Climate change and invasive species double jeopardy

102 © 2010 ISZS, Blackwell Publishing and IOZ/CAS

REVIEW

Climate change and invasive species: double jeopardy

Susan A. MAINKA1 and Geoffrey W. HOWARD2

1Science and Learning Unit, International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland and 2Regional Office for Eastern and

Southern Africa, International Union for Conservation of Nature, Nairobi, Kenya

Abstract

Two of the key drivers of biodiversity loss today are climate change and invasive species. Climate change is already

having a measurable impact on species distributions, reproduction and behavior, and all evidence suggests that

things will get worse even if we act tomorrow to mitigate any future increases in greenhouse gas emissions:

temperature will increase, precipitation will change, sea level will rise and ocean chemistry will change. At the same

time, biological invasions remain an important threat to biodiversity, causing species loss, changes in distribution

and habitat degradation. Acting together, the impacts of each of these drivers of change are compounded and

interactions between these two threats present even greater challenges to field conservationists as well as policy-

makers. Similarly, the social and economic impacts of climate change and invasive species, already substantial, will

be magnified. Awareness of the links between the two should underpin all biodiversity management planning and

policy.

Key words: climate change, ecosystem management, invasive species.

Correspondence: Susan A. Mainka, International Union for

Conservation of Nature, rue Mauverney 28, CH1196 Gland,

Switzerland.

Email: [email protected]

CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ON

BIODIVERSITY

Climate is changing nature before our eyes. Species

distributions, demography, and even their life histories

are changing as previously reliable seasons are no longer

so predictable. A review was carried out of 1700 species

range shifts, showing an average 6.1 km movement per

decade towards the poles, and spring events advancing

by 2.3 days per decade (Parmesan et al. 2003). This con-

firmed the growing evidence that climate is already chang-

ing our natural world. Similarly, the Climatic Atlas of Eu-

ropean Breeding Birds (Huntley et al. 2007) reports that

the potential breeding distribution of most of Europe’s

breeding birds will shift several hundred kilometers north.

In addition, extirpations (local extinctions) and extinctions

of amphibians have been linked with climate change (Ron

et al. 2003; Burrowes et al. 2004; Pounds et al. 2006). Cold-

blooded species such as reptiles are also projected to fare

poorly in a warming world (Kearney et al. 2009).

Marine fishes are predicted to be affected by rising

water temperatures, which will change oxygen levels in

the world’s oceans (Poertner & Knust 2007). Vaquer-

Sunyer and Duarte (2008) report on impacts of decreasing

oxygen in marine environments, concluding that thresh-

olds of vulnerability to hypoxia vary greatly across ma-

rine species. In addition, increasing carbon dioxide is rais-

ing the acidity of the oceans, with severe impacts on some

marine communities, especially those taxa with skeletons

based on calcium carbonate.

In short, climate change will affect the distribution of

species, their demography and their life histories. These

changes will have consequences for human livelihoods,

Integrative Zoology 2010; 5: 102-111 doi: 10.1111/j.1749-4877.2010.00193.x

103© 2010 ISZS, Blackwell Publishing and IOZ/CAS

including changing the distribution patterns of human

disease and the spread of pest and weed infestations.

Climate change impacts on species are not distributed

equally across the spectrum of life, either taxonomically or

geographically. Foden et al. (2008) propose a set of char-

acteristics that would make a species more vulnerable to

climate change. These include species with:

specialized habitat and/or microhabitat requirements

narrow environmental tolerances or thresholds that are

likely to be exceeded due to climate change at any stage

in the life cycle

dependence on specific environmental triggers or cues

that are likely to be disrupted by climate change

dependence on interspecific interactions which are likely

to be disrupted by climate change

poor ability or limited opportunity to disperse to, or

colonize, a new or more suitable range

This list shows that those species with the highest spe-

cializations in terms of lifestyle or location are typically

most at risk. Using these characteristics, the International

Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Species Sur-

vival Commission, a global network of species conserva-

tion experts, assessed selected taxa (birds, amphibians

and corals) for their vulnerability to climate change and,

therefore, potential increased risk of extinction (IUCN 2009).

They report that:

35, 52 and 71% of birds, amphibians and corals,

respectively, have traits that render them particularly

susceptible to climate change impacts

70–80% of birds, amphibians and corals that are already

threatened are also “climate-change-susceptible.”

IMPACTS OF BIOLOGICAL INVASIONS

ON BIODIVERSITY

Biological invasions occur when a species is introduced

to a habitat or ecosystem where it is not native and then

becomes established, spreads and causes damage to

biodiversity, human development or human health. Spe-

cies that bring about these biological invasions and the

associated changes in the habitat are termed “invasive

species.” The Invasive Species Specialist Group of IUCN

has developed the Global Invasive Species Database and

has also identified a list of 100 of the world’s worst inva-

sive alien species (IUCN 2010).

Invasive species can cause biodiversity loss, changes

in water chemistry, altered biogeochemical processes,

hydrological modifications and altered food webs

(Ehrenfeld 2003; Dukes & Mooney 2004) as well as changes

in availability of light, air, food, shelter and breeding sites

or of services such as pollination (Moroñ et al. 2009). For

birds, Butchart (2008) notes that biological invasions

threaten birds in many ways, including predation on adults,

reproductive stress through predation on eggs or chicks,

and habitat degradation (particularly by invasive herbi-

vores or invasive plants). As a result of these impacts,

biological invasions are an important threat to biodiversity

and ecosystem services; they are considered 1 of the 5

major threats to ecosystem integrity by Millennium Eco-

system Assessment (2005).

Baillie et al. (2004) report biological invasions as a ma-

jor threat faced by 11% of threatened amphibian species

and 8% of threatened mammals for which data are

available. They also note that island species are particu-

larly susceptible, noting that 67% of threatened birds on

oceanic islands are affected by invasives, compared to

8% of continental birds. Darwall et al. (2008) report that

85% of threatened fish in southern Africa, 55% of threat-

ened freshwater fish in Europe and just under 45% of threat-

ened freshwater fish in Madagascar are affected by inva-

sive species, the latter largely as a result of implementing

a plan to re-establish local fisheries by introducing 24 non-

native fish species (Benstead et al. 2003). Butchart (2008)

reports that the one-third of threatened bird species threat-

ened by invasive species are at risk largely through pre-

dation by carnivores and rodents.

Characteristics that define invasive potential include

both factors intrinsic to the invading species as well as

the habitat to be invaded. Howard and Ziller (2008) list

factors for invading plants, and we have added those for

animals, such as:

rapid growth rate

ability to grow well and reproduce in dry or otherwise

adverse conditions (have broad environmental

tolerance)

having many and well-protected fruits and seeds (high

yielding plant species)

having high rates of reproductive success and rearing

young or independent larval (and other immature stage)

survival (vertebrates and invertebrates)

producing fruit and seeds (or other plant propagules)

early in their growth and development for plants, and

breeding early in development for animals

ability to disperse widely through wind or water or by

animals that feed on them or carry their propagules (for

plants)

effective competition with other plants and animals.

Predicting potential invasiveness of any individual spe-

Climate change and invasive species


S. A. Mainka and G. Howard

cies can be an uncertain process because invasions can

be confounded by issues of timing and change (Baskin

2002). In fact, the biological invasion process is always a

combination of the characteristic of the introduced spe-

cies and the “reactions” of the invaded ecosystem.

Nevertheless, numerous decision-support tools have been

developed to help assess potential invasiveness of species,

including Pheloung et al. (1999), Jefferson et al. (2004)

and Gordon et al. (2008).

Acting together, climate and invasions

The traits of species that make them invasive (i.e. abil-

ity to survive in adverse conditions, rapid growth rates

and wide dispersal) will often help them succeed in com-

petition with native species under climate change. Condi-

tions that facilitate invasion that might be created by cli-

mate change can be viewed from several perspectives.

Hellman et al. (2008) consider the stages of the invasion

pathway and identify the following mechanisms: (i) altered

transport and introduction mechanisms; (ii) establishment

of new invasive species; (iii) altered impact of existing

invasive species; (iv) altered distribution of existing inva-

sive species; and (v) altered effectiveness of control

strategies. Another perspective, as discussed in the

present paper, is to consider the changes in the environ-

ment that would have an impact on species survival. These

include changes in temperature (terrestrial and marine),

precipitation, chemistry (terrestrial and marine), ocean cir-

culation and sea levels (see examples in Table 1). Climate

change also tests the adaptive capacity of native species

through these changes to their environment, making it

difficult for native species to survive, allowing invaders

to take over empty niches, or compromising the native

species’ ability to compete against hardy generalist

invaders. From a Darwinian perspective, the characteris-

tics of many invasive species promote their survival and,

thereby, natural selection for these characteristics in fu-

ture generations. However, in some cases, the interaction

between climate change and invasive species might not

be in favor of the invader, as in the case of some invasive

coldwater species (Rahel & Olden 2008). Nevertheless,

acting together, climate change and invasive species can

put many native species in situations beyond their ability

to successfully compete.

As early as 1993, climate/invasive species interactions

were noted by Binggeli and Hamilton (1993), who specu-

lated that climate change played a role in the spread of the

alien tree Maesopsis eminii Engl. in the East Usumbara

mountain forests, Tanzania. They cite temperature changes,

extremes of precipitation and decreased mist as potential

factors promoting Maesopsis invasion. The impacts can

be both direct, on survival of a species in question, and/or

indirect in terms of influence on other factors such as pest

or prey species. For example, one of the impacts of cli-

mate/invasives interaction noted recently was decreased

numbers of grizzly bears (Peacook 2009), hypothesized to

be a result of decreasing availability of the nuts of whitebark

pine which provide an important autumn food source for

the bears (Perkins & Roberts 2003). Similarly, Dukes et al.

(2009) note that climate change will directly affect trees in

northeastern North America, as well as influence the im-

pact of associated pest and pathogen species in those

forests. Currently, most examples of species’ range ex-

pansions in response to climate change are terrestrial (see

Root et al. 2003; Roura-Pascual et al. 2004; Parmesan &

Yohe 2006; Sugiura 2009) or from freshwater, as in the

northward movement of water hyacinth (Eichhornia

crassipes (Mart.) Solms) in Europe (S. Brunel, pers. comm.).

Some invasive species do not require climate change to

damage ecosystems, yet climate change might exacerbate

the damage they do cause. Two examples of invasive spe-

cies that alter the invaded ecosystem even without cli-

mate change are the common carp (Cyprinus carpio L.,

1758) and salt cedar (Tamarix ramosissima Ledeb). The

common carp, native to Asia, decreases water quality (by

increasing turbidity) and destroys viable nesting and feed-

ing habitat for other desirable species of fish in other parts

of the world, while the drought tolerant and deep-rooted

salt cedar, native to Eurasia, dominates riparian forests

that were once dominated by cottonwoods and willows in

North America (Kolar & Lodge 2000; Lite & Stromberg

2005; Charles & Dukes 2007). Climate change might have

positive feedbacks for both of these invading species if

waters warm in the mid-western and northern USA and if

south-western USA experiences more frequent droughts,

leading to an increase in the amount of suitable habitat to

invade (Seager et al. 2007). This interaction between cli-

mate change and invasive species may intensify ecosys-

tem effects and possibly increase the spatial extent of these

effects. A potential positive effect from increased inva-

sive species is, in some cases, promotion of carbon se-

questration by those species (Wardle et al. 2007).

In addition to highlighting the interaction across cli-

mate change and invasive species, these examples also

illustrate that:

Climate change can turn a native species into an in-

vader (Mueller & Hellmann 2008) in its native habitat

by altering that habitat such that it is exotic to its origi-

nal ecosystem situation,

Climate change can affect many aspects of an invading


species including distribution, speed of dispersal, and

life history.

Climate change, invasive species and human

well-being

Both climate change and invasive species are economi-

cally important threats. In a report on the economics of

climate change (Stern 2006), the costs of climate change

were estimated to be 5% of global GDP per year. In terms

of human impact, the Global Humanitarian Forum estimates

that 90% of these losses will be mainly in South and South-

Table 1 Examples of climate change influences on invasiveness of species



East Asia and Africa plus the Middle East (Global Hu-

manitarian Forum 2009).

The estimated annual damage from invasive species

worldwide totals more than $1.4tn: 5% of the global

economy (Pimentel et al. 2001). The cost to African na-

tions of the control of invasions is an estimated $US60m

per year (Chenje & Mohammed-Katerere 2002). Costs in-

clude not only direct management costs like prevention,

eradication and mitigation of invasive species, but also

indirect costs of loss of ecosystem services, such as clean

water, plant products and decreased ecotourism revenues.

Strategic and prioritized management of invasive species

is essential and urgent, especially given the limited re-

sources available.

Loss of habitat and biodiversity resulting from the in-

teraction of climate change and invasive species will add

to these costs while also contributing to increased vul-

nerability of rural communities whose livelihoods and

household incomes are derived, either directly or indirectly,

from natural products. For example, climate change, and

the associated temperature and ozone changes, can alter

the invasive capabilities of pests of common agricultural

and horticultural crops (Kiritani 2007; Booker et al. 2009;

Jaramillo et al. 2009). Loss of habitat and biodiversity also

poses a threat to wildlife-based tourism, therefore affect-

ing income to national economies depending on tourism.

Climate change and biological invasions also have so-

cial/cultural implications, both in terms of impacts and

potential solutions. With respect to climate change, the

most vulnerable will be those people engaged in subsis-

tence agriculture because of the many constraints that

limit their capacity to adapt to change (Morton 2007). The

2007/2008 Human Development Report (UNDP 2007, 2)

highlights the potential impact of climate change on pov-

erty reduction strategies and development planning and

notes that failure to fully address the impacts of climate

change will “consign the poorest 40 percent of the world’s

population to a future of diminished opportunity.”

However, local and traditional knowledge about natural

resource management can form an important basis for cli-

mate change adaptation planning and implementation, as

has already been demonstrated in the Arctic (Ford et al.

2006) and Sahel (Nyong et al. 2007).

Pfeiffer and Ortiz (2007) report that the spread of intro-

duced tamarisks (Tamarix spp.) in south-western USA has

caused significant losses of native plants, including cot-

tonwoods (Populus fremontii S. Wats.) and willows (Salix

spp.), which are used in traditional basketry. In contrast,

some traditional resource management practices in Ha-

waii have actually enhanced the spread of invasive spe-

cies while also providing the potential to control invasive

species through support of expert cultural practitioners

who incorporate weeding of invasive species into day-to-

day resource management activity (Ticktin et al. 2006).

