起源很重要?比较欧洲保护区中本地蹄类动物和引进蹄类动物的影响

IF 4.3 2区 生物学 Q1 ECOLOGY Mammal Review Pub Date : 2024-02-13 DOI:10.1111/mam.12345
Luciano Rivas, Marcelo H. Cassini
{"title":"起源很重要?比较欧洲保护区中本地蹄类动物和引进蹄类动物的影响","authors":"Luciano Rivas,&nbsp;Marcelo H. Cassini","doi":"10.1111/mam.12345","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The prevailing theory in invasion biology has been that introduced species have ecological and life-history characteristics that predispose them to do more damage than native species. However, this principle has been challenged and the last decade has become involved in controversy around the hypothesis of whether origin matters. The objectives of this study were 1) to compare the intensity and types of environmental impacts of native European ungulates and their introduced counterparts using EICAT and 2) to discuss whether the results support the hypotheses on the importance of the origin of species. We relied on two previously published lists of literature on ungulate impacts. We conducted four types of comparisons: 1) same species, different locations, 2) different species, same location, 3) all species, all locations and 4) between impact mechanisms. All data comparisons between native European and introduced ungulate species indicated non-significant differences in their levels and types of impacts. In conclusion, this study found that the negative impact of native European ungulates is like that produced by introduced species. Nevertheless, the mechanisms that determined high levels of damages in native and introduced ungulates may not be the same; thus, further research using the methodological tools provided by invasion biology is required.</p>","PeriodicalId":49893,"journal":{"name":"Mammal Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Origin matters? Comparing impacts of native and introduced ungulates in European protected areas\",\"authors\":\"Luciano Rivas,&nbsp;Marcelo H. Cassini\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/mam.12345\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The prevailing theory in invasion biology has been that introduced species have ecological and life-history characteristics that predispose them to do more damage than native species. However, this principle has been challenged and the last decade has become involved in controversy around the hypothesis of whether origin matters. The objectives of this study were 1) to compare the intensity and types of environmental impacts of native European ungulates and their introduced counterparts using EICAT and 2) to discuss whether the results support the hypotheses on the importance of the origin of species. We relied on two previously published lists of literature on ungulate impacts. We conducted four types of comparisons: 1) same species, different locations, 2) different species, same location, 3) all species, all locations and 4) between impact mechanisms. All data comparisons between native European and introduced ungulate species indicated non-significant differences in their levels and types of impacts. In conclusion, this study found that the negative impact of native European ungulates is like that produced by introduced species. Nevertheless, the mechanisms that determined high levels of damages in native and introduced ungulates may not be the same; thus, further research using the methodological tools provided by invasion biology is required.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49893,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Mammal Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Mammal Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mam.12345\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mammal Review","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mam.12345","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

入侵生物学的主流理论认为,外来物种的生态和生活史特征使其比本地物种造成更大的破坏。然而,这一原则受到了质疑,在过去的十年中,围绕起源是否重要这一假说的争议不断。本研究的目的是:1)使用 EICAT 比较欧洲原生有蹄类动物和引进的同类动物对环境影响的强度和类型;2)讨论研究结果是否支持关于物种起源重要性的假设。我们参考了之前发表的两份有关有蹄类动物影响的文献清单。我们进行了四种类型的比较:1)同一物种,不同地点;2)不同物种,同一地点;3)所有物种,所有地点;4)不同影响机制。欧洲本地物种和引进的蹄类动物之间的所有数据比较均表明,它们在影响程度和影响类型上没有显著差异。总之,这项研究发现,欧洲本地有蹄类动物的负面影响与引进物种的负面影响相同。然而,决定本地有蹄类动物和引进有蹄类动物造成高水平破坏的机制可能并不相同;因此,需要利用入侵生物学提供的方法论工具开展进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Origin matters? Comparing impacts of native and introduced ungulates in European protected areas

The prevailing theory in invasion biology has been that introduced species have ecological and life-history characteristics that predispose them to do more damage than native species. However, this principle has been challenged and the last decade has become involved in controversy around the hypothesis of whether origin matters. The objectives of this study were 1) to compare the intensity and types of environmental impacts of native European ungulates and their introduced counterparts using EICAT and 2) to discuss whether the results support the hypotheses on the importance of the origin of species. We relied on two previously published lists of literature on ungulate impacts. We conducted four types of comparisons: 1) same species, different locations, 2) different species, same location, 3) all species, all locations and 4) between impact mechanisms. All data comparisons between native European and introduced ungulate species indicated non-significant differences in their levels and types of impacts. In conclusion, this study found that the negative impact of native European ungulates is like that produced by introduced species. Nevertheless, the mechanisms that determined high levels of damages in native and introduced ungulates may not be the same; thus, further research using the methodological tools provided by invasion biology is required.

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
Mammal Review
Mammal Review 生物-动物学
CiteScore
12.20
自引率
4.10%
发文量
29
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Mammal Review is the official scientific periodical of the Mammal Society, and covers all aspects of mammalian biology and ecology, including behavioural ecology, biogeography, conservation, ecology, ethology, evolution, genetics, human ecology, management, morphology, and taxonomy. We publish Reviews drawing together information from various sources in the public domain for a new synthesis or analysis of mammalian biology; Predictive Reviews using quantitative models to provide insights into mammalian biology; Perspectives presenting original views on any aspect of mammalian biology; Comments in response to papers published in Mammal Review; and Short Communications describing new findings or methods in mammalian biology.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Holocene biogeography of the southwestern European white‐toothed shrew (Crocidura iculisma, Eulipotyphla) through its fossil record Use of lure sticks for non‐invasive genetic sampling of European wildcat populations: lessons learnt and hints for future insights Neotropical non‐primate canopy mammals: historical trends, omissions, and geographic gaps in the knowledge Setts of European badger Meles meles in open habitats: trend or exception?
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1