Besides a general consensus regarding the negative impact of invasive alien species in the literature, only recently has the decline of native species attributable to biological invasions begun to be quantified in many parts of the world. The cause-effect relationship between the establishment and proliferation of alien species and the extinction of native species is, however, seldom demonstrated. We conducted a meta-analysis of studies in Mediterranean-type ecosystems (MTEs) to examine: (1) whether invasion of alien plant species indeed causes a reduction in the number of native plant species at different spatial and temporal scales; (2) which growth forms, habitat types and areas are most affected by invasions; and (3) which taxa are most responsible for native species richness declines. Our results confirm a significant decline in native species richness attributable to alien invasions. Studies conducted at small scales or sampled over long periods reveal stronger impacts of alien invasion than those at large spatial scales and over short periods. Alien species from regions with similar climates have much stronger impacts, with the native species richness in South Africa and Australia declining significantly more post-invasion than for European sites. Australian Acacia species in South Africa accounted for the most significant declines in native species richness. Among the different growth forms of alien plants, annual herbs, trees and creepers had the greatest impact, whereas graminoids generally caused insignificant changes to the native community. Native species richness of shrublands, old fields and dune vegetation showed significant declines, in contrast to insignificant declines for forest habitats.

Aim The biophysical impacts of invasive Australian acacias and their effects on ecosystem services are explored and used to develop a framework for improved restoration practices.Location South Africa, Portugal and Chile.Methods A conceptual model of ecosystem responses to the increasing severity (density and duration) of invasions was developed from the literature and our knowledge of how these impacts affect options for restoration. Case studies are used to identify similarities and differences between three regions severely affected by invasions of Australian acacias: Acacia dealbata in Chile, Acacia longifolia in Portugal and Acacia saligna in South Africa.Results Australian acacias have a wide range of impacts on ecosystems that increase with time and disturbance, transform ecosystems and alter and reduce ecosystem service delivery. A shared trait is the accumulation of massive seed banks, which enables them to become dominant after disturbances. Ecosystem trajectories and recovery potential suggest that there are important thresholds in ecosystem state and resilience. When these are crossed, options for restoration are radically altered; in many cases, autogenic (self-driven and self-sustaining) recovery to a pre-invasion condition is inhibited, necessitating active intervention to restore composition and function.Main conclusions The conceptual model demonstrates the degree, nature and reversibility of ecosystem degradation and identifies key actions needed to restore ecosystems to desired states. Control and restoration operations, particularly active restoration, require substantial short-to medium-term investments, which can reduce losses of biodiversity and ecosystem services, and the costs to society in the long term. Increasing restoration effectiveness will require further research into linkages between impacts and restoration. This research should involve scientists, practitioners and managers engaged in invasive plant control and restoration programmes, together with society as both the investors in, and beneficiaries of, more effective restoration.

Despite intensive research on effects of alien species during the past decade, invasion science still lacks capacity to predict impacts and thus provide timely advice to managers on where limited resources should be allocated. This capacity has been limited in part by the context-dependent nature of impacts, research highly skewed toward certain taxa and habitat types, and the lack of standardized methods for observing and quantifying impact. We review different strategies, including specific experimental and observational approaches, for detecting and quantifying ecological impacts of alien species. These include a four-way experimental plot design that allows comparing impact studies of different organisms. Furthermore, we identify hypothesis-driven parameters that should be measured at invaded sites to maximize insights into the nature of impact. We also present strategies for recognizing highimpact species. Our recommendations provide a basis for developing systematic quantitative measurements to allow comparisons of impact across alien species, sites and time.

