Biological invasions and human dimensions: We still need to work hard on our social perspectives

Abstract

In this article, we analyze and challenge a long-held paradigm that reduces the field of biological invasions to its ecological components. We explore thirteen case studies grouped within three major human dimensions (values, traditions, and quality of life) to show how biological invasions interwove and interact with them. The group of human dimensions we explore in this work, although small, exposes a rich spectrum of interdisciplinary synergies between natural and social sciences that should receive more a�ention to make the field of biological invasions more sound and socially integrated.

Does non‐native diversity mirror Earth's biodiversity?

“…Consequently, while the majority of phyla and classes displayed no clear pattern of over‐ or under‐representation of NNS (Figures 4 and 5; Figure S3), taxa that were over‐represented as NNS consistently belonged to groups that were, or still are, intentionally introduced into new habitats for cultural and socio‐economic purposes, either directly or indirectly. For example, in both the past and present, fish, birds, mammals, plants, shellfish and macroalgae have been translocated globally for agriculture, aquaculture, sport and decoration purposes, and have been closely associated with different human dimensions (Bortolus & Schwindt, 2022; Kim et al., 2017; Lockwood et al., 2013). Insects, parasitic spiders, sea squirts and segmented worms are often connected with those activities, and are unintentionally transported indirectly as ‘fellow travellers’/‘hitchhikers’ or associated with intentionally transported species or on contaminated farming/fishing gear or in soil (Lockwood et al., 2013; Zhan et al., 2015).…”

Taming the terminological tempest in invasion science

“…regarding the impacts of invasive species (Bortolus, 2012; Angulo et al ., 2021; Nuñez et al ., 2022)]. For instance, many of the current debates about disciplinary denialism, the misleading xenophobic formulation of analogies with international human migration, and the impact of using emotive language, are likely exacerbated by culture and translation (Copp et al ., 2021; Bortolus & Schwindt, 2022). Indeed, many issues of terminological ambiguity and epistemic injustice arise from the pervasive ‘diffusion of English’ approach in scientific research and terminology being published, reviewed, and accepted almost exclusively in English.…”

“…Scientific disciplines often grapple with lexical and semantic ambiguities and inconsistencies that can confuse, misinterpret, and create barriers to effective interdisciplinary collaboration among scientists, as well as hinder engagement with practitioners, policymakers, educators, stakeholders, and society (Metzger & Zare, 1999; Regan, Colyvan & Burgman, 2002). This problem spans many fields, from ecology and taxonomy to physics, computer science, and social science (Boucher, 1985; Herrando‐Pérez et al ., 2012; Stroud et al ., 2015; Kirk et al ., 2018; Amador‐Cruz et al ., 2021; Roth et al ., 2021; Bortolus & Schwindt, 2022; Macêdo et al ., 2023). Over time, each discipline develops a unique technical lexicon (jargon) with the common challenge of establishing a clear, universally accepted terminology that enables accurate communication within its community and with other scientific or public domains (Montgomery, 1989; Hirst, 2003).…”

“…In light of the multifaceted and largely negative effects that non‐native species introductions can have on both nature (Blackburn et al ., 2011; Bellard, Marino & Courchamp, 2022; Rilov, Canning‐Clode & Guy‐Haim, 2024) and society (Vilà et al ., 2010; Bacher et al ., 2018; Diagne et al ., 2021; Zhang et al ., 2022), research on biological invasions lies at the crossroads of natural and social sciences (Vaz et al ., 2017; Heger, Jeschke & Kollmann, 2021; Bortolus & Schwindt, 2022). While a species' native range is identified by a historical range (Fig.…”