Research Article |
Corresponding author: Jorge E. Ramírez-Albores ( jorgeramirez22@hotmail.com ) Academic editor: Moritz von der Lippe
© 2019 Jorge E. Ramírez-Albores, Ernesto I. Badano, Joel Flores, José Luis Flores-Flores, Laura Yáñez-Espinosa.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Ramírez-Albores JE, Badano EI, Flores J, Flores-Flores JL, Yáñez-Espinosa L (2019) Scientific literature on invasive alien species in a megadiverse country: advances and challenges in Mexico. NeoBiota 48: 113-127. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.48.36201
|
Interest in invasive species has increased around the world over the last several decades. In Mexico, studies on invasive species date as early as 1939 and the number of publications has increased considerably in recent decades. However, to our knowledge, the analysis of information gaps and research priorities is lacking. Therefore, it is necessary to identify gaps in the knowledge of invasive species in order to define future research priorities and focus conservation efforts. We assessed the current state of knowledge of biological invasions in Mexico based on the existing literature. Our aim was to identify in which areas information is absent or insufficient and which areas should be prioritised. We identified a total of 869 references. The number of references increased over time and the topics were strongly biased towards two areas: 1) natural history and geographical distribution patterns and 2) effects on native biota and ecosystems. The remaining topics were only moderately or poorly studied. Most studies focused on vascular plants (n = 280) and fishes (n = 174). Notably, a large portion of the references (n = 215) focused on only eight invasive alien species, including their ecological and socioeconomic impacts. Only 95 references examined the effects of alien species on biodiversity; these studies were mainly carried out on islands (n = 41) or in terrestrial or freshwater ecosystems in protected natural areas (n = 165). The findings of the present review can guide future studies in filling in the existing research gaps on biological invasions. Additionally, future studies should aim to define national priorities of the impacts of biological invasions and to promote the prevention and control of alien species by considering the distinct vectors and pathways of introduction and movement.
Alien species, invasive species, megadiverse, scientific references
The movement of species by humans has been a common practice since the origins of agriculture and cattle raising. Since the European colonisation in the 16th century, this practice has intensified as a result of increased commercial exchange across different regions of the world (
The publication of Charles Elton’s book The Ecology of Invasions by Animals and Plants (
Mexico contains 10% of the Earth’s species diversity and harbours the largest diversity of ecosystems in the world (
Therefore, the aims of the present article were to compile the first comprehensive list of references on biological invasions in a megadiverse country as Mexico, to provide an analysis of the encountered trends and to identify advances in the scientific knowledge of invasive species. We performed an extensive review of references relating to biological invasions in Mexico from 1910 to 2018. We additionally sought to answer the following questions: Is biological invasion research in Mexico following worldwide trends regarding the number of publications over time; which species group has been most studied; what types of references are most frequent; which topics are studied most intensively; what is the scope of existing studies; and finally, which Mexican regions are studied more intensively? This information will enable researchers to understand the current state of knowledge of biological invasions in Mexico and prioritise future research on the subject. Furthermore, it can help guide public policies regarding biological invasions in Mexico in order to prevent, or at least mitigate, the impacts of invasive species on native biota, natural ecosystems and productive human activities.
An extensive search was conducted of literature published on biological invasions in Mexico. Several academic databases were searched to gather the most information possible, considering both indexed and non-indexed publications in both English and Spanish. The searched databases included the following: Web of Knowledge (Thomson Reuters), Scopus (Elsevier), Current Contents Connect (Thomson Reuters), Biological Abstracts (Thomson Reuters), Zoological Record (Thomson Reuters), the Journal Storage Project-JSTOR (ITHAKA), Google Scholar (Google), the Scientific Electronic Library Online (BIREME-OPS-OMS) and the Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America and the Caribbean and from Spain and Portugal (Redalyc-Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México). In each database, an extensive search of bibliographic references was performed using combinations of the following keywords: biological invasion OR invasion OR invasive OR invasiveness OR invader OR naturalised OR introduced OR alien OR exotic OR non-native OR feral OR non-indigenous OR pest OR ruderal OR weed in addition to AND Mexico or AND Mexican.
