Inconsistencies in the risk classification of alien species and implications for risk assessment in the European Union

Risk Assessment Model System for Aquatic Animal Introduction Based on Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

The spread of invasive species (IS) has the potential to upset ecosystem balances. In extreme cases, this can hinder economical utilization of both aquatic (fisheries) and terrestrial (agricultural) systems. As a result, many countries regard risk assessment of IS as an important process for solving the problem of biological invasion. Yet, some IS are purposefully introduced for what is seen as their potential economic benefits. Thus, conducting IS risk assessments and then formulating policies based on scientific information will allow protocols to be developed that can reduce problems associated with IS incursions, whether occurring purposefully or not. However, the risk assessment methods currently adopted by most countries use qualitative or semiquantitative methodologies. Currently, there is a mismatch between qualitative and quantitative assessments. Moreover, most assessment systems are for terrestrial animals. What is needed is an assessment system for aquatic animals; however, those currently available are relatively rudimentary. To fill this gap, we used the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to build a risk assessment model system for aquatic IS. Our AHP has four primary indexes, twelve secondary indexes, and sixty tertiary indexes. We used this AHP to conduct quantitative risk assessments on five aquatic animals that are typically introduced in China, which have distinct biological characteristics, specific introduction purposes, and can represent different types of aquatic animals. The assessment results show that the risk grade for Pterygoplichthys pardalis is high; the risk grade for Macrobrachium rosenbergii, Crassostrea gigas, and Trachemys scripta elegans is medium; and the grade risk for Ambystoma mexicanum is low. Risk assessment of the introduction of aquatic animals using our AHP is effective, and it provides support for the introduction and healthy breeding of aquatic animals. Thus, the AHP model can provide a basis for decision-making risk management concerning the introduction of species.

Both Adaptability and Endophytic Bacteria Are Linked to the Functional Traits in the Invasive Clonal Plant Wedelia trilobata

The role of the interactions between endophytes and host plants is unclear in invasive plants from different geographical latitudes. In this study, we aimed to explore the relationship between endophytic microbes and the functional traits of the invasive plant Wedelia trilobata. We explored the relationship between endophytes and the clonal growth traits of the invasive clonal plant Wedelia trilobata from different geographical latitudes using high-throughput sequencing technology and a common garden-planting experiment. We found that: (1) Different W. trilobata populations had similar endophytic fungi but different endophytic bacteria. However, no latitudinal variation pattern of the overall microbial community was found; (2) plant clonal growth performance (i.e., spacer length) was significantly correlated with endophytic bacterial diversity but not fungal diversity; and (3) the latitudinal variation pattern of the plant clonal growth performance of W. trilobata populations was found in pre-cultivated (i.e., wild) individuals but disappeared in post-cultivated W. trilobata. Our results suggest both environmental adaptability and the endophytic bacterial community are linked to the functional traits of the invasive clonal plant W. trilobata, and these functional traits tend to increase its invasiveness, which may enhance its invasion success.

Consistency in impact assessments of invasive species is generally high and depends on protocols and impact types

Impact assessments can help prioritising limited resources for invasive species management. However, their usefulness to provide information for decision-making depends on their repeatability, i.e. the consistency of the estimated impact. Previous studies have provided important insights into the consistency of final scores and rankings. However, due to the criteria to summarise protocol responses into one value (e.g. maximum score observed) or to categorise those final scores into prioritisation levels, the real consistency at the answer level remains poorly understood. Here, we fill this gap by quantifying and comparing the consistency in the scores of protocol questions with inter-rater reliability metrics. We provide an overview of impact assessment consistency and the factors altering it, by evaluating 1,742 impact assessments of 60 terrestrial, freshwater and marine vertebrates, invertebrates and plants conducted with seven protocols applied in Europe (EICAT; EPPO; EPPO prioritisation; GABLIS; GB; GISS; and Harmonia+). Assessments include questions about diverse impact types: environment, biodiversity, native species interactions, hybridisation, economic losses and human health. Overall, the great majority of assessments (67%) showed high consistency; only a small minority (13%) presented low consistency. Consistency of responses did not depend on species identity or the amount of information on their impacts, but partly depended on the impact type evaluated and the protocol used, probably due to linguistic uncertainties (pseudo-R2 = 0.11 and 0.10, respectively). Consistency of responses was highest for questions on ecosystem and human health impacts and lowest for questions regarding biological interactions amongst alien and native species. Regarding protocols, consistency was highest with Harmonia+ and GISS and lowest with EPPO. The presence of few, but very low, consistent assessments indicates that there is room for improvement in the repeatability of assessments. As no single factor explained largely the variance in consistency, low values can rely on multiple factors. We thus endorse previous studies calling for diverse and complementary actions, such as improving protocols and guidelines or consensus assessment to increase impact assessment repeatability. Nevertheless, we conclude that impact assessments were generally highly consistent and, therefore, useful in helping to prioritise resources against the continued relentless rise of invasive species.

