Search

Coastal estuaries are especially vulnerable to the arrival and establishment of invasive aquatic species (IAS) as they are often the receiving locations of ship-based introductions. Rapid response tools, such as mechanical or chemical treatments to capture, remove, and contain of IAS, are needed to prevent subsequent spread into adjacent marine and freshwater systems. Abrupt salinity change, created when infrastructure in estuaries situated at the proximity of river mouths is operated, offers a novel, low-cost and environmentally friendly method for potentially controlling IAS. We investigated the use of osmotic shock to control the invasive brackish water clam Rangia cuneata that is quickly spreading through Europe. Clams were exposed in the laboratory to eight salinity concentrations ranging from 0.5 to 32.0‰ and monitored for 60 days. Saline shock, but not freshwater shock, could control R. cuneata. Salinities >26‰ killed 95% R. cuneata in two weeks. All specimens exposed to full strength seawater (32‰) were killed within 30 days. At lower salinities, clams collected from the most freshwater locality (1.2‰) showed lower mortality than clams from the most saline site (3.1‰). Furthermore, even modest increases in salinity during spawning periods of R. cuneata may prevent recruitment. Given the vulnerability of coastal estuaries to introduction of IAS, saline flushing presents a novel and effective management tool for many species., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Future dynamics of biological invasions are highly uncertain because they depend on multiple social–ecological drivers. We used a scenario‐based approach to explore potential management options for invasive species in Europe. During two workshops involving a multidisciplinary team of experts, we developed a management strategy arranged into 19 goals relating to policy, research, public awareness, and biosecurity. We conceived solutions for achieving these goals under different plausible future scenarios, and identified four interrelated recommendations around which any long‐term strategy for managing invasive species can be structured: (1) a European biosecurity regime, (2) a dedicated communication strategy, (3) data standardization and management tools, and (4) a monitoring and assessment system. Finally, we assessed the feasibility of the management strategy and found substantial differences among scenarios. Collectively, our results indicate that it is time for a new strategy for managing biological invasions in Europe, one that is based on a more integrative approach across socioeconomic sectors and countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of People & Nature is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The European Union (EU) has recently published its first list of invasive alien species (IAS) of EU concern to which current legislation must apply. The list comprises species known to pose great threats to biodiversity and needs to be maintained and updated. Horizon scanning is seen as critical to identify the most threatening potential IAS that do not yet occur in Europe to be subsequently risk assessed for future listing. Accordingly, we present a systematic consensus horizon scanning procedure to derive a ranked list of potential IAS likely to arrive, establish, spread and have an impact on biodiversity in the region over the next decade. The approach is unique in the continental scale examined, the breadth of taxonomic groups and environments considered, and the methods and data sources used. International experts were brought together to address five broad thematic groups of potential IAS. For each thematic group the experts first independently assembled lists of potential IAS not yet established in the EU but potentially threatening biodiversity if introduced. Experts were asked to score the species within their thematic group for their separate likelihoods of i) arrival, ii) establishment, iii) spread, and iv) magnitude of the potential negative impact on biodiversity within the EU. Experts then convened for a 2‐day workshop applying consensus methods to compile a ranked list of potential IAS. From an initial working list of 329 species, a list of 66 species not yet established in the EU that were considered to be very high (8 species), high (40 species) or medium (18 species) risk species was derived. Here, we present these species highlighting the potential negative impacts and the most likely biogeographic regions to be affected by these potential IAS. We identified 66 species, that are currently absent from the EU, which pose a very high, high or medium threat to biodiversity and ecosystems. The species span a range of functional groups, with primary producers being numerically dominant. Escape from confinement is the pathway considered to be the most likely route of introduction for many species, particularly among plants and vertebrates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dreissenid mussels (including the zebra mussel Dreissena polymorpha and the quagga mussel D. rostriformis) are among the world's most notorious invasive species, with large and widespread ecological and economic effects. However, their long‐term population dynamics are poorly known, even though these dynamics are critical to determining impacts and effective management. We gathered and analyzed 67 long‐term (>10 yr) data sets on dreissenid populations from lakes and rivers across Europe and North America. We addressed five questions: (1) How do Dreissena populations change through time? (2) Specifically, do Dreissena populations decline substantially after an initial outbreak phase? (3) Do different measures of population performance (biomass or density of settled animals, veliger density, recruitment of young) follow the same patterns through time? (4) How do the numbers or biomass of zebra mussels or of both species combined change after the quagga mussel arrives? (5) How does body size change over time? We also considered whether current data on long‐term dynamics of Dreissena populations are adequate for science and management. Individual Dreissena populations showed a wide range of temporal dynamics, but we could detect only two general patterns that applied across many populations: (1) Populations of both species increased rapidly in the first 1–2 yr after appearance, and (2) quagga mussels appeared later than zebra mussels and usually quickly caused large declines in zebra mussel populations. We found little evidence that combined Dreissena populations declined over the long term. Different measures of population performance were not congruent; the temporal dynamics of one life stage or population attribute cannot generally be accurately inferred from the dynamics of another. We found no consistent patterns in the long‐term dynamics of body size. The long‐term dynamics of Dreissena populations probably are driven by the ecological characteristics (e.g., predation, nutrient inputs, water temperature) and their temporal changes at individual sites rather than following a generalized time course that applies across many sites. Existing long‐term data sets on dreissenid populations, although clearly valuable, are inadequate to meet research and management needs. Data sets could be improved by standardizing sampling designs and methods, routinely collecting more variables, and increasing support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]