Why Do Introduced Species Appear to Devastate Islands More Than Mainland Areas?
Date
1995-01
Authors
Contributor
Advisor
Department
Instructor
Depositor
Speaker
Researcher
Consultant
Interviewer
Narrator
Transcriber
Annotator
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
University of Hawaii Press
Volume
Number/Issue
Starting Page
Ending Page
Alternative Title
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.
Description
Keywords
Citation
Simberloff D. 1995. Why do introduced species appear to devastate islands more than mainland areas? Pac Sci 49(1): 87-97.
Extent
Format
Geographic Location
Time Period
Related To
Related To (URI)
Table of Contents
Rights
Rights Holder
Local Contexts
Collections
Email libraryada-l@lists.hawaii.edu if you need this content in ADA-compliant format.