Cargando…
Invasive species denialism: Sorting out facts, beliefs, and definitions
In the last decades, thousands of investigations confirmed the detrimental effects of species translocated by man outside of their native ranges (nonindigenous species, or NIS). However, results concluding that many NIS have null, neutral, or positive impacts on the biota and on human interests are...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6262740/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30519436 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4588 |
_version_ | 1783375172214980608 |
---|---|
author | Boltovskoy, Demetrio Sylvester, Francisco Paolucci, Esteban M. |
author_facet | Boltovskoy, Demetrio Sylvester, Francisco Paolucci, Esteban M. |
author_sort | Boltovskoy, Demetrio |
collection | PubMed |
description | In the last decades, thousands of investigations confirmed the detrimental effects of species translocated by man outside of their native ranges (nonindigenous species, or NIS). However, results concluding that many NIS have null, neutral, or positive impacts on the biota and on human interests are as common in the scientific literature as those that point at baneful impacts. Recently, several scholars confronted the stand that origin per se is not a reliable indicator of negative effects, suggesting that such conclusions are the expression of scientific denialism, often led by spurious purposes, and that their numbers are increasing. When assessed in the context of the growing interest in introduced species, the proportion of academic publications claiming that NIS pose no threats to the environment and to social and economic interests is extremely low, and has not increased since 1990. The widely prevailing notion that many NIS are effectively or potentially harmful does not conflict with the fact that most have mixed (negative, neutral, and positive) impacts. When based on solid grounds, reports of positive or neutral impacts should not be labeled as manipulative or misleading unless proven otherwise, even if they may hamper interest in‐ and funding of research and control bioinvasion programs. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6262740 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-62627402018-12-05 Invasive species denialism: Sorting out facts, beliefs, and definitions Boltovskoy, Demetrio Sylvester, Francisco Paolucci, Esteban M. Ecol Evol Original Research In the last decades, thousands of investigations confirmed the detrimental effects of species translocated by man outside of their native ranges (nonindigenous species, or NIS). However, results concluding that many NIS have null, neutral, or positive impacts on the biota and on human interests are as common in the scientific literature as those that point at baneful impacts. Recently, several scholars confronted the stand that origin per se is not a reliable indicator of negative effects, suggesting that such conclusions are the expression of scientific denialism, often led by spurious purposes, and that their numbers are increasing. When assessed in the context of the growing interest in introduced species, the proportion of academic publications claiming that NIS pose no threats to the environment and to social and economic interests is extremely low, and has not increased since 1990. The widely prevailing notion that many NIS are effectively or potentially harmful does not conflict with the fact that most have mixed (negative, neutral, and positive) impacts. When based on solid grounds, reports of positive or neutral impacts should not be labeled as manipulative or misleading unless proven otherwise, even if they may hamper interest in‐ and funding of research and control bioinvasion programs. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018-10-30 /pmc/articles/PMC6262740/ /pubmed/30519436 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4588 Text en © 2018 The Authors. Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Research Boltovskoy, Demetrio Sylvester, Francisco Paolucci, Esteban M. Invasive species denialism: Sorting out facts, beliefs, and definitions |
title | Invasive species denialism: Sorting out facts, beliefs, and definitions |
title_full | Invasive species denialism: Sorting out facts, beliefs, and definitions |
title_fullStr | Invasive species denialism: Sorting out facts, beliefs, and definitions |
title_full_unstemmed | Invasive species denialism: Sorting out facts, beliefs, and definitions |
title_short | Invasive species denialism: Sorting out facts, beliefs, and definitions |
title_sort | invasive species denialism: sorting out facts, beliefs, and definitions |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6262740/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30519436 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4588 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT boltovskoydemetrio invasivespeciesdenialismsortingoutfactsbeliefsanddefinitions AT sylvesterfrancisco invasivespeciesdenialismsortingoutfactsbeliefsanddefinitions AT paolucciestebanm invasivespeciesdenialismsortingoutfactsbeliefsanddefinitions |