Extensive literature is available on the diversity and magnitude of impacts that alien species cause on recipient systems. Alien species may decrease or increase attributes of ecosystems (e.g. total biomass or species diversity), thus causing negative and positive environmental impacts. Alien species may also negatively or positively impact attributes linked to local human communities (e.g. the number of people involved in a given activity). Ethical and societal values contribute to define these environmental and socio-economic impacts as deleterious or beneficial. Whilst most of the literature focuses on the deleterious effects of alien taxa, some recognise their beneficial impacts on ecosystems and human activities. Impact assessment frameworks show a similar tendency to evaluate mainly deleterious impacts: only relatively few, and not widely applied, frameworks incorporate the beneficial impacts of alien species. Here, we provide a summary of the frameworks assessing beneficial impacts and briefly discuss why they might have been less frequently cited and applied than frameworks assessing exclusively deleterious impacts. Then, we review arguments that invoke a greater consideration of positive and beneficial impacts caused by alien species across the invasion science literature. We collate and describe arguments from a set of 47 papers, grouping them in two categories (value-free and value-laden), which span from a theoretical, basic science perspective to an applied science perspective. We also provide example cases associated with each argument. We advocate that the development of transparent and evidence-based frameworks assessing positive and beneficial impacts might advance our scientific understanding of impact dynamics and better inform management and prioritisation decisions. We also advise that this development should be achieved by recognising the underlying ethical and societal values of the frameworks and their intrinsic limitations. The evaluation of positive and beneficial impacts through impact assessment frameworks should not be seen as an attempt to outweigh or to discount deleterious impacts of alien taxa but rather as an opportunity to provide additional information for scientists, managers and policymakers.

Alternative reproductive tactics in animals are commonly associated with distinct male phenotypes resulting in polymorphism of sexually selected weapons such as horns and spines. Typically, morphs are divided between small (unarmed) and large (armed) males according to one or more developmental thresholds in association with body size. Here, we describe remarkable weapon trimorphism within a single species, where two exaggerated weapon morphs and a third morph with reduced weaponry are present. Male Pantopsalis cheliferoides harvestmen display exaggerated chelicerae (jaws) which are highly variable in length among individuals. Across the same body size spectrum, however, some males belong to a distinct second exaggerated morph which possesses short, broad chelicerae. Multiple weapon morphs in a single species is a previously unknown phenomenon and our findings have significant implications for understanding weapon diversity and maintenance of polymorphism. Specifically, this species will be a valuable model for testing how weapons diverge by being able to test directly for the circumstances under which a certain weapon type is favoured and how weapon shape relates to performance.

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.

Narratives of landscape degradation are often linked to unsustainable fire use by local communities. Madagascar is a case in point: the island is considered globally exceptional, with its remarkable endemic biodiversity viewed as threatened by unsustainable anthropogenic fire. Yet, fire regimes on Madagascar have not been empirically characterised or globally contextualised. Here, we contribute a comparative approach to determining relationships between regional fire regimes and global patterns and trends, applied to Madagascar using MODIS remote sensing data (2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012)(2013)(2014)(2015)(2016)(2017)(2018)(2019). Rather than a global exception, we show that Madagascar's fire regimes are similar to 88% of tropical burned area with shared climate and vegetation characteristics, and can be considered a microcosm of most tropical fire regimes. From 2003-2019, landscapescale fire declined across tropical grassy biomes (17%-44% excluding Madagascar), and on Madagascar at a relatively fast rate (36%-46%). Thus, high tree loss anomalies on the island (1.25-4.77× the tropical average) were not explained by any general expansion of landscape-scale fire in grassy biomes. Rather, tree loss anomalies centred in forests, and could not be explained by landscape-scale fire escaping from savannas into forests. Unexpectedly, the highest tree loss anomalies on Madagascar (4.77×) occurred in environments without landscape-scale fire, where the role of small-scale fires (<21 h [0.21 km 2 ]) is unknown. While landscape-scale fire declined across tropical grassy biomes, trends in tropical forests reflected important differences among regions, indicating a need to better understand regional variation in the anthropogenic drivers of forest loss and fire risk. Our new understanding of Madagascar's fire regimes offers two lessons with global implications: first, landscape-scale fire is declining across tropical grassy biomes and does not explain high tree loss anomalies on Madagascar. Second, landscape-scale fire is not uniformly associated with tropical forest loss, indicating a need for socio-ecological context in framing new narratives of fire and ecosystem degradation. K E Y W O R D S anthropogenic fire, fire regimes, forest degradation, forest loss, global change, land use and land cover change, landscape degradation, vegetation change This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Two contradictory hypotheses have been put forth to forecast alien invasiveness: being either functionally similar, or dissimilar, to resident natives along environmental gradients. The 'try-harder' hypothesis predicts that alien plants will be functionally dissimilar to natives and should thus exhibit exaggerated trait values when compared to natives in respect to resource extraction or stress tolerance. In contrast, the 'join-the-locals' hypothesis, which is compatible with ''environmental filtering'', predicts functional similarities among alien and native species in richer, but not in resource-limited environments. Here, we propose a framework that links the successful alien plant strategy, i.e. being functionally similar or dissimilar to natives, to the harshness of the environment and the availability of resources. We tested these two hypotheses using a trait-environment dataset of 33 alien and 130 native plants in 96 sites covering a gradient of soil resources (organic matter,

Species introduced through human-related activities beyond their native range, termed alien species, have various impacts worldwide. The IUCN Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT) is a global standard to assess negative impacts of alien species on native biodiversity. Alien species can also positively affect biodiversity (for instance, through food and habitat provisioning or dispersal facilitation) but there is currently no standardized and evidence-based system to classify positive impacts. We fill this gap by proposing EICAT+, which uses 5 semiquantitative scenarios to categorize the magnitude of positive impacts, and describes underlying mechanisms. EICAT+ can be applied to all alien taxa at different spatial and organizational scales. The application of EICAT+ expands our understanding of the consequences of biological invasions and can inform conservation decisions.

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.

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.