Suchergebnisse

The Barcoding Facility for Organisms and Tissues of Policy Concern (BopCo) aims at developing an expertise forum to facilitate the identification of biological samples of policy concern in Belgium and Europe. The project represents part of the Belgian federal contribution to the European Research Infrastructure Consortium LifeWatch. Non-native species which are being introduced into Europe, whether by accident or deliberately, can be of policy concern since some of them can reproduce and disperse rapidly in a new territory, establish viable populations and even outcompete native species. As a consequence of their presence, natural and managed ecosystems can be disrupted, crops and livestock affected, and vector-borne diseases or parasites might be introduced, impacting human health and socio-economic activities. Non-native species causing such adverse effects are called Invasive Alien Species (IAS). In order to protect native biodiversity and ecosystems, and to mitigate the potential impact on human health and socio-economic activities, the issue of IAS is tackled in Europe by EU Regulation 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and Council. The IAS Regulation provides for a set of measures to be taken across all member states. The list of Invasive Alien Species of Union Concern is regularly updated. In order to implement the proposed actions, however, methods for accurate species identification are required when suspicious biological material is encountered. Because morphology-based species identifications are not always possible (e.g. cryptic species, trace material, early life-stages), the purpose of the present work is to investigate and evaluate the usefulness of DNA sequence data to identify each of the IAS included in the EU Regulation. The results are presented as factsheets (one per IAS) compiled using publicly available DNA sequence data and information aggregated from various sources. Each factsheet consists of two major parts; (i) a short introduction to the specific IAS compiling information on its ...

Globally, Invasive Alien Species (IAS) are considered to be one of the major threats to native biodiversity, with the World Conservation Union (IUCN) citing their impacts as 'immense, insidious, and usually irreversible'. It is estimated that 11% of the c. 12,000 alien species in Europe are invasive, causing environmental, economic and social damage; and it is reasonable to expect that the rate of biological invasions into Europe will increase in the coming years. In order to assess the current position regarding IAS in Europe and to determine the issues that were deemed to be most important or critical regarding these damaging species, the international Freshwater Invasives - Networking for Strategy (FINS) conference was convened in Ireland in April 2013. Delegates from throughout Europe and invited speakers from around the world were brought together for the conference. These comprised academics, applied scientists, policy makers, politicians, practitioners and representative stakeholder groups. A horizon scanning and issue prioritization approach was used by in excess of 100 expert delegates in a workshop setting to elucidate the Top 20 IAS issues in Europe. These issues do not focus solely on freshwater habitats and taxa but relate also to marine and terrestrial situations. The Top 20 issues that resulted represent a tool for IAS management and should also be used to support policy makers as they prepare European IAS legislation.

Increased global trade and travel have led to a rise in the number of invasive alien species (IAS), i.e. species introduced by humans in geographic areas where are not naturally found, worldwide. Despite the recognized role of wildlife, as well as of wildlife translocations, in the emergence and re-emergence of infections of public health significance, IAS remain mainly studied for their environmental impacts, and their disease risk towards humans and animals is still largely neglected by health professionals. The main aim of this thesis is therefore to cover this gap by setting the ground for a new "invasion epidemiology" field, and this has been done through two main steps: the review and analysis of both the mechanisms underlying IAS disease risk and the information available in literature on IAS pathogens, and the development of a standardized qualitative disease risk assessment method, applicable to different geographic contexts, to assess the risk of mammal IAS to impact on human and animal health. First, I reviewed the existing biological and ecological literature on IAS to identify the main mechanisms by which animal IAS may affect disease risk in their area of release. IAS resulted to potentially affect disease risk both directly, by acting as hosts of infectious agents, thus possibly leading to the introduction of new pathogens, and/or the amplification of endemic ones, or indirectly, by altering the ecosystem equilibrium, through competitive and trophic interactions with native host species or the modification of local habitats. This literature review highlighted how IAS may have important health implications, which should be better acknowledged by people working in the human and animal health field, and how the mechanisms underlying the sanitary outcome of a biological invasion, and in particular indirect ones, are extremely complex, being the product of multiple factors. Acknowledging the important limitations of our current ability to predict possible health impacts driven by indirect mechanisms, I decided to address the issue of IAS disease risk by focusing specifically on IAS possible role as infectious agents' host. As information on IAS pathogens is not systematized, preventing from knowing the amount and quality of available data to inform possible disease risk assessment procedures, I systematically reviewed the literature on the infectious agents of the main mammal species of European Union concern. Current knowledge on the pathogens harbored by mammal IAS was evaluated through different statistical approaches: the identification of the main factors associated with research intensity and the observed pathogen species richness, the estimation of the true helminth species richness, and a meta-analysis of prevalence of the pathogens of public and animal health significance. Results highlighted the existence of strong information gaps and biases in the way research on mammal IAS pathogens is carried out, the current underestimation of the amount of pathogens harbored by these species and high levels of uncertainty in the pooled prevalence of pathogens of public and animal health significance. However, the review confirmed that mammal IAS harbor pathogens of human and animal health significance, and therefore, the need to identify high-risk species. Considering that the existing knowledge gaps would have resulted in strong limitations in informing a risk assessment procedure, I developed a qualitative disease risk assessment methodology informed by expert opinion. This tool is specifically aimed at assessing IAS disease risk towards humans, domestic animal populations, and/or wildlife populations and allows to obtain a list of the pathogens of animal and human health significance that mammal IAS could transmit to a population of interest (directly or through the communities of local hosts), each with the related level of risk and uncertainty. Key features of the tool are its flexibility, being applicable to different contexts and for different purposes, and the high resolution of the mechanisms under assessment, which make possible for risk managers identifying the most critical pathogens and mechanisms involved in disease risk, allowing them to direct targeted actions and surveillance plans. Finally, the need to combine multiple likelihood estimates deriving from several pathways in an overall risk estimate led me to tackle a methodological aspect of qualitative risk assessment procedures, and I proposed a standardized method applicable in such cases, to reduce the subjectivity that relies in the different ways multiple estimates are currently combined.

