A multi-taxa assessment of aquatic non-indigenous species introduced into Iberian freshwater and transitional waters

leading to multi-faceted ecological, economic and health impacts worldwide. The Iberian Peninsula comprises an exceptionally biodiverse Mediterranean region with a high number of threatened and endemic aquatic species, most of them strongly impacted by biological invasions. Following a structured approach that combines a systematic review of available information and expert opinion, we provide a comprehensive and updated multi-taxa inventory of aquatic NIS (fungi, macroalgae, vascular plants, invertebrates and vertebrates) in Iberian inland waters. Moreover, we assess overall patterns in the establishment status, introduction pathways, native range and temporal introduction trends of listed NIS. In addition, we discuss the legal coverage provided by both national (Spanish and Portuguese) and European NIS regulations. We inventoried 326 aquatic NIS in Iberian inland waters, including 215 established, 96 with uncertain establishment status and 15 cryptogenic taxa. Invertebrates (54.6%) and vertebrates (24.5%) were the groups with the highest number of NIS, with Arthropoda, Mollusca, and Chordata being the most represented phyla. Recorded NIS originated from diverse geographic regions, with North and South America being the most frequent. Vertebrates and vascular plants were mostly introduced through intentional pathways (i.e. release and escape), whereas invertebrates and macroalgae arrived mostly through unintentional ways (i.e. contaminant or stowaway). Most of the recorded NIS were introduced in Iberian inland waters over the second half of the 20th century, with a high number of NIS introductions being reported in the 2000s. While only 8% of the recorded NIS appear in the European Union list of Invasive Alien Species of Union concern, around 25% are listed in the Spanish and Portuguese NIS regulations. This study provides the most updated checklist of Iberian aquatic NIS, meeting the requirements set by the EU regulation and providing a baseline for the evaluation of its application. We point out the need for coordinated transnational strategies to properly tackle aquatic invasions across borders of the EU members.LIFE INVASAQUA (Especies exóticas invasoras acuáticas de sistemas de agua dulce y estuarios: sensibilización y prevención en la Península Ibérica) de la UE - LIFE17 GIE/ES/00051

Corrigendum to ‘a horizon scan exercise for aquatic invasive alien species in Iberian inland waters’

info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

A horizon scan exercise for aquatic invasive alien species in Iberian inland waters

As the number of introduced species keeps increasing unabatedly, identifying and prioritising current and potential Invasive Alien Species (IAS) has become essential to manage them. Horizon Scanning (HS), defined as an exploration of potential threats, is considered a fundamental component of IAS management. By combining scientific knowledge on taxa with expert opinion, we identified the most relevant aquatic IAS in the Iberian Peninsula, i.e., those with the greatest geographic extent (or probability of introduction), severe ecological, economic and human health impacts, greatest difficulty and acceptability of management. We highlighted the 126 most relevant IAS already present in Iberian inland waters (i.e., Concern list) and 89 with a high probability of being introduced in the near future (i.e., Alert list), of which 24 and 10 IAS, respectively, were considered as a management priority after receiving the highest scores in the expert assessment (i.e., top-ranked IAS). In both lists, aquatic IAS belonging to the four thematic groups (plants, freshwater invertebrates, estuarine invertebrates, and vertebrates) were identified as having been introduced through various pathways from different regions of the world and classified according to their main functional feeding groups. Also, the latest update of the list of IAS of Union concern pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 includes only 12 top-ranked IAS identified for the Iberian Peninsula, while the national lists incorporate the vast majority of them. This fact underlines the great importance of taxa prioritisation exercises at biogeographical scales as a step prior to risk analyses and their inclusion in national lists. This HS provides a robust assessment and a cost-effective strategy for decision-makers and stakeholders to prioritise the use of limited resources for IAS prevention and management. Although applied at a transnational level in a European biodiversity hotspot, this approach is designed for potential application at any geographical or administrative scale, including the continental one

A horizon scan exercise for aquatic invasive alien species in Iberian inland waters

As the number of introduced species keeps increasing unabatedly, identifying and prioritising current and potential Invasive Alien Species (IAS) has become essential to manage them. Horizon Scanning (HS), defined as an exploration of potential threats, is considered a fundamental component of IAS management. By combining scientific knowledge on taxa with expert opinion, we identified the most relevant aquatic IAS in the Iberian Peninsula, i.e., those with the greatest geographic extent (or probability of introduction), severe ecological, economic and human health impacts, greatest difficulty and acceptability of management. We highlighted the 126 most relevant IAS already present in Iberian inland waters (i.e., Concern list) and 89 with a high probability of being introduced in the near future (i.e., Alert list), of which 24 and 10 IAS, respectively, were considered as a management priority after receiving the highest scores in the expert assessment (i.e., top-ranked IAS). In both lists, aquatic IAS belonging to the four thematic groups (plants, freshwater invertebrates, estuarine invertebrates, and vertebrates) were identified as having been introduced through various pathways from different regions of the world and classified according to their main functional feeding groups. Also, the latest update of the list of IAS of Union concern pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 includes only 12 top-ranked IAS identified for the Iberian Peninsula, while the national lists incorporate the vast majority of them. This fact underlines the great importance of taxa prioritisation exercises at biogeographical scales as a step prior to risk analyses and their inclusion in national lists. This HS provides a robust assessment and a cost-effective strategy for decision-makers and stakeholders to prioritise the use of limited resources for IAS prevention and management. Although applied at a transnational level in a European biodiversity hotspot, this approach is designed for potential application at any geographical or administrative scale, including the continental one