Shade tolerance as a key trait in invasion success of submerged macrophyte Cabomba caroliniana over Myriophyllum spicatum

The synergy between climate change, eutrophication, and biological invasion is threatening for native submerged plants in many ways. The response of submerged plants to these changes is a key factor that determines the outcome of biological invasion. In order to explain the invasion successes, we investigated the combined effects of climate change and eutrophication‐related environmental factors (temperature, light, and nutrients) on the trait responses of a native (Myriophyllum spicatum) and an alien (Cabomba caroliniana) submerged species. In a factorial design, we cultivated the two species in aquaria containing low (0.5 mg N L⁻¹, 0.05 mg P L⁻¹) and high (2 mg N L⁻¹, 0.2 mg P L⁻¹) nutrient concentrations, incubated at four light intensities (average 25, 67, 230, and 295 μmol m⁻² s⁻¹ PAR photon flux density) under two temperature levels (21.5 and 27.5 ± 0.5°C). We used four invasion‐related functional traits (relative growth rate (RGR), specific leaf area (SLA), leaf dry matter content (LDMC), and nitrogen to carbon ratio (N:C molar ratio)) to measure the environmental response of the species. We calculated plasticity indexes to express the trait differences between species. Cabomba caroliniana showed significantly higher RGR and SLA than M. spicatum especially under low light intensity indicating that Cabomba is much more shade tolerant. Elevated temperature resulted in higher SLA and reduced LDMC for C. caroliniana indicating that Cabomba may have higher invasion success. Myriophyllum showed higher LDMC than C. caroliniana. Chemical analyses of the plant tissue revealed that although M. spicatum showed significantly higher N:C molar ratio, nonetheless, the daily nitrogen uptake of C. caroliniana was more than three times faster than that of M. spicatum. Results supported the idea that due to its higher shade tolerance and nitrogen uptake capacity, Cabomba likely has greater invasion success with increasing temperature combined with low light levels.

Site-specific risk assessment enables trade-off analysis of non-native tree species in European forests

Non-native tree species (NNT) are used in European forestry for many purposes including their growth performance, valuable timber, and resistance to drought and pest or pathogen damage. Yet, cultivating NNT may pose risks to biodiversity, ecosystem functioning, and the provisioning of ecosystem services, and several NNT have been classified as invasive in Europe. Typically, such classifications are based on risk assessments, which do not adequately consider site-specific variations in impacts of the NNT or the extent of affected areas. Here, we present a new methodological framework that facilitates both mitigating risks associated with NNT and taking advantage of their ecosystem services. The framework is based on a stratified assessment of risks posed by NNT which distinguishes between different sites and considers effectiveness of available management strategies to control negative effects. The method can be applied to NNT that already occur in a given area or those NNT that may establish in future. The framework consists of eight steps and is partly based on existing knowledge. If adequate site-specific knowledge on NNT does not yet exist, new evidence on the risks should be obtained, for example, by collecting and analyzing monitoring data or modeling the potential distribution of NNT. However, limitations remain in the application of this method, and we propose several policy and management recommendations which are required to improve the responsible use of NNT.

