Application of the Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT) to a global assessment of alien bird impacts

Using the IUCN Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa to inform decision-making

The Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT) is an important tool for biological invasion policy and management and has been adopted as an International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) standard to measure the severity of environmental impacts caused by organisms living outside their native ranges. EICAT has already been incorporated into some national and local decision-making procedures, making it a particularly relevant resource for addressing the impact of non-native species. Recently, some of the underlying conceptual principles of EICAT, particularly those related to the use of the precautionary approach, have been challenged. Although still relatively new, guidelines for the application and interpretation of EICAT will be periodically revisited by the IUCN community, based on scientific evidence, to improve the process. Some of the criticisms recently raised are based on subjectively selected assumptions that cannot be generalized and may harm global efforts to manage biological invasions. EICAT adopts a precautionary principle by considering a species' impact history elsewhere because some taxa have traits that can make them inherently more harmful. Furthermore, non-native species are often important drivers of biodiversity loss even in the presence of other pressures. Ignoring the precautionary principle when tackling the impacts of non-native species has led to devastating consequences for human well-being, biodiversity, and ecosystems, as well as poor management outcomes, and thus to significant economic costs. EICAT is a relevant tool because it supports prioritization and management of non-native species and meeting and monitoring progress toward the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) Target 6.

Global economic costs of alien birds

The adverse impacts of alien birds are widespread and diverse, and associated with costs due to the damage caused and actions required to manage them. We synthesised global cost data to identify variation across regions, types of impact, and alien bird species. Costs amount to US$3.6 billion, but this is likely a vast underestimate. Costs are low compared to other taxonomic groups assessed using the same methods; despite underreporting, alien birds are likely to be less damaging and easier to manage than many other alien taxa. Research to understand why this is the case could inform measures to reduce costs associated with biological invasions. Costs are biassed towards high-income regions and damaging environmental impacts, particularly on islands. Most costs on islands result from actions to protect biodiversity and tend to be low and one-off (temporary). Most costs at mainland locations result from damage by a few, widespread species. Some of these costs are high and ongoing (permanent). Actions to restrict alien bird invasions at mainland locations might prevent high, ongoing costs. Reports increased sharply after 2010, but many are for local actions to manage expanding alien bird populations. However, the successful eradication of these increasingly widespread species will require a coordinated, international response.

Invasive alien insects represent a clear but variable threat to biodiversity

Invasive alien insects are an important yet understudied component of the general threat that biological invasions pose to biodiversity. We quantified the breadth and level of this threat by performing environmental impact assessments using a modified version of the Environmental Impact Assessment for Alien Taxa (EICAT) framework. This represents the largest effort to date on quantify the environmental impacts of invasive alien insects. Using a relatively large and taxonomically representative set of insect species that have established non-native populations around the globe, we tested hypotheses on: (1) socioeconomic and (2) taxonomic biases, (3) relationship between range size and impact severity and (4) island susceptibility. Socioeconomic pests had marginally more environmental impact information than non-pests and, as expected, impact information was geographically and taxonomically skewed. Species with larger introduced ranges were more likely, on average, to have the most severe local environmental impacts (i.e. a global maximum impact severity of 'Major'). The island susceptibility hypothesis found no support, and both island and mainland systems experience similar numbers of high severity impacts. These results demonstrate the high variability, both within and across species, in the ways and extents to which invasive insects impact biodiversity, even within the highest profile invaders. However, the environmental impact knowledge base requires greater taxonomic and geographic coverage, so that hypotheses about invasion impact can be developed towards identifying generalities in the biogeography of invasion impacts.

When origin, reproduction ability and diet define the role of birds in invasions

The ecological impacts of invasive alien species (IAS) are increasingly documented; however, they are usually studied through the lens of either the IAS or the affected species (IAS-threatened species). A clear understanding of how both protagonists of biological invasions are characterized is still lacking. We investigated the morphology, life history and ecology of birds involved in biological invasions. Evaluating the distribution of 450 IAS-threatened birds and 400 alien birds in a functional space, we found that both groups retained various strategies. Aliens had larger clutches and were more likely to be herbivores than IAS-threatened and worldwide birds, while IAS-threatened birds were more insular endemic from the Australia region than alien and worldwide birds. IAS-threatened species showed opposite strategies to aliens regarding traits related to diet, origin and reproduction. Further comparing traits associated with impact magnitude, we found that even if aliens were mostly herbivorous, those with high impact had more a generalist behaviour and an animal-based diet compared to aliens with low impact. By emphasizing differences relating to the distribution of bird groups in a functional space, we opened new opportunities to identify the role of birds in biological invasions.

