competitors, allowing the invader to proliferate. Ecosystems used to their fullest capacity by native species can be modeled as zero-sum systems, in which any gain for the invader is a loss for the native. However, such unilateral competitive superiority (and extinction of native species with increased populations of the invader) is not the rule.[21][44]

Lantana, abandoned citrus, Sdei Hemed

An invasive species might be able to use resources previously unavailable to native species, such as deep water accessed by a long taproot, or to live on previously uninhabited soil types. For example, barbed goatgrass (Aegilops triuncialis) was introduced to California on serpentine soils, which have low water-retention, low nutrient levels, a high magnesium/calcium ratio, and possible heavy metal toxicity. Plant populations on these soils tend to show low density, but goatgrass can form dense stands on these soils and crowd out native species.[45]

Invasive species may also alter their environment by releasing chemical compounds, modifying abiotic factors, or affecting the behavior of herbivores, all of which can impact other species. Some, like mother of thousands (Kalanchoe daigremontana), produce allelopathic compounds that inhibit competitors.[46] Others like the toad plant (Stapelia gigantea) facilitate the growth of seedlings of other species in arid environments by providing appropriate microclimates and preventing herbivores from eating seedlings.[47]

Changes in fire regimens are another form of facilitation. Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), originally from Eurasia, is highly fire-adapted. It spreads rapidly after burning, and increases the frequency and intensity of fires by providing large amounts of dry detritus during the fire season in western North America. Where it is widespread, it has altered the local fire regimen so much that native plants cannot survive the frequent fires, allowing it to become dominant in its introduced range.[48]

Ecological facilitation occurs where one species, including invasive species, physically modifies a habitat in ways advantageous to other species. For example, zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) increase habitat complexity on lake floors, providing crevices in which invertebrates live. This increase in complexity, together with the nutrition provided by the waste products of mussel filter-feeding, increases the density and diversity of benthic invertebrate communities.[49]

Introduced species may spread rapidly and unpredictably.[50] When bottlenecks and founder effects cause a great decrease in the population size and may constrict genetic variation,[51] individuals begin to show additive variance as opposed to epistatic variance. This conversion can lead to increased variance in the founding populations, which permits rapid evolution.[52] Selection may then act on the capacity to disperse as well as on physiological tolerance to new stressors in the environment, such as changed temperature and different predators and prey.[53]

Rapid adaptive evolution through intraspecific phenotypic plasticity, pre-adaptation, and post-introduction evolution lead to offspring that have higher fitness. Critically, plasticity permits changes to better suit the individual to its environment. Pre-adaptations and evolution after the introduction reinforce the success of the introduced species.[54]

The enemy release hypothesis states that evolution leads to ecological balance in every ecosystem. No single species can occupy a majority of an ecosystem due to the presences of competitors, predators, and diseases. Introduced species moved to a novel habitat can become invasive, with rapid population growth, when these controls do not exist in the new ecosystem.[55]

Vectors

[edit]

Non-native species have many vectors, but most are associated with human activity. Natural range extensions are common, but humans often carry specimens faster and over greater distances than natural forces.[56] An early human vector occurred when prehistoric humans introduced the Pacific rat (Rattus exulans) to Polynesia.[57]

The Chinese mitten crab (Eriocheir sinensis) may have been purposely introduced in Europe and North America because of its commercial value.

Vectors include plants or seeds imported for horticulture. The pet trade moves animals across borders, where they can escape and become invasive. Organisms may also stow away on transport vehicles. Incidental human assisted transfer is the main cause of introductions – other than in polar regions.[58] Diseases may be vectored by invasive insects: the Asian citrus psyllid (Diaphorina citri) carries the bacterial disease citrus greening.[59] The arrival of invasive propagules to a new site is a function of the site's invasibility.[60]

Many invasive species, once they are dominant in the area, become essential to the ecosystem of that area, and their removal could be harmful.[61] Economics plays a major role in exotic species introduction. High demand for the valuable Chinese mitten crab is one explanation for the possible intentional release of the species in foreign waters.[62]

Within the aquatic environment

[edit]

Maritime trade has rapidly affected the way marine organisms are transported within the ocean; new means of species transport include hull fouling and ballast water transport. In fact, Molnar et al. 2008 documented the pathways of hundreds of marine invasive species and found that shipping was the dominant mechanism for the transfer of invasive species.[63]

Cargo ship de-ballasting

Many marine organisms can attach themselves to vessel hulls. Such organisms are easily transported from one body of water to another, and are a significant risk factor for a biological invasion event.[64] Controlling for vessel hull fouling is voluntary and there are no regulations currently in place to manage hull fouling. However, the governments of California and New Zealand have announced more stringent control for vessel hull fouling within their respective jurisdictions.[65]

Another vector of non-native aquatic species is ballast water taken up at sea and released in port by transoceanic vessels.[66][67] Some 10,000 species are transported via ballast water each day.[68] Many of these are harmful. For example, freshwater zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) from Eurasia most likely reached the Great Lakes via ballast water.[69] The mussels outcompete native organisms for oxygen and food, and can be transported in the small puddle left in a supposedly empty ballast tank.[66] Regulations attempt to mitigate such risks,[70][71] not always successfully.[72]

Climate change is causing an increase in ocean temperature. These changes to the environment in turn cause range shifts in organisms,[73][74] creating new species interactions. For example, organisms in a ballast tank of a ship traveling from the temperate zone through tropical waters may experience temperature fluctuations as much as 20 °C.[75] Heat challenges during transport may enhance the stress tolerance of species in their non-native range, by selecting for genotypes that will survive a second applied heat stress, such as increased ocean temperature in the founder population.[76]

Effects of wildfire and firefighting

[edit]

Invasive species often exploit disturbances to an ecosystem (wildfires, roads, foot trails) to colonize an area. Large wildfires can sterilize soils, while adding nutrients.[17] Invasive plants that can regenerate from their roots then have an advantage over natives that rely on seeds for propagation.[48]

Adverse effects

[edit]

Invasive species can affect the invaded habitats and bioregions adversely, causing ecological, environmental, or economic damage.[77]

Ecological

[edit]

The European Union defines "Invasive Alien Species" as those that are outside their natural distribution area, and that threaten biological diversity.[78][79] Biotic invasion is one of the five top drivers for global biodiversity loss, and is increasing because of tourism and globalization.[80][81] This may be particularly true in inadequately regulated fresh water systems, though quarantines and ballast water rules have improved the situation.[82]

American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) combatting a Burmese python (Python bivittatus) in Florida

Invasive species may drive local native species to extinction via competitive exclusion, niche displacement, or hybridization with related native species. Therefore, besides their economic ramifications, alien invasions may result in extensive changes in the structure, composition and global distribution of the biota at sites of introduction, leading ultimately to the homogenization of the world's fauna and flora and the loss of biodiversity.[83][84] It is difficult to unequivocally attribute extinctions to a species invasion, though for example there is strong evidence that the extinction of about 90 amphibian species was caused by the chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) spread by international trade.[85]

Multiple successive introductions of different non-native species can worsen the total effect, as with the introductions of the amethyst gem clam (Gemma gemma) and the European green crab (Carcinus maenas). The gem clam was introduced into California's Bodega Harbor from the US East Coast a century ago. On its own, it did not displace native clams (Nutricola spp.). However, in the mid-1990s, the introduction of the European green crab resulted in an increase of the amethyst gem at the expense of the native clams.[86] In India, multiple invasive plants have invaded 66% of natural areas, reducing the densities of native forage plants, declining the habitat-use by wild herbivores and threatening the long-term sustenance of dependent carnivores, including tigers.[87][88]

Invasive species can change the functions of ecosystems. For example, invasive plants can alter the fire regime (cheatgrass, Bromus tectorum), nutrient cycling (smooth cordgrass, Spartina alterniflora), and hydrology (Tamarix) in native ecosystems.[89] Invasive species that are closely related to rare native species have the potential to hybridize with the native species. Harmful effects of hybridization have led to a decline and even extinction of native species.[90][91] For example, hybridization with introduced cordgrass threatens the existence of California cordgrass (Spartina foliosa) in San Francisco Bay.[92] Invasive species cause competition for native species, and because of this 400 of the 958 endangered species under the Endangered Species Act are at risk.[93]

Poster from the State of California asking campers to not move firewood around, avoiding the spread of invasive species

The unintentional introduction of forest pest species and plant pathogens can change forest ecology and damage the timber industry. Overall, forest ecosystems in the U.S. are widely invaded by exotic pests, plants, and pathogens.[94][95]

