A review of impact assessment protocols of non-native plants

Vilà, Montserrat; Gallardo, Belinda; Preda, Cristina; García‐Berthou, Emili; Essl, Franz; Kenis, Marc; Roy, Helen E.; González‐Moreno, Pablo

doi:10.1007/s10530-018-1872-3

Cited by 38 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, inconsistencies due to linguistic uncertainties (e.g. definitions, formulations, rating) can be reduced by improving the guidelines and with adequate training of the assessors (Vilà et al 2019). Third, other studies have suggested using expert elicitation methods to reduce inconsistencies (Morgan 2014, Sutherland andBurgman 2015), such as consensus building (Mukherjee et al 2015) or quality control mechanisms (e.g.…”

Section: Recommendations For Nns Impact Assessmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A few comparative analyses have addressed differences in the structure of impact assessment protocols (Essl et al 2011, Heikkilä 2011, Vilà et al 2019, and on their consistency in ranking species across regions (Matthews et al 2017). However, studies have focused on a reduced number of protocols, and a short list of species (Křivánek andPyšek 2006, Turbé et al 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Consistency of impact assessment protocols for non-native species

González‐Moreno¹,

Lazzaro²,

Vilà³

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standardized tools are needed to identify and prioritize the most harmful non-native species (NNS). A plethora of assessment protocols have been developed to evaluate the current and potential impacts of non-native species, but consistency among them has received limited attention. To estimate the consistency across impact assessment protocols, 89 specialists in biological invasions used 11 protocols to screen 57 NNS (2614 assessments). We tested if the consistency in the impact scoring across assessors, quantified as the coefficient of variation (CV), was dependent on the characteristics of the protocol, the taxonomic group and the expertise of the assessor. Mean CV across assessors was 40%, with a maximum of 223%. CV was lower for protocols with a low number of score levels, which demanded high levels of expertise, and when the assessors had greater expertise on the assessed species. The similarity among protocols with respect to the final scores was higher when the protocols considered the same impact types. We conclude that all protocols led to considerable inconsistency among assessors. In order to improve consistency, we highlight the importance of selecting assessors with high expertise, providing clear guidelines and adequate training but also deriving final decisions collaboratively by consensus.

show abstract

Section: Recommendations For Nns Impact Assessmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consistency of impact assessment protocols for non-native species

González‐Moreno¹,

Lazzaro²,

Vilà³

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ongoing arrival and establishment of alien species necessitates a triage approach to their management, where the most damaging, or those most likely to cause damage, are allocated high priority for surveillance and control (McGeoch et al 2016). To this end, research on the impacts of alien species has been steadily growing (Crystal-Ornelas and Lockwood 2020), accompanied by the development of various assessment frameworks for classifying their impacts to assist in risk assessments (Roy et al 2018, González-Moreno et al 2019, Vilà et al 2019.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Incorporation of both types covers the uncertainty in determinate facts, as well as that caused by the inherent variation in our use of language (Regan et al 2002, Burgman 2005, Latombe et al 2019. In invasion biology, language usage and terminology have been a significant hindrance to progress, including in the effective application of alien species risk and impact assessments (Roy et al 2018, Vilà et al 2019. Given the similarity between impact assessment procedures for alien species and components of ecological and invasion-focussed risk assessment (Yemshanov et al 2012a, Yemshanov et al 2012b), Regan et al (2002) typology should likewise be suited to evaluating uncertainty in the assessment of alien species impacts.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reducing uncertainty in impact assessments for alien species

McGrannachan³

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Impact assessment is a widely used and cost-effective tool for prioritising invasive alien species.With the number of alien and invasive alien species expected to increase, reliance on impact assessment tools for the identification of species that pose the greatest threats will continue to grow. Given the importance of such assessments for management and resource allocation, it is critical to understand the uncertainty involved and what effect this may have on the outcome.Using an uncertainty typology and insects as a model taxon, we identified and classified the sources and types of uncertainty when performing impact assessments on alien species. We assessed 100 alien insect species across two rounds of assessments with each species independently assessed by two assessors. Agreement between assessors was relatively low for all three EICAT components (mechanism, severity, confidence) after the first round. For the second round, we revised guidelines and gave assessors access to each other's assessments which improved agreement by between 20-30%. Of the 12 potential reasons for assessment discrepancies identified a priori, 11 occurred. The most frequent sources (and types) of uncertainty (i.e. differences between assessment outcomes for the same species) were: incomplete information searches (systematic error), unclear mechanism and/or extent of impact (subjective judgment due to a lack of knowledge), and limitations of the assessment framework (context dependence). In response to these findings, we identify actions to reduce uncertainty in the impact assessment process, particularly for assessing speciose taxa with diverse life histories such as Insecta.Evidence of environmental impact was available for most insect species, and (of the non-random original subset of species assessed) 14 or 29% of those with evidence were identified as high impact species (with either 'Major' or 'Massive' impact). Although uncertainty in risk assessment, including impact assessments, can never be eliminated, identifying and communicating its source and variety is a first step toward its reduction and a more reliable assessment outcome, regardless of the taxa being assessed.

show abstract

“…We discuss how the use of ecological surrogacy to infer unmeasured ecological impacts of invasive species is often overlooked in invasion science. This is not a critique of the many approaches for measuring ecological impact directly (eg Vilà et al 2018) but rather a discussion of how surrogate measurements are used after a direct assessment is completed (or are used in place of a direct assessment) to infer impacts that remain unmeasured. We consider how both researchers and managers often justify the widespread application of a variety of surrogate-impact models based on limited, context-specific evidence of impacts involving a small number of invasive species.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Surrogacy in invasion research and management: inferring “impact” from “invasiveness”

O’Loughlin

Gooden

Barney

et al. 2019

Frontiers in Ecol & Environ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biological invasions are known drivers of biodiversity decline, yet the ecological impacts of invaders remain largely unmeasured in many contexts. Consequently, other measures of a species invasion (eg local abundance) are often used as surrogates (or “proxies”) to infer impact on recipient ecosystems. However, the use of surrogates for impact in invasion science and management is often implicit, and frequently lacks the evaluation and validation that characterize surrogate use in other fields. Although there are practical reasons for this, the risks associated with not testing the accuracy, stability, and certainty of surrogates for invasive species impact must be acknowledged. Recognizing the role of surrogacy in invasion science offers previously unappreciated solutions for increasing the quantitative rigor of invasive species impact assessments that inform management decisions.

show abstract

A review of impact assessment protocols of non-native plants

Cited by 38 publications

References 56 publications

Consistency of impact assessment protocols for non-native species

Consistency of impact assessment protocols for non-native species

Reducing uncertainty in impact assessments for alien species

Surrogacy in invasion research and management: inferring “impact” from “invasiveness”

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About