Invasion Science: Looking Forward Rather Than Revisiting Old Ground - A Reply to Zenni et al.
View / Open Files
Authors
Ricciardi, A
Blackburn, TM
Carlton, JT
Dick, JTA
Hulme, PE
Iacarella, JC
Jeschke, JM
Liebhold, AM
Lockwood, JL
MacIsaac, HJ
Pyšek, P
Richardson, DM
Ruiz, GM
Simberloff, D
Wardle, DA
Publication Date
2017-11-01Journal Title
Trends in Ecology & Evolution
ISSN
0169-5347
Publisher
Elsevier
Volume
32
Issue
11
Pages
809-810
Language
eng
Type
Article
This Version
AM
Metadata
Show full item recordCitation
Ricciardi, A., Blackburn, T., Carlton, J., Dick, J., Hulme, P., Iacarella, J., Jeschke, J., et al. (2017). Invasion Science: Looking Forward Rather Than Revisiting Old Ground - A Reply to Zenni et al.. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 32 (11), 809-810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2017.08.007
Abstract
Using horizon scanning techniques, we identified 14 emerging issues, not yet widely recognized or understood, that are likely to affect how biological invasions are studied and managed on a global scale [1]. Zenni et al. [2] do not comment on the major issues identified in our study. Instead, they draw attention to the nationalities of our authorship and the lack of representation from developing countries, and they imply that as a consequence our paper promotes misconceptions and ignores key issues affecting such countries. In particular, they criticize our ‘opinionated statement’ that most developing countries have a limited capacity to respond to invasions. This is not merely our opinion; we cited Early et al.[3], whose analysis concluded that proactive capacities, although far from sufficient globally, are more advanced in countries with a high human development index (HDI) than in those with a low HDI. The term ‘developing country’ is open to misinterpretation, but is often defined as a sovereign state with a low HDI and a less-developed industrial base relative to other countries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developing_country), and such countries occur mostly in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. The ten ‘developing countries’ listed by Zenni et al. as having national invasive species strategies or databases (i.e., Mexico, Jamaica, Guyana, Cuba, Brazil, Colombia, Uruguay, Argentina, Chile, and South Africa) are arguably more similar to developed countries, in terms of HDI, than to many of the poorest countries of the world [4].
Identifiers
External DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2017.08.007
This record's URL: https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/269467
Rights
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International, Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International, Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Recommended or similar items
The following licence files are associated with this item: