1
|
Latombe G, Catford JA, Essl F, Lenzner B, Richardson DM, Wilson JRU, McGeoch MA. GIRAE: a generalised approach for linking the total impact of invasion to species' range, abundance and per-unit effects. Biol Invasions 2022; 24:3147-3167. [PMID: 36131994 PMCID: PMC9482606 DOI: 10.1007/s10530-022-02836-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/20/2021] [Accepted: 05/11/2022] [Indexed: 12/27/2022]
Abstract
The total impact of an alien species was conceptualised as the product of its range size, local abundance and per-unit effect in a seminal paper by Parker et al. (Biol Invasions 1:3-19, 1999). However, a practical approach for estimating the three components has been lacking. Here, we generalise the impact formula and, through use of regression models, estimate the relationship between the three components of impact, an approach we term GIRAE (Generalised Impact = Range size × Abundance × per-unit Effect). We discuss how GIRAE can be applied to multiple types of impact, including environmental impacts, damage and management costs. We propose two methods for applying GIRAE. The species-specific method computes the relationship between impact, range size, abundance and per-unit effect for a given species across multiple invaded sites or regions of different sizes. The multi-species method combines data from multiple species across multiple sites or regions to calculate a per-unit effect for each species and is computed using a single regression model. The species-specific method is more accurate, but it requires a large amount of data for each species and assumes a constant per-unit effect for a species across the invaded area. The multi-species method is more easily applicable and data-parsimonious, but assumes the same relationship between impact, range size and abundance for all considered species. We illustrate these methods using data about money spent managing plant invasions in different biomes of South Africa. We found clear differences between species in terms of money spent per unit area invaded, with per-unit expenditure varying substantially between biomes for some species-insights that are useful for monitoring and evaluating management. GIRAE offers a versatile and practical method that can be applied to many different types of data to better understand and manage the impacts of biological invasions. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10530-022-02836-0.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Guillaume Latombe
- Institute of Ecology and Evolution, The University of Edinburgh, King’s Buildings, EH9 3FL Edinburgh, UK
| | - Jane A. Catford
- Department of Geography, King’s College London, 30 Aldwych, London, WC2B 4BG UK
- School of Ecosystem and Forest Sciences, University of Melbourne, VIC 3121 Richmond, Australia
| | - Franz Essl
- Bioinvasions, Global Change, Macroecology Group, Department of Botany and Biodiversity Research, University of Vienna, Rennweg 14, 1030 Vienna, Austria
- Centre for Invasion Biology, Department of Botany and Zoology, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa
| | - Bernd Lenzner
- Bioinvasions, Global Change, Macroecology Group, Department of Botany and Biodiversity Research, University of Vienna, Rennweg 14, 1030 Vienna, Austria
| | - David M. Richardson
- Centre for Invasion Biology, Department of Botany and Zoology, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa
| | - John R. U. Wilson
- Centre for Invasion Biology, Department of Botany and Zoology, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa
- South African National Biodiversity Institute, Kirstenbosch Research Centre, Cape Town, South Africa
| | - Melodie A. McGeoch
- Department of Ecology, Environment and Evolution, LaTrobe University, Melbourne, VIC 3086 Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
van Rees CB, Hand BK, Carter SC, Bargeron C, Cline TJ, Daniel W, Ferrante JA, Gaddis K, Hunter ME, Jarnevich CS, McGeoch MA, Morisette JT, Neilson ME, Roy HE, Rozance MA, Sepulveda A, Wallace RD, Whited D, Wilcox T, Kimball JS, Luikart G. A framework to integrate innovations in invasion science for proactive management. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 2022; 97:1712-1735. [PMID: 35451197 DOI: 10.1111/brv.12859] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/07/2021] [Revised: 03/29/2022] [Accepted: 03/30/2022] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
Invasive alien species (IAS) are a rising threat to biodiversity, national security, and regional economies, with impacts in the hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars annually. Proactive or predictive approaches guided by scientific knowledge are essential to keeping pace with growing impacts of invasions under climate change. Although the rapid development of diverse technologies and approaches has produced tools with the potential to greatly accelerate invasion research and management, innovation has far outpaced implementation and coordination. Technological and methodological syntheses are urgently needed to close the growing implementation gap and facilitate interdisciplinary collaboration and synergy among evolving disciplines. A broad review is necessary to demonstrate the utility and relevance of work in diverse fields to generate actionable science for the ongoing invasion crisis. Here, we review such advances in relevant fields including remote sensing, epidemiology, big data analytics, environmental DNA (eDNA) sampling, genomics, and others, and present a generalized framework for distilling existing and emerging data into products for proactive IAS research and management. This integrated workflow provides a pathway for scientists and practitioners in diverse disciplines to contribute to applied invasion biology in a coordinated, synergistic, and scalable manner.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Charles B van Rees