Status and distribution of an introduced population of European Goldfinches (Carduelis carduelis) in the western Great Lakes region of North America

Despite the importance of monitoring introduced species, reports of non-native birds are often initially dismissed by observers. This leads to serious information gaps about source localities, founding numbers, and growth and expansion of potential new populations. Here, we report on European Goldfinches in North America between 2001 and 2021, focusing on the western Great Lakes region. We compiled over 7000 records of European Goldfinches from multiple sources; over 3300 records were from the western Great Lakes. This species was initially reported widely in this region, but over time, birds were most consistently reported between Milwaukee, Wisconsin and Chicago, Illinois. They have been breeding in this area continuously since 2003 and the number of reported observations has increased in recent years. From our compiled records, we describe their distribution, breeding status, nesting phenology, and natural food sources. From import records, we provide evidence that the likely primary founding event of this population was release or escape from a cage bird importer in northern Illinois and provide information on possible origins. We briefly discuss possible ecological impacts. We highlight weaknesses in the way data on non-native species are currently collected and how it has impeded our ability to thoroughly reconstruct the recent history of this species in the western Great Lakes region. Formal study is needed on this population of European Goldfinches, including their potentially increasing population and range, ecology, and an evaluation of the potential effects on native ecosystems.

Integrating expert knowledge at regional and national scales improves impact assessments of non-native species

Knowledge of the impacts of invasive species is important for their management, prioritisation of control efforts and policy decisions. We investigated how British and Irish botanical experts assessed impacts at smaller scales in areas where they were familiar with the flora. Experts were asked to select the 10 plants that they considered were having the largest impacts in their areas. They also scored the local impacts of 10 plant species that had been previously scored to have the highest impacts at the scale of Great Britain. Impacts were scored using the modified classification scheme of the EICAT framework (Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa). A total of 782 species/score combinations were received, of which 123 were non-native plants in 86 recording areas. Impatiens glandulifera, Reynoutria japonica and Rhododendron ponticum were the three species considered to have the highest impacts across all regions. Four of the species included in the list of the 10 highest impact species in Great Britain were also in the top 10 of species reported in our study. Species in the higher impact categories had, on average, a wider distribution than species with impacts categorised at lower levels. The main habitat types affected were woodlands, followed by linear/boundary features and freshwater habitats. Thirty-nine native plant species were reported to be negatively affected. In comparison to the overall non-native flora of Britain and Ireland, the lifeform spectrum of the species reported was significantly different, with higher percentages of aquatic plants and trees, but a lower proportion of annuals. The study demonstrates the value of local knowledge and expertise in identifying invasive species with negative impacts on the environment. Local knowledge is useful to both confirm national assessments and to identify species and impacts on native species and habitats that may not have gained national attention.

Bird Communities in a Changing World: The Role of Interspecific Competition

Significant changes in the environment have the potential to affect bird species abundance and distribution, both directly, through a modification of the landscape, habitats, and climate, and indirectly, through a modification of biotic interactions such as competitive interactions. Predicting and mitigating the consequences of global change thus requires not only a sound understanding of the role played by biotic interactions in current ecosystems, but also the recognition and study of the complex and intricate effects that result from the perturbation of these ecosystems. In this review, we emphasize the role of interspecific competition in bird communities by focusing on three main predictions derived from theoretical and empirical considerations. We provide numerous examples of population decline and displacement that appeared to be, at least in part, driven by competition, and were amplified by environmental changes associated with human activities. Beyond a shift in relative species abundance, we show that interspecific competition may have a negative impact on species richness, ecosystem services, and endangered species. Despite these findings, we argue that, in general, the role played by interspecific competition in current communities remains poorly understood due to methodological issues and the complexity of natural communities. Predicting the consequences of global change in these communities is further complicated by uncertainty regarding future environmental conditions and the speed and efficacy of plastic and evolutionary responses to fast-changing environments. Possible directions of future research are highlighted.

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.

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.

