A four‐component classification of uncertainties in biological invasions: implications for management

Taming the terminological tempest in invasion science

Standardised terminology in science is important for clarity of interpretation and communication. In invasion science - a dynamic and rapidly evolving discipline - the proliferation of technical terminology has lacked a standardised framework for its development. The result is a convoluted and inconsistent usage of terminology, with various discrepancies in descriptions of damage and interventions. A standardised framework is therefore needed for a clear, universally applicable, and consistent terminology to promote more effective communication across researchers, stakeholders, and policymakers. Inconsistencies in terminology stem from the exponential increase in scientific publications on the patterns and processes of biological invasions authored by experts from various disciplines and countries since the 1990s, as well as publications by legislators and policymakers focusing on practical applications, regulations, and management of resources. Aligning and standardising terminology across stakeholders remains a challenge in invasion science. Here, we review and evaluate the multiple terms used in invasion science (e.g. 'non-native', 'alien', 'invasive' or 'invader', 'exotic', 'non-indigenous', 'naturalised', 'pest') to propose a more simplified and standardised terminology. The streamlined framework we propose and translate into 28 other languages is based on the terms (i) 'non-native', denoting species transported beyond their natural biogeographic range, (ii) 'established non-native', i.e. those non-native species that have established self-sustaining populations in their new location(s) in the wild, and (iii) 'invasive non-native' - populations of established non-native species that have recently spread or are spreading rapidly in their invaded range actively or passively with or without human mediation. We also highlight the importance of conceptualising 'spread' for classifying invasiveness and 'impact' for management. Finally, we propose a protocol for classifying populations based on (i) dispersal mechanism, (ii) species origin, (iii) population status, and (iv) impact. Collectively and without introducing new terminology, the framework that we present aims to facilitate effective communication and collaboration in invasion science and management of non-native species.

An inventory of native-alien populations in South Africa

Species can be both native and alien to a given administrative region. Here we present the first consolidated inventory of these 'native-alien populations' for South Africa, and provide an overview of the data it contains. To gather data, literature searches were performed and experts were consulted both directly and via an on-line survey. Putative native-alien populations were then scored based on a newly developed protocol. The final inventory contains information on 77 native species from 49 families across nine classes that have formed 132 native-alien populations across the terrestrial, freshwater, and marine environments. The phenomenon is rare when compared to the prevalence of related phenomena, such as alien species introduced from other countries (2033 alien species in South Africa), but is under-reported. However, they pose a specific problem for regulators and managers and their importance will likely increase with global change. These data will be integrated with an existing alien species list and, we hope, will provide a useful foundation to address the issue. We encourage those working on biodiversity to contribute more records.

When origin, reproduction ability and diet define the role of birds in invasions

The ecological impacts of invasive alien species (IAS) are increasingly documented; however, they are usually studied through the lens of either the IAS or the affected species (IAS-threatened species). A clear understanding of how both protagonists of biological invasions are characterized is still lacking. We investigated the morphology, life history and ecology of birds involved in biological invasions. Evaluating the distribution of 450 IAS-threatened birds and 400 alien birds in a functional space, we found that both groups retained various strategies. Aliens had larger clutches and were more likely to be herbivores than IAS-threatened and worldwide birds, while IAS-threatened birds were more insular endemic from the Australia region than alien and worldwide birds. IAS-threatened species showed opposite strategies to aliens regarding traits related to diet, origin and reproduction. Further comparing traits associated with impact magnitude, we found that even if aliens were mostly herbivorous, those with high impact had more a generalist behaviour and an animal-based diet compared to aliens with low impact. By emphasizing differences relating to the distribution of bird groups in a functional space, we opened new opportunities to identify the role of birds in biological invasions.

Quantifying and linking mechanism scenarios to invasive species impact

Plant species invasion represents one of the major drivers of biodiversity change globally, yet there is confusion about the nature of nonindigenous species (NIS) impact. This confusion stems from differing notions of what constitutes invasive species impact and the scales at which it should be assessed. At local scales, the mechanisms of the impact on local competitors can be classified into four scenarios: (1) minimal impact from NIS inhabiting unique niches; (2) neutral impact spread across the community and proportional to NIS abundance; (3) targeted impact on a small number of competitors with overlapping niches; and (4) pervasive impact that is disproportionate to NIS abundance and caused by modifications that filter out other species. I developed a statistical test to distinguish these four mechanism scenarios based on plant community rank-abundance curves and then created a scale-independent standardized impact score. Using an example long-term dataset with high native plant diversity and an abundance gradient of the invasive vine, Vincetoxicum rossicum, I show that the impact resulted in either targeted or pervasive extirpations. Regardless of whether the NIS impact is neutral, targeted, or pervasive, the net outcome will be the homogenization of ecosystems and reduced biodiversity at larger scales, perhaps reducing ecosystem resilience. The framework and statistical evaluation of impact presented in this paper provide researchers and managers with an objective approach to quantifying NIS impact and prioritizing species for further management actions.

Status and Trends in the Rate of Introduction of Marine Non-Indigenous Species in European Seas

Invasive alien species are a major worldwide driver of biodiversity change. The current study lists verified records of non-indigenous species (NIS) in European marine waters until 2020, with the purpose of establishing a baseline, assessing trends, and discussing appropriate threshold values for good environmental status (GES) according to the relevant European legislation. All NIS records were verified by national experts and trends are presented in six-year assessment periods from 1970 to 2020 according to the European Union Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Altogether, 874 NIS have been introduced to European marine waters until 2020 with the Mediterranean Sea and North-East Atlantic Ocean hosting most of the introductions. Overall, the number of new introductions has steadily increased since 2000. The annual rate of new introductions reached 21 new NIS in European seas within the last six-year assessment period (2012–2017). This increase is likely due to increased human activities and research efforts that have intensified during the early 21st century within European Seas. As Europe seas are not environmentally, nor geographically homogenous, the setting of threshold values for assessing GES requires regional expertise. Further, once management measures are operational, pathway-specific threshold values would enable assessing the effectiveness of such measures.

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.

Consensus and controversy in the discipline of invasion science

Approaches, values, and perceptions in invasion science are highly dynamic, and like in other disciplines, views among different people can diverge. This has led to debate in the field specifically surrounding the core themes of values, management, impacts, and terminology. Considering these debates, we surveyed 698 scientists and practitioners globally to assess levels of polarization (opposing views) on core and contentious topics. The survey was distributed online (via Google Forms) and promoted through listservs and social media. Although there were generally high levels of consensus among respondents, there was some polarization (scores of ≥0.39 [top quartile]). Relating to values, there was high polarization regarding claims of invasive species denialism, whether invasive species contribute to biodiversity, and how biodiversity reporting should be conducted. With regard to management, there were polarized views on banning the commercial use of beneficial invasive species, the extent to which stakeholders' perceptions should influence management, whether invasive species use alone is an appropriate control strategy, and whether eradication of invasive plants is possible. For impacts, there was high polarization concerning whether invasive species drive or are a side effect of degradation and whether invasive species benefits are understated. For terminology, polarized views related to defining invasive species based only on spread, whether species can be labeled as invasive in their native ranges, and whether language used is too xenophobic. Factor and regression analysis revealed that views were particularly divergent between people working on different invasive taxa (plants and mammals) and in different disciplines (between biologists and social scientists), between academics and practitioners, and between world regions (between Africa and the Global North). Unlike in other studies, age and gender had a limited influence on response patterns. Better integration globally and between disciplines, taxa, and sectors (e.g., academic vs. practitioners) could help build broader understanding and consensus.

