20 years of marine bioinvasions research: Achievements and challenges for the Southwestern Atlantic

Schwindt, Evangelina; Battini, Nicolás; Bortolus, Alejandro; Junqueira, Andrea de Oliveira Ribeiro; Scarabino, Fabrizio

doi:10.25260/ea.22.32.2.1.1889

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Another example is the use of the term ‘non‐indigenous species’ (and initialism NIS) (synonym: non‐native species) in some peer‐reviewed papers (Colautti, Grigorovich & MacIsaac, 2006; Colautti & Richardson, 2009; Ojaveer et al ., 2015; Riera et al ., 2018), while the same abbreviation has been used to indicate a ‘nuisance invasive species’ (Pereyra, Rossini & Darrigran, 2012). Adding to the confusion, initialisms for the same term differ among nations and regions – adapted to their own language – such as the governmental initiatives in Argentina and Brazil called ‘National Strategy on Invasive Exotic Species’ [NSIES, or ENEEI in Portuguese or Spanish (Faria et al ., 2022; Schwindt et al ., 2022)].…”

Section: Terminological Tempestmentioning

confidence: 99%

Taming the terminological tempest in invasion science

Soto,

Balzani,

Carneiro

et al. 2024

Biological Reviews

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standardised terminology in science is important for clarity of interpretation and communication. In invasion science – a dynamic and rapidly evolving discipline – the proliferation of technical terminology has lacked a standardised framework for its development. The result is a convoluted and inconsistent usage of terminology, with various discrepancies in descriptions of damage and interventions. A standardised framework is therefore needed for a clear, universally applicable, and consistent terminology to promote more effective communication across researchers, stakeholders, and policymakers. Inconsistencies in terminology stem from the exponential increase in scientific publications on the patterns and processes of biological invasions authored by experts from various disciplines and countries since the 1990s, as well as publications by legislators and policymakers focusing on practical applications, regulations, and management of resources. Aligning and standardising terminology across stakeholders remains a challenge in invasion science. Here, we review and evaluate the multiple terms used in invasion science (e.g. ‘non‐native’, ‘alien’, ‘invasive’ or ‘invader’, ‘exotic’, ‘non‐indigenous’, ‘naturalised’, ‘pest’) to propose a more simplified and standardised terminology. The streamlined framework we propose and translate into 28 other languages is based on the terms (i) ‘non‐native’, denoting species transported beyond their natural biogeographic range, (ii) ‘established non‐native’, i.e. those non‐native species that have established self‐sustaining populations in their new location(s) in the wild, and (iii) ‘invasive non‐native’ – populations of established non‐native species that have recently spread or are spreading rapidly in their invaded range actively or passively with or without human mediation. We also highlight the importance of conceptualising ‘spread’ for classifying invasiveness and ‘impact’ for management. Finally, we propose a protocol for classifying populations based on (i) dispersal mechanism, (ii) species origin, (iii) population status, and (iv) impact. Collectively and without introducing new terminology, the framework that we present aims to facilitate effective communication and collaboration in invasion science and management of non‐native species.

show abstract

Section: Terminological Tempestmentioning

confidence: 99%

Taming the terminological tempest in invasion science

Soto,

Balzani,

Carneiro

et al. 2024

Biological Reviews

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another example is the use of the term 'non-indigenous species' (and initialism NIS) (synonym: non-native species) in some peer-reviewed papers (Colautti, Grigorovich & MacIsaac, 2006;Colautti & Richardson, 2009;Ojaveer et al, 2015;Riera et al, 2018), while the same abbreviation has been used to indicate a 'nuisance invasive species' (Pereyra, Rossini & Darrigran, 2012). Adding to the confusion, initialisms for the same term differ among nations and regionsadapted to their own languagesuch as the governmental initiatives in Argentina and Brazil called 'National Strategy on Invasive Exotic Species' [NSIES, or ENEEI in Portuguese or Spanish (Faria et al, 2022;Schwindt et al, 2022)].…”

Section: Terminological Tempestmentioning

confidence: 99%

Taming the terminological tempest in invasion science

Soto Almena,

Balzani,

Carneiro

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standardized terminology in science is important for clarity of interpretation and communication. In invasion science — a dynamic and quickly evolving discipline — the rapid proliferation of technical terminology has lacked a standardized framework for its language development. The result is a convoluted and inconsistent usage of terminology, with various discrepancies in descriptions of damages and interventions. A standardized framework is therefore needed for a clear, universally applicable, and consistent terminology to promote more effective communication across researchers, stakeholders, and policymakers. Inconsistencies in terminology stem from the exponential increase in scientific publications on the patterns and processes of biological invasions authored by experts from various disciplines and countries since the 1990s, as well as publications by legislators and policymakers focusing on practical applications, regulations, and management of resources. Aligning and standardizing terminology across stakeholders remains a prevailing challenge in invasion science. Here, we review and evaluate the multiple terms used in invasion science (e.g. 'non-native', 'alien', 'invasive' or 'invader', 'exotic', 'non-indigenous', 'naturalized, 'pest') to propose a more simplified and standardized terminology. The streamlined framework we propose and translate into 28 other languages is based on the terms (i) 'non-native', denoting species transported beyond their natural biogeographic range, (ii) 'established non-native', i.e. those non-native species that have established self-sustaining populations in their new location(s) in the wild, and (iii) 'invasive non-native' — populations of established non-native species that have recently spread or are spreading rapidly in their invaded range actively or passively with or without human mediation. We also highlight the importance of conceptualizing 'spread' for classifying invasiveness and 'impact' for management. Finally, we propose a protocol for classifying populations based on (1) dispersal mechanism, (2) species origin, (3) population status, and (4) impact. Collectively and without introducing new terminology, the framework that we present aims to facilitate effective communication and collaboration in invasion science and management of non-native species.

show abstract

Hotspot areas of marine introduced species in the Southwestern Atlantic

Reyna,

Alurralde,

Taverna

et al. 2023

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some worldwide marine regions have been invaded by introduced species more than others, and those accruing a large number of introduced species are identified as hotspot areas. The southern Southwest Atlantic (SWA) is a vast region that has a variety of heterogeneous environments that are affected by different environmental and anthropogenic drivers and have been colonized by many introduced species. Nevertheless, a comprehensive analysis considering all these aspects together to identify hotspots of introduced species has not been developed, nor has a statistically based procedure to define and identify these hotspots been produced. Therefore, the main objectives of this study were to (1) quantify the spatial richness of introduced species (ISR) in the SWA, (2) identify introduced species hotspots, (3) explore the environmental and anthropogenic drivers that explain the ISR pattern and the assemblage composition of introduced species in these hotspots, and (4) assess the variation in the assemblage species composition among the introduced species in the identified hotspots. Six different hotspots were identified. The ISR in these hotspots was significantly explained by a set of environmental (maximum and minimum sea surface temperature, distance to shore, maximum salinity) and anthropogenic drivers (maritime traffic density, distance to the nearest port). Assemblage composition was related only to the environmental predictors. The variation in assemblage composition showed heterogeneity among introduced species hotspots. Our study shows that mapping introduced species hotspots and identifying them through spatial statistics facilitates the synthesis and integration of information objectively. This represents a cutting-edge approach to prioritize areas for management and adopt policies for the SWA.

show abstract

20 years of marine bioinvasions research: Achievements and challenges for the Southwestern Atlantic

Cited by 3 publications

References 37 publications

Taming the terminological tempest in invasion science

Taming the terminological tempest in invasion science

Taming the terminological tempest in invasion science

Hotspot areas of marine introduced species in the Southwestern Atlantic

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About