Suchergebnisse

Macroecology is the study of large-scale community structure and the influence this has on small-scale process. In recent years there has been a definite trend towards the large-scale approach, and this work is therefore timely and relevant. As John Lawton observes in a recent journal article, "To discover general patterns, laws and rules in nature, ecology may need to pay less attention to the 'middle ground' of community ecology, relying less on reductionism and experimental manipulation, but increasing research efforts into macroecology."--("Oikos", 1999). The book is probably too advanced for the undergraduate student, and so the core market will lie with graduate and professional ecologists

It has been previously suggested that the characteristics that are driving the taxonomic homogenisation of the global avifauna, through the extinction of native bird species and the establishment of exotic bird species, are opposite sides of the same coin. One of the most important tools that conservation biologists and wildlife managers have to ameliorate the extinction of a species is to reintroduce populations to stronghold areas from which they have been extirpated or were not previously common. In this paper, we address the question of what the study of exotic bird introductions can tell us to inform the translocation of native species. We review the relative importance of the five factors that have been suggested significantly to influence the successful establishment of non-native species: introduction effort, environmental matching, species' interactions, species' life histories, and phylogenetic relatedness. Current evidence suggests that introduction effort will be an important determinant of release, but how many individuals need to be released, and in how many separate release events, is contingent on characteristics of species and environment. The importance of climate matching for introduction success suggests that the success of translocations will depend greatly on the study and amelioration of the problem that caused the initial population decline. This is most problematic in situations where the decline is associated with human-induced climate change. Migratory and sexually selected species may be harder to re-establish, but related species may differ substantially in their likelihood of success. We suggest that further insights into the reintroduction process may be gained particularly by studying species that are experiencing a threat in their native range but which are also being widely released as exotics outside of this range.

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

There are many hypotheses describing the interactions involved in biological invasions, but it is largely unknown whether they are backed up by empirical evidence. This book fills that gap by assessing research hypotheses and applying it to a number of invasion hypotheses, using the hierarchy-of-hypotheses (HoH) approach.

Unprecedented rates of introduction and spread of non-native species pose burgeoning challenges to biodiversity, natural resource management, regional economies, and human health. Current biosecurity efforts are failing to keep pace with globalization, revealing critical gaps in our understanding and response to invasions. Here, we identify four priority areas to advance invasion science in the face of rapid global environmental change. First, invasion science should strive to develop a more comprehensive framework for predicting how the behavior, abundance, and interspecific interactions of non-native species vary in relation to conditions in receiving environments and how these factors govern the ecological impacts of invasion. A second priority is to understand the potential synergistic effects of multiple co-occurring stressors— particularly involving climate change—on the establishment and impact of non-native species. Climate adaptation and mitigation strategies will need to consider the possible consequences of promoting non-native species, and appropriate management responses to non-native species will need to be developed. The third priority is to address the taxonomic impediment. The ability to detect and evaluate invasion risks is compromised by a growing deficit in taxonomic expertise, which cannot be adequately compensated by new molecular technologies alone. Management of biosecurity risks will become increasingly challenging unless academia, industry, and governments train and employ new personnel in taxonomy and systematics. Fourth, we recommend that internationally cooperative biosecurity strategies consider the bridgehead effects of global dispersal networks, in which organisms tend to invade new regions from locations where they have already established. Cooperation among countries to eradicate or control species established in bridgehead regions should yield greater benefit than independent attempts by individual countries to exclude these species from arriving and establishing.

The European Union (EU) has recently published its first list of invasive alien species(IAS) of EU concern to which current legislation must apply. The list comprises speciesknown to pose great threats to biodiversity and needs to be maintained and updated.Horizon scanning is seen as critical to identify the most threatening potential IAS thatdo not yet occur in Europe to be subsequently risk assessed for future listing. Accord-ingly, we present a systematic consensus horizon scanning procedure to derive a rankedlist of potential IAS likely to arrive, establish, spread and have an impact on biodiversityin the region over the next decade. The approach is unique in the continental scaleexamined, the breadth of taxonomic groups and environments considered, and themethods and data sources used. International experts were brought together to addressfive broad thematic groups of potential IAS. For each thematic group the experts firstindependently assembled lists of potential IAS not yet established in the EU but poten-tially threatening biodiversity if introduced. Experts were asked to score the specieswithin their thematic group for their separate likelihoods of i) arrival, ii) establishment,iii) spread, and iv) magnitude of the potential negative impact on biodiversity within theEU. Experts then convened for a 2‐day workshop applying consensus methods to com-pile a ranked list of potential IAS. From an initial working list of 329 species, a list of 66species not yet established in the EU that were considered to be very high (8 species),high (40 species) or medium (18 species) risk species was derived. Here, we presentthese species highlighting the potential negative impacts and the most likely biogeo-graphic regions to be affected by these potential IAS.

