Invasive species in Mexico

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The American bullfrog, Rana catesbeiana is an invasive species in Mexico.

Invasive species in Mexico are a major cause of biodiversity loss,[1] altering ecosystems, affecting native species, damaging environmental services and public health, and causing economic losses.[2] An invasive species is one native to a particular area that has been introduced into a new habitat, adapting and altering to suit its new conditions.[3]

Due to its geography, a convergence of Nearctic and Neotropical regions, Mexico is a megadiverse country, with a high number of species. This has favored the existence of a considerable number of habitats with diversely distant species which inhabit various aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Economic, social and cultural exchange between Mexico and other countries has facilitated the entry of exotic and invasive species.[4]

Invasive fauna[edit]

In Mexico the effects of invasive species has been documented since the arrival of the Europeans.[citation needed] Colonization brought about the systematic introduction of animals for economic purposes, but also the occasional arrival of unwanted visitors that became pests (Challenger, 1998[full citation needed]). On account of these problematic intruders, many ecosystems were being impoverished and many species driven to extinction.[citation needed] There are three divisions:

  • Exotic species (introduced or non-native): a species established outside its natural area in differing timescales and potential spread, outside the area it occupied naturally, or that could not continue without human intervention (CBD, 2009 area; IUCN, 2000;[2])
  • Invasive exotic species: a non-native species or population outside its natural range, which is able to survive, reproduce and become established in natural habitats and ecosystems and threaten native biodiversity, economy and public health (DOF, 2010)
  • Invasive species: an exotic species is established in natural or semi-natural habitats or ecosystems, an agent of change that threatens native biodiversity (CBD, 2009)[5]

Not all exotic species become invasive immediately, and potential effects of a non-native species are unpredictable (DET). The problems related to invasive exotic species are complex and vast, the biggest obstacle being that it is a little-known and underestimated topic.[6]

On Mexican islands[edit]

Island biodiversity is vulnerable to introduced species, because in these environments there is a high proportion of endemic species that lack defense mechanisms against exotic species with which they did not co-evolve.[2] In particular, for island birds the risk of extinction is forty times higher than for continental species.[7] It is the leading cause of biodiversity loss in that region.[8]

62% of mammals, 88% of birds, 54% of amphibians, 86% of reptiles and 68% of mollusks that have been reported extinct are island species.[9] On Mexican islands 12% of endemic birds and 20% of endemic mammals have become extinct because of introduced species.[8] Over the last decade forty populations of introduced mammals have been eradicated on 28 islands, a step toward the conservation of over a hundred endemic species and subspecies that inhabit the islands.[10] One exemplary result is the Gulf Islands of California, where the initiative of some individuals and civil society organizations is supported by an inter-institutional collaboration and international cooperation.[2]

Guadalupe Island[edit]

Guadalupe Island is a volcano with a height of 5800 m. Its surface area is approximately 250 km². It is a center of endemism with 34 species of plants, including two classes (Redman and Moran, 1997); eight land birds;[11] one sea bird;[12] eleven land snails;[13] and at least 18 species of insects (Gonzales, 1981). The island is an important breeding site for marine mammals such as the Guadalupe fur seal (Arctocephalus townsendi), elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris), and numerous species of birds, including the Laysan albatross (Phoebastria immutabilis).[2]

In the nineteenth century, goats were introduced, reducing tree coverage of pine, cypress, juniper and oak palm to only 6% of their original coverage.[14] Feral cats caused the extinction of six bird species, and threaten the permanence of large populations of native birds.[2]

Eradication of goats started in 2003, concluding successfully in 2006. Confirmatory monitoring took place from 2007-2009. Following the eradication, for the first time in over 150 years germination and survival of tree species was recorded, more than 130,000 in 2009, as well as observation of six native species believed extinct or extirpated from the island. The project for environmental restoration of Guadalupe Island, coupled with advances in other islands, has national and global significance, placing Mexico as an international leader in the conservation of ecosystems.[2]

Feral cats as an invasive species[edit]

Cats are associated with humans as a communal species, and impact an area of 5 km around each center of human population. Their presence is particularly important in oceanic islands (CONABIO, 2008), where they are the predator with the greatest impact on seabird populations. Some examples of species that have been reduced almost to extinction are the Mexican shearwater (Puffinus opisthomelas), Cassin's auklet (Ptychoramphus aleuticus), and Xantus's murrelet (Synthliboramphus hypoleucus).[15] Extinct species include the Guadalupe storm petrel (Oceanodroma macrodactyla), the Socorro dove (Zenaida graysoni) and an endemic sparrow of Todos Santos Island (Aimophila ruficeps sanctorum).[16][17][15]

Cats are a risk factor for the populations of many endemic rodents, like the Chaetodipus anthonyi and Peromyscus interparietalis mice, as well as the Neotoma bryanti rat, and the extinction of the Neotoma anthonyi and Neotoma martinensis endemic rats. It is possible that Peromyscus guardia has become extinct due to the introduction of cats in Ángel de la Guarda Island (,[16] CONABIO 2008). The feral cat has also reduced the rabbit population (Sylvilagus bachmani cerrosensis) on Cedros Island. Cats are one of the most important risk factors for waterfowl populations of Ángel de la Guarda Island, San Marcos, Carmen, Santa Catalina and Cerralvo (Velarde and Anderson, 1994). Cats also carry and transmit numerous diseases and parasites, some of which can be transmitted to humans (CONABIO, 2008).

