世界三个地区之间不对称的昆虫入侵情况

IF 3.8 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Rylee Isitt, Andrew M. Liebhold, Rebecca M. Turner, Andrea Battisti, Cleo Bertelsmeier, Rachael Blake, Eckehard G. Brockerhoff, Stephen B. Heard, Paal Krokene, Bjørn Økland, Helen F. Nahrung, Davide Rassati, Alain Roques, Takehiko Yamanaka, Deepa S. Pureswaran
{"title":"世界三个地区之间不对称的昆虫入侵情况","authors":"Rylee Isitt, Andrew M. Liebhold, Rebecca M. Turner, Andrea Battisti, Cleo Bertelsmeier, Rachael Blake, Eckehard G. Brockerhoff, Stephen B. Heard, Paal Krokene, Bjørn Økland, Helen F. Nahrung, Davide Rassati, Alain Roques, Takehiko Yamanaka, Deepa S. Pureswaran","doi":"10.3897/neobiota.90.110942","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThe geographical exchange of non-native species can be highly asymmetrical, with some world regions donating or receiving more species than others. Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain such asymmetries, including differences in propagule pressure, source species (invader) pools, environmental features in recipient regions, or biological traits of invaders. We quantified spatiotemporal patterns in the exchange of non-native insects between Europe, North America, and Australasia, and then tested possible explanations for these patterns based on regional trade (import values) and model estimates of invader pool sizes. Europe was the dominant donor of non-native insect species between the three regions, with most of this asymmetry arising prior to 1950. This could not be explained by differences in import values (1827–2014), nor were there substantial differences in the sizes of modelled invader pools. Based on additional evidence from literature, we propose that patterns of historical plant introductions may explain these asymmetries, but this possibility requires further study.","PeriodicalId":54290,"journal":{"name":"Neobiota","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Asymmetrical insect invasions between three world regions\",\"authors\":\"Rylee Isitt, Andrew M. Liebhold, Rebecca M. Turner, Andrea Battisti, Cleo Bertelsmeier, Rachael Blake, Eckehard G. Brockerhoff, Stephen B. Heard, Paal Krokene, Bjørn Økland, Helen F. Nahrung, Davide Rassati, Alain Roques, Takehiko Yamanaka, Deepa S. Pureswaran\",\"doi\":\"10.3897/neobiota.90.110942\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nThe geographical exchange of non-native species can be highly asymmetrical, with some world regions donating or receiving more species than others. Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain such asymmetries, including differences in propagule pressure, source species (invader) pools, environmental features in recipient regions, or biological traits of invaders. We quantified spatiotemporal patterns in the exchange of non-native insects between Europe, North America, and Australasia, and then tested possible explanations for these patterns based on regional trade (import values) and model estimates of invader pool sizes. Europe was the dominant donor of non-native insect species between the three regions, with most of this asymmetry arising prior to 1950. This could not be explained by differences in import values (1827–2014), nor were there substantial differences in the sizes of modelled invader pools. Based on additional evidence from literature, we propose that patterns of historical plant introductions may explain these asymmetries, but this possibility requires further study.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54290,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neobiota\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neobiota\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.90.110942\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neobiota","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.90.110942","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

非本地物种的地理交换可能极不对称,世界上一些地区比其他地区捐献或接受更多的物种。有几种假说可以解释这种不对称现象,包括传播压力的差异、源物种(入侵者)库、接受地区的环境特征或入侵者的生物特征。我们量化了欧洲、北美和澳大拉西亚之间非本地昆虫交流的时空模式,然后根据区域贸易(进口值)和入侵者库规模的模型估计值,检验了这些模式的可能解释。欧洲是三个地区之间非外来昆虫物种的主要捐赠者,这种不对称大多出现在 1950 年之前。这不能用进口值(1827-2014 年)的差异来解释,入侵者集合模型的规模也没有实质性差异。根据文献中的其他证据,我们认为历史上的植物引入模式可能可以解释这些不对称现象,但这种可能性还需要进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Asymmetrical insect invasions between three world regions
 The geographical exchange of non-native species can be highly asymmetrical, with some world regions donating or receiving more species than others. Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain such asymmetries, including differences in propagule pressure, source species (invader) pools, environmental features in recipient regions, or biological traits of invaders. We quantified spatiotemporal patterns in the exchange of non-native insects between Europe, North America, and Australasia, and then tested possible explanations for these patterns based on regional trade (import values) and model estimates of invader pool sizes. Europe was the dominant donor of non-native insect species between the three regions, with most of this asymmetry arising prior to 1950. This could not be explained by differences in import values (1827–2014), nor were there substantial differences in the sizes of modelled invader pools. Based on additional evidence from literature, we propose that patterns of historical plant introductions may explain these asymmetries, but this possibility requires further study.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Neobiota
Neobiota Agricultural and Biological Sciences-Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
7.80%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊介绍: NeoBiota is a peer-reviewed, open-access, rapid online journal launched to accelerate research on alien species and biological invasions: aquatic and terrestrial, animals, plants, fungi and micro-organisms. The journal NeoBiota is a continuation of the former NEOBIOTA publication series; for volumes 1-8 see http://www.oekosys.tu-berlin.de/menue/neobiota All articles are published immediately upon editorial approval. All published papers can be freely copied, downloaded, printed and distributed at no charge for the reader. Authors are thus encouraged to post the pdf files of published papers on their homepages or elsewhere to expedite distribution. There is no charge for color.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信