We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
Systematic and persistent bias against invasion science: Framing conservation scientists.
- Authors
Simberloff, Daniel; Bortolus, Alejandro; Carlton, James T; Courchamp, Franck; Cuthbert, Ross N; Hulme, Philip E; Lockwood, Julie L; Meyerson, Laura A; Nuñez, Martín A; Ricciardi, Anthony; Richardson, David M; Schwindt, Evangelina
- Abstract
The article discusses a study that accuses conservation scientists of bias against nonnative species, which the authors argue casts doubt on the entire field of invasion biology. The study reviewed 300 publications on the ecological effects of nonnative species and found that 66% of them were framed negatively. However, the article points out that there is a scientific consensus that nonnative species pose ecological, economic, and public health threats. The prevailing attitude among conservation scientists is to view all invasions as potentially harmful, although some nonnative species may have benefits from certain perspectives. The article also criticizes the methodology and selective statements made by the authors of the study.
- Subjects
CONSERVATIONISTS; SCIENTISTS' attitudes; BIOLOGICAL invasions; PLANT invasions; BIOLOGICAL extinction; EFFECT of fires on plants; INTRODUCED species; INVASIVE plants
- Publication
BioScience, 2024, Vol 74, Issue 5, p312
- ISSN
0006-3568
- Publication type
Article
- DOI
10.1093/biosci/biae029