Standing genetic diversity and selection at functional gene loci are associated with differential invasion success in two non‐native fish species

Invasive species are expected to experience a unique combination of high genetic drift due to demographic factors while also experiencing strong selective pressures. The paradigm that reduced genetic diversity should limit the evolutionary potential of invasive species and thus their potential for range expansion has received little empirical support, possibly due to the choice of genetic markers. Our goal was to test for effects of genetic drift and selection at functional genetic markers as they relate to the invasion success of two paired invasive goby species, one widespread (successful) and one with limited range expansion (less successful). We genotyped fish using two marker types: single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in known-function, protein-coding genes and microsatellites to contrast the effects of neutral genetic processes. We identified reduced allelic variation in the invaded range for the less-successful tubenose goby. SNPs putatively under selection were responsible for the observed differences in population structure between marker types for round goby (successful) but not tubenose goby (less successful). A higher proportion of functional loci experienced divergent selection for round goby, suggesting increased evolutionary potential in invaded ranges may be associated with round goby’s greater invasion success. Genes involved in thermal tolerance were divergent for round goby populations but not tubenose goby, consistent with the hypothesis that invasion success for fish in temperate regions is influenced by capacity for thermal tolerance. Our results highlight the need to incorporate functional genetic markers in studies to better assess evolutionary potential for the improved conservation and management of species

Drivers of future alien species impacts: an expert‐based assessment

Understanding the likely future impacts of biological invasions is crucial yet highly challenging given the multiple relevant environmental, socio‐economic and societal contexts and drivers. In the absence of quantitative models, methods based on expert knowledge are the best option for assessing future invasion trajectories. Here, we present an expert assessment of the drivers of potential alien species impacts under contrasting scenarios and socioecological contexts through the mid‐21st century. Based on responses from 36 experts in biological invasions, moderate (20%–30%) increases in invasions, compared to the current conditions, are expected to cause major impacts on biodiversity in most socioecological contexts. Three main drivers of biological invasions—transport, climate change and socio‐economic change—were predicted to significantly affect future impacts of alien species on biodiversity even under a best‐case scenario. Other drivers (e.g. human demography and migration in tropical and subtropical regions) were also of high importance in specific global contexts (e.g. for individual taxonomic groups or biomes). We show that some best‐case scenarios can substantially reduce potential future impacts of biological invasions. However, rapid and comprehensive actions are necessary to use this potential and achieve the goals of the Post‐2020 Framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity

IPBES Invasive Alien Species Assessment: Chapter 1. Introducing biological invasions and the IPBES thematic assessment of invasive alien species and their control

Chapter 1: Introducing biological invasions and the IPBES thematic assessment of invasive alien species and their control of the Thematic Assessment Report on Invasive Alien Species and their Control of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

Tapping into non-English-language science for the conservation of global biodiversity.

The widely held assumption that any important scientific information would be available in English underlies the underuse of non-English-language science across disciplines. However, non-English-language science is expected to bring unique and valuable scientific information, especially in disciplines where the evidence is patchy, and for emergent issues where synthesising available evidence is an urgent challenge. Yet such contribution of non-English-language science to scientific communities and the application of science is rarely quantified. Here, we show that non-English-language studies provide crucial evidence for informing global biodiversity conservation. By screening 419,679 peer-reviewed papers in 16 languages, we identified 1,234 non-English-language studies providing evidence on the effectiveness of biodiversity conservation interventions, compared to 4,412 English-language studies identified with the same criteria. Relevant non-English-language studies are being published at an increasing rate in 6 out of the 12 languages where there were a sufficient number of relevant studies. Incorporating non-English-language studies can expand the geographical coverage (i.e., the number of 2° × 2° grid cells with relevant studies) of English-language evidence by 12% to 25%, especially in biodiverse regions, and taxonomic coverage (i.e., the number of species covered by the relevant studies) by 5% to 32%, although they do tend to be based on less robust study designs. Our results show that synthesising non-English-language studies is key to overcoming the widespread lack of local, context-dependent evidence and facilitating evidence-based conservation globally. We urge wider disciplines to rigorously reassess the untapped potential of non-English-language science in informing decisions to address other global challenges. Please see the Supporting information files for Alternative Language Abstracts

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

The elephant in the room: The role of failed invasions in understanding invasion biology.

Most species introductions are not expected to result in invasion, and species that are invasive in one area are frequently not invasive in others. However, cases of introduced organisms that failed to invade are reported in many instances as anecdotes or are simply ignored. In this analysis, we aimed to find common characteristics between non-invasive populations of known invasive species and evaluated how the study of failed invasions can contribute to research on biological invasions. We found intraspecific variation in invasion success and several recurring explanations for why non-native species fail to invade; these included low propagule pressure, abiotic resistance, biotic resistance, genetic constraints and mutualist release. Furthermore, we identified key research topics where ignoring failed invasions could produce misleading results; these include studies on historical factors associated with invasions, distribution models of invasive species, the effect of species traits on invasiveness, genetic effects, biotic resistance and habitat invasibility. In conclusion, we found failed invasions can provide fundamental information on the relative importance of factors determining invasions and might be a key component of several research topics. Therefore, our analysis suggests that more specific and detailed studies on invasion failures are necessary.Fil: Zenni, Rafael D.. University of Tennessee; Estados UnidosFil: Nuñez, Martin Andres. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte. Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente. Universidad Nacional del Comahue. Centro Regional Universidad Bariloche. Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente; Argentina. University of Tennessee; Estados Unido

Making ecology really global

Ecology must flourish globally, especially in a period of unprecedented anthropogenic global change. However, some regions dominate the ecological literature. Multiple barriers prevent global production and exchange of ecological knowledge. The first step towards solutions is acknowledging and diagnosing this inequality and embracing our geographical and cultural diversity.Fil: Nuñez, Martin Andres. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte. Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente. Universidad Nacional del Comahue. Centro Regional Universidad Bariloche. Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente; Argentina. University of Houston; Estados UnidosFil: Chiuffo, Mariana Cecilia. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte. Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente. Universidad Nacional del Comahue. Centro Regional Universidad Bariloche. Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente; ArgentinaFil: Pauchard, Aníbal. Universidad de Concepción; Chile. Instituto de Ecología y Biodiversidad; ChileFil: Zenni, Rafael D.. Universidad Federal de Lavras; Brasi

Invasion Science in the Developing World: A Response to Ricciardi et al.

In the publication ‘Invasion Science: A Horizon Scan of Emerging Challenges and Opportunities’ [ 1], Ricciardi et al. ‘identified emerging scientific, technological, and sociopolitical issues likely to affect how biological invasions are studied and managed over the next two decades’. We agree with many of the points raised by the horizon scan. However, the authors stated that ‘most developing countries have limited capacity to respond to invasions and can act as hubs to spread species into developed regions’. We found this assertion worrisome because the authors make an opinionated statement that may not reflect reality and can have negative implications in attributing the spread of invasive species uniquely to developing countries. We therefore want to present some perspectives of developing countries on invasion science to shed light on the authors’ statement [ 1] and clarify potential misconceptions.Fil: Zenni, Rafael D.. Universidade Federal de Lavras; BrasilFil: Ziller, Sílvia R.. The Horus Institute for Environmental Conservation and Development; BrasilFil: Pauchard, Anibal. Universidad de Concepción; ChileFil: Rodriguez Cabal, Mariano Alberto. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte. Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente. Universidad Nacional del Comahue. Centro Regional Universidad Bariloche. Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente; ArgentinaFil: Nuñez, Martin Andres. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte. Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente. Universidad Nacional del Comahue. Centro Regional Universidad Bariloche. Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente; Argentin