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

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Boltovskoy, D., Sylvester, F., Paolucci, E.M.
Formato:	JOUR
Materias:	denialism impact invasive species nonindigenous species
Acceso en línea:	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	todo:paper_20457758_v8_n22_p11190_Boltovskoy
record_format	dspace
spelling	todo:paper_20457758_v8_n22_p11190_Boltovskoy2023-10-03T16:38:35Z Invasive species denialism: Sorting out facts, beliefs, and definitions Boltovskoy, D. Sylvester, F. Paolucci, E.M. 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. JOUR info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ar 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 Boltovskoy, D. Sylvester, F. Paolucci, E.M. 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.
format	JOUR
author	Boltovskoy, D. Sylvester, F. Paolucci, E.M.
author_facet	Boltovskoy, D. Sylvester, F. Paolucci, E.M.
author_sort	Boltovskoy, D.
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
url	http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12110/paper_20457758_v8_n22_p11190_Boltovskoy
work_keys_str_mv	AT boltovskoyd invasivespeciesdenialismsortingoutfactsbeliefsanddefinitions AT sylvesterf invasivespeciesdenialismsortingoutfactsbeliefsanddefinitions AT paolucciem invasivespeciesdenialismsortingoutfactsbeliefsanddefinitions
_version_	1782024849511677952

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

Ejemplares similares