Fast climate changes in the western Antarctic Peninsula are reducing krill density, which along with increased fishing activities in recent decades, may have had synergistic effects on penguin populations. We tested that assumption by crossing data on fishing activities and Southern Annular Mode (an indicator of climate change in Antarctica) with penguin population data. Increases in fishing catch during the non-breeding period were likely to result in impacts on both chinstrap (Pygoscelis antarcticus) and gentoo (P. papua) populations. Catches and climate change together elevated the probability of negative population growth rates: very high fishing catch on years with warm winters and low sea ice (associated with negative Southern Annular Mode values) implied a decrease in population size in the following year. The current management of krill fishery in the Southern Ocean takes into account an arbitrary and fixed catch limit that does not reflect the variability of the krill population under effects of climate change, therefore affecting penguin populations when the environmental conditions were not favorable.

Effective long-term management is needed to address the impacts of invasive alien species (IAS) that cannot be eradicated. We describe the fundamental characteristics of long-term management policies for IAS, diagnose a major shortcoming, and outline how to produce effective IAS management. Key international and transnational management policies conflate addressing IAS impacts with controlling IAS populations. This serious purpose–implementation gap can preclude the development of broader portfolios of interventions to tackle IAS impacts. We posit that IAS management strategies should directly address impacts via impact-based interventions, and we propose six criteria to inform the choice of these interventions. We review examples of interventions focused on tackling IAS impacts, including IAS control, which reveal the range of interventions available and their varying effectiveness in counteracting IAS impacts. As the impacts caused by IAS increase globally, stakeholders need to have access to a broader and more effective set of tools to respond.

Formulating effective management plans for addressing the impacts of invasive non-native species (INNS) requires the definition of clear priorities and tangible targets, and the recognition of the plurality of societal values assigned to these species. These tasks require a multi-disciplinary approach and the involvement of stakeholders. Here, we describe procedures to integrate multiple sources of information to formulate management priorities, targets, and high-level actions for the management of INNS. We follow five good-practice criteria: justified, evidence-informed, actionable, quantifiable, and flexible. We used expert knowledge methods to compile 17 lists of ecological, social, and economic impacts of lodgepole pines (Pinus contorta) and American mink (Neovison vison) in Chile and Argentina, the privet (Ligustrum lucidum) in Argentina, the yellow-jacket wasp (Vespula germanica) in Chile, and grasses (Urochloa brizantha and Urochloa decumbens) in Brazil. INNS plants caused a greater number of impacts than INNS animals, although more socio-economic impacts were listed for INNS animals than for plants. These impacts were ranked according to their magnitude and level of confidence on the information used for the ranking to prioritise impacts and assign them one of four high-level actions—do nothing, monitor, research, and immediate active management. We showed that it is possible to formulate management priorities, targets, and high-level actions for a variety of INNS and with variable levels of available information. This is vital in a world where the problems caused by INNS continue to increase, and there is a parallel growth in the implementation of management plans to deal with them.