Parasites, pathogens and commensals in the “low-impact” non-native amphipod host Gammarus roeselii

Background: Whilst vastly understudied, pathogens of non-native species (NNS) are increasingly recognised as important threats to native wildlife. This study builds upon recent recommendations for improved screening for pathogens in NNS by focusing on populations of Gammarus roeselii in Chojna, north-western Poland. At this location, and in other parts of continental Europe, G. roeselii is considered a well-established and relatively ‘low-impact’ invader, with little understanding about its underlying pathogen profile and even less on potential spill-over of these pathogens to native species. Results: Using a combination of histological, ultrastructural and phylogenetic approaches, we define a pathogen profile for non-native populations of G. roeselii in Poland. This profile comprised acanthocephalans (Polymorphus minutus Goese, 1782 and Pomphorhynchus sp.), digenean trematodes, commensal rotifers, commensal and parasitic ciliated protists, gregarines, microsporidia, a putative rickettsia-like organism, filamentous bacteria and two viral pathogens, the majority of which are previously unknown to science. To demonstrate potential for such pathogenic risks to be characterised from a taxonomic perspective, one of the pathogens, a novel microsporidian, is described based upon its pathology, developmental cycle and SSU rRNA gene phylogeny. The novel microsporidian Cucumispora roeselii n. sp. displayed closest morphological and phylogenetic similarity to two previously described taxa, Cucumispora dikerogammari Ovcharenko, 2010 and Cucumispora ornata Bojko, 2015. Conclusions: In addition to our discovery extending the host range for the genus Cucumispora Ovcharenko, 2010 outside of the amphipod host genus Dikerogammarus Stebbing, we reveal significant potential for the co-transfer of (previously unknown) pathogens alongside this host when invading novel locations. This study highlights the importance of pre-invasion screening of low-impact NNS and, provides a means to document and potentially mitigate the additional risks posed by previously unknown pathogens

Invaders in hot water: a simple decontamination method to prevent the accidental spread of aquatic invasive non-native species.

Watersports equipment can act as a vector for the introduction and spread of invasive non native species (INNS) in freshwater environments. To support advice given to recreational water users under the UK Government’s Check Clean Dry biosecurity campaign and ensure its effectiveness at killing a range of aquatic INNS, we conducted a survival experiment on seven INNS which pose a high risk to UK freshwaters. The efficacy of exposure to hot water (45 °C, 15 min) was tested as a method by which waters users could ‘clean’ their equipment and was compared to drying and a control group (no treatment). Hot water had caused 99 % mortality across all species 1 h after treatment and was more effective than drying at all time points (1 h: χ2 = 117.24, p < 0.001; 1 day χ2 = 95.68, p < 0.001; 8 days χ2 = 12.16, p < 0.001 and 16 days χ2 = 7.58, p < 0.001). Drying caused significantly higher mortality than the control (no action) from day 4 (χ2 = 8.49, p < 0.01) onwards. In the absence of hot water or drying, 6/7 of these species survived for 16 days, highlighting the importance of good biosecurity practice to reduce the risk of accidental spread. In an additional experiment the minimum lethal temperature and exposure time in hot water to cause 100 % mortality in American signal crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus), was determined to be 5 min at 40 °C. Hot water provides a simple, rapid and effective method to clean equipment. We recommend that it is advocated in future biosecurity awareness campaigns

Taming the terminological tempest in invasion science

\ua9 2024 The Authors. Biological Reviews published by John Wiley &amp; 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

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