Biological invasions are a threat to biodiversity, society and the economy. There is an urgent need to provide evidence‐based assessments of the risks posed by invasive alien species (IAS) to prioritize action. Risk assessments underpin IAS policies in many ways: informing legislation; providing justification of restrictions in trade or consumer activities; prioritizing surveillance and rapid response. There are benefits to ensuring consistency in content of IAS risk assessments globally, and this can be achieved by providing a framework of minimum standards as a checklist for quality assurance. From a review of existing risk assessment protocols, and with reference to the requirements of the EU Regulation on IAS (1143/2014) and international agreements including the World Trade Organisation, Convention on Biological Diversity and International Plant Protection Convention, coupled with consensus methods, we identified and agreed upon 14 minimum standards (attributes) a risk‐assessment scheme should include. The agreed minimum standards were as follows: (1) basic species description; (2) likelihood of invasion; (3) distribution, spread and impacts; (4) assessment of introduction pathways; (5) assessment of impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems; (6) Assessment of impact on ecosystem services; (7) assessment of socio‐economic impacts; (8) consideration of status (threatened or protected) of species or habitat under threat; (9) assessment of effects of future climate change; (10) completion possible even when there is a lack of information; (11) documents information sources; (12) provides a summary in a consistent and interpretable form; (13) includes uncertainty; (14) includes quality assurance. In deriving these minimum standards, gaps in knowledge required for completing risk assessments and the scope of existing risk assessment protocols were revealed, most notably in relation to assessing benefits, socio‐economic impacts and impacts on ecosystem services but also inclusion of consideration of climate change. Policy implications. We provide a checklist of components that should be within invasive alien species risk assessments and recommendations to develop risk assessments to meet these proposed minimum standards. Although inspired by implementation of the European Union Regulation on invasive alien species, and as such developed specifically within a European context, the derived framework and minimum standards could be applied globally.

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.

No abstract

Risk assessment tools for listing invasive alien species need to incorporate all available evidence and expertise. Beyond the wealth of protocols developed to date, we argue that the current way of performing risk analysis has several shortcomings. In particular, lack of data on ecological impacts, transparency and repeatability of assessments as well as the incorporation of uncertainty should all be explicitly considered. We recommend improved quality control of risk assessments through formalized peer review with clear feedback between assessors and reviewers.Alternatively, a consensus building process can be applied to better capture opinions of different experts, thereby maximizing the evidential basis. Elaborating on manageability of invasive species is further needed to fully answer all risk analysis requirements. Tackling the issue of invasive species urges better handling of the acquired information on risk and the exploration of improved methods for decision making on biodiversity management. This is crucial for efficient conservation resource allocation and uptake by stakeholders and the public.

Although invasive alien plants are gaining increased attention within EPPO countries, there is no existing widely agreed method to identify those alien plants that are considered invasive and represent the highest priority for pest risk analysis. In the framework of the ad hoc Panel on Invasive Alien Species, EPPO proposes a prioritization process for invasive alien plants designed (i) to produce a list of invasive alien plants that are established or could potentially establish in the EPPO region and (ii) to determine which of these have the highest priority for an EPPO pest risk analysis. The process consists of compiling available information on alien plants according to pre‐determined criteria, and can be run at the EPPO region level, or at a country or local area level. These criteria examine whether the species is alien in the area under study, and whether it is established or not. The criteria used primarily rely on observations in the EPPO region but, if the species is not established, the invasive behaviour of the species in other countries should be investigated, as well as the suitability of the ecoclimatic conditions in the area under consideration. The spread potential, the potential negative impacts on native species, habitats and ecosystems, as well as on agriculture, horticulture or forestry are considered. If the species qualifies as an invasive alien plant of major concern through this first set of questions, the process then investigates the efficiency of international measures (to be justified through a pest risk analysis) to prevent the entry and spread of the species. The second set of questions are designed to determine whether the species is internationally traded or enters new countries through international pathways for which the risk of introduction is superior to natural spread, and whether the species still has a significant suitable area for further spread. If used by several EPPO countries, this prioritization process represents an opportunity to provide consistent country lists of invasive alien plant species, as well as a tool for dialogue and exchange of information.

