call for an end to calls for the end of invasion biology

Calls for the end of invasion biology are misguided. There is no evidence that modern invasion biology has progressed slowly in its short life. Although some aspects of biological invasions fit comfortably in the framework of ecological succession, many others do not. Some native species, particularly in the wake of various anthropogenic impacts, behave like invasive non‐native species, but the probability and degree of harmful impact are greater for non‐native than for native species. Neither native nor non‐native species suffer lack of attention and research by virtue of the fact that invasion biology focuses on the latter. Basing management solely on current observed impact is highly risky because impacts may be subtle but nonetheless important, and impacts often change, as they are contingent on the physical or biotic environment. The known harmful impacts of many non‐native species suggest that recent introductions warrant attention even if impacts are not evident. Neither is the focus of modern invasion biology on non‐native species motivated by xenophobia. Rather, it reflects the recognition of their likelihood of harmful impact. A related call for the end of traditional restoration ecology shares many features with calls to terminate invasion biology, not least because management of invasive non‐native species is a key component of restoration ecology. Such species are a dominant element in generating the ‘novel ecosystems’ that are said to render traditional restoration ecology obsolete. The argument that both invasion management and traditional restoration are largely futile endeavors is contradicted by substantial and growing successes in both fields.