The Asian long-horned beetle (Anoplophora glabripennis) was first introduced into the U.S. in 1996, and was expected to infect and damage millions of acres of hardwood trees. As of 2005 thirty million dollars had been spent in attempts to eradicate this pest and protect millions of trees in the affected regions.[96] The woolly adelgid (Adelges tsugae) has inflicted damage on old-growth spruce, fir and hemlock forests and damages the Christmas tree industry.[97] Chestnut blight (Cryphonectria parasitica) and Dutch elm disease (Ascomycota) are plant pathogens with serious impacts.[98][99] Garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) is one of the most problematic invasive plant species in eastern North American forests, where it is highly invasive of the understory, reducing the growth rate of tree seedlings and threatening to modify the forest's tree composition.[100]

Native species can be threatened with extinction[101] through the process of genetic pollution. Genetic pollution is unintentional hybridization and introgression, which leads to homogenization or replacement of local genotypes as a result of either a numerical or fitness advantage of the introduced species.[102] Genetic pollution occurs either through introduction or through habitat modification, where previously isolated species are brought into contact with the new genotypes. Invading species have been shown to adapt to their new environments in a remarkably short amount of time.[101] The population size of invading species may remain small for a number of years and then experience an explosion in population, a phenomenon known as "the lag effect".[89]

Argentine ants (Linepithema humile), which form supercolonies across continents, are ranked among the world's 100 worst invasive animal species.[103]

Hybrids resulting from invasive species interbreeding with native species can incorporate their genotypes into the gene pool over time through introgression. Similarly, in some instances a small invading population can threaten much larger native populations. For example, cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) was introduced in the San Francisco Bay and hybridized with native California cordgrass (Spartina foliosa). The higher pollen count and male fitness of the invading species resulted in introgression that threatened the native populations due to lower pollen counts and lower viability of the native species.[104] Reduction in fitness is not always apparent from morphological observations alone. Some degree of gene flow is normal, and preserves constellations of genes and genotypes.[91][105] An example of this is the interbreeding of migrating coyotes (Canis latrans) with the critically endangered red wolf (Canis rufus), in areas of eastern North Carolina where the red wolf was reintroduced, reducing wolf numbers.[106]

Environmental

[edit]

In South Africa's Cape Town region, analysis demonstrated that the restoration of priority source water sub-catchments through the removal of thirsty alien plant invasions (such as Australian acacias, pines, eucalyptus, and Australian black wattle) would generate expected annual water gains of 50 billion liters within 5 years compared to the business-as-usual scenario (which is important as Cape Town experiences significant water scarcity). This is the equivalent to one-sixth of the city's current supply needs. These annual gains will double within 30 years. The catchment restoration is significantly more cost-effective then other water augmentation solutions (1/10 the unit cost of alternative options).[107] A water fund has been established, and these exotic species are being eradicated.[108]

Human health

[edit]

Invasive species can affect human health. With the alteration in ecosystem functionality (due to homogenization of biota communities), invasive species have resulted in negative effects on human well-being, which includes reduced resource availability, unrestrained spread of human diseases, recreational and educational activities, and tourism.[109][110] Alien species have caused diseases including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), monkey pox, and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS).[110]

Invasive species and accompanying control efforts can have long term public health implications. For instance, pesticides applied to treat a particular pest species could pollute soil and surface water.[96] Encroachment of humans into previously remote ecosystems has exposed exotic diseases such as HIV to the wider population.[96] Introduced birds (e.g. pigeons), rodents, and insects (e.g. mosquito, flea, louse and tsetse fly pests) can serve as vectors and reservoirs of human afflictions. Throughout recorded history, epidemics of human diseases, such as malaria, yellow fever, typhus, and bubonic plague, spread via these vectors.[20] A recent example of an introduced disease is the spread of the West Nile virus, which killed humans, birds, mammals, and reptiles.[111] The introduced Chinese mitten crabs (Eriocheir sinensis) are carriers of Asian lung fluke.[69] Waterborne disease agents, such as cholera bacteria (Vibrio cholerae), and causative agents of harmful algal blooms are often transported via ballast water.[112]

Economic

[edit]
Invasive water hyacinths (Pontederia crassipes) clog the Pasig River in Manila, Philippines in October 2020.[113]

Globally, invasive species management and control are substantial economic burdens, with expenditures reaching approximately $1.4 trillion annually.[55] The economic impact of invasive alien species alone was estimated to exceed $423 billion annually as of 2019. This cost has exhibited a significant increase, quadrupling every decade since 1970, underscoring the escalating financial implications of these biological invasions.[114]

Invasive species contribute to ecological degradation, altering ecosystem functionality and reducing the services ecosystems provide. This necessitates additional expenditures to control the spread of biological invasions, mitigate further impacts, and restore affected ecosystems. For example, the damage caused by 79 invasive species between 1906 and 1991 in the United States has been estimated at US$120 billion. Similarly, in China, invasive species have been reported to reduce the country's gross domestic product (GDP) by 1.36% per year.[110][115]

The management of biological invasions can be costly. In Australia, for instance, the expense to monitor, control, manage, and research invasive weed species is approximately AU$116.4 million per year, with costs directed solely to central and local governments.[110]

While in some cases, invasive species may offer economic benefits, such as the potential for commercial forestry from invasive trees, these benefits are generally overshadowed by the substantial costs associated with biological invasions. In most cases, the economic returns from invasive species are far less than the costs they impose.[116][110]

United States

[edit]

In the Great Lakes region the sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) is an invasive species. In its original habitat, it had co-evolved as a parasite that did not kill its host. However, in the Great Lakes region, it acts as a predator and can consume up to 40 pounds of fish in its 12–18 month feeding period.[117] Sea lampreys prey on all types of large fish such as lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) and salmon. The sea lampreys' destructive effects on large fish negatively affect the fishing industry and have helped cause the collapse of the population of some species.[117]

Economic costs from invasive species can be separated into direct costs through production loss in agriculture and forestry, and management costs. Estimated damage and control costs of invasive species in the U.S. amount to more than $138 billion annually.[96] Economic losses can occur through loss of recreational and tourism revenues.[118] When economic costs of invasions are calculated as production loss and management costs, they are low because they do not consider environmental damage; if monetary values were assigned to the extinction of species, loss in biodiversity, and loss of ecosystem services, costs from impacts of invasive species would drastically increase.[96] It is often argued that the key to invasive species management is early detection and rapid response.[119] However, early response only helps when the invasive species is not frequently reintroduced into the managed area, and the cost of response is affordable.[120]

Parthenium hysterophorus, Achanakmar Tiger Reserve

Weeds reduce yield in agriculture. Many weeds are accidental introductions that accompany imports of commercial seeds and plants. Introduced weeds in pastures compete with native forage plants, threaten young cattle (e.g., leafy spurge, Euphorbia virgata) or are unpalatable because of thorns and spines (e.g., yellow starthistle, Centaurea solstitialis). Forage loss from invasive weeds on pastures amounts to nearly US$1 billion in the U.S.[96] A decline in pollinator services and loss of fruit production has been caused by honey bees (Apis mellifera) infected by the invasive varroa mite (Varroa destructor). Introduced rats (Rattus rattus and R. norvegicus) have become serious pests[121] on farms, destroying stored grains.[96] The introduction of leaf miner flies (Agromyzidae), including the American serpentine leaf miner (Liriomyza trifolii), to California has caused losses in California's floriculture industry, as the larvae of these invasive species feed on ornamental plants.[122]

Invasive plant pathogens and insect vectors for plant diseases can suppress agricultural yields and harm nursery stock. Citrus greening is a bacterial disease vectored by the invasive Asian citrus psyllid (Diaphorina citri). As a result, citrus is under quarantine and highly regulated in areas where the psyllid has been found.[59]

Invasive species can impact outdoor recreation, such as fishing, hunting, hiking, wildlife viewing, and water-based activities. They can damage environmental services including water quality, plant and animal diversity, and species abundance, though the extent of this is under-researched.[123] Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) in parts of the US, fills lakes with plants, complicating fishing and boating.[124] The loud call of the introduced common coqui (Eleutherodactylus coqui) depresses real estate values in affected neighborhoods of Hawaii.[125] The large webs of the orb-weaving spider (Zygiella x-notata), invasive in California, disrupts garden work.[126]

Europe

[edit]

The overall economic cost of invasive alien species in Europe between 1960 and 2020 has been estimated at around US$140 billion (including potential costs that may or may not have actually materialized) or US$78 billion (only including observed costs known to have materialized). These estimates are very conservative. Models based on these data suggest a true annual cost of around US$140 billion in 2020.[127]