However, implementing an invasive species management

program can also disrupt traditional management practices

(Hanson 2004). Clearly, any program to manage impacts

of climate change and invasive species will need to be

developed in consideration of not only environmental

needs, but also social and economic needs.

Measures that need to be taken

Biodiversity can play a role in mitigating the impacts of

climate change and supporting adaptation. However, in-

vasive species have the potential to compound the im-

pacts of climate change on biodiversity and adversely af-

fect biodiversity’s potential to play this role. Conversely,

taking measures to prevent or control invasive species

can enhance an ecosystem’s resilience to climate change.

Therefore, actions should be taken to ensure that the com-

bined impacts of climate change and invasives are elimi-

nated or minimized while enhancing the resilience of eco-

systems to support mitigation and adaptation.

Improved understanding of invasiveness and links with

climate change

Although scientists are already identifying many of the

linkages, continuing research is needed, especially with

respect to the ability to accurately predict the spread of

biological invasions in the context of global change. A

critical resource for developing or adapting invasive spe-

cies management plans will be tools that provide an as-

sessment of the invasion threat posed by each potentially

invasive species and tools that allow effective manage-

ment of invasive species at the community level. Ap-

proaches that have been proposed to help refine such

assessments include use of models combining local and

global, biotic and abiotic factors (Ficetola et al. 2007) and

use of variants of niche through BIOCLIM, DOMAIN and

MAXENT modeling (Ward 2007). In addition, modeling

approaches being developed to understand species’ re-

sponses to climate change more generally (e.g. Anderson

et al. 2009; Brook et al. 2009) should be useful for applica-

tion more specifically to potentially invasive species.

Although risk management for biological invasions re-

sulting from global change will always be a challenge, there

are already several assessment frameworks now available

or in development. Examples include the weed risk assess-

ment system in use in Australia, which has been very ac-

curate in assessing species of unknown invasive poten-



tial (Gordon et al. 2008). Such tools need to be refined, as

new knowledge about invasiveness becomes available,

and used as regular components of risk management strat-

egies for all sectors, especially agriculture and energy.

These can also be applied to climate change situations to

use in the prevention of biological invasions.

The Invasive Species Specialist Group of the Species

Survival Commission of IUCN has produced “Guidelines

for the prevention of biodiversity loss caused by alien

invasive species” (IUCN 2000), which provide direction

on preventing and managing invasive species across 4

areas; namely,

improving understanding and awareness

strengthening the management response

providing appropriate legal and institutional mecha-

nisms

enhancing knowledge and research efforts.

Eradication and control within adaptive management

strategies, including disaster recovery planning

The impact of either climate change or biological inva-

sion is a dynamic process and highly dependent on the

characteristics of the invading species as well as those in

the habitat being invaded. Any strategy to eradicate or

control an invasion will have to include the principles of

adaptive management. In undertaking eradication, ecosys-

tem managers should also be aware of potential second-

ary impacts of that eradication (Zavaleta et al. 2001;

Bergstrom et al. 2009). In some cases, removing one in-

vader has simply provided space for another to move in.

Control and eradication plans should be developed with a

landscape scale approach to take into consideration, as

much as possible, these secondary effects.

Successful eradication cases have 3 key factors in

common: particular biological features of the target

species; sufficient economic resources devoted for a long

time; and widespread support from the relevant agencies

and the public (Mack et al. 2000). When eradication is not

possible, or if it is not desired, as in the case of native

species invading through range expansion, some measures

of “maintenance control” aimed at maintaining popula-

tions of the invading species at acceptably low levels have

been attempted, usually through biological control.

However, the quicker-acting chemical and mechanical con-

trols sometimes used pose many problems, including their

high cost and the low public acceptance of some prac-

tices (Mack et al. 2000).

Climate change is already demonstrably increasing the

number of extreme natural events (e.g. floods and

hurricanes) and many countries are developing longer-

term (mitigation) strategies to manage the potential im-

pact of such disasters. This recovery planning should also

incorporate measures to prevent invasions. For example,

invasive species were also a critical concern in the recov-

ery plans for Hurricane Katrina, which hit New Orleans in

2006. The Formosan subterranean termite (Coptotermes

formosanus Shiraki, 1909) is native to China but was acci-

dentally introduced into the USA, and has since invaded

at least 9 southern states. Prior to hurricane Katrina, the

Formosan termite was responsible for an estimated

$US100m annually in damage to homes and businesses in

the New Orleans area (US EPA 2005). Following Hurricane

Katrina, the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and For-

estry passed the Formosan Termite Initiative Act, effec-

tively quarantining debris from the disaster (Louisiana

Department of Agriculture 2005). The act notes that, “The

hurricane has left millions of tons of wood debris, includ-

ing debris infested with Formosan Termites,” and that “Im-

position of this quarantine is required to prevent the spread

of Formosan termites and infestation of areas, homes and

structures that are not currently infested, or which are to

be built or reconstructed.”

