Biological invasions are a global consequence of an increasingly connected world and the rise in human population size. The numbers of invasive alien species – the subset of alien species that spread widely in areas where they are not native, affecting the environment or human livelihoods – are increasing. Synergies with other global changes are exacerbating current invasions and facilitating new ones, thereby escalating the extent and impacts of invaders. Invasions have complex and often immense long‐term direct and indirect impacts. In many cases, such impacts become apparent or problematic only when invaders are well established and have large ranges. Invasive alien species break down biogeographic realms, affect native species richness and abundance, increase the risk of native species extinction, affect the genetic composition of native populations, change native animal behaviour, alter phylogenetic diversity across communities, and modify trophic networks. Many invasive alien species also change ecosystem functioning and the delivery of ecosystem services by altering nutrient and contaminant cycling, hydrology, habitat structure, and disturbance regimes. These biodiversity and ecosystem impacts are accelerating and will increase further in the future. Scientific evidence has identified policy strategies to reduce future invasions, but these strategies are often insufficiently implemented. For some nations, notably Australia and New Zealand, biosecurity has become a national priority. There have been long‐term successes, such as eradication of rats and cats on increasingly large islands and biological control of weeds across continental areas. However, in many countries, invasions receive little attention. Improved international cooperation is crucial to reduce the impacts of invasive alien species on biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human livelihoods. Countries can strengthen their biosecurity regulations to implement and enforce more effective management strategies that should also address other global changes that interact with invasions.

The management of landscapes for biological conservation and ecologically sustainable natural resource use are crucial global issues. Research for over two decades has resulted in a large literature, yet there is little consensus on the applicability or even the existence of general principles or broad considerations that could guide landscape conservation. We assess six major themes in the ecology and conservation of landscapes. We identify 13 important issues that need to be considered in developing approaches to landscape conservation. They include recognizing the importance of landscape mosaics (including the integration of terrestrial and aquatic areas), recognizing interactions between vegetation cover and vegetation configuration, using an appropriate landscape conceptual model, maintaining the capacity to recover from disturbance and managing landscapes in an adaptive framework. These considerations are influenced by landscape context, species assemblages and management goals and do not translate directly into on-the-ground management guidelines but they should be recognized by researchers and resource managers when developing guidelines for specific cases. Two crucial overarching issues are: (i) a clearly articulated vision for landscape conservation and (ii) quantifiable objectives that offer unambiguous signposts for measuring progress.

There has been much debate about the relative merits of single-species vs ecosystem-oriented research for conservation. This debate has become increasingly important in recent times as resource managers and policy makers in some jurisdictions focus on ecosystem-level problems. We highlight the potential strengths and limitations of both kinds of research, discuss their complementarity and highlight problems that may arise where competition occurs between the two kinds of research.While a combination of approaches is ideal, a scarcity of funding, time, and expertise means it is impossible to study and manage each species, ecological process, or ecological pattern separately. Making decisions about priorities for the kinds of research, priorities for the kinds of conservation management, and associated allocation of scarce funds is a non-trivial task. We argue for an approach whereby limited resources for conservation research are targeted at projects most likely to close important knowledge gaps, while also promoting ongoing synergies between single-species and ecosystem-oriented research.

Because of the role of the meristem in plant growth and reproduction, somatic mutations in plants have long been suspected of conferring herbivore and pathogen resistance on individual plants and, in the case of trees, individual branches within single plants. A few instances of resistance to phytophagous insects owing to somatic mutations have been reported in the literature. More recently, a striking example has demonstrated how somatic mutations confer resistance to an herbicide on an invasive plant, Hydrilla verticillata. The array of new methods for manipulating genomes (e.g., gene-editing) plus existing examples of somatic mutation-associated resistance suggest that such mutations might be useful in silviculture, agriculture, and horticulture. Answering several general questions about somatic mutations in plants would facilitate such applications: Why are so few examples reported? Do other cases exist but go undetected for want of adequate attention or methods? Under what circumstances do somatic mutations enter gametophytes? © 2018 Society of Chemical Industry.

