How repeatable is the Environmental Impact Classification of Alien Taxa (EICAT)? Comparing independent global impact assessments of amphibians

Kumschick, Sabrina; Measey, John; Vimercati, Giovanni; Villiers, F. André de; Mokhatla, Mohlamatsane M.; Davies, Sarah J.; Thorp, Corey J.; Rebelo, Alexander D.; Blackburn, Tim M.; Kraus, Fred

doi:10.1002/ece3.2877

Cited by 30 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 33 publications

(59 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The EICAT scheme, which has been adopted by the IUCN, offers a standardised tool for producing impact assessments. To date, studies using EICAT have been published on birds (Evans, Kumschick, & Blackburn, ), amphibians (Kumschick, Measey, et al, ; Kumschick, Vimercati, et al, ), molluscs (Kesner & Kumschick, ), and some mammals (Hagen & Kumschick, ), but not yet for plants. In assessing the impacts of bamboos, we followed the guidelines of Hawkins et al () including: (1) intensive literature search of selected taxa of interest; (2) filtering of relevant literature pertaining to impacts; (3) scoring of the type and magnitude of impacts from the literature; and (4) evaluation of the data quality of the literature scored.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does origin determine environmental impacts? Not for bamboos

Canavan

Kumschick

Roux

et al. 2019

Plants People Planet

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Societal Impact Statement Non‐native species can cause considerable negative impacts in natural ecosystems. Such impacts often are directly due to the fact that these species occur in habitats where they did not evolve. We explored this for bamboos and found that, contrary to the situation in many other plant groups, biogeographic origin was not a strong predictor of the type and severity of environmental impacts caused. We argue that impacts from bamboos are a response to land transformation and disturbance of forest habitats by humans. Therefore, the threats posed by bamboos to highly disturbed forest systems should be the same wherever bamboos are present or planted, and management should adopt similar approaches. Summary Negative environmental impacts can result from the human‐mediated breakdown of biogeographic boundaries that historically shaped species distributions leading to rapid population expansions, that is, from biological invasions. However, the alteration of natural ecosystems by humans has created opportunities for both native and non‐native species to become weedy. We assessed whether origin status (native or non‐native) matters for the type and magnitude of environmental impacts caused by bamboos (Poaceae: Bambusoideae). We used a systematic global literature search and the International Union for Conservation of Nature's (IUCN) Environmental Impact Classification of Alien Taxa (EICAT) scheme as the basis for scoring impacts of bamboo species. We found that the type and severity of recorded impacts were similar in the native and non‐native ranges of weedy bamboos, and that the habitats in which impacts are most often reported (i.e., temperate and tropical forests) were also the same. Origin was not a strong predictor of environmental impacts for bamboos. Rather, impacts are likely to be a response to human‐mediated land transformation and disturbance of forests. Further research on the mechanisms whereby bamboos impact other species is needed to guide management strategies in their native ranges and as input to risk assessments for new introductions and plantings.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does origin determine environmental impacts? Not for bamboos

Canavan

Kumschick

Roux

et al. 2019

Plants People Planet

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If alien population sizes and per capita effects are generally small, then alien species richness may give an inflated view of the influence of these species in ecosystems. Certainly, the only current assessments of the environmental impacts of entire taxa of alien species suggests that impacts are mainly either small or unrecorded (Evans et al 2016;Kumschick et al 2017); impacts may be unrecorded because the species have negligible impacts that go unnoticed or are not worth studying (Evans et al 2018). Conversely, alien species richness may underestimate the potential effects of these species if they have disproportionately high abundance or per capita impacts in an assemblage.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Abundance, biomass and energy use of native and alien breeding birds in Britain

Blackburn

Gaston

2018

Biol Invasions

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We quantify the contribution of alien species to the total breeding population numbers, biomass and energy use of an entire taxonomic assemblage at a large spatial scale, using data on British birds from 1997 and 2013. A total of 216 native and 16 alien bird species were recorded as breeding in Great Britain across the two census years. Only 2.8-3.7% of British breeding bird individuals were alien, but alien species co-opted 11.9-13.8% of the energy used by the assemblage, and contributed 19.1-21.1% of assemblage biomass. Neither the population sizes nor biomasses of native and alien species differed, on average, in either census, but alien species biomass is higher than native species biomass for a given population size. Species richness underestimates the potential effects of alien bird species in Britain, which have disproportionately high overall biomass and population energy use. The main driver of these effects is the ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), which comprised 74-81% of alien biomass, yet the breeding population of this species is still only a small fraction of the estimated 35 million birds released in the UK in autumn. The biomass of this release exceeds that of the entire breeding avifauna, and suggests that the pheasant should have an important role in structuring the communities in which it is embedded.

show abstract

“…Nonetheless, several populations of this frog had been introduced in Italy for edible purposes. According to the Environmental Impact Classification of Alien Taxa (EICAT) of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the species is considered one of the invasive species with the highest potential to impact native species diversity worldwide, because of its ability to occupy a wide variety of habitats on one hand, and to hybridize with native taxa, thus producing viable and fertile hybrids, on the other (Kumschick et al, 2017).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exposure during embryonic development to Roundup® Power 2.0 affects lateralization, level of activity and growth, but not defensive behaviour of marsh frog tadpoles

Bolis

Gazzola

Pellitteri‐Rosa

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As glyphosate-based herbicides, sold under the commercial name Roundup®, represent the most used herbicides in the world, contamination of the freshwater environment by glyphosate has become a widespread issue. In Italy, glyphosate was detected in half of the surface waters monitoring sites and its concentrations were higher than environmental quality standards in 24.5% of them. It can last from days to months in water, leading to exposure for aquatic organisms and specifically to amphibians’ larvae that develop in shallow water bodies with proven effects to development and behaviour. In this study, we tested the effects of a 96h exposure during embryonic development of marsh frog’s tadpoles to three ecologically relevant Roundup® Power 2.0 concentrations. As expected, given the low concentrations tested, no mortality was observed. Morphological measurements highlighted a reduction in the total length in tadpoles exposed to 7.6 mg a.e./L, while an increase was observed at lower concentrations of 0.7 and 3.1 mg a.e./L compared to control group. Tadpoles raised in 7.6 mg a.e./L also showed a smaller tail membrane than those raised in the control solution. Regarding behaviour, we tested tadpoles in two different sessions (Gosner stages 25 and 28/29) for lateralization, antipredator response and basal activity. Lower intensity of lateralization was detected in tadpoles raised at the highest Roundup® concentration in the first session of observation, while no significant difference among treatments was observed in the second one. In both sessions, effects of glyphosate embryonic exposure on antipredator response, measured as the proportional change in activity after the injection of tadpole-fed predator (Anax imperator) cue, were not detected. Tadpoles exposed during embryonic development to Roundup® exhibited lower basal activity than the control group, with the strongest reduction for the 7.6 mg a.e./L treatment. Our results reinforce the concern of glyphosate contamination impact on amphibians.

show abstract

How repeatable is the Environmental Impact Classification of Alien Taxa (EICAT)? Comparing independent global impact assessments of amphibians

Cited by 30 publications

References 33 publications

Does origin determine environmental impacts? Not for bamboos

Does origin determine environmental impacts? Not for bamboos

Abundance, biomass and energy use of native and alien breeding birds in Britain

Exposure during embryonic development to Roundup® Power 2.0 affects lateralization, level of activity and growth, but not defensive behaviour of marsh frog tadpoles

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About