Identifying, reducing, and communicating uncertainty in community science: a focus on alien species

Community science (also often referred to as citizen science) provides a unique opportunity to address questions beyond the scope of other research methods whilst simultaneously engaging communities in the scientific process. This leads to broad educational benefits, empowers people, and can increase public awareness of societally relevant issues such as the biodiversity crisis. As such, community science has become a favourable framework for researching alien species where data on the presence, absence, abundance, phenology, and impact of species is important in informing management decisions. However, uncertainties arising at different stages can limit the interpretation of data and lead to projects failing to achieve their intended outcomes. Focusing on alien species centered community science projects, we identified key research questions and the relevant uncertainties that arise during the process of developing the study design, for example, when collecting the data and during the statistical analyses. Additionally, we assessed uncertainties from a linguistic perspective, and how the communication stages among project coordinators, participants and other stakeholders can alter the way in which information may be interpreted. We discuss existing methods for reducing uncertainty and suggest further solutions to improve data reliability. Further, we make suggestions to reduce the uncertainties that emerge at each project step and provide guidance and recommendations that can be readily applied in practice. Reducing uncertainties is essential and necessary to strengthen the scientific and community outcomes of community science, which is of particular importance to ensure the success of projects aimed at detecting novel alien species and monitoring their dynamics across space and time.

Capacity of countries to reduce biological invasions

The extent and impacts of biological invasions on biodiversity are largely shaped by an array of socio-economic and environmental factors, which exhibit high variation among countries. Yet, a global analysis of how these factors vary across countries is currently lacking. Here, we investigate how five broad, country-specific socio-economic and environmental indices (Governance, Trade, Environmental Performance, Lifestyle and Education, Innovation) explain country-level (1) established alien species (EAS) richness of eight taxonomic groups, and (2) proactive or reactive capacity to prevent and manage biological invasions and their impacts. These indices underpin many aspects of the invasion process, including the introduction, establishment, spread and management of alien species. They are also general enough to enable a global comparison across countries, and are therefore essential for defining future scenarios for biological invasions. Models including Trade, Governance, Lifestyle and Education, or a combination of these, best explained EAS richness across taxonomic groups and national proactive or reactive capacity. Historical (1996 or averaged over 1996-2015) levels of Governance and Trade better explained both EAS richness and the capacity of countries to manage invasions than more recent (2015) levels, revealing a historical legacy with important implications for the future of biological invasions. Using Governance and Trade to define a two-dimensional socio-economic space in which the position of a country captures its capacity to address issues of biological invasions, we identified four main clusters of countries in 2015. Most countries had an increase in Trade over the past 25 years, but trajectories were more geographically heterogeneous for Governance. Declines in levels of Governance are concerning as they may be responsible for larger levels of invasions in the future. By identifying the factors influencing EAS richness and the regions most susceptible to changes in these factors, our results provide novel insights to integrate biological invasions into scenarios of biodiversity change to better inform decision-making for policy and the management of biological invasions.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11625-022-01166-3.

Native-alien populations—an apparent oxymoron that requires specific conservation attention

Many countries define nativity at a country-level—taxa are categorised as either alien species or native species. However, there are often substantial within-country biogeographical barriers and so a taxon can be native and alien to different parts of the same country. Here, we use the term ‘native-alien populations’ as a short-hand for populations that result from the human-mediated dispersal of individuals of a species beyond a biogeographical barrier to a point beyond that species’ native range, but that is still within the same political entity as parts of the species’ native range. Based on these criteria, we consider native-alien populations to be biological invasions. However, we argue that, in comparison to other alien populations, native-alien populations: 1) are likely to be closer geographically to their native range; 2) are likely to be phylogenetically and ecologically more similar to native species in their introduced range; and 3) options to control their introduction or manage them will likely be more limited. We argue this means native-alien populations tend to differ from other alien populations in the likelihood of invasion, the types of impacts they have, and in how they can be most effectively managed. We also argue that native-alien populations are similarly a distinct phenomenon from native populations that are increasing in abundance or range extent. And note that native-alien populations are expected to be particularly common in large, ecologically diverse countries with disjunct biomes and ecoregions. Reporting, monitoring, regulating and managing native-alien populations will, we believe, become an increasingly important component of managing global change.

