Four priority areas to advance invasion science in the face of rapid environmental change

Unprecedented rates of introduction and spread of non-native species pose burgeoning challenges to biodiversity, natural resource management, regional economies, and human health. Current biosecurity efforts are failing to keep pace with globalization, revealing critical gaps in our understanding and response to invasions. Here, we identify four priority areas to advance invasion science in the face of rapid global environmental change. First, invasion science should strive to develop a more comprehensive framework for predicting how the behavior, abundance, and interspecific interactions of non-native species vary in relation to conditions in receiving environments and how these factors govern the ecological impacts of invasion. A second priority is to understand the potential synergistic effects of multiple co-occurring stressors— particularly involving climate change—on the establishment and impact of non-native species. Climate adaptation and mitigation strategies will need to consider the possible consequences of promoting non-native species, and appropriate management responses to non-native species will need to be developed. The third priority is to address the taxonomic impediment. The ability to detect and evaluate invasion risks is compromised by a growing deficit in taxonomic expertise, which cannot be adequately compensated by new molecular technologies alone. Management of biosecurity risks will become increasingly challenging unless academia, industry, and governments train and employ new personnel in taxonomy and systematics. Fourth, we recommend that internationally cooperative biosecurity strategies consider the bridgehead effects of global dispersal networks, in which organisms tend to invade new regions from locations where they have already established. Cooperation among countries to eradicate or control species established in bridgehead regions should yield greater benefit than independent attempts by individual countries to exclude these species from arriving and establishing

Four priority areas to advance invasion science in the face of rapid environmental change

Unprecedented rates of introduction and spread of non-native species pose burgeoning challenges to biodiversity, natural resource management, regional economies, and human health. Current biosecurity efforts are failing to keep pace with globalization, revealing critical gaps in our understanding and response to invasions. Here, we identify four priority areas to advance invasion science in the face of rapid global environmental change. First, invasion science should strive to develop a more comprehensive framework for predicting how the behavior, abundance, and interspecific interactions of non-native species vary in relation to conditions in receiving environments and how these factors govern the ecological impacts of invasion. A second priority is to understand the potential synergistic effects of multiple co-occurring stressors— particularly involving climate change—on the establishment and impact of non-native species. Climate adaptation and mitigation strategies will need to consider the possible consequences of promoting non-native species, and appropriate management responses to non-native species will need to be developed. The third priority is to address the taxonomic impediment. The ability to detect and evaluate invasion risks is compromised by a growing deficit in taxonomic expertise, which cannot be adequately compensated by new molecular technologies alone. Management of biosecurity risks will become increasingly challenging unless academia, industry, and governments train and employ new personnel in taxonomy and systematics. Fourth, we recommend that internationally cooperative biosecurity strategies consider the bridgehead effects of global dispersal networks, in which organisms tend to invade new regions from locations where they have already established. Cooperation among countries to eradicate or control species established in bridgehead regions should yield greater benefit than independent attempts by individual countries to exclude these species from arriving and establishing

Effects of acute and chronic temperature changes on the functional responses of the dogfish Scyliorhinus canicula (Linnaeus, 1758) towards amphipod prey Echinogammarus marinus (Leach, 1815)

Predation is a strong driver of population dynamics and community structure and it is essential to reliably quantify and predict predation impacts on prey populations in a changing thermal landscape. Here, we used comparative functional response analyses to assess how predator-prey interactions between dogfish and invertebrate prey change under different warming scenarios. The Functional Response Type, attack rate, handling time and maximum feeding rate estimates were calculated for Scyliorhinus canicula preying upon Echinogammarus marinus under temperatures of 11.3 °C and 16.3 °C, which represent both the potential daily variation and predicted higher summer temperatures within Strangford Lough, N. Ireland. A two x two design of “Predator Acclimated”, “Prey Acclimated”, “Both Acclimated”, and “Both Unacclimated” was implemented to test functional responses to temperature rise. Attack rate was higher at 11.3 °C than at 16.3 °C, but handling time was lower and maximum feeding rates were higher at 16.3 °C. Non-acclimated predators had similar maximum feeding rate towards non-acclimated and acclimated prey, whereas acclimated predators had significantly higher maximum feeding rates towards acclimated prey as compared to non-acclimated prey. Results suggests that the predator attack rate is decreased by increasing temperature but when both predator and prey are acclimated the shorter handling times considerably increase predator impact. The functional response of the fish changed from Type II to Type III with an increase in temperature, except when only the prey were acclimated. This change from population destabilizing Type II to more stabilizing Type III could confer protection to prey at low densities but increase the maximum feeding rate by Scyliorhinus canicula in the future. However, predator movement between different thermal regimes may maintain a Type II response, albeit with a lower maximum feeding rate. This has implications for the way the increasing population Scyliorhinus canicula in the Irish Sea may exploit valuable fisheries stocks in the future

Predicting predatory impact of juvenile invasive lionfish (Pterois volitans) on a crustacean prey using functional response analysis: effects of temperature, habitat complexity and light regimes

The ecological implications of biotic interactions, such as predator-prey relationships, are often context-dependent. Comparative functional responses analysis can be used under different abiotic contexts to improve understanding and prediction of the ecological impact of invasive species. Pterois volitans (Lionfish) [Linnaeus 1758] is an established invasive species in the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico, with a more recent invasion into the Mediterranean. Lionfish are generalist predators that impact a wide range of commercial and non-commercial species. Functional response analysis was employed to quantify interaction strength between lionfish and a generic prey species, the shrimp (Paleomonetes varians) [Leach 1814], under the contexts of differing temperature, habitat complexity and light wavelength. Lionfish have prey population destabilising Type II functional responses under all contexts examined. Significantly more prey were consumed at 26 °C than at 22 °C. Habitat complexity did not significantly alter the functional response parameters. Significantly more prey were consumed under white light and blue light than under red light. Attack rate was significantly higher under white light than under blue or red light. Light wavelength did not significantly change handling times. The impacts on prey populations through feeding rates may increase with concomitant temperature increase. As attack rates are very high at low habitat complexity this may elucidate the cause of high impact upon degraded reef ecosystems with low-density prey populations, although there was little protection conferred through habitat complexity. Only red light (i.e. dark) afforded any reduction in predation pressure. Management initiatives should account for these environmental factors when planning mitigation and prevention strategies

Invasion Science: Looking Forward Rather Than Revisiting Old Ground - A Reply to Zenni et al.

Using horizon scanning techniques, we identified 14 emerging issues, not yet widely recognized or understood, that are likely to affect how biological invasions are studied and managed on a global scale [1]. Zenni et al. [2] do not comment on the major issues identified in our study. Instead, they draw attention to the nationalities of our authorship and the lack of representation from developing countries, and they imply that as a consequence our paper promotes misconceptions and ignores key issues affecting such countries. In particular, they criticize our ‘opinionated statement’ that most developing countries have a limited capacity to respond to invasions. This is not merely our opinion; we cited Early et al.[3], whose analysis concluded that proactive capacities, although far from sufficient globally, are more advanced in countries with a high human development index (HDI) than in those with a low HDI. The term ‘developing country’ is open to misinterpretation, but is often defined as a sovereign state with a low HDI and a less-developed industrial base relative to other countries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developing_country), and such countries occur mostly in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. The ten ‘developing countries’ listed by Zenni et al. as having national invasive species strategies or databases (i.e., Mexico, Jamaica, Guyana, Cuba, Brazil, Colombia, Uruguay, Argentina, Chile, and South Africa) are arguably more similar to developed countries, in terms of HDI, than to many of the poorest countries of the world [4]