Italy is one of the most invaded countries in Europe, with an estimate of more than 3,000 alien species. The impacts of invasive alien species on the economy has been wide-ranging, from management costs, to loss of crops, to infrastructure damage. The overall economic cost of invasions to Italy between 1990 and 2020 was estimated at US$819.76 million (EUR€704.78 million). However, only 15 recorded species have more reliably estimated costs, hence the actual cost may be much larger than the aforementioned sum.[128]

France has an estimated minimum of 2,750 introduced and invasive alien species. Renault et al. (2021) obtained 1,583 cost records for 98 invasive alien species and found that they caused a conservative total cost between US$1.2 billion and 11.5 billion over the period 1993–2018. This study extrapolated costs for species invading France, but for which costs were reported only in other countries but not in France, which yielded an additional cost ranging from US$151 million to $3.03 billion. Damage costs were nearly eight times higher than management expenditure. Insects, and in particular the Asian tiger mosquito (Aedes albopictus) and the yellow fever mosquito (A. aegypti), created the highest economic costs, followed by non-graminoid terrestrial flowering and aquatic plants (Ambrosia artemisiifolia, Ludwigia sp. and Lagarosiphon major). Over 90% of alien species currently recorded in France had no costs reported in the literature, resulting in high biases in taxonomic, regional and activity sector coverages. However, the lack of reports does not mean there are no negative consequences or costs.[129]

Favorable effects

[edit]

The entomologist Chris D. Thomas argues that most introduced species are neutral or beneficial with respect to other species[130] but this is a minority opinion. The scientific community ubiquitously considers their effects on biodiversity to be negative.[131] Others point out that that conservation and restoration projects can have fascist principles behind them.[132] Some, like environmental journalist Fred Pearce, take a more philosophical stance on certain conservation paths, claiming that those "who want to cosset nature like a delicate flower, to protect it from the threat of alien species, are the ethnic cleansers of nature, neutralizing the forces that they should be promoting."[133] Emma Marris points out that, the "only way to really stop life from changing is to kill it."[134] Indigenous communities have often incorporated introduced species, such as the banana tree to the Americas, into their traditional diets and kinships.[134]

Some invasive species can provide a suitable habitat or food source for other organisms. In areas where a native has become extinct or reached a point that it cannot be restored, non-native species can fill their role. For instance, in the US, the endangered southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii) mainly nests in the non-native tamarisk.[135] The introduced mesquite (Neltuma juliflora) is an aggressive invasive species in India, but is the preferred nesting site of native waterbirds in small cities like Udaipur in Rajasthan.[136] Similarly, Ridgway's rail (Rallus obsoletus) has adapted to the invasive hybrid of Spartina alterniflora and Spartina foliosa, which offers better cover and nesting habitat.[137] In Australia, saltwater crocodiles (Crocodylus porosus), which had become endangered, have recovered by feeding on introduced feral pigs (Sus domesticus).[138]

Non-native species can act as catalysts for restoration, increasing the heterogeneity and biodiversity in an ecosystem. This can create microclimates in sparse and eroded ecosystems, promoting the growth and reestablishment of native species. For example, in Kenya, guava trees in farmland are attractive to many fruit-eating birds, which drop seeds from rainforest trees as much as 2 km (1.2 mi) away beneath the guavas, encouraging forest regeneration.[139]

Non-native species can provide ecosystem services, functioning as biocontrol agents to limit the effects of invasive agricultural pests.[135] Asian oysters, for example, filter water pollutants better than native oysters in Chesapeake Bay.[140] Some species have invaded an area so long ago that they are considered to have naturalised there. For example, the sweat bee (Lasioglossum leucozonium), shown by population genetic analysis to be an invasive species in North America,[141] has become an important pollinator of caneberry (Rubus spp.) as well as cucurbit, apple trees, and blueberry (Cyanococcus) bushes.[142] In the US, the endangered Taylor's checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha taylori) has come to rely on invasive ribwort plantain (Plantago lanceolata) as the food plant for its caterpillars.[143]

Some invasions offer potential commercial benefits. For instance, silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) and common carp (Cyprinus carpio) can be harvested for human food and exported to markets already familiar with the product, or processed into pet foods or mink feed. Water hyacinth (Pontederia crassipes) can be turned into fuel by methane digesters,[144] and other invasive plants can be harvested and utilized as a source of bioenergy.[145]

Control, eradication, and study

[edit]

Humans are versatile enough to remediate adverse effects of species invasions.[146][8][147] The public is motivated by invasive species that impact their local area.[148] The control of alien species populations is important in the conservation of biodiversity in natural ecosystem. One of the most promising methods for controlling alien species is genetic.[149]

Cargo inspection and quarantine

[edit]

The original motivation was to protect against agricultural pests while still allowing the export of agricultural products. In 1994 the first set of global standards were agreed to, including the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement). These are overseen by the World Trade Organization. The International Maritime Organization oversees the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments (the Ballast Water Management Convention). Although primarily targeted at other, more general environmental concerns, the Convention on Biological Diversity does specify some steps that its members should take to control invasive species. The CBD is the most significant international agreement on the environmental consequences of invasive species; most such measures are voluntary and unspecific.[150]

Slowing spread

[edit]

Firefighters are becoming responsible for decontamination of their own equipment, public water equipment, and private water equipment, due to the risk of aquatic invasive species transfer.[151] In the United States this is especially a concern for wildland firefighters because quagga (Dreissena bugensis) and zebra (Dreissena polymorpha) mussel invasion and wildfires co-occur in the American West.[152][153][154][155]

Reestablishing species

[edit]
Takahē (Porphyrio hochstetteri) have bred after translocation to restored islands, like these on Kapiti Island, off New Zealand.

Island restoration deals with the eradication of invasive species on islands. A 2019 study suggests that if eradications of invasive animals were conducted on just 169 islands, the survival prospects of 9.4% of the Earth's most highly threatened terrestrial insular vertebrates would be improved.[156]

Invasive vertebrate eradication on islands aligns with United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 15 and associated targets.[157][158]

Rodents were carried to South Georgia, an island in the southern Atlantic Ocean with no permanent inhabitants, in the 18th century by sealing and whaling ships. They soon wrought havoc on the island's bird population, eating eggs and attacking chicks. In 2018, the South Georgia Island was declared free of invasive rodents after a multi-year extermination effort. Bird populations have rebounded, including the South Georgia pipit (Anthus antarcticus) and South Georgia pintail (Anas georgica georgica), both endemic to the island.[159][160]

Taxon substitution

[edit]
The Aldabra giant tortoise (Aldabrachelys gigantea) has helped to restore ecological equilibrium on two islets off Mauritius, including the Île aux Aigrettes (pictured).

Non-native species can be introduced to fill an ecological engineering role that previously was performed by a native species now extinct. The procedure is known as taxon substitution.[135][161][162] On many islands, tortoise extinction has resulted in dysfunctional ecosystems with respect to seed dispersal and herbivory. On the offshore islets of Mauritius, tortoises now extinct had served as the keystone herbivores. Introduction of the non-native Aldabra giant tortoises (Aldabrachelys gigantea) on two islets in 2000 and 2007 has begun to restore ecological equilibrium. The introduced tortoises are dispersing seeds of several native plants and are selectively grazing invasive plant species. Grazing and browsing are expected to replace ongoing intensive manual weeding, and the introduced tortoises are already breeding.[163]

By using them as food

[edit]

The practice of eating invasive species to reduce their populations has been explored. In 2005, Chef Bun Lai of Miya's Sushi in New Haven, Connecticut, created the first menu dedicated to invasive species. At that time, half the items on the menu were conceptual because those invasive species were not yet commercially available.[164] By 2013, Miya's offered invasive aquatic species such as Chesapeake blue catfish (Ictalurus furcatus), Florida lionfish (Pterois sp.), Kentucky silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix), Georgia cannonball jellyfish (Stomolophus meleagris), and invasive plants such as Japanese knotweed (Reynoutria japonica) and autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata).[165][166][167][168] Joe Roman, a Harvard and University of Vermont conservation biologist and recipient of the Rachel Carson Environmental award, runs a website named "Eat The Invaders".[169][170][164] In the 21st century, organizations including Reef Environmental Educational Foundation and the Institute for Applied Ecology have published cookbooks and recipes using invasive species as ingredients.[171][172] Invasive plant species have been explored as a sustainable source of beneficial phytochemicals and edible protein.[173][174][175]

Proponents of eating invasive organisms argue that humans have the ability to eat away any species that it has an appetite for, pointing to the many animals which humans have been able to hunt to extinction—such as the Caribbean monk seal (Neomonachus tropicalis), and the passenger pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius). They further point to the success that Jamaica has had in significantly decreasing the population of lionfish by encouraging the consumption of the fish.[176] Skeptics point out that once a foreign species has entrenched itself in a new place—such as the Indo-Pacific lionfish that has now virtually taken over the waters of the Western Atlantic, Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico—eradication is almost impossible. Critics argue that encouraging consumption might have the unintended effect of spreading harmful species even more widely.[177]

