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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Boltovskoy, Demetrio, Sylvester, Francisco, Paolucci, Esteban M.
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