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.

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.

Unprecedented rates of introduction and spread of non-native species pose burgeoning challenges to biodiversity, natural resource management, regional economies, and human health. Current biosecurity efforts are failing to keep pace with globalization, revealing critical gaps in our understanding and response to invasions. Here, we identify four priority areas to advance invasion science in the face of rapid global environmental change. First, invasion science should strive to develop a more comprehensive framework for predicting how the behavior, abundance, and interspecific interactions of non-native species vary in relation to conditions in receiving environments and how these factors govern the ecological impacts of invasion. A second priority is to understand the potential synergistic effects of multiple co-occurring stressors— particularly involving climate change—on the establishment and impact of non-native species. Climate adaptation and mitigation strategies will need to consider the possible consequences of promoting non-native species, and appropriate management responses to non-native species will need to be developed. The third priority is to address the taxonomic impediment. The ability to detect and evaluate invasion risks is compromised by a growing deficit in taxonomic expertise, which cannot be adequately compensated by new molecular technologies alone. Management of biosecurity risks will become increasingly challenging unless academia, industry, and governments train and employ new personnel in taxonomy and systematics. Fourth, we recommend that internationally cooperative biosecurity strategies consider the bridgehead effects of global dispersal networks, in which organisms tend to invade new regions from locations where they have already established. Cooperation among countries to eradicate or control species established in bridgehead regions should yield greater benefit than independent attempts by individual countries to exclude these species from arriving and establishing.

1. Effective prevention and control of invasive species generally relies on a comprehensive, coherent and representative list of species that enables resources to be used optimally. European Union (EU) Regulation 1143/2014 on invasive alien species (IAS) aims to control or eradicate priority species, and to manage pathways to prevent the introduction and establishment of new IAS; it applies to species considered of Union concern and subject to formal risk assessment. So far, 49 species have been listed but the criteria for selecting species for risk assessment have not been disclosed and were probably unsystematic. 2. We developed a simple method to systematically rank IAS according to their maximum potential threat to biodiversity in the EU. We identified 1,323 species as potential candidates for listing, and evaluated them against their invasion stages and reported impacts, using information from databases and scientific literature. 3. 900 species fitted the criteria for listing according to IAS Regulation. We prioritised 207 species for urgent risk assessment, 59 by 2018 and 148 by 2020, based on their potential to permanently damage native species or ecosystems; another 336 species were identified for a second phase (by 2025), to prevent or reverse their profound impacts on biodiversity; and a further 357 species for assessment by 2030. 4. Policy implications. We propose a systematic, proactive approach to selecting and prioritising IAS for risk assessment to assist European Union policy implementation. We assess an unprecedented number of species with potential to harm EU biodiversity using a simple methodology and recommend which species should be considered for risk assessment in a ranked order of priority along the timeline 2018– 2030, based on their maximum reported impact and their invasion history in Europe ; Peer reviewed

The European Union Regulation (EU) 1143/2014 on invasive alien species (IAS) establishes an EU-wide framework for action to prevent, minimise and mitigate the adverse impacts of IAS on biodiversity and centres around the development of a list of IAS of EU Concern. The initial list of IAS of EU concern will be based on available risk assessments compliant with agreed minimum standards but horizon scanning is seen as critical to inform future updating of the list, in order to prioritise the most threatening new and emerging IAS. A workshop was held with the overarching aim of reviewing and validating an approach to horizon scanning to derive a ranked list of IAS which are likely to arrive, establish, spread and have an impact on biodiversity or related ecosystem services in the EU over the next decade. The agreed horizon scanning approach involved two distinct phases: i) Preliminary consultation between experts within five thematic groups to derive initial scores; ii) Consensus-building across expert groups including extensive discussion on species rankings coupled with review and moderation of scores across groups. The outcome of the horizon scanning was a list of 95 species, including all taxa (except microorganisms) within marine, terrestrial and freshwater environments, considered as very high or high priority for risk assessment ; Le Règlement de l'Union Européenne (UE) 1143/2014 sur les espèces notices envahissantes (EEE) établit un cadre d'actions à l'échelle européenne pour prévenir, réduire au minimum et atténuer les impacts négatifs des EEE sur la biodiversité, et se concentre sur le développement d'une liste d'EEE de préoccupation européenne. La liste initiale d'EEE de préoccupation européenne est basée sur les analyses de risque disponibles conformes aux standards minimums reconnus. Mais l'horizon scanning est essentiel pour informer les mises à jour futures de la liste, dans le but de prioritiser les EEE nouvelles et émergentes les plus menaçantes. Un workshop a été organisé avec pour but général d'évaluer et de valider une approche d'horizon scanning en vue de produire une liste ordonnée d'EEE susceptibles d'arriver, de s'établir, de se disperser et de présenter un impact sur la biodiversité et les services écosystémiques associés dans l'UE durant la prochaine décennie. L'approche d'horizon scanning avalisée comprenait deux phases distinctes: i) Une consultation préliminaire entre experts au sein de cinq groups thématiques pour produire des scores initiaux ii) L'établissement de consensus au travers des groups d'experts incluant une discussion approfondie sur les classements des espèces, combinée à une évaluation et une modération des scores entre groupes. Le résultat de l'horizon scanning consistait en une liste de 95 espèces, comprenant tous les types taxonomies (excepté des microorganismes) au sein des environnements marins, terrestres et d'eau douce, et considérées comme étant de priorité très élevée à élevée pour la réalisation d'analyses de risque

