The generic impact scoring system (GISS): a standardized tool to quantify the impacts of alien species.

Alien species can exert negative environmental and socio-economic impacts. Therefore, administrations from different sectors are trying to prevent further introductions, stop the spread of established species, and apply or develop programs to mitigate their impact, to contain the most harmful species, or to eradicate them if possible. Often it is not clear which of the numerous alien species are most important in terms of damage, and therefore, impact scoring systems have been developed to allow a comparison and thus prioritization of species. Here, we present the generic impact scoring system (GISS), which relies on published evidence of environmental and socio-economic impact of alien species. We developed a system of 12 impact categories, for environmental and socio-economic impact, comprising all kinds of impacts that an alien species may exert. In each category, the intensity of impact is quantified by a six-level scale ranging from 0 (no impact detectable) to 5 (the highest impact possible). Such an approach, where impacts are grouped based on mechanisms for environmental impacts and receiving sectors for socio-economy, allows for cross-taxa comparisons and prioritization of the most damaging species. The GISS is simple and transparent, can be conducted with limited funds, and can be applied to a large number of alien species across taxa and environments. Meanwhile, the system was applied to 349 alien animal and plant species. In a comparison with 22 other impact assessment methods, the combination of environmental and socio-economic impact, as well as the possibility of weighting and ranking of the scoring results make GISS the most broadly applicable system

Managing alien bird species: Time to move beyond "100 of the worst" lists?

Alien species can cause severe impacts in their introduced ranges and management is challenging due to the large number of such species and the diverse nature and context of their impacts. Lists of the most harmful species, like the “100 of the World’s Worst” list collated by the Invasive Species Specialist Group of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) or the “100 of the Worst” invaders in Europe collated by the Delivering Alien Invasive Species Inventories in Europe (DAISIE) project, raise awareness about these impacts among the public, and can guide management decisions. Such lists are mainly based on expert opinion, but in recent years a more objective comparison of impacts has become possible, even between highly diverse taxa. In this study, we use a semi-quantitative generic impact scoring system to assess impacts of the three birds listed among the “100 of the World’s Worst” IUCN list (IUCN100) and the four birds on the list of “100 of the Worst” European invaders by DAISIE (DAISIE100) and to compare their impacts with those of other alien birds not present on the respective lists. We found that generally, both lists include some of the species with the highest impacts in the respective regions (global or Europe), and these species therefore deserve the dubious honour of being listed among the “worst”. However, there are broad overlaps between some species with regards to the impact mechanisms and the related issues of invasions, especially those of the Common Myna Acridotheres tristis and Red-vented Bulbul Pycnonotus cafer on the IUCN100, are very similar which might not warrant listing both species. To make the selection of species on such lists more transparent we suggest moving beyond lists based on expert opinion to a more transparent and defendable system for listing alien species based on published records of their impacts and related mechanisms

Comparing impacts of alien plants and animals in Europe using a standard scoring system

© 2015 British Ecological Society. Alien species can change the recipient environment in various ways, and some of them cause considerable damage. Understanding such impacts is crucial to direct management actions. This study addresses the following questions: Is it possible to quantify impact across higher taxa in a comparative manner? Do impacts differ between taxonomic groups? How are environmental and socio-economic impacts related? Can impacts be predicted based on those in other regions? To address these questions, we reviewed literature describing the impacts of 300 species from five major taxonomic groups: mammals, birds, fish, terrestrial arthropods and plants. To make very diverse impact measures comparable, we used the semi-quantitative generic impact scoring system (GISS) which describes environmental and socio-economic impacts using twelve categories. In each category, scores range from zero (no impact known or detectable) to five (the highest possible impact). Using the same scoring system for taxa as diverse as invertebrates, vertebrates and plants, we found that overall, alien mammals in Europe have the highest impact, while fish have the lowest. Terrestrial arthropods were found to have the lowest environmental impact, while fish had relatively low socio-economic impact. Overall, the magnitude of environmental and socio-economic impacts of individual alien species is highly correlated. However, at the species level, major deviations are found. For mammals and birds, the impacts in invaded ranges outside of Europe are broadly similar to those recorded for alien species within Europe, indicating that a consideration of the known impacts of a species in other regions can be generally useful when predicting the impacts of an alien species. However, it should be noted that this pattern is not consistent across all mammal and bird orders, and thus, such information should be considered with caution. Synthesis and applications. Comparing the impacts of alien species across taxa is necessary for prioritizing management efforts and effective allocation of resources. By applying the generic impact scoring system (GISS) to five major taxonomic groups, we provide the basis for a semi-quantitative cross-taxa listing process (e.g. 'black lists' or 100-worst-lists). If more data are collated from different geographical regions and habitats using standard GISS protocols, risk assessments for alien species based on rigorous measures of impact could be improved by taking into account local variation, and context dependence of impacts. This would also allow studies at lower taxonomic levels, and within-taxon analyses of functional groups and guilds. Comparing the impacts of alien species across taxa is necessary for prioritizing management efforts and effective allocation of resources. By applying the generic impact scoring system (GISS) to five major taxonomic groups, we provide the basis for a semi-quantitative cross-taxa listing process (e.g. 'black lists' or 100-worst-lists). If more data are collated from different geographical regions and habitats using standard GISS protocols, risk assessments for alien species based on rigorous measures of impact could be improved by taking into account local variation, and context dependence of impacts. This would also allow studies at lower taxonomic levels, and within-taxon analyses of functional groups and guilds.Peer Reviewe