Economic assessments for invasive alien species (IAS) are an urgent requirement for informed decision-making, coordinating and motivating the allocation of economic and human resources for the management of IAS. We searched for economic costs of IAS occurring in Spain, by using the InvaCost database and requesting data to regional governments and national authorities, which resulted in over 3,000 cost entries. Considering only robust data (i.e. excluding extrapolated, potential (not-incurred or expected) and low reliability costs), economic costs in Spain were estimated at US$ 261 million (€ 232 million) from 1997 to 2022. There was an increase from US$ 4 million per year before 2000 to US$ 15 million per year in the last years (from € 4 to 13 million). Robust data showed that most reported costs of IAS in Spain (> 90%) corresponded to management costs, while damage costs were only found for 2 out of the 174 species with reported costs. Economic costs relied mostly on regional and inter-regional administrations that spent 66% of costs in post-invasion management actions, contrary to all international guidelines, which recommend investing more in prevention. Regional administrations unequally reported costs. Moreover, 36% of the invasive species, reported to incur management costs, were not included in national or European regulations (i.e. Black Lists), suggesting the need to review these policies; besides, neighbouring regions seem to manage different groups of species. We suggest the need of a national lead agency to effectively coordinate actions, facilitate communication and collaboration amongst regional governments, national agencies and neighbouring countries. This will motivate the continuity of long-lasting management actions and the increase in efforts to report IAS costs by regional and inter-regional managers which will adequately provide information for future budgets gaining management effectiveness.

Economic assessments for invasive alien species (IAS) are an urgent requirement for informed decision-making, coordinating and motivating the allocation of economic and human resources for the management of IAS. We searched for economic costs of IAS occurring in Spain, by using the InvaCost database and requesting data to regional governments and national authorities, which resulted in over 3,000 cost entries. Considering only robust data (i.e. excluding extrapolated, potential (not-incurred or expected) and low reliability costs), economic costs in Spain were estimated at US$ 261 million (€ 232 million) from 1997 to 2022. There was an increase from US$ 4 million per year before 2000 to US$ 15 million per year in the last years (from € 4 to 13 million). Robust data showed that most reported costs of IAS in Spain (> 90%) corresponded to management costs, while damage costs were only found for 2 out of the 174 species with reported costs. Economic costs relied mostly on regional and inter-regional administrations that spent 66% of costs in post-invasion management actions, contrary to all international guidelines, which recommend investing more in prevention. Regional administrations unequally reported costs. Moreover, 36% of the invasive species, reported to incur management costs, were not included in national or European regulations (i.e. Black Lists), suggesting the need to review these policies; besides, neighbouring regions seem to manage different groups of species. We suggest the need of a national lead agency to effectively coordinate actions, facilitate communication and collaboration amongst regional governments, national agencies and neighbouring countries. This will motivate the continuity of long-lasting management actions and the increase in efforts to report IAS costs by regional and inter-regional managers which will adequately provide information for future budgets gaining management effectiveness.

