Study
Don’t judge species on their origins
Davis, Mark A.; Chew, Matthew K.; Hobbs, Richard J.; Lugo, Ariel E.; Ewel, John J.; Vermeij, Geerat J.
Nature, 2011
Argues that management and research should assess introduced species by their measured effects rather than by whether they are native, noting cases in which introduced species provide functions valued by conservation and cases in which native species cause comparable harm.
- Studied in
- Animalia, Plantae
- Sample size
- argument drawing on introduced species with documented outcomes
Most introduced species establish without measurable harm, some provide functions previously supplied by lost natives, and harm is not predicted by origin.
What it means
The authors' reading, and ours. Where they differ, that difference is the point.
How the authors put it
Origin is a poor guide to impact, and effort should be directed by evidence of harm.
How NatureHQ reads it
Carried with the response beside it, because this is a live disagreement rather than a settled correction. What is not in dispute is the definitional point NatureHQ takes from it: non-native, established and invasive are three different things, and the majority of introductions do not become the third. What is disputed is how far origin should be discounted in practice.
- A position paper that drew substantial disagreement from invasion biologists.
- The harmless majority includes species not yet observed long enough; lag times before impact can be decades.
What this study is used for on NatureHQ
One study can inform several subjects. Here is everywhere this one is cited.
Published by: Nature PortfolioPublished in a Nature Portfolio journal.
Checked against Crossref on 2026-09-28, and they agree on the title, the authors and the year.
NatureHQ summarises research in its own words and does not reproduce published text. Reviewed 2026-09-04.