Abstract
The early identification of future invasive species is crucial for efficient management and preventing further biodiversity decline. Some general predictors of species’ invasiveness, such as association with humans, propagule pressure and particular species’ characteristics, are well established. However, obtaining these predictors can be costly and time-consuming, with varying predictive power across taxonomic groups and geographic contexts. To find general predictors of species’ invasion potential that are straightforward to collect for large groups of species, a recent idea suggests the use of macroevolutionary indicators, such as diversification, niche evolution and past dispersal rates. These macroevolutionary rates are proposed as proxies for characteristics linked to invasion potential, such as ecological niche breadth, evolutionary capacity, or competitive ability. However, this assumption is rarely tested, which is why it is uncertain whether macroevolutionary indicators can serve as reliable predictors of invasion success. Here, we first identify the assumptions made in studies that link macroevolutionary rates to current invasions. Second, we review the literature to evaluate which of these assumptions are supported by scientific evidence. Third, we test whether past biogeographic dispersal ability is a good proxy for current naturalisation success in 12 groups of tetrapods. We conclude that macroevolutionary indicators have substantial potential for predicting species’ future invasiveness. However, assumptions about the relationships between macroevolutionary indicators and species’ traits must be rigorously tested. Further, different invasion pathways (e.g. unintentional vs intentional transport and introduction) and geographical contexts (e.g. continents vs islands) may introduce variability in any general relationships.