Several filters were applied: (i) Only publications (based on the title) in the research areas of agronomy, biology, biodiversity conservation, ecology, entomology, environmental sciences, fisheries, forestry, marine freshwater sciences, plant sciences and zoology were included in the present review. (ii) Numerous types of documents were considered, including scientific articles, reviews, books, book chapters, theses, technical brochures, conference proceedings and divulgation articles. We searched for theses, technical reports and conference proceedings in the bibliographic repositories or electronic databases of different universities and research centres in Mexico. (iii) All searches were conducted, based on the content of the titles and abstracts. The keywords in English, as well as their translations into Spanish, were searched in the databases. (iv) Only documents focusing in their entirety on the topics of biological invasion, invasion, invader, invasive species and invasiveness were considered, excluding misquoted or incomplete references. (v) Additionally, literature that addressed biological invasions or projections at a regional or global level that included Mexico were considered, i.e. studies by researchers from other countries addressing global patterns of invasion. (vi) Finally, we excluded literature under review and reports on informal websites, such as personal blogs and webpages without affiliations to academic or government institutions. Repeated titles were discarded, as some references, for example, were presented in more than one congress or were published as both a thesis and a scientific article. A total of 869 documents were returned in the search and were carefully reviewed and included in the present study, based on the above-described criteria. To identify the scientific trends in the compiled references, we classified them according to the criteria listed in Table
Criteria for classifying references on biological invasions in Mexico and identifying scientific trends.
Criteria | Details |
---|---|
Publication year | Year in which the publication was released |
Species group | a) algae, including microalgae and macroalgae; |
b) vascular plants, including angiosperms, gymnosperms and ferns; | |
c) amphibians; | |
d) reptiles; | |
e) fishes (freshwater and saltwater); | |
f) mammals; | |
g) birds; | |
h) molluscs; | |
i) crustaceans; | |
j) polychaetas; | |
k) poriferans; | |
l) insects and arachnids; | |
m) vectors and parasites, which were considered because of their threats to human health, agriculture and/or cattle, including virus, bacteria and helminths; | |
n) other invertebrates, including cnidarians, echinoderms, rotifers and tunicates; | |
o) and “all groups” to denote references dealing with several species’ groups. | |
Main topic | a) effects on native biota and ecosystems; |
b) impacts on human and socioeconomic activities; | |
c) traditional uses in current Mexican culture, including cultural uses and ethnobotanical uses; | |
d) control, eradication and restoration; | |
e) natural history and geographical distribution patterns, including autecology, geographical distribution (including ecological niche), species descriptions and species checklist; | |
f) and risk analysis. | |
Information provided by the reference according to |
a) actors’ organisation and perception, |
b) adaptative evolution, | |
c) allelopathy, | |
d) biocontrol techniques, | |
e) biological data, | |
f) biotic homogenisation, | |
g) checklist, | |
h) current status, | |
i) ecological and socioeconomic knowledge, | |
j) ecological and socioeconomic impacts, | |
k) habitat use, | |
l) human use, | |
m) interspecific interactions, | |
n) invasion process, | |
o) new record of geographical distribution, | |
p) ecological niche (ecological niche models, species distribution models, niche conservatism, niche shift), | |
q) geographical distribution patterns, | |
r) phylogeny, | |
s) population dynamics, | |
t) population genetics, | |
u) reproductive success, | |
v) restoration, | |
w) and risk analysis. | |
Reference type | a) thesis, including dissertations; |
b) scientific article; | |
c) divulgation article in popular science magazine; | |
d) scientific book or book chapter; | |
e) technical brochure published by a government agency or academic institution; | |
f) and conference proceedings, including abstracts from meetings in biology, ecology and related fields. | |
Scope of the study | a) Local scope: references whose area of study was smaller than the entire area of Mexico (e.g. state, natural protected area) and were further classified as belonging to the Northwest (Baja California, Baja California Sur, Chihuahua, Durango, Sinaloa and Sonora), Northeast (Coahuila, Tamaulipas and Nuevo León), West (Jalisco, Colima, Michoacán and Nayarit), East (Hidalgo, Puebla, Tlaxcala and Veracruz), North-Central (Aguascalientes, Guanajuato, Querétaro, San Luis Potosi and Zacatecas), South-Central (Mexico City, State of Mexico and Morelos), Southwest (Chiapas, Guerrero and Oaxaca) and Southeast (Campeche, Yucatán, Tabasco and Quintana Roo), as these areas share distinct physical-natural and historical-cultural characteristics. |
b) Regional scope: references that considered the entire area of Mexico were considered. | |
c) Global scope: references that considered two or more countries. |
The literature search generated 869 references from the year 1910 to 2018 that complied with the established criteria (Table
References on biological invasions in Mexico during the 1910–2018 period. The curves show exponential growth (dotted line): A total references (r2adj = 0.34, p < 0.001) B scientific articles (r2adj = 0.37, p < 0.001), scientific books and book chapters (r2adj = 0.46, p < 0.001) and divulgation articles in popular science magazines (r2adj = 0.79, p < 0.001) C technical brochures (r2adj = 0.99, p < 0.001), conference proceedings (r2adj = 0.86, p < 0.001) and theses (r2adj = 0.80, p < 0.001).
