1
|
Booy O, Robertson PA, Moore N, Ward J, Roy HE, Adriaens T, Shaw R, Van Valkenburg J, Wyn G, Bertolino S, Blight O, Branquart E, Brundu G, Caffrey J, Capizzi D, Casaer J, De Clerck O, Coughlan NE, Davis E, Dick JTA, Essl F, Fried G, Genovesi P, González-Moreno P, Huysentruyt F, Jenkins SR, Kerckhof F, Lucy FE, Nentwig W, Newman J, Rabitsch W, Roy S, Starfinger U, Stebbing PD, Stuyck J, Sutton-Croft M, Tricarico E, Vanderhoeven S, Verreycken H, Mill AC. Using structured eradication feasibility assessment to prioritize the management of new and emerging invasive alien species in Europe. Glob Chang Biol 2020; 26:6235-6250. [PMID: 32851731 DOI: 10.1111/gcb.15280] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/27/2020] [Accepted: 06/27/2020] [Indexed: 06/11/2023]
Abstract
Prioritizing the management of invasive alien species (IAS) is of global importance and within Europe integral to the EU IAS regulation. To prioritize management effectively, the risks posed by IAS need to be assessed, but so too does the feasibility of their management. While the risk of IAS to the EU has been assessed, the feasibility of management has not. We assessed the feasibility of eradicating 60 new (not yet established) and 35 emerging (established with limited distribution) species that pose a threat to the EU, as identified by horizon scanning. The assessment was carried out by 34 experts in invasion management from across Europe, applying the Non-Native Risk Management scheme to defined invasion scenarios and eradication strategies for each species, assessing the feasibility of eradication using seven key risk management criteria. Management priorities were identified by combining scores for risk (derived from horizon scanning) and feasibility of eradication. The results show eradication feasibility score and risk score were not correlated, indicating that risk management criteria evaluate different information than risk assessment. In all, 17 new species were identified as particularly high priorities for eradication should they establish in the future, whereas 14 emerging species were identified as priorities for eradication now. A number of species considered highest priority for eradication were terrestrial vertebrates, a group that has been the focus of a number of eradication attempts in Europe. However, eradication priorities also included a diverse range of other taxa (plants, invertebrates and fish) suggesting there is scope to broaden the taxonomic range of attempted eradication in Europe. We demonstrate that broad scale structured assessments of management feasibility can help prioritize IAS for management. Such frameworks are needed to support evidence-based decision-making.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Olaf Booy
- Animal and Plant Health Agency, Non-Native Species Secretariat, Sand Hutton, York, UK
- Modelling, Evidence and Policy Group, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Pete A Robertson
- Modelling, Evidence and Policy Group, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Niall Moore
- Animal and Plant Health Agency, Non-Native Species Secretariat, Sand Hutton, York, UK
| | - Jess Ward
- Modelling, Evidence and Policy Group, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Helen E Roy
- UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Wallingford, UK
| | - Tim Adriaens
- Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Wildlife Management and Invasive Species, Brussels, Belgium
| | | | - Johan Van Valkenburg
- Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority, National Reference Centre, Wageningen, Netherlands
| | | | - Sandro Bertolino
- Department of Agriculture, Forest and Food Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
| | - Olivier Blight
- Institut Méditerranéen de Biodiversité et d'Ecologie, Avignon Université, UMR CNRS IRD Aix Marseille Université, Avignon, France
| | - Etienne Branquart
- Invasive Species Unit, Service Public de Wallonie, Wallonia, Belgium
| | - Giuseppe Brundu
- Department of Agriculture, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy
| | - Joe Caffrey
- INVAS Biosecurity, Stillorgan, Co Dublin, Ireland
| | - Dario Capizzi
- Directorate for Natural Capital, Latium Region, Parks and Protected Areas, Rome, Italy
| | - Jim Casaer
- Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Wildlife Management and Invasive Species, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Olivier De Clerck
- Biology Department, Research Group Phycology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
| | | | - Eithne Davis
- Department of Environmental Science, Centre for Environmental Research, Innovation and Sustainability, Institute of Technology, Ash Lane, Sligo, Ireland
| | | | - Franz Essl
- Division of Conservation Biology, Vegetation Ecology and Landscape Ecology, University Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Guillaume Fried
- Entomology and Invasive Plants Unit, Plant Health Laboratory, Montferrier-sur-Lez, France
| | - Piero Genovesi
- Institute for Environmental Protection and Research (ISPRA), and Chair IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group, Rome, Italy
| | - Pablo González-Moreno
- CABI Science Centre, Egham, Surrey, UK
- Department of Forest Engineering (ERSAF), University of Córdoba, Córdoba, Spain
| | - Frank Huysentruyt
- Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Wildlife Management and Invasive Species, Brussels, Belgium
| | | | - Francis Kerckhof
- Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences (RBINS), Oostende, Belgium
| | - Frances E Lucy
- Department of Environmental Science, Centre for Environmental Research, Innovation and Sustainability, Institute of Technology, Ash Lane, Sligo, Ireland
| | | | | | | | - Sugoto Roy
- International Union for the Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland
| | | | | | - Jan Stuyck
- Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Wildlife Management and Invasive Species, Brussels, Belgium
| | | | | | | | - Hugo Verreycken
- Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Wildlife Management and Invasive Species, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Aileen C Mill