Pesticides and herbicides

[edit]

Pesticides are commonly used to control invasives.[178] Herbicides used against invasive plants include fungal herbicides.[178] Although the effective population size of an introduced population is bottlenecked, some genetic variation has been known to provide invasive plants with resistance against these fungal bioherbicides.[178] Invasive populations of cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) exist with resistance to Ustilago bullata used as a biocontrol, and a similar problem has been reported in Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum) subject to Bipolaris microstegii and B. drechsleri.[178] This is not solely a character of invasive plant genetics but is normal for wild plants such as the weed wild flax (Linum marginale) and its fungal pathogen flax rust (Melampsora lini).[178] Crops have another disadvantage over any uncontrolled plant – wild native or invasive – namely their greater uptake of nutrients, as they are deliberately bred to increase nutrient intake to enable increased product output.[178]

Gene drive

[edit]

A gene drive could be used to eliminate invasive species and has, for example, been proposed as a way to eliminate invasive mammal species in New Zealand.[179] Briefly put, an individual of a species may have two versions of a gene, one with a desired coding outcome and one not, with offspring having a 50:50 chance of inheriting one or the other. Genetic engineering can be used to inhibit inheritance of the non-desired gene, resulting in faster propagation of the desired gene in subsequent generations.[180] Gene drives for biodiversity conservation purposes are being explored as part of The Genetic Biocontrol of Invasive Rodents program because they offer the potential for reduced risk to non-target species and reduced costs when compared to traditional invasive species removal techniques.[181] A wider outreach network for gene drive research exists to raise awareness of the value of gene drive research for the public good.[180] Some scientists are concerned that the technique could wipe out species in their original native habitats.[182] The gene could mutate, causing unforeseen problems,[183] or hybridize with native species.[184]

Predicting invasive plants

[edit]

Accurately predicting the impacts of non-native plants can be an especially effective management option because most introductions of non-native plant species are intentional.[185][186][187] Weed risk assessments attempt to predict the chances that a specific plant will have negative effects in a new environment, often using a standardized questionnaire. The resulting total score is associated with a management action such as "prevent introduction".[188][189] Assessments commonly use information about the physiology,[188] life history,[189] native ranges,[190] and phylogenetic relationships of the species evaluated. The effectiveness of the approach is debated.[191][192]

Predicting invasive animals

[edit]

Invasive alien animal species can seriously affect human well-being and biodiversity. A hierarchical approach underpins the management measures used to lessen these effects, ranging from invasive species management to invasion prevention through early warning and quick response.[193][194][195] Currenlty, a small number of research on invading mammals have employed spatially explicit models, and the majority of them only looked at a small number of species. The majority of the research employed climate matching to assess the appropriateness of global geographic regions or the potential for established species to spread farther. For species that are not yet established but are anticipated to do so, modelling techniques may be a helpful tool to evaluate the risk of establishment; nevertheless, there aren't many research of this kind for mammals.[193][196]

Returning invasive species to origin country

[edit]

In 2025 in the first time in history a project to return an invasive specie to the country it came from, has been started in the Hebrides in Scotland. Hedgehogs "native to the UK mainland" were brought to those islands decades ago to fight garden pests, but the introduction create severe harm to birds which are nesting on the ground. The authorities decided to move them back to the mainland, meaning help to the birds but do not do harm to the hedgehogs.[197]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
Invasive species, also termed invasive alien species, are non-native animals, plants, fungi, or microorganisms introduced beyond their natural geographic range, where they establish self-sustaining populations, proliferate rapidly, and exert deleterious effects on native , functions, and human interests. These introductions occur almost exclusively through anthropogenic vectors, including global , shipping water discharge, ornamental releases, and accidental transport via vehicles or luggage, which bypass natural dispersal barriers and enable lacking evolved controls—such as predators or competitors—to dominate altered environments. Ecologically, invasive species drive native declines and extinctions by mechanisms like resource monopolization, alteration, and transmission; for instance, the has extirpated multiple avian taxa on following inadvertent importation. Economically, they impose escalating burdens, with biological invasions costing the at least $1.22 trillion in documented damages from 1960 to 2020 through reduced agricultural yields, degradation, and control expenditures, while global annual losses exceed $400 billion. Management challenges persist due to detection difficulties and incomplete eradication feasibility, underscoring prevention via border inspections and pathway regulations as the paramount strategy, though debates arise over categorizing certain amid varying empirical impacts across contexts.

Definitions and Terminology

Core Concepts and Criteria

A non-native qualifies as invasive when it establishes a viable in a , reproduces and disperses rapidly beyond its introduction site, and inflicts measurable ecological, economic, or human health damage, prioritizing causal evidence of harm such as resource competition, predation, or modification over taxonomic origin alone. This framework derives from observable mechanisms like superior competitive ability or predator escape, where the species alters native community dynamics through direct displacement or indirect trophic cascades, as evidenced by shifts in native abundance and diversity metrics post-introduction. Core criteria for invasiveness encompass demographic traits enabling persistence and proliferation, including high (e.g., annual reproductive output exceeding native counterparts by factors of 2-10), efficient propagule dispersal via wind, water, or vectors, allowing exploitation of unoccupied niches, and reduced susceptibility to local pathogens or herbivores due to evolutionary naivety in the recipient biota. These are quantified empirically through invasion curves modeling rates (often r > 0.1 per versus near-zero for natives) and range expansion velocities surpassing 1 km/year in terrestrial systems. Lack of co-evolved controls amplifies these effects, leading to dominance where invasives comprise over 50% of in invaded patches, verifiable via field surveys and modeling. Such species drive substantial global harms, contributing to roughly 60% of documented and extinctions since 1500 CE through mechanisms like hyper-predation and hybridization. Economically, they impose annual costs exceeding $423 billion USD as of 2023, encompassing direct losses from agricultural yield reductions (e.g., crop damage averaging 10-20% in affected regions) and management expenditures like eradication efforts. These figures, aggregated from invasion cost databases, underscore the causal link between unchecked spread and systemic degradation, with underreported indirect effects like lost services amplifying totals beyond explicit tallies.

Historical Evolution of the Term

The concept of species introductions disrupting natural assemblages predates the formal term "invasive species," with noting in his 1859 the role of dispersal in species distribution and the potential for introduced plants and animals to compete with natives, as observed in acclimatization efforts of the era. However, these early discussions treated such phenomena largely as curiosities within evolutionary dynamics rather than systematic ecological threats. The term "invasive species" gained prominence through Charles S. Elton's 1958 book The Ecology of Invasions by Animals and Plants, which framed biological invasions as perturbations to stable ecological equilibria, drawing analogies to human conquests and emphasizing the role of human-mediated transport in enabling rapid spread. Elton's work shifted the focus from mere dispersal to the community-level consequences, establishing invasion ecology as a distinct field and influencing subsequent research on predictability of invasion success. Following Elton's foundational text, the terminology evolved through institutional refinements that incorporated explicit human agency and standardized distinctions between non-native ("alien") species and those causing demonstrable harm ("invasive"). The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) began addressing invasive alien species in the , but systematic guidelines emerged in the 1990s amid growing recognition of threats, culminating in the 1992 (CBD), which defined invasive alien species as those whose introduction and spread outside their natural range threaten ecosystems, habitats, or species. This period saw UN-backed efforts, including the Global Invasive Species Programme launched in 1997, to harmonize terms: "alien" denoting non-nativity via human vectors, while "invasive" required evidence of adverse impacts, moving beyond Elton's equilibrium disruption model toward policy-oriented frameworks for prevention and management. By the 2000s, conceptual development pivoted empirically toward , prioritizing measurable ecological, economic, or health effects over origin alone, informed by accumulating data from global repositories like the IUCN Global Invasive Species Database. Analyses of introduction records indicate that only approximately 10% of established non-native exhibit invasive traits, underscoring that non-nativity alone insufficiently predicts and necessitating criteria like rapid spread and biotic resistance failure for . This evidence-based refinement, evident in IUCN's 2000 guidelines, reflected a maturation from descriptive narratives to quantitative risk evaluation, though it retained Elton's core insight into invasions as irreversible alterations to recipient communities.

