The effect of cross-boundary management on the trajectory to commonness in biological invasions

GIRAE: a generalised approach for linking the total impact of invasion to species' range, abundance and per-unit effects

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.

Rethinking Biological Invasions as a Metacommunity Problem

Perhaps more than any other ecological discipline, invasion biology has married the practices of basic science and the application of that science. The conceptual frameworks of population regulation, metapopulations, supply-side ecology, and community assembly have all to some degree informed the regulation, management, and prevention of biological invasions. Invasion biology needs to continue to adopt emerging frameworks and paradigms to progress as both a basic and applied science. This need is urgent as the biological invasion problem continues to worsen. The development of metacommunity theory in the last two decades represents a paradigm-shifting approach to community ecology that emphasizes the multi-scale nature of community assembly and biodiversity regulation. Work on metacommunities has demonstrated that even relatively simple processes at local scales are often heavily influenced by regional-scale processes driven primarily by the dispersal of organisms. Often the influence of dispersal interacts with, or even swamps, the influence of local-scale drivers like environmental conditions and species interactions. An emphasis on dispersal and a focus on multi-scale processes enable metacommunity theory to contribute strongly to the advancement of invasion biology. Propagule pressure of invaders has been identified as one of the most important drivers facilitating invasion, so the metacommunity concept, designed to address how dispersal-driven dynamics affect community structure, can directly address many of the central questions of invasion biology. Here we revisit many of the important concepts and paradigms of biological invasions—propagule pressure, biotic resistance, enemy release, functional traits, neonative species, human-assisted transport,—and view those concepts through the lens of metacommunity theory. In doing so, we accomplish several goals. First, we show that work on metacommunities has generated multiple predictions, models, and the tools that can be directly applied to invasion scenarios. Among these predictions is that invasibility of a community should decrease with both local controls on community assembly, and the dispersal rates of native species. Second, we demonstrate that framing biological invasions in metacommunity terms actually unifies several seemingly disparate concepts central to invasion biology. Finally, we recommend several courses of action for the control and management of invasive species that emerge from applying the concepts of metacommunity theory.

Applying an invasion and risk framework to track non-native island floras: a case study of challenges and solutions in Hawai‘i

Islands are plant invasion hotspots, with some having more non-native than native species. Many plants are recent arrivals, leading to concerns that their full spread and impacts are not yet realised. Given that islands host extraordinary numbers of endemic and threatened species, schemes are urgently needed to track the complex, species-rich but data-poor scenarios typical of islands. This study applies the unified framework by Blackburn et al. (2011) for categorising invasion stages to Hawai‘i’s non-native plant checklist and identifies potential uses and complications for species tracking and invasion management. Data deficiencies and ambiguities required lumping Blackburn et al.’s categories to align with Hawai‘i’s available data; nonetheless, this coarser categorisation describes invasion phases relevant to managers and could provide the basis for an effective tracking system. However, the unified framework does not accommodate uncertain invasion statuses, which prevents clear categorisation of species that exist outside of cultivation but are not definitely naturalised. In response to this obstacle, scores from the Hawai‘i-Pacific Weed Risk Assessment (WRA) are explored to understand their application for predicting naturalisation, including standard WRA scores as well as alternative scoring methods. We show that this predictive tool may be a promising supplement to on-the-ground monitoring for data-deficient elements of a flora. Finally, a categorisation system for tracking statuses of an entire non-native flora is proposed that requires limited investments in additional data collection while following the rationale of Blackburn et al.’s scheme. This categorisation system may be used to reveal overall invasion patterns and trends in a region, leading to valuable insights into strategies for biodiversity management and conservation.

Frameworks used in invasion science: progress and prospects

Our understanding and management of biological invasions relies on our ability to classify and conceptualise the phenomenon. This need has stimulated the development of a plethora of frameworks, ranging in nature from conceptual to applied. However, most of these frameworks have not been widely tested and their general applicability is unknown. In order to critically evaluate frameworks in invasion science, we held a workshop on ‘Frameworks used in Invasion Science’ hosted by the DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology in Stellenbosch, South Africa, in November 2019, which led to this special issue. For the purpose of the workshop we defined a framework as “a way of organising things that can be easily communicated to allow for shared understanding or that can be implemented to allow for generalisations useful for research, policy or management”. Further, we developed the Stellenbosch Challenge for Invasion Science: “Can invasion science develop and improve frameworks that are useful for research, policy or management, and that are clear as to the contexts in which the frameworks do and do not apply?”. Particular considerations identified among meeting participants included the need to identify the limitations of a framework, specify how frameworks link to each other and broader issues, and to improve how frameworks can facilitate communication. We believe that the 24 papers in this special issue do much to meet this challenge. The papers apply existing frameworks to new data and contexts, review how the frameworks have been adopted and used, develop useable protocols and guidelines for applying frameworks to different contexts, refine the frameworks in light of experience, integrate frameworks for new purposes, identify gaps, and develop new frameworks to address issues that are currently not adequately dealt with. Frameworks in invasion science must continue to be developed, tested as broadly as possible, revised, and retired as contexts and needs change. However, frameworks dealing with pathways of introduction, progress along the introduction-naturalisation-invasion continuum, and the assessment of impacts are being increasingly formalised and set as standards. This, we argue, is an important step as invasion science starts to mature as a discipline.