Assessing the impacts of nonindigenous marine macroalgae: an update of current knowledge

Nonindigenous marine species continue to be one of the foremost threats to marine biodiversity. As an update to a 2007 review of the impacts of introduced macroalgae, we assessed 142 additional publications to describe species’ impacts as well as to appraise information on the mechanisms of impact. Only 10% of the currently known nonindigenous macroalgal species were subjects of ecological impact studies, with changed community composition as the most commonly reported effect. Economic impacts were rarely published. Recent research has focused on the impacts of introduced macroalgal assemblages: red algal introductions to the Hawaiian Islands and turf algae in the Mediterranean. Several general issues were apparent. First, many publications included nonsignificant results of statistical analyses but did not report associated power. As many of the studies also had low effect and sample size, the potential for type II errors is considerable. Second, there was no widely accepted framework to categorize and compare impacts between studies. Information in this updated review was still too sparse to identify general patterns and mechanisms of impact. This is a critical knowledge gap as rates of introductions and hence impacts of nonindigenous macroalgae are expected to accelerate with climate change and increasing global trade connectivity

Which Values Do Non-Native Marine Species Affect? A Case-Study Exploration of Perceived Values at Threat in Micronesia

Impact assessment of non-native species introductions tend to focus on either economic and/or environmental risks. We present work that extends these approaches bringing environmental (ecological) and economic values together with social and cultural considerations. Our approach aims to better inform future non-native species management risk analyses. A triangulation approach involving literature and museum searches, face to face discussions, and questionnaires was undertaken to identify values perceived to be at risk with the arrival of non-native marine species (NMS) in three countries in Micronesia (Guam, the Republic of Palau and Saipan). We identified value sets for a range of stakeholders and subsequently used scenario approaches to determine the values' perceived relative worth (non-monetary) and directional change of worth following a biosecurity incursion. We identified 337 value sub-elements, of which at least 40% are thought to be at risk (their worth would diminish) if a NMS introduction were to occur. Results were used to create Venn diagrams and value networks to aid in understanding the linkages between social, cultural, economic, and environmental values. Additionally the relationship between elicited values and their alignment to Ecosystem Service contribution is identified and discussed. The Venn diagrams and value networks should prove a beneficial tool for understanding citizen concerns around perceived biosecurity risks and developing effective future biosecurity risk communication strategies

Marine biosecurity crisis decision-making: Two tools to Aid "Go"/"No Go" decision-making

Determining if a newly detected marine species is introduced to an area is an important first step when considering if control or eradication should be attempted. This step is often challenging, especially when data and introduced species expertise is limited: yet decisions about responding to a new invasion needs to occur in a timely manner. The crux is that biosecurity crisis decisions are often made in a vacuum. To improve this process, we consider expanded criteria to determine if a species is native, cryptogenic or introduced and outline application in a rapid response approach that uses a non-probabilistic decision tree to support decision makers. Effective use of the rapid response decision-tree and species criteria requires a multi-disciplinary approach drawing upon biology (taxonomy, phylogeny, genetics, ecology, biogeography) and monitoring. We assessed the expanded criteria against 213 bryozoan species present in Australian waters. A multivariate evaluation highlighted that a weight of evidence approach using the expanded criteria was successful in differentiating between native and introduced status. Our assessment highlighted that five criteria provide a high level of congruence with heuristic assignments, and provide a precautionary assignment of species\u27 status by reducing mis-classifications of introduced species as native species (Type I error) in comparison to the original criteria. However, differentiating between introduced and cryptogenic species remains problematic, especially when using the original criteria. We highlight the critical need for taxonomic identification, appropriate application of assigning cryptogenic status, and monitoring requirements to enable use of the criteria in a rapid response context. Using both the rapid response decision tree and the criteria provides a quantifiable mechanism to aid decision-makers in deciding whether to respond to a marine species introduction

Marine Biosecurity Crisis Decision-Making: Two Tools to Aid “Go”/“No Go” Decision-Making

Determining if a newly detected marine species is introduced to an area is an important first step when considering if control or eradication should be attempted. This step is often challenging, especially when data and introduced species expertise is limited: yet decisions about responding to a new invasion needs to occur in a timely manner. The crux is that biosecurity crisis decisions are often made in a vacuum. To improve this process, we consider expanded criteria to determine if a species is native, cryptogenic or introduced and outline application in a rapid response approach that uses a non-probabilistic decision tree to support decision makers. Effective use of the rapid response decision-tree and species criteria requires a multi-disciplinary approach drawing upon biology (taxonomy, phylogeny, genetics, ecology, biogeography) and monitoring. We assessed the expanded criteria against 213 bryozoan species present in Australian waters. A multivariate evaluation highlighted that a weight of evidence approach using the expanded criteria was successful in differentiating between native and introduced status. Our assessment highlighted that five criteria provide a high level of congruence with heuristic assignments, and provide a precautionary assignment of species' status by reducing mis-classifications of introduced species as native species (Type I error) in comparison to the original criteria. However, differentiating between introduced and cryptogenic species remains problematic, especially when using the original criteria. We highlight the critical need for taxonomic identification, appropriate application of assigning cryptogenic status, and monitoring requirements to enable use of the criteria in a rapid response context. Using both the rapid response decision tree and the criteria provides a quantifiable mechanism to aid decision-makers in deciding whether to respond to a marine species introduction

