from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thick-stemmed water hyacinth ( Eichhornia crassipes ), a neophyte that is widespread worldwide
Brown rat ( Rattus norvegicus ), a globally successful neozoon
Sargassum muticum , an invasive seaweed from the group of brown algae

As Neobiota ( Plur .; Also Neobionten , Sing. The Neobiont ; from ancient Greek νέος néos "new" and βίος bíos / βίοτος bíotos "life") are species and subordinate taxa that have established themselves in an area through human influence that they weren't at home before. A minority opinion is that taxa that spread without human influence are also called neobiota. For such taxa, however, the term new native ( English neonative) suggested. Neobiotische plants are called neophytes (sing. The neophyte ; φυτόν Phyton "greenhouse, plant"), neobiotische animals invasive species (sing. The neozoon ; ζῶον Zoon "creature, animal") and neobiotische mushrooms Neomyceten (sing. Of Neomycet ; μύκης Mykes " Mushroom"). These three terms are mainly used in German-speaking countries. In English, summarizing terms such as alien species (foreign species) or, in the case of suppressing potencies, invasive species (invasive species) are used without differentiating between plants, animals and fungi.

One of the most important means of transport ( vectors ) for neobiota today is global freight traffic, which enables the unintentional displacement of neobiota. The process of immigration or introduction, establishment and expansion in the new area is called hemerochory or biological invasion . The associated branch of biology is invasion biology.

Neobiota are usually characterized by typical properties such as adaptability, high reproductive rate and often an association with humans. Together with the susceptibility of the new area to biological invaders ( invasibility ) and the number of displaced individuals (English propagule pressure ), these properties determine the probability of success with which a stable population is established after a spreading event .

While numerous neobiota do not cause any noticeable negative effects, some established neobiota have a strongly negative influence on the biodiversity of their new habitat. The composition of the biocenosis often changes considerably, for example due to predation or as a result of competitive pressure . Neobiota can cause economic damage, for example as forest, bank protection and agricultural pests. They can also appear as vectors of pathogens , some of which can also attack crops, livestock and humans.


American opuntias on an ancient Greek temple in Selinunte , Sicily

The terminology of the invasion biology is very uneven. In the English-speaking world, terms such as invasive species or the like are mainly used . that are interpreted differently and do not differentiate between different groups of animals or characteristics of the species. The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) differentiates in its definitions between alien species and invasive alien species . Alien species are species that have been introduced into a foreign area through human influence. The attribute invasive (invasive) is assigned to species that displace native species in their new habitat.

In addition to the inconsistency, the military or even xenophobic connotation of invasive and alien was criticized. The neutral term Neobiota unites all species that have colonized new areas through human influence. However, the terms with neo are not used in a completely uniform way:

  • According to one opinion, the terms neobiota or neophytes or neozoa apply regardless of when a species was introduced.
  • According to another understanding, these names only apply to species introduced from 1492 onwards. The year of the discovery of America by Columbus was chosen as the border because it marks the beginning of the intensive exchange of living beings between Europe and America. Species that were previously displaced, such as useful plants that were introduced in the course of the Neolithic Revolution , are called archaeobiota or archaeophytes (plants) or archaeozoa (animals). These terms are mainly used in the German-speaking area.

There are numerous other categories for alien species, see Kühn & Klotz (2002). Archaeobiota and Neobiota are summarized under the term adventitious species . Depending on the (unconscious) introduction or (conscious) type of introduction and the following degree of establishment, there are further differentiations among the adventitious plants .

The term neophytes goes back to the recognized definition by Albert Thellung from 1918 , which was later modified many times. The corresponding zoological definition ( neozoa ) is much more recent ( Ragnar Kinzelbach 1972) and is not as widespread and generally recognized as it is. The term neomycetes was introduced in 1999 by Markus Scholler .

Biological invasions

Ballast and bilge water are among the most important vectors for aquatic neobiota.

Probably the most important vector for neobiota at present is world trade ; its steady growth increases the number of new neobiota considerably. The most important vectors include cargo ships, where neobiota can be hidden in containers or cargo, for example. Aviation also continues to spread neobiota. Distribution via trade routes is mostly unintentional. There is a correlation between economic strength and the number of neobiota at the country level. In the past, and more rarely today, neobiota were also intentionally released, e.g. B. as biological pest control or game . Likewise, neozoa can escape from human housing and establish stable populations, and useful plants can establish themselves in the wild. Invasive species are considered an important part of globalization .

When humans influence the environment, organisms can spread indirectly and migrate to a new area as neobiota. For example, canal construction enables aquatic life to gain access to a new area. However, it is not always possible to clearly determine whether the species have spread as a result of anthropogenic environmental changes and are therefore classified as neobiota. The spread of the turkish dove ( Streptopelia decaocto ), for example, could be due to the creation of agricultural landscapes as a food supply for the pigeon on the one hand, and to genetic adaptations of the pigeon on the other.

According to a study published in Nature in 2015 , at least 13,186 plant species have been shown to have been transported from their original habitat to other regions and made their home there by the influence of humans; North America recorded the greatest increase, and Europe was the most important source for all other continents.


