How repeatable is the Environmental Impact Classification of Alien Taxa (EICAT)? Comparing independent global impact assessments of amphibians

Global economic costs of herpetofauna invasions

Biological invasions by amphibian and reptile species (i.e. herpetofauna) are numerous and widespread, having caused severe impacts on ecosystems, the economy and human health. However, there remains no synthesised assessment of the economic costs of these invasions. Therefore, using the most comprehensive database on the economic costs of invasive alien species worldwide (InvaCost), we analyse the costs caused by invasive alien herpetofauna according to taxonomic, geographic, sectoral and temporal dimensions, as well as the types of these costs. The cost of invasive herpetofauna totaled at 17.0 billion US$ between 1986 and 2020, divided split into 6.3 billion US$ for amphibians, 10.4 billion US$ for reptiles and 334 million US$ for mixed classes. However, these costs were associated predominantly with only two species (brown tree snake Boiga irregularis and American bullfrog Lithobates catesbeianus), with 10.3 and 6.0 billion US$ in costs, respectively. Costs for the remaining 19 reported species were relatively minor (< 0.6 billion US$), and they were entirely unavailable for over 94% of known invasive herpetofauna worldwide. Also, costs were positively correlated with research effort, suggesting research biases towards well-known taxa. So far, costs have been dominated by predictions and extrapolations (79%), and thus empirical observations for impact were relatively scarce. The activity sector most affected by amphibians was authorities-stakeholders through management (> 99%), while for reptiles, impacts were reported mostly through damages to mixed sectors (65%). Geographically, Oceania and Pacific Islands recorded 63% of total costs, followed by Europe (35%) and North America (2%). Cost reports have generally increased over time but peaked between 2011 and 2015 for amphibians and 2006 to 2010 for reptiles. A greater effort in studying the costs of invasive herpetofauna is necessary for a more complete understanding of invasion impacts of these species. We emphasise the need for greater control and prevention policies concerning the spread of current and future invasive herpetofauna.

Genetic structure of American bullfrog populations in Brazil

Non-native species are a major problem affecting numerous biomes around the globe. Information on their population genetics is crucial for understanding their invasion history and dynamics. We evaluated the population structure of the non-native American bullfrog, Aquarana catesbeiana, in Brazil on the basis of 324 samples collected from feral and captive groups at 38 sites in seven of the nine states where feral populations occur. We genotyped all samples using previously developed, highly polymorphic microsatellite loci and performed a discriminant analysis of principal components together with Jost’s D index to quantify pairwise differentiation between populations. We then amplified 1,047 base pairs of the mitochondrial cytochrome b (cytb) gene from the most divergent samples from each genetic population and calculated their pairwise differences. Both the microsatellite and cytb data indicated that bullfrogs comprise two populations. Population grouping 1 is widespread and possesses two cytb haplotypes. Population grouping 2 is restricted to only one state and possesses only one of the haplotypes from Population grouping 1. We show that there were two imports of bullfrogs to Brazil and that there is low genetic exchange between population groupings. Also, we find that there is no genetic divergence among feral and captive populations suggesting continuous releases. The limited genetic variability present in the country is associated to the small number of introductions and founders. Feral bullfrogs are highly associated to leaks from farms, and control measures should focus on preventing escapes using other resources than genetics, as feral and captive populations do not differ.

A global review of socioeconomic and environmental impacts of ants reveals new insights for risk assessment

Risk assessments are fundamental to invasive species management and are underpinned by comprehensive characterization of invasive species impacts. Our understanding of the impacts of invasive species is growing constantly, and several recently developed frameworks offer the opportunity to systematically categorize environmental and socioeconomic impacts of invasive species. Invasive ants are among the most widespread and damaging invaders. Although a handful of species receives most of the policy attention, nearly 200 species have established outside their native range. Here, we provide a global, comprehensive assessment of the impacts of ants and propose a priority list of risk species. We used the Socioeconomic Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (SEICAT), Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT) and Generic Impact Scoring System (GISS) to analyze 642 unique sources for 100 named species. Different methodologies provided generally consistent results. The most frequently identified socioeconomic impacts were to human health. Environmental impacts were primarily on animal and plant populations, with the most common mechanisms being predation and competition. Species recognized as harmful nearly 20 years ago featured prominently, including Wasmannia auropunctata (little fire ant, electric ant), Solenopsis invicta (red imported fire ant), Anoplolepis gracilipes (yellow crazy ant), and Pheidole megacephala (African big-headed ant). All these species except W. auropunctata have been implicated in local extinctions of native species. Although our assessments affirmed that the most serious impacts have been driven by a small number of species, our results also highlighted a substantial number of less well publicized species that have had major environmental impacts and may currently be overlooked when prioritizing prevention efforts. Several of these species were ranked as high or higher than some of the previously recognized "usual suspects," most notably Nylanderia fulva (tawny crazy ant). We compared and combined our assessments with trait-based profiles and other lists to propose a consensus set of 31 priority species. Ever-increasing global trade contributes to growing rates of species introductions. The integrated approaches we used can contribute to robust, holistic risk assessments for many taxa entrained in these pathways.

An assessment of the environmental and socio-economic impacts of alien rabbits and hares

Directly comparable data on the environmental and socio-economic impacts of alien species informs the effective prioritisation of their management. We used two frameworks, the Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT) and Socio-Economic Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (SEICAT), to create a unified dataset on the severity and type of impacts caused by alien leporids (rabbits and hares). Literature was reviewed to collate impact data, which was categorised following EICAT and SEICAT guidelines. We aimed to use these data to identify: (1) alien leporid species with severe impacts, (2) their impact mechanisms, (3) the native species and local communities vulnerable to impacts and (4) knowledge gaps. Native species from a range of taxonomic groups were affected by environmental impacts which tended to be more damaging than socio-economic impacts. Indirect environmental impacts were particularly damaging and underreported. No impact data were found for several alien leporid species.

Identifying Priorities, Targets, and Actions for the Long-term Social and Ecological Management of Invasive Non-Native Species

Formulating effective management plans for addressing the impacts of invasive non-native species (INNS) requires the definition of clear priorities and tangible targets, and the recognition of the plurality of societal values assigned to these species. These tasks require a multi-disciplinary approach and the involvement of stakeholders. Here, we describe procedures to integrate multiple sources of information to formulate management priorities, targets, and high-level actions for the management of INNS. We follow five good-practice criteria: justified, evidence-informed, actionable, quantifiable, and flexible. We used expert knowledge methods to compile 17 lists of ecological, social, and economic impacts of lodgepole pines (Pinus contorta) and American mink (Neovison vison) in Chile and Argentina, the privet (Ligustrum lucidum) in Argentina, the yellow-jacket wasp (Vespula germanica) in Chile, and grasses (Urochloa brizantha and Urochloa decumbens) in Brazil. INNS plants caused a greater number of impacts than INNS animals, although more socio-economic impacts were listed for INNS animals than for plants. These impacts were ranked according to their magnitude and level of confidence on the information used for the ranking to prioritise impacts and assign them one of four high-level actions-do nothing, monitor, research, and immediate active management. We showed that it is possible to formulate management priorities, targets, and high-level actions for a variety of INNS and with variable levels of available information. This is vital in a world where the problems caused by INNS continue to increase, and there is a parallel growth in the implementation of management plans to deal with them.

Comparing environmental impacts of alien plants, insects and pathogens in protected riparian forests

The prioritization of alien species according to the magnitude of their environmental impacts has become increasingly important for the management of invasive alien species. In this study, we applied the Environmental Impact Classification of Alien Taxa (EICAT) to classify alien taxa from three different taxonomic groups to facilitate the prioritisation of management actions for the threatened riparian forests of the Mura-Drava-Danube Biosphere Reserve, South East Europe. With local experts we collated a list of 198 alien species (115 plants, 45 insects, and 38 fungi) with populations reported in southeast European forest ecosystems and included them in the EICAT. We found impact reports for 114 species. Eleven of these species caused local extinctions of a native species, 35 led to a population decrease, 51 to a reduction in performance in at least one native species and for 17 alien species no effects on individual fitness of native species were detected. Fungi had significantly highest impact and were more likely to have information on their impacts reported. Competition and parasitism were the most important impact mechanisms of alien species. This study is, to our knowledge, the first application of EICAT to all known alien species of several taxonomic groups in a protected area. The impact rankings enabled to identify taxa that generally cause high impacts and to prioritize species for the management in protected areas according to their impact magnitudes. By following a standardized impact protocol, we identified several alien species causing high impacts that do not appear on any expert-based risk list, which are relevant for policymakers. Thus, we recommend that alien species be systematically screened to identify knowledge gaps and prioritize their management with respect to spatio-temporal trends in impact magnitudes.

Using the 2020 global pandemic as a springboard to highlight the need for amphibian conservation in eastern Asia

Emerging infectious diseases are on the rise in many different taxa, including, among others, the amphibian batrachochytrids, the snake fungal disease and the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus, responsible for Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in mammals. Following the onset of the pandemic linked to COVID-19, eastern Asia has shown strong leadership, taking actions to regulate the trade of potential vector species in several regions. These actions were taken in response to an increase in public awareness, and the need for a quick reaction to mitigate against further pandemics. However, trade restrictions rarely affect amphibians, despite the risk of pathogen transmission, directly, or indirectly through habitat destruction and the loss of vector consumption. Thus, species that help alleviate the risk of zoonoses or provide biological control are not protected. Hence, in view of the global amphibian decline and the risk of zoonoses, we support the current wildlife trade regulations and support measures to safeguard wildlife from overexploitation. The current period of regulation overhaul should be used as a springboard for amphibian conservation. To mitigate risks, we suggest the following stipulations specifically for amphibians. I) Restrictions to amphibian farming in eastern Asia, in relation to pathogen transmission and the establishment of invasive species. II) Regulation of the amphibian pet trade, with a focus on potential vector species. III) Expansion of the wildlife trade ban, to limit the wildlife-human-pet interface. The resulting actions will benefit both human and wildlife populations, as they will lead to a decrease in the risk of zoonoses and better protection of the environment.

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT

There is an increasing number of emerging infectious diseases impacting all species, including amphibians, reptiles and mammals. The latest threat to humans is the virus responsible for COVID-19, and the resulting pandemic. Countries in eastern Asia have taken steps to regulate wildlife trade and prevent further zoonoses thereby decreasing the risk of pathogens arising from wild species. However, as amphibians are generally excluded from regulations we support specific trade restrictions: I) Restrictions to amphibian farming; II) regulation of the amphibian pet trade; III) expansion of the wildlife trade ban. These restrictions will benefit both human and wildlife populations by decreasing the risks of zoonoses and better protecting the environment.

Appropriate uses of EICAT protocol, data and classifications

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.

Frameworks used in invasion science: progress and prospects

Our understanding and management of biological invasions relies on our ability to classify and conceptualise the phenomenon. This need has stimulated the development of a plethora of frameworks, ranging in nature from conceptual to applied. However, most of these frameworks have not been widely tested and their general applicability is unknown. In order to critically evaluate frameworks in invasion science, we held a workshop on ‘Frameworks used in Invasion Science’ hosted by the DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology in Stellenbosch, South Africa, in November 2019, which led to this special issue. For the purpose of the workshop we defined a framework as “a way of organising things that can be easily communicated to allow for shared understanding or that can be implemented to allow for generalisations useful for research, policy or management”. Further, we developed the Stellenbosch Challenge for Invasion Science: “Can invasion science develop and improve frameworks that are useful for research, policy or management, and that are clear as to the contexts in which the frameworks do and do not apply?”. Particular considerations identified among meeting participants included the need to identify the limitations of a framework, specify how frameworks link to each other and broader issues, and to improve how frameworks can facilitate communication. We believe that the 24 papers in this special issue do much to meet this challenge. The papers apply existing frameworks to new data and contexts, review how the frameworks have been adopted and used, develop useable protocols and guidelines for applying frameworks to different contexts, refine the frameworks in light of experience, integrate frameworks for new purposes, identify gaps, and develop new frameworks to address issues that are currently not adequately dealt with. Frameworks in invasion science must continue to be developed, tested as broadly as possible, revised, and retired as contexts and needs change. However, frameworks dealing with pathways of introduction, progress along the introduction-naturalisation-invasion continuum, and the assessment of impacts are being increasingly formalised and set as standards. This, we argue, is an important step as invasion science starts to mature as a discipline.

Understanding uncertainty in the Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (ICAT) assessments

The 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.

A framework to support alien species regulation: the Risk Analysis for Alien Taxa (RAAT)

Human livelihoods and well-being in almost all regions of the world depend on taxa which are alien. Such taxa also, however, threaten human health, sustainable development, and biodiversity. Since it is not feasible or desirable to control all alien taxa, decision-makers increasingly rely on risk analyses to formalise the best available evidence of the threats posed and whether and how they can be managed. There are a variety of schemes available that consider the risks of alien taxa, but we argue a new framework is needed: 1) given major recent developments in international frameworks dealing with biological invasions (including the scoring of impacts); 2) so that decisions can be made consistently across taxa, regions and realms; 3) to explicitly set out uncertainties; and 4) to provide decision-makers with information both on the risks posed and on what can be done to mitigate or prevent impacts. Any such scheme must also be flexible enough to deal with constraints in capacity and information. Here we present a framework to address these points – the Risk Analysis for Alien Taxa (RAAT). It outlines a series of questions related to an alien taxon’s likelihood of invasion, realised and potential impacts, and options for management. The framework provides a structure for collating relevant data from the published literature to support a robust, transparent process to list alien taxa under legislative and regulatory requirements, with the aim that it can be completed by a trained science graduate within a few days. The framework also provides a defensible process for developing recommendations for the management of assessed taxa. We trialled the framework in South Africa and outline the process followed and some of the taxa assessed to date.

Comparing the IUCN’s EICAT and Red List to improve assessments of the impact of biological invasions

The IUCN recommends the use of two distinct schemes to assess the impacts of biological invasions on biodiversity at the species level. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Red List) categorises native species based on their risk of extinction. Such assessments evaluate the extent to which different pressures, including alien species, threaten native species. The much newer IUCN Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT) categorises alien species on the degree to which they have impacted native species. Conceptually, the schemes are related. One would expect that: 1) if a native species is assessed as threatened under the Red List due to the impacts of alien species, then at least one alien species involved should be classified as harmful under EICAT; and 2) if an alien species is assessed as harmful under EICAT, then at least one native species impacted should be assessed as threatened by alien species under the Red List. Here we test this by comparing the impacts of alien gastropods, assessed using EICAT, to the impact on native species as assessed based on the Red List. We found a weak positive correlation, but it is clear there is not a simple one-to-one relationship. We hypothesise that the relationship between EICAT and the Red List statuses will follow one of three forms: i) the EICAT status of an alien species is closely correlated to the Red List status of the impacted native species; ii) the alien species is classed as ‘harmful’ under EICAT, but it does not threaten the native species with extinction as per the Red List (for example, the impacted native species is still widespread or abundant despite significant negative impacts from the alien species); or iii) the native species is classified as threatened under the Red List regardless of the impacts of the alien species (threatened species are impacted by other pressures with alien species potentially a passenger and not a driver of change). We conclude that the two schemes are complementary rather than equivalent, and provide some recommendations for how categorisations and data can be used in concert.

Conceptual Risk Framework: Integrating Ecological Risk of Introduced Species with Recipient Ecosystems

Global changes are predicted to facilitate the introduction, establishment, and spread of species into new environments leading to potential negative impacts on local biodiversity. Evaluating the risk associated with introduced species with a high likelihood of arrival, or species that have already been introduced, is therefore increasingly important. In the present article, we outline an operational framework to provide a basis for assessing the ecological risk of introduced species in order to facilitate justifiable management decisions. The framework integrates information based on both the species and the (potential) recipient ecosystems, using existing tools to guide pest managers through the stepwise process. This enables the prediction of high-risk species and the identification of those ecosystems most vulnerable to invasion, and facilitates understanding of the potential mechanisms and magnitude of pest impacts. The framework can be applied to different invasion scenarios to evaluate the risks and impacts of species.

Assessing the ecological and societal impacts of alien parrots in Europe using a transparent and inclusive evidence-mapping scheme

Globally, the number of invasive alien species (IAS) continues to increase and management and policy responses typically need to be adopted before conclusive empirical evidence on their environmental and socioeconomic impacts are available. Consequently, numerous protocols exist for assessing IAS impacts and differ considerably in which evidence they include. However, inclusive strategies for building a transparent evidence base underlying IAS impact assessments are lacking, potentially affecting our ability to reliably identify priority IAS. Using alien parrots in Europe as a case study, here we apply an evidence-mapping scheme to classify impact evidence and evaluate the consequences of accepting different subsets of available evidence on impact assessment outcomes. We collected environmental and socioeconomic impact data in multiple languages using a “wiki-review” process, comprising a systematic evidence search and an online editing and consultation phase. Evidence was classified by parrot species, impact category (e.g. infrastructure), geographical area (e.g. native range), source type (e.g. peer-review), study design (e.g. experimental) and impact direction (deleterious, beneficial and no impact). Our comprehensive database comprised 386 impact entries from 233 sources. Most evidence was anecdotal (50%). A total of 42% of entries reported damage to agriculture (mainly in native ranges), while within Europe most entries concerned interspecific competition (39%). We demonstrate that the types of evidence included in assessments can strongly influence impact severity scores. For example, including evidence from the native range or anecdotal evidence resulted in an overall switch from minimal-moderate to moderate-major overall impact scores. We advise using such an evidence-mapping approach to create an inclusive and updatable database as the foundation for more transparent IAS impact assessments. When openly shared, such evidence-mapping can help better inform IAS research, management and policy.

Conserved growth rate and age structure of Xenopus laevis in the edge and core of an expanding population

Invasive species represent a unique opportunity to study the evolutionary mechanisms driving range expansions. Although range expansion is expected to be associated with increased reproduction and dispersal at the range edge, Xenopus laevis seems to decrease its reproductive investment and to enhance dispersal at the range edge. Evidence of increased dispersal at the edge of expanding populations occurring simultaneously with a faster growth rate has been reported for other organisms. Here, we focused on the growth rate and age structure at the range edge vs. the range core in an expanding population of X. laevis. We used skeletochronology to characterize the age of 250 individuals captured at the range core and edge of this expanding population. Using the Von Bertalanffy equation, we then compared individual growth rates between locations. We found no significant changes in growth rate or age structure between edge and core samples. This result suggests that the reduced investment in reproduction recorded in another study at the range edge might compensate for the increased dispersal without impacting growth in this population. This implies that the resource allocation in an expanding population might thus be more diverse than commonly assumed.

Global environmental and socio-economic impacts of selected alien grasses as a basis for ranking threats to South Africa

Decisions to allocate management resources should be underpinned by estimates of the impacts of biological invasions that are comparable across species and locations. For the same reason, it is important to assess what type of impacts are likely to occur where, and if such patterns can be generalised. In this paper, we aim to understand factors shaping patterns in the type and magnitude of impacts of a subset of alien grasses. We used the Generic Impact Scoring System (GISS) to review and quantify published impact records of 58 grass species that are alien to South Africa and to at least one other biogeographical realm. Based on the GISS scores, we investigated how impact magnitudes varied across habitats, regions and impact mechanisms using multiple regression. We found impact records for 48 species. Cortaderiaselloana had the highest overall impact score, although in contrast to five other species (Glyceriamaxima, Nassellatrichotoma, Phalarisaquatica, Polypogonmonspeliensis, and Sorghumhalepense) it did not score the highest possible impact score for any specific impact mechanism. Consistent with other studies, we found that the most frequent environmental impact was through competition with native plant species (with 75% of cases). Socio-economic impacts were recorded more often and tended to be greater in magnitude than environmental impacts, with impacts recorded particularly often on agricultural and animal production (57% and 51% of cases respectively). There was variation across different regions and habitats in impact magnitude, but the differences were not statistically significant. In conclusion, alien grasses present in South Africa have caused a wide range of negative impacts across most habitats and regions of the world. Reviewing impacts from around the world has provided important information for the management of alien grasses in South Africa, and, we believe, is an important component of management prioritisation processes in general.

How repeatable is the Environmental Impact Classification of Alien Taxa (EICAT)? Comparing independent global impact assessments of amphibians

The magnitude of impacts some alien species cause to native environments makes them targets for regulation and management. However, which species to target is not always clear, and comparisons of a wide variety of impacts are necessary. Impact scoring systems can aid management prioritization of alien species. For such tools to be objective, they need to be robust to assessor bias. Here, we assess the newly proposed Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT) used for amphibians and test how outcomes differ between assessors. Two independent assessments were made by Kraus (Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics, 46, 2015, 75‐97) and Kumschick et al. (Neobiota, 33, 2017, 53‐66), including independent literature searches for impact records. Most of the differences between these two classifications can be attributed to different literature search strategies used with only one‐third of the combined number of references shared between both studies. For the commonly assessed species, the classification of maximum impacts for most species is similar between assessors, but there are differences in the more detailed assessments. We clarify one specific issue resulting from different interpretations of EICAT, namely the practical interpretation and assigning of disease impacts in the absence of direct evidence of transmission from alien to native species. The differences between assessments outlined here cannot be attributed to features of the scheme. Reporting bias should be avoided by assessing all alien species rather than only the seemingly high‐impacting ones, which also improves the utility of the data for management and prioritization for future research. Furthermore, assessments of the same taxon by various assessors and a structured review process for assessments, as proposed by Hawkins et al. (Diversity and Distributions, 21, 2015, 1360), can ensure that biases can be avoided and all important literature is included.