Suchergebnisse

Invasive non-native species (INS) are species which have moved outside of their natural range, usually with the aid of humans, and are causing environmental or economic damage. At a global level, INS are believed to be one of the most significant causes behind loss of biodiversity – second only to habitat destruction. Their economic impact is also substantial. A recent study by the European Environment Agency (EEA) estimated that INS cost Europe in the region of 12 billion Euros every year. Despite the severe damage these species are causing, there is little in the way of a coordinated effort to reduce their impact and spread across Europe. Over recent years a number of projects have sought to improve the management of INS across the Two Seas region, by bringing together research institutes, universities, local government, land managers, businesses and other relevant stakeholders to form cross-border partnerships. RINSE (Reducing the Impact of Non-native Species In Europe) focussed primarily on INS within freshwater and terrestrial habitats. It undertook a broad range of activities in order to share best practice across the region, develop new ways to manage INS, improve the capacity of local organisations to manage INS, prioritise INS already present in the region for action and identify species likely to cause problems in the near future. The MEMO (Mnemiopsis Ecology, Modelling and Observation) partnership was composed of experts in marine INS and focussed on one species in particular – the American comb jelly Mnemiopsis leidyi. This invasive jellyfish-like species was accidentally introduced to the Two Seas region and has since spread along the coasts of northern France, Belgium and the Netherlands. MEMO undertook a range of activities to assess awareness and perceptions of the jelly amongst key stakeholder groups and to increase our scientific knowledge on this species. Invexo aimed to improve the management of four of the most damaging INS in Belgium and the Netherlands. The project used field trials to improve control and eradication methods and developed an early warning system for high risk INS in the project area. Discussions between partners from the RINSE, MEMO and Invexo projects indicated that added value could be created through the formation of a 'cluster' project, bringing together the expertise and the experiences gained from each of the three projects. As a consequence, SEFINS (Safeguarding the Environment From Invasive Non-native Species) was established in January 2014. Since then, the partnership has held a number of constructive workshops and meetings on the topic of INS. It was clear that despite each project working on different species in different habitats, there was a large degree of crossover. A number of key themes emerged, which the partnership agreed require further work in order to allow EU Member States to meet the new requirements of the upcoming European Regulation on Invasive Species: 1) Knowledge transfer, training and advice 2) Data and inventories 3) Risk management and impact assessments 4) Citizen science and awareness raising This publication uses these key themes as chapters, describing in more detail the activities carried out by RINSE, MEMO and Invexo within these areas. Key outputs are summarised, outlining the significant progress made by the SEFINS partners and their previous projects towards the effective management of INS across the Two Seas area. However, there is clearly much work still to be done – this publication will also look forwards, outlining where we believe work on INS should focus in the immediate future.

Invasive non-native species (INS) are species which have moved outside of their natural range, usually with the aid of humans, and are causing environmental or economic damage. At a global level, INS are believed to be one of the most significant causes behind loss of biodiversity – second only to habitat destruction. Their economic impact is also substantial. A recent study by the European Environment Agency (EEA) estimated that INS cost Europe in the region of 12 billion Euros every year. Despite the severe damage these species are causing, there is little in the way of a coordinated effort to reduce their impact and spread across Europe. Over recent years a number of projects have sought to improve the management of INS across the Two Seas region, by bringing together research institutes, universities, local government, land managers, businesses and other relevant stakeholders to form cross-border partnerships. RINSE (Reducing the Impact of Non-native Species In Europe) focussed primarily on INS within freshwater and terrestrial habitats. It undertook a broad range of activities in order to share best practice across the region, develop new ways to manage INS, improve the capacity of local organisations to manage INS, prioritise INS already present in the region for action and identify species likely to cause problems in the near future. The MEMO (Mnemiopsis Ecology, Modelling and Observation) partnership was composed of experts in marine INS and focussed on one species in particular – the American comb jelly Mnemiopsis leidyi. This invasive jellyfish-like species was accidentally introduced to the Two Seas region and has since spread along the coasts of northern France, Belgium and the Netherlands. MEMO undertook a range of activities to assess awareness and perceptions of the jelly amongst key stakeholder groups and to increase our scientific knowledge on this species. Invexo aimed to improve the management of four of the most damaging INS in Belgium and the Netherlands. The project used field trials to improve control and eradication methods and developed an early warning system for high risk INS in the project area. Discussions between partners from the RINSE, MEMO and Invexo projects indicated that added value could be created through the formation of a 'cluster' project, bringing together the expertise and the experiences gained from each of the three projects. As a consequence, SEFINS (Safeguarding the Environment From Invasive Non-native Species) was established in January 2014. Since then, the partnership has held a number of constructive workshops and meetings on the topic of INS. It was clear that despite each project working on different species in different habitats, there was a large degree of crossover. A number of key themes emerged, which the partnership agreed require further work in order to allow EU Member States to meet the new requirements of the upcoming European Regulation on Invasive Species: 1) Knowledge transfer, training and advice 2) Data and inventories 3) Risk management and impact assessments 4) Citizen science and awareness raising This publication uses these key themes as chapters, describing in more detail the activities carried out by RINSE, MEMO and Invexo within these areas. Key outputs are summarised, outlining the significant progress made by the SEFINS partners and their previous projects towards the effective management of INS across the Two Seas area. However, there is clearly much work still to be done – this publication will also look forwards, outlining where we believe work on INS should focus in the immediate future.

According to the Convention on Biological Diversity, by 2020 invasive alien species (IAS) should be identified and their impacts assessed, so that species can be prioritized for implementation of appropriate control strategies and measures put in place to manage invasion pathways. For one quarter of the IAS listed as the "100 of the world's worst" environmental impacts are linked to diseases of wildlife (undomesticated plants and animals). Moreover, IAS area significant source of "pathogen pollution" defined as the human-mediated introduction of a pathogen to a new host or region. Despite this, little is known about the biology of alien pathogens and their biodiversity impacts after introduction into new regions. We argue that the threats posed by alien pathogens to endangered species, ecosystems, and ecosystem services should receive greater attention through legislation, policy, and management. We identify 10 key areas for research and action, including those relevant to the processes of introduction and establishment of an alien pathogen and to prediction of the spread and associated impact of an alien pathogen on native biota and ecosystems. The development of interdisciplinary capacity, expertise, and coordination to identify and manage threats was seen as critical to address knowledge gaps.

Multiple national and international trends and drivers are radically changing what biological security means for the United Kingdom (UK). New technologies present novel opportunities and challenges, and globalisation has created new pathways and increased the speed, volume and routes by which organisms can spread. The UK Biological Security Strategy (2018) acknowledges the importance of research on biological security in the UK. Given the breadth of potential research, a targeted agenda identifying the questions most critical to effective and coordinated progress in different disciplines of biological security is required. We used expert elicitation to generate 80 policy-relevant research questions considered by participants to have the greatest impact on UK biological security. Drawing on a collaboratively-developed set of 450 questions, proposed by 41 experts from academia, industry and the UK government (consulting 168 additional experts) we subdivided the final 80 questions into six categories: bioengineering; communication and behaviour; disease threats (including pandemics); governance and policy; invasive alien species; and securing biological materials and securing against misuse. Initially, the questions were ranked through a voting process and then reduced and refined to 80 during a one-day workshop with 35 participants from a variety of disciplines. Consistently emerging themes included: the nature of current and potential biological security threats, the efficacy of existing management actions, and the most appropriate future options. The resulting questions offer a research agenda for biological security in the UK that can assist the targeting of research resources and inform the implementation of the UK Biological Security Strategy. These questions include research that could aid with the mitigation of Covid-19, and preparation for the next pandemic. We hope that our structured and rigorous approach to creating a biological security research agenda will be replicated in other countries and regions. The world, not just the UK, is in need of a thoughtful approach to directing biological security research to tackle the emerging issues.

Multiple national and international trends and drivers are radically changing what biological security means for the United Kingdom (UK). New technologies present novel opportunities and challenges, and globalisation has created new pathways and increased the speed, volume and routes by which organisms can spread. The UK Biological Security Strategy (2018) acknowledges the importance of research on biological security in the UK. Given the breadth of potential research, a targeted agenda identifying the questions most critical to effective and coordinated progress in different disciplines of biological security is required. We used expert elicitation to generate 80 policy-relevant research questions considered by participants to have the greatest impact on UK biological security. Drawing on a collaboratively-developed set of 450 questions, proposed by 41 experts from academia, industry and the UK government (consulting 168 additional experts) we subdivided the final 80 questions into six categories: bioengineering; communication and behaviour; disease threats (including pandemics); governance and policy; invasive alien species; and securing biological materials and securing against misuse. Initially, the questions were ranked through a voting process and then reduced and refined to 80 during a one-day workshop with 35 participants from a variety of disciplines. Consistently emerging themes included: the nature of current and potential biological security threats, the efficacy of existing management actions, and the most appropriate future options. The resulting questions offer a research agenda for biological security in the UK that can assist the targeting of research resources and inform the implementation of the UK Biological Security Strategy. These questions include research that could aid with the mitigation of Covid-19, and preparation for the next pandemic. We hope that our structured and rigorous approach to creating a biological security research agenda will be replicated in other countries and regions. The world, not just the UK, is in need of a thoughtful approach to directing biological security research to tackle the emerging issues. ; The David and Claudia Harding Foundation for provided funding for the BioRISC project. Arcadia provided support in the form of salaries for authors WS. and CR. TM and HS are affiliated with Opencell. KM is affiliated with Biosecure Ltd. The funders did not have any role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the 'author contributions' section."