Debates Over Definitions

Scientific debates over the definition of invasive species center on whether non-native origin alone suffices as a criterion or if demonstrable negative impacts must be evidenced, with polarization evident in surveys of experts. A 2022 analysis of revealed high disagreement on foundational terms, including 52% of respondents rejecting claims that invasion terminology is xenophobic compared to 28% who agreed, underscoring divides between those prioritizing empirical harm and others viewing labels as value-laden. Similarly, a 2011 survey of reviewers for the journal Biological Invasions highlighted ongoing contention over core concepts, with respondents split on using origin as a proxy for ecological risk rather than requiring causal proof of disruption. Critics of origin-based definitions argue it embeds anthropocentric biases assuming pre-human equilibria, ignoring cases where drive comparable changes through range expansions or competitive dominance. This tension manifests in "invasive denialism," a term coined to describe skepticism toward broad condemnation of non-natives absent impact data, contrasted with concerns over understating verified harms. Empirical studies challenge the native-innocence assumption, documenting native species causing biodiversity shifts akin to those attributed to non-natives, such as through rapid expansions disrupting local assemblages. In the 2020s, climate-induced native range shifts have further blurred distinctions, with species moving poleward or upslope at rates mimicking invasions, yet evading "invasive" labels despite potential for uncoordinated arrivals overwhelming resident biota. A 2020 review urged reframing invasion frameworks to assess climate-driven native expansions under similar impact lenses, as absent biotic controls, these shifts can yield effects equivalent to non-native incursions. Proponents of refined terminology advocate impact-based metrics over pejorative origin proxies to foster nuance, proposing "invasive" apply strictly to non-natives with quantified negative effects while regulating others as presumptively benign until proven otherwise—a stance endorsed by 76% in a poll. Such approaches counterbalance tendencies toward militaristic in , which a 2019 linguistic analysis found more prevalent than in native studies, potentially biasing policy against functional contributions of arrivals. This shift prioritizes causal evidence from field data and experiments, mitigating equilibrium-model assumptions critiqued for overlooking dynamic, non-static ecosystems.

Historical Context

Natural and Prehistoric Invasions

Natural invasions of species across biogeographic barriers have shaped ecosystems for millions of years, predating human influence and demonstrating that biotic exchanges are inherent to Earth's dynamic geological and climatic history. Fossil records reveal recurrent episodes of such invasions during Pleistocene glaciations (approximately 2.6 million to 11,700 years ago), when lowered sea levels exposed land bridges like , enabling mammal migrations that triggered competitive displacements and extinctions comparable to those observed in contemporary human-mediated invasions. For instance, in , ice-age megafauna assemblages experienced invasions by species such as , alongside extinctions of endemic forms like , , and woolly mammoths, while others like muskoxen persisted, illustrating how natural range expansions altered community structures without anthropogenic vectors. The Great American Biotic Interchange, initiated around 3 million years ago with the closure of the and formation of the , exemplifies prehistoric invasions on a continental scale, where North American carnivores and ungulates colonized , contributing to the disproportionate of native South American mammals and facilitating the evolutionary radiation of surviving lineages like marsupials. Paleoecological analyses indicate these invasions drove significant turnover, with invading taxa exploiting novel niches and outcompeting locals, thereby challenging notions of pre-human ecosystems as static or equilibrium-bound. In South America, such events resulted in elevated rates among large-bodied mammals, underscoring causal links between rapid faunal influxes and ecological restructuring akin to modern invasive dynamics. Natural dispersal mechanisms, independent of humans, have long facilitated these invasions, including anemochory via wind, zoochory by birds carrying seeds over oceanic barriers, and hydrochory through ocean currents transporting propagules across seas. Migratory birds, for example, mediate long-distance of hundreds of kilometers, including to remote islands, as evidenced by empirical tracking of viable diaspores in droppings, which prefigures hybridization events detectable in ancient genomic records. Genomic studies of and subfossil DNA reveal ancient hybridization following such natural invasions, where from colonizing populations into resident genomes generated adaptive variants, contributing to bursts and shifts over timescales. These processes highlight that invasive-like outcomes—range expansion, competition, and —arose endogenously through geophysical changes like glacial cycles, rather than solely via recent .

Human-Driven Introductions Through History

, during their expansion across the Pacific from approximately 1000 BCE to 1300 CE, introduced the Pacific rat (Rattus exulans) to numerous islands via voyaging canoes, where it became invasive by preying on eggs, chicks, and native seeds, contributing to local extinctions of flightless birds and altering dynamics. Genetic evidence from confirms these rats accompanied human settlers, distinguishing them from later European introductions. European exploration and colonialism accelerated introductions starting in the late 15th century; Christopher Columbus's 1492 voyage to the Caribbean brought pigs (Sus scrofa), cats (Felis catus), rats (Rattus spp.), and mice (Mus musculus), establishing feral populations that depredated native fauna and competed with endemic species. By the 1500s, transatlantic ships unintentionally transported additional species, such as European earthworms to North America—where native forms had been absent since the last glaciation—and water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes) possibly via early ballast practices, facilitating ecosystem changes like soil turnover and waterway clogging. These transfers, part of the broader Columbian Exchange, involved over 100 Old World species to the Americas by 1600, many persisting as invasives. In the 19th century, the amplified vectors through expanded trade; ornamental horticulture drove introductions of plants like Japanese knotweed (), first planted in Britain in 1847 as a garden curiosity, which escaped cultivation and spread aggressively via rhizomes. Victorian-era plant hunters sourced exotics from and for acclimatization societies, resulting in invasives such as kudzu () imported to the U.S. in 1876 for and ornament, later overtaking forests. Concurrently, ships increasingly discharged water and sediment during the shift from solid to liquid ballast around the mid-1800s, introducing marine species like the European periwinkle snail (Littorina saxatilis) to North American coasts by the early 1800s, where it colonized intertidal zones. Biogeographic analyses show human-mediated introductions during these periods elevated dispersal rates by orders of magnitude over natural baselines, with long-distance propagule pressure overwhelming isolation barriers that historically limited invasions to 10-100 km per millennium for many taxa. By the late , agricultural expansions further vectored species like the (Eriocheir sinensis) via intentional releases for fisheries, though initial escapes predated formal 20th-century recognitions. This escalation, driven by steamship trade volumes exceeding prior sail-era capacities, set precedents for 20th-century booms without yet invoking systematic ecological monitoring.

Formal Recognition in the 20th Century

Following , systematic ecological surveys began documenting the extensive damages from non-native species, shifting recognition from isolated cases to broader empirical patterns of disruption and economic loss. In , European rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus), proliferating since their 19th-century introduction, reached plague levels in the 1950s, devastating pastures and crops with annual agricultural damages exceeding tens of millions of Australian pounds—equivalent to hundreds of millions in modern terms—and prompting the 1950 release of virus, which reduced populations by over 90% in affected areas within years. Policy responses formalized in the late , building on environmental laws like the U.S. , which identified invasive species as threats to native . The 1990 Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act targeted pathways such as ballast water, while the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity's Article 8(h) obligated signatories to prevent introductions, control, or eradicate alien species endangering ecosystems, habitats, or native taxa, influencing over 190 countries. U.S. 13112, issued by President Clinton on February 3, 1999, established the National Invasive Species Council to oversee prevention, early detection, and coordinated control across federal agencies, defining invasive species as non-native organisms causing economic, environmental, or human health harm. Paralleling this, the Invasive Species Specialist Group, formed in 1994 under the IUCN Species Survival Commission, developed databases aggregating verified records of invasive species impacts, enabling global tracking of thousands of documented cases to inform prioritized interventions.

Traits and Mechanisms of Invasiveness

Species-Level Characteristics

Invasive species commonly possess heritable traits that confer advantages in and proliferation within non-native ranges, rooted in evolutionary pressures favoring rapid exploitation of resources. High , characterized by elevated seed or production, enables quick population expansion; meta-analyses indicate invasive produce significantly more seeds and fruits than non-invasive counterparts, correlating with invasiveness across diverse taxa. Similarly, short generation times and efficient resource use accelerate demographic growth, allowing invasives to outpace natives in disturbed or resource-variable settings. Phenotypic plasticity—the capacity for genotype-dependent trait expression to vary with environmental cues—facilitates to heterogeneous conditions, though empirical syntheses reveal mixed on its primacy over fixed trait means. Invasive often display greater plasticity in growth and physiological responses compared to natives, enabling tolerance to novel stressors like varying nutrient availability or climate regimes. Generalist feeding or tolerances further enhance success, as seen in with broad dietary ranges that reduce dependence on specific resources, contrasting specialists vulnerable to niche disruption. Certain competitive mechanisms, such as in plants, provide direct suppression of native competitors via biochemical inhibition of or growth; invasives frequently exhibit higher expression of such traits, contributing to dominance in recipient communities. These attributes often stem from pre-adaptations in native ranges, particularly for species originating from disturbance-prone habitats like Mediterranean ecosystems, where historical anthropogenic pressures selected for resilience to turnover, , and fragmentation—traits that align causally with thriving in human-modified landscapes elsewhere. Post-introduction, invasive species frequently undergo rapid , with meta-analyses documenting trait shifts in defense, growth, and that enhance fitness; for instance, reduced defenses and increased competitive ability evolve within decades, driven by enemy release and novel selection. Such changes occur via standing or mutations, with multiply introduced populations showing elevated evolutionary potential, including phenotypic shifts in as few as 20 generations. This evolutionary dynamism underscores how species-level traits interact with introduction dynamics to amplify invasiveness, independent of recipient properties.
Trait CategoryKey Features in InvasivesSupporting Evidence
ReproductiveHigh , short Higher seed/fruit output vs. non-invasives
Adaptive in growth/physiologyGreater response variation to environment
Competitive, generalist resource useBiochemical suppression and broad tolerances
EvolutionaryRapid post-introduction shiftsTrait evolution in defense/growth within decades