- Flathead Lake Biological Station, University of Montana, 32125 Bio Station Lane, Polson, MT, 59860, U.S.A
| | - Brian K Hand
- Flathead Lake Biological Station, University of Montana, 32125 Bio Station Lane, Polson, MT, 59860, U.S.A
| | - Sean C Carter
- Numerical Terradynamic Simulation Group, University of Montana, ISB 415, Missoula, MT, 59812, U.S.A
| | - Chuck Bargeron
- Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health, University of Georgia, 4601 Research Way, Tifton, GA, 31793, U.S.A
| | - Timothy J Cline
- U.S. Geological Survey, Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center, 2327 University Way STE 2, Bozeman MT 59717 & 320 Grinnel Drive, West Glacier, MT, 59936, U.S.A
| | - Wesley Daniel
- U.S. Geological Survey, Wetland and Aquatic Research Center, 7920 NW 71st Street, Gainesville, FL, 32653, U.S.A
| | - Jason A Ferrante
- U.S. Geological Survey, Wetland and Aquatic Research Center, 7920 NW 71st Street, Gainesville, FL, 32653, U.S.A
| | - Keith Gaddis
- NASA Biological Diversity and Ecological Forecasting Programs, 300 E St. SW, Washington, DC, 20546, U.S.A
| | - Margaret E Hunter
- U.S. Geological Survey, Wetland and Aquatic Research Center, 7920 NW 71st Street, Gainesville, FL, 32653, U.S.A
| | - Catherine S Jarnevich
- U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science Center, 2150 Centre Avenue Bldg C, Fort Collins, CO, 80526, U.S.A
| | - Melodie A McGeoch
- Department of Environment and Genetics, La Trobe University, Plenty Road & Kingsbury Drive, Bundoora, Victoria, 3086, Australia
| | - Jeffrey T Morisette
- U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, 26 Fort Missoula Road, Missoula, 59804, MT, U.S.A
| | - Matthew E Neilson
- U.S. Geological Survey, Wetland and Aquatic Research Center, 7920 NW 71st Street, Gainesville, FL, 32653, U.S.A
| | - Helen E Roy
- UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, MacLean Building, Benson Lane, Crowmarsh Gifford, OX10 8BB, U.K
| | - Mary Ann Rozance
- Northwest Climate Adaptation Science Center, University of Washington, Box 355674, Seattle, WA, 98195, U.S.A
| | - Adam Sepulveda
- U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, 26 Fort Missoula Road, Missoula, 59804, MT, U.S.A
| | - Rebekah D Wallace
- Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health, University of Georgia, 4601 Research Way, Tifton, GA, 31793, U.S.A
| | - Diane Whited
- Flathead Lake Biological Station, University of Montana, 32125 Bio Station Lane, Polson, MT, 59860, U.S.A
| | - Taylor Wilcox
- U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, 26 Fort Missoula Road, Missoula, 59804, MT, U.S.A
| | - John S Kimball
- Numerical Terradynamic Simulation Group, University of Montana, ISB 415, Missoula, MT, 59812, U.S.A
| | - Gordon Luikart
- Flathead Lake Biological Station, University of Montana, 32125 Bio Station Lane, Polson, MT, 59860, U.S.A
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Rebelo AJ, Holden PB, Esler K, New MG. Benefits of water-related ecological infrastructure investments to support sustainable land-use: a review of evidence from critically water-stressed catchments in South Africa. ROYAL SOCIETY OPEN SCIENCE 2021; 8:201402. [PMID: 34007458 PMCID: PMC8080003 DOI: 10.1098/rsos.201402] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/01/2021] [Accepted: 04/09/2021] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Abstract
Investments to promote sustainable land-use within critical river catchment areas are often undertaken to provide benefits to society. Investments generally aim to protect or restore ecological infrastructure-the underlying framework of ecosystems, functions and processes that supply ecosystem services-for multiple benefits to society. However, the empirical evidence base from studies across the world on both mechanisms and outcomes to support these assumptions is limited. We collate evidence on the benefits of ecological infrastructure interventions, in terms of ecosystem services provided to society, from three major South African water-providing catchments using a novel framework. In these catchments, millions of US Dollars' worth of investments have been made into ecological infrastructure since 1996. We ask the question: is there evidence that ecological infrastructure interventions are delivering the proposed benefits? Results show that even in catchments with substantial, long-term financial investment into ecological infrastructure, research has not empirically confirmed the benefits. Better baseline data collection is required, and monitoring during and after ecological infrastructure interventions, to quantify benefits to society. This evidence is needed to leverage investment into ecological infrastructure interventions at scale. Investment at scale is needed to transition to more sustainable land-use to unlock greater benefits to nature and people.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alanna J. Rebelo
- Department of Conservation Ecology and Entomology, Stellenbosch University, South Africa
| | - Petra B. Holden
- African Climate and Development Initiative, University of Cape Town, South Africa
| | - Karen Esler
- Department of Conservation Ecology and Entomology, Stellenbosch University, South Africa
- DSI-NRF Centre for Invasion Biology, Stellenbosch University, South Africa
| | - Mark G. New
- DSI-NRF Centre for Invasion Biology, Stellenbosch University, South Africa
- School of International Development, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
| |
Collapse
|