Understanding uncertainty in the Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (ICAT) assessments

The Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT) and the Socio-Economic Impact Classification of Alien Taxa (SEICAT) have been proposed to provide unified methods for classifying alien species according to their magnitude of impacts. EICAT and SEICAT (herein “ICAT” when refered together) were designed to facilitate the comparison between taxa and invasion contexts by using a standardised, semi-quantitative scoring scheme. The ICAT scores are assigned after conducting a literature review to evaluate all impact observations against the protocols’ criteria. EICAT classifies impacts on the native biota of the recipient environments, whereas SEICAT classifies impacts on human activities. A key component of the process is to assign a level of confidence (high, medium or low) to account for uncertainty. Assessors assign confidence scores to each impact record depending on how confident they are that the assigned impact magnitude reflects the true situation. All possible sources of epistemic uncertainty are expected to be captured by one overall confidence score, neglecting linguistic uncertainties that assessors should be aware of. The current way of handling uncertainty is prone to subjectivity and therefore might lead to inconsistencies amongst assessors. This paper identifies the major sources of uncertainty for impacts classified under the ICAT frameworks, where they emerge in the assessment process and how they are likely to be contributing to biases and inconsistency in assessments. In addition, as the current procedures only capture uncertainty at the individual impact report, interspecific comparisons may be limited by various factors, including data availability. Therefore, ranking species, based on impact magnitude under the present systems, does not account for such uncertainty. We identify three types of biases occurring beyond the individual impact report level (and not captured by the confidence score): biases in the existing data, data collection and data assessment. These biases should be recognised when comparing alien species based on their impacts. Clarifying uncertainty concepts relevant to the ICAT frameworks will lead to more consistent impact assessments and more robust intra- and inter-specific comparisons of impact magnitudes.

Reducing Hydro-Meteorological Risk by Nature-Based Solutions: What Do We Know about People’s Perceptions?

Nature-based solutions (NBS) have recently received attention due to their potential ability to sustainably reduce hydro-meteorological risks, providing co-benefits for both ecosystems and affected people. Therefore, pioneering research has dedicated efforts to optimize the design of NBS, to evaluate their wider co-benefits and to understand promoting and/or hampering governance conditions for the uptake of NBS. In this article, we aim to complement this research by conducting a comprehensive literature review of factors shaping people’s perceptions of NBS as a means to reduce hydro-meteorological risks. Based on 102 studies, we identified six topics shaping the current discussion in this field of research: (1) valuation of the co-benefits (including those related to ecosystems and society); (2) evaluation of risk reduction efficacy; (3) stakeholder participation; (4) socio-economic and location-specific conditions; (5) environmental attitude, and (6) uncertainty. Our analysis reveals that concerned empirical insights are diverse and even contradictory, they vary in the depth of the insights generated and are often not comparable for a lack of a sound theoretical-methodological grounding. We, therefore, propose a conceptual model outlining avenues for future research by indicating potential inter-linkages between constructs underlying perceptions of NBS to hydro-meteorological risks.

Advancing impact assessments of non-native species: strategies for strengthening the evidence-base

The numbers and impacts of non-native species (NNS) continue to grow. Multiple ranking protocols have been developed to identify and manage the most damaging species. However, existing protocols differ considerably in the type of impact they consider, the way evidence of impacts is included and scored, and in the way the precautionary principle is applied. These differences may lead to inconsistent impact assessments. Since these protocols are considered a main policy tool to promote mitigation efforts, such inconsistencies are undesirable, as they can affect our ability to reliably identify the most damaging NNS, and can erode public support for NNS management. Here we propose a broadly applicable framework for building a transparent NNS impact evidence base. First, we advise to separate the collection of evidence of impacts from the act of scoring the severity of these impacts. Second, we propose to map the collected evidence along a set of distinguishing criteria: where it is published, which methodological approach was used to obtain it, the relevance of the geographical area from which it originates, and the direction of the impact. This procedure produces a transparent and reproducible evidence base which can subsequently be used for different scoring protocols, and which should be made public. Finally, we argue that the precautionary principle should only be used at the risk management stage. Conditional upon the evidence presented in an impact assessment, decision-makers may use the precautionary principle for NNS management under scientific uncertainty regarding the likelihood and magnitude of NNS impacts. Our framework paves the way for an improved application of impact assessments protocols, reducing inconsistencies and ultimately enabling more effective NNS management.