L. 2000. Selectivity in the exploitation of floral resources by hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphinae). -Ecography 23: 732 -742. Adults of the Syrphinae subfamily display no strong flower preferences but exploit pollen and nectar produced by native plants having large inflorescences and flat corollae (e.g. Apiaceae, Asteraceae, Ranunculaceae and Rosaceae). Seven foraging guilds are defined according to the dietary patterns of hoverflies, reflecting mainly a sequential exploitation of flowers at different times of the year and in different habitats. The majority of species live in forests where they form highly diversified communities. Few Syrphinae colonize successfully open and anthropogenic habitats, such as field margins and fallow areas. Episyrphus balteatus, Melanostoma mellinum, Eupeodes corollae, Sphaerophoria scripta and Platycheirus spp. are dominant in the communities of Syrphinae from open habitats, all over western Europe. These species are highly polyphagous and characterized by elongated mouthparts as well as a long and slender body. They have access to pollen and nectar in flowers with small and tubular corollae. It is suggested that their polyphagy is an important asset for colonizing open and ephemeral habitats. E. Branquart, Zoologie générale et appliquée, Faculté Uni6. des Sciences Agronomiques, B-5030 Gembloux, Belgium. -J.-L. Hemptinne, Ecole nationale de Formation agronomique,

Given the large number of alien species that may potentially develop into invasives, there is a clear need for robust schemes that allow to screen species for such risks. The Harmonia ? framework presented here brings together 30 questions that refer to distinct components of invasion. Together, they cover the stages of introduction, establishment, spread, and multiple kinds of impacts, viz. referring to the health of the environment (including wild species), cultivated plants, domesticated animals and man. In a complete assessment, input is provided by choosing among predefined ordinal answers and by supplementing these with textual clarification. Uncertainty is covered by indicating levels of confidence. By converting answers into scores, which are then condensed into summary statistics, Harmonia ? allows for quantitative output on stage-specific and general risks. Test assessments on five species emerging in Belgium showed the perceived environmental risks of Procambarus clarkii to be highest (0.72), and that of Threskiornis aethiopicus to be lowest (0.13). Given the considerable parallels that exist between invasive alien species and emerging infectious diseases, we additionally created Pandora, which is a risk analysis scheme for pathogens and parasites. It consists of 13 key questions and has the same structure as Harmonia ? . Since diseases play a paramount role in biological invasions, results of Pandora assessments may feed into Harmonia ? through a slightly adapted, hostspecific version named Pandora ? . Harmonia ? , Pandora and Pandora ? may be used both for prioritization purposes and for underpinning detailed risk analyses, and can be consulted online through http://ias. biodiversity.be.

Although both saproxylic longhorn beetles and hoverflies benefit from the presence of woody substrates for reproduction, they differ in their requirements for floral resources and for microbiotopes of overmature and senescent trees. This led us to expect contrasting responses between the two species groups in relation to these essential resources. We examined this prediction in 22 mature oak-and beech-dominated stands of southern Belgium by relating their species assemblages to local vegetation structure and composition, altitude and landscape composition. Stands were organised in pairs as a function of their overall dead wood supply. Free-hanging window traps, stump emergence traps and Malaise traps produced 30 longhorn beetle species (1637 individuals) and 106 hoverfly species (3020 individuals). Paired-comparisons controlling for annual variation in captures showed that, unlike saproxylic hoverflies, stands with dead wood hosted more species and individuals of longhorn beetles. Accordingly, the two species groups were found to be independent on ordination axes, responding to different sets of environmental conditions. While stands dominated by oaks with a high snag volume were highly favoured by longhorn beetles, saproxylic and threatened syrphids were limited to open-stands with large trees and a well-developed, species rich herb layer providing the floral resources required for their reproduction. Our results suggest that, when defining criteria to identify or restore important habitats for saproxylic insect conservation, variables related to different aspects of dead wood supply should not be the only criteria taken into account.