Epistemology of ignorance: the contribution of philosophy to the science-policy interface of marine biosecurity

Marine ecosystems are under increasing pressure from human activity, yet successful management relies on knowledge. The evidence-based policy (EBP) approach has been promoted on the grounds that it provides greater transparency and consistency by relying on ‘high quality’ information. However, EBP also creates epistemic responsibilities. Decision-making where limited or no empirical evidence exists, such as is often the case in marine systems, creates epistemic obligations for new information acquisition. We argue that philosophical approaches can inform the science-policy interface. Using marine biosecurity examples, we specifically examine the epistemic challenges in the acquisition and acceptance of evidence to inform policy, discussing epistemic due care and biases in consideration of evidence

Understanding acceptable level of risk: Incorporating the economic cost of under-managing invasive species

Management of nonindigenous species includes prevention, early detection and rapid response and control. Early detection and rapid response depend on prioritizing and monitoring sites at risk for arrival or secondary spread of nonindigenous species. Such monitoring efforts require sufficient biosecurity budgets to be effective and meet management or policy directives for reduced risk of introduction. Such consideration of risk reduction is rarely considered, however. Here, we review the concepts of acceptable level of risk (ALOR) and associated costs with respect to nonindigenous species and present a framework for aligning risk reduction priorities with available biosecurity resources. We conclude that available biosecurity resources may be insufficient to attain stated and desired risk reduction. This outcome highlights the need to consider policy and management directives when beginning a biosecurity program to determine the feasibility of risk reduction goals, given available resources

Classification of non-indigenous species based on their impacts: Considerations for application in marine management

Assessment of the ecological and economic/societal impacts of the introduction of non-indigenous species (NIS) is one of the primary focus areas of bioinvasion science in terrestrial and aquatic environments, and is considered essential to management. A classification system of NIS, based on the magnitude of their environmental impacts, was recently proposed to assist management. Here, we consider the potential application of this classification scheme to the marine environment, and offer a complementary framework focussing on value sets in order to explicitly address marine management concerns. Since existing data on marine NIS impacts are scarce and successful marine removals are rare, we propose that management of marine NIS adopt a precautionary approach, which not only would emphasise preventing new incursions through pre-border and at-border controls but also should influence the categorisation of impacts. The study of marine invasion impacts requires urgent attention and significant investment, since we lack the luxury of waiting for the knowledge base to be acquired before the window of opportunity closes for feasible management

The enlargement of the Suez Canal and introduction of non-indigenous species to the Mediterranean Sea

The Suez Canal is one of the most important waterways in the world – during the last year 17,148 ships passed through the Canal – reducing emissions, saving time, and operating costs to shippers. The rapid increase in ship size from the “Post-Suezmax” (> 12,000 TEU) to the latest container vessels (> 19,000 TEU) now requires enlargements of port facilities and canals. A project of this magnitude, and with potentially negative environmental outcomes, requires a transparent and scientifically sound “Environmental Impact Assessment” (EIA). An explicit obligation on Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (https://www.cbd.int/doc/ legal/cbd-en.pdf) was made to consider transboundary impacts on biodiversity, particularly those associated with invasive non-indigenous species

Acanthaster planci invasions: applying biosecurity practices to manage a native boom and bust coral pest in Australia

Coral reef systems are in global decline. In Australia, much of this decline has been attributable to cyclic outbreaks (every ~17 years) of the coral-feeding crown-of-thorns seastar. While a native species, when in large enough densities the seastar acts like an invasive pest. Since 2012 the Australian government has invested significantly in a targeted control program using lethal injection. While this program is effective for individual reefs, it is not a complete strategyfor the entire Great Barrier Reef (~2,500 reefs). In order to find a longer-term solution to the problem, in 2015, the lead author travelled to New Zealand, the United States, and Canada under a Churchill Fellowship to understand successful aquatic integrated pest management strategies and their potential application to the Great Barrier Reef. Meetings and workshops were convened with experts who specialise in risk assessment, categorisation, and management of aquatic invasive species. The experts comprised academics, applied scientists, policy makers, and a not for profit community based invasive species council. Bioinvasion management and prioritisation of management effort using risk-based frameworks were reviewed for application to the crown-of-thorns seastar. This viewpoint is novel in its approach of applying invasive species tools and perspectives to a non-invasive, native marine pest. Early detection and rapid response is key to preventing the transition of the seastar from natural densities to outbreak densities. However given the seastar is a native species already established, when in outbreak mode a multifaceted post-border management approach is essential. Private support funding models, that bridge conservation and tourism/philanthropy have proved successful in New Zealand to supplement government funded marine reserve management – this is an approach which should be explored by Australia to help manage the seastar. Dedicated support and commitment is needed to break the issue-attention cycle. On the Great Barrier Reef, a dedicated biosecurity approach should be used to maintain the seastar at natural densities, increase the time between outbreaks, protect coral cover and increase resilience of the system