Sabrina Kumschick

A unified classification of alien species based on the magnitude of their environmental impacts.

We present a method for categorising and comparing alien or invasive species in terms of how damaging they are to the environment, that can be applied across all taxa, scales, and impact metrics.

Defining the Impact of Non-Native Species

Non-native species cause changes in the ecosystems to which they are introduced. These changes, or some of them, are usually termed impacts; they can be manifold and potentially damaging to ecosystems and biodiversity. However, the impacts of most non-native species are poorly understood, and a synthesis of available information is being hindered because authors often do not clearly define impact. We argue that explicitly defining the impact of non-native species will promote progress toward a better understanding of the implications of changes to biodiversity and ecosystems caused by non-native species; help disentangle which aspects of scientific debates about non-native species are due to disparate definitions and which represent true scientific discord; and improve communication between scientists from different research disciplines and between scientists, managers, and policy makers. For these reasons and based on examples from the literature, we devised seven key questions that fall into 4 categories: directionality, classification and measurement, ecological or socio-economic changes, and scale. These questions should help in formulating clear and practical definitions of impact to suit specific scientific, stakeholder, or legislative contexts. Definiendo el Impacto de las Especies No-Nativas Resumen Las especies no-nativas pueden causar cambios en los ecosistemas donde son introducidas. Estos cambios, o algunos de ellos, usualmente se denominan como impactos; estos pueden ser variados y potencialmente dañinos para los ecosistemas y la biodiversidad. Sin embargo, los impactos de la mayoría de las especies no-nativas están pobremente entendidos y una síntesis de información disponible se ve obstaculizada porque los autores continuamente no definen claramente impacto. Discutimos que definir explícitamente el impacto de las especies no-nativas promoverá el progreso hacia un mejor entendimiento de las implicaciones de los cambios a la biodiversidad y los ecosistemas causados por especies no-nativas; ayudar a entender cuáles aspectos de los debates científicos sobre especies no-nativas son debidos a definiciones diversas y cuáles representan un verdadero desacuerdo científico; y mejorar la comunicación entre científicos de diferentes disciplinas y entre científicos, administradores y quienes hacen las políticas. Por estas razones y basándonos en ejemplos tomados de la literatura, concebimos siete preguntas clave que caen en cuatro categorías: direccionalidad, clasificación y medida, cambios ecológicos o socio-económicos, y escala. Estas preguntas deberían ayudar en la formulación de definiciones claras y prácticas del impacto para encajar mejor con contextos científicos, de las partes interesadas o legislativos específicos.

Advancing impact prediction and hypothesis testing in invasion ecology using a comparative functional response approach

Invasion ecology urgently requires predictive methodologies that can forecast the ecological impacts of existing, emerging and potential invasive species. We argue that many ecologically damaging invaders are characterised by their more efficient use of resources. Consequently, comparison of the classical ‘functional response’ (relationship between resource use and availability) between invasive and trophically analogous native species may allow prediction of invader ecological impact. We review the utility of species trait comparisons and the history and context of the use of functional responses in invasion ecology, then present our framework for the use of comparative functional responses. We show that functional response analyses, by describing the resource use of species over a range of resource availabilities, avoids many pitfalls of ‘snapshot’ assessments of resource use. Our framework demonstrates how comparisons of invader and native functional responses, within and between Type II and III functional responses, allow testing of the likely population-level outcomes of invasions for affected species. Furthermore, we describe how recent studies support the predictive capacity of this method; for example, the invasive ‘bloody red shrimp’ Hemimysis anomala shows higher Type II functional responses than native mysids and this corroborates, and could have predicted, actual invader impacts in the field. The comparative functional response method can also be used to examine differences in the impact of two or more invaders, two or more populations of the same invader, and the abiotic (e.g. temperature) and biotic (e.g. parasitism) context-dependencies of invader impacts. Our framework may also address the previous lack of rigour in testing major hypotheses in invasion ecology, such as the ‘enemy release’ and ‘biotic resistance’ hypotheses, as our approach explicitly considers demographic consequences for impacted resources, such as native and invasive prey species. We also identify potential challenges in the application of comparative functional responses in invasion ecology. These include incorporation of numerical responses, multiple predator effects and trait-mediated indirect interactions, replacement versus non-replacement study designs and the inclusion of functional responses in risk assessment frameworks. In future, the generation of sufficient case studies for a meta-analysis could test the overall hypothesis that comparative functional responses can indeed predict invasive species impacts.

