Search

Knowledge of the impacts of invasive species is important for their management, prioritisation of control efforts and policy decisions. We investigated how British and Irish botanical experts assessed impacts at smaller scales in areas where they were familiar with the flora. Experts were asked to select the 10 plants that they considered were having the largest impacts in their areas. They also scored the local impacts of 10 plant species that had been previously scored to have the highest impacts at the scale of Great Britain. Impacts were scored using the modified classification scheme of the EICAT framework (Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa). A total of 782 species/score combinations were received, of which 123 were non-native plants in 86 recording areas. Impatiens glandulifera, Reynoutria japonica and Rhododendron ponticum were the three species considered to have the highest impacts across all regions. Four of the species included in the list of the 10 highest impact species in Great Britain were also in the top 10 of species reported in our study. Species in the higher impact categories had, on average, a wider distribution than species with impacts categorised at lower levels. The main habitat types affected were woodlands, followed by linear/boundary features and freshwater habitats. Thirty-nine native plant species were reported to be negatively affected. In comparison to the overall non-native flora of Britain and Ireland, the lifeform spectrum of the species reported was significantly different, with higher percentages of aquatic plants and trees, but a lower proportion of annuals. The study demonstrates the value of local knowledge and expertise in identifying invasive species with negative impacts on the environment. Local knowledge is useful to both confirm national assessments and to identify species and impacts on native species and habitats that may not have gained national attention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Multiple national and international trends and drivers are radically changing what biological security means for the United Kingdom (UK). New technologies present novel opportunities and challenges, and globalisation has created new pathways and increased the speed, volume and routes by which organisms can spread. The UK Biological Security Strategy (2018) acknowledges the importance of research on biological security in the UK. Given the breadth of potential research, a targeted agenda identifying the questions most critical to effective and coordinated progress in different disciplines of biological security is required. We used expert elicitation to generate 80 policy-relevant research questions considered by participants to have the greatest impact on UK biological security. Drawing on a collaboratively-developed set of 450 questions, proposed by 41 experts from academia, industry and the UK government (consulting 168 additional experts) we subdivided the final 80 questions into six categories: bioengineering; communication and behaviour; disease threats (including pandemics); governance and policy; invasive alien species; and securing biological materials and securing against misuse. Initially, the questions were ranked through a voting process and then reduced and refined to 80 during a one-day workshop with 35 participants from a variety of disciplines. Consistently emerging themes included: the nature of current and potential biological security threats, the efficacy of existing management actions, and the most appropriate future options. The resulting questions offer a research agenda for biological security in the UK that can assist the targeting of research resources and inform the implementation of the UK Biological Security Strategy. These questions include research that could aid with the mitigation of Covid-19, and preparation for the next pandemic. We hope that our structured and rigorous approach to creating a biological security research agenda will be replicated in other countries and regions. The world, not just the UK, is in need of a thoughtful approach to directing biological security research to tackle the emerging issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prioritizing the management of invasive alien species (IAS) is of global importance and within Europe integral to the EU IAS regulation. To prioritize management effectively, the risks posed by IAS need to be assessed, but so too does the feasibility of their management. While the risk of IAS to the EU has been assessed, the feasibility of management has not. We assessed the feasibility of eradicating 60 new (not yet established) and 35 emerging (established with limited distribution) species that pose a threat to the EU, as identified by horizon scanning. The assessment was carried out by 34 experts in invasion management from across Europe, applying the Non‐Native Risk Management scheme to defined invasion scenarios and eradication strategies for each species, assessing the feasibility of eradication using seven key risk management criteria. Management priorities were identified by combining scores for risk (derived from horizon scanning) and feasibility of eradication. The results show eradication feasibility score and risk score were not correlated, indicating that risk management criteria evaluate different information than risk assessment. In all, 17 new species were identified as particularly high priorities for eradication should they establish in the future, whereas 14 emerging species were identified as priorities for eradication now. A number of species considered highest priority for eradication were terrestrial vertebrates, a group that has been the focus of a number of eradication attempts in Europe. However, eradication priorities also included a diverse range of other taxa (plants, invertebrates and fish) suggesting there is scope to broaden the taxonomic range of attempted eradication in Europe. We demonstrate that broad scale structured assessments of management feasibility can help prioritize IAS for management. Such frameworks are needed to support evidence‐based decision‐making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Managing the impacts of invasive alien species (IAS) is a great societal challenge. A wide variety of terms have been used to describe the management of invasive alien species and the sequence in which they might be applied. This variety and lack of consistency creates uncertainty in the presentation and description of management in policy, science and practice. Here we expand on the existing description of the invasion process to develop an IAS management framework. We define the different forms of active management using a novel approach based on changes in species status, avoiding the need for stand-alone descriptions of management types, and provide a complete set of potential management activities. We propose a standardised set of management terminology as an emergent feature of this framework. We identified eight key forms of management: (1) pathway management, (2) interception, (3) limits to keeping, (4) secure keeping, (5) eradication, (6) complete reproductive removal, (7) containment and (8) suppression. We recognise four associated terms: prevention; captive management; rapid eradication; and long-term management, and note the use of impact mitigation and restoration as associated forms of management. We discuss the wider use of this framework and the supporting activities