Introduction of non-native bees[edit]

The introduction of pollinating bumblebees (Bombus) significantly affected native pollinators and both native and introduced plants. The introduced bees are highly pollinating, are abundant in invaded areas, and in some cases, dominate the communities in which they live. In general, they acquire resources more efficiently than native species, despite using the same flowers; they are mutually exclusive both spatially and temporally, suggesting potential competition with native species.[18]

Colonies of B. impatiens, originally from the northeast United States, have been imported to Mexico.[18] B. terrestris, a species native to Europe, North Africa, and Asia was introduced in other areas as a pollinator of commercial crops.[2]

Introduction of geckos[edit]

The common house gecko (Hemidactylus frenatus) (Dumeril & Bibron 1836) synonymous with H. nigriventris, also known as house gecko or bridled house gecko, is native to the islands of the Pacific Ocean.[19] It is currently found throughout the tropics of the Old World and is distributed discontinuously in Central America. Its introduction was probably accidental and repeated, as a stowaway on commercial cargo ships coming from the Pacific Islands.[19] This gecko could potentially have a negative effect on local populations of other gecko species, either because their nocturnal eating habits may be similar, or because adult geckos can prey on juveniles of other lizards and even their own kind. Under specific conditions, they may be vectors of disease or parasites to the native fauna.[20]

Invasive amphibia[edit]

The American bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus) is native to Canada and the eastern United States, and was introduced in the early 1900s to Colorado and California.[21] The first records of the species in Mexico date from 1853.[22] It is a very aggressive species and an unspecialized predator, which has a negative impact on the populations of virtually any animal it can capture or ingest. Its introduction has caused the extinction of native amphibians.[23] One can anticipate a negative effect on native vertebrate and invertebrate populations, aquatic and terrestrial, in any location. This problem has been known for thirty years.[24] The species is considered among the 100 most important invasive exotic species at a global level. The main concern is due to the potential it has to compete with and prey on other species.[25]

Invasive reptiles[edit]

Japanese and red-eared turtles (Trachemys scripta) are native to the country and sold in many pet stores, in most cases released when the owners see the size at which they reach adulthood. The turtle is considered one of the 100 most dangerous invasive species by the Specialist Group on Invasive Species of the IUCN for its omnivorous diet and being inclined to compete with other species of turtles for basking places,[26] besides being an important vector of potentially harmful pathogens for humans and other species (Bringsoe, 2006). Trade of this species should be regulated more effectively to urge the public not to release their pets in nature when they no longer want to be responsible for them.[26]

Invasive species in urban environments[edit]

Several invasive bird species are found in urban areas. The house sparrow (Passer domesticus) was originally distributed in the Middle East to the Mediterranean region, and was introduced in 1850 in North America. It competes for food and nesting sites with other species.[2] The rock dove (Columba livia) is native to Europe and has been introduced worldwide. It causes damage to buildings and transmits diseases to other species. Similarly, the monk parakeet (Myiopsitta monachus) is native to Argentina and Uruguay and is a recognized pest of crops. It is easily adapted to urban environments so it has high demand as a pet in Mexico. People unaware of the potential damage liberate and help feed them, as well as pigeons and house sparrows.[2]

Invasive terrestrial plants[edit]

Invasive plants are fast-growing pioneer species that take advantage of disturbed areas to colonize bare soil. Once established, they inhibit seed germination or development of native species, and can dominate the vegetation, preventing the disturbed ecosystem from restoring itself.[27]

In Mexico there are various efforts to identify and monitor invasive plants. CONABIO (2015) listed 145 species and established a monitoring network. It also created a hierarchy of species' invasiveness according to their ability to spread, their establishment, and their impact on biodiversity (UNIBIO, s.a.). Subsequent date produced by the network UNIBIO (s.a.) listed 226 invasive species across Mexico, of which 2% have a degree of "extreme invasiveness", 46% "high invasiveness", and 15% "moderate invasiveness". Combining these three categories, there are a total of 184 species identified as invasive plants.

Invasive species with an extreme degree of invasiveness identified by the Network are:

  1. Eucalyptus globulus
  2. Ricinus communis
  3. Pennisetum clandestinum
  4. Eragrostis lehmanniana
  5. Cenchrus ciliaris
  6. Rhynchelytrum repens
  7. Tamarix ramosissima

Of these 7 species, 4 belong to the grass family (Poaceae). This group contains the largest number of invasive plants in Mexico, with 82 species of 226 total registered so far. The family with the second highest number of invasive species is the Asteraceae with 14 species, and joint third and fourth are the Fabaceae and Brassicaceae, containing 12 species each (UNIBIO, s.a.).

Distribution[edit]

According to monitoring conducted by the UNIBIO (s.a.), there are invasive species in all states of the Republic. Significantly, all of them except Guerrero, Tabasco and Baja California Sur have at least one species classified as extremely invasive, and all of them have highly invasive species. Related to that geographic distribution, ecosystems have also been identified that have a higher number of invasive plant species. The most affected ecosystem is the Tropical Deciduous Forest, followed by Ripario and the Aquatic. Less affected ecosystems are Sarco Scrub, Misty, and Savannah, followed by Low Evergreen Forest (UNIBIO, s.a.).

Causes of increased invasive species[edit]

Today the threat has increased and incidences of invasive plants in Mexico is caused by two factors.[27] Firstly, the increase of invasive plants is attributed to a parallel increase in disturbed areas in the country, caused by logging and a growing number of abandoned pastures. The second is the introduction of exotic species to the territory by human activity, either voluntarily or involuntarily. Of the exotic species in Mexico, only a small percentage becomes invasive, which occurs when the plant is a "free niche", or "a type of habitat that was not used by a native plant".[27]

Introduction of Eucalyptus globulus[edit]

Eucalyptus globulus

Eucalyptus globulus was introduced to Mexico for various reasons, one of which was as a strategy of "cleaning up" the valley of Mexico and reducing cases of Malaria.[28] Eucalyptus globulus was brought to Mexico since it had a history of being successfully employed for this kind of sanitation in Spain and Italy in the last third of the past century, as well as for its possible medical uses.[28]

The high distribution of Eucalyptus in Mexico dates from the 1990s, when the government of Mexico, along with large companies, promoted large-scale tree plantations in order to promote a domestic paper industry.[29] For these purposes, and because of its rapid growth, high adaptability, and quality of cellulose fibers,[29] plantations of several species of eucalyptus have been encouraged, including Eucalyptus globulus in Mexican territory.

The case of Eucalyptus globulus is a clear example of how human action contributed to the presence of invasive species in Mexico.[27] According to data produced by the UNIBIO Monitoring Network (s.a.), it is one of the 7 extremely invasive species in Mexico.

