The invasion paradox describes the co-occurrence of independent lines of support for both a negative and a positive relationship between native biodiversity and the invasions of exotic species. The paradox leaves the implications of native-exotic species richness relationships open to debate: Are rich native communities more or less susceptible to invasion by exotic species? We reviewed the considerable observational, experimental, and theoretical evidence describing the paradox and sought generalizations concerning where and why the paradox occurs, its implications for community ecology and assembly processes, and its relevance for restoration, management, and policy associated with species invasions. The crux of the paradox concerns positive associations between native and exotic species richness at broad spatial scales, and negative associations at fine scales, especially in experiments in which diversity was directly manipulated. We identified eight processes that can generate either negative or positive native-exotic richness relationships, but none can generate both. As all eight processes have been shown to be important in some systems, a simple general theory of the paradox, and thus of the relationship between diversity and invasibility, is probably unrealistic. Nonetheless, we outline several key issues that help resolve the paradox, discuss the difficult juxtaposition of experimental and observational data (which often ask subtly different questions), and identify important themes for additional study. We conclude that natively rich ecosystems are likely to be hotspots for exotic species, but that reduction of local species richness can further accelerate the invasion of these and other vulnerable habitats.
In many forested ecosystems, the architecture and functional ecology of certain tree species define forest structure and their species‐specific traits control ecosystem dynamics. Such foundation tree species are declining throughout the world due to introductions and outbreaks of pests and pathogens, selective removal of individual taxa, and over‐harvesting. Through a series of case studies, we show that the loss of foundation tree species changes the local environment on which a variety of other species depend; how this disrupts fundamental ecosystem processes, including rates of decomposition, nutrient fluxes, carbon sequestration, and energy flow; and dramatically alters the dynamics of associated aquatic ecosystems. Forests in which dynamics are controlled by one or a few foundation species appear to be dominated by a small number of strong interactions and may be highly susceptible to alternating between stable states following even small perturbations. The ongoing decline of many foundation species provides a set of important, albeit unfortunate, opportunities to develop the research tools, models, and metrics needed to identify foundation species, anticipate the cascade of immediate, short‐ and long‐term changes in ecosystem structure and function that will follow from their loss, and provide options for remedial conservation and management.
Reliable estimates of the impacts and costs of biological invasions are critical to developing credible management, trade and regulatory policies. Worldwide, forests and urban trees provide important ecosystem services as well as economic and social benefits, but are threatened by non-native insects. More than 450 non-native forest insects are established in the United States but estimates of broad-scale economic impacts associated with these species are largely unavailable. We developed a novel modeling approach that maximizes the use of available data, accounts for multiple sources of uncertainty, and provides cost estimates for three major feeding guilds of non-native forest insects. For each guild, we calculated the economic damages for five cost categories and we estimated the probability of future introductions of damaging pests. We found that costs are largely borne by homeowners and municipal governments. Wood- and phloem-boring insects are anticipated to cause the largest economic impacts by annually inducing nearly $1.7 billion in local government expenditures and approximately $830 million in lost residential property values. Given observations of new species, there is a 32% chance that another highly destructive borer species will invade the U.S. in the next 10 years. Our damage estimates provide a crucial but previously missing component of cost-benefit analyses to evaluate policies and management options intended to reduce species introductions. The modeling approach we developed is highly flexible and could be similarly employed to estimate damages in other countries or natural resource sectors.
Models and observational studies have sought patterns of predictability for invasion of natural areas by nonindigenous species, but with limited success. In a field experiment using forest understory plants, we jointly manipulated three hypothesized determinants of biological invasion outcome: resident diversity, physical disturbance and abiotic conditions, and propagule pressure. The foremost constraints on net habitat invasibility were the number of propagules that arrived at a site and naturally varying resident plant density. The physical environment (flooding regime) and the number of established resident species had negligible impact on habitat invasibility as compared to propagule pressure, despite manipulations that forced a significant reduction in resident richness, and a gradient in flooding from no flooding to annual flooding. This is the first experimental study to demonstrate the primacy of propagule pressure as a determinant of habitat invasibility in comparison with other candidate controlling factors.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.