After alien organisms arrive in their new environment, they can become extinct or establish themselves (establish a reproductive population). The success in establishing depends very much on the properties of the neobiont in question. A number of factors seem to favor the establishment. It is assumed that a higher reproduction rate, short generation succession and rapid growth favor the success of a neobiont ( r-strategy ). The link has been confirmed in several case studies of introduced fish and land plants; in this way a new population can be built up quickly and the population is more likely to recover from a decline in the population. In addition, neophytes are often characterized by high semen production, large seeds and early sexual maturity. Generalists can more easily establish themselves in new habitats because they tolerate a wider range of ecological parameters. This can be observed, among other things, with introduced, generalist predators: They do not lack their special prey in new habitats, and they can switch to other prey after the populations of their preferred prey have collapsed. Fish that are physiologically adapted to different water parameters (e.g. salinity , temperature) also prove to be particularly invasive.

The ability to rapidly change phenotype to adapt to a new environment is known as phenotypic plasticity ; it favors the success of an invasion. A typical example is the Central American, arboreal Anolis -Echsen ( Anolis ): You can in the course of their individual development ( ontogeny of their habitat train) depends on the thickness of the branches especially long or short hind legs. This benefited the Bahamaanolis ( Anolis sagrei ) during its invasions in North and Central America. The same should apply to the adaptation of behavior to the new environment. The analysis of around 600 bird invasions provided empirical evidence of the validity of this hypothesis. It found that birds with a large brain in relation to their size are particularly likely to establish themselves. The increased cognitive abilities of a larger brain apparently enabled a successful adaptation of the behavior to the new environment. A similar connection was made likely for mammals, but the relevance of both results is also disputed by others as methodologically dubious.

In most cases it can be assumed that the ecological dissimilarity to already established species favors the invasion of a neobiont - in such cases the neobiont could use unused resources or encounter a lack of biotic resistance (e.g. predators).

In addition, a good ability to spread was found for many neobiota and, in the case of plants, a particularly effective use of light, water and nitrogen in connection with the ability to establish itself.

The relationship with humans can also favor the success of an invasion. Neobiota inconspicuous for humans such as B. nocturnal snakes can escape control measures, and introduced pets and crops are often not controlled. Neozoa living as commensals of human civilization find resources for establishment everywhere (e.g. brown rat , Rattus norvegicus ), and some species can tolerate otherwise unfavorable climatic conditions due to their viability in man-made microclimate (e.g. Argentine ant , Linepithema humile ).


The ecological consequences and economic effects of neobiota and how they affect the non-economic values ​​of nature is the subject of an extremely controversial discussion that has been going on for decades and suggests competing, culturally shaped patterns of interpretation.

There should be broad agreement that most neobiota have only minor ecological consequences and impacts on humans, but a number of neobiota have a strong negative impact on their new habitat, the local economy and / or human health.

On the people

The Asian tiger mosquito ( Aedes albopictus ) has been transported to numerous countries and is the vector of pathogens.

Neobiota, which transmit diseases, can pose a threat to human health. Introduced species can serve as vectors for a new zoonosis or they can become vectors for diseases that are already occurring and thus increase infection rates. One example are mosquitoes , the spread of which is also favored by global warming . With the emergence of new, warm and humid habitats, disease-transmitting mosquitoes in connection with human transport could expand their range considerably. Neophytes are known to cause allergies or to increase the likelihood of fires by restructuring plant communities.

Neobiota can have detrimental effects on the economy; Davis (2009) estimates the worldwide annual losses from neobiota at several hundred billion dollars. Here, too, neobiota act as vectors for pathogens, such as pathogens from crops. In South Africa, however, introduced pines ( Pinus ), eucalyptus ( Eucalyptus ) and acacias ( Acacia ) lowered the water content of the soil, which damaged agriculture. Neobiota themselves can also be pests, such as B. the forest pest blue spruce wood wasp ( Sirex noctilio ). This can be devastating in poor regions : the tobacco moth scallop ( Bemisia tabaci ) introduced the tomato virus TYLCV in poor regions of Mexico ; the farmers cannot afford control measures such as pesticides, and the harvest is often almost completely lost.

On ecosystems

Brown night tree snake ( Boiga irregularis ) stalks a red throated anole ( Anolis carolinensis ).
The Ceylon cinnamon tree ( Cinnamomum verum ) is a neophyte in the Seychelles . Due to its dense network of roots, it is superior to native trees in the competition for nutrients in the nutrient-poor soils of the Seychelles.
Canadian beaver dam ( Castor canadensis ) on Isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego (Argentina, Chile). These neozoa were exposed there in 1946 for the fur trade - they changed the landscape considerably and caused eutrophication , and in some places they came into conflict with forestry .

Neobiota often change the composition of a biocenosis significantly and can reduce the population of native species. Occasionally they also change the physical structure in their new area of ​​distribution. Ecosystems also offer economic benefits ( ecosystem service ), from pollinating crops to recreational activities. Thus, a disruption of the ecosystem is often accompanied by economic damage for humans.

Neobiota can greatly reduce the population of native species. The pathogens or parasites carried along by them can reduce the population, or the neobiont itself is a predator. Species extinction can occur on islands in particular, as animals in such isolated ecosystems were only exposed to low selection pressure from predators and thus did not develop any natural flight instincts or other defensive measures. It is estimated that 54% of species extinctions in historical times for which the reasons for the extinction are known, neobiota played a more or less important role; thus, after habitat destruction, neobiota are the most important cause of species extinction. On Guam, the brown night tree snake ( Boiga irregularis ) hunted ten of the twelve native bird species until they became extinct. Although the birds of Guam are now missing as prey and the population of the brown night snake would have to collapse, the snake can maintain its population and continue to exert pressure on Guam's avifauna through introduced prey such as the red throat anole ( Anolis carolinensis ) . In continental ecosystems, however, there is usually no species extinction, but only a decline in populations. Introduced herbivores can deplete plant populations. Excessive grazing can have far-reaching consequences; in Chile, for example, abducted rabbits (lagomorpha) and cattle led to the desertification of former forests.

