Suchergebnisse

© Crown Copyright 2018. This is a fully open access article distributed under an Open Government Licence (OGL) http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/ which is compatible with CC-BY (Creative Commons Attribution Licence). The attached file is the published pdf version.

An attitude/opinion survey designed to describe reclamationists attitudes toward agronomic and native species use in high-elevation reclamation programs was administered to 116 potential respondents representing government regulators, suppliers and consultants and industry environmental and engineering personnel. Species suitability was considered to be very important by a large majority (98%) of respondents, but many were uncertain as to the utility of agronomic species in high-elevation reclamation programs. Most respondents indicated that the inclusion of grass species is necessary for successful reclamation of highelevation disturbances but were uncertain about the necessity of including legume species. In general, results were inconclusive with respect to the use of native species and their benefits to longterm revegetation success within high-elevation mine reclamation programs. Native species 'islands' were considered useful as seed sources for plant successional development by most respondents. Attitudes toward the aesthetic benefits of native species were inconclusive. The use of native species as a method of reducing the visual contrast between disturbed and undisturbed areas was not favored strongly. Attitudes towards commercial production of native species favored both the expanded production of native species seed and native species seed or seedling development programs. Keywords: attitudes, opinion, reclamation, native species, agronomics. ; Non UBC ; Unreviewed ; Other

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.

Invasive non-native species harm the environment, cost the economy almost £2 billion per year, and can even harm our health. Emma Brand from the Non-Native Species Inspectorate tells us about her work in this important area.

Coastal environments are exposed to anthropogenic activities such as frequent marine traffic and restructuring, i.e., addition, removal or replacing with man-made structures. Although maritime shipping and coastal infrastructures provide socio-economic benefits, they both cause varied perturbations to marine ecosystems. The ports and marinas receiving a high frequency of international vessels, act as 'hot-spots' for marine invasions. The disturbed and modified habitats found in harbours and ports provide opportunities for non-native species to settle due to their competitive traits. Once established, the non-native species may spread to neighbouring habitats, thereby modifying the adjacent natural environment, its biodiversity, ecosystem structure and functioning. Up to 70% of coastlines around the world have now been modified and is expected to rise in future. New bioinvasions are still being reported even with various biosecurity and management approaches across the globe. It is essential to understand the potential factors influencing the bioinvasions to have effective biosecurity measures and management plans. The overall aim of this thesis is to determine the influence of man-made structures on the marine biodiversity and presumptive fitness of native and non-native species on these structures. This thesis investigates ports and harbours as man-made environments, their impacts on marine biodiversity and the species status – native, non-native and cryptogenic, and the factors facilitating the spread of non-native species. Chapter 2 focussed on two large national-scale baseline port surveys; a) Australian Port Survey (APS), and b) New Zealand Port Survey (NZPS). The two datasets were analysed to determine the community structure and species status, i.e., native, non-native and cryptogenic as a function of the surveyed ports, port type (major vs minor ports) (based on the volume of vessels) and latitudinal groups. A) APS: The results for community composition indicated significant effects as a function of surveyed ports, port type and latitudinal group. The community composition was relatively more abundant at major ports than at minor ports. The factor, the latitudinal group indicated significant results, and a distinct separation in community composition was observed between low (15, 20oS) and high (35, 40oS) latitudes. The species status showed a significant and positive relationship between native vs non-native, indicating with an increase in the number of native species there was an increase in the number of non-native species. The species status indicated significant results for the factors; surveyed ports, port type and latitudinal group. The native species were abundant throughout the study. However, the non-native species were relatively abundant at major ports compared to minor ports. Regarding the latitudinal groups, the abundance of non-native species was observed to increase at higher latitudes (latitudinal gradients). B) NZPS: The community composition and species status showed significance among the 27 surveyed ports; however, no significant results were observed for the factor port type (major vs minor). The community composition significantly varied as a function of latitudinal groups, with species at higher latitudes (45oS) being better discriminator explaining the differences. Latitudinal groups, however, highlighted sub-groupings of ports with similar community composition (e.g. Bluff and Dunedin; Nelson, Wellington and Picton; Lyttelton and Timaru; Whangarei, Tauranga and Taranaki; Auckland, Gulf Harbour Marina and Opua Marina). The ports in question are within close proximity of each other (distance). This suggests the possibility of natural dispersal of species between ports on top of the human-mediated dispersal. The responses in Australia were very different from those in New Zealand, which suggests that the responses are regional or country-specific and not global. Chapter 3 describes fieldwork using settlement tile arrays to examine the effects of man-made built structures and natural rocky reefs on marine biological community composition and successional patterns over two years. The work also tests the preference of native and non-native species in terms of habitat type (natural reef vs man-made habitat) and substratum type (PVC vs slate tile). The results showed a rapid increase in species settlement on bare tiles as the available bare space was 30% just after 3 months of submersion. The community composition significantly differed as a function of the interaction of factors, habitat × substratum × sample interval. However, differences between the habitat types and substratum types, respectively, were explained by the difference in abundance of the same suite of species. The species were abundant at marina sites compared to reef sites; however, in terms of substrata, the species were abundant on slate (natural) tiles than on PVC tiles. The succession patterns of species over time (8 sample intervals) showed a similar trend on both the habitat type and substratum type, with differences in the average abundances of each species. The differences in abundances highlight the influence of species dispersal patterns, recruitment patterns and post-settlement processes of species between habitat type and substratum type, respectively. Subsequently, the species status indicated significance as a function of habitat type, substratum type and sample intervals. The cryptogenic species were abundant throughout the study. The cryptogenic species, however, decreased in abundance over time, with an increase in abundance of native and non-native species. Subsequently, the non-native species significantly varied between habitat type, with relatively higher abundance at marina (man-made) sites compared to reef (natural) sites. However, the non-native species did not show significant variation as a function of substratum type (PVC vs slate). The results are discussed in the context of the recruitment of species on a new barren substrate, and the preference of habitat type and substratum type by native, non-native and cryptogenic species. In Chapter 4, the reproduction output (gonadosomatic index, GSI) of the Southern hemisphere, native (SHMg) and Northern hemisphere, non-native (NHMg) lineages of the blue mussel, Mytilus galloprovincialis were measured. The GSI and shell length of NHMg and SHMg were compared between habitat type; reef (natural) vs marina (man-made) sites. This study aimed to identify reproductive patterns (i.e., timing and magnitude of spawning events) and differences in performance (presumptive fitness) of the native and non-native blue mussel lineages at the natural and man-made habitats. The results for shell length indicated significance for habitat type and no significance as a function of lineage. The mussels were relatively bigger mussels at marina sites compared to reef sites; however, the differences were trivial. The GSI values as a function of habitat type, lineage and sampling time showed a significant difference between habitat type, with high GSI values at reef sites than at marina sites. However, this indicates that the blue mussels at marina sites had comparatively higher spawning activity than at reef sites. The temporal variation of GSI of NHMg and SHMg showed a similar reproductive trend (i.e., spawning and gametogenesis) at both habitats. However, significant spawning activity was observed in July and November when compared between reef and marina habitats. The results are discussed in the context of management implications and strategies regarding the establishment and success of non-native M. galloprovincialis lineage and whether their eradication is necessary or even possible. The findings of this research are summarised and discussed in relation to our understanding of biological community composition and diversity on man-made habitats and the subsequent invasion in the neighbouring natural habitats. This study, from an eco-engineering perspective, highlights the importance of complex habitats and surfaces, and not just material type. However, from a biosecurity and management approach, even though Australia and New Zealand have one of the strong international biosecurity country-specific legislation; the continuous arrival of non-native species in these countries indicates that such marine legislation is not sufficiently compelling on its own. This study highlights the interaction of non-native species at proximity ports, and it provides recommendations towards regional-scale management measures concentrating on intra-coastal transfer of invaders through domestic maritime traffic or natural dispersal. The life-history traits, recruitment timing and post-settlement processes, plays an essential role in determining long term patterns. Lastly, this research indicated that native and non-native species with ecologically similar responses lead to limited management options to some extent. Therefore, from a manager's perspective, the eradication of non-native species may not be necessary if it does not cause any negative impacts to the biodiversity or the environment.