Invasive-aware energy choices

Interestingly, many characteristics of crops being con-

sidered for cultivation as biofuels are shared by invasive

species, such as being fast growing and having high

productivity, adaptability to a range of soil and climatic

conditions and resistance to pests and diseases (Howard

& Ziller 2008). Nipa palm (Nypa fruticans Wumb), for

example, has invaded and colonized over 200 km2 of the

Atlantic coast of Nigeria and can produce far greater

biofuel per hectare than sugar cane, according to some

experts. All introduced crops for biofuel production

should, therefore, be treated as suspect or potentially in-

vasive until proven otherwise. While simply harvesting

existing problem invasives species such as water hyacinth,

lantana (Lantana camara L.) and nipa palm might present

an attractive option for biofuel feedstocks, it will not con-

trol them and there is perverse risk that markets are cre-

ated for such invasives species, thereby encouraging their

spread and so further damaging biodiversity.

Continuing on a fossil-fuel based economy path will

not support the action needed to mitigate climate change,

and some energy choices, specifically biofuels, have added

additional environmental stress through the introduction

of invasive species. Buddenhagen et al. (2009), in review-

ing potential biofuel crops for Hawaii through application

of a weed risk assessment system, determine that those

crops were 2–4 times more likely to become invasive.



Enabling policy environment

Climate mitigation and adaptation policy frameworks

should include consideration of biological invasions

(assessment, monitoring and management), both as indi-

cators of change and in their own right. Climate change

can facilitate invasions leading to impacts and costs, and

invasions can increase the magnitude of climate impacts

on people. Therefore, it is vital that policy decisions taken

with respect to climate change include consideration of

invasive species. A recent review of the vulnerability of

Australia’s biodiversity to climate change recognizes the

potential of compounding threats to biodiversity and con-

cludes that: “Significant changes are required in policy

and management for biodiversity conservation to meet

these types of challenges” (Steffen et al. 2009, 1).

In practical terms, this can mean that production of re-

newable energy sources such as biofuels should only be

undertaken in a manner that does not introduce invasives.

The Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels has drafted a set

of guidelines for sustainability that incorporate consider-

ation of the potential invasiveness of biofuel feedstocks

(RSB 2008).

Given that it is expected that climate change will result

in an increased number of extreme events, and that evi-

dence from the ecological aftermath of such events, in-

cluding that from Hurricane Katrina noted above as well

as the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami (UNEP 2005) includes

impacts from invading species, it is imperative to consider

the potential of combined impacts when planning and

implementing policy for disaster risk management.

Setting policy frameworks for invasive species that fail

to consider climate change can mean missing out on vital

issues that are required to prevent and control invasion.

Geographic frameworks that do not build in flexibility might

bring biological disaster in the future. For example, with

decreasing ice in the Arctic as a result of climate change,

far northern waters might soon become a major shipping

lane. Although the Arctic is currently among the least in-

vaded of the marine realms, increased shipping has been

implicated in the spread of invasions and, therefore, man-

agement policies should be implemented in these waters

to reduce the ever-present risk of invasions through trans-

ported ballast water and through hull fouling (Molnar et

al. 2008). Adapting invasive species management strate-

gies to cope with the effects of climate change will be

required at a range of scales, including continental,

regional, national and local. Bierwagen et al. (2008) note

that an adaptive management approach will facilitate this

integration and that climate change monitoring activities

should be fundamental elements of such approaches. As

noted above, they will need to be developed within the

context of local cultures and traditional practices.

Pyke et al. (2008) propose that for optimum synergy

across climate change and invasive species policy, the

following 3 principles should be followed:

ensure that climate change mitigation does not exacer-

bate invasive species problems

invasive species management should take climate

change into account

climate change adaptation activities should contribute

to invasive species management.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Climate change and invasive species are two drivers of

biodiversity loss that, acting together, can compound

impacts on the environment in general and biodiversity

in particular.

2. Taking action to address one or the other threat alone

may not lead to desired results either for biodiversity

or human well being.

3. Tools for addressing this situation are currently avail-

able or being further refined for better predictability.

4. Raising awareness of the climate change/biological in-

vasion interaction and the consequent increase in

threats to biodiversity, development and human liveli-

hoods is a critical element for successful prevention

and/or management of the resulting impacts.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to thank two anonymous reviewers

for their helpful comments and additional references to

improve the manuscript. We would also like to thank the

ISZS international research program Biological Conse-

quences of Global Change (BCGC) sponsored by Bureau

of International Cooperation, Chinese Academy of Sci-

ences (GJHZ200810).

REFERENCES

Anderson BJ, Akçakaya HR, Araújo MB et al. (2009). Dy-

namics of range margins for metapopulations under cli-

mate change. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 276,

1415–20.

Baillie J, Hilton-Taylor C, Stuart SN (2004). 2004 IUCN Red

List of Threatened Species: A Global Species

Assessment. IUCN - World Conservation Union, Spe-

cies Survival Commission. Gland, Switzerland.

