63
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Global exchange and accumulation of non-native plants.

      1 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 6 , 7 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 11 , 2 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 2 , 28 , 29 , 9 , 12 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 10 , 35 , 36 , 3 , 37 , 38
      Nature

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          All around the globe, humans have greatly altered the abiotic and biotic environment with ever-increasing speed. One defining feature of the Anthropocene epoch is the erosion of biogeographical barriers by human-mediated dispersal of species into new regions, where they can naturalize and cause ecological, economic and social damage. So far, no comprehensive analysis of the global accumulation and exchange of alien plant species between continents has been performed, primarily because of a lack of data. Here we bridge this knowledge gap by using a unique global database on the occurrences of naturalized alien plant species in 481 mainland and 362 island regions. In total, 13,168 plant species, corresponding to 3.9% of the extant global vascular flora, or approximately the size of the native European flora, have become naturalized somewhere on the globe as a result of human activity. North America has accumulated the largest number of naturalized species, whereas the Pacific Islands show the fastest increase in species numbers with respect to their land area. Continents in the Northern Hemisphere have been the major donors of naturalized alien species to all other continents. Our results quantify for the first time the extent of plant naturalizations worldwide, and illustrate the urgent need for globally integrated efforts to control, manage and understand the spread of alien species.

          Related collections

          Most cited references5

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Six types of species-area curves

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Weeds in Paradise: Thoughts on the Invasibility of Tropical Islands

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Of Asian Forests and European Fields: Eastern U.S. Plant Invasions in a Global Floristic Context

