Consensus and controversy in the discipline of invasion science

The emerging invasive species and climate-change lexicon

The rapid diversification of terminology associated with invasion ecology is a known barrier to effective communication and management. These challenges are magnified by the addition of terms and concepts related to climate-induced range-shifting taxa and/or changes to impacts. Further, institutional policies and terminologies for invasive species introduce new ambiguities when considering climate change. To alleviate communication and application challenges, we introduce a conceptual framework that organizes climate-related invasion terms, revealing ambiguities and gaps. Additionally, we illustrate how these ambiguities can affect management with four case studies and consider situations where resolution can improve policy and management outcomes. The framework can help users avoid inconsistent use of terminology, and prioritize when to address management and policy consequences related to associated terminological ambiguity.

Evaluating models of expert judgment to inform assessment of ecosystem viability and collapse

Expert judgment underpins assessment of threatened ecosystems. However, experts are often narrowly defined, and variability in their judgments may be substantial. Models built from structured elicitation with large diverse expert panels can contribute to more consistent and transparent decision-making. We conducted a structured elicitation under a broad definition of expertise to examine variation in judgments of ecosystem viability and collapse in a critically endangered ecosystem. We explored whether variation in judgments among 83 experts was related to affiliation and management expertise and assessed performance of an average model based on common ecosystem indicators. There were systematic differences among individuals, much of which were not explained by affiliation or expertise. However, of the individuals affiliated with government, those in conservation and environmental departments were more likely to determine a patch was viable than those in agriculture and rural land management. Classification errors from an average model, in which all individuals were weighted equally, were highest among government agriculture experts (27%) and lowest among government conservation experts (12%). Differences were mostly cases in which the average model predicted a patch was viable but the individual thought it was not. These differences arose primarily for areas that were grazed or cleared of mature trees. These areas are often the target of restoration, but they are also valuable for agriculture. These results highlight the potential for conflicting advice and disagreement about policies and actions for conserving and restoring threatened ecosystems. Although adoption of an average model can improve consistency of ecosystem assessment, it can fail to capture and convey diverse opinions held by experts. Structured elicitation and models of ecosystem viability play an important role in providing data-driven evidence of where differences arise among experts to support engagement and discussion among stakeholders and decision makers and to improve the management of threatened ecosystems.

Taming the terminological tempest in invasion science

Standardised terminology in science is important for clarity of interpretation and communication. In invasion science - a dynamic and rapidly evolving discipline - the proliferation of technical terminology has lacked a standardised framework for its development. The result is a convoluted and inconsistent usage of terminology, with various discrepancies in descriptions of damage and interventions. A standardised framework is therefore needed for a clear, universally applicable, and consistent terminology to promote more effective communication across researchers, stakeholders, and policymakers. Inconsistencies in terminology stem from the exponential increase in scientific publications on the patterns and processes of biological invasions authored by experts from various disciplines and countries since the 1990s, as well as publications by legislators and policymakers focusing on practical applications, regulations, and management of resources. Aligning and standardising terminology across stakeholders remains a challenge in invasion science. Here, we review and evaluate the multiple terms used in invasion science (e.g. 'non-native', 'alien', 'invasive' or 'invader', 'exotic', 'non-indigenous', 'naturalised', 'pest') to propose a more simplified and standardised terminology. The streamlined framework we propose and translate into 28 other languages is based on the terms (i) 'non-native', denoting species transported beyond their natural biogeographic range, (ii) 'established non-native', i.e. those non-native species that have established self-sustaining populations in their new location(s) in the wild, and (iii) 'invasive non-native' - populations of established non-native species that have recently spread or are spreading rapidly in their invaded range actively or passively with or without human mediation. We also highlight the importance of conceptualising 'spread' for classifying invasiveness and 'impact' for management. Finally, we propose a protocol for classifying populations based on (i) dispersal mechanism, (ii) species origin, (iii) population status, and (iv) impact. Collectively and without introducing new terminology, the framework that we present aims to facilitate effective communication and collaboration in invasion science and management of non-native species.

Strategies for the Management of Aggressive Invasive Plant Species

Current control methods for invasive alien plants (IAPs) have acceptable short-term outcomes but have proven to be unfeasible or unaffordable in the long-term or for large invaded areas. For these reasons, there is an urgent need to develop sustainable approaches to control or restrict the spread of aggressive IAPs. The use of waste derived from IAP control actions could contribute to motivating the long-term management and preservation of local biodiversity while promoting some economic returns for stakeholders. However, this strategy may raise some concerns that should be carefully addressed before its implementation. In this article, we summarize the most common methods to control IAPs, explaining their viability and limitations. We also compile the potential applications of IAP residues and discuss the risks and opportunities associated with this strategy.