Repositorio Institucional
Repositorio Institucional
CONICET Digital
  • Inicio
  • EXPLORAR
    • AUTORES
    • DISCIPLINAS
    • COMUNIDADES
  • Estadísticas
  • Novedades
    • Noticias
    • Boletines
  • Ayuda
    • General
    • Datos de investigación
  • Acerca de
    • CONICET Digital
    • Equipo
    • Red Federal
  • Contacto
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.
  • INFORMACIÓN GENERAL
  • RESUMEN
  • ESTADISTICAS
 
Artículo

Current understanding of invasive species impacts cannot be ignored: potential publication biases do not invalidate findings

Kuebbing, Sara E.; Nuñez, Martin AndresIcon
Fecha de publicación: 05/2018
Editorial: Springer
Revista: Biodiversity and Conservation
ISSN: 0960-3115
e-ISSN: 1572-9710
Idioma: Inglés
Tipo de recurso: Artículo publicado
Clasificación temática:
Ecología

Resumen

Guerin et al. (2017) believe many nonnative species do not cause ecological harm and, therefore, underlying biases towards studying harmful species render meta-analysis unhelpful for designing effective management strategies. Invasion biologists already recognize this bias (Py?ek et al. 2008; Hulme et al. 2013). We argue that meta-analyses are indeed useful for managers for three reasons. First, most meta-analyses explicitly and honestly address bias. Second, for our meta-analysis (Kuebbing and Nuñez 2016), it is unlikely that more even sampling across types of nonnative species would lead to a different conclusion. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the bias of studying nonnatives with suspected or known impacts focuses research on the exact subset of nonnatives most relevant to managers. It is important to clarify terminology to understand the nature and implications of bias. Ecologists classify nonnative species into three categories: (1) casual nonnatives that do not form self-sustaining populations; (2) naturalized nonnatives that do form self-sustaining populations; (3) invasive nonnatives that form self-sustaining populations and spread beyond their original introduction point (Richardson et al. 2000). There is disagreement whether the definition of invasive should include a negative impact (Young and Larson 2011), but the best available evidence suggests that impacts increase with increasing spread and abundance (Simberlof et al. 2013; Hulme et al. 2013).
Palabras clave: NONNATIVE SPECIES , META-ANALYSIS , INVASIVE SPECIES
Ver el registro completo
 
Archivos asociados
Thumbnail
 
Tamaño: 602.8Kb
Formato: PDF
.
Descargar
Licencia
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess Excepto donde se diga explícitamente, este item se publica bajo la siguiente descripción: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 Unported (CC BY-NC-SA 2.5)
Identificadores
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11336/97136
URL: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10531-018-1527-9
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10531-018-1527-9
Colecciones
Articulos(INIBIOMA)
Articulos de INST. DE INVEST.EN BIODIVERSIDAD Y MEDIOAMBIENTE
Citación
Kuebbing, Sara E.; Nuñez, Martin Andres; Current understanding of invasive species impacts cannot be ignored: potential publication biases do not invalidate findings; Springer; Biodiversity and Conservation; 27; 6; 5-2018; 1545-1548
Compartir
Altmétricas
 

Enviar por e-mail
Separar cada destinatario (hasta 5) con punto y coma.
  • Facebook
  • X Conicet Digital
  • Instagram
  • YouTube
  • Sound Cloud
  • LinkedIn

Los contenidos del CONICET están licenciados bajo Creative Commons Reconocimiento 2.5 Argentina License

https://www.conicet.gov.ar/ - CONICET

Inicio

Explorar

  • Autores
  • Disciplinas
  • Comunidades

Estadísticas

Novedades

  • Noticias
  • Boletines

Ayuda

Acerca de

  • CONICET Digital
  • Equipo
  • Red Federal

Contacto

Godoy Cruz 2290 (C1425FQB) CABA – República Argentina – Tel: +5411 4899-5400 repositorio@conicet.gov.ar
TÉRMINOS Y CONDICIONES