Neobiota can also compete with native species. Although competition seldom causes extinction, populations can decline. Especially on nutrient-poor soils, neophytes can decimate native plants through competition for nutrients. Above the earth, however, there is competition for light for photosynthesis . Even with neozoa there is the possibility of excluding competition : House rats ( Rattus rattus ) introduced to San Salvador ( Galápagos Archipelago ) aggressively defend resources they have found against Galápagos rice rats of the species Nesoryzomys swarthi , which negatively affects their populations.

If a neobiont adversely affects a native species via other species, this is referred to as an indirect effect. One example is the decline in plant species caused indirectly by the decline in pollinators. Reasons can be B. the competition of neophytes for the pollinators or the reduction of the populations of the pollinators by predatory neozoa. Indirect influences can therefore take place via the disruption of existing symbiotic relationships. This is also possible by changing food webs . For example, some invasive mussels It is known, for example, that they brought entire food webs to collapse by excessively reducing phytoplankton - this is known as the trophic cascade .

Neobiota can also change biogeochemical processes, which can have a negative impact on native species. This is known in particular from neophytes, but also from neozoa. Certain neophytes, for example, greatly increase the nitrogen input from soils and thus disrupt the local nitrogen cycle . Rats can reduce the nutrient input to an island, since seabirds avoid islands inhabited by rats and no longer carry guano . Other neobiota physically change their environment ( ecosystem engineers ), often with negative effects on native species. On Macquarie Island, off Tasmania, hare overgrazing resulted in landslides, destroying nesting sites for seabirds. Earthworms (Lumbricidae) introduced into North America move the plant debris and humus from the litter into deep layers of the earth, causing native plants to suffer from a shortage of nitrogen and phosphorus . Ecosystem engineers can also have positive effects on their new home: for example, neophytes can reduce the erosion of slopes on which native vegetation was previously removed by human influence. Ecosystem engineers who have been introduced apparently increase the biodiversity of an ecosystem if they increase the heterogeneity of the distribution of resources. They cause a decrease in biodiversity if they cause a more homogeneous distribution of resources.

As a result of biological invasions, succession and a strongly changed ecosystem can occur.

On other neobiota

Neobiota can positively influence other Neobiota, which in turn can trigger a number of critical processes ( invasional meltdown ). The yellow spinner ant ( Anoplolepis gracilipes ) caused no problems as a neozoon on the Christmas Islands for decades. But after the scale insect Coccus celatus was introduced, the yellow spinner ant was able to benefit from the honeydew of the scale insect and larger populations developed, which are responsible for the decline of the Christmas island crab ( Gecarcoidea natalis ) and, as a result, for damage to the forest .

Established neobiota can make an ecosystem more resistant to new neobiota. Thus the spread of pine (was Pinus ) in several cases stopped by previously established herbivores. Neobiota can also negatively affect other Neobiota. For example, the horse chestnut leaf miner, which is increasingly spreading in Europe, has been attacking the common horse chestnut that was introduced in Europe since the end of the 19th century .



Prevention is the most cost -effective measure to ward off harmful neozoa - but the costs of comprehensive prevention should not be underestimated, as neobiota can invade new ecosystems in many different ways. In many cases, prevention takes place through laws and border controls. In a set of guidelines, the IUCN calls for the identification of particularly risky routes of introduction and possible starting points for an invasion, and then for the financial means of defense to be concentrated primarily on these. For example, it is possible to determine for certain regions which species are particularly easy to colonize in order to then monitor particularly susceptible regions for the most likely neobiota. For example, for several US states, climate data from different locations were compared with the climatic needs of plants that have proven to be invasive in the past. This allows the spread of such neophytes to be better monitored.

A study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2010 found a particularly strong link between invasions and a country's population density and prosperity. The study carried out on the basis of European countries comes to the conclusion that these variables are strongly related to higher importation rates (e.g. animal trafficking), eutrophication and anthropogenic changes.

Since the introduction of neobiota cannot be prevented in the long term, the early detection of still young populations is an important addition to prevention. These still small populations can be extinguished inexpensively or can be kept below the threshold of the avenue effect for a long time .

Control measures

Attempts to contain the further spread of an established neobiont or to exterminate it locally are far more costly. A distinction is made between different types of control. When physically fighting the neobionts z. B. killed with firearms or regularly collected - such methods are, however, associated with high costs and ineffective when the population density of the neobiont is low. Under chemical control , in particular the use of fall pesticides . The problem is that the poisons often unintentionally harm native animal species or humans. Biological control includes, among other things, the introduction of natural enemies, parasites and viruses of the neobiont, but also other approaches such as Sterile Insect Technology . Occasionally, biological control measures are successful when the harmful effects of the control measures themselves are low, but in some cases the species newly introduced for control purposes cause undesirable side effects. Typically, the species introduced for control have too wide a spectrum of activity and thus also reduce the population of native species. This can be accompanied by a sensitive disruption of the ecosystem.