Barnes DKA (2002). Invasions by marine life on plastic



debris. Nature 416, 808–9.

Baskin Y (2002). A Plague of Rats and Rubber Vines: The

Growing Threat of Species Invasions. Island Press,

Washington, DC.

Benstead JP, De Rham PH, Gattoliat JL et al. (2003). Con-

serving Madagascar’s freshwater biodiversity. Bio-

science 53, 1101–11.

Bergstrom D, Lucieer A, Kiefer K et al. (2009). Indirect ef-

fects of invasive species removal devastate World Heri-

tage Island. Journal of Applied Ecology 46, 73–81.

Bierwagen BG, Thomas R, Kane A (2008). Capacity of man-

agement plans for aquatic invasive species to integrate

climate change. Conservation Biology 22, 568–74.

Binggeli P, Hamilton AC (1993). Biological invasion by

Maesopsis eminii in the East Usambara forests,

Tanzania. Opera Botanica 121, 229–35.

Booker F, Muntifering R, McGrath M et al (2009). The ozone

component of global change: Potential effects on agri-

cultural and horticultural plant yield, product quality

and interactions with invasive species. Journal of Inte-

grative Plant Biology 51, 337–51.

Braby CE, Somero GN (2006). Ecological gradients and rela-

tive abundance of native (Mytilus trossulus) and inva-

sive (Mytilus galloprovincialis) blue mussels in the Cali-

fornia hybrid zone. Marine Biology 148, 1249–62.

Brook BW, Akçakaya HR, Keith DA, Mace GM, Pearson

RG, Araújo MB (2009). Integrating bioclimate with popu-

lation models to improve forecasts of species extinc-

tions under climate change. Biology Letters 5, 723–5.

Buddenhagen CE, Chimera C, Clifford P (2009). Assessing

biofuel crop invasiveness: A case study. PLoS ONE 4,

e5261.

Burrowes PA, Joglar RL, Green DE (2004). Potential causes

for amphibian declines in Puerto Rico. Herpetologica

60, 141–54.

Butchart S (2008). Red List Indices to measure the

sustainability of species use and impacts of invasive

alien species. Bird Conservation International 18,

S245–62.

Charles H, Dukes JS (2007). Impacts of invasive species on

ecosystem services. In: Nentwig W, ed. Biological

invasions, Ecological Studies Vol. 193. Springer, New

York, pp. 217–37.

Chen DX, Coughenour MB, Eberts D et al. (1994). Interac-

tive effects of CO2 enrichment and temperature on the

growth of dioecious Hydrilla verticillata. Environmen-

tal and Experimental Botany 34, 345–53.

Chenje M, Mohammed-Katerere J (2002). Invasive alien

species. In: Africa Environment Outlook. UNEP, Nairobi,

Kenya, pp. 331–49.

Darwall W, Smith K, Allen D et al. (2008). Freshwater

biodiversity – A hidden resource under threat. In: Vié

JC, Hilton-Taylor C, Stuart SN, eds. Wildlife in a Chang-

ing World: An Analysis of the 2008 IUCN Red List of

Threatened Species. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland pp. 43–

54.

Dukes JS, Mooney HA (2004). Disruption of ecosystem

processes in western North America by invasive species.

Revista chilena de historia natural 77, 411–37.

Dukes JS, Pontius J, Orwig D et al. (2009). Responses of

insect pests, pathogens, and invasive plant species to

climate change in the forests of northeastern North

America: What can we predict? Canadian Journal of

Forest Research 39, 231–48.

Ehrenfeld JG (2003). Effects of exotic plant invasions on

soil nutrient cycling processes. Ecosystems 6, 503–23.

Ficetola GF, Thuiller W, Miaud C (2007). Prediction and

validation of the potential global distribution of a prob-

lematic alien invasive species – The American bullfrog.

Diversity and Distributions 13, 476–85.

Foden W, Mace G, Vié JC et al. (2008). Species susceptibil-

ity to climate change impacts. In: Vié JC, Hilton-Taylor

C, Stuart SN, eds. Wildlife in a Changing World: An

Analysis of the 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened

Species. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, pp. 77–88.

Ford JD, Smit B, Wandel J (2006). Vulnerability to climate

change in the Arctic: A case study from Arctic Bay,

Canada. Global Environmental Change 16, 145–60.

Global Humanitarian Forum (2009). Human Impact Report:

Climate change – The Anatomy of a Silent Crisis.

Geneva, Switzerland. [Cited 19 Feb 2010.] Available at

URL: www.ghf-ge.org

Gordon DR, Onderdonk DA, Fox AM, Stocker RK (2008).

Consistent accuracy of the Australian weed risk assess-

ment system across varied geographies. Diversity and

Distributions 14, 234–42.

Hanson DE (2004). ASSIST: Development of the American

Samoa Selected Invasive Species Task Force. Weed Tech-

nology 18, 1334–7.

Hellmann JJ, Byers JE, Bierwagen BG, Dukes JS (2008).