              Background Biogeographic patterns of species invasions hold important clues to solving the recalcitrant ‘who’, ‘where’, and ‘why’ questions of invasion biology, but the few existing studies make no attempt to distinguish alien floras (all non-native occurrences) from invasive floras (rapidly spreading species of significant management concern), nor have invasion biologists asked whether particular habitats are consistently invaded by species from particular regions. Methodology/Principal Findings Here I describe the native floristic provenances of the 2629 alien plant taxa of the Eastern Deciduous Forest of the Eastern U.S. (EUS), and contrast these to the subset of 449 taxa that EUS management agencies have labeled ‘invasive’. Although EUS alien plants come from all global floristic regions, nearly half (45%) have native ranges that include central and northern Europe or the Mediterranean (39%). In contrast, EUS invasive species are most likely to come from East Asia (29%), a pattern that is magnified when the invasive pool is restricted to species that are native to a single floristic region (25% from East Asia, compared to only 11% from northern/central Europe and 2% from the Mediterranean). Moreover, East Asian invaders are mostly woody (56%, compared to just 23% of the total alien flora) and are significantly more likely to invade intact forests and riparian areas than European species, which dominate managed or disturbed ecosystems. Conclusions/Significance These patterns suggest that the often-invoked ‘imperialist dogma’ view of global invasions equating invasion events with the spread of European colonialism is at best a restricted framework for invasion in disturbed ecosystems. This view must be superseded by a biogeographic invasion theory that is explicitly habitat-specific and can explain why particular world biotas tend to dominate particular environments.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Nature
                Nature
                1476-4687
                0028-0836
                Sep 3 2015
                : 525
                : 7567
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Ecology, Department of Biology, University of Konstanz, Universitätsstrasse 10, D-78464 Konstanz, Germany.
                [2 ] Division of Conservation, Vegetation and Landscape Ecology, University of Vienna, 1030 Wien, Austria.
                [3 ] Institute of Botany, Department of Invasion Ecology, The Czech Academy of Sciences, CZ-252 43 Průhonice, Czech Republic.
                [4 ] German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Deutscher Platz 5e, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany.
                [5 ] Institute of Biochemistry and Biology, University of Potsdam, D-14469 Potsdam, Germany.
                [6 ] Biodiversity, Macroecology &Conservation Biogeography, University of Göttingen, Büsgenweg 1, D-37077 Göttingen, Germany.
                [7 ] Biota of North America Program (BONAP), Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516, USA.
                [8 ] Institute for Aquatic and Ecological Problems, Far East Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences, 680000 Khabarovsk, Russia.
                [9 ] School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand.
                [10 ] Departamento de Biodiversidad y Conservación, Real Jardín Botánico, CSIC, Plaza de Murillo 2, 28014 Madrid, Spain.
                [11 ] Instituto Amazónico de Investigaciones Científicas Sinchi, Herbario Amazónico Colombiano, 110311 Bogotá, Colombia.
                [12 ] Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt, 111311 Bogotá, Colombia.
                [13 ] Arts Faculty, Monash University, 3145 Melbourne, Australia.
                [14 ] Escuela de Biología, Universidad de Costa Rica, 11501 San José, Costa Rica.
                [15 ] Conservatoire et jardin botaniques de la Ville de Genève, 1292 Genève, Switzerland.
                [16 ] Laboratory of Plant Taxonomy and Phylogeny, Tomsk State University, Lenin Prospect 36, 634050, Tomsk, Russia.
                [17 ] Department of Botany, PO Box 77000, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Port Elizabeth, 6031 South Africa.
                [18 ] Centre for Functional Ecology, Departamento de Ciências da Vida, Universidade de Coimbra, 3001-455 Coimbra, Portugal.
                [19 ] Facultad de Ciencias Forestales, Instituto de Ecología y Biodiversidad, Universidad de Concepción, Victoria 631, 403000, Concepción, Chile.
                [20 ] Botanic Garden Meise, Domein van Bouchout, B-1860, Meise, Belgium.
                [21 ] ARC-Plant Protection Research Institute, Pretoria 0001, South Africa.
                [22 ] Department of Environmental Studies and Centre for Environmental Management Degraded of Ecosystems, University of Delhi, Delhi 110007, India.
                [23 ] Institute of Human Ecology SB RAS, Pr. Leningradasky 10, 650065 Kemerovo, Russia.
                [24 ] Programa de Pós-graduación en Ecología, UFRN, Campus Lagoa Nova, 59078-900 Natal, Brazil.
                [25 ] Oceanología y Ecología Marina, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de la República, Iguá, 4225, CP 11400, Montevideo, Uruguay.
                [26 ] Belize Tropical Forest Studies, PO Box 208, Belmopan, Belize.
                [27 ] Institute of Geography RAS, Staromonetny, 29, 119017 Moscow, Russia.
                [28 ] Department of Plant Biology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois 62901-6509 USA.
                [29 ] Oman Botanic Garden, Diwan of Royal Court, 122 Muscat, Oman.
                [30 ] The Forest Herbarium (BKF), Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation, Chatuchak, Bangkok 10900, Thailand.
                [31 ] Department of Biology, Martin-Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, D-06108 Halle, Germany.
                [32 ] Institute for Chemistry and Biology of the Marine Environment, University of Oldenburg, Carl-von-Ossietzky Straße 9-11, D-26111 Oldenburg, Germany.
                [33 ] State Key Laboratory of Biocontrol and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Plant Resources, College of Ecology and Evolution, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China.
                [34 ] Department of Botany &Microbiology, College of Science, King Saud University, PO Box 2455, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia.
                [35 ] Naturalis Biodiversity Center (Botany section), Darwinweg 2, 2333 CR Leiden, the Netherlands.
                [36 ] Biosystematics Group, Wageningen University, Droevendaalsesteeg 1, 6708 PB Wageningen, the Netherlands.
                [37 ] Department of Ecology, Faculty of Science, Charles University in Prague, CZ-128 44 Viničná 7, Prague 2, Czech Republic.
                [38 ] Centre for Invasion Biology, Department of Botany and Zoology, Stellenbosch University, Matieland 7602, South Africa.
                Article
                nature14910
                10.1038/nature14910
                26287466
                defd8255-c11d-45fb-bce0-62c55d85874d
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article