Words matter: a systematic review of communication in non-native aquatic species literature

Abstract

How scientists communicate can influence public viewpoints on invasive species. In the scientific literature, some invasion biologists adopt neutral language, while others use more loaded language, for example by emphasizing the devastating impacts of invasive species and outlining consequences for policy and practice. An evaluation of the use of language in the invasion biology literature does not exist, preventing us from understanding which frames are used and whether there are correlations between message framing in scientific papers and local environmental impacts associated with invasive species. Thus, we conducted a systematic literature review of 278 peer-reviewed articles published from 2008–2018 to understand communication styles adopted by social and natural scientists while reporting on aquatic non-native species research. Species-centered frames (45%) and human-centered frames (55%) were adopted to nearly equal degrees. Negative valence was dominant in that 81.3% of articles highlighted the negative risks and impacts of invasive species. Additionally, the use of terminology was found to broadly align with the stage of invasion, in that “invasive” was most commonly used except when the research was conducted at early stages of invasion, when “non-native” was most commonly used. Terminology use therefore enables readers of scientific papers to infer the status and severity of ongoing invasions. Given that science communication within the peer-reviewed literature affects public understanding of research outcomes, these findings provide an important point of reflection for researchers.

Who is reporting non‐native species and how? A cross‐expert assessment of practices and drivers of non‐native biodiversity reporting in species regional listing

“…A relevant portion of our survey participants view biological invasion terminology as an obstacle to the addition of non‐native species to regional checklists. Terminology and associated definitions are a key facet of invasive species reporting (Golebie et al, 2022), but also a recognized source of challenges, ambiguities, and disagreements among invasion ecologists (e.g., Essl et al, 2018; Mcgeoch et al, 2012; Wilson, 2020), which can be understood in part by the youth of biological invasions as a scientific discipline and the underlying conceptual differences in fields that comprise invasion research, such as biogeography, conservation, ecology, or evolutionary biology (Heger et al, 2013). However, it is now more than 10 years since notable efforts to harmonize terms and definitions have been published (Blackburn et al, 2011; Richardson et al, 2011), and there is now a prevailing view that these terms and definitions are increasingly standardized and well‐defined among the research community (Golebie et al, 2022), a view that is only contradicted by a very small percentage of our survey participants.…”

From anti-science to environmental nihilism: the Fata Morgana of invasive species denialism

“…Engagement of stakeholder groups, each with their own values and preferences, is an integral part of invasive species management used to spread awareness of invasive species to the public (Carter et al 2021), improve research outcomes and inform ecological models (Samson et al 2017), and resolve conflicts arising during management efforts (Crowley et al 2017). It is therefore also reasonable to question whether misunderstandings or differences in framing (Golebie et al 2022) perspectives on invasive species may limit stakeholder engagement in invasive species management, in turn contributing to reduced ability to achieve those management goals.…”