There has been much debate about the relative merits of single-species vs ecosystem-oriented research for conservation. This debate has become increasingly important in recent times as resource managers and policy makers in some jurisdictions focus on ecosystem-level problems. We highlight the potential strengths and limitations of both kinds of research, discuss their complementarity and highlight problems that may arise where competition occurs between the two kinds of research.While a combination of approaches is ideal, a scarcity of funding, time, and expertise means it is impossible to study and manage each species, ecological process, or ecological pattern separately. Making decisions about priorities for the kinds of research, priorities for the kinds of conservation management, and associated allocation of scarce funds is a non-trivial task. We argue for an approach whereby limited resources for conservation research are targeted at projects most likely to close important knowledge gaps, while also promoting ongoing synergies between single-species and ecosystem-oriented research.The magnitude of biodiversity losses, coupled with a need to address large-scale problems with limited budgets, has meant that resource managers and policy makers in some jurisdictions are increasingly focused on ecosystem-oriented research and management in lieu of traditional forms of single-species work (Simberloff 1999, Greene 2005, Anonymous 2006. In this short communication, we argue that disregarding singlespecies research and management ignores the important complementarity that arises from maintaining a mix of approaches in research and management. We first highlight the potential strengths and limitations of different approaches and emphasize the need for a range of strategies to conserve biodiversity. We demonstrate the potential for complementarity between different research approaches with case studies, and urge that complementarity be considered as part of funding decisions. We note that funding for conservation research and management is limited, making prioritisation critical to ensuring that funding is expended in the most efficient way possible (Stem et al. 2005, Field et al. 2005. We discuss how the choice of research projects may be effectively guided by strategically identifying key knowledge gaps, while maintaining the potential for complementarity between different research approaches. Different research approachesAlthough the various approaches to conservation and research management are best represented by a continuum, it remains useful to distinguish between the two broad categories; single-species approaches (Simberloff 1998) and ecosystem approaches (Hunter 1993,

No abstract

Non-native invasive species (NIS) release chemicals into the environment that are unique to the invaded communities, defined as novel chemicals. Novel chemicals impact competitors, soil microbial communities, mutualists, plant enemies, and soil nutrients differently than in the species' native range. Ecological functions of novel chemicals and differences in functions between the native and non-native ranges of NIS are of immense interest to ecologists. Novel chemicals can mediate different ecological, physiological, and evolutionary mechanisms underlying invasion hypotheses. Interactions amongst the NIS and resident species including competitors, soil microbes, and plant enemies, as well as abiotic factors in the invaded community are linked to novel chemicals. However, we poorly understand how these interactions might enhance NIS performance. New empirical data and analyses of how novel chemicals act in the invaded community will fill major gaps in our understanding of the chemistry of biological invasions. A novel chemical-invasion mechanism framework shows how novel chemicals engender invasion mechanisms beyond plant-plant or plantmicroorganism interactions.

Mining activities have significantly affected the Neotropical freshwater ichthyofauna, the most diverse in the world. However, no study has systematized knowledge on the subject. In this review, we assembled information on the main impacts of mining of crude oil, gold, iron, copper, and bauxite on aquatic ecosystems, emphasizing Neotropical freshwater fishes. The information obtained shows that mining activities generate several different disturbances, mainly via input of crude oil, metals and other pollutants, erosion and siltation, deforestation, and road construction. Mining has resulted in direct and indirect losses of fish diversity in several Neotropical waterbodies. The negative impacts on the ichthyofauna may change the structure of communities, compromise entire food chains, and erode ecosystem services provided by freshwater fishes. Particularly noteworthy is that mining activities (legal and illegal) are widespread in the Neotropics, and often located within or near protected areas. Actions to prevent and mitigate impacts, such as inspection, monitoring, management, and restoration plans, have been cursory or absent. In addition, there is strong political pressure to expand mining; if – or when – this happens, it will increase the potential of the activity to further diminish the diversity of Neotropical freshwater fishes.