Ecosystem and Environmental Factors

The invasibility of recipient ecosystems is influenced by their structural and dynamic properties, including levels of disturbance, climatic suitability, and biotic interactions, rather than assuming perpetual equilibrium states that resist change. Disturbed habitats, such as those altered by fire, agriculture, or land-use changes, provide vacant niches and reduced competition, facilitating the establishment of invasive species more than intact systems. For instance, 86% of invasive plant species require disturbance for initial establishment, compared to only 12% of invasive animal species, based on a review of 53 case studies across taxa. This pattern holds because disturbances lower native biomass and diversity, creating opportunities for propagule survival and germination, as evidenced in experimental manipulations where invasive plants colonized disturbed plots at rates up to three times higher than undisturbed controls. Climatic congruence between the invader's native range and the recipient environment strongly predicts establishment success by aligning physiological tolerances for , , and . Species introduced to regions with high climate matching—measured via niche overlap indices—exhibit establishment rates exceeding 50% in modeled projections, whereas mismatches reduce viability through physiological stress. Human-induced fragmentation exacerbates this by generating heterogeneous microclimates and , where invasives exploit transitional zones; for example, forest edges created by logging show 2-5 times higher invasive cover than interior habitats due to altered and regimes. The enemy release hypothesis posits that invasives thrive in novel ranges due to fewer co-evolved antagonists, such as pathogens and herbivores, allowing reallocation of resources from defense to growth and reproduction. Experimental evidence supports this: invasive plants like Callery pear experience 40-60% less herbivory in introduced ranges than natives, correlating with higher accumulation in common garden trials. Meta-analyses of 100+ studies confirm reduced enemy pressure boosts invasive performance by 20-30% on average, though generalist enemies may accumulate over time. Anthropogenic alterations, including and land conversion, foster "novel ecosystems" characterized by non-historical species assemblages where invasives occupy functional roles vacated by declining natives, challenging views of ecosystems as static equilibria. These systems emerge from causal disruptions like or nutrient enrichment, enabling invasives to stabilize processes such as or in otherwise degraded landscapes; for instance, urban fragments harbor invasive-dominated networks that sustain higher than expected under traditional resistance models. Such dynamics underscore that invasiveness arises from interactions between ecosystem instability and invader traits, not inherent equilibrium resilience.

Vectors and Pathways of Introduction

Intentional Human Introductions

Intentional human introductions of non-native species occur for purposes including biological control, ornamental landscaping, forage and erosion control, , and enhancement of food or sport fisheries. These translocations aim to provide economic or ecological benefits but frequently result in unintended invasions when species establish self-sustaining populations beyond their intended ranges. Historical records document such introductions dating back centuries, with acceleration in the 19th and 20th centuries due to expanding global trade and colonial activities. One primary motive has been biological control, where predators or parasites are imported to suppress pest populations. In 1888, the vedalia beetle (Rodolia cardinalis), a native of , was intentionally introduced to to combat the cottony cushion scale (), which threatened orchards; this effort succeeded dramatically, reducing scale infestations within two years and demonstrating classical biological control's potential, though subsequent introductions of control agents have sometimes disrupted native ecosystems. Ornamental and utilitarian plantings provide another vector, as seen with (), imported from to the in 1876 for display at the Philadelphia and later promoted for and in the southeastern states; by the mid-20th century, it had spread uncontrollably, smothering forests and reducing . Introductions for food, sport, or aesthetic reasons have similarly yielded mixed outcomes. European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) were deliberately released in New York City's Central Park in 1890 by , who sought to establish all bird species mentioned in Shakespeare's works; the population exploded to over 200 million across , competing with native cavity-nesting birds and damaging agriculture through crop consumption. In Africa, (Lates niloticus) was stocked in starting in the 1950s under colonial to bolster commercial yields; initial catches surged, supporting a valuable export industry, but the predator decimated over 200 endemic species, causing collapse and altering the lake's dynamics. Contemporary intentional introductions persist in sectors like and habitat restoration, where species are selected for productivity or engineering benefits but risk escapement or hybridization. For instance, (Salmo salar) farming in Pacific waters has led to escapes establishing feral populations that interbreed with or outcompete wild stocks, while some restoration efforts, such as beaver (Castor canadensis) releases for creation, have enabled range expansions into unsuitable habitats like since the 1940s, resulting in landscape-altering dams and native vegetation loss. Empirical data indicate that while short-term gains often materialize—such as increased harvest volumes—long-term ecological costs frequently outweigh benefits, with contributing to 42% of threats to endangered taxa in some regions.

Unintentional Spread Mechanisms

One primary mechanism of unintentional invasive species spread involves maritime shipping, particularly through ballast water discharge. Zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) were introduced to the in the late 1980s via ballast water from transoceanic vessels originating in , where the species is native; they were first detected in in 1988 and rapidly proliferated across the system. Similar hitchhiking occurs in hull fouling and cargo holds, facilitating the transport of aquatic invertebrates, algae, and microbes. Air cargo and container shipments also serve as vectors for terrestrial hitchhikers, including and plant propagules. Inspections reveal nonindigenous pests in a substantial proportion of international flights and sea containers, with associations between contaminated arrivals and factors like seasonal wet conditions or origin regions. Trade in soil-contaminated material exacerbates this, as contaminants such as weed seeds and pathogens adhere to roots or substrates during international horticultural exchanges. Accidental releases from the pet and aquarium s contribute further, where escapes or disposals of non-native animals establish populations. In , Burmese pythons (Python bivittatus) proliferated in the following releases and escapes from the market starting in the 1980s, leading to widespread establishment by the 2000s. and volume analyses track these pathways, linking propagule pressure— the rate of introduction attempts—to success, with global expansion correlating to accelerated establishment rates of alien species since the mid-20th century.

Influence of Global Trade, Travel, and Climate


International trade serves as the primary driver of biological invasions in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, with container shipping and air cargo acting as key vectors for unintentional introductions. Freight shipping transports species via hull fouling, ballast water, and packaging materials, while air travel accelerates dispersal of insects and pathogens through cargo and passenger luggage. The global shipping network, for instance, facilitates mosquito invasions, with models showing reduced spread in high-biosecurity ports but persistent risk from high trade volumes.
Post-2020 surges in have amplified these risks, as exponential growth in small parcel shipments via postal and courier services has led to increased detections of live , , and material in packages. This pathway, often unregulated for non-commercial imports, disproportionately involves non-native , including those traded as pets, where invasives are overrepresented across taxa like mammals, birds, and reptiles. Combined with rising import volumes—such as millions of shipping containers annually to the —these trends create hotspots for new establishments in regions like . Climate change synergizes with these human-mediated vectors by expanding suitable habitats for introduced species through rising temperatures, elevated CO2 levels, and altered precipitation patterns, enabling faster range shifts. , for example, shift ranges at rates up to 100 times faster than many natives under warming scenarios, with environmental differences driving ongoing expansions beyond dispersal limits. Studies project contractions in some southern habitats but northward expansions for species like , with overall invasion risks heightened by disrupted monsoons and extreme weather favoring tropical invasives. Integrated models accounting for globalization and climatic shifts forecast a 36% increase in alien species establishments worldwide by 2050, with emerging economies facing accelerated invasions due to these interacting drivers. Such projections underscore causal linkages where initial introductions via enable establishments amplified by climate suitability, potentially overwhelming in high-vulnerability areas.