Assessing the ecological and societal impacts of alien parrots in Europe using a transparent and inclusive evidence-mapping scheme

Globally, the number of invasive alien species (IAS) continues to increase and management and policy responses typically need to be adopted before conclusive empirical evidence on their environmental and socioeconomic impacts are available. Consequently, numerous protocols exist for assessing IAS impacts and differ considerably in which evidence they include. However, inclusive strategies for building a transparent evidence base underlying IAS impact assessments are lacking, potentially affecting our ability to reliably identify priority IAS. Using alien parrots in Europe as a case study, here we apply an evidence-mapping scheme to classify impact evidence and evaluate the consequences of accepting different subsets of available evidence on impact assessment outcomes. We collected environmental and socioeconomic impact data in multiple languages using a “wiki-review” process, comprising a systematic evidence search and an online editing and consultation phase. Evidence was classified by parrot species, impact category (e.g. infrastructure), geographical area (e.g. native range), source type (e.g. peer-review), study design (e.g. experimental) and impact direction (deleterious, beneficial and no impact). Our comprehensive database comprised 386 impact entries from 233 sources. Most evidence was anecdotal (50%). A total of 42% of entries reported damage to agriculture (mainly in native ranges), while within Europe most entries concerned interspecific competition (39%). We demonstrate that the types of evidence included in assessments can strongly influence impact severity scores. For example, including evidence from the native range or anecdotal evidence resulted in an overall switch from minimal-moderate to moderate-major overall impact scores. We advise using such an evidence-mapping approach to create an inclusive and updatable database as the foundation for more transparent IAS impact assessments. When openly shared, such evidence-mapping can help better inform IAS research, management and policy.

Tracking non-indigenous fishes in lotic ecosystems: Invasive patterns at different spatial scales in Greece

Mediterranean lotic waters such as rivers, streams and springs are poorly monitored for non-indigenous fish species (NIFS). Since these systems are stressed by multiple anthropogenic pressures, it is important to build robust procedures to track NIFS distribution and spread. This study applies a multi-faceted assessment of NIFS in the lotic ecosystems of Greece at different spatial scales by providing: a) a historical review of temporal patterns and arrival pathways of fish introductions in river basins of Greece (140 basins) across 100years; b) an analysis of occurrence and abundance data of NIFS assemblages at the lotic site scale (644 electrofished sites); c) the mapping of NIFS distributional patterns at river basin (75 basins) and regional scales (7 freshwater ecoregions); and, d) a vector analysis of fish translocations using an ecoregional framework. In total, 55 NIFS were recorded (25 alien and 30 translocated); however, there is a low incidence of NIFS in lotic waters at the site scale (30 NIFS recorded in the field samples; 10 alien and 20 translocated). NIFS introductions in Greece appear to be influenced by specific socio-historical periods, indicating a gradual increase since late 1970s. Despite this increase, our study provides evidence that only four alien species are currently widespread and common in the rivers and streams of Greece: Gambusia holbrooki, Carassius gibelio, Pseudorasbora parva, and Lepomis gibbosus (in order of recorded abundance). NIFS tend to be absent or distributed in very low numbers in upland streams and in smaller river basins. However, the issue of translocated fish species is shown to be a sorely neglected problem that is difficult to track. This review tests a readily transferable screening procedure, contributes to the application of the European Union Regulation on Invasive Alien Species; it suggests gaps and uncertainties, and proposes conservation and management actions.

Consistency of impact assessment protocols for non-native species

Standardized tools are needed to identify and prioritize the most harmful non-native species (NNS). A plethora of assessment protocols have been developed to evaluate the current and potential impacts of non-native species, but consistency among them has received limited attention. To estimate the consistency across impact assessment protocols, 89 specialists in biological invasions used 11 protocols to screen 57 NNS (2614 assessments). We tested if the consistency in the impact scoring across assessors, quantified as the coefficient of variation (CV), was dependent on the characteristics of the protocol, the taxonomic group and the expertise of the assessor. Mean CV across assessors was 40%, with a maximum of 223%. CV was lower for protocols with a low number of score levels, which demanded high levels of expertise, and when the assessors had greater expertise on the assessed species. The similarity among protocols with respect to the final scores was higher when the protocols considered the same impact types. We conclude that all protocols led to considerable inconsistency among assessors. In order to improve consistency, we highlight the importance of selecting assessors with high expertise, providing clear guidelines and adequate training but also deriving final decisions collaboratively by consensus.