Collection C
Permanent URI for this collection
Browse
Browsing Collection C by Author "Bacher, Sven"
Now showing 1 - 8 of 8
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- ItemAppropriate uses of EICAT protocol, data and classifications(Pensoft, 2020) Kumschick, Sabrina; Bacher, Sven; Bertolino, Sandro; Blackburn, Tim M.; Evans, Thomas; Roy, Helen E.; Smith, KevinThe Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT) can be used to classify alien taxa according to the magnitude and type of their environmental impacts. The EICAT protocol, classifications of alien taxa using the protocol (EICAT classification) and the data underpinning classifications (EICAT data) are increasingly used by scientists and practitioners such as governments, NGOs and civil society for a variety of purposes. However, the properties of the EICAT protocol and the data it generates are not suitable for certain uses. Therefore, we present guidelines designed to clarify and facilitate the appropriate use of EICAT to tackle a broad range of conservation issues related to biological invasions, as well as to guide research and communication more generally. Here we address common misconceptions and give a brief overview of some key issues that all EICAT users need to be aware of to take maximal advantage of this resource. Furthermore, we give examples of the wide variety of ways in which the EICAT protocol, classifications and data can be and have been utilised and outline common errors and pitfalls to avoid.
- ItemDrivers of future alien species impacts: an expert-based assessment(Wiley, 2020) Essl, Franz; Lenzner, Bernd; Bacher, Sven; Bailey, Sarah; Hui, Cang; Kuhn, Ingolf; Pysek, Petr; Richardson, David M.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.
- ItemFrameworks used in invasion science : progress and prospects(Pensoft, 2020) Wilson, John R. U.; Bacher, Sven; Daehler, Curtis C.; Groom, Quentin J.; Kumschick, Sabrina; Lockwood, Julie L.; Robinson, Tamara B.; Zengeya, Tsungai A.; Richardson, David M.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.
- ItemThe importance of assessing positive and beneficial impacts of alien species(Pensoft, 2020) Vimercati, Giovanni; Kumschick, Sabrina; Probert, Anna F.; Volery, Lara; Bacher, SvenExtensive literature is available on the diversity and magnitude of impacts that alien species cause on recipient systems. Alien species may decrease or increase attributes of ecosystems (e.g. total biomass or species diversity), thus causing negative and positive environmental impacts. Alien species may also negatively or positively impact attributes linked to local human communities (e.g. the number of people involved in a given activity). Ethical and societal values contribute to define these environmental and socio-economic impacts as deleterious or beneficial. Whilst most of the literature focuses on the deleterious effects of alien taxa, some recognise their beneficial impacts on ecosystems and human activities. Impact assessment frameworks show a similar tendency to evaluate mainly deleterious impacts: only relatively few, and not widely applied, frameworks incorporate the beneficial impacts of alien species. Here, we provide a summary of the frameworks assessing beneficial impacts and briefly discuss why they might have been less frequently cited and applied than frameworks assessing exclusively deleterious impacts. Then, we review arguments that invoke a greater consideration of positive and beneficial impacts caused by alien species across the invasion science literature. We collate and describe arguments from a set of 47 papers, grouping them in two categories (value-free and value-laden), which span from a theoretical, basic science perspective to an applied science perspective. We also provide example cases associated with each argument. We advocate that the development of transparent and evidence-based frameworks assessing positive and beneficial impacts might advance our scientific understanding of impact dynamics and better inform management and prioritisation decisions. We also advise that this development should be achieved by recognising the underlying ethical and societal values of the frameworks and their intrinsic limitations. The evaluation of positive and beneficial impacts through impact assessment frameworks should not be seen as an attempt to outweigh or to discount deleterious impacts of alien taxa but rather as an opportunity to provide additional information for scientists, managers and policymakers.
