Invasive species denialism: Sorting out facts, beliefs, and definitions

In the last decades, thousands of investigations confirmed the detrimental effects of species translocated by man outside of their native ranges (nonindigenous species, or NIS). However, results concluding that many NIS have null, neutral, or positive impacts on the biota and on human interests are...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado: 2018
Materias:
denialism
impact
invasive species
nonindigenous species
Acceso en línea:https://bibliotecadigital.exactas.uba.ar/collection/paper/document/paper_20457758_v8_n22_p11190_Boltovskoy
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12110/paper_20457758_v8_n22_p11190_Boltovskoy
Aporte de:
Biblioteca Digital - Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales (UBA) de Universidad de Buenos Aires
id paper:paper_20457758_v8_n22_p11190_Boltovskoy
record_format dspace
spelling paper:paper_20457758_v8_n22_p11190_Boltovskoy2023-06-08T16:33:42Z Invasive species denialism: Sorting out facts, beliefs, and definitions denialism impact invasive species nonindigenous species In the last decades, thousands of investigations confirmed the detrimental effects of species translocated by man outside of their native ranges (nonindigenous 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. © 2018 The Authors. Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 2018 https://bibliotecadigital.exactas.uba.ar/collection/paper/document/paper_20457758_v8_n22_p11190_Boltovskoy http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12110/paper_20457758_v8_n22_p11190_Boltovskoy
institution Universidad de Buenos Aires
institution_str I-28
repository_str R-134
collection Biblioteca Digital - Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales (UBA)
topic denialism
impact
invasive species
nonindigenous species
spellingShingle denialism
impact
invasive species
nonindigenous species
Invasive species denialism: Sorting out facts, beliefs, and definitions
topic_facet denialism
impact
invasive species
nonindigenous species
description In the last decades, thousands of investigations confirmed the detrimental effects of species translocated by man outside of their native ranges (nonindigenous 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. © 2018 The Authors. Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
title Invasive species denialism: Sorting out facts, beliefs, and definitions
title_short Invasive species denialism: Sorting out facts, beliefs, and definitions
title_full Invasive species denialism: Sorting out facts, beliefs, and definitions
title_fullStr Invasive species denialism: Sorting out facts, beliefs, and definitions
title_full_unstemmed Invasive species denialism: Sorting out facts, beliefs, and definitions
title_sort invasive species denialism: sorting out facts, beliefs, and definitions
publishDate 2018
url https://bibliotecadigital.exactas.uba.ar/collection/paper/document/paper_20457758_v8_n22_p11190_Boltovskoy
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12110/paper_20457758_v8_n22_p11190_Boltovskoy
_version_ 1768544247623974912

Ejemplares similares