Support for major hypotheses in invasion biology is uneven and declining

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11310%2F12%3A10130760" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11310/12:10130760 - isvavai.cz</a>

Nalezeny alternativní kódy

RIV/67985939:_____/12:00421833

Výsledek na webu

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.14.3435" target="_blank" >http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.14.3435</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.14.3435" target="_blank" >10.3897/neobiota.14.3435</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Support for major hypotheses in invasion biology is uneven and declining

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Several major hypotheses have been proposed to explain and predict biological invasions, but the general applicability of these hypotheses is largely unknown, as most of them have not been evaluated using a standard approach across taxonomic groups and habitats. We offer such an evaluation for six selected leading hypotheses. Our global literature review reveals that those hypotheses that consider interactions of exotic invaders with their new environment (invasional meltdown, novel weapons, enemy release) are better supported by empirical evidence than other hypotheses (biotic resistance, island susceptibility, tens rule). We also show that empirical support for the six hypotheses has declined over time, and that support differs among taxonomic groupsand habitats. Our results have implications for basic and applied research, policy making, and invasive species management, as their effectiveness depends on sound hypotheses.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Support for major hypotheses in invasion biology is uneven and declining

Popis výsledku anglicky

Several major hypotheses have been proposed to explain and predict biological invasions, but the general applicability of these hypotheses is largely unknown, as most of them have not been evaluated using a standard approach across taxonomic groups and habitats. We offer such an evaluation for six selected leading hypotheses. Our global literature review reveals that those hypotheses that consider interactions of exotic invaders with their new environment (invasional meltdown, novel weapons, enemy release) are better supported by empirical evidence than other hypotheses (biotic resistance, island susceptibility, tens rule). We also show that empirical support for the six hypotheses has declined over time, and that support differs among taxonomic groupsand habitats. Our results have implications for basic and applied research, policy making, and invasive species management, as their effectiveness depends on sound hypotheses.

Druh

J_x - Nezařazeno - Článek v odborném periodiku (Jimp, Jsc a Jost)

CEP obor

EF - Botanika

OECD FORD obor

—

Projekt

<a href="/cs/project/GAP504%2F11%2F1028" target="_blank" >GAP504/11/1028: Zdomácnění a invaze zahradních rostlin jako výsledek jejich biologických vlastností, přísunu diaspor a doby zavlečení</a><br>

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2012

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

NeoBiota

ISSN

1619-0033

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

14

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

august

Stát vydavatele periodika

BG - Bulharská republika

Počet stran výsledku

20

Strana od-do

1-20

Kód UT WoS článku

—

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

—