Invasive aquatic species[edit]

The ecosystems most affected by the presence of invasive marine species are islands and inland waters.[30][31] Freshwater ecosystems are very rich in plants and animals relative to the extent of the habitat. They can be considered the most threatened ecosystems in the world due to the much faster rate at which biodiversity is lost.[32]

By the end of the 19th century, 123 species had been declared extinct in North America. In reality many species of fish, mollusks, crustaceans and amphibians are considered threatened at some level, and it is calculated that half of freshwater mussels, a third of prawns, a fourth of amphibians and a fifth of fish will have disappeared by the year 2100.[33] Today approximately 39% of freshwater fish in the American continent are threatened to some degree, including 230 vulnerable species, 190 threatened, 280 in danger, and 61 extinct or removed from their natural habitat.[34] ¨Biological invasions are so extensive in the marine environment that only 16% of the marine eco-regions of the world have no report of invasive species¨ (Molnar et al., 2008)[This quote needs a citation]. The ecological impacts depend on the type of species, the magnitude of the invasion, and the vulnerability of the invaded ecosystem.[35] Loss and degradation of biodiversity can occur from a genetic level to a systemic one, causing alterations to habitats, fundamental ecological properties of the ecosystem, chemical characteristics of the water, biogeochemical processes, and trophic nets.[36][37] These impacts vary in the time lapse between the initial introduction and the subsequent dispersion of the invasive species, the severity of the impact, feasibility of synergistic interactions with other threatening processes and the potential for starting a cascade of ramifications in the whole ecosystem.[38]

Oftentimes invasive species increase rapidly because of the absence of natural predators, which leads to a loss of native species.[39] They have caused the extinction of 48-62% of the species of fish in the world (Pimentel et al., 2000). In Mexico, of 506 species of freshwater fish, 169 are at risk and 25 are extinct.[40] The states most affected are Nuevo León and Coahuila, and the principal causes are the reduction or alteration of habitat, loss of water, and introduction of foreign species.[40] On occasion, foreign species are introduced by the government. In Mexico, carp and tilapia were introduced by the Secretary of Fishing (;[41] Contreras Balderas, 1999). In addition to the danger they pose to native fauna, these species bring impacts on the structure and function of the ecosystem. The registry of coypu (Myocastor coypus) in the Bravo River, the same species that has caused damage to the agriculture and riverbeds of the rivers in Italy, reaches 2.8 million dollars each year.[42] Some invasive species can distinctly affect fisheries, as with lampreys,[43] the control of which caused losses of more than 500 million dollars per year.[44] The Salvinia molesta and the water lily (Eichhornia crassipes) can impede navigation.[45]

Some invasive species bring sanitary problems to human health. Species that are pathogens or parasites that cause direct harm, or that act as carriers for such species, can have serious consequences. Pathogen carriers are species like the snail Melanoides tuberculata, which has displaced native species in Nuevo León (Contreras-Arquieta y Contreras-Balderas, 1999).[46] Due to its high reproductive potential (as a parthenogenic species), it modifies the conditions of the habitat, and it carries trematoda such as Clonorchis sinensis, a parasite that can damage the human liver. Pathogens that cause direct harm include the harmful algal bloom (HAB) and the red tides that have intensified in frequency and duration in aquatic environments across the world.[47] The proliferation of HABs creates dead zones that use up all available oxygen. Certain species even produce toxins that damage the digestive and nervous systems of humans and many animals.[48] For example, lionfish (Pterois volitans and Pterois miles) are predators that affect species of fish and invertebrates in reefs and mangrove swamps of the Gulf of Mexico, such as the grouper and the northern red snapper that are of great economic importance. These species of lionfish are also venomous, making them dangerous to many species including humans.[49]

The displacement of native charal (genus chirostoma) by two species of centralized foreign invaders, the black bass (Micropterus salmoides) and the bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), is the subject of a case study on prey in the Bravo Valley, State of Mexico. Fish of the family Atherinopsidae and genus chirostoma are known as charal and silversides. Charal are a small fish while silversides are much larger (up to 20 cm). All chirostoma are endemic to the Mexican plateaus and are freshwater species.[50] It is estimated that 18 to 20 species and various subspecies exist in the central mesa of Mexico.[51] Charal have economic, cultural and environmental importance for Mexicans. They have been consumed in this area since pre-Spanish times,[52] but are noticeably shrinking in the last decades, as overexploitation of bodies of water, overfishing, and the introduction of foreign species such as the black bass and bluegill are permitted in their habitats.[53]

In reality charal are in danger of extinction from a conjunction of factors. Since 1900 the extent of lakes in central Mexico has notably decreased, degrading habitats (Alcocer y Escobar 1996). High demand has caused overfishing, excessive exploitation has focused on all classes and sizes.[54] Species introduced in freshwater systems exert pressure on other species.[55] Native species are displaced by direct competition, predators, transmission of illnesses, modification of the habitat and trophic alterations to the community.[56]

The black bass is considered one of the top 100 most damaging invasive species, targeting native species of small fish as prey and resulting in the decline of populations or even their extinction.[57] The black bass and the bluegill coexist in their natural distribution as predator and prey in Mexico and both have been introduced in bodies of water inhabited by charal (Lacepède, 1802 y Lepomis machrochirus, Rafinesque, 1819). When the black bass reaches 120 mm it preys upon the charal. In the reservoir of Bravo Valley, smaller bass and bluegills eat the same food as the charal, and with the rate at which the bass grows, the charal becomes their main diet. Although the bass and bluegill play a predator-prey role elsewhere, the black bass prefers other species that are not prepared to face it, as is the case with the charal (Gallardo-Torres. et al., s/a). Therefore, charal have been hunted intensely by the black bass while having to face the competition of the bluegill to obtain food, which has led to a noticeable dwindling of their population.