Impacts

Adverse Ecological and Biodiversity Effects

Invasive species contribute substantially to global biodiversity loss, with empirical data indicating they are a primary driver in approximately 40% of documented animal extinctions since the 16th century, often through direct predation, competition, or habitat alteration. In the United States, invasive species threaten about 42% of species listed as endangered or threatened, exacerbating extinction risks via mechanisms that disrupt native population dynamics. Island ecosystems, particularly vulnerable due to limited native diversity and isolation, experience amplified effects; for instance, the introduction of the brown tree snake (Boiga irregularis) to Guam following World War II resulted in the local extinction of 10 of 12 native forest bird species by the 1980s, as the arboreal predator decimated avian populations through unchecked predation. This loss eliminated key seed dispersers, leading to reduced forest regeneration and shifts in arthropod abundance. Trophic cascades induced by invasive predators further propagate ecological disruptions, as the removal of native consumers alters multiple trophic levels. In , , the invasive (Salvelinus namaycush) displaced native bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), intensifying trophic imbalances that reduced forage fish biomass and levels, thereby diminishing overall ecosystem productivity. Similarly, in tropical freshwater systems, the invasive African jewelfish (Hemichromis letourneuxi) has triggered declines in native fish, redirecting energy flows and reducing benthic invertebrate diversity as of 2025 observations. These cascades demonstrate causal chains where apex invader dominance cascades downward, suppressing basal resources and native resilience. Hybridization between invasive and native species erodes genetic integrity, often reducing fitness in endemic populations through maladaptive . For example, from introduced (Oncorhynchus mykiss) into native (Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi) has lowered reproductive success by approximately 50% in populations with just 20% admixture, as hybrid offspring exhibit diminished viability and fertility. Climate-driven range expansions accelerate such events, with warmer conditions facilitating contact and swamping native gene pools. Invasive plants exacerbate these effects by outcompeting native vegetation for light, water, nutrients, and space through aggressive growth patterns and efficient resource uptake, often altering soil chemistry via root exudates or leaf litter decomposition that disadvantages native flora. They further modify ecosystem functions, such as increasing fuel loads to intensify fire regimes or developing deep root systems that lower water tables and disrupt hydrology, impacting both terrestrial and aquatic habitats. In aquatic environments, species like hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) and water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) form dense mats that block sunlight and reduce oxygen levels, degrading water quality and harming fish and other aquatic organisms. These alterations contribute to biodiversity loss with cascading impacts on herbivores, pollinators, and dependent species, diminishing ecosystem resilience. In tropical regions, a 2025 study across , , and revealed invasive plants displacing native vegetation, homogenizing , and restructuring habitats in ways that diminish specialist abundance. These effects underscore how invasives causally undermine evolutionary adaptations honed over millennia, fostering long-term erosion without compensatory native recovery.

Economic, Health, and Social Costs

Invasive species generate substantial economic damages globally, with annual costs exceeding $423 billion as of 2023, primarily through losses in , , and fisheries sectors. These figures, derived from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on and Services (IPBES), reflect direct impacts such as reduced yields from invasive pests and weeds, alongside infrastructure repairs from species like burrowing or clogging aquatic . In the United States, annual economic and health-related costs average $21 billion, with suffering the most from invasive , pathogens, and that diminish productivity and necessitate chemical controls. faces comparable sectoral burdens, recording average annual costs of $2.3 billion from 1960 to 2020, concentrated in damage to primary industries like farming and . Health costs arise from invasive vectors transmitting pathogens; for instance, the Asian tiger mosquito (), introduced to the in the 1980s, aids the spread of , which emerged in 1999 and has resulted in over 1,500 human deaths alongside billions in medical and surveillance expenditures. Similarly, invasive ticks and snails facilitate diseases like and , imposing ongoing public health burdens through treatment and vector control. Social costs manifest in disrupted livelihoods, particularly in fisheries and agriculture; Asian carp (Hypophthalmichthys spp.), spreading in US waterways since the 1970s, threaten the $7 billion Great Lakes commercial and recreational fishing industry by displacing native species and reducing catch values. In agriculture-dependent communities, yield losses from invasives like the emerald ash borer or zebra mussels lead to job displacements and regional economic contraction, exacerbating rural vulnerabilities without quantified cultural offsets.

Beneficial or Neutral Outcomes

In certain degraded or altered , invasive species can occupy vacant niches and facilitate ecological functions that support native . A 2011 study of invasive in forest understories found they enhanced overall vegetation cover and , aiding recovery in disturbed without displacing natives long-term. Similarly, North American beavers (Castor canadensis), introduced to in 1946, engineer wetlands through dam-building that increase avian community abundance and diversity at the patch scale, providing enhanced foraging and nesting opportunities as revealed by 2021 acoustic surveys. These modifications demonstrate how invasives can boost local in systems lacking analogous native ecosystem engineers. Economic contributions from invasive species often stem from their exploitation as resources. Feral swine (Sus scrofa), widespread invasives in the United States, underpin a hunting industry valued at $68.5 million to $188 million annually in Texas economies as of 2022, derived from direct expenditures on licenses, guides, and equipment. The ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), intentionally introduced to North America starting in the 1880s, sustains upland game hunting seasons that generate recreational revenue and incentivize habitat conservation, with populations self-sustaining in grassland mosaics without evidence of broad native displacement. Numerous introduced species exert neutral ecological effects, persisting at low densities or integrating without altering native community structure or function. Ecological assessments indicate that most non-native establishments—potentially over 90% based on establishment-pest transition models—fail to produce measurable harm or benefit, remaining innocuous in food webs and resource dynamics. Such neutrality underscores that invasiveness is not inherent but context-dependent, with many aliens contributing provisioning services like or in human-modified landscapes absent from native assemblages.

Management and Mitigation

Prevention and Biosecurity Measures

Quarantine and inspection protocols at borders and ports represent primary lines of defense against invasive species introductions. In the United States, U.S. Customs and Border Protection agriculture specialists inspect over 3,200 prohibited or restricted plant, meat, animal byproduct, and soil items daily to enforce measures. These efforts align with international standards set by the (IPPC), which provides guidelines through International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs) to prevent the spread of pests via trade. Empirical studies indicate that such border inspections can limit the rate of invasive species establishment from imported commodities, though challenges persist due to high trade volumes. Risk assessment models enable prediction of invasiveness prior to introduction by evaluating traits like establishment potential and suitability. Individual-based models, for instance, integrate traits and environmental data to identify high-risk sites for targeted prevention, demonstrating predictive accuracy in prioritizing vulnerable areas. Frameworks such as those developed for aquatic incorporate trade data and invasion history to forecast risks, supporting decisions on import restrictions. These tools have informed phytosanitary regulations, reducing the likelihood of high-invasiveness entering new ecosystems. Public education campaigns and regulatory frameworks further bolster prevention by curbing unintentional pathways like firewood transport. The U.S. Department of the Interior's Invasive Species Strategic Plan for 2021-2025 emphasizes coordinated actions across agencies to enhance biosecurity, including public outreach to limit spread vectors. Initiatives like the "Don't Move Firewood" campaign have increased awareness, with evaluations showing shifts in public behavior through targeted messaging on pest risks in transported wood. Survey-based assessments confirm that such efforts contribute to reduced firewood movement, correlating with fewer pest detections in monitored regions.

Control and Eradication Techniques

Mechanical and chemical methods form the backbone of many invasive species control efforts, particularly for plants and small vertebrates. Mechanical techniques, such as mowing, hoeing, , and , physically remove or disrupt invasive populations without relying on substances, minimizing non-target impacts when targeted precisely. For instance, has been deployed against invasive rats on islands, where stations deliver rodenticides to achieve eradication. Chemical controls, including herbicides like , target systemic disruption in plants; , a non-selective agent, effectively suppresses annual and perennial invasives by inhibiting pathways essential for growth. In alterniflora invasions, combined spraying of and haloxyfop-r-methyl in June 2018 reduced canopy coverage significantly. Biological control introduces natural enemies, such as predators, parasites, or pathogens, to suppress invasives long-term. Historical successes include the release of against certain weeds, where specialized agents reduced target populations without widespread failure. However, failures are common; the 1935 introduction of cane toads (Rhinella marina) to to control beetles instead expanded uncontrollably, becoming invasive themselves due to lack of specificity and poor adaptation to the intended prey. Approximately 20% of biological control agent failures stem from predation or by native generalists, underscoring risks of non-target effects. Eradication success varies by and scale, with island-based removals achieving around 88% efficacy across 1,550 attempts on 998 islands since the early 20th century, often restoring colonies. For example, eradications on atolls in recent projects led to native resurgence and returns, enhancing local and sustainable harvests like coconut crabs. Broader campaigns against 94 species worldwide succeeded in 50.9% of 173 efforts, limited by factors like reinvasion and detection challenges. Costs run into millions—e.g., $813,155 for control on —yet yield rebounds, potentially supporting hundreds of thousands more pairs post- removal on rat-free islands. Eradication remains feasible primarily in isolated systems, with continental efforts favoring ongoing suppression over full removal due to higher risks.