Taming the terminological tempest in invasion science

Standardised terminology in science is important for clarity of interpretation and communication. In invasion science - a dynamic and rapidly evolving discipline - the proliferation of technical terminology has lacked a standardised framework for its development. The result is a convoluted and inconsistent usage of terminology, with various discrepancies in descriptions of damage and interventions. A standardised framework is therefore needed for a clear, universally applicable, and consistent terminology to promote more effective communication across researchers, stakeholders, and policymakers. Inconsistencies in terminology stem from the exponential increase in scientific publications on the patterns and processes of biological invasions authored by experts from various disciplines and countries since the 1990s, as well as publications by legislators and policymakers focusing on practical applications, regulations, and management of resources. Aligning and standardising terminology across stakeholders remains a challenge in invasion science. Here, we review and evaluate the multiple terms used in invasion science (e.g. 'non-native', 'alien', 'invasive' or 'invader', 'exotic', 'non-indigenous', 'naturalised', 'pest') to propose a more simplified and standardised terminology. The streamlined framework we propose and translate into 28 other languages is based on the terms (i) 'non-native', denoting species transported beyond their natural biogeographic range, (ii) 'established non-native', i.e. those non-native species that have established self-sustaining populations in their new location(s) in the wild, and (iii) 'invasive non-native' - populations of established non-native species that have recently spread or are spreading rapidly in their invaded range actively or passively with or without human mediation. We also highlight the importance of conceptualising 'spread' for classifying invasiveness and 'impact' for management. Finally, we propose a protocol for classifying populations based on (i) dispersal mechanism, (ii) species origin, (iii) population status, and (iv) impact. Collectively and without introducing new terminology, the framework that we present aims to facilitate effective communication and collaboration in invasion science and management of non-native species

Taming the terminological tempest in invasion science

Standardised terminology in science is important for clarity of interpretation and communication. In invasion science – a dynamic and rapidly evolving discipline – the proliferation of technical terminology has lacked a standardised framework for its development. The result is a convoluted and inconsistent usage of terminology, with various discrepancies in descriptions of damage and interventions. A standardised framework is therefore needed for a clear, universally applicable, and consistent terminology to promote more effective communication across researchers, stakeholders, and policymakers. Inconsistencies in terminology stem from the exponential increase in scientific publications on the patterns and processes of biological invasions authored by experts from various disciplines and countries since the 1990s, as well as publications by legislators and policymakers focusing on practical applications, regulations, and management of resources. Aligning and standardising terminology across stakeholders remains a challenge in invasion science. Here, we review and evaluate the multiple terms used in invasion science (e.g. ‘non‐native’, ‘alien’, ‘invasive’ or ‘invader’, ‘exotic’, ‘non‐indigenous’, ‘naturalised’, ‘pest’) to propose a more simplified and standardised terminology. The streamlined framework we propose and translate into 28 other languages is based on the terms (i) ‘non‐native’, denoting species transported beyond their natural biogeographic range, (ii) ‘established non‐native’, i.e. those non‐native species that have established self‐sustaining populations in their new location(s) in the wild, and (iii) ‘invasive non‐native’ – populations of established non‐native species that have recently spread or are spreading rapidly in their invaded range actively or passively with or without human mediation. We also highlight the importance of conceptualising ‘spread’ for classifying invasiveness and ‘impact’ for management. Finally, we propose a protocol for classifying populations based on (i) dispersal mechanism, (ii) species origin, (iii) population status, and (iv) impact. Collectively and without introducing new terminology, the framework that we present aims to facilitate effective communication and collaboration in invasion science and management of non‐native species

Taming the terminological tempest in invasion science

Standardised terminology in science is important for clarity of interpretation and communication. In invasion science – a dynamic and rapidly evolving discipline – the proliferation of technical terminology has lacked a standardised framework for its development. The result is a convoluted and inconsistent usage of terminology, with various discrepancies in descriptions of damage and interventions. A standardised framework is therefore needed for a clear, universally applicable, and consistent terminology to promote more effective communication across researchers, stakeholders, and policymakers. Inconsistencies in terminology stem from the exponential increase in scientific publications on the patterns and processes of biological invasions authored by experts from various disciplines and countries since the 1990s, as well as publications by legislators and policymakers focusing on practical applications, regulations, and management of resources. Aligning and standardising terminology across stakeholders remains a challenge in invasion science. Here, we review and evaluate the multiple terms used in invasion science (e.g. ‘non-native’, ‘alien’, ‘invasive’ or ‘invader’, ‘exotic’, ‘non-indigenous’, ‘naturalised’, ‘pest’) to propose a more simplified and standardised terminology. The streamlined framework we propose and translate into 28 other languages is based on the terms (i) ‘non-native’, denoting species transported beyond their natural biogeographic range, (ii) ‘established non-native’, i.e. those non-native species that have established self-sustaining populations in their new location(s) in the wild, and (iii) ‘invasive non-native’ – populations of established non-native species that have recently spread or are spreading rapidly in their invaded range actively or passively with or without human mediation. We also highlight the importance of conceptualising ‘spread’ for classifying invasiveness and ‘impact’ for management. Finally, we propose a protocol for classifying populations based on (i) dispersal mechanism, (ii) species origin, (iii) population status, and (iv) impact. Collectively and without introducing new terminology, the framework that we present aims to facilitate effective communication and collaboration in invasion science and management of non-native species.<br/