International tracking of the COVID-19 invasion: an amazing example of a globalized scientific coordination effort

It is extraordinary to witness the spread of COVID-19 almost in real-time. This tight monitoring of the invasion of a new virus is a situation that most other invasion scientists could only dream of. Especially spatiotemporal spread data of the early phases of an invasion would be extremely useful in order to understand and predict the human-mediated spread of species around the globe. So far, invasive species that directly affect human health, such as the Sars-Cov-2 virus causing COVID-19, have been treated differently from invasive species affecting environmental health. Despite progresses in constructing large checklists of invasive species, these records often enter the databases only decades after the establishment of the organism in a country. This is inadequate to understand ongoing spread dynamics and estimate current invasion risks. Yet, national services often possess extremely useful information about early detections and interceptions of species at air and maritime ports, which could greatly improve predictions and help set management priorities. Considering the massive impacts of invasive species, it is time to move on to such a collaborative way of handling invasion data. Invasive insects, birds, mammals, fungi, and other species are the result of globalization and call for a globalized response, exactly like the COVID-19 pandemic

Smaller climatic niche shifts in invasive than non-invasive alien ant species

The globalization of trade and human movement has resulted in the accidental dispersal of thousands of alien species worldwide at an unprecedented scale. Some of these species are considered invasive because of their extensive spatial spread or negative impacts on native biodiversity. Explaining which alien species become invasive is a major challenge of invasion biology, and it is often assumed that invasiveness is linked to a greater ability to establish in novel climates. To test whether invasive species have expanded more into novel climates than non-invasive alien species, we quantified niche shifts of 82 ant species. Surprisingly, invasive species showed smaller niche shifts than non-invasive alien species. Independent of their invasiveness, the species with the smallest native niches and range sizes, experienced the greatest niche shifts. Overall, our results challenge the assumption that invasive species are particularly good pioneers of novel climates

Invasion Biology: Specific Problems and Possible Solutions

International audienceBiological invasions have been unambiguously shown to be one of the major global causes of biodiversity loss. Despite the magnitude of this threat and recent scientific advances, this field remains a regular target of criticism – from outright deniers of the threat to scientists questioning the utility of the discipline. This unique situation, combining internal strife and an unaware society, greatly hinders the progress of invasion biology. It is crucial to identify the specificities of this discipline that lead to such difficulties. We outline here 24 specificities and problems of this discipline and categorize them into four groups: understanding, alerting, supporting, and implementing the issues associated with invasive alien species, and we offer solutions to tackle these problems and push the field forward

Invasion disharmony in the global biogeography of native and non‐native beetle species

International audienceAim The concept of "island disharmony" has been widely applied to describe the systematic over- and under-representation of taxa on islands compared to mainland regions. Here, we explore an extension of that concept to biological invasions. We compare biogeographical patterns in native and non-native beetle (Coleoptera) assemblages from around the world to test whether beetle invasions represent a random sample of species or whether some families are more prone to invade than others. Location Global. Methods Numbers of non-native beetle species established in ten regions worldwide were compared with the land area of each region. The distribution of species among families was compared with the distribution among families for all species native to the same region and with the distribution among families for the global pool of all known beetle species. Ordination analysis was used to characterize differences among native and non-native assemblages based upon the distribution of species among families. Results We report a total of 1,967 non-native beetle species across all ten regions, and a classic log-log relationship between numbers of species per region and land area though relationships are generally stronger for native assemblages. Some families (e.g., Dermestidae and Bostrichidae) are over-represented and others (e.g., Carabidae, Scarabaeidae and Buprestidae) are under-represented in non-native assemblages. The distribution of species among families is generally similar among native assemblages with greatest similarities among nearby regions. In contrast, non-native species assemblages are more similar to each other than to native species assemblages. Main conclusions Certain families are over-represented, and others are under-represented in non-native beetle assemblages compared to native assemblages, indicating "invasion disharmony" in the global representation of beetle families. Similarities in composition among non-native assemblages may reflect unobserved associations with invasion pathways and life-history traits that shape invasion success of different insect groups