Identifying Priorities, Targets, and Actions for the Long-term Social and Ecological Management of Invasive Non-Native Species

Formulating effective management plans for addressing the impacts of invasive non-native species (INNS) requires the definition of clear priorities and tangible targets, and the recognition of the plurality of societal values assigned to these species. These tasks require a multi-disciplinary approach and the involvement of stakeholders. Here, we describe procedures to integrate multiple sources of information to formulate management priorities, targets, and high-level actions for the management of INNS. We follow five good-practice criteria: justified, evidence-informed, actionable, quantifiable, and flexible. We used expert knowledge methods to compile 17 lists of ecological, social, and economic impacts of lodgepole pines (Pinus contorta) and American mink (Neovison vison) in Chile and Argentina, the privet (Ligustrum lucidum) in Argentina, the yellow-jacket wasp (Vespula germanica) in Chile, and grasses (Urochloa brizantha and Urochloa decumbens) in Brazil. INNS plants caused a greater number of impacts than INNS animals, although more socio-economic impacts were listed for INNS animals than for plants. These impacts were ranked according to their magnitude and level of confidence on the information used for the ranking to prioritise impacts and assign them one of four high-level actions-do nothing, monitor, research, and immediate active management. We showed that it is possible to formulate management priorities, targets, and high-level actions for a variety of INNS and with variable levels of available information. This is vital in a world where the problems caused by INNS continue to increase, and there is a parallel growth in the implementation of management plans to deal with them.

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.

Trait positions for elevated invasiveness in adaptive ecological networks

Our ability to predict the outcome of invasion declines rapidly as non-native species progress through intertwined ecological barriers to establish and spread in recipient ecosystems. This is largely due to the lack of systemic knowledge on key processes at play as species establish self-sustaining populations within the invaded range. To address this knowledge gap, we present a mathematical model that captures the eco-evolutionary dynamics of native and non-native species interacting within an ecological network. The model is derived from continuous-trait evolutionary game theory (i.e., Adaptive Dynamics) and its associated concept of invasion fitness which depicts dynamic demographic performance that is both trait mediated and density dependent. Our approach allows us to explore how multiple resident and non-native species coevolve to reshape invasion performance, or more precisely invasiveness, over trait space. The model clarifies the role of specific traits in enabling non-native species to occupy realised opportunistic niches. It also elucidates the direction and speed of both ecological and evolutionary dynamics of residing species (natives or non-natives) in the recipient network under different levels of propagule pressure. The versatility of the model is demonstrated using four examples that correspond to the invasion of (i) a horizontal competitive community; (ii) a bipartite mutualistic network; (iii) a bipartite antagonistic network; and (iv) a multi-trophic food web. We identified a cohesive trait strategy that enables the success and establishment of non-native species to possess high invasiveness. Specifically, we find that a non-native species can achieve high levels of invasiveness by possessing traits that overlap with those of its facilitators (and mutualists), which enhances the benefits accrued from positive interactions, and by possessing traits outside the range of those of antagonists, which mitigates the costs accrued from negative interactions. This ‘central-to-reap, edge-to-elude’ trait strategy therefore describes the strategic trait positions of non-native species to invade an ecological network. This model provides a theoretical platform for exploring invasion strategies in complex adaptive ecological networks.

Mechanistic reconciliation of community and invasion ecology

Community and invasion ecology have mostly grown independently. There is substantial overlap in the processes captured by different models in the two fields, and various frameworks have been developed to reduce this redundancy and synthesize information content. Despite broad recognition that community and invasion ecology are interconnected, a process-based framework synthesizing models across these two fields is lacking. Here we review 65 representative community and invasion models and propose a common framework articulated around six processes (dispersal, drift, abiotic interactions, within-guild interactions, cross-guild interactions, and genetic changes). The framework is designed to synthesize the content of the two fields, provide a general perspective on their development, and enable their comparison. The application of this framework and of a novel method based on network theory reveals some lack of coherence between the two fields, despite some historical similarities. Community ecology models are characterized by combinations of multiple processes, likely reflecting the search for an overarching theory to explain community assembly and structure, drawing predominantly on interaction processes, but also accounting largely for the other processes. In contrast, most models in invasion ecology invoke fewer processes and focus more on interactions between introduced species and their novel biotic and abiotic environment. The historical dominance of interaction processes and their independent developments in the two fields is also reflected in the lower level of coherence for models involving interactions, compared to models involving dispersal, drift, and genetic changes. It appears that community ecology, with a longer history than invasion ecology, has transitioned from the search for single explanations for patterns observed in nature to investigate how processes may interact mechanistically, thereby generating and testing hypotheses. Our framework paves the way for a similar transition in invasion ecology, to better capture the dynamics of multiple alien species introduced in complex communities. Reciprocally, applying insights from invasion to community ecology will help us understand and predict the future of ecological communities in the Anthropocene, in which human activities are weakening species' natural boundaries. Ultimately, the successful integration of the two fields could advance a predictive ecology that is urgently required in a rapidly changing world.

