Impacts of invasive alien marine species on ecosystem services and biodiversity: a pan-European review

Abstract prerequisite for the efficient prioritisation of actions to prevent new invasions or for developing mitigation measures. In this review, we identified alien marine species that have a high impact on ecosystem services and biodiversity in European seas, classified the mechanisms of impact, commented on the methods applied for assessing the impact and the related inferential strength, and reported on gaps in available information. Furthermore, we have proposed an updated inventory of 87 marine species in Europe, representing 13 phyla, which have a documented high impact on ecosystem services or biodiversity. Food provision was the ecosystem service that was impacted by the greatest number of alien species (in terms of both positive and negative impacts). Following food provision, the ecosystem services that were negatively affected by the highest number of alien species were ocean nourishment, recreation and tourism, and lifecycle maintenance, while the ecosystem services that were most often positively impacted were cognitive benefits, water purification, and climate regulation. In many cases, marine aliens were found to impact keystone/protected species and habitats. Thirty percent of the assessed species had an impact on entire ecosystem processes or wider ecosystem functioning, more often in a negative fashion. Forty-nine of the assessed species were reported as being ecosystem engineers, which fundamentally modify, create, or define habitats by altering their physical or chemical properties. The positive impacts of alien species are probably underestimated, as there is often a perception bias against alien species. Among the species herein assessed as high-impact species, 17 had only negative and 7 only positive impacts; for the majority (63 species), both negative and positive impacts were reported; the overall balance was often unknown. Although there is no doubt that invasive species have modified marine ecosystems, evidence for most of the reported impacts is weak, as it is based on expert judgement or dubious correlations, while only 13% of the reported impacts were inferred via manipulative or natural experiments. A need for stronger inference is evident, to improve our knowledge base of marine biological invasions and better inform environmental managers

The National Early Warning Score and its subcomponents recorded within ±24 hours of emergency medical admission are poor predictors of hospital-acquired acute kidney injury

YesBackground: Hospital-acquired Acute Kidney Injury (H-AKI) is a common cause of avoidable morbidity and mortality. Aim: To determine if the patients’ vital signs data as defined by a National Early Warning Score (NEWS), can predict H-AKI following emergency admission to hospital. Methods: Analyses of emergency admissions to York hospital over 24-months with NEWS data. We report the area under the curve (AUC) for logistic regression models that used the index NEWS (model A0), plus age and sex (A1), plus subcomponents of NEWS (A2) and two-way interactions (A3). Likewise for maximum NEWS (models B0,B1,B2,B3). Results: 4.05% (1361/33608) of emergency admissions had H-AKI. Models using the index NEWS had the lower AUCs (0.59 to 0.68) than models using the maximum NEWS AUCs (0.75 to 0.77). The maximum NEWS model (B3) was more sensitivity than the index NEWS model (A0) (67.60% vs 19.84%) but identified twice as many cases as being at risk of H-AKI (9581 vs 4099) at a NEWS of 5. Conclusions: The index NEWS is a poor predictor of H-AKI. The maximum NEWS is a better predictor but seems unfeasible because it is only knowable in retrospect and is associated with a substantial increase in workload albeit with improved sensitivity.The Health Foundatio

Status of introductions of non-indigenous marine species to the North Atlantic and adjacent waters 2003–2007

Over the past few years, new records and reports of non-native species have provid- ed additional insight into the potential vectors and spread of introduced pathogens, plants, and animals. This five-year report brings together and summarizes the non- native species introductions reported in annual reports to the Working Group on Introductions and Transfers for the period 2003 – 2007. Not all countries reported eve- ry year, limiting the information on species distributions. Most of the observations are from coastal areas and embayments, and they range from marine waters to brack- ish and, occasionally, freshwater. One exception is an American report on a tunicate that has invaded a productive offshore area 200 nautical miles from shore, suggesting that greater effort needs to be made to determine the offshore distributions of species. One goal of this report is to facilitate understanding of the species present in nearby countries that may disperse to neighbouring countries. The document is divided into five general sections: pathogens, phytoplankton, algae and plants, invertebrates, and fish. Rather than list each country alphabetically, each section reports on non-native species by region: Northeast Atlantic, Baltic, Mediterranean, Northwest Atlantic, Great Lakes, and northwest Pacific, and includes reports from Australia and New Zealand. This regional approach intends to provide insight into which species are spreading from country to country and how quickly they are dispersing. The sum- mary tables at the end of the sections also present species by taxon and by region. Species such as Crepidula fornicata, Eriocheir sinensis, and Crassostrea gigas have been present in their non-native areas for a long time, but if they were expanding their ranges, they were included in this report. A few reports provided lists of non-native species not previously reported to ICES, and these species are also included. The edi- tors have attempted to update taxonomic nomenclature, based on the World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS) and for algae also on www.algaebase.org