- Modelling, Evidence and Policy Group, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Roy HE, Bacher S, Essl F, Adriaens T, Aldridge DC, Bishop JDD, Blackburn TM, Branquart E, Brodie J, Carboneras C, Cottier-Cook EJ, Copp GH, Dean HJ, Eilenberg J, Gallardo B, Garcia M, García‐Berthou E, Genovesi P, Hulme PE, Kenis M, Kerckhof F, Kettunen M, Minchin D, Nentwig W, Nieto A, Pergl J, Pescott OL, M. Peyton J, Preda C, Roques A, Rorke SL, Scalera R, Schindler S, Schönrogge K, Sewell J, Solarz W, Stewart AJA, Tricarico E, Vanderhoeven S, van der Velde G, Vilà M, Wood CA, Zenetos A, Rabitsch W. Developing a list of invasive alien species likely to threaten biodiversity and ecosystems in the European Union. Glob Chang Biol 2019; 25:1032-1048. [PMID: 30548757 PMCID: PMC7380041 DOI: 10.1111/gcb.14527] [Citation(s) in RCA: 64] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/25/2018] [Accepted: 11/07/2018] [Indexed: 05/04/2023]
Abstract
The European Union (EU) has recently published its first list of invasive alien species (IAS) of EU concern to which current legislation must apply. The list comprises species known to pose great threats to biodiversity and needs to be maintained and updated. Horizon scanning is seen as critical to identify the most threatening potential IAS that do not yet occur in Europe to be subsequently risk assessed for future listing. Accordingly, we present a systematic consensus horizon scanning procedure to derive a ranked list of potential IAS likely to arrive, establish, spread and have an impact on biodiversity in the region over the next decade. The approach is unique in the continental scale examined, the breadth of taxonomic groups and environments considered, and the methods and data sources used. International experts were brought together to address five broad thematic groups of potential IAS. For each thematic group the experts first independently assembled lists of potential IAS not yet established in the EU but potentially threatening biodiversity if introduced. Experts were asked to score the species within their thematic group for their separate likelihoods of i) arrival, ii) establishment, iii) spread, and iv) magnitude of the potential negative impact on biodiversity within the EU. Experts then convened for a 2-day workshop applying consensus methods to compile a ranked list of potential IAS. From an initial working list of 329 species, a list of 66 species not yet established in the EU that were considered to be very high (8 species), high (40 species) or medium (18 species) risk species was derived. Here, we present these species highlighting the potential negative impacts and the most likely biogeographic regions to be affected by these potential IAS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Franz Essl
- Environment Agency AustriaViennaAustria
- Division of Conservation Biology, Vegetation Ecology and Landscape EcologyUniversity ViennaViennaAustria
| | - Tim Adriaens
- Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO)BrusselsBelgium
| | | | | | - Tim M. Blackburn
- University College LondonLondonUK
- Institute of ZoologyZoological Society of LondonLondonUK
| | | | | | - Carles Carboneras
- Royal Society for the Protection of BirdsThe LodgeSandyBedfordshireUK
| | | | - Gordon H. Copp
- Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture ScienceLowestoftUK
- Centre for Conservation EcologyBournemouth UniversityPooleUK
| | | | - Jørgen Eilenberg
- Department of Plant and Environmental SciencesUniversity of CopenhagenDenmark
| | | | | | | | - Piero Genovesi
- Institute for Environmental Protection and Research ISPRA, and Chair IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist GroupRomeItaly
| | - Philip E. Hulme
- Bio-Protection Research CentreLincoln UniversityLincolnNew Zealand
| | | | - Francis Kerckhof
- Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences (RBINS)OostendeBelgium
| | | | - Dan Minchin
- Marine Organism InvestigationsMarina Village, Ballina, KillaloeCo ClareIreland
| | | | | | - Jan Pergl
- Institute of BotanyThe Czech Academy of SciencesPrůhoniceCzech Republic
| | | | | | | | - Alain Roques
- Institut National de la Recherche AgronomiqueZoologie Forestière, UR 0633Ardon Orleans Cedex 2France
| | | | | | | | | | - Jack Sewell
- The LaboratoryThe Marine Biological AssociationPlymouthUK
| | - Wojciech Solarz
- Institute of Nature ConservationPolish Academy of SciencesKrakówPoland
| | | | | | | | - Gerard van der Velde
- Institute for Water and Wetland ResearchRadboud UniversityNijmegenThe Netherlands
- Naturalis Biodiversity CenterLeidenThe Netherlands
- Netherlands Centre of Expertise for Exotic Species (NEC‐E)NijmegenThe Netherlands
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Van Hoey G, Borja A, Birchenough S, Buhl-Mortensen L, Degraer S, Fleischer D, Kerckhof F, Magni P, Muxika I, Reiss H, Schröder A, Zettler ML. The use of benthic indicators in Europe: from the Water Framework Directive to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Mar Pollut Bull 2010; 60:2187-96. [PMID: 21051051 DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.09.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 58] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/01/2010] [Revised: 09/07/2010] [Accepted: 09/09/2010] [Indexed: 05/22/2023]
Abstract
The Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) are the European umbrella regulations for water systems. It is a challenge for the scientific community to translate the principles of these directives into realistic and accurate approaches. The aim of this paper, conducted by the Benthos Ecology Working Group of ICES, is to describe how the principles have been translated, which were the challenges and best way forward. We have tackled the following principles: the ecosystem-based approach, the development of benthic indicators, the definition of 'pristine' or sustainable conditions, the detection of pressures and the development of monitoring programs. We concluded that testing and integrating the different approaches was facilitated during the WFD process, which led to further insights and improvements, which the MSFD can rely upon. Expert involvement in the entire implementation process proved to be of vital importance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gert Van Hoey
- ILVO-Fishery, Biological Environmental Research Division, Ankerstraat 1, 8410 Ostend, Belgium.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|