Invasive species denialism: Sorting out facts, beliefs and definitions

BOLTOVSKOY, DEMETRIO; PAOLUCCI, ESTEBAN; SYLVESTER, FRANCISCO

Ecology and Evolution

Wiley

Lugar: Hoboken; Año: 2018

2045-7758

In the last decades, thousands of investigations confirmed the detrimental effects of species translocated by man outside of their native ranges (non-indigenous species, or NIS). However, results concluding that many NIS have null, neutral, or positive impacts on the biota and on human interests are as common in the scientific literature as those that point at baneful impacts. Recently, several scholars confronted the stand that origin per se is not a reliable indicator of negative effects, suggesting that such conclusions are the expression of scientific denialism, often led by spurious purposes, and that their numbers are increasing. When assessed in the context of the growing interest in introduced species, the proportion of academic publications claiming that NIS pose no threats to the environment and to social and economic interests is extremely low, and has not increased since 1990. The widely prevailing notion that many NIS are effectively or potentially harmful does not conflict with the fact that most have mixed (negative, neutral, and positive) impacts. When based on solid grounds, reports of positive or neutral impacts should not be labeled as manipulative or misleading unless proven otherwise, even if they may hamper interest in- and funding of research and control bioinvasion programs.