It is important that the species introduced for control are not only highly effective but also very effective, so that their own populations collapse due to the overuse of resources (in this case the neobiont). Otherwise, they can coexist with the neobiont, possibly multiply in large numbers and become a plague. This happened when flies of the genus Urophora were released in North America to control the introduced knapweed Centaurea diffusa and C. maculosa . Instead, Urophora flies in coexistence with Centaurea species became very common, and the larvae of Urophora became an important food source for the deer vole ( Peromyscus maniculatus ). In larger deer mouse populations, hantavirus- positive individuals become both relatively and absolutely more common. So in the end, human health was endangered.

Genetically modified variants of the neobiont can also be introduced into the invasive population. Repeated exposure of such individuals brings harmful genetic makeup into the neobiont's gene pool , which in the long term should lead to the neobiont's extinction. One example is the Trojan sex chromosome approach currently being developed in fish with hemizygous males (sex chromosomes XY) and homozygous females (XX). By means of a special breeding process over two generations and estrogen treatment , phenotypic females can be produced, which, however, carry the sex chromosome pair YY in their genotype . They only get male young animals, half of which can only produce male offspring. The regular smuggling of YY females shifts the gender distribution strongly in favor of the males until the population dies out. The approach is considered promising, but is still under development. When using genetically modified individuals, however, harmful genes could end up in the gene pool of other animal species through hybridization . In many places, the exposure of genetically modified organisms is not legally possible.

Another way of combating neobiota is environmental management, which aims to reduce the invasibility of ecosystems. For this purpose z. For example, disturbances from human activities can be avoided, since disturbances and heterogeneity make an ecosystem more invasible. In many cases, the neobiont does not spread on a continuous front, but through satellite populations. The expansion corridors and possible starting points for the formation of satellite populations can be closed within the framework of environmental management. The Aga toad ( Bufo marinus ) caused severe populations of Australian animal species. Although it is not adapted to the dry climate in large parts of Australia - artificial water points enable it to survive dry seasons and to spread over dry stretches of land. If, on the other hand, such water points are fenced in, the toad population will decline - at the same time, the corridors of expansion across the Australian arid regions are closed. In addition, the ecological value of artificial water points is only small, so the limiting factor for the Aga toad (water) can be withdrawn from it without further damage to other species.


The control of neobiota can be problematic when the population density is low. This was demonstrated in an experiment in which a single rat was abandoned on a 9.3 hectare island - despite intensive efforts, it took several months before it was killed. Difficulties may arise due to the low density of neobionts in the early establishment stage or at the end of an eradication campaign. In domestic goats, this problem was solved with Judas goats . Another solution was developed in Tasmania to detect invasions of the red fox ( Vulpes vulpes ) at an early stage: DNA is obtained from feces, amplified using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and then analyzed. In this way, neobiota can be identified and, given a sufficient number of samples, the gender distribution can also be determined. Another early detection method based on DNA analysis was developed in French populations of the American bullfrog ( Rana catesbeiana ): Bullfrog DNA dissolved in water can be specifically amplified using special primers in a PCR. In general, it is difficult to control aquatic neobiota such as fish, as these elude conventional control methods, are particularly difficult to track down and can spread widely in river systems.

Because containment campaigns are costly and not always successful, their usefulness is called into question in some cases, especially when the neobiont does not have a direct impact on the economy or human health. Critics think that in this case it makes more financial sense to leave the neobiota unmolested ( LTL approach , Learn To Love 'Em approach ). According to Myers et al. (2000) the large-scale extermination campaigns, which often cost several million dollars, only make sense if the funds (mostly from the state) are sufficient, all necessary and possibly side effects are approved, the biology of the neobiont enables control even with low population densities and re-introduction can be prevented. If these prerequisites are not met, the population density could be reduced as an alternative measure in an expensive initiation campaign in order to then maintain a low population size with limited resources. The current regulations of the world market practically do not allow causal justice with regard to the costs of a control. The introduction of a kind of tariff would probably internalize the costs quite efficiently, but is currently an illusion.

Critics put the fight against neobiota for species protection reasons partly in connection with xenophobia ; the spread or introduction of species into new habitats is a natural process. One should not assume static ecosystems, but rather, according to the theory of evolution, understand nature as something dynamic that is constantly changing. A neutral discussion on a purely scientific level is required. A general control of neobiota for aesthetic reasons is not justifiable. Furthermore, the often used reference date 1492 is described as arbitrary. In addition, neobiota would often be perceived selectively, e.g. In Germany, for example, many people thought wild rabbits , pheasants or fallow deer were indigenous species, although they were also introduced species, i.e. neozoa.

To counter this z. B. Simberloff (2005) that predictions about the harmfulness of a neobiont are still very imprecise. It is better to fight neobiota preventively. Various interest groups can also oppose the fight against neobiota. In Australia, about to defend themselves against Aborigines of control measures against imported rabbits, water buffalo and camels as these important now for them wild game are.


The invasive species are often observed by state authorities and put on so-called black lists . Overall, the list of invasive alien species of Union-wide importance is kept for Europe .

Situation in Germany

There are around 1000 alien vascular plants in Germany, but only around 400 of them are permanently established and around 40 of these neophytes are considered invasive ( list of neophytes in Germany ). In the case of non-native animal species, it is assumed that there are around 1100 species in Germany, of which around 260 species are considered to be permanently established, including 30 vertebrates ( list of neozoa in Germany ).