One of the principal forms in which invasive aquatic species are introduced is the ballast water of boats.[58] The ballast water is contained in tanks within boats with the purpose of stabilizing the ship during a voyage. This water is later unloaded by the boat before arriving at its destination. Experts agree that 10 to 14 billion tons of ballast water are transferred from one place to another and around 7,000 species are transported every day.[59] Numerous experts believe that the ballast water used in voyages is key to the introduction of these species globally.[60]

Public policies for control and management[edit]

The States utilize diverse mediums toward the creation of specialized legislation, environmental institutions, and global strategies, toward the celebration of an accordance or national conventions.[61]

Legislation and international standards[edit]

Within the international context there has been a series of accords signed that bring to light the prospects of invasive species. On one side is the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 1993), and its derivative the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (2003), which were not signed by the United States. On the other side, within the background of the CBD, is the International Plant Protection Convention, administered by the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, 1983). The Convention on Wetlands signed in Ramsar, Iran, in 1971. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES, 1992). The Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures from the World Trade Organization. The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments was adopted in 2004 by the International Maritime Organization and defines in Article 1 the management of ballast water. In North America the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation is relevant, derived from the parallel environmental agreement of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which is important in promoting the investigation and development of inventories of invasive species, in the generation of directives for risk analysis of aquatic invasive species, as with the analysis of paths of invasion (CCA, 2013).

There exists a diversity of legal instruments for health, natural resources, or environments, of organic and fiscal character, from which some can contribute to resolving the problem of invasive species in the legal field with the essential participation of non-governmental participants.[62] Nevertheless, there also exist two great legislations that construct the international status quo:

  • The European Union (commission of European communities, 2008) has a number of directives such as the Directive of Plant Health (2000/29/CE) charged with the prevention of the introduction of invasive species; directives about protection of nature (79/409/CEE and 92/43/CEE) that prohibit the introduction of species that could constitute a threat to indigenous species; the directive setting the framework for water (2000/60/CE) that calls for the member states to maintain a good ecological state in the waters to which it applies; and the directive setting the framework for marine strategy (2008/56/CE). It has a veterinary legislation that can apply to the vectors of illness in animals. There also exists a law about the commerce of wild fauna and flora (CE) advice number 338/97, the law (CE) advice number 708/2007 about the use of exotic species. In addition the LIFE Program provides help to projects for the control and eradication of invasive species.
  • The Convention on Biological Diversity has established priorities and directives, recompiled information, and helped coordinate international actions related to foreign invasive species. It is governed through these guiding principles:[63]

A. General

  1. focus on precaution
  2. hierarchic focus in 3 steps
  3. focus on ecosystems
  4. responsibility of the state
  5. investigation and supervision
  6. education and public consciousness

B. Prevention

  1. border control and quarantine measures
  2. information exchange
  3. cooperation, including the creation of capacity

C. Introduction of Species

  1. deliberate introduction
  2. involuntary introduction

D. Reducing Impact

  1. reducing impact
  2. eradication
  3. contention
  4. control

Mexican legislation[edit]

International treaties celebrated by Mexico in agreement with the Constitution are signed by the executive, approved by the Senate, and published in the Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF), the Official Journal of the Federation, which along with the Constitution and the federal laws is the Supreme Law of the Union. They have full force and can be applied directly to the interior rights of the country (Segob 2014: art. 133 y 76 en Herrera, et al., 2014).

The institutional federal view on the topic of invasive species in Mexico consists of: SAGARPA (the Secretariat of Agriculture and Fisheries) through General Coordination of Livestock, Undersecretary of Agriculture and Undersecretary of Rural Development, SINASICA, CONAPESCA (the National Aquaculture and Fishing Commission), Inapesca (a division of SAGARPA), and INIFAP, the Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias (National Institution of Forest, Agriculture, and Fish Investigations). SEMARNAT (the Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources) works alongside the DGVS, DGGFS and DGIRA, CONAFOR, INECC, CONANP, PROFEPA and CONABIO.

Other dependencies with direct participation in the topic are the Secretary of Communication and Transportation, the Secretary of National Defense, and the Secretary of the Marine.

Mexican legislation comprises a series of legal instruments related to invasive species: the Federal Law of Animal Health, the Federal Law of Plant Health, the General Law of Ecologic Equilibrium and Environmental Protection, the General Law of Wildlife, the General Law of Federal Development, the General Law of Fish and Sustainable Aquaculture, and the Law of Biosecurity of Genetically Modified Organisms. Since 2010 the Mexican government has promoted the National Strategy of Invasive Species, which provided a guide for different social actors to confront invasive species, although barely consolidating the strength to monitor the goals and achievements it raised,[64] since within the components of the National Strategy emerging factors such as hybridization and climate change still have not been considered.

Within the given strategies, CONABIO has established the Invasive Species Program, which represents a national database on the foreign species with invasive potential, as much for those that are established as those that have yet to settle and represent a risk to the country.[65]

Combating invasive aquatic species[edit]

Invasive aquatic species are considered an important challenge because of their destructive capacity and negative effect on biological diversity, particularly in the marine world. International law, through international agreements and global institutional strategies, searches to lessen this problem.[61]

National, regional, and international organisms combine efforts to carry out the application of the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments adopted in 2004,[66] that to date has been ratified by 30 countries. This represents only 35% of the global fleet. Its ratification would facilitate prevention with respect to the organisms introduced as stowaways in the body or ballast water of ships.[62]

The International Accords treat the challenge of invasive aquatic species in parts, which occasionally overlap. Even if the international strategies of the CCA, the code FAO, and the UICN represent important efforts and have the potential to direct the United States and support them, technically to identify and combat invasive aquatic species, they lack obligation.[61]

With respect to the implementation of the CBD toward invasive aquatic species, in the last report Mexico indicated that a group of intersectoral work had been formed to address the topic. In addition, it demonstrated that they were working on a program to identify the marine and coastal species. The fourth Mexican national report (CONABIO and Semarnat 2009) also informed that they had identified a total of 811 species, including vascular and terrestrial plants with invasive potential as well as aquatic and marine plants. This figure could be underestimated.[61]

With respect to the impact of regional efforts in North America in the forum of the CCA, these are not centered specifically on controlling and combating aquatic invasive species. However, it has taken directives for the evaluation of risk of foreign aquatic invasive species, with the objective to serve as support in high level decisions of each member country of the agreement, essentially focused on reverting the complication that brought invasive species into the aquatic ecosystem.

