Abstract
Darwin’s naturalization hypothesis predicts that introduced species tend not to invade areas containing congeneric native species, because they would otherwise compete with their close relatives and would likely encounter predators and pathogens that can attack them. An opposing view is that introduced species should succeed in areas where native congeners are present because they are more likely to share traits that pre-adapt them to their new environment. A test of both these hypotheses using data on fish introductions from several independent regions fails to support either viewpoints. In contrast to studies of nonindigenous plants, our results suggest that taxonomic affiliation is not an important general predictor of fish invasion success.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baltz DM and Moyle PB (1993). Invasion resistance to introduced species by a native assemblage of Californian stream fishes. Ecological Applications 3: 246–255
Case TJ (1990). Invasion resistance arises in strongly interacting species-rich model competition communities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 87: 9610–9614
Colautti RI, Ricciardi A, Grigorovich IA and MacIsaac HJ (2004). Is invasion success explained by the Enemy Release Hypothesis?. Ecology Letters 7: 721–733
Cudmore-Vokey B and Crossman EJ (2000) Checklists of the fish fauna of the Laurentian Great Lakes and their connecting channels. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, No. 2550
Curnutt JL (2000). Host-area climatic-matching: similarity breeds exotics. Biological Conservation 94: 341–351
Daehler CC (2001). Darwin’s naturalization hypothesis revisited. American Naturalist 158: 324–330
Darwin C (1859). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. John Murray, London
Duggan IC, Rixon AM and MacIsaac HJ (2006). Popularity and propagule pressure: determinants of introduction and establishment of aquarium fish. Biological Invasions 8: 377–382
Duncan RP and Williams PA (2002). Darwin’s naturalization hypothesis challenged. Nature 417: 608
Fofonoff PW, Ruiz GM, Steves B, Hines AH and Carlton JT (2003) National Exotic Marine and Estuarine Species Information System. http://invasions/si.edu/nemesis/
Froese R and Pauly D (2004) FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication. www.fishbase.org, version (10/2004)
Harvey BC, White JL and Nakamoto RJ (2004). An emergent multiple predator effect may enhance biotic resistance in a stream assemblage. Ecology 85: 127–133
Kolar CS and Lodge DM (2001). Progress in invasion biology: predicting invaders. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16: 199–204
Kolar CS and Lodge DM (2002). Ecological predictions and risk assessments for alien fishes in North America. Science 298: 1233–1236
Leach JH (2003). Unusual invaders of Lake Erie. Point Pelee Natural History News 3(1): 1–5
Leppäkoski E and Olenin S (2000). Non-native species and rates of spread: lessons from the brackish Baltic Sea. Biological Invasions 2: 151–163
Levine JM, Adler PB and Yelenik SG (2004). A meta-analysis of biotic resistance to exotic plant invasions. Ecology Letters 7: 975–989
Lockwood JL (1999). Using taxonomy to predict success among introduced avifauna: relative importance of transport and establishment. Conservation Biology 13: 565–567
Lockwood JL, Cassey P and Blackburn T (2005). The role of propagule pressure in explaining species invasions. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20: 223–228
MacIsaac HJ, Grigorovich IA and Ricciardi A (2001). Reassessment of species invasions concepts: the Great Lakes basin as a model. Biological Invasions 3: 405–416
Marchetti MP, Moyle PB and Levine R (2004). Alien fishes in California watershed: characteristics of successful and failed invaders. Ecological Applications 14: 587–596
Mills EL, Scheuerell MD, Carlton J and Strayer DL (1997) Biological invasions in the Hudson River basin: an inventory and historical analysis. New York State Museum Circular No. 57, New York State Education Department, Albany
Moyle PB and Light T (1996). Fish invasions in California: do abiotic factors determine success. Ecology 77: 1666–1670
Rejmanek M (1996). A theory of seed plant invasiveness: the first sketch. Biological Conservation 78: 171–180
Rejmanek M (1998). Invasive plant species and invadible ecosystems. In: Sandlund, OT, Schei, PJ and Vilken, A (eds) Invasive Species and Biodiversity Management, pp 79–102. Kluwer, Dordrecht
Ricciardi A and Rasmussen JB (1998). Predicting the identity and impact of future biological invaders: a priority for aquatic resource management. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55: 1759–1765
Ross ST (1991). Mechanisms structuring stream fish assemblages: are there lessons from introduced species. Environmental Biology of Fishes 30: 359–368
Shurin JB (2000). Dispersal limitation, invasion resistance and the structure of pond zooplankton communities. Ecology 81: 3074–3086
Sokal RR and Rohlf FJ (1995). Biometry. Freeman, New York
Williamson MH and Fitter A (1996). The varying success of invaders. Ecology 77: 1661–1666
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ricciardi, A., Mottiar, M. Does Darwin’s Naturalization Hypothesis Explain Fish Invasions?. Biol Invasions 8, 1403–1407 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-006-0005-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-006-0005-6