Situation in Switzerland

The list of non-native invasive plants in Switzerland is known for Switzerland . In addition, 283 species were identified as neomycetes in Switzerland .


in alphabetical order

  • Yvonne Baskin: A plague of Rats and Rubbervines - The growing threat of species invasions. Island Press / Shearwater Books, Washington, DC. 2002, ISBN 1-55963-051-5 (English).
  • Mark A. Davis: Invasion Biology (= Oxford Biology .). Oxford University Press. Oxford et al. a. 2009, ISBN 978-0-19-921875-2 .
  • Philip E. Hulme: Handbook of alien species in Europe (= Invading nature. 3). Springer, Dordrecht 2009, ISBN 978-1-4020-8279-5 .
  • Bernhard Kegel : The ant as a tramp. From biological invasions. Updated and expanded new edition. DuMont, Cologne 2013, ISBN 978-3-8321-6237-5 .
  • Ingo Kowarik: Biological Invasions; Neophytes and Neozoa in Central Europe . 2nd Edition. Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart 2010, ISBN 978-3-8001-5889-8 .
  • Julie L. Lockwood, Martha F. Hoopes, Michael P. Marchetti: Invasion Ecology. Blackwell, Malden, et al. a. 2007, ISBN 1-4051-1418-5 .
  • Wolfgang Nentwig: Invasive species . UTB, Stuttgart 2010, ISBN 978-3-8252-3383-9 (= UTB Profile ).
  • Fred Pearce : The New Wild: How Alien Animals and Plants Can Help Save Nature . Oekom, Munich 2016, ISBN 978-3-86581-768-6 .
  • Charles Perrings, Harold A. Mooney, Mark Williamson (Eds.): Bioinvasions and Globalization: Ecology, Economics, Management, and Policy. Oxford University Press, Oxford u. a. 2009, ISBN 978-0-19-956016-5 .
  • David M. Richardson (Ed.): Fifty Years of Invasion Ecology: The Legacy of Charles Elton. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford et al. a. 2011, ISBN 978-1-4443-3585-9 .
  • Daniel Simberloff, Marcel Rejmánek (Eds.): Encyclopedia of Biological Invasions. University of California Press, Berkeley, Calif. u. a. 2011, ISBN 978-0-520-26421-2 .
  • Joachim Wolschke-Bulmann: "From the New World" - On the introduction of exotic plants into European garden culture. Bibliography from an exhibition in Dumbarton Oaks . In: Die Gartenkunst 4 (2/1992), pp. 317–334.

Web links

Wiktionary: Neobiont  - explanations of meanings, word origins, synonyms, translations
Wiktionary: neophyte  - explanations of meanings, word origins, synonyms, translations

