Systematic and persistent bias against introduced species

PEREYRA, PATRICIO JAVIER; DE LA BARRA, PAULA; AMIONE LUDMILA LUCILA; ARCÁNGEL, ANDREA EVANGELINA; MARELLO MACARENA; RODRÍGUEZ, EMILIANO ALEXIS; MAZZOLARI, ANA; MALDONADO, MARA ANAHÍ; HÜNICKEN, LEANDRO; WALLACH, ARIAN

BIOSCIENCE

AMER INST BIOLOGICAL SCI

Año: 2023

0006-3568

Critics of invasion biology have argued that conservation science is biased against introduced species. We reviewed 300 randomly selected articles that describe ecological effects of introduced species and assessed whether they were framed negatively, neutrally, or positively. We then asked whether framing was related to harms as defined by the conservation community; to knowledge about the introduced species, using the species’ taxonomic, habitat and region as proxies; and to the journal focus and prestige, and author’s country of affiliation. We also analyzed whether framing differed across space and time. If invasion biology is unbiased one would expect that negative framing would be more common for introduced species attributed with harms. We found that introduced species were framed negatively in two thirds of articles. Introduced species were framed negatively regardless of attributed harms, and across taxonomies, journals, the globe, and time. Our results show that introduced species are regarded as harmful.