The Study of Biological Invasions in Marine Ecosystems during the Period of Shifts in Research Paradigms

S.N. Olenin

Klaipėda University, Klaipeda, 92294 Lithuania

E-mail: sergej.olenin@jmtc.ku.lt

Received July 24, 2017

Full text PDF

Abstract

The tradition to categorize species by their origin into “local, native” and “introduced, alien” is rooted in the pre-Darwin era based on the concept of biotic “nativeness”. Some species (“native”) inhabit the given territory “by right” and can be referred to as “good”, while others (“strangers”) do not have such rights and, consequently, are “bad”. This division is based on the principle “guilty until proven innocent”, which is currently applied to environmental management of non-native species. This and other “dogmas” of modern invasion ecology are briefly summarized in the paper. It has been shown that opposing views on the solution of problems associated with biological invasions have been increasingly expressed in recent years, and the scientific community is being urged to judge species not by their origin, but by their functions. It is obvious that the avalanche-like accumulation of new facts about the transfer of organisms from one to others, changes that they cause, social reactions to them, political context of the “struggle” with alien invasive species, etc. leads to the need to revise the research paradigm of invasion ecology. One of the most urgent tasks is to learn to objectively evaluate the impact, both adverse and positive, of invasive species on human health, economy, ecosystem functions and environment in order to develop clear criteria for decision making on management of biological invasions.

Keywords: biological invasions nativeness, native species, alien species, invasion ecology

Figure Captions

Fig. 1. Examples of fundamental (on the right) and applied (on the left) interdisciplinary research on biological invasions (based on [12] with additions).