Individual evidence

  1. Ingo Kowarik: Biological Invasions; Neophytes and Neozoa in Central Europe . 2nd Edition. Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart 2010, ISBN 978-3-8001-5889-8 , pp. 18 .
  2. DM Richardson, P. Pysek, M. Rejmanek, MG Barbour, FD Panetta, and CJ West. Naturalization and Invasion of Alien Plants: Concepts and Definitions. In: `` Diversity and Distributions '' Volume 6, 2000, pp. 93-107.
  3. Jump up ↑ Franz Essl, Sven Bacher, Piero Genovesi, Philip E. Hulme, Jonathan M. Jeschke, Stelios Katsanevakis, Ingo Kowarik, Ingolf Kühn, Petr Pyšek, Wolfgang Rabitsch, Stefan Schindler, Mark van Kleunen, Montserrat Vilà, John RU Wilson, David M. Richardson: Which Taxa Are Alien? Criteria, Applications, and Uncertainties . In: BioScience. Volume 68, No. 7, 2018, pp. 496-509. DOI: 10.1093 / biosci / biy057
  4. Tina Heger: On the predictability of biological invasions. Development and application of a model to analyze invasion of alien species. In: Neobiota. Volume 4, 197 pp.
  5. Franz Essl, Stefan Dullinger, Piero Genovesi, Philip E. Hulme, Jonathan M. Jeschke, Stelios Katsanevakis, Ingolf Kühn, Bernd Lenzner, Aníbal Pauchard, Petr Pyšek, Wolfgang Rabitsch, David M. Richardson, Hanno Seebens, Mark van Kleunen, Wim H. van der Putten, Montserrat Vilà, Sven Bacher. "A Conceptual Framework for Range-Expanding Species That Track Human-Induced Environmental Change." In: BioScience , 2019, article biz101. DOI: 10.1093 / biosci / biz101
  6. ^ Davis (2009): pp. 2-5.
  7. ^ SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group: IUCN Guidelines for the prevention of biodiversity loss caused by alien invasive species. 2000 ( Memento of the original from November 16, 2010 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (PDF file; 86 kB), accessed on April 23, 2011. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot /
  8. ^ Ingo Kowarik, Uwe Starfinger: Neobiota: a European approach. In: P. Pyšek, J. Pergl (Ed.): Biological Invasions: Towards a Synthesis. In: Neobiota. Volume 8, 2009, pp. 21-28 PDF file; 76 kB .
  9. Ingo Kowarik: Biological Invasions; Neophytes and Neozoa in Central Europe . 2nd Edition. Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart 2010, ISBN 978-3-8001-5889-8 , pp. 21 .
  10. ^ Ingolf Kühn , Stefan Klotz: Floristic status and alien species. In: Series of publications for vegetation science. Volume 38, 2002, pp. 47-56, PDF file; 227 kB ( Memento of the original from November 1, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. . @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot /
  11. ^ Matthias Schaefer: Dictionary of Ecology . 4th edition. Spektrum, Heidelberg / Berlin 2003, ISBN 3-8274-0167-4 (under the respective keywords).
  12. R. Kinzelbach: Introduction and immigration of invertebrates in the Upper and Middle Rhine. In: Mainzer Naturwissenschaftliches Archiv 11, 1972: pp. 109–150.
  13. Ruth Maria Wallner (Ed.): Aliens. Neobiota in Austria (=  Green Series of the Ministry of Life . Volume 151 ). Böhlau, Vienna / Cologne / Weimar 2005, ISBN 3-205-77346-2 , p. 29 .
  14. ^ Philip E. Hulme: Trade, transport and trouble: managing invasive species pathways in an era of globalization. In: Journal of Applied Ecology. Volume 46, No. 1, 2009, pp. 10-18, DOI: 10.1111 / j.1365-2664.2008.01600.x .
  15. ^ Davis (2009): pp. 15-29.
  16. Ingo Kowarik: Biological Invasions; Neophytes and Neozoa in Central Europe . 2nd Edition. Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart 2010, ISBN 978-3-8001-5889-8 , pp. 22 (Kowarik refers to: Max Kasparek: Dismigration and brood area expansion of the Turkish pigeon (Streptopelia decaocto). In: Journal für die Ornithologie. Volume 137, No. 1, 1996: pp. 1–33, DOI: 10.1007 / BF01651497 .).
  17. Mark van Kleunen et al .: Global exchange and accumulation of non-native plants. In: Nature . Volume 525, No. 7567, 2015, pp. 100-103, doi: 10.1038 / nature14910
  18. a b Davis (2009): p. 30.
  19. ^ A b c William C. Pitt, Gary W. Witmer: Invasive Predators: a synthesis of the past, present, and future. In: Ashraf MT Elewa: Predation in Organisms. A Distinct Phenomenon. Springer, Berlin / Heidelberg 2007. ISBN 978-3-540-46044-2 , pp. 265-293, doi: 10.1007 / 978-3-540-46046-6 12 , PDF file; 259 kB .
  20. Davis (2009): pp. 60 f., 32.
  21. ^ Davis (2009): p. 45.
  22. a b c Davis (2009): p. 31.
  23. Jonathan B. Losos, Kenneth I. Warheit, Thomas W. Schoener: Adaptive differentiation following experimental island colonization in Anolis lizards. In: Nature. Volume 387, 1997, pp. 70-73, DOI: 10.1038 / 387070a0 , PDF file; 3.7 MB ( memento of the original from November 1, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. . @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot /
  24. Jason J. Kolbe, Jonathan B. Losos: Hind-Limb Length Plasticity in Anolis carolinensis. In: Journal of Herpetology. Volume 39, No. 4, 2005, pp. 674-678, DOI: 10.1670 / 87-05N.1 .
  25. ^ Daniel Sol, Richard P. Duncan, Tim M. Blackburn, Phillip Cassey, Louis Lefebvre: Big brains, enhanced cognition, and response of birds to novel environments . In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences . Volume 102, No. 15, 2005, pp. 5460-5465, DOI: 10.1073 / pnas.0408145102 .
