CABI Book Chapter
Invasion biology: hypotheses and evidence.
DescriptionThis book, containing 18 chapters, combines the hierarchy-of-hypotheses (HoH) approach with hypothesis networks for invasion biology. This book aims to further develop the HoH approach by inviting critical comments (Part I), apply it to 12 major invasion hypotheses (Part II) and explore how it can be expanded to a hierarchically structured hypothesis network (Chapter 7 and Part III). It is importa...
Chapter 13 (Page no: 124)
Tens rule.The tens rule became a popular invasion hypothesis in the 1990s and is still widely used today, even though empirical support has been mixed from the beginning and the number of studies questioning it has been increasing in the past decade. Also, the rule is not based on a model or other defensible concept or argument. Here we divide the tens rule into two more specific sub-hypotheses: the invasion tens rule and the impact tens rule, where the former predicts that about 10% of species successfully take consecutive steps of the invasion process, and the latter that about 10% of established non-native species and about 1% of all introduced non-native species cause significant detrimental impacts. A quantitative metaanalysis of 102 empirical tests of the tens rule from 65 publications shows no support for this hypothesis. Looking at the invasion tens rule and comparing different taxonomic groups, about 25% of non-native plants and invertebrates, and about 50% of non-native vertebrates are on average successful in taking consecutive steps of the invasion process. We thus suggest replacing the invasion tens rule by two taxon-dependent hypotheses: the 50% invasion rule for vertebrates and the 25% invasion rule for other organisms, particularly plants and invertebrates. The impact tens rule is not supported by currently available evidence, either, and more data are needed before a reasonable alternative hypothesis can be formulated. In a nutshell, we suggest abandoning the tens rule and using the 50% invasion rule for vertebrates and the 25% invasion rule for other organisms. These hypotheses provide new standards that are supported by currently available data and against which future data can be tested.
Other chapters from this book
|Chapter: 1 (Page no: 3)||Invasion biology: searching for predictions and prevention, and avoiding lost causes. Author(s): Cassey, P., García-Díaz, P., Lockwood, J. L., Blackburn, T. M.|
|Chapter: 2 (Page no: 14)||The hierarchy-of-hypotheses approach. Author(s): Heger, T., Jeschke, J. M.|
|Chapter: 3 (Page no: 19)||Hierarchy of hypotheses or hierarchy of predictions? Clarifying key concepts in ecological research. Author(s): Farji-Brener, A. G., Amador-Vargas, S.|
|Chapter: 4 (Page no: 23)||Mapping theoretical and evidential landscapes in ecological science: Levins' virtue trade-off and the hierarchy-of-hypotheses approach. Author(s): Griesemer, J.|
|Chapter: 5 (Page no: 30)||A hierarchy of hypotheses or a network of models. Author(s): Scheiner, S. M., Fox, G. A.|
|Chapter: 6 (Page no: 38)||The hierarchy-of-hypotheses approach updated - a toolbox for structuring and analysing theory, research and evidence. Author(s): Heger, T., Jeschke, J. M.|
|Chapter: 7 (Page no: 49)||A network of invasion hypotheses. Author(s): Enders, M., Jeschke, J. M.|
|Chapter: 8 (Page no: 60)||Biotic resistance and island susceptibility hypotheses. Author(s): Jeschke, J. M., Debille, S., Lortie, C. J.|
|Chapter: 9 (Page no: 71)||Disturbance hypothesis. Author(s): Nordheimer, R., Jeschke, J. M.|
|Chapter: 10 (Page no: 79)||Invasional meltdown hypothesis. Author(s): Braga, R. R., Gómez Aparicio, L., Heger, T., Vitule, J. R. S., Jeschke, J. M.|
|Chapter: 11 (Page no: 92)||Enemy release hypothesis. Author(s): Heger, T., Jeschke, J. M.|
|Chapter: 12 (Page no: 103)||Evolution of increased competitive ability and shifting defence hypotheses. Author(s): Müller, C.|
|Chapter: 14 (Page no: 133)||Phenotypic plasticity hypothesis. Author(s): Torchyk, O., Jeschke, J. M.|
|Chapter: 15 (Page no: 140)||Darwin's naturalization and limiting similarity hypotheses. Author(s): Jeschke, J. M., Erhard, F.|
|Chapter: 16 (Page no: 147)||Propagule pressure hypothesis. Author(s): Jeschke, J. M., Starzer, J.|
|Chapter: 17 (Page no: 157)||Synthesis. Author(s): Jeschke, J. M., Heger, T.|
|Chapter: 18 (Page no: 167)||Conclusions and outlook. Author(s): Heger, T., Jeschke, J. M.|