A multiregional assessment of transnational pathways of introduction

Information on the pathways by which alien taxa are introduced to new regions is vital for prioritising policy and management responses to invasions. However, available datasets are often compiled using disparate methods, making comparison and collation of pathway data difficult. Using a standardised framework for recording and categorising pathway data can help to rectify this problem and provide the information necessary to develop indicators for reporting on alien introductions. We combine the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Pathways Categorisation Scheme (CPC) with data compiled by the Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG) to report on multiregional trends on alien introduction pathways over the past 200+ years. We found a significant increase in the documented number of multiregional alien introduction events across all pathways of the CPC’s three hierarchical levels. The ‘escape’ pathway is the most common documented pathway used by alien taxa. Transport stowaways via shipping-related pathways are a rapidly increasing contribution to alien introductions. Most alien introduction events were of unknown pathway origin, highlighting the challenge of information gaps in pathway data and reiterating the need for standardised information-gathering practices. Combining the CPC framework with alien introduction pathways data will standardise pathway information and facilitate the development of global indicators of trends in alien introductions and the pathways they use. These indicators have the potential to inform policy and management strategies for preventing future biological invasions and can be downscaled to national and regional levels that are applicable across taxa and ecosystems.

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.

Is invasion science moving towards agreed standards? The influence of selected frameworks

The need to understand and manage biological invasions has driven the development of frameworks to circumscribe, classify, and elucidate aspects of the phenomenon. But how influential have these frameworks really been? To test this, we evaluated the impact of a pathway classification framework, a framework focussing on the introduction-naturalisation-invasion continuum, and two papers that outline an impact classification framework. We analysed how these framework papers are cited and by whom, conducted a survey to determine why people have cited the frameworks, and explored the degree to which the frameworks are implemented. The four papers outlining these frameworks are amongst the most-cited in their respective journals, are highly regarded in the field, and are already seen as citation classics (although citations are overwhelmingly within the field of invasion science). The number of citations to the frameworks has increased over time, and, while a significant proportion of these are self-citations (20–40%), this rate is decreasing. The frameworks were cited by studies conducted and authored by researchers from across the world. However, relative to a previous citation analysis of invasion science as a whole, the frameworks are particularly used in Europe and South Africa and less so in North America. There is an increasing number of examples of uptake into invasion policy and management (e.g., the pathway classification framework has been adapted and adopted into EU legislation and CBD targets, and the impact classification framework has been adopted by the IUCN). However, we found that few of the citing papers (6–8%) specifically implemented or interrogated the frameworks; roughly half of all citations might be viewed as frivolous (“citation fluff”); there were several clear cases of erroneous citation; and some survey respondents felt that they have not been rigorously tested yet.

Although our analyses suggest that invasion science is moving towards a more systematic and standardised approach to recording invasions and their impacts, it appears that the proposed standards are still not applied consistently. For this to be achieved, we argue that frameworks in invasion science need to be revised or adapted to particular contexts in response to the needs and experiences of users (e.g., so they are relevant to pathologists, plant ecologists, and practitioners), the standards should be easier to apply in practice (e.g., through the development of guidelines for management), and there should be incentives for their usage (e.g., recognition for completing an EICAT assessment).