Five potential consequences of climate change for in-

vasive species. Conservation Biology 22, 534–43.

Howard G, Ziller S (2008). Alien alert – Plants for biofuel

may be invasive. Bioenergy Business July/August, 14–

6.

Huntley B, Green RE, Collingham YC, Willis SG (2007). A



Climatic Atlas of European Breeding Birds. Lynx

Edicions, Barcelona, Spain.

IUCN (2000). IUCN Guidelines for the Prevention Of

Biodiversity Loss Caused By Alien Invasive Species.

[Cited 19 Feb 2010.] Available at URL: http://www.issg.

org/infpaper_invasive.pdf

IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) (2009). Wildlife

in a changing world: An analysis of the 2008 IUCN

Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN, Gland,

Switzerland.

IUCN (2010). 100 of the world’s worst invasive alien species.

[Cited 19 Feb 2010.] Available at URL: http://www.issg.

org/database/species/search.asp?st=100ss

Jaramillo J, Chabi-Olaye A, Kamonjo C et al. (2009). Ther-

mal tolerance of the Coffee Berry Borer Hypothenemus

hampei: Predictions of climate change impact on a tropi-

cal insect pest. PLoS ONE 4, e6487.

Jefferson LA, Havens K, Ault J (2004). Implementing inva-

sive screening procedures: The Chicago botanic model.

Weed Technology 18, 1434–40.

Kearney M, Shine R, Porter WP (2009). The potential for

behavioral thermoregulation to buffer “cold-blooded”

animals against climate warming. PNAS 106, 3835–40.

Kiritani K (2007). The impact of global warming and land-

use change on the pest status of rice and fruit bugs

(Heteroptera) in Japan. Global Change Biology 13,

1586–95.

Kolar CS, Lodge DM (2000). Freshwater nonindigenous

species: Interactions with other global changes. In:

Mooney HA, Hobbs RJ, eds. Invasive species in a

changing world. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 3–

30.

Kurz KA, Dymond CC, Stinson G et al. (2008). Mountain

pine beetle and forest carbon feedback to climate change.

Nature 452, 987–90.

Lambert CC, Lambert G (2003). Persistence and differential

distribution of nonindigenous ascidians in harbors of

the Southern California Bight. Marine Ecology Progress

Series 259, 145–61.

Lite SJ, Stromberg JC (2005). Ground-water and surface

water thresholds for maintaining Populus-Salix forests,

San Pedro River, Arizona. Biological Conservation 125,

153–67.

Logan JA, Powell JA (2001). Ghost forests, global warming,

and the mountain pine beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae).

American Entomologist 47, 160–73.

Lonsdale WM (1993). Rates of Spread of an Invading

Species: Mimosa Pigra in Northern Australia. Journal

of Ecology 81, 513–21.

Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry, Office

of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences (2005). Im-

position of Quarantine. [Cited 19 Feb 2010.] Available

from URL: http://www.ldaf.state.la.us/portal/Portals/0/

AES/Horticulture/katrinaquarantine.pdf

Mack RN, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM, Evans H, Clout M,

Bazzaz FA (2000). Biotic invasions: Causes,

epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Eco-

logical Applications 10, 689–710.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Synthesis 2005.

[Cited 19 Feb2010.] Available at URL: http://www.

millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.

aspx.pdf

Molnar JM, Gamboa RL, Revenga C, Spalding MD (2008).

Assessing the global threat of invasive species to ma-

rine biodiversity. Frontiers in Ecology and Environ-

ment 6, 485–92.

Moroñ D, Lenda M, Skórka P, Szentgyörgyi H, Settele J,

Woyciechowski M (2009). Wild pollinator communities

are negatively affected by invasion of alien goldenrods

in grassland landscapes. Biological Conservation 142,

1322–32.

Morton JF (2007). The impact of climate change on small-

holder and subsistence agriculture. PNAS 104, 19680–

85.

Nyong A, Adesina F, Osman EB (2007). The value of indig-

enous knowledge in climate change mitigation and ad-

aptation strategies in the African Sahel. Mitigation and

Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 12, 787–97.

Parmesan C (2006). Ecological and evolutionary responses

to climate change. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolu-

tion and Systematics 37, 637–69.

Parmesan C, Yohe G (2003). A globally coherent fingerprint

of climate change impacts across natural systems. Na-

ture 421, 37–42.

Peacook D (2009). Yellowstone’s grizzly bears face threats

on two fronts. Yale Environment 360 14 May [Cited 10

Feb 2010.] Available from URL: http://e360.yale.edu/con-

tent/feature.msp?id=2152

Perkins DL, Roberts DW (2003). Predictive models of

whitebark pine mortality from mountain pine beetle. For-

est Ecology and Management 174, 495–510.

Pfeiffer JM, Ortiz EH (2007). Invasive plants impact Califor-

nia Native plants used in traditional basketry. Fremontia

35, 7–13.

