Invasive species – plants, animals, and microbes introduced to regions beyond their native range – carry a global price tag of $1.4 trillion dollars. They are responsible for the loss of natural resources and biodiversity, damages to infrastructure, and an uptick in infectious disease.
In the absence of a crystal ball, scientists have spent the last few decades teasing apart the conditions that set the stage for debilitating invaders, like giant hogweed, zebra mussels, or Asian carp. A number of possible explanations—which scientists call hypotheses—have emerged.
An ability to forecast how natural areas will respond to introduced plants and animals is invaluable to land managers and policy makers seeking to reduce the growing economic and biological burden of invasive species.
Unfortunately, a recent analysis of the most popular explanations for predicting invaders is a reminder that a lot of work remains to be done. A team of international scientists found that, using the top hypotheses, our ability to predict invasive species has actually declined over time.
Hypotheses that fared the worst were too broad or omitted ecosystem interactions. Plants proved easier to predict than animals, and, contrary to popular belief, diverse ecosystems were not inherently resistant to invaders.
Given that invasive species are an expensive and ever growing problem worldwide – this is an area worthy of further scientific inquiry. In the mean time, the best way to avoid invasive species is to keep non-native plants and animals out of our borders.
Web Link
http://www.oceanclimatechange.org.au/content/index.php/2012/home/
Photo, taken on January 24, 2007, courtesy of Bill Hails via Flickr.