  26. ^ Daniel Sol, Sven Bacher, Simon M. Reader, Louis Lefebvre: Brain Size Predicts the Success of Mammal Species Introduced into Novel Environments. In: American Naturalist. Volume 172, Supplement, 2008, pp. 63-71 DOI: 10.1086 / 588304 .
  27. ^ Susan D. Healy, Candy Rowe: A critique of comparative studies of brain size. In: Proceedings of the Royal Society Series B: Biological Sciences. Volume 274, No. 1609, 2007, pp. 453-464, DOI: 10.1098 / rspb . 2006.3748 .
  28. ^ Davis (2009): p. 61.
  29. Petr Pyšek, David M. Richardson: Traits Associated with Invasiveness in Alien Plants: Where Do We Stand? In: Wolfgang Nentwig (Ed.): Biological invasions (= Ecological Studies. 193). Springer, Berlin / Heidelberg 2007, pp. 97–126, DOI: 10.1007 / 978-3-540-36920-2 7 , PDF file; 314 kB .
  30. N. Roura-Pascual, C. Hui, T. Ikeda, G. Leday, DM Richardson, S. Carpintero, X. Espadaler, C. Gómez, B. Guénard, S. Hartley, P. Krushelnycky, PJ Lester, MA McGeoch, SB Menke, JS Pedersen, JPW Pitt, J. Reyes, NJ Sanders, AV Suarez, Y. Touyama, D. Ward, PS Ward, SP Worner: Relative roles of climatic suitability and anthropogenic influence in determining the pattern of spread in a global invader. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences . Volume 108, No. 1, 2011, pp. 220-225, DOI: 10.1073 / pnas.1011723108 .
  31. See e.g. B. David M. Richardson (Ed.): Fifty Years of Invasion Ecology: The Legacy of Charles Elton. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford et al. a. 2011, ISBN 978-1-4443-3585-9 .
  32. See Mark A. Davis et al .: Don't judge species on their origins. In: Nature. Volume 474, 2011, pp. 153-154, DOI: 10.1038 / 474153a
  33. see Ronaldo Sousa, Pedro Morais, Ester Dias, Carlos Antunes: Biological invasions and ecosystem functioning: time to merge. In: Biological Invasions. Volume 13, No. 5, 2011, pp. 1055-1058, DOI: 10.1007 / s10530-011-9947-4 .
  34. Stefan Körner: The domestic and the foreign. The values ​​of diversity, individuality and beauty in the conservative and in the liberal-progressive nature conservation conception (= foreign proximity - contributions to intercultural discussion. 14). LIT, Münster 2000, ISBN 3-8258-4701-2 , 115 pp.
  35. Thomas Kirchhoff, Sylvia Haider: Global multitude or local diversity: on the cultural ambivalence of 'biodiversity'. In: Thomas Kirchhoff, Ludwig Trepl (ed.): Ambiguous nature. Landscape, wilderness and ecosystem as cultural-historical phenomena. transcript, Bielefeld 2009, ISBN 978-3-89942-944-2 , pp. 315-330.
  36. a b c Davis (2009): p. 101.
  37. ^ Mark Q. Benedict, Rebecca S. Levine, William A. Hawley, L. Philip Lounibos: Spread of the Tiger: Global Risk of Invasion by the Mosquito Aedes albopictus. In: Vector-Borne and Zoonotic Diseases. Volume 7, No. 1, 2007, pp. 76-85, DOI: 10.1089 / vbz . 2006.0562 .
  38. ^ Paul Reiter: Climate change and mosquito-borne disease. In: Environmental health perspectives. Volume 109 Suppl. 1, March 2001, pp. 141-161, PMID 11250812 , PMC 1240549 (free full text) (review).
  39. Sirex noctilio in the IUCN's Global Invasive Species Database , accessed April 21, 2011.
  40. Rex Dalton: Whitefly infestations: The Christmas Invasion. In: Nature. Volume 443, 2006, pp. 898-900, DOI: 10.1038 / 443898a .
  41. a b Christoph Kueffer, Eva Schumacher, Karl Fleischmann, Peter J. Edwards, Hansjörg Dietz: Strong below-ground competition shapes tree regeneration in invasive Cinnamomum verum forests. In: Journal of Ecology . Volume 95, No. 2, 2007, pp. 273-282, DOI: 10.1111 / j.1365-2745.2007.01213.x .
  42. Martha S. Lizarralde, Julio César Escobar, Guillermo Deferrari: Invader species in Argentina: A review about the beaver (Castor canadensis) population situation on Tierra del Fuego ecosystem. In: Interciencia. Volume 29, No. 7, 2004, pp. 352-356, PDF file; 273 kB ( Memento of the original from November 2, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. . @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot /
  43. ^ Davis (2009): p. 104.
  44. Davis (2009): p. 106 f.
  45. ^ Miguel Clavero, Emili García-Berthou: Invasive species are a leading cause of animal extinctions. In: Trends in Ecology and Evolution. Volume 20, No. 3, 2005, p. 110, DOI: 10.1016 / j.tree.2005.01.003 .
  46. Gordon H. Rodda, Julie A. Savidge: Biology and Impacts of Pacific Island Invasive Species. 2. Boiga irregularis, the Brown Tree Snake (Reptilia: Colubridae). In: Pacific Science. Volume 61, No. 3, 2007, pp. 307-324, doi : 10.2984 / 1534-6188 (2007) 61 [307: BAIOPI] 2.0.CO; 2 , PDF file; 527 kB .
  47. Davis (2009): pp. 115 f., 111.
  48. Davis (2009): p. 111 f.
  49. Donna B. Harris, David W. Macdonald: Interference competition between introduced black rats and endemic Galápagos rice rats. In: Ecology. Volume 88, No. 9, 2007, pp. 2330-2344, DOI: 10.1890 / 06-1701.1 .
  50. Davis (2009): pp. 113 f., 122-126.
  51. ^ Davis (2009): pp. 126-130.
  52. Davis (2009): pp. 130 f.
  53. Ingo Kowarik: Biological Invasions; Neophytes and Neozoa in Central Europe . 2nd Edition. Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart 2010, ISBN 978-3-8001-5889-8 , pp. 40 (Kowarik refers to: Daniel Simberloff, Betsy von Holle: Positive interactions of nonindigenous species: invasional meltdown? In: Biological Invasions. Volume 1, No. 1, 1999, pp. 21-32, DOI: 10.1023 / A: 1010086329619 . ).