Multiple national and international trends and drivers are radically changing what biological security means for the United Kingdom (UK). New technologies present novel opportunities and challenges, and globalisation has created new pathways and increased the speed, volume and routes by which organisms can spread. The UK Biological Security Strategy (2018) acknowledges the importance of research on biological security in the UK. Given the breadth of potential research, a targeted agenda identifying the questions most critical to effective and coordinated progress in different disciplines of biological security is required. We used expert elicitation to generate 80 policy-relevant research questions considered by participants to have the greatest impact on UK biological security. Drawing on a collaboratively-developed set of 450 questions, proposed by 41 experts from academia, industry and the UK government (consulting 168 additional experts) we subdivided the final 80 questions into six categories: bioengineering; communication and behaviour; disease threats (including pandemics); governance and policy; invasive alien species; and securing biological materials and securing against misuse. Initially, the questions were ranked through a voting process and then reduced and refined to 80 during a one-day workshop with 35 participants from a variety of disciplines. Consistently emerging themes included: the nature of current and potential biological security threats, the efficacy of existing management actions, and the most appropriate future options. The resulting questions offer a research agenda for biological security in the UK that can assist the targeting of research resources and inform the implementation of the UK Biological Security Strategy. These questions include research that could aid with the mitigation of Covid-19, and preparation for the next pandemic. We hope that our structured and rigorous approach to creating a biological security research agenda will be replicated in other countries and regions. The world, not just the UK, is in need of a thoughtful approach to directing biological security research to tackle the emerging issues.

Multiple national and international trends and drivers are radically changing what biological security means for the United Kingdom (UK). New technologies present novel opportunities and challenges, and globalisation has created new pathways and increased the speed, volume and routes by which organisms can spread. The UK Biological Security Strategy (2018) acknowledges the importance of research on biological security in the UK. Given the breadth of potential research, a targeted agenda identifying the questions most critical to effective and coordinated progress in different disciplines of biological security is required. We used expert elicitation to generate 80 policy-relevant research questions considered by participants to have the greatest impact on UK biological security. Drawing on a collaboratively-developed set of 450 questions, proposed by 41 experts from academia, industry and the UK government (consulting 168 additional experts) we subdivided the final 80 questions into six categories: bioengineering; communication and behaviour; disease threats (including pandemics); governance and policy; invasive alien species; and securing biological materials and securing against misuse. Initially, the questions were ranked through a voting process and then reduced and refined to 80 during a one-day workshop with 35 participants from a variety of disciplines. Consistently emerging themes included: the nature of current and potential biological security threats, the efficacy of existing management actions, and the most appropriate future options. The resulting questions offer a research agenda for biological security in the UK that can assist the targeting of research resources and inform the implementation of the UK Biological Security Strategy. These questions include research that could aid with the mitigation of Covid-19, and preparation for the next pandemic. We hope that our structured and rigorous approach to creating a biological security research agenda will be replicated in other countries and regions. The world, not just the UK, is in need of a thoughtful approach to directing biological security research to tackle the emerging issues.

