Primary and secondary invasion pathways: why the distinction matters

Abstract The pathways by which non-native species are introduced and spread shape the rate and geographic patterns of biological invasions. They can be classified as primary, where species cross jurisdictional or biogeographic boundaries, or secondary, where they move within those boundaries after introduction. Despite economic, political, social, and ecological differences between these pathway types, most classification schemes and regulatory frameworks do not explicitly distinguish between them. Primary pathways are relatively well-defined and subject to biosecurity regulation, while secondary pathways remain poorly characterized and largely overlooked in policy and practice. Secondary pathways create multiple nodes from which species spread, complicating containment. Here we refine the distinction between primary and secondary pathways and explore how failing to recognize this distinction can limit the effectiveness of biosecurity systems, particularly by leaving secondary pathways inadequately addressed. Distinguishing between primary and secondary pathways can improve control responses, strengthen cross-scale coordination, reduce economic damage, and support global biodiversity targets.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Biological Invasions
Published
2026-10-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-026-03936-x
Primary Topic
Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Primary and secondary invasion pathways: why the distinction matters

Ahmed Taheri‍, Julie L. Lockwood, Amanda Suzzi-Simmons, Heidi Mcmaster et al.
Biological Invasions
Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
article

Primary and secondary invasion pathways: why the distinction matters

Ahmed Taheri‍, Julie L. Lockwood, Amanda Suzzi-Simmons, Heidi Mcmaster, Susan Canavan, Elliott W. Parsons, Catherine S. Jarnevich, Wesley M. Daniel, Katelyn T. Faulkner, Julian D. Avery, Charles W. Martin, Leigh F. Greenwood, Kim Canavan, Deah M. Lieurance, Katriona Shea, Peder S. Engelstad, Alanna Richman, Jacob N. Barney, Ivan Jarić, Evelyn M. Beaury, Daniel Simberloff, Kathryn A. O’Shaughnessy, Helen R. Sofaer, Rochelle Sturtevant, Ava Waine, Laura A. Meyerson, Amy E. Kendig, Emma van der Heide, Leah Elwell, Heidi Himes, Diana Albuja Carbonell
article en

Abstract

Abstract The pathways by which non-native species are introduced and spread shape the rate and geographic patterns of biological invasions. They can be classified as primary, where species cross jurisdictional or biogeographic boundaries, or secondary, where they move within those boundaries after introduction. Despite economic, political, social, and ecological differences between these pathway types, most classification schemes and regulatory frameworks do not explicitly distinguish between them. Primary pathways are relatively well-defined and subject to biosecurity regulation, while secondary pathways remain poorly characterized and largely overlooked in policy and practice. Secondary pathways create multiple nodes from which species spread, complicating containment. Here we refine the distinction between primary and secondary pathways and explore how failing to recognize this distinction can limit the effectiveness of biosecurity systems, particularly by leaving secondary pathways inadequately addressed. Distinguishing between primary and secondary pathways can improve control responses, strengthen cross-scale coordination, reduce economic damage, and support global biodiversity targets.

Biological InvasionsVol. 28(11)
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US), University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa (US), The Nature Conservancy (US), United States Geological Survey (US), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR), Pennsylvania State University (US), United States Bureau of Reclamation (US), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (US), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (US), University of Rhode Island (US), Ollscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway (IE), Rhodes University (ZA), AgroParisTech (FR), Abdelmalek Essaâdi University (MA), Stellenbosch University (ZA), University of the Free State (ZA), Université Paris-Saclay (FR), New York Botanical Garden (US), Dauphin Island Sea Lab (US), South African National Biodiversity Institute (ZA), Centre National pour la Recherche Scientifique et Technique (CNRST) (MA), Ecologie, Société, Evolution (FR), Michigan Sea Grant (US), Institute of Hydrobiology, Biology Centre, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic (CZ), Czech Academy of Sciences, Biology Centre (CZ), U.S. Geological Survey, Wetland and Aquatic Research Center (US), Pacific Island Ecosystems Research Center (US), Fort Collins Science Center (US), Pacific Islands Climate Adaptation Science Center (US), University of Pretoria (ZA), University of Tennessee at Knoxville (US), University of South Alabama (US), Newcastle University (GB), Virginia Tech (US), Michigan State University (US), Colorado State University (US)
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Pennsylvania State University, National Research Foundation, Department of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, India, Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, Directorate for Biological Sciences, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Forest Service
Life on land
Openalex Percentile: Top 15%
Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
DOIOpen Access PDFOpenAlex
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon