The Bostrichidae of the Maltese Islands (Coleoptera)

The Bostrichidae of the Maltese Islands are reviewed. Ten species are recorded with certainty from this Archipelago, of which 6 namely, Trogoxylon impressum (Comolli, 1837), Amphicerus bimaculatus (A.G. Olivier, 1790), Heterobostrychus aequalis (Waterhouse, 1884), Sinoxylon unidentatum (Fabricius, 1801), Xyloperthella picea (A.G. Olivier, 1790) and Apate monachus Fabricius, 1775 are recorded for the first time. Two of the mentioned species (H. aequalis and S. unidentatum) are alien and recorded only on the basis of single captures and the possible establishment of these species is discussed. Earlier records of Scobicia pustulata (Fabricius, 1801) from Malta are incorrect and should be attributed to S. chevrieri (A. Villa & J.B. Villa, 1835). A zoogeographical analysis and an updated checklist of the 12 species of Bostrichidae recorded from the Maltese Islands and neighbouring Sicilian islands (Pantelleria, Linosa and Lampedusa) are also provided. Rhizopertha dominica (Fabricius, 1792) form granulipennis Lesne in Beeson & Bhatia, 1937 from Uttarakhand (northern India) was overlooked by almost all subsequent authors. Its history is summarized and the following new synonymy is established: Rhizopertha dominica (Fabricius, 1792) form granulipennis Lesne in Beeson & Bhatia, 1937 = Rhyzopertha dominica (Fabricius, 1792), syn. n. Finally, records of Amphicerus bimaculatus from Azerbaijan, of Bostrichus capucinus (Linnaeus, 1758) from Jordan and Syria, of Scobicia chevrieri from Jordan and Italy, of Xyloperthella picea from Italy, and of Apate monachus from Corsica (France) and Italy, are also provided.peer-reviewe

Forewarned is forearmed : harmonized approaches for early detection of potentially invasive pests and pathogens in sentinel plantings

This work was supported by COST Action Global Warning (FP1401). DLM and YB contribution was also supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (Grant No. 17-04-01486). MG was supported by Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia, Grant III43002. MKA was supported by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Republic of Poland. NK was supported by Le Studium foundation (France) and RFBR (Grant No. 19-04-01029). RE, IF and MK contribution was also supported by CABI with core financial support from its member countries (see http://www.cabi.org/about-cabi/who-we-work-with/key-donors/ for details). IF contribution was further supported through a grant from the Swiss State Secretariat for Science, Education and Research (Grant C15.0081, awarded to RE).Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Taming the terminological tempest in invasion science

\ua9 2024 The Authors. Biological Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Cambridge Philosophical Society. 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

Standardized terminology in science is important for clarity of interpretation and communication. In invasion science — a dynamic and quickly evolving discipline — the rapid proliferation of technical terminology has lacked a standardized framework for its language development. The result is a convoluted and inconsistent usage of terminology, with various discrepancies in descriptions of damages and interventions. A standardized 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 standardizing terminology across stakeholders remains a prevailing 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', 'naturalized, 'pest') to propose a more simplified and standardized 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 conceptualizing 'spread' for classifying invasiveness and 'impact' for management. Finally, we propose a protocol for classifying populations based on (1) dispersal mechanism, (2) species origin, (3) population status, and (4) 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

Introductory notes to factsheets. Chapter 14

Volume: 4Start Page: 855End Page: 102

Proceedings of the 7th Congress on Plant Protection."Integrated Plant Protection – a Knowledge-Based Step towards Sustainable Agriculture, Forestry and Landscape Architecture" (November 24-28, 2014, Zlatibor, Serbia)

International audienc

Proceedings of the 7th Congress on Plant Protection."Integrated Plant Protection – a Knowledge-Based Step towards Sustainable Agriculture, Forestry and Landscape Architecture" (November 24-28, 2014, Zlatibor, Serbia)

International audienc

“Because This Is an Evidence-Based Program”: The Learning Experience of Croatia with the Lions Quest Skills for Adolescence, Implemented In-Person and Online

Background: The Lions Quest Skills for Adolescence (LQSFA) is an evidence-based social and emotional learning program for school students. It is implemented as a teacher-led extracurricular activity for children aged 10–15 years. From 2019 to 2022, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, in collaboration with Lions Clubs International Foundation, implemented the LQSFA in 41 schools in Croatia. Due to the COVID-19 lockdown measures, the intervention was adjusted into a hybrid modality (in-class and online). We evaluated the experience that the teachers had with the LQSFA in a hybrid modality. Methods: We used a focus-group discussion approach to evaluate the experience of five LQSFA teachers. Results: Three themes emerged: (1) the appreciation of evidence-based programs by the teachers, (2) the benefit of the LQSFA on the parents, and (3) the length of the online version of the questionnaire tool that was used to assess pre- and post-LQSFA experiences among students was too long. These results indicate that the LQSFA is undergoing a scaling on a national level in Croatia, even when implemented in a hybrid setting. Conclusions: Using an evidence-based program such as the LQSFA was rewarding for teachers, despite the challenges in the administrative adjustments regarding the online and in-person class teaching. LQSFA filled an important gap during COVID19-related stress