Between the normative adjustments that could serve to enforce and harmonize the most relevant provisions of force to attend to the problem of invasive species in an aquatic environment is the publication of a secretarial accord with the list of foreign invasive species predicted in the General Law of Wildlife, as in the elaboration of a draft of secretarial accord for the formalization and organization of work in a technical committee, for publication in the official journal of the federation.

References[edit]

  1. ^ Naranjo, Eduardo J; Dirzo, Rodolfo (2009). "5: Impacto de los factores antropogénicos de afectación directa a las poblaciones silvestres de flora y fauna". Capital natural de México, vol. II: Estado de conservación y tendencias de cambio (PDF) (in Spanish). Mexico: Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO). pp. 247–276. Retrieved 2017-02-04.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Estrategia nacional sobre especies invasoras en México, prevención, control y erradicación (PDF). Mexico: Comité Asesor Nacional sobre Especies Invasoras. 2010.
  3. ^ Bax, N.; Carlton, J. T.; Mathews-Amos, A.; Haedrich, R. L.; Howarth, F. G.; Purcell, J. E.; Rieser, A.; Gray, A. (20 October 2001). "The control of biological invasions in the world's oceans". Conservation Biology. 15 (5): 1234–1246. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2001.99487.x.
  4. ^ Winfield, Ignacio; Cházaro-Olvera, Sergio; Ortiz, Manuel; Palomo-Aguayo, Ulíses (December 2011). "Updated checklist of marine invasive species of amphipods (Peracarida: Gammaridea and Corophiidea) from Mexico". Revista de biología marina y oceanografía (in Spanish). 46 (3): 349–361. doi:10.4067/S0718-19572011000300006.
  5. ^ Exotic Invasive Species. Fourth Meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice. Montreal: International Union for Conservation of Nature (ICUN). 1999.
  6. ^ Espinosa-García, Francisco J.; Villaseñor, José Luis; Vibrans, Heike (2009). "Mexico: Biodiversity, distribution, and possible economic impact of exotic weeds". In Van Devender, Thomas R.; Espinosa-García, Francisco J.; Harper-Lore, Bonnie L.; Hubbard, Tani. Invasive plants on the vove: Controlling them in North America. Based on presentations from Weeds Across Borders 2006 Conference (PDF). Tucson, Arizona: Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum. pp. 43–52. Retrieved 2017-01-29.
  7. ^ Trevino, Heather S.; Skibiel, Amy L.; Karels, Tim J.; Dobson, F. Stephen (February 2007). "Threats to avifauna on oceanic islands". Conservation Biology. 21 (1): 125–132. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00581.x.
  8. ^ a b Aguirre Muñoz, Alfonso; Mendoza Alfaro, Roberto (2009). "6: Especies exóticas invasoras: impactos sobre las poblaciones de flora y fauna, los procesos ecológicos y la economía". Capital natural de México, vol. II: Estado de conservación y tendencias de cambio (PDF) (in Spanish). Mexico: Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO). pp. 277–318. Retrieved 2017-01-29.
  9. ^ Baillie, Jonathan E. M.; Hilton-Taylor, Craig; Stuart, Simon N. (2004). 2004 IUCN red list of threatened species: a global species assessment. Cambridge: International union for conservation of nature and natural resources. ISBN 9782831708263.
  10. ^ Aguirre-Muñoz, A; Croll, DA; Donlan, CJ; Henry RW, 3rd; Hermosillo, MA; Howald, GR; Keitt, BS; Luna-Mendoza, L; Rodríguez-Malagón, M; Salas-Flores, LM; Samaniego-Herrera, A; Sanchez-Pacheco, JA; Sheppard, J; Tershy, BR; Toro-Benito, J; Wolf, S; Wood, B (March 2008). "High-impact conservation: invasive mammal eradications from the islands of western México" (PDF). Ambio. 37 (2): 101–7. doi:10.1579/0044-7447(2008)37[101:hcimef]2.0.co;2. PMID 18488552. Retrieved 2017-01-29.
  11. ^ Hubbs, Carl L.; Jehl, Joseph R. (1976). "Remains of Pleistocene birds from Isla Guadalupe, México" (PDF). Condor. 78 (3): 421–422. doi:10.2307/1367711.
  12. ^ Jehl, J R; Everett, W T (1985). "History and status of the avifauna of Isla-Guadalupe Mexico". Transactions of the San Diego Society of Natural History. 20: 313–336. doi:10.5962/bhl.part.29009.
  13. ^ Pilsbry, H. A. (1927). Expedition to Guadalupe Island, Mexico, in 1922: Land and Freshwater Mollusks.
  14. ^ Aguirre-Muñoz, A; Samaniego-Herrera, A; Luna-Mendoza, L; Ortiz-Alcaraz, A; Rodríguez-Malagón, M; Méndez-Sánchez, F; Félix-Lizárraga, M; Hernández-Montoya, JC; González-Gómez, R; Torres-García, F; Barredo-Barberena, JM; Latofski-Robles, M. "Island restoration in Mexico: ecological outcomes after systematic eradications of invasive mammals". Island invasives: eradication and management (PDF). Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. pp. 250–258.
  15. ^ a b McChesney, Gerard J.; Tershy, Bernie R. (1998). "History and status of introduced mammals and impacts to breeding seabirds on the California Channel and Northwestern Baja California Islands". Colonial Waterbirds. 21 (3): 335–347. doi:10.2307/1521646.
  16. ^ Howell, SNG; Webb, S (1995). A guide to the birds of Mexico and Northern Central America. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780198540120.
  17. ^ a b Morales, CL (2007). "[Introduction of no native bumblebees (Bombus): causes, ecological consequences and perspectives] Introducción de abejorros (Bombus) no nativos: causas, consecuencias ecológicas y perspectivas" (PDF). Ecología austral (in Spanish). 17 (1): 51–65. ISSN 1667-782X.
  18. ^ a b Schmidt Ballardo, W; Mendoza Quijano, F; Martinez Solis, ME (1996). "Range extensions for Hemidactylus frenatus in Mexico". Herpetological Review. 27 (1): 40.
