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

Reconciling the biogeography of an invader through recent and historic genetic patterns: the case of topmouth gudgeon Pseudorasbora parva

© 2018 The Author(s) The genetic variability and population structure of introduced species in their native range are potentially important determinants of their invasion success, yet data on native populations are often poorly represented in relevant studies. Consequently, to determine the contribution of genetic structuring in the native range of topmouth gudgeon Pseudorasbora parva to their high invasion success in Europe, we used a dataset comprising of 19 native and 11 non-native populations. A total of 666 samples were analysed at 9 polymorphic microsatellite loci and sequenced for 597 bp of mitochondrial DNA. The analysis revealed three distinct lineages in the native range, of which two haplogroups were prevalent in China (100%), with a general split around the Qinling Mountains. Dating of both haplogroups closely matched past geological events. More recently, its distribution has been influenced by fish movements in aquaculture, resulting in gene flow between previously separated populations in Northern and Southern China. Their phylogeography in Europe indicate as few as two introductions events and two dispersal routes. Microsatellite data revealed native populations had higher genetic diversity than those in the invasive range, a contrast to previous studies on P. parva. This study confirms the importance of extensive sampling in both the native and non-native range of invasive species in evaluating the influence of genetic variability on invasion success

Does public awareness increase support for invasive species management?:Promising evidence across taxa and landscape types

Management of invasive species often raises substantial conflicts of interest. Since such conflicts can hamper proposed management actions, managers, decision makers and researchers increasingly recognize the need to consider the social dimensions of invasive species management. In this exploratory study, we aimed (1) to explore whether species’ taxonomic position (i.e. animals vs. plants) and type of invaded landscape (i.e. urban vs. nonurban) might influence public perception about the management of invasive species, and (2) to assess the potential of public awareness to increase public support for invasive species management. We reviewed the scientific literature on the conflicts of interest around the management of alien species and administered two-phased questionnaires (before and after providing information on the target species and its management) to members of the public in South Africa and the UK (n = 240). Our review suggests that lack of public support for the management of invasive animals in both urban and non-urban areas derives mainly from moralistic value disagreements, while the management of invasive plants in non-urban areas mostly causes conflicts based on utilitarian value disagreements. Despite these general trends, conflicts are context dependent and can originate from a wide variety of different views. Notably, informing the public about the invasive status and negative impacts of the species targeted for management appeared to increase public support for the management actions. Therefore, our results align with the view that increased public awareness might increase the public support for the management of invasive species, independent of taxonomic position and type of landscape

Listeria monocytogenes Internalin B Activates Junctional Endocytosis to Accelerate Intestinal Invasion

Listeria monocytogenes (Lm) uses InlA to invade the tips of the intestinal villi, a location at which cell extrusion generates a transient defect in epithelial polarity that exposes the receptor for InlA, E-cadherin, on the cell surface. As the dying cell is removed from the epithelium, the surrounding cells reorganize to form a multicellular junction (MCJ) that Lm exploits to find its basolateral receptor and invade. By examining individual infected villi using 3D-confocal imaging, we uncovered a novel role for the second major invasin, InlB, during invasion of the intestine. We infected mice intragastrically with isogenic strains of Lm that express or lack InlB and that have a modified InlA capable of binding murine E-cadherin and found that Lm lacking InlB invade the same number of villi but have decreased numbers of bacteria within each infected villus tip. We studied the mechanism of InlB action at the MCJs of polarized MDCK monolayers and find that InlB does not act as an adhesin, but instead accelerates bacterial internalization after attachment. InlB locally activates its receptor, c-Met, and increases endocytosis of junctional components, including E-cadherin. We show that MCJs are naturally more endocytic than other sites of the apical membrane, that endocytosis and Lm invasion of MCJs depends on functional dynamin, and that c-Met activation by soluble InlB or hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) increases MCJ endocytosis. Also, in vivo, InlB applied through the intestinal lumen increases endocytosis at the villus tips. Our findings demonstrate a two-step mechanism of synergy between Lm's invasins: InlA provides the specificity of Lm adhesion to MCJs at the villus tips and InlB locally activates c-Met to accelerate junctional endocytosis and bacterial invasion of the intestine

The extent and effectiveness of alien plant control projects in South Africa

CITATION: van Wilgen, B.W. et al. 2020. The extent and effectiveness of alien plant control projects in South Africa. In: Biological Invasions in South Africa. van Wilgen, B.W., Measey, J., Richardson, D.M., Wilson, J.R. and Zengeya, T.A. (eds.). Springer, Cham:597-628. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-32394-3_21The original publication is available at https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-32394-3Studies of the impact of alien species on the environment are increasingly being carried out, and there has been ongoing debate about how to standardise the description of these impacts. This chapter evaluates the state of knowledge on the impacts of alien species on biodiversity in South Africa based on different assessment methods. Despite South Africa being one of the most biologically diverse countries in the world, there have been very few studies that formally document the impacts of alien species on biodiversity. Most of what is known is based on expert opinion, and consequently the level of confidence in the estimates of the magnitude of these impacts is low. However, it is clear that a significant number of alien species cause major negative impacts, and that there is cause for serious concern. There is a growing global effort to assess all alien species with standardised protocols to alleviate the problem of comparing impacts measured using different approaches. Formal assessments have been done for a few alien species in South Africa, but most naturalised and invasive species have not been evaluated, and, we suspect, for most alien species there has been no attempt, as yet, to document their impacts. However, red-listing processes found that alien species were frequently included as a significant extinction risk for several native species of fish, amphibians, and plants. There are very few studies that cover the combined impacts of co-occurring alien species in particular areas, and these studies could provide the rationale for regulation and management, which is often absent. While reductions due to alien species in the value of ecosystem services, the productivity of rangelands, and biodiversity intactness are relatively low at present these impacts are expected to grow rapidly as more invasive species enter a stage of exponential growth.https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-030-32394-3_21Publisher’s versio