The European Union Regulation (EU) 1143/2014 on invasive alien species (IAS) establishes an EU-wide framework for action to prevent, minimise and mitigate the adverse impacts of IAS on biodiversity and centres around the development of a list of IAS of EU Concern. The initial list of IAS of EU concern will be based on available risk assessments compliant with agreed minimum standards but horizon scanning is seen as critical to inform future updating of the list, in order to prioritise the most threatening new and emerging IAS. A workshop was held with the overarching aim of reviewing and validating an approach to horizon scanning to derive a ranked list of IAS which are likely to arrive, establish, spread and have an impact on biodiversity or related ecosystem services in the EU over the next decade. The agreed horizon scanning approach involved two distinct phases: i) Preliminary consultation between experts within five thematic groups to derive initial scores; ii) Consensus-building across expert groups including extensive discussion on species rankings coupled with review and moderation of scores across groups. The outcome of the horizon scanning was a list of 95 species, including all taxa (except microorganisms) within marine, terrestrial and freshwater environments, considered as very high or high priority for risk assessment ; Le Règlement de l'Union Européenne (UE) 1143/2014 sur les espèces notices envahissantes (EEE) établit un cadre d'actions à l'échelle européenne pour prévenir, réduire au minimum et atténuer les impacts négatifs des EEE sur la biodiversité, et se concentre sur le développement d'une liste d'EEE de préoccupation européenne. La liste initiale d'EEE de préoccupation européenne est basée sur les analyses de risque disponibles conformes aux standards minimums reconnus. Mais l'horizon scanning est essentiel pour informer les mises à jour futures de la liste, dans le but de prioritiser les EEE nouvelles et émergentes les plus menaçantes. Un workshop a été organisé avec pour but général d'évaluer et de valider une approche d'horizon scanning en vue de produire une liste ordonnée d'EEE susceptibles d'arriver, de s'établir, de se disperser et de présenter un impact sur la biodiversité et les services écosystémiques associés dans l'UE durant la prochaine décennie. L'approche d'horizon scanning avalisée comprenait deux phases distinctes: i) Une consultation préliminaire entre experts au sein de cinq groups thématiques pour produire des scores initiaux ii) L'établissement de consensus au travers des groups d'experts incluant une discussion approfondie sur les classements des espèces, combinée à une évaluation et une modération des scores entre groupes. Le résultat de l'horizon scanning consistait en une liste de 95 espèces, comprenant tous les types taxonomies (excepté des microorganismes) au sein des environnements marins, terrestres et d'eau douce, et considérées comme étant de priorité très élevée à élevée pour la réalisation d'analyses de risque

The European Union (EU) has recently published its first list of invasive alien species (IAS) of EU concern to which current legislation must apply. The list comprises species known to pose great threats to biodiversity and needs to be maintained and updated. Horizon scanning is seen as critical to identify the most threatening potential IAS that do not yet occur in Europe to be subsequently risk assessed for future listing. Accordingly, we present a systematic consensus horizon scanning procedure to derive a ranked list of potential IAS likely to arrive, establish, spread and have an impact on biodiversity in the region over the next decade. The approach is unique in the continental scale examined, the breadth of taxonomic groups and environments considered, and the methods and data sources used. International experts were brought together to address five broad thematic groups of potential IAS. For each thematic group the experts first independently assembled lists of potential IAS not yet established in the EU but potentially threatening biodiversity if introduced. Experts were asked to score the species within their thematic group for their separate likelihoods of i) arrival, ii) establishment, iii) spread, and iv) magnitude of the potential negative impact on biodiversity within the EU. Experts then convened for a 2-day workshop applying consensus methods to compile a ranked list of potential IAS. From an initial working list of 329 species, a list of 66 species not yet established in the EU that were considered to be very high (8 species), high (40 species) or medium (18 species) risk species was derived. Here, we present these species highlighting the potential negative impacts and the most likely biogeographic regions to be affected by these potential IAS