Novel Organisms: Comparing Invasive Species, GMOs, and Emerging Pathogens

Jeschke, Jonathan M.; Keesing, Felicia; Ostfeld, Richard S.

doi:10.1007/s13280-013-0387-5

Cited by 78 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 45 publications

(58 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Current scientific divisions between invasion ecology and ecology is resulting in scientific synergies being inadvertently lost. Species naturally colonising novel environments necessarily go through the same stages of introduction, establishment and spread as species introduced by humans, because they are subject to the same barriers of survival, reproduction, dispersal and further range expansion, and therefore are identical from a scientific perspective (Ricklefs 2005;Jeschke et al 2013;Rius and Darling 2014;Yek and Slippers 2014). In terms of understanding the processes, mechanisms, and consequences of colonisation, the means of access to new areas is inconsequential.…”

Section: Artificial Distinctions Don't Aid Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

Biological invasions and natural colonisations: are they that different?

Hoffmann

Courchamp²

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We argue that human-mediated invasions are part of the spectrum of species movements, not a unique phenomenon, because species self-dispersing into novel environments are subject to the same barriers of survival, reproduction, dispersal and further range expansion as those assisted by people. Species changing their distributions by human-mediated and non-human mediated modes should be of identical scientific interest to invasion ecology and ecology. Distinctions between human-mediated invasions and natural colonisations are very valid for management and policy, but we argue that these are value-laden distinctions and not necessarily an appropriate division for science, which instead should focus on distinctions based on processes and mechanisms. We propose an all-encompassing framework of species range expansion. This does not detract from the importance of invasion biology as a discipline, but instead will help bring together research being conducted on multiple taxa, and by multiple disciplines, including epidemiology, that are often focused on an identical phenomenon: colonisation.

show abstract

Section: Artificial Distinctions Don't Aid Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

Biological invasions and natural colonisations: are they that different?

Hoffmann

Courchamp²

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Then we performed descriptive analyses based on data and meta-data extracted from the included articles. These descriptive analyses dealt with bibliographic information (year of publication), taxonomic and geographic coverage, invasion stages (sensu Blackburn et al 2011 andJeschke et al 2013), and finally, impact and management of review and original articles.…”

Section: Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Alien species invasions cause a multitude of impacts on environment (Vilà et al 2010, 2011, Jeschke et al 2013, Simberloff et al 2013, Blackburn et al 2014, and socioeconomy (Pimentel et al 2000, Pimentel 2002, Gren et al 2009). In particular, there is evidence for an increasing magnitude of human health impacts by alien species (Kenis and Branco 2010, Vilà et al 2010, Richter et al 2013, Conn 2014, Hulme 2014, Mazza et al 2014, as globalization increases the likelihood for the movement of disease vectors (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In particular, we ask the following questions: (1) What is the taxonomic and geographic coverage of literature on human health impacts in Europe? (2) Which invasion stages (sensu Blackburn et al 2011, Jeschke et al 2013) are studied? (3) Where are the regions of origin and what are the introduction pathways of alien species of human health concern?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Alien species and public health impacts in Europe: a literature review

Schindler¹,

Staska²,

Adam³

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Impacts of alien species on human health have recently become a major issue in medical research and invasion ecology, but comprehensive assessments of this subject are largely lacking. Here, we provide a literature review of alien species with public health impacts in Europe based on a systematic search in the Thomson Reuters Web of Science. We detected 77 relevant articles, of which 21 were reviews and 56 were original research articles. The taxonomic focus was on vascular plants (n=31 articles) and dipterans (n=25 articles). The original research articles mainly covered the spread of the study species, while early invasion stages (introduction, establishment) as well as impact and management were less investigated. Alien species of health concern in Europe are mostly introduced as contaminants, and mostly originate from climatically similar regions of the Northern Hemisphere. In those cases (36% of all articles) when information on the trend in range and abundance was provided, this trend was mostly increasing. We detected little information on the severity of the impacts (two articles) and the interaction with climate change (three articles). In 15 original articles (28%) specific management measures were suggested, in only one article the socioeconomic costs were assessed. We conclude that European research on human health impacts of alien species is biased towards few species, and that several important aspects such as early invasion stages, severity of impact and its temporal trends, and the scale of the socioeconomic costs caused are poorly understood. Interdisciplinary projects bridging gaps between ecologists medical researchers, socioeconomists and public health authorities are required to link alien species to severity and trends of impacts, which is a crucial requisite for risk assessment and decision making.

show abstract

“…Therefore, the potential risk posed by GE algae depends on their capacity to disperse, establish themselves in wild communities, and persist in the presence of native species. Concerns about ecological and public health impacts arising from escaped mass-cultured GE algae strains have been raised based on comparisons with invasive species [9][10][11][12][13], but never tested experimentally. While there are no cases of GE algae establishing in wild communities described in the literature, examples of invasive aquatic or terrestrial species with significant environmental impacts have been observed [14][15][16][17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of phenotype stability and ecological risk of a genetically engineered alga in open pond production

Szyjka¹,

Mandal

Schoepp

et al. 2017

Algal Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C TGenetically engineered (GE) algae offer the promise of producing food, fuel, and other valuable products with reduced requirements for land and fresh water. While the gains in productivity measured in GE terrestrial crops are predicted to be mirrored in GE algae, the stability of phenotypes and ecological risks posed by GE algae in large-scale outdoor cultivation remain unknown. Here, we describe the first US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-sanctioned experiment aimed at understanding how GE algae perform in outdoor cultivation. Acutodesmus dimorphus was genetically engineered by the addition of two genes, one for enhanced fatty acid biosynthesis, and one for recombinant green fluorescence protein (GFP) expression; both the genes and their associated phenotypes were maintained during fifty days of outdoor cultivation. We also observed that while the GE algae dispersed from the cultivation ponds, colonization of the trap ponds by the GE strain declined rapidly with increasing distance from the source cultivation ponds. In contrast, many species of indigenous algae were found in every trap pond within a few days of starting the experiment. When inoculated in water from five local lakes, the GE algae's effect on biodiversity, species composition, and biomass of native algae was indiscernible from those of the wild-type (wt) progenitor algae, and neither the GE nor wt algae were able to outcompete native strains. We conclude that GE algae can be successfully cultivated outdoors while maintaining GE traits, and that for the specific GE algal strain tested here they did not outcompete or adversely impact native algae populations when grown in water taken from local lakes. This study provides an initial evaluation of GE algae in outdoor cultivation and a framework to evaluate GE algae risks associated with outdoor GE algae production.

show abstract

Novel Organisms: Comparing Invasive Species, GMOs, and Emerging Pathogens

Cited by 78 publications

References 45 publications

Biological invasions and natural colonisations: are they that different?

Biological invasions and natural colonisations: are they that different?

Alien species and public health impacts in Europe: a literature review

Evaluation of phenotype stability and ecological risk of a genetically engineered alga in open pond production

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About