Assessing the assessments: evaluation of four impact assessment protocols for invasive alien species

Turbé, Anne; Strubbe, Diederik; Mori, Emiliano; Carrete, Martina; Chiron, François; Clergeau, Philippe; González‐Moreno, Pablo; Louarn, Marine Le; Luna, Álvaro Fernández; Menchetti, Mattia; Nentwig, Wolfgang; Pârâu, Liviu G.; Postigo, Jose-Luis; Rabitsch, Wolfgang; Senar, Juan Carlos; Tollington, Simon; Vanderhoeven, Sonia; Weiserbs, Anne; Shwartz, Assaf

doi:10.1111/ddi.12528

Cited by 48 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For the selection of the worst alien species in Europe, we gathered all GISS-assessed taxa from previously published studies including birds (Kumschick and Nentwig 2010; Kumschick et al 2016;Turbé et al 2017), mammals , amphibians , fishes (Van der Veer and Nentwig 2014), terrestrial invertebrates (VaesPetignat and Nentwig 2014), spiders , aquatic invertebrates , and plants (Rumlerová et al 2016). We included an additional 52 species assessed by González-Moreno et al (pers.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

More than “100 worst” alien species in Europe

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

''One hundred worst'' lists of alien species of the greatest concern proved useful for raising awareness of the risks and impacts of biological invasions amongst the general public, politicians and stakeholders. All lists so far have been based on expert opinion and primarily aimed at representativeness of the taxonomic and habitat diversity rather than at quantifying the harm the alien species cause. We used the generic impact scoring system (GISS) to rank 486 alien species established in Europe from a wide range of taxonomic groups to identify those with the highest environmental and socioeconomic impact. GISS assigns 12 categories of impact, each quantified on a scale from 0 (no impact detectable) to 5 (the highest impact possible). We ranked species by their total sum of scores and by the number of the highest impact scores. We also compared the listing based on GISS with other expert-based lists of the ''worst'' invaders. We propose a list of 149 alien species, comprising 54 plants, 49 invertebrates, 40 vertebrates and 6 fungi. Among the highest ranking species are one bird (Branta canadensis), four mammals (Rattus norvegicus, Ondatra zibethicus, Cervus nippon, Muntiacus reevesi), one crayfish (Procambarus clarkii), one miteThe original version of this article was revised: (The detailed corrections has been provided in the Correction article).

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

More than “100 worst” alien species in Europe

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Baker et al 2008). This raises the question whether comparing results from different protocols is relevant or at all feasible (Turbé et al 2017).…”

Section: Limitations Of Current Risk Analysis Practice For Iasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond protocols: improving the reliability of expert-based risk analysis underpinning invasive species policies

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Risk assessment tools for listing invasive alien species need to incorporate all available evidence and expertise. Beyond the wealth of protocols developed to date, we argue that the current way of performing risk analysis has several shortcomings. In particular, lack of data on ecological impacts, transparency and repeatability of assessments as well as the incorporation of uncertainty should all be explicitly considered. We recommend improved quality control of risk assessments through formalized peer review with clear feedback between assessors and reviewers.Alternatively, a consensus building process can be applied to better capture opinions of different experts, thereby maximizing the evidential basis. Elaborating on manageability of invasive species is further needed to fully answer all risk analysis requirements. Tackling the issue of invasive species urges better handling of the acquired information on risk and the exploration of improved methods for decision making on biodiversity management. This is crucial for efficient conservation resource allocation and uptake by stakeholders and the public.

show abstract

“…This parakeet has been introduced from Asia and Africa, establishing approximately 90 populations in 10 European countries (Pârâu et al 2016). Several studies already demonstrated that rose-ringed parakeet can have both ecological and socio-economic impacts, notably outcompeting local species, damage to agriculture and noise pollution near roost site, but their impacts are often restricted to certain populations and some ecoregions (Turbé et al 2017). Specifically in Seville, there is strong evidence that parakeets attack, displace and even kill an endangered bat species, the Giant noctule (Nyctalus lasiopterus), due to competition over tree cavities for roosting and reproduction (Hernández-Brito et al 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of social perception of an invasive parakeet using a novel visual survey method

Luna¹,

Edelaar²,

Shwartz³

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The perceptions of the general public regarding invasive alien species (IAS) are important in the prevention of future invasions and the success of management programmes. Here we use a novel visual method to investigate the perception of a charismatic IAS, the rose-ringed parakeet, across different stakeholders in Seville, Spain. Respondents were asked to select images of 10 bird species they would like to have present in their surroundings, out of 20 available images, including the parakeet and three other non-natives. This makes the survey easy, fast to take and attractive to potential participants, while prior and potentially biasing information of survey goals is minimised. Although more than 95% of the respondents recognised the parakeet, at least up to family level, only 34.8% selected it. Selection rates were even lower for three other IAS and even more so when the status of non-native species was indicated next to the images, suggesting that a social norm against IAS may be established. To validate our novel visual approach, we also assessed perception via a traditional questionnaire and the results of the two survey methods coincided. Finally parakeet selection differed importantly amongst pre-defined sectors of the public and people who had prior experience with the parakeet selected it less frequently (e.g. farmers, park managers). These results highlight the importance of studying different stakeholders to get the full picture when considering IAS management programmes. Our new visual survey method can thus serve as an excellent and user-friendly tool to study people’s perceptions regarding charismatic IAS and facilitate well-informed and sensible decision-making.

show abstract

Assessing the assessments: evaluation of four impact assessment protocols for invasive alien species

Abstract: The cover image, by Anne Turbé et al., is based on the Biodiversity Research Assessing the assessments: evaluation of four impact assessment protocols for invasive alien species, Most 'global' reviews of species' responses to climate change are not truly global 231-234

Cited by 48 publications

References 37 publications

More than “100 worst” alien species in Europe

More than “100 worst” alien species in Europe

Beyond protocols: improving the reliability of expert-based risk analysis underpinning invasive species policies

Assessment of social perception of an invasive parakeet using a novel visual survey method

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About