Collection C
Permanent URI for this collection
Browse
Browsing Collection C by Subject "Alien species"
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- ItemBiogeographical comparison of terrestrial invertebrates and trophic feeding guilds in the native and invasive ranges of Carpobrotus edulis(Pensoft, 2020) Rodriguez, Jonatan; Novoa, Ana; Cordero-Rivera, Adolfo; Richardson, David M.; Gonzalez, LuisPlant invasions impact on biodiversity by altering the composition of native communities by disrupting taxonomic and functional diversity. Non-native plants are often released from their natural enemies, which might result in a reduction of the attack of primary consumers. However, they can also be exposed to the attack of new herbivores that they might not be able to tolerate. Hence, invertebrate communities can be influenced by invasive non-native plants, which in turn modify interactions and change environmental conditions. In this study, we examined the compositional and trophic diversity of invertebrate species, comparing ecosystems with and without the plant species Carpobrotus edulis in coastal areas in its native (South Africa) and introduced (Iberian Peninsula) ranges. Results show that C. edulis has a clear impact on invertebrate communities in its non-native range, reducing their abundance in invaded areas, and particularly affecting certain trophic groups. Invasive C. edulis also alters the invertebrate diversity by not only reducing abundance but also by altering species composition. Overall, the physical dominance of C. edulis modifies the co-occurrence of invertebrate assemblages, reducing the number of trophic groups and leading to substantial effects on primary consumers. Results suggest that the lack of natural enemies might be an important driver of the expansion of C. edulis in its introduced range. Further work is needed to examine long-term changes caused by non-native plants on invertebrate assemblages and the subsequent modification of biological interactions.
- 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.
- 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.