The role of propagule pressure in the invasion success of bluegill sunfish, Lepomis macrochirus, in Japan

2010 ◽  
Vol 19 (24) ◽  
pp. 5371-5388 ◽  
Author(s):  
KOUICHI KAWAMURA ◽  
RYUJI YONEKURA ◽  
YUIKO OZAKI ◽  
OSAMU KATANO ◽  
YOSHINORI TANIGUCHI ◽  
...  
2017 ◽  
Vol 114 (35) ◽  
pp. 9385-9390 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pedro Abellán ◽  
José L. Tella ◽  
Martina Carrete ◽  
Laura Cardador ◽  
José D. Anadón

Understanding factors driving successful invasions is one of the cornerstones of invasion biology. Bird invasions have been frequently used as study models, and the foundation of current knowledge largely relies on species purposefully introduced during the 19th and early 20th centuries in countries colonized by Europeans. However, the profile of exotic bird species has changed radically in the last decades, as birds are now mostly introduced into the invasion process through unplanned releases from the worldwide pet and avicultural trade. Here we assessed the role of the three main drivers of invasion success (i.e., event-, species-, and location-level factors) on the establishment and spatial spread of exotic birds using an unprecedented dataset recorded throughout the last 100 y in the Iberian Peninsula. Our multimodel inference phylogenetic approach showed that the barriers that need to be overcome by a species to successfully establish or spread are not the same. Whereas establishment is largely related to event-level factors, apparently stochastic features of the introduction (time since first introduction and propagule pressure) and to the origin of introduced species (wild-caught species show higher invasiveness than captive-bred ones), the spread across the invaded region seems to be determined by the extent to which climatic conditions in the new region resemble those of the species’ native range. Overall, these results contrast with what we learned from successful deliberate introductions and highlight that different management interventions should apply at different invasion stages, the most efficient strategies being related to event-level factors.


Author(s):  
Emma L. Johnston ◽  
Richard F. Piola ◽  
Graeme F. Clark

PeerJ ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. e7637 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael P. Moulton ◽  
Wendell P. Cropper

Some have argued that the role of propagule pressure in explaining the outcomes of bird introductions is well-supported by the historical record. Here, we show that the data from a large published database (including 832 records with propagule information) do not support the conclusion that propagule pressure is the primary determinant of introduction success in birds. A few compendia of historical reports have been widely used to evaluate introduction success, typically by combining data from numerous species and introduction locations. Very few taxa, other than birds, have usable spatially explicit records of introductions over time. This availability of data inflates the perceived importance of bird analyses for addressing factors related to invasion success. The available data allow limited testing of taxonomic and site-level factors of introduction outcomes. We did find significant differences in effort and success probabilities among avian orders and across highly aggregated spatial regions. As a test of a standard and logical expectation of the propagule pressure hypothesis, we concentrated on introductions with the smallest propagules, because it is for these the hypothesis is most likely to be correct. We analyzed the effect of numbers released in small propagules (two through 10) for 227 releases. Weighted linear regression indicated no significant effect of propagule size for this range of release size. In fact, the mean success rate of 28% for propagules of 2–10 isn’t significantly different than that of 34% for propagules of 11–100. Following the example of previous analyses, we expanded the statistical test of propagule pressure to include the full range of release numbers. No significant support for the propagule pressure hypothesis was found using logistic regression with either logit or complementary log-log link functions.


2013 ◽  
Vol 26 (8) ◽  
pp. 1691-1699 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. A. Hufbauer ◽  
A. Rutschmann ◽  
B. Serrate ◽  
H. Vermeil de Conchard ◽  
B. Facon

2009 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 231-237 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander D.M. Wilson ◽  
Jean-Guy J. Godin

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document