Browsing by Author "Lockwood, Julie L."

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Biodiversity assessments : origin matters
    (Public Library of Science, 2018-11-13) Pauchard, Anibal; Meyerson, Laura A.; Bacher, Sven; Blackburn, Tim M.; Brundu, Giuseppe; Cadotte, Marc W.; Courchamp, Franck; Essl, Franz; Genovesi, Piero; Haider, Sylvia; Holmes, Nick D.; Hulme, Philip E.; Jeschke, Jonathan M.; Lockwood, Julie L.; Novoa, Ana; Nunez, Martin A.; Peltzer, Duane A.; Pysek, Petr; Richardson, David M.; Simberloff, Daniel; Smith, Kevin; Van Wilgen, Brian W.; Vila, Montserrat; Wilson, John R. U.; Winter, Marten; Zenni, Rafael D.
    Recent global efforts in biodiversity accounting, such as those undertaken through the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), are vital if we are to track conservation progress, ensure that we can address the challenges of global change, and develop powerful and scientifically sound indicators. Schlaepfer [1] proposes that we should work toward inventories of biodiversity that account for native and non-native species regardless of species origin and ecological context. We strongly disagree with the approach of combining counts of native and non-native species because this will reduce our capacity to detect the effects of non-native species on native biodiversity with potentially devastating consequences. Compelling and abundant evidence demonstrates that some non-native species can become invasive and produce major ecosystem disruptions and even native species extinction. Unfortunately, we still cannot be certain which non-native species will be the most detrimental (e.g., [2]). Combining native and non-native species together into a single biodiversity index would not only inflate biodiversity estimates and risk promoting the spread of invasive non-native species but would also ignore the fundamental ecological differences between the two groups.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A conceptual map of invasion biology : integrating hypotheses into a consensus network
    (Wiley, 2020-03-25) Enders, Martin; Havemann, Frank; Ruland, Florian; Bernard-Verdier, Maud; Catford, Jane A.; Gomez-Aparicio, Lorena; Haider, Sylvia; Heger, Tina; Kueffer, Christoph; Kuh, Ingolf; Meyerson, Laura A.; Musseau, Camille; Novoa, Ana; Ricciardi, Anthony; Sagouis, Alban; Schittko, Conrad; Strayer, David L.; Vilà, Montserrat; Essl, Franz; Hulme, Philip E.; Van Kleunen, Mark; Kumschick, Sabrina; Lockwood, Julie L.; Mabey, Abigail L.; McGeoch, Melodie A.; Estibaliz, Palma; Pysek, Petr; Saul, Wolf-Christian; Yannelli, Florencia A.; Jeschke, Jonathan M.
    Background and aims: Since its emergence in the mid-20th century, invasion biology has matured into a productive research field addressing questions of fundamental and applied importance. Not only has the number of empirical studies increased through time, but also has the number of competing, overlapping and, in some cases, contradictory hypotheses about biological invasions. To make these contradictions and redundancies explicit, and to gain insight into the field’s current theoretical structure, we developed and applied a Delphi approach to create a consensus network of 39 existing invasion hypotheses. Results: The resulting network was analysed with a link-clustering algorithm that revealed five concept clusters (resource availability, biotic interaction, propagule, trait and Darwin’s clusters) representing complementary areas in the theory of invasion biology. The network also displays hypotheses that link two or more clusters, called connecting hypotheses, which are important in determining network structure. The network indicates hypotheses that are logically linked either positively (77 connections of support) or negatively (that is, they contradict each other; 6 connections). Significance: The network visually synthesizes how invasion biology’s predominant hypotheses are conceptually related to each other, and thus, reveals an emergent structure – a conceptual map – that can serve as a navigation tool for scholars, practitioners and students, both inside and outside of the field of invasion biology, and guide the development of a more coherent foundation of theory. Additionally, the outlined approach can be more widely applied to create a conceptual map for the larger fields of ecology and biogeography.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Frameworks used in invasion science : progress and prospects
    (Pensoft, 2020-10-15) Wilson, John R. U.; Bacher, Sven; Daehler, Curtis C.; Groom, Quentin J.; Kumschick, Sabrina; Lockwood, Julie L.; Robinson, Tamara B.; Zengeya, Tsungai A.; Richardson, David M.
    ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Our understanding and management of biological invasions relies on our ability to classify and conceptualise the phenomenon. This need has stimulated the development of a plethora of frameworks, ranging in nature from conceptual to applied. However, most of these frameworks have not been widely tested and their general applicability is unknown. In order to critically evaluate frameworks in invasion science, we held a workshop on ‘Frameworks used in Invasion Science’ hosted by the DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology in Stellenbosch, South Africa, in November 2019, which led to this special issue. For the purpose of the workshop we defined a framework as “a way of organising things that can be easily communicated to allow for shared understanding or that can be implemented to allow for generalisations useful for research, policy or management”. Further, we developed the Stellenbosch Challenge for Invasion Science: “Can invasion science develop and improve frameworks that are useful for research, policy or management, and that are clear as to the contexts in which the frameworks do and do not apply?”. Particular considerations identified among meeting participants included the need to identify the limitations of a framework, specify how frameworks link to each other and broader issues, and to improve how frameworks can facilitate communication. We believe that the 24 papers in this special issue do much to meet this challenge. The papers apply existing frameworks to new data and contexts, review how the frameworks have been adopted and used, develop useable protocols and guidelines for applying frameworks to different contexts, refine the frameworks in light of experience, integrate frameworks for new purposes, identify gaps, and develop new frameworks to address issues that are currently not adequately dealt with. Frameworks in invasion science must continue to be developed, tested as broadly as possible, revised, and retired as contexts and needs change. However, frameworks dealing with pathways of introduction, progress along the introduction-naturalisation-invasion continuum, and the assessment of impacts are being increasingly formalised and set as standards. This, we argue, is an important step as invasion science starts to mature as a discipline.