Search

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]

Preventing the arrival of invasive alien species ( IAS) is a major priority in managing biological invasions. However, information on introduction pathways is currently scattered across many data bases that often use different categorisations to describe similar pathways. This hampers the identification and prioritisation of pathways to meet the main targets of recent environmental policies., Therefore, we integrate pathway information from two major IAS data bases, IUCN's Global Invasive Species Database ( GISD) and the DAISIE European Invasive Alien Species Gateway, applying the new standard categorisation scheme recently adopted by the Convention on Biological Diversity ( CBD). We describe the process of mapping pathways from the individual data bases to the CBD scheme and provide, for the first time, detailed descriptions of the standard pathway categories. The combined data set includes pathway information for 8323 species across major taxonomic groups (plants, vertebrates, invertebrates, algae, fungi, other) and environments (terrestrial, freshwater, marine)., We analyse the data for major patterns in the introduction pathways, highlighting that the specific research question and context determines whether the combined or an individual data set is the better information source for such analyses. While the combined data set provides an improved basis for direction-setting in invasion management policies on the global level, individual data sets often better reflect regional idiosyncrasies. The combined data set should thus be considered in addition to, rather than replacing, existing individual data sets., Pathway patterns derived from the combined and individual data sets show that the intentional pathways 'Escape' and 'Release' are most important for plants and vertebrates, while for invertebrates, algae, fungi and micro-organisms unintentional transport pathways prevail. Differences in pathway proportions among marine, freshwater and terrestrial environments are much less pronounced. The results also show that IAS with highest impacts in Europe are on average associated with a greater number of pathways than other alien species and are more frequently introduced both intentionally and unintentionally., Synthesis and applications. Linking data bases on invasive alien species by harmonising and consolidating their pathway information is essential to turn dispersed data into useful knowledge. The standard pathway categorisation scheme recently adopted by the Convention on Biological Diversity may be crucial to facilitate this process. Our study demonstrates the value of integrating major invasion data bases to help managers and policymakers reach robust conclusions about patterns in introduction pathways and thus aid effective prevention and prioritisation in invasion management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]