Browsing by Author "Saul, Wolf-Christian"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • 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
    Emerging infectious diseases and biological invasions : a call for a One Health collaboration in science and management
    (Royal Society, 2019) Ogden, Nick H.; Wilson, John R. U.; Richardson, David M.; Hui, Cang; Davies, Sarah J.; Kumschick, Sabrina; Le Roux, Johannes J.; Measey, John; Saul, Wolf-Christian; Pulliam, Juliet R. C.
    The study and management of emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) and of biological invasions both address the ecology of human-associated biological phenomena in a rapidly changing world. However, the two fields work mostly in parallel rather than in concert. This review explores how the general phenomenon of an organism rapidly increasing in range or abundance is caused, highlights the similarities and differences between research on EIDs and invasions, and discusses shared management insights and approaches. EIDs can arise by: (i) crossing geographical barriers due to human-mediated dispersal, (ii) crossing compatibility barriers due to evolution, and (iii) lifting of environmental barriers due to environmental change. All these processes can be implicated in biological invasions, but only the first defines them. Research on EIDs is embedded within the One Health concept—the notion that human, animal and ecosystem health are interrelated and that holistic approaches encompassing all three components are needed to respond to threats to human well-being. We argue that for sustainable development, biological invasions should be explicitly considered within One Health. Management goals for the fields are the same, and direct collaborations between invasion scientists, disease ecologists and epidemiologists on modelling, risk assessment, monitoring and management would be mutually beneficial.