Emerging Technologies and Strategies

Genetic engineering tools like -based s aim to suppress invasive species by engineering alleles that spread rapidly through populations, often rendering offspring sterile or disrupting key traits. In June 2024, researchers at the developed ClvR, a novel -driven customized for , marking the first such system to enable species-specific modifications at the population level, with potential applications for controlling invasive weeds by enhancing susceptibility or reducing . Modeling studies from 2021 onward have demonstrated the viability of s for invasive suppression, projecting significant population declines through inheritance bias without requiring full eradication efforts. While initial trials in the 2020s targeted disease-vector mosquitoes, extensions to terrestrial invasives like and prioritize to native ranges, leveraging self-limiting designs to mitigate unintended spread. Artificial intelligence enhances predictive capabilities for invasive plant spread by integrating with data. In July 2025, collaborated on generative AI models to refine identification of harmful non-native plants, improving detection accuracy in complex landscapes. algorithms applied to have mapped species like leafy spurge (Euphorbia virgata) across heterogeneous terrains, achieving high precision in invasion forecasting by analyzing temporal changes in vegetation indices. These tools process vast datasets to predict hotspots, enabling preemptive interventions over traditional surveys. Unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) support rapid response to recent detections, such as those reported in 2024-2025 outbreaks, by providing high-resolution mapping in inaccessible areas. Equipped with multispectral sensors and AI for automated detection, drones surveyed invasive weeds in rugged habitats in October 2025, facilitating targeted deployment and reducing manual labor. In November 2024, drone platforms expanded early detection efforts, applying treatments with precision to curb spread while minimizing exposure. For island ecosystems, drones have tested bait distribution in 2025 trials, offering scalable alternatives to ground-based methods. Strategies exploiting invasives as resources include taxon substitution via commercial harvesting, exemplified by lionfish (Pterois volitans) fisheries in the western Atlantic. Since 2010, targeted removals have reduced densities by up to 90% in managed reefs, with NOAA promoting consumption as a feasible control given the ' edibility and lack of natural predators. In waters, divers and commercial operations harvested over 100,000 lionfish annually by 2024, converting ecological liabilities into protein sources while limiting native reef fish declines. Such incentives align population suppression with economic gains, though sustained effort requires market development beyond novelty demand.

Controversies and Debates

Challenges to Native-Centric Views

The assumption that native species inherently promote ecosystem stability while non-natives disrupt it overlooks empirical evidence that ecological impacts depend more on species traits and context than on geographic origin. A 2011 commentary in Nature by ecologists including Mark Davis argued that conservation policies should evaluate species based on their measurable environmental effects, such as resource competition or habitat alteration, rather than nativity, as many non-natives cause no harm and some enhance biodiversity. This critique highlights flaws in native-centric frameworks, noting that nativity is a human-imposed category ill-suited to dynamic biotic communities where origin fails to predict invasiveness or benefit. Paleoecological records further undermine the notion of static native assemblages by demonstrating that historical species migrations—analogous to modern —drove patterns without inherent destabilization. Fossil evidence from the Late Richmondian Invasion shows coordinated influxes of marine taxa reshaping regional faunas, contributing to evolutionary diversification rather than uniform collapse. Similarly, packrat middens and cores from Yellowstone reveal past plant "invasions" into local habitats with minimal resistance from incumbents, indicating that biotic turnover, including via dispersing natives, has long structured communities. These data suggest ecosystems evolve through repeated colonization events, challenging the view of pre-human baselines as pristine equilibria. In contemporary novel ecosystems—altered habitats dominated by non-natives—introduced species frequently exhibit functional equivalence to lost natives, filling niches vacated by extinctions or habitat degradation. Studies from the , building on the novel ecosystems paradigm, document cases where invasives sustain , , or trophic links akin to those of depleted endemics, as in post-fire landscapes where non-natives restore rates comparable to historical norms. This equivalence arises because many invasives share convergent traits with natives they displace, enabling persistence amid anthropogenic change, though outcomes vary by site-specific interactions. Such findings imply that blanket condemnation of non-natives ignores their role in adapting to irreversible losses, prioritizing functional outcomes over origin.

Policy and Ethical Implications

Policies addressing invasive species frequently adopt a precautionary approach, emphasizing prevention and eradication to safeguard native , but this can result in regulations that disregard empirically demonstrated benefits of certain non-natives. For example, introduced North American beavers in southern , released in the 1940s, have prompted extensive campaigns due to riparian forest alteration, even as their dams foster habitats supporting diverse wildlife and potentially aiding . Such measures reflect a in invasion toward documenting harms while underreporting positives, as evidenced by reviews highlighting disproportionate focus on negative native biota impacts. Economic evaluations underscore inefficiencies in some regulatory frameworks, where management costs for low-harm invasives exceed averted damages, particularly when non-natives contribute to sectors like or fisheries. Aggregate North American invasion damages reached approximately $837 billion from direct effects alone between 1960 and 2020, yet targeted controls often prioritize precautionary native favoritism over cost-benefit analyses that could reveal net positives from tolerant species. In lower-economic-activity nations, unmanaged damages surpass expenditures, suggesting policies should calibrate interventions to verifiable threats rather than blanket prohibitions. Ethically, invasive species management raises tensions between integrity and human welfare, questioning the moral equivalence of non-native populations—frequently including sentient vertebrates—to abstract native ideals. Debates in conservation critique utilitarian of invasives providing habitat or resources, arguing for prioritizing evidence-based harms over sentimental attachments to pre-human baselines, especially when eradications inflict without proportional gains. This pits consequentialist human benefits against deontological preservation duties, with some frameworks advocating non-natives' pending proven guilt. Scientific polarization on these issues, documented in 2010s and early surveys, reveals divides among experts, with consensus elusive on whether all non-natives inherently degrade systems or if novel assemblages warrant absent clear detriment. A global poll of 698 professionals identified opposing views on core tenets like universal harm narratives, underscoring the need for policies grounded in causal evidence over dogmatic nativism. Such discord highlights institutional tendencies to amplify alarmist framings, potentially skewing regulations toward overreach despite calls for balanced, data-driven .

Future Outlook Amid Climate Change

is projected to facilitate the range expansion of many invasive species by altering temperature regimes and precipitation patterns, enabling poleward or elevational shifts that enhance success. For instance, modeling of 11 invasive in Brazil's under RCP 4.5 and 8.5 scenarios forecasts distribution changes through 2100, with some species gaining suitable habitat in previously unsuitable areas due to warmer conditions. Similarly, projections for the invasive knotweed Reynoutria japonica indicate a 13.6% to 17.0% northward expansion in by mid-century, driven by milder winters. In tropical regions, invasive are accelerating transformations, as evidenced by rapid proliferation across three continents, where warmer temperatures reduce competitive barriers from native . The concept of assisted migration—human-facilitated translocation of to track suitable climates—raises questions about blurring distinctions between conservation actions and inadvertent invasions, particularly as climate velocities outpace natural dispersal. In marine contexts, climate-induced range expansions of tropical into temperate zones challenge traditional invasive classifications, as these shifts mimic assisted movements but occur without direct human intent. Terrestrial examples, such as proposed northward relocation of trees, highlight ethical tensions, where efforts to bolster native resilience could inadvertently introduce novel competitors if hybrids emerge with invasive traits. Peer-reviewed analyses emphasize that such interventions must weigh risks against potential ecological disruptions, with 2024 frameworks advocating site-specific risk assessments to avoid unintended propagule pressure. Adaptation strategies are evolving toward hybrid management paradigms that integrate invasive species control with planning, selectively tolerating beneficial invasives where they stabilize shifting baselines. Climate-smart approaches, as outlined in 2024 reviews, recommend adjusting eradication timings to account for phenological mismatches induced by warming, while promoting native-assisted hybrids that confer without full displacement. For example, in forest systems, retaining certain invasives that enhance sequestration could offset losses from native die-offs, provided monitoring prevents dominance. These tactics prioritize empirical monitoring over rigid native-only restoration, recognizing that static baselines may prove untenable under variable futures. Predictive models reveal substantial uncertainties in invasive trajectories, with outcomes varying by and region; Hawaiian invasive plants, for instance, show increased high-elevation risks by 2100, yet some tropical like Bidens pilosa may contract in core ranges while expanding elsewhere. Critically, human-mediated vectors—trade, transport, and land-use changes—frequently overshadow climatic drivers in distribution models, accounting for up to 70% of invasion variance in global assessments. This underscores that efficacy hinges more on curbing propagule arrival than solely adapting to thermal shifts, as integrated models forecast persistent human dominance in invasion dynamics through 2100.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.