Ireland, being an island situated on Europe's western seaboard, has a fewer number of native species than mainland European Union Member States (MS). Increased numbers of vectors and pathways have reduced the island's biotic isolation, increasing the risk of new introductions and their associated impacts on native biodiversity. It is likely that these risks are greater here than they are in continental Member States, where the native biodiversity is richer. A horizon scanning approach was used to identify the most likely IAS (with the potential to impact biodiversity) to arrive on the island of Ireland within the next ten years. To achieve this, we used a consensus-based approach, whereby expert opinion and discussion groups were utilised to establish and rank a list of 40 species of the most likely terrestrial, freshwater and marine IAS to arrive on the island of Ireland within the decade 2017–2027. The list of 40 included 18 freshwater invaders, 15 terrestrial IAS and seven marine species. Crustacean species (freshwater and marine) were taxonomically dominant (11 out of 40); this reflects their multiple pathways of introduction, their ability to act as ecosystem engineers and their resulting high impacts on biodiversity. Freshwater species dominated the top ten IAS (seven species out of ten), with the signal crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus) highlighted as the most likely species to arrive and establish in freshwaters, while roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) (second) and the warm-water barnacle (Hesperibalanus fallax) (fifth), were the most likely terrestrial and marine invaders. This evidence-based list provides important information to the relevant statutory agencies in both jurisdictions in Ireland to prioritise the prevention of the most likely invaders and aid in compliance with legislation, in particular the EU Regulation on Invasive Alien Species (EU 1143/2014). Targeted biosecurity in both jurisdictions is urgently required in order to manage the pathways and vectors of arrival, and is vital to maintaining native biodiversity on the island of Ireland.

Ireland, being an island situated on Europe's western seaboard, has a fewer number of native species than mainland European Union Member States (MS). Increased numbers of vectors and pathways have reduced the island's biotic isolation, increasing the risk of new introductions and their associated impacts on native biodiversity. It is likely that these risks are greater here than they are in continental MSs, where the native biodiversity is richer. A horizon scanning approach was used to identify the most likely invasive alien species (IAS) (with the potential to impact biodiversity) to arrive on the island of Ireland within the next ten years. To achieve this, we used a consensus-based approach, whereby expert opinion and discussion groups were utilised to establish and rank a list of 40 species of the most likely terrestrial, freshwater and marine IAS to arrive on the island of Ireland within the decade 2017–2027. The list of 40 included 18 freshwater, 15 terrestrial and seven marine IAS. Crustacean species (freshwater and marine) were taxonomically dominant (11 out of 40); this reflects their multiple pathways of introduction, their ability to act as ecosystem engineers and their resulting high impacts on biodiversity. Freshwater species dominated the top ten IAS (seven species out of ten), with the signal crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus) highlighted as the most likely species to arrive and establish in freshwaters, while roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) (second) and the warm-water barnacle (Hesperibalanus fallax) (fifth), were the most likely terrestrial and marine invaders. This evidence-based list provides important information to the relevant statutory agencies in both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland to prioritise the prevention of the most likely invaders and aid in compliance with legislation, in particular the EU Regulation on Invasive Alien Species (EU 1143/2014). Targeted biosecurity in both jurisdictions is urgently required in order to manage the pathways and vectors of arrival, and is vital to maintaining native biodiversity on the island of Ireland.

International audience ; According to the Convention on Biological Diversity, by 2020 invasive alien species (IAS) should be identified and their impacts assessed, so that species can be prioritised for implementation of appropriate control strategies and measures put in place to manage invasion pathways. For one quarter of the IAS listed as the "100 of the world's worst", environmental impacts are linked to diseases of wildlife, undomesticated plants and animals. Moreover, IAS are a significant source of 'pathogen pollution' defined as the human-mediated introduction, often unintentional, of a pathogen to a new host or region. Despite this, little is known about the biology of alien pathogens and their biodiversity impacts after introduction into new regions. We argue that the threats posed by alien pathogens to endangered species, ecosystems, and ecosystem services should receive greater attention through legislation, policy and management. We identify ten key areas for research and action, including those relevant to the processes of introduction and establishment of an alien pathogen and to prediction of the spread and associated impact of an alien pathogen on native biota and ecosystems. The development of interdisciplinary capacity, expertise and coordination to identify and manage threats was seen as critical to address knowledge gaps.

According to the Convention on Biological Diversity, by 2020 invasive alien species (IAS) should be identified and their impacts assessed, so that species can be prioritized for implementation of appropriate control strategies and measures put in place to manage invasion pathways. For one quarter of the IAS listed as the "100 of the world's worst" environmental impacts are linked to diseases of wildlife (undomesticated plants and animals). Moreover, IAS are a significant source of "pathogen pollution" defined as the human-mediated introduction of a pathogen to a new host or region. Despite this, little is known about the biology of alien pathogens and their biodiversity impacts after introduction into new regions. We argue that the threats posed by alien pathogens to endangered species, ecosystems, and ecosystem services should receive greater attention through legislation, policy, and management. We identify 10 key areas for research and action, including those relevant to the processes of introduction and establishment of an alien pathogen and to prediction of the spread and associated impact of an alien pathogen on native biota and ecosystems. The development of interdisciplinary capacity, expertise, and coordination to identify and manage threats was seen as critical to address knowledge gaps. ; The workshop was an activity of COST Action TD1209: ALIEN Challenge. COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) is a pan‐European intergovernmental framework. The mission of COST is to enable scientific and technological developments leading to new concepts and products and thereby contribute to strengthening Europe's research and innovation capacities. Additional support for HR, HH, and BVP was received from the NERC Centre for Ecology & Hydrology National Capability allocation (Project NEC05100 HARM: Frameworks for Horizon‐scanning And Risk Mitigation of pathogens and invasive alien species (IAS) in changing UK and European environments) under the Natural Hazards Science Area. JP was partly supported by long‐term research development project RVO 67985939 (The Czech Academy of Sciences). ; Peer reviewed