Pheloung PC, Williams PA, Halloy SR (1999). A weed risk

assessment model for use as a biosecurity tool evaluat-



ing plant introductions. Journal of Environmental Man-

agement 57, 239–51.

Pimentel D, McNair S, Janecka J et al. (2001). Economic

and environmental threats of alien plant, animal, and

microbe invasions. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Envi-

ronment 84, 1–20.

Poertner HO, Knust R (2007). Climate change affects ma-

rine fishes through the oxygen limitation of thermal

tolerance. Science 315, 95–7.

Poloczanska ES, Babcock RA, Butler A et al. (2007). Cli-

mate change and Australian marine life. In: Gibson RN,

Atkinson RJA, Gordon JDM, eds. Oceanography and

Marine Biology: An Annual Review, Vol. 45. CRC Press,

Boca Raton, Florida, USA, pp. 407–78.

Pounds JA, Bustamante MR, Coloma LA et al. (2006). Wide-

spread amphibian extinctions from epidemic disease

driven by global warming. Nature 469, 161–7.

Pyke CR, Thomas R, Porter RD et al. (2008). Current prac-

tices and future opportunities for policy on climate

change and invasive species. Conservation Biology 22,

585–92.

Rahel FJ, Olden JD (2008). Assessing the effects of climate

change on aquatic invasive species. Conservation Bi-

ology 22, 521–33.

Renner C (2004). Plant dispersal across the tropical Atlan-

tic by wind and sea currents. International Journal of

Plant Science 165 (4 Suppl.), S23–33.

Ron SR, Duellman WE, Coloma LA, Bustamante MR (2003).

Population decline of the Jambato Toad Atelopus

ignescens (Anura: Bufonidae) in the Andes of Ecuador.

Journal of Herpetology 37, 116–26.

Root TL, Price JT, Hall KR, et al. (2003) Fingerprints of

global warming on wild animals and plants. Nature 421,

57–60.

Roundtable for Sustainable Biofuels (RSB) (2008). Global

principles and criteria for sustainable biofuels

production, Version Zero. [Cited 19 Feb 2010.] Available

from URL: http://cgse.epfl.ch/webdav/site/cgse/shared/

Biofuels/VersionZero/Version%20Zero_RSB_Std_en.

pdf

Roura-Pascual N, Suarez AV, Gómez C, Pons P et al. (2004).

Geographical potential of Argentine ants (Linepithema

humile Mayr) in the face of global climate change. Pro-

ceedings of the Royal Society of London B 271, 2527–34.

Seager R, Ting M, Held I et al. (2007). Model projections of

an imminent transition to a more arid climate in south-

western North America. Science 316, 1181–4.

Steffen W, Burbidge A, Hughes L et al. (2009). Australia’s

biodiversity and climate change: Summary for policy

makers 2009. Summary of a report to the Natural Re-

source Management Ministerial Council commissioned

by the Australian Government, pp. 1. [Cited 19 Feb 2010.]

Available from URL: http://www.climatechange.gov.au/

~/media/publications/biodiversity/biodiversity-sum-

mary-policy-makers.ashx

Stern N (2006). Stern Review on the Economics of Climate

Change. [Cited 19 Feb 2010.] Available from URL: http:/

/www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/

s t e rn_rev iew_economics_c l ima te_change /

sternreview_index.cfm

Sugiura S (2009). Seasonal fluctuation of invasive flatworm

predation pressure on land snails: Implications for the

range expansion and impacts of invasive species. Bio-

logical Conservation 142, 3013–9.

Ticktin T, Whitehead AN, Fraiola H (2006). Traditional gath-

ering of native hula plants in alien-invaded Hawaiian

forests: Adaptive practices, impacts on alien invasive

species and conservation implications. Environmental

Conservation 33, 185–94.

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) (2007).

UNDP 2007/2008 Human Development Report: Fighting

climate change: Human solidarity in a divided world, pp.

2. [Cited 19 Feb 2010.] Available from URL: http://hdr.

undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2007-2008/

UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) (2005).

After the Tsunami: Rapid Environmental Assessment.

UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya.

US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) (2005). The

Formosan Subterranean Termite in Georgia. [Cited 19

Feb 2010.] Available from URL: http://www.caes.uga.edu/

departments/ent/upmp/termites.html

Vaquer-Sunyer R, Duarte CM (2008). Thresholds of hy-

poxia for marine biodiversity. PNAS 105, 15452–7.

Ward DF (2007). Modelling the potential geographic distri-

bution of invasive ant species in New Zealand. Biologi-

cal Invasions 9, 723–35.

Wardle DA, Bellingham PJ, Fukami T, Mulder CPH (2007).

Promotion of ecosystem carbon sequestration by inva-

sive predators. Biology Letters 3, 479–82.

Zavaleta ES, Hobbs RJ, Mooney HA (2001). Viewing inva-

sive species removal in a whole-ecosystem context.

Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16, 454–9.


Climate change and invasive species double jeopardy

Documents

Transcript of Climate change and invasive species double jeopardy