  19. ^ Alvares et al. (2008). Animales exóticos en México: una amenaza para la biodiversidad. Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad, 12, 41, 277- 280 Revisado en: http://www2.inecc.gob.mx/publicaciones/download/590.pdf
  20. ^ Bruening, S (2001). "Rana catesbeiana". The Animal Diversity Web, The Regents of the University of Michigan. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology.
  21. ^ Casas Andreu, G; Aguilar Miguel, X; Cruz Aviña, R (2001). "The introduction and cultivation of the Bullfrog (Rana Catesbeiana): An attack on the biodiversity of Mexico? La introducción y el cultivo de la rana toro (Rana catesbeiana). ¿Un atentado a la biodiversidad de México?". CIENCIA ergo-sum (in Spanish). 8 (1): 62–67. ISSN 1405-0269.
  22. ^ Mellink, E; Ferreira-Bartrina, V (1 January 2000). "On the wildlife of wetlands of the Mexican portion of the Rio Colorado Delta". Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences. 99 (3): 115–127.
  23. ^ Moyle, PB (1 January 1973). "Effects of introduced bullfrogs, Rana catesbeiana, on the native frogs of the San Joaquin Valley, California". Copeia. 1973 (1): 18–22. doi:10.2307/1442351. JSTOR 1442351.
  24. ^ "Global invasive species database". Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG). 2005.
  25. ^ a b Lavín Murcio, PA; Lazcano Villarreal, D; Gadsden Esparza, H (2014). "Chapter 26: Anifibios y reptiles exóticos y traslocados invasores". Especies acuáticas invasoras en México (PDF) (in Spanish). Mexico: Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad. pp. 435–441.
  26. ^ a b c d Mehltreter, K. "Plantas invasoras: la nueva amenaza". INECOL: Instituto de Ecología.
  27. ^ a b Hinke, Nina (April 2000). "La llegada del eucalipto a México". Ciencias (in Spanish). 58: 60–62.
  28. ^ a b Ceccon, E; Martínez-Ramos, M (November 1999). "Aspectos Ambientales Referentes Al Establecimiento De Plantaciones De Eucalipto De Gran Escala En Áreas Tropicales: Aplicación Al Caso De México" (PDF). Interciencia. 24 (6): 352–359.
  29. ^ Fuller, PL; Nico, LG; Williams, JD, eds. (1999). Nonindigenous fishes introduced into inland waters of the United States. Bethesda, Md.: American Fisheries Society. ISBN 9781888569148.
  30. ^ Harrison, IJ; Stiassny, MLJ (1999). "Chapter 12: The quiet crisis: A preliminary listing of the freshwater fishes of the world that are extinct or "missing in action"". Extinctions in near time causes, contexts, and consequences. Boston, MA: Springer US. pp. 271–331. ISBN 9781475752021.
  31. ^ Dudgeon, David (January 1986). "The life cycle, population dynamics and productivity of Melanoides tuberculata (Muller, 1774) (Gastropoda: Prosobranchia: Thiaridae) in Hong Kong". Journal of Zoology. 208 (1): 37–53. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7998.1986.tb04707.x.
  32. ^ Master, L; Flack, SR; Stein, BA, eds. (1998). Rivers of Life: Critical Watersheds for Protecting Freshwater Biodiversity. Arlington, Virginia: The Nature Conservancy.
  33. ^ Jelks, HL; Walsh, SJ; Burkhead, NM; Contreras-Balderas, S; Diaz-Pardo, E; Hendrickson, DA; Lyons, J; Mandrak, NE; McCormick, F; Nelson, JS; Platania, SP; Porter, BA; Renaud, CB; Schmitter-Soto, JJ; Taylor, EB; Warren, ML (August 2008). "Conservation satus of imperiled North American freshwater and diadromous fishes". Fisheries. 33 (8): 372–407. doi:10.1577/1548-8446-33.8.372.
  34. ^ Ciruna, K., L. Meyerson y A. Gutiérrez. 2004. The ecological and socio-economic impacts of invasive alien species in inland water ecosystems. Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity on behalf of the Global Invasive Species Programme, Washington.
  35. ^ Simon, KS; Townsend, CR (June 2003). "Impacts of freshwater invaders at different levels of ecological organisation, with emphasis on salmonids and ecosystem consequences". Freshwater Biology. 48 (6): 982–994. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2427.2003.01069.x.
  36. ^ Dukes, Jeffrey S.; Mooney, Harold A. (September 2004). "Disruption of ecosystem processes in western North America by invasive species". Revista chilena de historia natural. 77 (3): 411–437. doi:10.4067/S0716-078X2004000300003.
  37. ^ Levine, J. M. (5 May 2000). "Species diversity and biological invasions: Relating local process to community pattern". Science. 288 (5467): 852–854. doi:10.1126/science.288.5467.852.
  38. ^ Stewart, James E. (1991). "Introductions as factors in diseases of fish and aquatic invertebrates". Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 48 (S1): 110–117. doi:10.1139/f91-309.
  39. ^ a b Contreras-Balderas, Salvador; Ludlow, Ana (2003). "Hemichromis guttatus Günther 1862 (Pisces: Cichlidae), nueva introducción en México". Vertebrata Mexicana (in Spanish). 12: 1–5.
  40. ^ Contreras-Balderas, Salvador; Escalante-C., Marco A. (1984). "Chapter 6: Distribution and known impacts of exotic fishes in Mexico". In Courtenay, Walter R.; Stauffer, Jay R. Distribution, biology, and management of exotic fishes. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. pp. 102–130. ISBN 9780801830372.
  41. ^ Panzacchi, Manuela; Cocchi, Roberto; Genovesi, Piero; Bertolino, Sandro (June 2007). "Population control of coypu Myocastor coypus in Italy compared to eradication in UK: a cost-benefit analysis". Wildlife Biology. 13 (2): 159–171. doi:10.2981/0909-6396(2007)13[159:PCOCMC]2.0.CO;2.
  42. ^ Lupi, F; Hoehn, JP; Christie, GC (January 2003). "Using an economic model of recreational fishing to evaluate the benefits of sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) control on the St. Marys river". Journal of Great Lakes Research. 29: 742–754. doi:10.1016/S0380-1330(03)70528-0.
