Assessments of alien species impacts are reliable to prioritize resources

Experts are consistent when assessing the economic, health and ecological impacts of alien species, find the scientists.

Original post by EBD-CSIC

An international collaboration led by the Doñana Biological Station (EBD-CSIC) has shown that experts are consistent when assessing the economic, health and ecological impacts of alien species. These assessments are therefore reliable to guide the prioritization of resources invested against biological invasions.

You can find the scientific article published in the open-access, peer-reviewed scholarly journal NeoBiota.

These results have a great impact on the management by national and international institutions, which have limited resources to fight against the growing and worrying increase of alien species invasions and the damage they caused to society and environment. 

Biological invasions annually cause huge food losses, disease transmissions, species extinctions and ecosystem perturbations. For these reasons, it is one of the biggest problems that humankind currently faces, and its relevance will alarmingly increase due to the extreme situations that climate change will expose society to.

The seriousness of this problem lies in the limited human resources available to fight against it, that force to prioritize its management. Here is where tools such as impact assessments play a key role. Assessments report the impact of invasive species in different areas, including economy, health and environment, and allow us to rank the most harmful species.

For instance, in aquatic ecosystems like the Ebro Delta in Spain, there are dozens of invasive alien co-occurring species that cause millions of economic losses and irreparable ecological damage.

Such is the case of the Zebra mussel, which affects irrigation; the apple snail that devours rice fields; and the blue crab causing the local extinction and declines of many native species.

“That’s why it is crucial to ensure that the results are not dependent on the assessors and to understand what factors affect discrepancies among experts,”

explains Rubén Bernardo-Madrid, lead author and researcher at Doñana Biological Station – CSIC.

One of the relevant aspects of this study is the quantification of the consistency of responses across assessors for a large number of invasive species of vertebrates, invertebrates and plants. In addition, the researchers have studied multiple protocols focused on different aspects, providing a global view of this problem.

“The study has shown that the great majority of assessments are consistent and therefore valid to aid in decision-making. These results are encouraging as they suggest that these protocols may be useful when facing the worrying forecasts of increasing biological invasions and their damages,” 

explains Rubén.

On the other hand, the researchers have observed that discrepancies across assessments might be due to multiple factors, such as the type of impact asked or the linguistic formulation used in the protocols.

The results suggest that there is room for improvement in assessments, but it will require more funding for research, and more multidisciplinary collaborations between ecologists and linguists to develop less ambiguous protocols.

As always, the most effective measure against biological invasions turns out to be prevention.

However, given the incapacity to control every voluntary and involuntary introduction, other tools such as impact assessments are essential to reduce as far as possible the damage caused by these species on human welfare and environment. Its continuous improvement and evaluation, such as the one made in this study, are decisive.

***

Research article:

Bernardo-Madrid R, González-Moreno P, Gallardo B, Bacher S, Vilà M (2022) Consistency in impact assessments of invasive species is generally high and depends on protocols and impact types. In: Giannetto D, Piria M, Tarkan AS, Zięba G (Eds) Recent advancements in the risk screening of freshwater and terrestrial non-native species. NeoBiota 76: 163-190. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.76.83028

***

Follow NeoBiota on Twitter and Facebook.

NeoBiota invites risk analysis studies in a new Special Issue on advancements in the screening of freshwater and terrestrial non-native species

The “Recent advancements in the risk screening of freshwater and terrestrial non-native species” Special Issue in the open-access, peer-reviewed scholarly journal NeoBiota is now open for submissions. The deadline for submission is 30 April 2022, with the issue scheduled for publication in August 2022.

The “Recent advancements in the risk screening of freshwater and terrestrial non-native species” Special Issue in the open-access, peer-reviewed scholarly journal NeoBiota is now open for submissions.

The issue is managed by the international team of guest editors of Dr Daniela Giannetto (Mugla Sitki Kocman University, Turkey), Prof. Marina Piria (University of Zagreb, Croatia), Prof. Ali Serhan Tarkan (Mugla Sitki Kocman University, Turkey) and Dr Grzegorz Zięba (University of Lodz, Poland).

Update: The deadline for submission has been extended to 30 April 2022, with the issue expected to be published in August 2022. 

The new special issue is expected to collate prominent contributors from the field of invasive ecology, thereby addressing existing gaps in the knowledge about both freshwater and terrestrial non-native species and their management.

The editors note that despite the current efforts and measures to monitor and tackle the spread of non-native species, and especially those posing imminent threat to local biodiversity and ecosystems, further expansion of such populations has increasingly been recorded in recent years. Of special concern are developing countries, where legislation for controlling non-native species is still lacking.

A major problem is that – as of today – we are still missing on risk screening studies needed to provide evidence for the invasiveness potential of many non-native species across several taxonomic groups, which would then be used to support specific conservation efforts. Unfortunately, this is particularly true for species inhabiting the world’s biodiversity hotspots, point out the editors.

Risk-based identification of non-native species is an essential process to inform policy and actions for conservation and management of biodiversity. Previously published papers on risk screening of aquatic non-native species, and especially those using the most widely-employed ‘-ISK’ decision-support toolkits, have attracted mounting interest from the wider scientific community.

***

Visit NeoBiota’s journal website at: https://neobiota.pensoft.net/ 

Follow NeoBiota on Twitter and Facebook.

Cost-benefit analysis of strategies against severely harmful giant hogweed in Germany

While invasive species are considered to be a primary driver of biodiversity loss across the globe, species such as the alien for Germany giant hogweed pose even greater risks, including health hazards to humans, limited accessibility to sites, trails and amenity areas, as well as ecological damages.

Since 1st January 2015, EU member states are obligated to develop concrete action plans against (further) spread of invasive alien species. In order to do so, however, policymakers need adequate knowledge about data of the current spread situation as well as information about costs and benefits of control measures. Therefore, German researchers analyse the present situation and control measures, as well as the cost-effectiveness of the possible eradication strategies. Their analysis is published in the open access journal NeoBiota.

Largely spread across Germany, the giant hogweed (H. mantegazzianum) grows in a wide range of habitats, including roadsides, grasslands, riparian habitats and woodland margins. The highest invasion percentage (18.5%) was found for abandoned grasslands, field and grassland margins, and tall-forb stands.

While the species poses a serious threat on native biodiversity through competitive displacement of native plants, it is particularly dangerous to human health. Its watery sap contains several chemical agents. In contact with the skin, this sap can cause severe blistering if the person is simultaneously exposed to sunlight. Furthermore, the hypersensitivity of the skin towards sunlight may persist for a number of years. Additionally, the giant hogweed can limit public accessibility to sites, trails and amenity areas, as well as inflict ecological damages, such as erosion at riverbanks.

In order to provide policymakers with the information needed for adequate control measures, Dr. Sandra Rajmis from the Julius Kühn-Institute, Dr. Jan Thiele from the University of Münster, and Prof. Dr. Rainer Marggraf from Georg-August-Universität Göttingen examine costs and benefits of controlling giant hogweed in Germany.

To address these challenges, the scientists firstly study the present state and costs of control measures, based on survey data received from German nature authorities. Then, they analyse the identified control options in terms of cost effectiveness with regard to the invaded area types and sizes in the infested German districts. To estimate the benefits of the eradication strategies, they turn to a choice experiment survey conducted in German households.

“Only in light of these findings, policymakers can properly understand about the societal costs and benefits of alternatives and decide about societal favored control options in Germany,” point out the researchers.

The team also notes that cost-effectiveness of eradication strategies depends on the length of the period over which they are implemented and observed.

“As this is the first cost-benefit analysis estimating welfare effects and societal importance of giant hogweed invasion control, it could serve as guideline for assessments of eradication control in other European countries and support the implementation of the EU directive 1143/2014,” they conclude.

###

Original source: Rajmis S, Thiele J, Marggraf R (2016) A cost-benefit analysis of controlling giant hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum) in Germany using a choice experiment approach.NeoBiota 31: 19-41. doi: 10.3897/neobiota.31.8103