Impacts of invasive alien marine species on ecosystem services and biodiversity: a pan-European review

A good understanding of the mechanisms and magnitude of impact of invasive alien species on ecosystem services and biodiversity is a prerequisite for efficient prioritization of actions for prevention of new invasions or for mitigation measures. In this review, we have identified marine alien species of high-impact on ecosystem services and biodiversity in the European seas, classified the mechanisms of impact, commented on the methods applied for assessing impact and the related inferential strength, and reported gaps in available information. Furthermore, we have proposed an updated inventory of 86 marine species in Europe, representing 12 phyla, with documented high impact on ecosystem services or biodiversity. Food provision was the ecosystem service that was impacted by the highest number of alien species (in terms of both positive and negative impacts). Following food provision, the ecosystem services that were negatively affected by the highest number of species were ocean nourishment, recreation and tourism, and water purification, while the ecosystem services that were more often positively impacted were water purification, cognitive benefits, and climate regulation. In many cases, marine aliens impact keystone/protected species and habitats. Almost 30% of the assessed species affected entire ecosystem processes or wider ecosystem function, more often in a negative way. Fifty of the assessed species have been reported to be ecosystem engineers, fundamentally modifying, creating or defining habitats by altering their physical or chemical properties. Positive impacts of alien species are probably underestimated, as there is a persistent perception bias against alien species. We conclude that the “native good, alien bad” philosophy is a misconception and the role of most of the alien species in marine ecosystems is rather complex. Among the species herein assessed as high-impact species, 15 had only negative and 8 only positive impacts; for the majority (64 species) both negative and positive impacts have been reported, and the overall balance is often unknown. Although there is no doubt that invasive species have modified marine ecosystems, evidence for most of the reported impacts is weak, as it is based on expert judgement or dubious correlations, while only ~10% of the reported impacts were inferred via manipulative or natural experiments. A need for stronger inference is evident, to improve our knowledge base of marine biological invasions and better inform managers.JRC.H.1-Water Resource

Impacts of invasive alien marine species on ecosystem services and biodiversity: a pan-European review

WOS: 000345597500001A good understanding of the mechanisms and magnitude of the impact of invasive alien species on ecosystem services and biodiversity is a prerequisite for the efficient prioritisation of actions to prevent new invasions or for developing mitigation measures. In this review, we identified alien marine species that have a high impact on ecosystem services and biodiversity in European seas, classified the mechanisms of impact, commented on the methods applied for assessing the impact and the related inferential strength, and reported on gaps in available information. Furthermore, we have proposed an updated inventory of 87 marine species in Europe, representing 13 phyla, which have a documented high impact on ecosystem services or biodiversity. Food provision was the ecosystem service that was impacted by the greatest number of alien species (in terms of both positive and negative impacts). Following food provision, the ecosystem services that were negatively affected by the highest number of alien species were ocean nourishment, recreation and tourism, and lifecycle maintenance, while the ecosystem services that were most often positively impacted were cognitive benefits, water purification, and climate regulation. In many cases, marine aliens were found to impact keystone/protected species and habitats. Thirty percent of the assessed species had an impact on entire ecosystem processes or wider ecosystem functioning, more often in a negative fashion. Forty-nine of the assessed species were reported as being ecosystem engineers, which fundamentally modify, create, or define habitats by altering their physical or chemical properties. The positive impacts of alien species are probably underestimated, as there is often a perception bias against alien species. Among the species herein assessed as high-impact species, 17 had only negative and 7 only positive impacts; for the majority (63 species), both negative and positive impacts were reported; the overall balance was often unknown. Although there is no doubt that invasive species have modified marine ecosystems, evidence for most of the reported impacts is weak, as it is based on expert judgement or dubious correlations, while only 13% of the reported impacts were inferred via manipulative or natural experiments. A need for stronger inference is evident, to improve our knowledge base of marine biological invasions and better inform environmental managers.European UnionEuropean Union (EU) [308392, 287600]; European UnionEuropean Union (EU) [308392, 287600]SK and ACC were partly supported by the DEVOTES (DEVelopment Of innovative Tools for understanding marine biodiversity and assessing good Environmental Status) project, which was funded by the European Union under the 7th Framework Programme, `The Ocean for Tomorrow' Theme (grant agreement no. 308392), www.devotes-project.eu. AZ was supported by the PERSEUS (Policy-oriented marine Environmental Research for the Southern EUropean Seas) project, which was funded by the European Union under the 7th Framework Programme (grant agreement no. 287600). We thank C. Liquete, M. Thomsen, M. Hanson, and two anonymous reviewers for their useful comments, and G. Mulhern for linguistic editing

Non-natives: 141 scientists object [Letter]

Peer reviewe