Framework and guidelines for implementing the proposed IUCN Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT)

Recently, Blackburn et al. (2014) developed a simple, objective and transparent method for classifying alien taxa in terms of the magnitude of their detrimental environmental impacts in recipient areas. Here, we present a comprehensive framework and guidelines for implementing this method, which we term the Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa, or EICAT. We detail criteria for applying the EICAT scheme in a consistent and comparable fashion, prescribe the supporting information that should be supplied along with classifications, and describe the process for implementing the method. This comment aims to draw the attention of interested parties to the framework and guidelines, and to present them in their entirety in a location where they are freely accessible to any potential users.Peer Reviewe

Scientists' warning to humanity on illegal or unsustainable wildlife trade

Illegal or unsustainable wildlife trade is growing at a global level, threatening the traded species and coexisting biota, and promoting the spread of invasive species. From the loss of ecosystem services to diseases transmitted from wildlife to humans, or connections with major organized crime networks and disruption of local to global economies, its ramifications are pervading our daily lives and perniciously affecting our well-being. Here we build on the manifesto 'World Scientists' Warning to Humanity, issued by the Alliance of World Scientists. As a group of researchers deeply concerned about the consequences of illegal or unsustainable wildlife trade, we review and highlight how these can negatively impact species, ecosystems, and society. We appeal for urgent action to close key knowledge gaps and regulate wildlife trade more stringently.Peer reviewe

Crossing Frontiers in Tackling Pathways of Biological Invasions

Substantial progress has been made in understanding how pathways underlie and mediate biological invasions. However, key features of their role in invasions remain poorly understood, available knowledge is widely scattered, and major frontiers in research and management are insufficiently characterized. We review the state of the art, highlight recent advances, identify pitfalls and constraints, and discuss major challenges in four broad fields of pathway research and management: pathway classification, application of pathway information, management response, and management impact. We present approaches to describe and quantify pathway attributes (e.g., spatiotemporal changes, proxies of introduction effort, environmental and socioeconomic contexts) and how they interact with species traits and regional characteristics. We also provide recommendations for a research agenda with particular focus on emerging (or neglected) research questions and present new analytical tools in the context of pathway research and managemen

Assessing the ecological risk posed by a recently established invasive alien predator: Harmonia axyridis as a case study

Invasive alien predators are a serious threat to biodiversity worldwide. However, there is no generic method for assessing which local species are most at risk following the invasion of a new predator. The harlequin ladybird, Harmonia axyridis (Pallas) (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), is an alien in Europe and many other parts of the world where it affects other species of ladybirds through competition for food and intra-guild predation (IGP). Here, we describe a method developed to assess which European ladybird species are most at risk following the invasion of H. axyridis. The three components of the risk assessment are: the likelihood that the assessed native species encounters H. axyridis in the field, the hazard of competition for food, and the IGP hazard. Thirty native European ladybird species were assessed through data obtained from field observations, laboratory experiments and literature reviews. The species that are considered most at risk are found on deciduous trees, have immature stages which are highly vulnerable to IGP by H. axyridis, and are primarily aphidophagous. These species should be the focus of specific studies and possibly conservation actions. The risk assessment method proposed here could be applied to other alien predators which are considered a threat to native species through competition and predation

A framework for engaging stakeholders on the management of alien species

Alien species can have major ecological and socioeconomic impacts in their novel ranges and so effective management actions are needed. However, management can be contentious and create conflicts, especially when stakeholders who benefit from alien species are different from those who incur costs. Such conflicts of interests mean that management strategies can often not be implemented. There is, therefore, increasing interest in engaging stakeholders affected by alien species or by their management. Through a facilitated workshop and consultation process including academics and managers working on a variety of organisms and in different areas (urban and rural) and ecosystems (terrestrial and aquatic), we developed a framework for engaging stakeholders in the management of alien species. The proposed framework for stakeholder engagement consists of 12 steps: (1) identify stakeholders; (2) select key stakeholders for engagement; (3) explore key stakeholders' perceptions and develop initial aims for management; (4) engage key stakeholders in the development of a draft management strategy; (5) re-explore key stakeholders' perceptions and revise the aims of the strategy; (6) co-design general aims, management objectives and time frames with key stakeholders; (7) co-design a management strategy; (8) facilitate stakeholders' ownership of the strategy and adapt as required; and (9) implement the strategy and monitor management actions to evaluate the need for additional or future actions. In case additional management is needed after these actions take place, some extra steps should be taken: (10) identify any new stakeholders, benefits, and costs; (11) monitor engagement; and (12) revise management strategy. Overall, we believe that our framework provides an effective approach to minimize the impact of conflicts created by alien species management