required to ensure management is well-targeted, cost-effective and makes best use of limited resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ireland, being an island situated on Europe's western seaboard, has a fewer number of native species than mainland European Union Member States (MS). Increased numbers of vectors and pathways have reduced the island's biotic isolation, increasing the risk of new introductions and their associated impacts on native biodiversity. It is likely that these risks are greater here than they are in continental MSs, where the native biodiversity is richer. A horizon scanning approach was used to identify the most likely invasive alien species (IAS) (with the potential to impact biodiversity) to arrive on the island of Ireland within the next ten years. To achieve this, we used a consensus-based approach, whereby expert opinion and discussion groups were utilised to establish and rank a list of 40 species of the most likely terrestrial, freshwater and marine IAS to arrive on the island of Ireland within the decade 2017-2027. The list of 40 included 18 freshwater, 15 terrestrial and seven marine IAS. Crustacean species (freshwater and marine) were taxonomically dominant (11 out of 40); this reflects their multiple pathways of introduction, their ability to act as ecosystem engineers and their resulting high impacts on biodiversity. Freshwater species dominated the top ten IAS (seven species out of ten), with the signal crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus) highlighted as the most likely species to arrive and establish in freshwaters, while roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) (second) and the warm-water barnacle (Hesperibalanus fallax) (fifth), were the most likely terrestrial and marine invaders. This evidence-based list provides important information to the relevant statutory agencies in both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland to prioritise the prevention of the most likely invaders and aid in compliance with legislation, in particular the EU Regulation on Invasive Alien Species (EU 1143/2014). Targeted biosecurity in both jurisdictions is urgently required in order to manage the pathways and vectors of arrival, and is vital to maintaining native biodiversity on the island of Ireland. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Guiding principles for utilizing social influence within expert-elicitation to inform conservation decision-making Many hundreds of people have engaged with our collaborative studies using expert-elicitation approaches through facilitated discussions to dynamically inform decision-making within the field of biological invasions. When deriving horizon scanning lists of invasive alien species we used a simple system that required experts to document whether they have low, medium or high confidence in the score and the position of the species in the list (Roy et al., [11]). [Extracted from the article]

According to the Convention on Biological Diversity, by 2020 invasive alien species (IAS) should be identified and their impacts assessed, so that species can be prioritized for implementation of appropriate control strategies and measures put in place to manage invasion pathways. For one quarter of the IAS listed as the '100 of the world's worst' environmental impacts are linked to diseases of wildlife (undomesticated plants and animals). Moreover, IAS are a significant source of 'pathogen pollution' defined as the human-mediated introduction of a pathogen to a new host or region. Despite this, little is known about the biology of alien pathogens and their biodiversity impacts after introduction into new regions. We argue that the threats posed by alien pathogens to endangered species, ecosystems, and ecosystem services should receive greater attention through legislation, policy, and management. We identify 10 key areas for research and action, including those relevant to the processes of introduction and establishment of an alien pathogen and to prediction of the spread and associated impact of an alien pathogen on native biota and ecosystems. The development of interdisciplinary capacity, expertise, and coordination to identify and manage threats was seen as critical to address knowledge gaps. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: International agreements commit nations to control or eradicate invasive alien species. The scale of this challenge exceeds available resources and so it is essential to prioritise the management of invasive alien species. Species prioritisation for management may consider the likelihood and scale of impact (risk assessment) and the feasibility, costs and effectiveness of management (risk management). Risk assessment processes are widely used, risk management less so. To assess the cost effectiveness of prioritisation, we considered 26 high-risk species considered for eradication from Great Britain (GB) with pre-existing risk assessment and risk management outputs. We used these to consider the relative reduction in risk per unit cost when managing prioritised species based on different criteria. We showed that the cost effectiveness of prioritisation within our sample using risk assessment scores alone performed no better than a random ranking of the species. In contrast, prioritisation including management feasibility produced nearly two orders of magnitude improvement compared to random ranking. We concluded that basing management actions on priorities based solely on risk assessment without considering management feasibility risks the inefficient use of limited resources. In this study, the cost effectiveness of species prioritisation action was greatly increased by the inclusion of a risk management assessment. International agreements commit nations to control or eradicate invasive alien species. The scale of this challenge exceeds available resources and so it is essential to prioritise the management of invasive alien species. Species prioritisation for management typically involves a hierarchy of processes that consider the likelihood and scale of impact (risk assessment) and the feasibility, costs and effectiveness of management (risk management). Risk assessment processes are widely used, risk management less so, but are a crucial component of resource decision making. To assess the cost-effectiveness of prioritisation, we considered 26 high-risk species considered for eradication from Great Britain (GB) with pre-existing risk assessment and risk management outputs. We extracted scores to reflect the overall risk to GB posed by the species, together with the estimated cost and the overall feasibility of eradication. We used these to consider the relative reduction in risk per unit cost when managing prioritised species based on different criteria. We showed that the cost-effectiveness of prioritisation within our sample using risk assessment scores alone, performed no better than a random ranking of the species. In contrast, prioritisation including management feasibility produced nearly two orders of magnitude improvement compared to random. We conclude that basing management actions on priorities based solely on risk assessment without considering management feasibility risks the inefficient use of limited resources. In this study, the cost-effectiveness of species prioritisation for action was greatly increased by the inclusion of risk management assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]