Search results

Human livelihoods and well-being in almost all regions of the world depend on taxa which are alien. Such taxa also, however, threaten human health, sustainable development, and biodiversity. Since it is not feasible or desirable to control all alien taxa, decision-makers increasingly rely on risk analyses to formalise the best available evidence of the threats posed and whether and how they can be managed. There are a variety of schemes available that consider the risks of alien taxa, but we argue a new framework is needed: 1) given major recent developments in international frameworks dealing with biological invasions (including the scoring of impacts); 2) so that decisions can be made consistently across taxa, regions and realms; 3) to explicitly set out uncertainties; and 4) to provide decision-makers with information both on the risks posed and on what can be done to mitigate or prevent impacts. Any such scheme must also be flexible enough to deal with constraints in capacity and information. Here we present a framework to address these points – the Risk Analysis for Alien Taxa (RAAT). It outlines a series of questions related to an alien taxon's likelihood of invasion, realised and potential impacts, and options for management. The framework provides a structure for collating relevant data from the published literature to support a robust, transparent process to list alien taxa under legislative and regulatory requirements, with the aim that it can be completed by a trained science graduate within a few days. The framework also provides a defensible process for developing recommendations for the management of assessed taxa. We trialled the framework in South Africa and outline the process followed and some of the taxa assessed to date.

Human livelihoods and well-being in almost all regions of the world depend on taxa which are alien. Such taxa also, however, threaten human health, sustainable development, and biodiversity. Since it is not feasible or desirable to control all alien taxa, decision-makers increasingly rely on risk analyses to formalise the best available evidence of the threats posed and whether and how they can be managed. There are a variety of schemes available that consider the risks of alien taxa, but we argue a new framework is needed: 1) given major recent developments in international frameworks dealing with biological invasions (including the scoring of impacts); 2) so that decisions can be made consistently across taxa, regions and realms; 3) to explicitly set out uncertainties; and 4) to provide decision-makers with information both on the risks posed and on what can be done to mitigate or prevent impacts. Any such scheme must also be flexible enough to deal with constraints in capacity and information. Here we present a framework to address these points – the Risk Analysis for Alien Taxa (RAAT). It outlines a series of questions related to an alien taxon's likelihood of invasion, realised and potential impacts, and options for management. The framework provides a structure for collating relevant data from the published literature to support a robust, transparent process to list alien taxa under legislative and regulatory requirements, with the aim that it can be completed by a trained science graduate within a few days. The framework also provides a defensible process for developing recommendations for the management of assessed taxa. We trialled the framework in South Africa and outline the process followed and some of the taxa assessed to date.

''One hundred worst'' lists of alien species of the greatest concern proved useful for raising awareness of the risks and impacts of biological invasions amongst the general public, politicians and stakeholders. All lists so far have been based on expert opinion and primarily aimed at representativeness of the taxonomic and habitat diversity rather than at quantifying the harm the alien species cause. We used the generic impact scoring system (GISS) to rank 486 alien species established in Europe from a wide range of taxonomic groups to identify those with the highest environmental and socioeconomic impact. GISS assigns 12 categories of impact, each quantified on a scale from 0 (no impact detectable) to 5 (the highest impact possible). We ranked species by their total sum of scores and by the number of the highest impact scores. We also compared the listing based on GISS with other expert-based lists of the ''worst'' invaders.We propose a list of 149 alien species, comprising 54 plants, 49 invertebrates, 40 vertebrates and 6 fungi. Among the highest ranking species are one bird (Branta canadensis), four mammals (Rattus norvegicus, Ondatra zibethicus, Cervus nippon, Muntiacus reevesi), one crayfish (Procambarus clarkii), one mite

''One hundred worst'' lists of alien species of the greatest concern proved useful for raising awareness of the risks and impacts of biological invasions amongst the general public, politicians and stakeholders. All lists so far have been based on expert opinion and primarily aimed at representativeness of the taxonomic and habitat diversity rather than at quantifying the harm the alien species cause. We used the generic impact scoring system (GISS) to rank 486 alien species established in Europe from a wide range of taxonomic groups to identify those with the highest environmental and socioeconomic impact. GISS assigns 12 categories of impact, each quantified on a scale from 0 (no impact detectable) to 5 (the highest impact possible). We ranked species by their total sum of scores and by the number of the highest impact scores. We also compared the listing based on GISS with other expert-based lists of the ''worst'' invaders. We propose a list of 149 alien species, comprising 54 plants, 49 invertebrates, 40 vertebrates and 6 fungi. Among the highest ranking species are one bird (Branta canadensis), four mammals (Rattus norvegicus, Ondatra zibethicus, Cervus nippon, Muntiacus reevesi), one crayfish (Procambarus clarkii), one mite(Varroa destructor), and four plants (Acacia dealbata, Lantana camara, Pueraria lobata, Eichhornia crassipes). In contrast to other existing expert-based ''worst'' lists, the GISS-based list given here highlights some alien species with high impacts that are not represented on any other list. The GISS provides an objective and transparent method to aid prioritization of alien species for management according to their impacts, applicable across taxa and habitats. Our ranking can also be used for justifying inclusion on lists such as the alien species of Union concern of the European Commission, and to fulfil Aichi target 9. ; Peer reviewed

The Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT) can be used to classify alien taxa according to the magnitude and type of their environmental impacts. The EICAT protocol, classifications of alien taxa using the protocol (EICAT classification) and the data underpinning classifications (EICAT data) are increasingly used by scientists and practitioners such as governments, NGOs and civil society for a variety of purposes. However, the properties of the EICAT protocol and the data it generates are not suitable for certain uses. Therefore, we present guidelines designed to clarify and facilitate the appropriate use of EICAT to tackle a broad range of conservation issues related to biological invasions, as well as to guide research and communication more generally. Here we address common misconceptions and give a brief overview of some key issues that all EICAT users need to be aware of to take maximal advantage of this resource. Furthermore, we give examples of the wide variety of ways in which the EICAT protocol, classifications and data can be and have been utilised and outline common errors and pitfalls to avoid.

The Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT) can be used to classify alien taxa according to the magnitude and type of their environmental impacts. The EICAT protocol, classifications of alien taxa using the protocol (EICAT classification) and the data underpinning classifications (EICAT data) are increasingly used by scientists and practitioners such as governments, NGOs and civil society for a variety of purposes. However, the properties of the EICAT protocol and the data it generates are not suitable for certain uses. Therefore, we present guidelines designed to clarify and facilitate the appropriate use of EICAT to tackle a broad range of conservation issues related to biological invasions, as well as to guide research and communication more generally. Here we address common misconceptions and give a brief overview of some key issues that all EICAT users need to be aware of to take maximal advantage of this resource. Furthermore, we give examples of the wide variety of ways in which the EICAT protocol, classifications and data can be and have been utilised and outline common errors and pitfalls to avoid.

The Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT) can be used to classify alien taxa according to the magnitude and type of their environmental impacts. The EICAT protocol, classifications of alien taxa using the protocol (EICAT classification) and the data underpinning classifications (EICAT data) are increasingly used by scientists and practitioners such as governments, NGOs and civil society for a variety of purposes. However, the properties of the EICAT protocol and the data it generates are not suitable for certain uses. Therefore, we present guidelines designed to clarify and facilitate the appropriate use of EICAT to tackle a broad range of conservation issues related to biological invasions, as well as to guide research and communication more generally. Here we address common misconceptions and give a brief overview of some key issues that all EICAT users need to be aware of to take maximal advantage of this resource. Furthermore, we give examples of the wide variety of ways in which the EICAT protocol, classifications and data can be and have been utilised and outline common errors and pitfalls to avoid.

The Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT) can be used to classify alien taxa according to the magnitude and type of their environmental impacts. The EICAT protocol, classifications of alien taxa using the protocol (EICAT classification) and the data underpinning classifications (EICAT data) are increasingly used by scientists and practitioners such as governments, NGOs and civil society for a variety of purposes. However, the properties of the EICAT protocol and the data it generates are not suitable for certain uses. Therefore, we present guidelines designed to clarify and facilitate the appropriate use of EICAT to tackle a broad range of conservation issues related to biological invasions, as well as to guide research and communication more generally. Here we address common misconceptions and give a brief overview of some key issues that all EICAT users need to be aware of to take maximal advantage of this resource. Furthermore, we give examples of the wide variety of ways in which the EICAT protocol, classifications and data can be and have been utilised and outline common errors and pitfalls to avoid.

The need to understand and manage biological invasions has driven the development of frameworks to circumscribe, classify, and elucidate aspects of the phenomenon. But how influential have these frameworks really been? To test this, we evaluated the impact of a pathway classification framework, a framework focussing on the introduction-naturalisation-invasion continuum, and two papers that outline an impact classification framework. We analysed how these framework papers are cited and by whom, conducted a survey to determine why people have cited the frameworks, and explored the degree to which the frameworks are implemented. The four papers outlining these frameworks are amongst the most-cited in their respective journals, are highly regarded in the field, and are already seen as citation classics (although citations are overwhelmingly within the field of invasion science). The number of citations to the frameworks has increased over time, and, while a significant proportion of these are self-citations (20–40%), this rate is decreasing. The frameworks were cited by studies conducted and authored by researchers from across the world. However, relative to a previous citation analysis of invasion science as a whole, the frameworks are particularly used in Europe and South Africa and less so in North America. There is an increasing number of examples of uptake into invasion policy and management (e.g., the pathway classification framework has been adapted and adopted into EU legislation and CBD targets, and the impact classification framework has been adopted by the IUCN). However, we found that few of the citing papers (6–8%) specifically implemented or interrogated the frameworks; roughly half of all citations might be viewed as frivolous ("citation fluff"); there were several clear cases of erroneous citation; and some survey respondents felt that they have not been rigorously tested yet. Although our analyses suggest that invasion science is moving towards a more systematic and standardised approach to recording invasions and their impacts, it appears that the proposed standards are still not applied consistently. For this to be achieved, we argue that frameworks in invasion science need to be revised or adapted to particular contexts in response to the needs and experiences of users (e.g., so they are relevant to pathologists, plant ecologists, and practitioners), the standards should be easier to apply in practice (e.g., through the development of guidelines for management), and there should be incentives for their usage (e.g., recognition for completing an EICAT assessment).

The need to understand and manage biological invasions has driven the development of frameworks to circumscribe, classify, and elucidate aspects of the phenomenon. But how influential have these frameworks really been? To test this, we evaluated the impact of a pathway classification framework, a framework focussing on the introduction-naturalisation-invasion continuum, and two papers that outline an impact classification framework. We analysed how these framework papers are cited and by whom, conducted a survey to determine why people have cited the frameworks, and explored the degree to which the frameworks are implemented. The four papers outlining these frameworks are amongst the most-cited in their respective journals, are highly regarded in the field, and are already seen as citation classics (although citations are overwhelmingly within the field of invasion science). The number of citations to the frameworks has increased over time, and, while a significant proportion of these are self-citations (20–40%), this rate is decreasing. The frameworks were cited by studies conducted and authored by researchers from across the world. However, relative to a previous citation analysis of invasion science as a whole, the frameworks are particularly used in Europe and South Africa and less so in North America. There is an increasing number of examples of uptake into invasion policy and management (e.g., the pathway classification framework has been adapted and adopted into EU legislation and CBD targets, and the impact classification framework has been adopted by the IUCN). However, we found that few of the citing papers (6–8%) specifically implemented or interrogated the frameworks; roughly half of all citations might be viewed as frivolous ("citation fluff"); there were several clear cases of erroneous citation; and some survey respondents felt that they have not been rigorously tested yet. Although our analyses suggest that invasion science is moving towards a more systematic and standardised approach to ...

The need to understand and manage biological invasions has driven the development of frameworks to circumscribe, classify, and elucidate aspects of the phenomenon. But how influential have these frameworks really been? To test this, we evaluated the impact of a pathway classification framework, a framework focussing on the introduction-naturalisation-invasion continuum, and two papers that outline an impact classification framework. We analysed how these framework papers are cited and by whom, conducted a survey to determine why people have cited the frameworks, and explored the degree to which the frameworks are implemented. The four papers outlining these frameworks are amongst the most-cited in their respective journals, are highly regarded in the field, and are already seen as citation classics (although citations are overwhelmingly within the field of invasion science). The number of citations to the frameworks has increased over time, and, while a significant proportion of these are self-citations (20–40%), this rate is decreasing. The frameworks were cited by studies conducted and authored by researchers from across the world. However, relative to a previous citation analysis of invasion science as a whole, the frameworks are particularly used in Europe and South Africa and less so in North America. There is an increasing number of examples of uptake into invasion policy and management (e.g., the pathway classification framework has been adapted and adopted into EU legislation and CBD targets, and the impact classification framework has been adopted by the IUCN). However, we found that few of the citing papers (6–8%) specifically implemented or interrogated the frameworks; roughly half of all citations might be viewed as frivolous ("citation fluff"); there were several clear cases of erroneous citation; and some survey respondents felt that they have not been rigorously tested yet. Although our analyses suggest that invasion science is moving towards a more systematic and standardised approach to ...

Non-native species cause changes in the ecosystems to which they are introduced. These changes, or some of them, are usually termed impacts; they can be manifold and potentially damaging to ecosystems and biodiversity. However, the impacts of most non-native species are poorly understood, and a synthesis of available information is being hindered because authors often do not clearly define impact. We argue that explicitly defining the impact of non-native species will promote progress toward a better understanding of the implications of changes to biodiversity and ecosystems caused by non-native species; help disentangle which aspects of scientific debates about non-native species are due to disparate definitions and which represent true scientific discord; and improve communication between scientists from different research disciplines and between scientists, managers, and policy makers. For these reasons and based on examples from the literature, we devised seven key questions that fall into 4 categories: directionality, classification and measurement, ecological or socio-economic changes, and scale. These questions should help in formulating clear and practical definitions of impact to suit specific scientific, stakeholder, or legislative contexts.

Non-native species cause changes in the ecosystems to which they are introduced. These changes, or some of them, are usually termed impacts; they can be manifold and potentially damaging to ecosystems and biodiversity. However, the impacts of most non-native species are poorly understood, and a synthesis of available information is being hindered because authors often do not clearly define impact. We argue that explicitly defining the impact of non-native species will promote progress toward a better understanding of the implications of changes to biodiversity and ecosystems caused by non-native species; help disentangle which aspects of scientific debates about non-native species are due to disparate definitions and which represent true scientific discord; and improve communication between scientists from different research disciplines and between scientists, managers, and policy makers. For these reasons and based on examples from the literature, we devised seven key questions that fall into 4 categories: directionality, classification and measurement, ecological or socio-economic changes, and scale. These questions should help in formulating clear and practical definitions of impact to suit specific scientific, stakeholder, or legislative contexts.