Acknowledgments The workshop was an activity of COST Action TD1209: ALIEN Challenge. COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) is a pan-European intergovernmental framework. The mission of COST is to enable scientific and technological developments leading to new concepts and products and thereby contribute to strengthening Europe's research and innovation capacities. Additional support for HR, HH, and BVP was received from the NERC Centre for Ecology & Hydrology National Capability allocation (Project NEC05100 HARM: Frameworks for Horizon-scanning And Risk Mitigation of pathogens and invasive alien species (IAS) in changing UK and European environments) under the Natural Hazards Science Area. JP was partly supported by long-term research development project RVO 67985939 (The Czech Academy of Sciences). ; Peer reviewed ; Publisher PDF

According to the Convention on Biological Diversity, by 2020 invasive alien species (IAS) should be identified and their impacts assessed, so that species can be prioritized for implementation of appropriate control strategies and measures put in place to manage invasion pathways. For one quarter of the IAS listed as the "100 of the world's worst" environmental impacts are linked to diseases of wildlife (undomesticated plants and animals). Moreover, IAS are a significant source of "pathogen pollution" defined as the human-mediated introduction of a pathogen to a new host or region. Despite this, little is known about the biology of alien pathogens and their biodiversity impacts after introduction into new regions. We argue that the threats posed by alien pathogens to endangered species, ecosystems, and ecosystem services should receive greater attention through legislation, policy, and management. We identify 10 key areas for research and action, including those relevant to the processes of introduction and establishment of an alien pathogen and to prediction of the spread and associated impact of an alien pathogen on native biota and ecosystems. The development of interdisciplinary capacity, expertise, and coordination to identify and manage threats was seen as critical to address knowledge gaps.

According to the Convention on Biological Diversity, by 2020 invasive alien species (IAS) should be identified and their impacts assessed, so that species can be prioritised for implementation of appropriate control strategies and measures put in place to manage invasion pathways. For one quarter of the IAS listed as the "100 of the world's worst", environmental impacts are linked to diseases of wildlife, undomesticated plants and animals. Moreover, IAS are a significant source of 'pathogen pollution' defined as the human-mediated introduction, often unintentional, of a pathogen to a new host or region. Despite this, little is known about the biology of alien pathogens and their biodiversity impacts after introduction into new regions. We argue that the threats posed by alien pathogens to endangered species, ecosystems, and ecosystem services should receive greater attention through legislation, policy and management. We identify ten key areas for research and action, including those relevant to the processes of introduction and establishment of an alien pathogen and to prediction of the spread and associated impact of an alien pathogen on native biota and ecosystems. The development of interdisciplinary capacity, expertise and coordination to identify and manage threats was seen as critical to address knowledge gaps.

According to the Convention on Biological Diversity, by 2020 invasive alien species (IAS) should be identified and their impacts assessed, so that species can be prioritized for implementation of appropriate control strategies and measures put in place to manage invasion pathways. For one quarter of the IAS listed as the "100 of the world's worst" environmental impacts are linked to diseases of wildlife (undomesticated plants and animals). Moreover, IAS are a significant source of "pathogen pollution" defined as the human-mediated introduction of a pathogen to a new host or region. Despite this, little is known about the biology of alien pathogens and their biodiversity impacts after introduction into new regions. We argue that the threats posed by alien pathogens to endangered species, ecosystems, and ecosystem services should receive greater attention through legislation, policy, and management. We identify 10 key areas for research and action, including those relevant to the processes of introduction and establishment of an alien pathogen and to prediction of the spread and associated impact of an alien pathogen on native biota and ecosystems. The development of interdisciplinary capacity, expertise, and coordination to identify and manage threats was seen as critical to address knowledge gaps.