References

  1. Elton C.S. The Ecology of Invasions by Animals and Plants. London, Methuen, 1958. 181 p.
  2. Lowry E., Rollinson E.J., Laybourn A.J., Scott T.E., Aiello-Lammens M.E., Gray S.M., Mickley J., Gurevitch J. Biological invasions: A field synopsis, systematic review, and database of the literature. Ecol. Evol., 2013, vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 181–196. doi: 10.1002/ece3.643.
  3. Biological Invasions. 2017. Available at: https://link.springer.com/journal/10530.
  4. Williamson M. Biological Invasions. London, Chapman & Hall, 1996. 244 p.
  5. Davis M.A. Invasion Biology. Oxford, N.Y., Oxford Univ. Press, 2009. 264 p.
  6. Crosby A.W. Ecological Imperialism. The Biological Expansion of Europe 900–1900. New York, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1986. 368 p.
  7. Leppäkoski E., Gollasch S., Olenin S. (Eds.) Invasive Aquatic Species of Europe – Distribution, Impact and Management. Dordrecht, Kluwer Acad. Publ., 2002. 583 p.
  8. Alimov A.F., Bogutskaya N.G. (Eds.) Biological Invasions in Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecosystems. Moscow, KMK, 2004. 436 p. (In Russian)
  9. Elliott M. Biological pollutants and biological pollution – an increasing cause for concern. Mar. Pollut. Bull., 2003, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 275–280. doi: 10.1016/S0025-326X(02)00423-X.
  10. Chew M.K., Laubichler M.D. Natural enemies – metaphor or misconception? Science, 2003, vol. 301, no. 5629, pp. 52–53. doi: 10.1126/science.1085274.
  11. Carlton J.T. Biological Invasions in Marine Ecosystems – Ecological, Management, and Geographic Perspectives (Ecological Studies. Vol. 204). Deep Invasion Ecology and the Assembly of Communities in Historical Time. Rilov G., Crooks J.A. (Eds.). Berlin, Springer, 2009, pp. 13–56.
  12. Olenin S., Gollasch S., Lehtiniemi M., Sapota M., Zaiko A. Biological Oceanography of the Baltic Sea. Biological Invasions. Dirdrecht, Springer, 2017, pp. 193–232.
  13. Karpevich A.F. Theory and Practice of Acclimatization of Aquatic Organisms. Moscow, Pishch. Prom-st., 1975. 431 p. (In Russian)
  14. Olenin S., Minchin D. Treatise on Estuarine and Coastal Science. Wolanski E., McLusky D.S. (Eds.). Biological Introductions to the Systems: Macroorganisms. Vol. 8. Elsevier, 2011, pp. 149–183.
  15. Chew M.K., Hamilton A.L. Fifty Years of Invasion Ecology: The Legacy of Charles Elton. The Rise and Fall of Biotic Nativeness: A Historical Perspective. Richardson D.M. (Ed.). 2011, pp. 35–48.
  16. Olenin S., Alemany F., A. Cardoso C., Gollasch S., Goulletquer P., Lehtiniemi M., McCollin T., Minchin D., Miossec L., Occhipinti Ambrogi A., Ojaveer H., Jensen K. R., Stankiewicz M., Wallentinus I., Aleksandrov B. Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Task Group 2 Report. Non-Indigenous Species. Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2010. 44 p.
  17. Brandner J., Cerwenka A.F., Schliewen U.K., Geist J. Bigger is better: Characteristics of round gobies forming an invasion front in the Danube River. PLoS One, 2013, vol. 8, no. 9, art. e73036, pp. 1–15. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0073036.
  18. Schmiedel D., Wilhelm E.G., Roth M., Scheibner C., Nehring S., Winter S. Evaluation system for management measures of invasive alien species. Biodiversity Conserv., 2016, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 357–374. doi: 10.1007/s10531-016-1054-5.
  19. Thompson K. Where Do Camels Belong? The Story and Science of Invasive Species. London, Profile Books, 2014. 262 p.
  20. Chew M.K. Ecologists, environmentalists, experts, and the invasion of the second greatest threat. Int. Rev. Environ. Hist., 2015, vol. 1, pp. 7–40. doi: 10.22459/IREH.01.2015.02.
  21. Reise K., Olenin S., Thieltges D.W. Are aliens threatening European aquatic coastal ecosystems? Helgoland Mar. Res., 2006, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 77–83. doi: 10.1007/s10152-006-0024-9.
  22. Davis M.A., Chew M.K., Hobbs R.J., Lugo A.E., Ewel J.J., Vermeij G.J., Brown J.H., Rosenzweig M.L., Gardener M.R., Carroll S.P., Thompson K., Pickett S.T., Stromberg J.C., Del Tredici P., Suding K.N., Ehrenfeld J.G., Grime J.P., Mascaro J., Briggs J.C. Don't judge species on their origins. Nature, 2011, vol. 474, no. 7350, pp. 153–154. doi: 10.1038/474153a.
  23. Schlaepfer MA, Sax DF, Olden J.D. The potential conservation value of non-native species. Conserv. Biol., 2011, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 428–437. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01646.x.
  24. Chapman P.M. Benefits of invasive species. Mar. Pollut. Bull., 2016, vol. 107, no. 1, pp. 1–2. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.04.067.
  25. Bonanno G. Alien species: To remove or not to remove? That is the question. Environ. Sci. Policy, 2016, vol. 59, pp. 67–73. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2016.02.011.
  26. Simberloff D. Non-natives: 141 scientists object. Nature, 2011, vol. 475, no. 7354, p. 36. doi: 10.1038/475036a.
  27. Ricciardi A., Blackburn T.M., Carlton J.T., Dick J.T., Hulme P.E., Iacarella J.C., Jeschke J.M., Liebhold A.M., Lockwood J.L., MacIsaac H.J., Pyšek P., Richardson D.M., Ruiz G.M., Simberloff D., Sutherland W.J., Wardle D.A., Aldridge D.C. Invasion science: A horizon scan of emerging challenges and opportunities. Trends Ecol. Evol., 2017, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 464–474. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2017.03.007.


For citation: Olenin S.N. The study of biological invasions in marine ecosystems during the period of shifts in research paradigms. Uchenye Zapiski Kazanskogo Universiteta. Seriya Estestvennye Nauki, 2017, vol. 159, no. 3, pp. 510–520. (In Russian)


The content is available under the license Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.