  43. ^ Spaulding, WM, Jr; McPhee, RJ (28 November 1989). "An analysis of the economic contribution of the Great Lakes Sea Lamprey Program". The report of the evaluation of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission by the Bi-National evaluation team, volume 2. Twin Cities MN: US Fish and Wildlife Service.
  44. ^ Oliver, JD (1993). "A review of the biology of Giant Salvinia (Salvinia molesta Mitchell)". Journal of Aquatic Plant Management. 31: 227–231.
  45. ^ Facon, B.; Pointier, J.-P.; Glaubrecht, M.; Poux, C.; Jarne, P.; David, P. (2003). "A molecular phylogeography approach to biological invasions of the New World by parthenogenetic Thiarid snails". Molecular Ecology. 12 (11): 3027–3039. doi:10.1046/j.1365-294X.2003.01972.x. PMID 14629383.
  46. ^ Moore, SK; Trainer, VL; Mantua, NJ; Parker, MS; Laws, EA; Backer, LC; Fleming, LE (2008). "Impacts of climate variability and future climate change on harmful algal blooms and human health". Environmental Health. 7 (Suppl 2): S4. doi:10.1186/1476-069X-7-S2-S4. PMC 2586717. PMID 19025675.
  47. ^ Glibert, Patricia; Anderson, Donald; Gentien, Patrick; Granéli, Edna; Sellner, Kevin (1 June 2005). "The global, complex phenomena of harmful algal blooms". Oceanography. 18 (2): 136–147. doi:10.5670/oceanog.2005.49.
  48. ^ Morris, JA, Jr.; Whitfield, PE (December 2009). Biology, Ecology, Control and Management of the Invasive Indo-Pacific Lionfish: An Updated Integrated Assessment. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 99 (PDF). North Carolina: NOAA, National Ocean Service, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research.
  49. ^ Barbour, Clyde D. (28 August 1973). "A biogeographical history of Chirostoma (Pisces: Atherinidae): A species flock from the Mexican Plateau". Copeia. 1973 (3): 533–556. doi:10.2307/1443118. JSTOR 1443118.
  50. ^ Bloom, Devin D.; Piller, Kyle R.; Lyons, John; Mercado-Silva, Norman; Medina-Nava, Martina (1 January 2009). "Systematics and biogeography of the Silverside Tribe Menidiini (Teleostomi: Atherinopsidae) based on the mitochondrial ND2 gene". Copeia. 2009 (2): 408–417. doi:10.1643/ci-07-151. JSTOR 25512241.
  51. ^ Rojas Carrillo, PM; Sasso Yada, LF (10 August 2005). "El pescado blanco" (PDF). Revista Digital Universitaria (in Spanish). 6 (8).
  52. ^ de la Vega Salazar, Marina Yolanda (2003). "Situación de los peces dulceacuícolas en México - Revista Ciencias". Ciencias (in Spanish). 72: 20–30.
  53. ^ Martínez Palacios, CA; Ríos-Durán, MG; Campos Mendoza, A; Toledo Cuevas, M; Ross, LG (3 September 2002). "Avances en el cultivo del pescado blanco de Pátzcuaro Chirostoma estor estor" (PDF). In Cruz-Suárez, LE; Ricque-Marie, D; Tapia-Salazar, M; MG, Gaxiola-Cortés; N, Simoes. Avances en Nutrición Acuícola VI. Memorias del VI Simposium Internacional de Nutrición Acuícola (in Spanish). Cancún, Quintana Roo, México. pp. 336–351.
  54. ^ Contreras Balderas, S., R. Mendoza Alfaro y C. Ramírez Martínez (2008). Distribución espacial de las especies de peces. En: J. Soberón, G. Halffter y J. Llorente-Bousquets (comps.). Capital natural de México Vol. I Conocimiento actual de la biodiversidad. J. Sarukhán (coord. gral.). Conabio, México, pp. 323–364
  55. ^ Torres-Orozco Bermeo, Roberto E.; Pérez-Hernández, Marco Aurelio (2011). "Los peces de México: una riqueza amenazada". Revista Digital Universitaria (in Spanish). 12 (1). ISSN 1607-6079. Retrieved 2017-02-06.
  56. ^ Kerr, SJ; Grant, RE (2000). Ecological impacts of fish introductions: evaluating the risk. Peterborough, ON: Fish and Wildlife Branch, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. ISBN 0777893169.
  57. ^ O'Sullivan, EG, ed. (2010). Ballast water management: combating aquatic invaders. New York: Nova Science Publishers. ISBN 9781617280009.
  58. ^ Lawal, SA (2011). Ballast water management convention, 2004: Towards combating unintentional transfer of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens (Master of Laws). Dalhousie University Halifax, Nova Scotia.
  59. ^ Bergmans, W. y E. Blom. (2001). Invasive plants and animals: is there a way out? Proceedings of a Conference on Alien Invasive Species on the 26th of September, 2000 in the National Museum of Natural History Naturalis in Leiden, Holanda, 80 pp.
  60. ^ a b c d Herrera Izaguirre, Juan Antonio; Escobedo Carreón, Ramiro; Reyes Monsivais, Demetrio (2014). "La invasión silenciosa: contribuciones del derecho internacional al combate de las especies invasoras acuáticas" [The silent invasion: contributions of the international law to the combat against aquatic invasive species]. In Low Pfeng, Antonio M.; Quijón, Pedro A.; Peters Recagno, Edward M. Especies invasoras acuáticas: casos de estudio en ecosistemas de México [Aquatic invasive species: study cases in Mexican ecosystems] (in Spanish). Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Ecología y Cambio Climático - Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (INECC-Semarnat). pp. 199–230. ISBN 978-1-304-90189-7.
  61. ^ a b Ortiz Monasterio Quintana, Ana (2014). "Chapter 10: Gestión de las especies exóticas invasoras: análisis de la legislación mexicana". In Mendoza, R; Koleff, P. Especies acuáticas invasoras en México (PDF) (in Spanish). Mexico: Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad. pp. 169–184.
  62. ^ Álvarez Torres, Porfirio (2014). "9: Legislación y marco normativo internacional". Especies acuáticas invasoras en México (PDF) (in Spanish). Mexico: Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO). pp. 157–168. Retrieved 2017-02-04.