Distribution of references on biological invasions in Mexico per species group.
Scientific article | Scientific book and book chapter | Divulgation article in popular science magazine | Thesis | Conference proceedings | Technical brochure | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Algae | 16 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
Amphibians | 7 | 1 | 1 | 3 | ||
Birds | 38 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 31 | |
Crustaceans | 8 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | |
Fishes | 58 | 28 | 10 | 11 | 62 | 5 |
Insects and arachnids | 47 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 13 | 1 |
Mammals | 12 | 9 | 3 | 6 | 15 | 2 |
Molluscs | 14 | 2 | 2 | 4 | ||
Other invertebrates | 4 | 2 | 1 | 2 | ||
Polychaetas | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
Reptiles | 7 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 1 | |
Vascular plants | 100 | 22 | 14 | 22 | 101 | 14 |
Vectors and parasites | 1 | 1 | ||||
All groups | 2 | 37 | 12 | 1 | 15 | 5 |
Of the compiled references, 377 focused on the natural history and geographic distribution patterns of invasive species and 203 on risk analysis. The remainder corresponded with other topics (Fig.
Distribution of references on biological invasions in Mexico per publication type and A main topic B scope study and C study region in Mexico.
Information provided by the reference according to
Scientific article | Scientific book and book chapter | Divulgation article in popular science magazine | Thesis | Conference proceedings | Technical brochure | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actors’ organisation and perception | 4 | 19 | 6 | 2 | 18 | 5 |
Adaptative evolution | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 | ||
Allelopathy | 1 | 1 | 2 | |||
Biocontrol techniques | 11 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 18 | 2 |
Biological data | 6 | 1 | 4 | 7 | ||
Biotic homogenisation | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
Checklist | 5 | 12 | 3 | 9 | 5 | |
Current status | 27 | 13 | 3 | 2 | 10 | 3 |
Ecological and socioeconomic impacts | 15 | 15 | 5 | 2 | 22 | 2 |
Ecological and socioeconomic knowledge | 1 | 5 | 4 | 1 | ||
Ecological niche | 14 | 1 | ||||
Geographical distribution patterns | 46 | 1 | 11 | 5 | ||
Habitat use | 6 | |||||
Human use | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | ||
Interspecific interactions | 22 | 3 | 20 | 9 | ||
Invasive process | 16 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 8 | 1 |
New record of geographical distribution | 38 | 2 | 9 | |||
Novel monitoring techniques | 4 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 2 | |
Phylogeny | 1 | 1 | ||||
Population dynamics | 15 | 2 | 5 | 18 | ||
Population genetics | 4 | 1 | 3 | |||
Reproductive success | 15 | 1 | 5 | 13 | ||
Restoration | 5 | 6 | 1 | 5 | 1 | |
Risk analysis | 10 | 9 | 15 | 2 | 18 | 3 |
Only 94 references addressed the effects of alien species on biodiversity; nearly half of these studies (n = 41) were carried out on islands (e.g. Socorro Island, Cozumel Island, Guadalupe Island and Santa Catalina Island, amongst others). These latter studies on islands mostly focused on the introduction, control and eradication of invasive species, including reptiles and feral mammals (cats, mice, goats, sheep, rats and dogs) that had led to the near extinction of different native species of birds, mammals and reptiles. Few studies focused on terrestrial or freshwater ecosystems, particularly in protected natural areas (n = 164).