Non-native species cause changes in the ecosystems to which they are introduced. These changes, or some of them, are usually termed impacts; they can be manifold and potentially damaging to ecosystems and biodiversity. However, the impacts of most non-native species are poorly understood, and a synthesis of available information is being hindered because authors often do not clearly define impact. We argue that explicitly defining the impact of non-native species will promote progress toward a better understanding of the implications of changes to biodiversity and ecosystems caused by non-native species; help disentangle which aspects of scientific debates about non-native species are due to disparate definitions and which represent true scientific discord; and improve communication between scientists from different research disciplines and between scientists, managers, and policy makers. For these reasons and based on examples from the literature, we devised seven key questions that fall into 4 categories: directionality, classification and measurement, ecological or socio-economic changes, and scale. These questions should help in formulating clear and practical definitions of impact to suit specific scientific, stakeholder, or legislative contexts.Definiendo el Impacto de las Especies No-NativasResumenLas especies no-nativas pueden causar cambios en los ecosistemas donde son introducidas. Estos cambios, o algunos de ellos, usualmente se denominan como impactos; estos pueden ser variados y potencialmente dañinos para los ecosistemas y la biodiversidad. Sin embargo, los impactos de la mayoría de las especies no-nativas están pobremente entendidos y una síntesis de información disponible se ve obstaculizada porque los autores continuamente no definen claramente impacto. Discutimos que definir explícitamente el impacto de las especies no-nativas promoverá el progreso hacia un mejor entendimiento de las implicaciones de los cambios a la biodiversidad y los ecosistemas causados por especies no-nativas; ayudar a entender cuáles aspectos de los debates científicos sobre especies no-nativas son debidos a definiciones diversas y cuáles representan un verdadero desacuerdo científico; y mejorar la comunicación entre científicos de diferentes disciplinas y entre científicos, administradores y quienes hacen las políticas. Por estas razones y basándonos en ejemplos tomados de la literatura, concebimos siete preguntas clave que caen en cuatro categorías: direccionalidad, clasificación y medida, cambios ecológicos o socio-económicos, y escala. Estas preguntas deberían ayudar en la formulación de definiciones claras y prácticas del impacto para encajar mejor con contextos científicos, de las partes interesadas o legislativos específicos.

Aim A major challenge for invasion ecology is to identify high-impact invaders to guide prioritization of management interventions. We argue that species with the potential to cause regime shifts (altered states of ecosystem structure and function that are difficult or impossible to reverse) should be prioritized. These are species that modify ecosystems in ways that enhance their own persistence and suppress that of native species through reinforcing feedback processes.Methods Using both systems analysis and meta-analysis approaches, we synthesized changes to ecosystems caused by 173 invasive plant species. For the systems analysis, we examined published studies of impacts of invasive plants to determine which presented evidence consistent with a reinforcement of feedback processes. For the meta-analysis, we calculated the effect size ratio between standardized changes in recipient ecosystem and in the status of introduced species as an indication of a reinforcing feedback in particular speciesenvironment combinations. The systems analysis approach allowed us to conceptualize regime shifts in invader-dominated landscapes and to estimate the likelihood of such changes occurring. The meta-analysis allowed us to quantitatively verify the conceptual model and the key invader-context feedbacks and to detect the strength and direction of feedbacks.Results Most reinforcing feedbacks involve impacts on soil-nutrient cycling by shrub and tree invaders in forests and herbaceous invaders in wetlands. Feedbacks resulting in regime shifts were most likely related to processes associated with seed banks, fire and nutrient cycling. Results were used to derive a key for identifying high-impact invaders.Main conclusions Identifying combinations of plant life-forms and ecosystems most likely to result in regime shifts is a robust approach for predicting highimpact invasions and therefore for prioritizing management interventions. The meta-analysis revealed the need for more quantitative studies, including manipulative experiments, on ecosystem feedbacks.

No abstract

No abstract

a b s t r a c tAlien species can have major ecological and socioeconomic impacts in their novel ranges and so effective management actions are needed. However, management can be contentious and create conflicts, especially when stakeholders who benefit from alien species are different from those who incur costs. Such conflicts of interests mean that management strategies can often not be implemented. There is, therefore, increasing interest in engaging stakeholders affected by alien species or by their management. Through a facilitated workshop and consultation process including academics and managers working on a variety of organisms and in different areas (urban and rural) and ecosystems (terrestrial and aquatic), we developed a framework for engaging stakeholders in the management of alien species. The proposed framework for stakeholder engagement consists of 12 steps: (1) identify stakeholders; (2) select key stakeholders for engagement; (3) explore key stakeholders' perceptions and develop initial aims for management; (4) engage key stakeholders in the development of a draft management strategy; (5) reexplore key stakeholders' perceptions and revise the aims of the strategy; (6) co-design general aims, management objectives and time frames with key stakeholders; (7) co-design a management strategy; (8) facilitate stakeholders' ownership of the strategy and adapt as required; and (9) implement the strategy and monitor management actions to evaluate the need for additional or future actions. In case additional management is needed after these actions take place, some extra steps should be taken: (10) identify any new stakeholders, benefits, and costs; (11) monitor engagement; and (12) revise management strategy. Overall, we believe that our framework provides an effective approach to minimize the impact of conflicts created by alien species management.