  63. ^ Mendoza Alfaro, R; Koleff Osorio, P; Espinosa-García, F; Golubov Figueroa, J (2014). "La estrategia nacional de especies invasoras". In Mendoza, R; Koleff, P. Especies acuáticas invasoras en México (in Spanish). Mexico: Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad. pp. 185–207. ISBN 9786078328048.
  64. ^ Sarukhán, J, ed. (2009). Capital natural de Mexico Sintesis conocimiento actual, evaluacion y perspectivas de sustentabilidad. Mexico: Comision Nacional par el Conocimieinto y Uso de la Biodiversidad. pp. 71–73. ISBN 9786077607090.
  65. ^ "International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments (BWM)". IMO: International Maritime Organization. 2004.
  • Animales exóticos en México: una amenaza para la biodiversidad. Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad, 2008. Revisado en: http://www2.inecc.gob.mx/publicaciones/download/590.pdf
  • Bringsøe, H. (2006). NOBANIS–Invasive alien species fact sheet–Trachemys scripta. From: Online Database of the North European and Baltic Network on Invasive Alien Species–NOBANIS www. nobanis. org, Last view, 1(09), 2008.
  • Capital natural de México (2008) Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad.
  • CCA. (2013). Especies exóticas invasoras, Comisión de Cooperación Ambiental de América del Norte. Revisado en: www. cec.org/Page.asp?PageID=122&ContentID=25011&SiteNodeI D=600&AA_SiteLanguageID=3
  • CDB. (1993). Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica. Publicado en el DOF el 7 de mayo de 1993. Revisado en: www.cbd.int/ doc/legal/cbd-es.pdf
  • CDB. (2009). Conferencia de las Partes COP 6, Decisión VI/23: Especies exóticas que amenazan a los ecosistemas, los hábitats o las especies. Convenio sobre Diversidad Biológica. Revisado en: www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=7197
  • CICGALSB. (2007). Convenio Internacional para el Control y la Gestión del Agua de Lastre y los Sedimentos de los Buques. Aprobación del Senado publicada en el DOF el 18 de diciembre de 2007. Revisado en: www.cep.unep.org/meetings- events/11th-igm/bw-convention-spanish.pdf
  • CITES. (1992). Convención sobre el Comercio Internacional de Especies Amenazadas de Fauna y Flora Silvestres. Publicada en el DOF el 6 de marzo de 1992. Revisado en: www.cites.org/ esp/disc/text.php
  • CNUDM. (1983). Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar. Publicada en el DOF el 1 de junio de 1983.
  • CONABIO (2009). Sistema de Información sobre Especies Invasoras. Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad. Revisado en: www.biodiversidad.gob.mx
  • Conabio. (2015). Sistema de información sobre especies invasoras en México. Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad. Revisado en: http://www.biodiversidad.gob.mx/especies/Invasoras/pdf/Plantas.pdf
  • Contreras Balderas, S. (1999)a. Acuacultura, ictiodiversidad, transfaunación acuática y peces en riesgo en México. Memorias de la IV Reunión Nacional de Redes en Acuacultura. Cuernavaca, Morelos, 19 al 21 de Octubre de 1999.
  • Contreras Balderas, S. (1999)b. Annotated checklist of introduced invasive fishes in Mexico, with examples of some recent introductions, en C.R. Leach (ed.), Nonindigenous freshwater organisms: Vectors, biology, and impacts. Boca Ratón, FL, Lewis Publishers.
  • CR. (1986). Convención Relativa a los Humedales de Importancia Internacional Especialmente como Hábitat de Aves Acuáticas (Convención de Ramsar). Publicada en el DOF 29 August 1986. Últimas emmiendas publicadas 28 January 1993. Revisado en: <www.ramsar.org/cda/es/ramsar-documents-texts-convention-on/main/ramsar/1-31-38%5E20671_4000_2> D.O.F. (Diario Oficial de la Federación). (2007). Convenio Internacional para el Control y la Gestión del Agua de Lastre y los Sedimentos de los Buques (CICGALySB) de 2004, publicado 18 December.
  • Gallardo-Torres Alfredo, Badillo-Alemán Maribel, Merino-Ibarra Martín y Chiappa-Carrara Xavier. Desplazamiento de los charales nativos (género Chirostoma) por dos especies de centrárquidos exóticos invasores, la lobina negra (Micropterus salmoides) y la mojarra de agallas azules (Lepomis macrochirus): Un estudio de caso en la presa Valle de Bravo, Estado de México. sin año. Recuperado in the book Low Pfeng, AM; Quijón, PA; Peters Recagno, EM, eds. (2014). Especies invasoras acuáticas: casos de estudio en ecosistemas de México. Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (Semarnat), Instituto Nacional de Ecología y Cambio Climático (INECC), University of Prince Edward Island (UPEI). ISBN 9781304901897.
  • Mendoza Alfaro, R; Koleff Osorio, P, eds. (2014). Especies acuáticas invasoras en México (in Spanish). Mexico: CONABIO: Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad. ISBN 9786078328048.
  • Miriam Guadalupe, Mora Pérez (2005). "Biología reproductiva del coral Porites panamensis Verrill 1866 (Anthozoa: Scleractinia), en Bahía de La Paz, Baja California Sur, México" (in Spanish). Retrieved 2017-11-15.
  • Cartagena protocol on biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity: Text and annexes. Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Secretaría del Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica. 2000. ISBN 9280719246.
  • Rebman, J. P., & Moran, R. (1997). The Flora of Guadalupe Island, Mexico. Memoirs of the California Academy of Sciences. No. 19.
  • Reporte Temático de México. (2000). Sobre la implementación del Artículo 8 (h) sobre especies invasoras del Convenio de las Naciones Unidas sobre la Diversidad Biológica (CDB). Del 28 de septiembre. Revisado en: http://www.cbd.int/doc/world/mx/ mx-nr-ais-es.pdf. Consultado el 3 de julio de 2014.
  • UNIBIO. (S.a.) Monitoreo del estado de las invasiones biológicas de plantas en México. Revisado en: http://www.unibio.unam.mx/invasoras/

Further reading[edit]