4.7 Article

Identifying the factors that determine the severity and type of alien bird impacts

期刊

DIVERSITY AND DISTRIBUTIONS
卷 24, 期 6, 页码 800-810

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ddi.12721

关键词

alien birds; biological invasion; habitat breadth; impact; predation; range size

资金

  1. Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) London Doctoral Training Partnership (DTP)
  2. South African National Department of Environment Affairs through South African National Biodiversity Institute's Invasive Species Programme
  3. DST-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
  4. Natural Environment Research Council [1492077] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: To identify traits related to the severity and type of environmental impacts generated by alien bird species, in order to improve our ability to predict which species may have the most damaging impacts. Location: Global. Methods: Information on traits hypothesized to influence the severity and type of alien bird impacts was collated for 113 bird species. These data were analysed using mixed effects models accounting for phylogenetic non-independence of species. Results: The severity and type of impacts generated by alien bird species are not randomly distributed with respect to their traits. Alien range size and habitat breadth were strongly associated with impact severity. Predation impacts were strongly associated with dietary preference, but also with alien range size, relative brain size and residence time. Impacts mediated by interactions with other alien species were related to alien range size and diet breadth. Main conclusions: Widely distributed generalist alien birds have the most severe environmental impacts. This may be because these species have greater opportunity to cause environmental impacts through their sheer number and ubiquity, but this could also be because they are more likely to be identified and studied. Our study found little evidence for an effect of per capita impact on impact severity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据