Economic assessments for invasive alien species (IAS) are an urgent requirement for informed decision-making, coordinating and motivating the allocation of economic and human resources for the management of IAS. We searched for economic costs of IAS occurring in Spain, by using the InvaCost database and requesting data to regional governments and national authorities, which resulted in over 3,000 cost entries. Considering only robust data (i.e. excluding extrapolated, potential (not-incurred or expected) and low reliability costs), economic costs in Spain were estimated at US$ 261 million (€ 232 million) from 1997 to 2022. There was an increase from US$ 4 million per year before 2000 to US$ 15 million per year in the last years (from € 4 to 13 million). Robust data showed that most reported costs of IAS in Spain (> 90%) corresponded to management costs, while damage costs were only found for 2 out of the 174 species with reported costs. Economic costs relied mostly on regional and inter-regional administrations that spent 66% of costs in post-invasion management actions, contrary to all international guidelines, which recommend investing more in prevention. Regional administrations unequally reported costs. Moreover, 36% of the invasive species, reported to incur management costs, were not included in national or European regulations (i.e. Black Lists), suggesting the need to review these policies; besides, neighbouring regions seem to manage different groups of species. We suggest the need of a national lead agency to effectively coordinate actions, facilitate communication and collaboration amongst regional governments, national agencies and neighbouring countries. This will motivate the continuity of long-lasting management actions and the increase in efforts to report IAS costs by regional and inter-regional managers which will adequately provide information for future budgets gaining management effectiveness.

International audience ; Economic assessments for invasive alien species (IAS) are an urgent requirement for informed decisionmaking, coordinating and motivating the allocation of economic and human resources for the management of IAS. We searched for economic costs of IAS occurring in Spain, by using the InvaCost database and requesting data to regional governments and national authorities, which resulted in over 3,000 cost entries. Considering only robust data (i.e. excluding extrapolated, potential (not-incurred or expected) and low reliability costs), economic costs in Spain were estimated at US$ 261 million (€ 232 million) from 1997 to 2022. There was an increase from US$ 4 million per year before 2000 to US$ 15 million per year in the last years (from € 4 to 13 million). Robust data showed that most reported costs of IAS in Spain (> 90%) corresponded to management costs, while damage costs were only found for 2 out of the 174 species with reported costs. Economic costs relied mostly on regional and interregional administrations that spent 66% of costs in post-invasion management actions, contrary to all international guidelines, which recommend investing more in prevention. Regional administrations unequally reported costs. Moreover, 36% of the invasive species, reported to incur management costs, were not included in national or European regulations (i.e. Black Lists), suggesting the need to review these policies; besides, neighbouring regions seem to manage different groups of species. We suggest the need of a national lead agency to effectively coordinate actions, facilitate communication and collaboration amongst regional governments, national agencies and neighbouring countries. This will motivate the continuity of long-lasting management actions and the increase in efforts to report IAS costs by regional and interregional managers which will adequately provide information for future budgets gaining management effectiveness.

International audience ; Economic assessments for invasive alien species (IAS) are an urgent requirement for informed decisionmaking, coordinating and motivating the allocation of economic and human resources for the management of IAS. We searched for economic costs of IAS occurring in Spain, by using the InvaCost database and requesting data to regional governments and national authorities, which resulted in over 3,000 cost entries. Considering only robust data (i.e. excluding extrapolated, potential (not-incurred or expected) and low reliability costs), economic costs in Spain were estimated at US$ 261 million (€ 232 million) from 1997 to 2022. There was an increase from US$ 4 million per year before 2000 to US$ 15 million per year in the last years (from € 4 to 13 million). Robust data showed that most reported costs of IAS in Spain (> 90%) corresponded to management costs, while damage costs were only found for 2 out of the 174 species with reported costs. Economic costs relied mostly on regional and interregional administrations that spent 66% of costs in post-invasion management actions, contrary to all international guidelines, which recommend investing more in prevention. Regional administrations unequally reported costs. Moreover, 36% of the invasive species, reported to incur management costs, were not included in national or European regulations (i.e. Black Lists), suggesting the need to review these policies; besides, neighbouring regions seem to manage different groups of species. We suggest the need of a national lead agency to effectively coordinate actions, facilitate communication and collaboration amongst regional governments, national agencies and neighbouring countries. This will motivate the continuity of long-lasting management actions and the increase in efforts to report IAS costs by regional and interregional managers which will adequately provide information for future budgets gaining management effectiveness.

International audience ; Economic assessments for invasive alien species (IAS) are an urgent requirement for informed decisionmaking, coordinating and motivating the allocation of economic and human resources for the management of IAS. We searched for economic costs of IAS occurring in Spain, by using the InvaCost database and requesting data to regional governments and national authorities, which resulted in over 3,000 cost entries. Considering only robust data (i.e. excluding extrapolated, potential (not-incurred or expected) and low reliability costs), economic costs in Spain were estimated at US$ 261 million (€ 232 million) from 1997 to 2022. There was an increase from US$ 4 million per year before 2000 to US$ 15 million per year in the last years (from € 4 to 13 million). Robust data showed that most reported costs of IAS in Spain (> 90%) corresponded to management costs, while damage costs were only found for 2 out of the 174 species with reported costs. Economic costs relied mostly on regional and interregional administrations that spent 66% of costs in post-invasion management actions, contrary to all international guidelines, which recommend investing more in prevention. Regional administrations unequally reported costs. Moreover, 36% of the invasive species, reported to incur management costs, were not included in national or European regulations (i.e. Black Lists), suggesting the need to review these policies; besides, neighbouring regions seem to manage different groups of species. We suggest the need of a national lead agency to effectively coordinate actions, facilitate communication and collaboration amongst regional governments, national agencies and neighbouring countries. This will motivate the continuity of long-lasting management actions and the increase in efforts to report IAS costs by regional and interregional managers which will adequately provide information for future budgets gaining management effectiveness.

International audience ; Economic assessments for invasive alien species (IAS) are an urgent requirement for informed decisionmaking, coordinating and motivating the allocation of economic and human resources for the management of IAS. We searched for economic costs of IAS occurring in Spain, by using the InvaCost database and requesting data to regional governments and national authorities, which resulted in over 3,000 cost entries. Considering only robust data (i.e. excluding extrapolated, potential (not-incurred or expected) and low reliability costs), economic costs in Spain were estimated at US$ 261 million (€ 232 million) from 1997 to 2022. There was an increase from US$ 4 million per year before 2000 to US$ 15 million per year in the last years (from € 4 to 13 million). Robust data showed that most reported costs of IAS in Spain (> 90%) corresponded to management costs, while damage costs were only found for 2 out of the 174 species with reported costs. Economic costs relied mostly on regional and interregional administrations that spent 66% of costs in post-invasion management actions, contrary to all international guidelines, which recommend investing more in prevention. Regional administrations unequally reported costs. Moreover, 36% of the invasive species, reported to incur management costs, were not included in national or European regulations (i.e. Black Lists), suggesting the need to review these policies; besides, neighbouring regions seem to manage different groups of species. We suggest the need of a national lead agency to effectively coordinate actions, facilitate communication and collaboration amongst regional governments, national agencies and neighbouring countries. This will motivate the continuity of long-lasting management actions and the increase in efforts to report IAS costs by regional and interregional managers which will adequately provide information for future budgets gaining management effectiveness.

Alien plant and animal hosts play an important role as vectors of dangerous pathogens. However, the knowledge on pathogens of many host species is still limited. To bridge this gap, we collated information on pathogens carried by 118 alien species in Europe in their native and secondary range. In Europe, these species are considered as invasive. Using the dataset we determined most prevailing pathogen groups and plant and animal hosts that carried the highest number of pathogens. The most numerous pathogens were bacteria Xylella fastidiosa (plants) and Rabies virus (animals). The principal pathogen groups among plant hosts were Arthropoda (phylum), Insecta (class) and Hemiptera (order), and among animal hosts – Platyhelminthes (phylum), Trematoda (class) and Plagiorchiida/Strongylida (order). In plants, the highest number of pathogens was recorded for Ambrosia artemisiifolia; in animals, Procyon lotor was the most infested species. Hosts introduced from North America carried the highest numbers of pathogen species; in addition, unintentionally introduced hosts carried more pathogens than those introduced intentionally. We revealed also that the level of infestation differs between the habitats in which the hosts occur. It should be also stressed that in all analyses the number of pathogens increased with the number of publications on the particular host' infestation. The highest number of publications was available for species useful for human, such as Crassostrea gigas. The results demonstrated that there are still significant gaps in the knowledge on the role of other hosts, including invasive ones (e.g., Sciurus niger) in pathogen transmission.