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

Water diversions facilitate spread of non-native species

Many countries/areas are experiencing or may soon experience water scarcity owing to rapid population growth, urbanization and/or climate change. Currently, almost one-fifth of the world’s population (1.2 billion) live in areas of physical water scarcity. Water diversions have become a commonplace solution proposed by governments for alleviation of physical water scarcity. Thus far, more than 80 major projects are completed or under construction globally, including the world’s largest diversion: South-to-North Water Transfer Project (SNWTP) in China. Negative effects associated with water diversions, such as habitat loss and transfer of pollutants, have been recognized. However, it has been largely overlooked that “invasion highways” are created when water diversions link biogeographic regions. These “invasion highways” can facilitate spread of an array of non-native species. Although previous experiences have provided clear warnings regarding spread of non-native invasive species through artificial waterways, these lessons have been largely ignored by governments when resolving water scarcity problems. Here we use SNWTP, which will likely facilitate spread of invasive golden mussels, as well as many known examples of non-native invasive species spread through artificial waterways in other water systems, to call on governments to formally establish policy and seek management solutions to considering spread of non-native species when planning water diversions