Comparing impacts of alien plants and animals in Europe using a standard scoring system

Summary 1. Alien species can change the recipient environment in various ways, and some of them cause considerable damage. Understanding such impacts is crucial to direct management actions. This study addresses the following questions: Is it possible to quantify impact across higher taxa in a comparative manner? Do impacts differ between taxonomic groups? How are environmental and socio-economic impacts related? Can impacts be predicted based on those in other regions? 2. To address these questions, we reviewed literature describing the impacts of 300 species from five major taxonomic groups: mammals, birds, fish, terrestrial arthropods and plants. To make very diverse impact measures comparable, we used the semi-quantitative generic impact scoring system (GISS) which describes environmental and socio-economic impacts using twelve categories. In each category, scores range from zero (no impact known or detectable) to five (the highest possible impact). 3. Using the same scoring system for taxa as diverse as invertebrates, vertebrates and plants, we found that overall, alien mammals in Europe have the highest impact, while fish have the lowest. Terrestrial arthropods were found to have the lowest environmental impact, while fish had relatively low socio-economic impact. 4. Overall, the magnitude of environmental and socio-economic impacts of individual alien species is highly correlated. However, at the species level, major deviations are found. 5. For mammals and birds, the impacts in invaded ranges outside of Europe are broadly similar to those recorded for alien species within Europe, indicating that a consideration of the known impacts of a species in other regions can be generally useful when predicting the impacts of an alien species. However, it should be noted that this pattern is not consistent across all mammal and bird orders, and thus, such information should be considered with caution. 6. Synthesis and applications. Comparing the impacts of alien species across taxa is necessary for prioritizing management efforts and effective allocation of resources. By applying the generic impact scoring system (GISS) to five major taxonomic groups, we provide the basis for a semiquantitative cross-taxa listing process (e.g. ‘black lists’ or 100-worst-lists). If more data are collated from different geographical regions and habitats using standard GISS protocols, risk assessments for alien species based on rigorous measures of impact could be improved by taking into account local variation, and context dependence of impacts. This would also allow studies at lower taxonomic levels, and within-taxon analyses of functional groups and guilds.

Evolution of fast-growing and more resistant phenotypes in introduced common mullein (Verbascum thapsus)

Summary 1. Species introduced into areas outside of their native range face novel biotic and abiotic conditions, which probably impose novel selection pressures. Adaptation to these new conditions may increase the ability of introduced species to establish and spread. Like many other introduced plant populations, introduced genotypes of common mullein (Verbascum thapsus) are more successful in their introduced than in their native range, with increased growth and fecundity. These differences appear to be at least partly genetically based. The most successful introduced populations also grow in an environment that is drier and has fewer competitors than native populations. It is not known, however, whether differences between native and introduced mullein populations are related to these environmental differences between ranges. 2. We used a common garden experiment with 23 native and 27 introduced populations of common mullein to test whether common mullein in the introduced range exhibits evolutionary shifts with respect to responses to competition, drought stress and nitrogen (N) stress. We also used choice experiments to learn whether introduced mullein is more or less resistant to a generalist herbivore than native mullein. 3. Without competition, introduced genotypes grew larger than native genotypes under high resource availability (control) and N stress, but not water stress. Survival, however, was increased in native populations under competition and N stress. The introduced genotypes also had a lower root:shoot ratio than the native genotypes. With competition, introduced genotypes grew larger than native genotypes across all treatments, with that difference being significant under N stress. The introduced genotypes were also more resistant to a generalist herbivore. 4. Synthesis: Together, high biomass, strong responses to high water availability and low root:shoot ratio suggest that mullein has evolved a fast-growing, weedy phenotype in its introduced range rather than adapting to a low-water environment through increased root growth. Although fastgrowing plants can be more palatable to herbivores, in this case there does not appear to be a tradeoff between growth and defence against a generalist herbivore. Mullein appears to have evolved to be both faster growing and better defended in the introduced range.

What determines the impact of alien birds and mammals in Europe

An often-cited reason for studying the process of invasion by alien species is that the understanding sought can be used to mitigate the impacts of the invaders. Here, we present an analysis of the correlates of local impacts of established alien bird and mammal species in Europe, using a recently described metric to quantify impact. Large-bodied, habitat generalist bird and mammal species that are widespread in their native range, have the greatest impacts in their alien European ranges, supporting our hypothesis that surrogates for the breadth and the amount of resources a species uses are good indicators of its impact. However, not all surrogates are equally suitable. Impacts are generally greater for mammal species giving birth to larger litters, but in contrast are greater for bird species laying smaller clutches. There is no effect of diet breadth on impacts in birds or mammals. On average, mammals have higher impacts than birds. However, the relationships between impact and several traits show common slopes for birds and mammals, and relationships between impact and body mass and latitude do not differ between birds and mammals. These results may help to anticipate which species would have large impacts if introduced, and so direct efforts to prevent such introductions.

The generic impact scoring system (GISS): a standardized tool to quantify the impacts of alien species.

Alien species can exert negative environmental and socio-economic impacts. Therefore, administrations from different sectors are trying to prevent further introductions, stop the spread of established species, and apply or develop programs to mitigate their impact, to contain the most harmful species, or to eradicate them if possible. Often it is not clear which of the numerous alien species are most important in terms of damage, and therefore, impact scoring systems have been developed to allow a comparison and thus prioritization of species. Here, we present the generic impact scoring system (GISS), which relies on published evidence of environmental and socio-economic impact of alien species. We developed a system of 12 impact categories, for environmental and socio-economic impact, comprising all kinds of impacts that an alien species may exert. In each category, the intensity of impact is quantified by a six-level scale ranging from 0 (no impact detectable) to 5 (the highest impact possible). Such an approach, where impacts are grouped based on mechanisms for environmental impacts and receiving sectors for socio-economy, allows for cross-taxa comparisons and prioritization of the most damaging species. The GISS is simple and transparent, can be conducted with limited funds, and can be applied to a large number of alien species across taxa and environments. Meanwhile, the system was applied to 349 alien animal and plant species. In a comparison with 22 other impact assessment methods, the combination of environmental and socio-economic impact, as well as the possibility of weighting and ranking of the scoring results make GISS the most broadly applicable system.