Howhumansperceiveandjudgenatureandrelateittotheirlifeisshaped by emotional, cognitive, cultural, and social factors. Whether a species is consid- ered native, non-native, or invasive can affect such aesthetics of nature by interact- ing with our emotions, affronting or confirming our cognitive categories, or engaging in our social, economic, and cultural worlds. Consequently, how humans perceive and judge the presence of such species, or how they judge an ecosystem or land- scape change triggered by them, is not fixed or easy to define. Here, some of the psychological, cognitive, and social dimensions that influence how humans judge non-native and invasive species and their effects on ecosystems are reviewed. It is concluded, at least in the case of non-native species, that the reduction of aesthetics to a 'service' is problematic, for it occludes the complex psychological and social processes that shape divergent perceptions of changing species distributions.

PurposeThis paper aims to examine the challenges of volunteer‐driven college campus sustainability projects through a case study of the development of an urban native plant species garden on the College of Charleston campus in Charleston, South Carolina, USA.Design/methodology/approachThe research used participant observation as the primary data‐gathering technique. The primary author coordinated this volunteer‐driven sustainability project, and recorded observations throughout the process. The authors used content analysis to examine garden volunteer interview data and campus/community documents. These methods allow the reader to view this case first‐hand, providing a unique look at undertaking projects of this nature.FindingsThe paper provides specific guidance for creating sustainable sustainability projects in similar communities and college campuses, identifies challenges specific to this case study that are easily generalized to other volunteer‐driven sustainability projects, and provides solution strategies to avoid or address these challenges.Research limitations/implicationsThe findings have relevance for projects with similar campus and community characteristics as displayed in the case study, whilst the study provides important guidance for campuses seeking to initiate and sustain volunteer‐driven sustainability projects. Further, it offers a step‐by‐step account of the process of creating a native species garden in an urban environment.Practical implicationsThe paper provides a "handbook" for undertaking similar volunteer‐driven sustainability projects.Originality/valueThis paper fulfills a need to provide first‐hand information for the ever‐growing effort to create more sustainable sustainability projects on college campuses world‐wide. It is the first paper of its kind to document the process of campus native species garden creation and the challenges inherent with this type of volunteer‐driven project. Solution strategies are offered that can be followed for those seeking to implement similar sustainability efforts on their campuses.

