Alarm: Assessing Large-scale environmental Risks for biodiversity with tested Methods

Settele, Josef; Hammen, Volker; Hulme, Philip E.; Karlson, U.; Klotz, Stefan; Kotarac, Mladen; Kunin, William E.; Marion, Glenn; O’Connor, Martin; Petanidou, Theodora; Peterson, Kaja; Potts, Simon G.; Pritchard, Hap; Pyšek, Petr; Rounsevell, Mark; Spangenberg, Joachim H.; Steffan‐Dewenter, Ingolf; Sykes, Martin T.; Vighi, Marco; Zobel, Martin; Kühn, Ingolf

doi:10.14512/gaia.14.1.20

Cited by 183 publications

(137 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

135

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This contribution results from the Integrated Project 'ALARM: Assessing large-scale environmental risks for biodiversity with tested methods' [97] …”

Section: Acknowledgementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Alien species in a warmer world: risks and opportunities

Walther¹,

Roques²,

Hulme³

et al. 2009

Trends in Ecology & Evolution

Self Cite

1,098

896

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This contribution results from the Integrated Project 'ALARM: Assessing large-scale environmental risks for biodiversity with tested methods' [97] …”

Section: Acknowledgementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Alien species in a warmer world: risks and opportunities

Walther¹,

Roques²,

Hulme³

et al. 2009

Trends in Ecology & Evolution

Self Cite

1,098

896

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…To avoid contingent differences in the use of terms such as native versus non-native in particular geographic regions (e.g., USA vs. Europe), we focused on a well-contained group of European experts. In Europe biological invasions have become a major concern for research and management only in the last decades, but currently invasive species research is one of the most active research areas in ecology in particular due to two large European research programs: ALARM (Settele et al 2005) and DAISIE (DAISIE 2009). Given that invasive species are a fresh and very prominent topic, Europe is an ideal study system for understanding the diversity and dynamics of expert thinking.…”

Section: Study Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding misunderstandings in invasion science: why experts don’t agree on common concepts and risk assessments

Humair¹,

Edwards²,

Siegrist³

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the diverging opinions of academic experts, stakeholders and the public is important for effective conservation management. This is especially so when a consensus is needed for action to minimize future risks but the knowledge upon which to base this action is uncertain or missing. How to manage non-native, invasive species (NIS) is an interesting case in point: the issue has long been controversial among stakeholders, but publicly visible, major disagreement among experts is recent.To characterize the multitude of experts' understanding and valuation of non-native, NIS we performed structured qualitative interviews with 26 academic experts, 13 of whom were invasion biologists and 13 landscape experts. Within both groups, thinking varied widely, not only about basic concepts (e.g., non-native, invasive) but also about their valuation of effects of NIS. The divergent opinions among experts, regarding both the overall severity of the problem in Europe and its importance for ecosystem services, contrasted strongly with the apparent consensus that emerges from scientific synthesis articles and policy documents. We postulate that the observed heterogeneity of expert judgments is related to three major factors: (1) diverging conceptual understandings, (2) lack of empirical information and high scientific uncertainties due to complexities and contingencies of invasion processes, and (3) missing deliberation of values. Based on theory from science studies, we interpret the notion of an NIS as a boundary object, i.e., concepts that have a similar but not identical meaning to different groups of experts and stakeholders. This interpretative flexibility of a concept can facilitate interaction across diverse groups but bears the risk of introducing misunderstandings. An alternative to seeking consensus on exact definitions and risk assessments would be for invasive species experts to acknowledge uncertainties and engage transparently with stakeholders and the public in deliberations about conflicting opinions, taking the role of honest brokers of policy alternatives rather than of issue advocates. NeoBiotaFranziska Humair et al. / NeoBiota 20: 1-30 (2014) 2

show abstract

“…Diff erent parts of this research were funded by the EC FP6 Integrated Project ALARM (Settele et al 2005) (GOCE-CT-2003-506675). M. Bailey helped with correction of the English text.…”

Section: Acknowledgementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predicting distribution patterns and recent northward range shift of an invasive aquatic plant: Elodea canadensis in Europe

Heikkinen¹,

Leikola²,

Fronzek³

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate data and distribution data for the Canadian waterweed Elodea canadensis Michx. from North America, whole Europe and Finland were used to investigate the ability of bioclimatic envelope models to predict the distribution range and recent northward range shift of the species in Europe. Four diff erent main types of models were developed using the North American data, including either three 'baseline' climate variables (growing degrees days, temperature of the coldest month, water balance) or an extended set of seven climate variables, both averaged either over a 30 year time slice or a longer 90 year time slice. Ten diff erent random selections of pseudo-absences were generated from the North American data, on the basis of which ten separate generalized additive models (GAMs) were developed for each main model type. All the 40 developed GAMs were applied fi rst to North America and then transferred to whole Europe and Finland. All the models showed a statistically highly signifi cant accuracy in the three study areas. Although the diff erences among the four main model types were only minor, the two extended model types showed on average statistically better performance than the two baseline models based on Bayesian information criterion (BIC) values, the amount of deviance explained by the models, resubstitution validation and four-fold cross-validation in North America. Th ey also provided slightly more accurate predictions of climatically suitable area for Elodea canadensis in Finland both in 1961-1984 and 1985-2006. However, the projections from the individual extended models were more variable than projections from the baseline models. Th us model predictions based on a variety of predictor variables but only one selection of pseudo- Heikkinen et al. / BioRisk 2: 1-32 (2009) 2 absences may be subject to biases, and outputs from multiple models should be investigated to better account for uncertainties in modelling. Overall, our results suggest that more attention should be paid to the careful selection of predictor variables and the use of multiple pseudo-absence sets in the ecological niche modelling in order to increase the reliability of the projections of the range shifts of invasive species. RESEARCH ARTICLE A peer-reviewed open-access journal Biodiversity & Ecosystem Risk Assessment

show abstract

Alarm: Assessing Large-scale environmental Risks for biodiversity with tested Methods

Cited by 183 publications

References 0 publications

Alien species in a warmer world: risks and opportunities

Alien species in a warmer world: risks and opportunities

Understanding misunderstandings in invasion science: why experts don’t agree on common concepts and risk assessments

Predicting distribution patterns and recent northward range shift of an invasive aquatic plant: Elodea canadensis in Europe

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About