Comparing determinants of alien bird impacts across two continents : implications for risk assessment and management

Invasive alien species can have serious adverse impacts on both the environment and the economy. Being able to predict the impacts of an alien species could assist in preventing or reducing these impacts. This study aimed to establish whether there are any life history traits consistently correlated with the impacts of alien birds across two continents, Europe and Australia, as a first step toward identifying life history traits that may have the potential to be adopted as predictors of alien bird impacts. A recently established impact scoring system was used in combination with a literature review to allocate impact scores to alien bird species with self-sustaining populations in Australia. These scores were then tested for correlation with a series of life history traits. The results were compared to data from a previous study in Europe, undertaken using the same methodology, in order to establish whether there are any life history traits consistently correlated with impact across both continents. Habitat generalism was the only life history trait found to be consistently correlated with impact in both Europe and Australia. This trait shows promise as a potential predictor of alien bird impacts. The results support the findings of previous studies in this field, and could be used to inform decisions regarding the prevention and management of future invasions.

Soft Touch or Heavy Hand? Legislative Approaches for Preventing Invasions: Insights from Cacti in South Africa

The rate of transportation, introduction, dissemination, and spread of nonnative species is increasing despite growing global awareness of the extent and impact of biological invasions. Effective policies are needed to prevent an increase in the significant negative environmental and economic impacts caused by invasive species. Here we explore this issue in the context of the history of invasion and subsequent regulation of cacti introduced to South Africa. We consider seven approaches to restricting trade by banning the following: (1) species already invasive in the region, (2) species invasive anywhere in the world, (3) species invasive anywhere in the world with a climate similar to the target region, (4) genera containing invasive species, (5) growth forms associated with invasiveness, (6) cacti with seed characteristics associated with invasiveness, and (7) the whole family. We evaluate each approach on the basis of the availability and complexity of information required for implementation, including the cost of the research needed to acquire such information, the likely numbers of false positives and false negatives, the likely degree of public acceptance, and the costs of implementation. Following a consultative process, we provide recommendations for how to regulate nonnative cacti in South Africa. The simplest option would be to ban all cacti, but available evidence suggests that most species pose negligible risk of becoming invasive, making this option unreasonable. The other extreme—reactively regulating species once they are invasive—would incur significant control costs, likely result in significant environmental and economic impacts, and limit management goals (e.g., eradication might be unfeasible). We recommended an intermediate option—the banning of all genera containing invasive species. This recommendation has been partly incorporated in South African regulations. Our study emphasizes the importance of scientific research, a legal framework, and participation of stakeholders in assessments. This approach builds awareness, trust, and support, and ensures that all interests are reflected in final regulations, making them easier to implement and enforce. Management Implications: This article develops a framework for assisting decision-makers in developing effective nonnative species policies. Using cacti in South Africa as a case study, we consider several general approaches for imposing trade bans and evaluate these on the basis of the complexity of information required for implementation, the likely numbers of false positives and false negatives, the degree of public acceptance, and the costs of research and implementation. Following a consultative process, we provide recommendations that have been partly incorporated in national regulations. Our study highlights the importance of combining scientific research, stakeholders’ opinions, and legal components in developing new nonnative species policies.

Managing alien bird species: Time to move beyond "100 of the worst" lists?

Alien species can cause severe impacts in their introduced ranges and management is challenging due to the large number of such species and the diverse nature and context of their impacts. Lists of the most harmful species, like the “100 of the World’s Worst” list collated by the Invasive Species Specialist Group of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) or the “100 of the Worst” invaders in Europe collated by the Delivering Alien Invasive Species Inventories in Europe (DAISIE) project, raise awareness about these impacts among the public, and can guide management decisions. Such lists are mainly based on expert opinion, but in recent years a more objective comparison of impacts has become possible, even between highly diverse taxa. In this study, we use a semi-quantitative generic impact scoring system to assess impacts of the three birds listed among the “100 of the World’s Worst” IUCN list (IUCN100) and the four birds on the list of “100 of the Worst” European invaders by DAISIE (DAISIE100) and to compare their impacts with those of other alien birds not present on the respective lists. We found that generally, both lists include some of the species with the highest impacts in the respective regions (global or Europe), and these species therefore deserve the dubious honour of being listed among the “worst”. However, there are broad overlaps between some species with regards to the impact mechanisms and the related issues of invasions, especially those of the Common Myna Acridotheres tristis and Red-vented Bulbul Pycnonotus cafer on the IUCN100, are very similar which might not warrant listing both species. To make the selection of species on such lists more transparent we suggest moving beyond lists based on expert opinion to a more transparent and defendable system for listing alien species based on published records of their impacts and related mechanisms.