Quantifying the global threat to native birds from predation by non-native birds on small islands

Although invasive non-native species can adversely affect biodiversity in many ways, predation of native species by non-native species on islands can be severely damaging. Results of numerous studies document non-native birds preying on birds on islands, but our understanding of the number and type of species affected has been limited by the lack of a global review of these impacts. I identified the non-native bird species that have been recorded preying on birds, the locations where this predation occurred, and the bird species affected. Because the impacts of non-native birds can be particularly severe on small islands, I then identified the islands <500 km² around the world that are occupied by predatory non-native birds. By taking into account their life-history traits and predation history, I also identified the near-threatened and threatened bird species on these islands that they may prey on. The results indicated that predation by non-native birds was primarily a concern for threatened bird conservation on small islands; almost all predation impacts (91%) on near-threatened and threatened birds were recorded on islands, and median island size was 106 km² . I also found non-native bird predation was a poorly known and widespread potential threat to avian biodiversity; worldwide, 194 islands of <500 km² were occupied by predatory non-native birds, but information on their impacts was unavailable for most of these islands. On them, where the impacts of non-native species can be severe, non-native birds may be preying on approximately 6% of the world's near-threatened and threatened bird species. Four non-native bird species I identified have been successfully eradicated from islands. If they were eradicated from the small islands they occupy, 70% of the near-threatened and threatened bird species I identified would no longer be affected by nest predation by non-native birds on small islands.

Ranking alien species based on their risks of causing environmental impacts: a global assessment of alien ungulates

For an efficient allocation of the limited resources to alien species management, the most damaging species should be prioritized. Comparing alien species based on their impacts is not straightforward, as the same species can cause different types and magnitudes of impacts when introduced to different contexts, making it difficult to summarize its overall impact. The Environmental Impact Classification of Alien Taxa (EICAT) systematically summarizes and compares detrimental impacts caused by alien populations to native biota and has been adopted by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). For each alien species, all reported impacts to native populations within the introduced range are classified into five levels of severity, from negligible impact to irreversible local extinction. Currently, EICAT only compares alien species based on their highest impact, thereby ignoring variation in impact magnitudes. Here, we used information on the variation in impact magnitudes of alien species to estimate their risks to cause high impacts if introduced to a novel environment. We demonstrate the usefulness of this approach by classifying the global impacts of alien ungulates. We found impact reports for 27 of the 66 alien ungulate species established worldwide, highlighting substantial knowledge gaps in invasion science. We classified a total of 441 impacts to native fauna and flora caused by these 27 species. Twenty-six of the species were found to cause harmful impacts (native population declines or local extinctions). Mouflon (Ovis orientalis, Gmelin, 1774) and dromedary (Camelus dromedarius, Linnaeus, 1758) had a higher risk of causing local extinctions if introduced to a novel environment than sika deer (Cervus nippon, Temminck, 1838) and goats (Capra hircus, Linnaeus, 1758). Including risk of high impacts allows to discriminate among species with the same EICAT classification and improves alien species prioritization for management.

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.

A framework for prioritising present and potentially invasive mammal species for a national list

The European Union (EU) has recently adopted a regulation on invasive alien species that foresees the possibility of developing lists of species of National Concern. We developed a prioritisation process for alien mammals already established in Italy, but not yet included in the EU list (n = 6 species) and a systematic horizon-scanning procedure to obtain ranked lists for those species that are already introduced worldwide or traded in Italy (n = 213). Experts were asked to score these species, by evaluating their likelihood of establishment and spread and the magnitude of their potential impacts on biodiversity, economy, human-health and society. The manageability of each species was also evaluated, both for the proritisation and the horizon-scanning processes. We produced five lists that ranked species according to their potential spread and impacts and their manageability. These will allow policy-makers to select outputs according to a balance between risk assessment and risk management, establishing priorities for alien species management at the national level.

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.

A priority-setting scheme for the management of invasive non-native species in protected areas

Invasion by non-native species is one of the major threats to the conservation of biodiversity and to the provision of ecosystem services by protected areas. Invasive species often co-occur in protected areas, represented by sparse, isolated individuals or populations in different stages in the process of invasion. Species invasiveness, habitat invasibility and impact also differ between ecosystems, so the risk of invasion varies. Besides, prioritization is required due to constraints on time, financial and other resources. Priority-setting is therefore key to help protected area managers invest efforts on biological invasions that offer the best chances of producing large-scale positive results at the lowest cost possible. A priority-setting scheme for the control of invasive non-native species in natural areas is presented in this paper. The scheme, based on field observations of species occurrences, was applied to the Itatiaia National Park (Brazil). Priorities are calculated from a combination of three criteria attributed to each occurrence: species risk of invasion considering local ecosystems, invasion stage, and species frequency. Data collected in the field in the Itatiaia National Park were used to calculate priorities for 50 non-native species (six animals and 44 plants) in four locations in the Park. The highest priorities were attributed to species of high risk in an early stage of invasion occurring in one site, whereas a few widespread species of low risk were given lower priority. The scheme has proven functional for setting priorities for the control of non-native species in the Itatiaia National Park and in many other protected areas in Brazil.

Improving the Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT): a summary of revisions to the framework and guidelines

The Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT) classifies the impacts caused by alien species in their introduced range in standardised terms across taxa and recipient environments. Impacts are classified into one of five levels of severity, from Minimal Concern to Massive, via one of 12 impact mechanisms. Here, we explain revisions based on an IUCN-wide consultation process to the previously-published EICAT framework and guidelines, to clarify why these changes were necessary. These changes mainly concern: the distinction between the two highest levels of impact severity (Major and Massive impacts), the scenarios of the five levels of severity for the hybridisation and disease transmission mechanisms, the broadening of existing impact mechanisms to capture overlooked mechanisms, the Current (Maximum) Impact, and the way uncertainty of individual impact assessments is evaluated. Our aim in explaining this revision process is to ensure consistency of EICAT assessments, by improving the understanding of the framework.

The cost and complexity of assessing impact

The environmental and socio-economic impacts of invasive species have long been recognised to be unequal, with some species being benign while others are disastrous. Until recently there was no recognised standard impact scoring framework with which to compare impacts of species from very different taxa. The advent of the Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT) and Socio‐Economic Impact Classification of Alien Taxa (SEICAT) schemes allows for the possibility of assessing impact through a standard approach. However, both these schemes are still in their infancy and the associated costs of the research that informs them is unknown. We aimed to determine the study costs and complexity associated with assessing invasive species’ socio-economic and environmental impacts. We used amphibians as a model group to investigate papers from which EICAT and SEICAT scores could be drawn up to 2019. Our analysis shows that studies that resulted in higher impact scores were more costly. Furthermore, the costs of studies were best predicted by their complexity and the time taken to complete them. If impact scores from EICAT and SEICAT are allowed to inform policy, then we need to carefully consider whether species with low scores represent true impact, or require more research investment and time. Policy makers needing accurate assessments will need to finance larger, more complex, and rigorous studies. Assessing impacts in low and middle income countries may need investment using international research collaborations and capacity building with scientists from high income areas.

Application of the Socio-Economic Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (SEICAT) to a global assessment of alien bird impacts

We use a recently proposed framework, the Socio-Economic Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (SEICAT) to undertake the first global assessment of the impacts of alien birds on human well-being. A review of the published literature and online resources was undertaken to collate information on the reported socio-economic impacts of 415 bird species with self-sustaining alien populations worldwide. These data were then categorised following the SEICAT guidelines. Impact data were found for 57 (14%) of the 415 alien bird species in this study. All but two of these species were found to have minor impacts on human well-being. The most significant threat to human well-being posed by alien birds may be associated with their impacts on aviation safety. About two-thirds of the impact data found described agricultural impacts. No data were found describing disease transmission impacts on humans. We lack data for developing regions of the world: this is of concern as alien species can threaten livelihoods in developing countries, particularly by affecting agricultural production and hence food security. Most assessments were allocated a ‘Low’ confidence score. This may be because SEICAT is a new framework, requiring data on the way in which alien species affect human well-being, as measured by changes to human activities: even where we do have data describing an alien bird impact, information on how profoundly this impact affects people’s activities is currently rarely available.

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.

A taxonomically and geographically constrained information base limits non-native reptile and amphibian risk assessment: a systematic review

For many taxa, new records of non-native introductions globally occur at a near exponential rate. We undertook a systematic review of peer-reviewed publications on non-native herpetofauna, to assess the information base available for assessing risks of future invasions, resulting in 836 relevant papers. The taxonomic and geographic scope of the literature was also compared to a published database of all known invasions globally. We found 1,116 species of herpetofauna, 95% of which were present in fewer than 12 studies. Nearly all literature on the invasion ecology of herpetofauna has appeared since 2000, with a strong focus on frogs (58%), particularly cane toads (Rhinella marina) and their impacts in Australia. While fewer papers have been published on turtles and snakes, proportionately more species from both these groups have been studied than for frogs. Within each herpetofaunal group, there are a handful of well-studied species: R. marina, Lithobates catesbeianus, Xenopus laevis, Trachemys scripta, Boiga irregularis and Anolis sagrei. Most research (416 papers; 50%) has addressed impacts, with far fewer studies on aspects like trade (2%). Besides Australia (213 studies), most countries have little location-specific peer-reviewed literature on non-native herpetofauna (on average 1.1 papers per established species). Other exceptions were Guam, the UK, China, California and France, but even their publication coverage across established species was not even. New methods for assessing and prioritizing invasive species such as the Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa provide useful frameworks for risk assessment, but require robust species-level studies. Global initiatives, similar to the Global Amphibian Assessment, using the species and taxonomic groups identified here, are needed to derive the level of information across broad geographic ranges required to apply these frameworks. Expansive studies on model species can be used to indicate productive research foci for understudied taxa.

Gastropods alien to South Africa cause severe environmental harm in their global alien ranges across habitats

Alien gastropods have caused extensive harm to biodiversity and socioeconomic systems like agriculture and horticulture worldwide. For conservation and management purposes, information on impacts needs to be easily interpretable and comparable, and the factors that determine impacts understood. This study aimed to assess gastropods alien to South Africa to compare impact severity between species and understand how they vary between habitats and mechanisms. Furthermore, we explore the relationship between environmental and socioeconomic impacts, and both impact measures with life-history traits. We used the Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT) and Socio-Economic Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (SEICAT) to assess impacts of 34 gastropods alien to South Africa including evidence of impact from their entire alien range. We tested for correlations between environmental and socioeconomic impacts per species, and with fecundity and native latitude range using Kendall's tau tests. Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare impact magnitude among mechanisms and habitats, respectively. This study presents the first application of EICAT and SEICAT for invertebrates. There was no correlation between environmental impacts and socioeconomic impacts. Habitats did not differ regarding the severity of impacts recorded, but impacts via disease transmission were lower than other mechanisms. Neither fecundity nor native range latitude was correlated with impact magnitude. Despite gastropods being agricultural and horticultural pests globally, resilience of socioeconomic systems makes high impacts uncommon. Environmental systems may be vulnerable to gastropod impacts across habitats, having experienced multiple local extinctions of wetland island snail fauna. South Africa stands out as the only continental country that follows this trend. The knowledge gained on severity and nature of gastropod impacts is useful in risk assessment, which can aid conservation management. To make impact assessments more realistic, we suggest alternative ways of reporting impacts classified under EICAT and SEICAT.

The relevance of using various scoring schemes revealed by an impact assessment of feral mammals

Impact scoring schemes are useful for identifying to what extent alien species cause damage. Quantifying the similarity and differences between impact scoring schemes can help determine how to optimally use these tools for policy decisions. Using feral mammals (including rats and mice) as a case study, environmental and socio-economic impacts were assessed using three schemes, namely the Generic Impact Scoring System (GISS), Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT) and Socio-Economic Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (SEICAT). The results show that socio-economic impacts scores differ between the respective schemes (GISS and SEICAT) possibly because they assess different aspects of social life and economy. This suggests that both scoring schemes should ideally be applied in concert to get a complete picture of socio-economic impacts. In contrast, environmental impact scores are correlated between GISS and EICAT assessments and this similarity is consistent over most mechanisms except for predation and ecosystems, suggesting that one scoring scheme is sufficient to capture all the environmental impacts. Furthermore, we present evidence for the island susceptibility hypothesis as impacts of feral mammals were found to be higher on islands compared to mainlands.

Cost-benefit analysis for invasive species control: the case of greater Canada goose Branta canadensis in Flanders (northern Belgium)

Background

Sound decisions on control actions for established invasive alien species (IAS) require information on ecological as well as socio-economic impact of the species and of its management. Cost-benefit analysis provides part of this information, yet has received relatively little attention in the scientific literature on IAS.

Methods

We apply a bio-economic model in a cost-benefit analysis framework to greater Canada goose Branta canadensis, an IAS with documented social, economic and ecological impacts in Flanders (northern Belgium). We compared a business as usual (BAU) scenario which involved non-coordinated hunting and egg destruction with an enhanced scenario based on a continuation of these activities but supplemented with coordinated capture of moulting birds. To assess population growth under the BAU scenario we fitted a logistic growth model to the observed pre-moult capture population. Projected damage costs included water eutrophication and damage to cultivated grasslands and were calculated for all scenarios. Management costs of the moult captures were based on a representative average of the actual cost of planning and executing moult captures.

Results

Comparing the scenarios with different capture rates, different costs for eutrophication and various discount rates, showed avoided damage costs were in the range of 21.15 M€ to 45.82 M€ under the moult capture scenario. The lowest value for the avoided costs applied to the scenario where we lowered the capture rate by 10%. The highest value occurred in the scenario where we lowered the real discount rate from 4% to 2.5%.

Discussion

The reduction in damage costs always outweighed the additional management costs of moult captures. Therefore, additional coordinated moult captures could be applied to limit the negative economic impact of greater Canada goose at a regional scale. We further discuss the strengths and weaknesses of our approach and its potential application to other IAS.

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.