  54. Ingo Kowarik: Biological Invasions; Neophytes and Neozoa in Central Europe . 2nd Edition. Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart 2010, ISBN 978-3-8001-5889-8 , pp. 40 (Kowarik refers to: Dennis J. O'Dowd, Peter T. Green, PS Lake: Invasional 'meltdown' on an oceanic island. In: Ecology Letters Volume 6, No. 9, 2003, pp. 812-817, DOI : 10.1046 / j.1461-0248.2003.00512.x .).
  55. Davis (2009): p. 49 f.
  56. ^ Davis (2009): p. 132 f.
  57. ^ Davis (2009): 137.
  58. Catherine S. Jarnevich, Tracy R. Holcombe, David T. Barnett, Thomas J. Stohlgren, John T. Kartesz: Forecasting Weed Distributions using Climate Data: A GIS Early Warning Tool. In: Invasive Plant Science and Management. Volume 3, No. 4, 2010, pp. 365-375, DOI: 10.1614 / IPSM-08-073.1 .
  59. P. Pyšek, V. Jarošík, PE Hulme, I. Kühn, J. Wild, M. Arianoutsou, S. Bacher, F. Chiron, V. Didžiulis, F. Essl, P. Genovesi, F. Gherardi, M. Hejda, S. Kark, PW Lambdon, ML Desprez-Loustau, W. Nentwig, J. Pergl, K. Poboljšaj, W. Rabitsch, A. Roques, DB Roy, S. Shirley, W. Solarz, M. Vilà, M Winter: Disentangling the role of environmental and human pressures on biological invasions across Europe. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences . Volume 107, No. 27, 2010, pp. 12157-12162, DOI: 10.1073 / pnas.1002314107 .
  60. Davis (2009): pp. 138 f., 143.
  61. ^ Davis (2009): p. 140.
  62. ^ Davis (2009): 148.
  63. Charles T. Eason, Kathleen A. Fagerstone, John D. Eisemann, Simon Humphrys, Jeanette R. O'Hare, Steven J. Lapidge: A review of existing and potential New World and Australasian vertebrate pesticides with a rationale for linking use patterns to registration requirements. In: International Journal of Pest Management. Volume 56, No. 2, 2010, pp. 109-125, DOI: 10.1080 / 09670870903243463 , PDF file; 236 kB .
  64. ^ Davis (2009): pp. 140, 153.
  65. Dean E. Pearson, Ragan M. Callaway: Biological control agents elevate hantavirus by subsidizing deer mouse populations. In: Ecology Letters. Volume 9, NO. 4, 2006, pp. 443-450, DOI: 10.1111 / j.1461-0248.2006.00896.x , PDF file; 135 kB ( Memento of the original dated November 6, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. . @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot /
  66. a b William Martin Muir, Richard Duncan Howard: Characterization of environmental risk of genetically engineered (GE) organisms and their potential to control exotic invasive species . In: Aquatic Sciences. Volume 66, No. 4, 2004, pp. 414-420, DOI: 10.1007 / s00027-004-0721-x , PDF file; 118 kB .
  67. ^ A b Samuel Cotton, Claus Wedekind: Control of introduced species using Trojan sex chromosomes. In: Trends in Ecology and Evolution. Volume 22, No. 9, 2007, pp. 441-443, DOI: 10.1016 / j.tree.2007.06.010 .
  68. John L. Teem, Juan B. Guiterrez: A Theoretical Strategy for Eradication of Asian Carps Using a Trojan Y Chromosome to Shift the Sex Ratio of the Population. In: American Fisheries Society Symposium. Volume 74, 2010, pp. 1–12, PDF file; 190 kB ( Memento of the original dated November 1, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. . @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot /
  69. ^ Davis (2009): 141.
  70. Jump up ↑ Daniel Florance, Jonathan K. Webb, Tim Dempster, Michael R. Kearney, Alex Worthing, Mike Letnic: Excluding access to invasion hubs can contain the spread of an invasive vertebrate. In: Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. Volume 278, No. 1720, 2011, pp. 2900-2908, DOI: 10.1098 / rspb.2011.0032 .
  71. ^ JC Russell, DR Towns, SH Anderson, MN Clout: Intercepting the first rat ashore. In: Nature. Volume 437, 2005, p. 1107, DOI: 10.1038 / 4371107a .
  72. ^ Karl Campbell, C. Josh Donlan: Feral Goat Eradications on Islands. In: Conservation Biology. Volume 19, No. 5, 2005, pp. 1362-1374, DOI: 10.1111 / j.1523-1739.2005.00228.x , PDF file; 317 kB .
  73. Oliver Berry, Stephen D. Sarre, Lachlan Farrington, Nicola Aitken (2007): Faecal DNA detection of invasive species: the case of feral foxes in Tasmania. In: Wildlife Research. Volume 34, No. 1, 2007, pp. 1-7, DOI: 10.1071 / WR06082 .
  74. Gentile Francesco Ficetola, Claude Miaud, François Pompanon, Pierre Taberlet: Species detection using environmental DNA from water samples. In: Biology Letters. Volume 4, No. 4, 2008, pp. 423-425, DOI: 10.1098 / rsbl.2008.0118 .
  75. ^ Davis (2009): 151.
  76. ^ Judith H. Myers, Daniel Simberloff, Armand M. Kuris, James R. Carey: Eradication revisited: dealing with exotic species . In: Trends in Ecology and Evolution. Volume 15, No. 8, 2000, pp. 316-320, DOI: 10.1016 / S0169-5347 (00) 01914-5 .
  77. ^ Davis (2009): p. 136.
  78. ^ Daniel Simberloff: Confronting introduced species: a form of xenophobia? In: Biological Invasions. Volume 5, No. 3, 2003, pp. 179-192, DOI: 10.1023 / A: 1026164419010 , PDF file; 95 kB .
  79. ^ Davis (2009) p. 156.
  80. Alien species ( Memento of the original from January 5, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. at, accessed on January 5, 2016. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot /