The application of selected invasion frameworks to urban ecosystems

Monitoring urban biological invasions using citizen science: the polyphagous shot hole borer (Euwallacea fornicatus)

Benefits provided by urban trees are increasingly threatened by non-native pests and pathogens. Monitoring of these invasions is critical for the effective management and conservation of urban tree populations. However, a shortage of professionally collected species occurrence data is a major impediment to assessments of biological invasions in urban areas. We applied data from iNaturalist to develop a protocol for monitoring urban biological invasions using the polyphagous shot hole borer (PSHB) invasion in two urban areas of South Africa. iNaturalist records for all known PSHB reproductive host species were used together with data on localities of sites for processing plant biomass to map priority monitoring areas for detecting new and expanding PSHB infestations. Priority monitoring areas were also identified using the distribution of Acer negundo, a highly susceptible host that serves as a sentinel species for the detection of PSHB infestations. iNaturalist data provided close to 9000 observations for hosts in which PSHB is known to reproduce in our study area (349 of which were A. negundo). High-priority areas for PSHB monitoring include those with the highest density of PSHB reproductive hosts found close to the 140 plant biomass sites identified. We also identified high-priority roads for visual and baited trap surveys, providing operational guidance for practitioners. The monitoring protocol developed in this study highlights the value of citizen or community science data in informing the management of urban biological invasions. It also advocates for the use of platforms such as iNaturalist as essential tools for conservation monitoring in urban landscapes.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10340-024-01744-7.

Hypotheses in urban ecology: building a common knowledge base

Urban ecology is a rapidly growing research field that has to keep pace with the pressing need to tackle the sustainability crisis. As an inherently multi-disciplinary field with close ties to practitioners and administrators, research synthesis and knowledge transfer between those different stakeholders is crucial. Knowledge maps can enhance knowledge transfer and provide orientation to researchers as well as practitioners. A promising option for developing such knowledge maps is to create hypothesis networks, which structure existing hypotheses and aggregate them according to topics and research aims. Combining expert knowledge with information from the literature, we here identify 62 research hypotheses used in urban ecology and link them in such a network. Our network clusters hypotheses into four distinct themes: (i) Urban species traits & evolution, (ii) Urban biotic communities, (iii) Urban habitats and (iv) Urban ecosystems. We discuss the potentials and limitations of this approach. All information is openly provided as part of an extendable Wikidata project, and we invite researchers, practitioners and others interested in urban ecology to contribute additional hypotheses, as well as comment and add to the existing ones. The hypothesis network and Wikidata project form a first step towards a knowledge base for urban ecology, which can be expanded and curated to benefit both practitioners and researchers.

Phylogenetic Diversity of Urban Floras in the Central Urals

Modern cities harbor a high diversity of plants, and urban floras are significantly different from non-urban floras especially when considering the proportion of alien species found in cities. However, it is not clear whether urban areas disproportionately select for species from relatively few evolutionary lineages or provide opportunities for species across the full spectrum of plant lineages. Here, we examined the taxonomic and phylogenetic diversity of the floras in four cities (Yekaterinburg, Kamensk-Uralsky, Krasnoufimsk, and Turinsk) in the understudied region of Central Urals (Russian Federation). We classified native species into indigenous and apophytic species, namely, those that are sensitive to anthropogenic disturbance and those that have expanded their range with human activity, respectively. Alien species were classified into archaeophytes and neophytes according to when they were introduced (i.e., before or after than 1800). Phylogenetic diversity was quantified using Faith’s index to reflect total evolutionary history in urban areas and mean phylogenetic distance (MPD) to reflect species dissimilarity. Phylogenetic diversity of native species was higher than that for alien species, and the standardized effect size (SES) of MPD for natives was positive, reflecting their general dissimilarity from one another, while it was very negative for aliens, showing that they were phylogenetically clustered. However, among natives, apophytes were significantly clustered, while indigenous species were overdispersed. For the aliens, MPD was higher for archaeophytes compared to neophytes, though both groups were significantly clustered. These results show that urbanization leads to a non-random selection of plants. Apophytes and alien plants were composed of closely related species, reflecting similar ecological traits and are likely to be pre-adapted to the environmentally altered and highly disturbed urban environment.

Assessing the relative importance of human and spatial pressures on non-native plant establishment in urban forests using citizen science

Since 2007, more people in the world live in urban than in rural areas. The development of urban areas has encroached into natural forest ecosystems, consequently increasing the ecological importance of parks and fragmented forest remnants. However, a major concern is that urban activities have rendered urban forests susceptible to non-native species incursions, making them central entry sites where non-native plant species can establish and spread. We have little understanding of what urban factors contribute to this process. Here we use data collected by citizen scientists to determine the differential impacts of spatial and urban factors on non-native plant introductions in urban forests. Using a model city, we mapped 18 urban forests within city limits, and identified all the native and non-native plants present at those sites. We then determined the relative contribution of spatial and socioeconomic variables on the richness and composition of native and non-native plant communities. We found that socioeconomic factors rather than spatial factors (e.g., urban forest area) were important modulators of overall or non-native species richness. Non-native species richness in urban forest fragments was primarily affected by residential layout, recent construction events, and nearby roads. This demonstrates that the proliferation of non-native species is inherent to urban activities and we propose that future studies replicate our approach in different cities to broaden our understanding of the spatial and social factors that modulate invasive species movement starting in urban areas.

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.

Reciprocal human-natural system feedback loops within the invasion process

Biological invasions are inextricably linked to how people collect, move, interact with and perceive non-native species. However, invasion frameworks generally do not consider reciprocal interactions between non-native species and people. Non-native species can shape human actions via beneficial or detrimental ecological and socioeconomic effects and people, in turn, shape invasions through their movements, behaviour and how they respond to the collection, transport, introduction and spread of non-natives. The feedbacks that stem from this ‘coupled human and natural system’ (CHANS) could therefore play a key role in mitigating (i.e. negative feedback loops) or exacerbating (i.e. positive feedback loops) ongoing and future invasions. We posit that the invasion process could be subdivided into three CHANS that span from the source region from which non-natives originate to the recipient region in which they establish and spread. We also provide specific examples of feedback loops that occur within each CHANS that have either reduced or facilitated new introductions and spread of established non-native species. In so doing, we add to exisiting invasion frameworks to generate new hypotheses about human-based drivers of biological invasions and further efforts to determine how ecological outcomes feed back into human actions.

Harmonising the fields of invasion science and forest pathology

Invasive alien species are widely recognised as significant drivers of global environmental change, with far reaching ecological and socio-economic impacts. The trend of continuous increases in first records, with no apparent sign of saturation, is consistent across all taxonomic groups. However, taxonomic biases exist in the extent to which invasion processes have been studied. Invasive forest pathogens have caused, and they continue to result in dramatic damage to natural forests and woody ecosystems, yet their impacts are substantially underrepresented in the invasion science literature. Conversely, most studies of forest pathogens have been undertaken in the absence of a connection to the frameworks developed and used to study biological invasions. We believe this is, in part, a consequence of the mechanistic approach of the discipline of forest pathology; one that has been inherited from the broader discipline of plant pathology. Rather than investigating the origins of, and the processes driving the arrival of invasive microorganisms, the focus of pathologists is generally to investigate specific interactions between hosts and pathogens, with an emphasis on controlling the resulting disease problems. In contrast, central to the field of invasion science, which finds its roots in ecology, is the development and testing of general concepts and frameworks. The lack of knowledge of microbial biodiversity and ecology, speciation and geographic origin present challenges in understanding invasive forest pathogens under existing frameworks, and there is a need to address this shortfall. Advances in molecular technologies such as gene and genome sequencing and metagenomics studies have increased the “visibility” of microorganisms. We consider whether these technologies are being adequately applied to address the gaps between forest pathology and invasion science. We also interrogate the extent to which the two fields stand to gain by becoming more closely linked.