Invasive non-native species (INS) are species which have moved outside of their natural range, usually with the aid of humans, and are causing environmental or economic damage. At a global level, INS are believed to be one of the most significant causes behind loss of biodiversity – second only to habitat destruction. Their economic impact is also substantial. A recent study by the European Environment Agency (EEA) estimated that INS cost Europe in the region of 12 billion Euros every year. Despite the severe damage these species are causing, there is little in the way of a coordinated effort to reduce their impact and spread across Europe. Over recent years a number of projects have sought to improve the management of INS across the Two Seas region, by bringing together research institutes, universities, local government, land managers, businesses and other relevant stakeholders to form cross-border partnerships. RINSE (Reducing the Impact of Non-native Species In Europe) focussed primarily on INS within freshwater and terrestrial habitats. It undertook a broad range of activities in order to share best practice across the region, develop new ways to manage INS, improve the capacity of local organisations to manage INS, prioritise INS already present in the region for action and identify species likely to cause problems in the near future. The MEMO (Mnemiopsis Ecology, Modelling and Observation) partnership was composed of experts in marine INS and focussed on one species in particular – the American comb jelly Mnemiopsis leidyi. This invasive jellyfish-like species was accidentally introduced to the Two Seas region and has since spread along the coasts of northern France, Belgium and the Netherlands. MEMO undertook a range of activities to assess awareness and perceptions of the jelly amongst key stakeholder groups and to increase our scientific knowledge on this species. Invexo aimed to improve the management of four of the most damaging INS in Belgium and the Netherlands. The project used field trials to improve control and eradication methods and developed an early warning system for high risk INS in the project area. Discussions between partners from the RINSE, MEMO and Invexo projects indicated that added value could be created through the formation of a 'cluster' project, bringing together the expertise and the experiences gained from each of the three projects. As a consequence, SEFINS (Safeguarding the Environment From Invasive Non-native Species) was established in January 2014. Since then, the partnership has held a number of constructive workshops and meetings on the topic of INS. It was clear that despite each project working on different species in different habitats, there was a large degree of crossover. A number of key themes emerged, which the partnership agreed require further work in order to allow EU Member States to meet the new requirements of the upcoming European Regulation on Invasive Species: 1) Knowledge transfer, training and advice 2) Data and inventories 3) Risk management and impact assessments 4) Citizen science and awareness raising This publication uses these key themes as chapters, describing in more detail the activities carried out by RINSE, MEMO and Invexo within these areas. Key outputs are summarised, outlining the significant progress made by the SEFINS partners and their previous projects towards the effective management of INS across the Two Seas area. However, there is clearly much work still to be done – this publication will also look forwards, outlining where we believe work on INS should focus in the immediate future.

This report describes the current distribution of NNS in marinas on the coast of S England, comparing it to data from previous surveys from 2009/10. The data is of relevance to monitoring and pathway management obligations under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSDF) and to assessing the feasibility of granting exemptions under the Ballast Water Management Convention. The information will be of value to government departments, non-departmental public bodies, environmental charities and other organizations concerned with environmental policy and management of NNS.

This report describes the current distribution of NNS in marinas on the coast of S England, comparing it to data from previous surveys from 2009/10. The data is of relevance to monitoring and pathway management obligations under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSDF) and to assessing the feasibility of granting exemptions under the Ballast Water Management Convention. The information will be of value to government departments, non-departmental public bodies, environmental charities and other organizations concerned with environmental policy and management of NNS.

Abstract
Background
Non-native species can have significant negative impacts on the environment, economies, and amongst others, also human Non-native species can have significant negative impacts on the environment, economies, and human Non-native species can have significant negative impacts on the environment, economies, and human well-being, among other factors. Globalisation and economic incentives have substantially facilitated the growth in the numbers of newly recorded non-native species in the European Union. The European Union's diversity in terms of political and socio-economic differences across member states may have contributed to the introduction of non-native species.

Results
Data reported in the Alien Species First Record Database, however, suggests a decreasing trend in the number of non-native species recorded over the past three decades. InvaCost, a database of non-native species with economic impacts, similarly shows increasing numbers of reported non-native species with costs until the 2010s, which were, however, followed by a plateauing and ultimately decline. Although the recent trends in non-native species reports may be affected by a lag time in reporting and data allocation as well as possibly a disparity in research efforts, their impacts persist, leading to a growing ecological but also economic burden. We further identified substantial spatial differences as western European member states generally reported higher numbers of non-native species and non-native species with monetary impacts.

Conclusions
Without improved actions, biological invasions and their associated impacts will continue to rise, degrading natural capital and hampering sustainable development and sustainability targets. Therefore, improved coordinated efforts across the European Union are necessary to improve reporting of non-native species and a centralized collation of data through accessible databases should be considered.