Regarding damage to socioeconomic activities, the Cactus moth (Cactoblastis cactorum) was identified as one of the most dangerous agricultural pests in Mexico with disastrous effects. Additional invasive species with documented harmful effects include Buffelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare) and the Red-bay ambrosia beetle (Xyleborus glabratus), which threaten farmland and the Armored catfish (Pterygoplichthys spp.), which affects aquaculture operations. Other studies focused on the control and eradication of alien species such as insects and arachnids that act as pests and damage crops of economic importance, such as corn, citrus, bean, coffee, avocado, cotton and mango crops, amongst others, as well as forest plantations. Studies on the control and eradication of invasive species were mainly carried out in natural protected areas or wetlands, including the eradication of rodents on islands. Additional studies assessed the use of bio-insecticides or bio-pesticides for controlling agricultural pests. However, as mentioned, the largest number of references focused on the natural history and geographic distribution patterns of alien species, mainly based on presence records. Several additional studies focused on autecology, interactions with native species and geographic patterns and ranges. Numerous studies addressed biological invasion from different perspectives or performed risk analysis to determine the possible impacts of invasive species, identify potential risk areas or outline the prospects for the management of invasive species, as well as policies and strategies for their control. Finally, most studies had a local scope (n = 533) followed by a regional (n = 251) and global scope (n = 82, Fig.
Moreover, a total of 510 references focused on one or two species; of these, 164 corresponded with vascular plants, 66 with insects and arachnids, 60 with birds and 118 with fishes. Notably, 213 references focused on the ecological and socio-economic aspects of only eight notorious invasive alien species in Mexico: the Indo-Pacific lionfish (Pterois volitans), the Monk parakeet (Myiopsitta monachus), the Armored catfish (Pterygoplichthys spp.), Buffelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare), Kalanchoes (Kalanchoe spp.), Antelope grass (Echinochloa pyramidalis), Eurasian collared dove (Streptopelia decaocto) and the Cactus moth (Cactoblastis cactorum). On the other hand, there were few studies on feral cats, feral dogs, rodents (Rattus rattus, R. norvergicus and Mus musculus) and the Common carp (Cyprinus carpio), as well as other widely distributed invasive species such as Eucalypti (Eucalyptus spp.), Pampas grass (Cortadeira selloana) and the Red-bay ambrosia beetle (Xyleborus glabratus), which pose a high risk to native biota, socio-economic activities and human health (e.g.
The present review is the first comprehensive compilation of studies on biological invasion in Mexico (see Suppl material
Generally, research on biological invasions in Mexico was scarce during the last two decades of the latter century. However, research substantially increased during the first decade of the 21st century and this trend continues today (Figure
When we compared studies in Mexico with those in other regions of the world, we identified several topics that should be more thoroughly addressed by Mexican ecologists: demographic patterns, behavioural ecology, interactions with native species, population genetics and adaptive processes. The scarcity of historical references is likely since the study of biological invasions in Mexico did not attract the interest of ecologists until the late 1990s. During this period, biological invasions began to be recognised by the scientific community and society in general given the increasing rate, scale and magnitude of anthropogenic activities and their effects on ecosystems (
Despite the increasing number of studies on invasive species in Mexico over the last two decades, there are several pending challenges. A significant number of studies solely focus on the natural history and geographical distribution patterns of invasive species or distinct perspectives and risk analysis. However, to improve the understanding of biological invasions and their impacts, it is necessary to examine in greater depth the effects of invasive species on native biota and ecosystems, including the effects in terms of restoration and socioeconomic costs (
According to
Currently, biological invasions are altering the functioning of natural ecosystems in a way that is unprecedented in the history of our planet, leading to substantial economic losses in many countries (
Thanks to Instituto Potosino de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica. JERA was supported by doctoral grant (CONACyT-169631) and also was supported by mixed scholarship programme (CONACyT-290749).
Appendix S1. Reference database on biological invasions in Mexico (N = 869).
Data type: species data
Explanation note: This database included all the bibliographic references with main topic, information provided by the reference, species group, publication type, scope study, study region and language. (*) The study was realised in natural protected areas and (‡) the study was realised on an island.