Search

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.Definiendo el Impacto de las Especies No-NativasResumenLas especies no-nativas pueden causar cambios en los ecosistemas donde son introducidas. Estos cambios, o algunos de ellos, usualmente se denominan como impactos; estos pueden ser variados y potencialmente dañinos para los ecosistemas y la biodiversidad. Sin embargo, los impactos de la mayoría de las especies no-nativas están pobremente entendidos y una síntesis de información disponible se ve obstaculizada porque los autores continuamente no definen claramente impacto. Discutimos que definir explícitamente el impacto de las especies no-nativas promoverá el progreso hacia un mejor entendimiento de las implicaciones de los cambios a la biodiversidad y los eco

Despite intensive research during the past decade on the effects of alien species, invasion science still lacks the capacity to accurately predict the impacts of those species and, therefore, to provide timely advice to managers on where limited resources should be allocated. This capacity has been limited partly by the context-dependent nature of ecological impacts, research highly skewed toward certain taxa and habitat types, and the lack of standardized methods for detecting and quantifying impacts. We review different strategies, including specific experimental and observational approaches, for detecting and quantifying the ecological impacts of alien species. These include a four-way experimental plot design for comparing impact studies of different organisms. Furthermore, we identify hypothesis-driven parameters that should be measured at invaded sites to maximize insights into the nature of the impact. We also present strategies for recognizing high-impact species. Our recommendations provide a foundation for developing systematic quantitative measurements to allow comparisons of impacts across alien species, sites, and time.

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.

Contains fulltext : 76168.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), Special Issue

Item does not contain fulltext

Contains fulltext : 35837.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), Feeding on micro-algae is shown in the invasive Ponto-Caspian amphipod Dikerogammarus villosus. Compared with controls, males, females and juveniles of this species significantly reduced the concentration in suspension of unicellular micro-algae. Juveniles had higher concentrations of algae in the cardiac gut than adults. The presence of these algae in the mid- and hindgut was also recorded. This feeding behaviour was filmed and the mechanisms involved are described and discussed. We comment on the use of the Functional Feeding Group (FFG) concept to classify feeding in amphipods. The role of being a feedinggeneralist in aiding the invasion process is also discussed.

Species turnover is ubiquitous. However, it remains unknown whether certain types of species are consistently gained or lost across different habitats. Here, we analysed the trajectories of 1827 plant species over time intervals of up to 78 years at 141 sites across mountain summits, forests, and lowland grasslands in Europe. We found, albeit with relatively small effect sizes, displacements of smaller- by larger-ranged species across habitats. Communities shifted in parallel towards more nutrient-demanding species, with species from nutrient-rich habitats having larger ranges. Because these species are typically strong competitors, declines of smaller-ranged species could reflect not only abiotic drivers of global change, but also biotic pressure from increased competition. The ubiquitous component of turnover based on species range size we found here may partially reconcile findings of no net loss in local diversity with global species loss, and link community-scale turnover to macroecological processes such as biotic homogenisation.

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 man

Invasive alien species continue to arrive in new locations with no abatement in rate, and thus greater predictive powers surrounding their ecological impacts are required. In particular, we need improved means of quantifying the ecological impacts of new invasive species under different contexts. Here, we develop a suite of metrics based upon the novel Relative Impact Potential (RIP) metric, combining the functional response (consumer per capita effect), with proxies for the numerical response (consumer population response), providing quantification of invasive species ecological impact. These metrics are comparative in relation to the eco-evolutionary baseline of trophically analogous natives, as well as other invasive species and across multiple populations. Crucially, the metrics also reveal how impacts of invasive species change under abiotic and biotic contexts. While studies focused solely on functional responses have been successful in predictive invasion ecology, RIP retains these advantages while adding vital other predictive elements, principally consumer abundance. RIP can also be combined with propagule pressure to quantify overall invasion risk. By highlighting functional response and numerical response proxies, we outline a user-friendly method for assessing the impacts of invaders of all trophic levels and taxonomic groups. We apply the metric to impact assessment in the face of climate change by taking account of both changing predator consumption rates and prey reproduction rates. We proceed to outline the application of RIP to assess biotic resistance against incoming invasive species, the effect of evolution on invasive species impacts, application to interspecific competition, changing spatio-temporal patterns of invasion, and how RIP can inform biological control. We propose that RIP provides scientists and practitioners with a user-friendly, customisable and, crucially, powerful technique to inform invasive species policy and management.

Parasite manipulation of intermediate hosts evolves to increase parasite trophic transmission to final hosts, yet counter selection should act on the final host to reduce infection risk and costs. However, determining who wins this arms race and to what extent is challenging. Here, for the first time, comparative functional response analysis quantified final host consumption patterns with respect to intermediate host parasite status. Experiments used two evolutionarily experienced fish hosts and two naive hosts, and their amphipod intermediate hosts of the acanthocephalan parasite Pomphorhynchus tereticollis. The two experienced fish consumed significantly fewer infected than non-infected prey, with lower attack rates and higher handling times towards the former. Conversely, the two naive fish consumed similar numbers of infected and non-infected prey at most densities, with similar attack rates and handling times towards both. Thus, evolutionarily experienced final hosts can reduce their infection risks and costs via reduced intermediate host consumption, with this not apparent in naive hosts.