- ItemImproving the Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT): a summary of revisions to the framework and guidelines(Pensoft, 2020) Volery, Lara; Blackburn, Tim M.; Bertolino, Sandro; Evans, Thomas; Genovesi, Piero; Kumschick, Sabrina; Roy, Helen E.; Smith, Kevin G.; Bacher, SvenThe Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT) classifies the impacts caused by alien species in their introduced range in standardised terms across taxa and recipient environments. Impacts are classified into one of five levels of severity, from Minimal Concern to Massive, via one of 12 impact mechanisms. Here, we explain revisions based on an IUCN-wide consultation process to the previously-published EICAT framework and guidelines, to clarify why these changes were necessary. These changes mainly concern: the distinction between the two highest levels of impact severity (Major and Massive impacts), the scenarios of the five levels of severity for the hybridisation and disease transmission mechanisms, the broadening of existing impact mechanisms to capture overlooked mechanisms, the Current (Maximum) Impact, and the way uncertainty of individual impact assessments is evaluated. Our aim in explaining this revision process is to ensure consistency of EICAT assessments, by improving the understanding of the framework.
- ItemInvasion costs, impacts, and human agency : response to Sagoff 2020(Wiley, 2020) Cuthbert, Ross N.; Bacher, Sven; Blackburn, Tim M.; Briski, Elizabeta; Diagne, Christophe; Dick, Jaimie T. A.; Essl, Franz; Genovesi, Piero; Haubrock, Phillip J.; Latombe, Guillaume; Lenzner, Bernd; Meinard, Yves; Pauchard, Anibal; Pysek, Petr; Ricciardi, Anthony; Richardson, David M.; Russell, James C.; Simberloff, Daniel; Courchamp, FranckArticle impact statement: In an era of profound biodiversity crisis, invasion costs, invader impacts, and human agency should not be dismissed.
- ItemMAcroecological Framework for Invasive Aliens (MAFIA) : disentangling large-scale context dependence in biological invasions(2020) Pysek, Petr; Bacher, Sven; Kuhn, Ingolf; Novoa, Ana; Catford, Jane A.; Hulme, Philip E.; Pergl, Jan; Richardson, David M.; Wilson, John R. U.; Blackburn, Tim M.Macroecology is the study of patterns, and the processes that determine those patterns, in the distribution and abundance of organisms at large scales, whether they be spatial (from hundreds of kilometres to global), temporal (from decades to centuries), and organismal (numbers of species or higher taxa). In the context of invasion ecology, macroecological studies include, for example, analyses of the richness, diversity, distribution, and abundance of alien species in regional floras and faunas, spatio-temporal dynamics of alien species across regions, and cross-taxonomic analyses of species traits among comparable native and alien species pools. However, macroecological studies aiming to explain and predict plant and animal naturalisations and invasions, and the resulting impacts, have, to date, rarely considered the joint effects of species traits, environment, and socioeconomic characteristics. To address this, we present the MAcroecological Framework for Invasive Aliens (MAFIA). The MAFIA explains the invasion phenomenon using three interacting classes of factors – alien species traits, location characteristics, and factors related to introduction events – and explicitly maps these interactions onto the invasion sequence from transport to naturalisation to invasion. The framework therefore helps both to identify how anthropogenic effects interact with species traits and environmental characteristics to determine observed patterns in alien distribution, abundance, and richness; and to clarify why neglecting anthropogenic effects can generate spurious conclusions. Event-related factors include propagule pressure, colonisation pressure, and residence time that are important for mediating the outcome of invasion processes. However, because of context dependence, they can bias analyses, for example those that seek to elucidate the role of alien species traits. In the same vein, failure to recognise and explicitly incorporate interactions among the main factors impedes our understanding of which macroecological invasion patterns are shaped by the environment, and of the importance of interactions between the species and their environment. The MAFIA is based largely on insights from studies of plants and birds, but we believe it can be applied to all taxa, and hope that it will stimulate comparative research on other groups and environments. By making the biases in macroecological analyses of biological invasions explicit, the MAFIA offers an opportunity to guide assessments of the context dependence of invasions at broad geographical scales.
- ItemUnderstanding uncertainty in the Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (ICAT) assessments(Pensoft, 2020) Probert, Anna F.; Volery, Lara; Kumschick, Sabrina; Vimercati, Giovanni; Bacher, SvenThe 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.