Drivers of future alien species impacts: An expert-based assessment

Understanding the likely future impacts of biological invasions is crucial yet highly challenging given the multiple relevant environmental, socio-economic and societal contexts and drivers. In the absence of quantitative models, methods based on expert knowledge are the best option for assessing future invasion trajectories. Here, we present an expert assessment of the drivers of potential alien species impacts under contrasting scenarios and socioecological contexts through the mid-21st century. Based on responses from 36 experts in biological invasions, moderate (20%-30%) increases in invasions, compared to the current conditions, are expected to cause major impacts on biodiversity in most socioecological contexts. Three main drivers of biological invasions-transport, climate change and socio-economic change-were predicted to significantly affect future impacts of alien species on biodiversity even under a best-case scenario. Other drivers (e.g. human demography and migration in tropical and subtropical regions) were also of high importance in specific global contexts (e.g. for individual taxonomic groups or biomes). We show that some best-case scenarios can substantially reduce potential future impacts of biological invasions. However, rapid and comprehensive actions are necessary to use this potential and achieve the goals of the Post-2020 Framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Early warning systems in biosecurity; translating risk into action in predictive systems for invasive alien species

Invasive alien species (IAS) are one of the most severe threats to biodiversity and are the subject of varying degrees of surveillance activity. Predictive early warning systems (EWS), incorporating automated surveillance of relevant dataflows, warning generation and dissemination to decision makers are a key target for developing effective management around IAS, alongside more conventional early detection and horizon scanning technologies. Sophisticated modelling frameworks including the definition of the ‘risky’ species pool, and pathway analysis at the macro and micro-scale are increasingly available to support decision making and to help prioritise risks from different regions and/or taxa. The main challenges in constructing such frameworks, to be applied to border inspections, are (i) the lack of standardisation and integration of the associated complex digital data environments and (ii) effective integration into the decision making process, ensuring that risk information is disseminated in an actionable way to frontline surveillance staff and other decision makers. To truly achieve early warning in biosecurity requires close collaboration between developers and end-users to ensure that generated warnings are duly considered by decision makers, reflect best practice, scientific understanding and the working environment facing frontline actors. Progress towards this goal will rely on openness and mutual understanding of the role of EWS in IAS risk management, as much as on developments in the underlying technologies for surveillance and modelling procedures.

Scientists' warning on invasive alien species

Biological invasions are a global consequence of an increasingly connected world and the rise in human population size. The numbers of invasive alien species – the subset of alien species that spread widely in areas where they are not native, affecting the environment or human livelihoods – are increasing. Synergies with other global changes are exacerbating current invasions and facilitating new ones, thereby escalating the extent and impacts of invaders. Invasions have complex and often immense long‐term direct and indirect impacts. In many cases, such impacts become apparent or problematic only when invaders are well established and have large ranges. Invasive alien species break down biogeographic realms, affect native species richness and abundance, increase the risk of native species extinction, affect the genetic composition of native populations, change native animal behaviour, alter phylogenetic diversity across communities, and modify trophic networks. Many invasive alien species also change ecosystem functioning and the delivery of ecosystem services by altering nutrient and contaminant cycling, hydrology, habitat structure, and disturbance regimes. These biodiversity and ecosystem impacts are accelerating and will increase further in the future. Scientific evidence has identified policy strategies to reduce future invasions, but these strategies are often insufficiently implemented. For some nations, notably Australia and New Zealand, biosecurity has become a national priority. There have been long‐term successes, such as eradication of rats and cats on increasingly large islands and biological control of weeds across continental areas. However, in many countries, invasions receive little attention. Improved international cooperation is crucial to reduce the impacts of invasive alien species on biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human livelihoods. Countries can strengthen their biosecurity regulations to implement and enforce more effective management strategies that should also address other global changes that interact with invasions.

A review of the critics of invasion biology

Herein, I review existing criticisms of the field of invasion biology. Firstly, I identifiy problems of conceptual weaknesses, including disagreements regarding: (i) definitions of invasive, impact, and pristine conditions, and (ii) ecological assumptions such as species equilibrium, niche saturation, and climax communities. Secondly, I discuss methodological problems include the misuse of correlations, biases in impact reviews and risk assessment, and difficulties in predicting the effects of species introductions or eradications. Finally, I analyse the social conflict regarding invasive species management and differences in moral and philosophical foundations. I discuss the recent emergence of alternatives to traditional invasion biology approaches, including the concept of novel ecosystems, conciliation biology, and compassionate conservation. Understanding different value systems will be the first step to reconciling the different perspectives related to this controversial topic.

