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

Collecting, Rearing, and Preserving Leaf-Mining Insects

International audienceDeveloping methods to rear phytophagous insects is crucial to reveal the true complexity of interactions between insects and their host plants. Here we focus on leaf-mining insects, an ecological guild across four different orders (Lepidoptera, Diptera, Coleoptera, and Hymenoptera) whose larvae feed inside the leaves of their host plants, producing cavities in the leaf tissue that are known as leaf mines. Besides leaf lamina, some leaf-mining species can also mine leaf petioles and veins, and a few species make cavities in soft shoots, stems, or mine the surface of young fruits and seeds. Most leaf miners are host plant-specific and produce characteristic leaf mines that are remarkably variable among species. Some species are considered important crop, orchard, and forest pests. Despite their fascinating life history, global diversity, and ecological and economic importance, little is known about the biology of most species, in particular in the tropics. Here, we describe methods to collect, rear, and preserve samples of leaf miners with an emphasis on the smallest of Lepidopter