Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Why Do Introduced Species Appear to Devastate Islands More Than Mainland Areas?
|Title:||Why Do Introduced Species Appear to Devastate Islands More Than Mainland Areas?|
|Issue Date:||Jan 1995|
|Publisher:||University of Hawaii Press|
|Citation:||Simberloff D. 1995. Why do introduced species appear to devastate islands more than mainland areas? Pac Sci 49(1): 87-97.|
|Abstract:||Island biotas are viewed popularly as much more fragile than
those of mainland areas and much more prone to damage from invaders. There
are far too few data to assess this view thoroughly; for example, failed invasions
are often unrecorded, and claims that an introduced species has displaced a native
one are often based on correlated population changes rather than experiment
and/or detailed field observations. If there is a tendency for invasions to affect
island communities more than mainland ones, it is far from universal; virtually
every kind of damage wrought by invaders on islands has also been wrought in
mainland areas. It is unlikely that, by virtue of their reduced species richness
alone, island communities pose less "biotic resistance" to invaders than mainland
communities do. Rather, certain entire groups of species, like terrestrial
mammals, are often missing from islands, and these absences can predispose
certain invaders to be especially likely to survive and to produce particular impacts.
|Appears in Collections:||Pacific Science Volume 49, Number 1, 1995|
Items in ScholarSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.