Fact and value in invasion biology

Some invasion biologists contend their science has reached a consensus on 4 facts: cost estimates of the effects of nonindigenous species provided in papers by Pimentel et al. are credible; invasive species generally, not just predators, pose significant extinction threats; characteristic biological differences distinguish novel from native species, ecosystems, communities, and processes; and ontological dualism, which distinguishes between natural and anthropogenic processes and influences, plays a useful role in biological inquiry. I contend there is no convincing empirical evidence for any of these propositions. Leading invasion biologists cite their agreement about these propositions as evidence for them and impugn the motives of critics who believe consensus should be based on evidence not the other way around.

Invasion syndromes: a systematic approach for predicting biological invasions and facilitating effective management

Our ability to predict invasions has been hindered by the seemingly idiosyncratic context-dependency of individual invasions. However, we argue that robust and useful generalisations in invasion science can be made by considering “invasion syndromes” which we define as “a combination of pathways, alien species traits, and characteristics of the recipient ecosystem which collectively result in predictable dynamics and impacts, and that can be managed effectively using specific policy and management actions”. We describe this approach and outline examples that highlight its utility, including: cacti with clonal fragmentation in arid ecosystems; small aquatic organisms introduced through ballast water in harbours; large ranid frogs with frequent secondary transfers; piscivorous freshwater fishes in connected aquatic ecosystems; plant invasions in high-elevation areas; tall-statured grasses; and tree-feeding insects in forests with suitable hosts. We propose a systematic method for identifying and delimiting invasion syndromes. We argue that invasion syndromes can account for the context-dependency of biological invasions while incorporating insights from comparative studies. Adopting this approach will help to structure thinking, identify transferrable risk assessment and management lessons, and highlight similarities among events that were previously considered disparate invasion phenomena.

The failure of success: cyclic recurrences of a globally invasive pest

In the six decades since 1960, the oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel), has been announced successfully eradicated in California by the U.S. Department of Agriculture a total of 564 times. This includes eradication declarations in one city a total of 25 different years, in 12 cities 8-19 different years, and in 101 cities 2-7 different years. We here show that the false negatives in declaring elimination success hinge on the easily achieved regulatory criteria, which have virtually guaranteed the failure of complete extirpation of this pest. Analyses of the time series of fly detection over California placed on a grid of 100-km² cells revealed (1) partial success of the eradication program in controlling the invasion of the oriental fruit fly; (2) low prevalence of the initial detection in these cells is often followed by high prevalence of recurrences; (3) progressively shorter intervals between years of consecutive detections; and (4) high likelihood of early-infested cells also experiencing the most frequent outbreaks. Facing the risk of recurrent invasions, such short-term eradication programs have only succeeded annually according to the current regulatory criteria but have failed to achieve the larger goal of complete extirpation of the oriental fruit fly. Based on the components and running costs of the current programs, we further estimated the efficiency of eradication programs with different combinations of eradication radius, duration, and edge impermeability in reducing invasion recurrences and slowing the spread of the oriental fruit fly. We end with policy implications including the need for agricultural agencies worldwide to revisit eradication protocols in which monitoring and treatments are terminated when the regulatory criteria for declaring eradication are met. Our results also have direct implications to invasion biologists and agriculture policy makers regarding long-term risks of short-term expediency.

The Invasive Niche, a Multidisciplinary Concept Illustrated by Gorse (Ulex Europaeus)

This study analyzes the natural and social factors influencing the emergence and publicization of the invasive status of a fast-growing bush, gorse (Ulex europaeus), by comparison between countries on a global scale. We used documents collected on the web in a standardized way. The results show that in all the countries studied, there are several public statuses attributed to gorse. The invasive status is the one that is most shared. The other most frequently encountered status are those of noxious weed, and those of which are economically useful. The invasive status is publicized in nearly all countries, including those where gorse is almost absent. We quantified the publicization of the invasive gorse status of gorse by an indicator with 5 levels, and then performed a multivariate analysis that combines natural and social explanatory variables. The results lead us to propose the concept of invasive niche, which is the set of natural and social parameters that allow a species to be considered invasive in a given socio-ecosystem