Biological invasions negatively impact global protected areas

Carneiro, L., Miiller, N. O. R., Cuthbert, R. N., & Vitule, J. R. S. (2024). Science of The Total Environment, 174823.

Abstract: Protected areas underpin global biodiversity conservation and sustainability agendas. Biological invasions increasingly threaten the ecological functioning and long-term conservation value of protected areas, while a lack of information on impact impedes management decisions. We collated data from effects of biological invasions in protected areas to provide the first quantitative analysis of their global impacts. Based on 300 reported effects from 44 invasive species, we show that there are overall negative impacts from invasive species on both biotic and abiotic characteristics of protected areas globally. Impacts were pervasive across population, community, and ecosystem scales, and for the vast majority of invasive taxa with sufficient data. Negative impacts have been incurred around the world, with National Parks and World Heritage Sites in the Neartic and Neotropical regions the most studied. Notwithstanding context-dependencies and uneven research efforts, the recurrent negative impacts of invasive species indicate that current efforts are insufficient to curb current stressors and meet conservation and sustainability targets on land and in water. To address the risk of biological invasions in protected areas, it is imperative to prioritise fundamental research on ecological interactions, establish robust monitoring and prevention programs, and raise awareness through global initiatives.

Benefits do not balance costs of biological invasions

Carneiro, L., Hulme, P.E., Cuthbert, R.N., Kourantidou, M., Bang, A., Haubrock, P.J., Bradshaw, C.J.A., Balzani, P., Bacher, S., Latombe, G., Bodey, T.W., Probert, A.F., Quilodrán, C.S., Courchamp, F., 2024. BioScience 74, 340–344.

Abstract: Biological invasions have profound impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning and services, resulting in substantial economic and health costs estimated in the trillions of dollars. Preventing and managing biological invasions are vital for sustainable development, aligning with the goals of the United Nations Biodiversity Conference. However, some invasive species also offer occasional benefits, leading to divergent perceptions among stakeholders and sectors. Claims that invasion science overlooks positive contributions threaten to hinder proper impact assessment and undermine management. Quantitatively balancing benefits and costs is misleading, because they coexist without offsetting each other. Any benefits also come at a price, affecting communities and regions differently over time. An integrated approach considering both costs and benefits is necessary for understanding and effective management of biological invasions.

[Divergent temporal responses of native macroinvertebrate communities to biological invasions]

Soto, I., Macedo, R., Carneiro, L., Briski, E., Cuthbert, R., Haubrok, P. (2024). Global Change Biology (in press).

A systematic review of invasive non‐native freshwater bivalves

Prestes, J. G., Carneiro, L., Miiller, N. O. R., Neundorf, A. K. A., Pedroso, C. R., Braga, R. R., … & Vitule, J. R. S. (2024).Biological Reviews.

Abstract: The introduction of invasive species has become an increasing environmental problem in freshwater ecosystems due to the high economic and ecological impacts it has generated. This systematic review covers publications from 2010 to 2020, focusing on non-native invasive freshwater bivalves, a particularly relevant and widespread introduced taxonomic group in fresh waters. We collected information on the most studied species, the main objectives of the studies, their geographical location, study duration, and type of research. Furthermore, we focused on assessing the levels of ecological evidence presented, the type of interactions of non-native bivalves with other organisms and the classification of their impacts. A total of 397 publications were retrieved. The studies addressed a total of 17 species of non-native freshwater bivalves; however, most publications focused on the species Corbicula fluminea and Dreissena polymorpha, which are recognised for their widespread distribution and extensive negative impacts. Many other non-native invasive bivalve species have been poorly studied. A high geographical bias was also present, with a considerable lack of studies in developing countries. The most frequent studies had shorter temporal periods, smaller spatial extents, and more observational data, were field-based, and usually evaluated possible ecological impacts at the individual and population levels. There were 94 publications documenting discernible impacts according to the Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT). However, 41 of these publications did not provide sufficient data to determine an impact. The most common effects of invasive bivalves on ecosystems were structural alterations, and chemical and physical changes, which are anticipated due to their role as ecosystem engineers. Despite a considerable number of studies in the field and advances in our understanding of some species over the past decade, long-term data and large-scale studies are still needed to understand better the impacts, particularly at the community and ecosystem levels and in less-studied geographic regions. The widespread distribution of several non-native freshwater bivalves, their ongoing introductions, and high ecological and economic impacts demand continued research. Systematic reviews such as this are essential for identifying knowledge gaps and guiding future research to enable a more complete understanding of the ecological implications of invasive bivalves, and the development of effective management strategies.

Taming the terminological tempest in invasion science

Soto, I., Balzani, P., Carneiro, L., Cuthbert, R. N., Macêdo, R., Serhan Tarkan, A., … & Haubrock, P. J. (2024). Biological Reviews.

Abstract: 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.

Advancing our understanding of biological invasions with long-term biomonitoring data

Haubrock, P. J., Carneiro, L., Macêdo, R. L., Balzani, P., Soto, I., Rasmussen, J. J., … & Ahmed, D. A. (2023). Advancing our understanding of biological invasions with long-term biomonitoring data. Biological Invasions, 1-13.

Abstract: The use of long-term datasets is crucial in ecology because it provides a comprehensive understanding of natural fluctuations, changes in ecosystems over extended periods of time, and robust comparisons across geographical scales. This information is critical in detecting and analysing trends and patterns in species populations, community dynamics, and ecosystem functioning, which in turn helps in predicting future changes and impacts of human activities. Additionally, long-term data sets allow for the evaluation of the effectiveness of conservation efforts and management strategies, enabling scientists and decision makers to make evidence-based decisions for biodiversity conservation. Although the use of long-term data is recognized as highly important in several scientific disciplines, its usage remains undervalued regarding questions in invasion science. Here, we used four regional subsets (i.e. England, Hungary, Denmark and the Dutch-German-Luxembourg) of a recently collated long-term time series database to investigate the abundance and dynamics of occurring non-native species over space and time in Europe. While we found differences in the numbers of non-native species across the studied regions (Dutch-German-Luxembourg region = 37; England = 17, Hungary = 34; Denmark = 3), non-native species detection rates were continuous over time. Our results further show that long-term monitoring efforts at large spatial scales can substantially increase the accuracy and rate at which non-native species are detected. This information can inform management endeavours dealing with non-native species, underlining the need for invasion scientists and authorities-stakeholders to make more effort in collecting, analysing and making available long-term datasets at broader geographic ranges.

Full text here: Biological Invasions

Invasive species policy in Brazil: a review and critical analysis

Faria, L., de Carvalho, B. M., Carneiro, L., Miiller, N. O. R., Pedroso, C. R., Occhi, T. V. T., … & Vitule, J. R. S. (2022). Invasive species policy in Brazil: a review and critical analysis. Environmental Conservation, 1-6.

Abstract: Biological invasions represent one of the main threats to biodiversity and a recognized economic burden worldwide; the issue has been included in the conservation agenda such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Brazil is a signatory country of the CBD; however, the number of alien species records in its territory is continuously rising. To evaluate the invasive alien species (IAS) policy in Brazil, we reviewed the legislation delineating historical trends to identify potential gaps and avenues for improvement. We consulted several websites using keywords related to invasions in order to track legal instruments such as laws, decrees and regulations. We classified the documents regarding their main aims with regard to IAS, taxon and environment of interest. We found 85 legal instruments in force related to IAS published in the federal sphere up to October 2021, with decrees being the most common type. Most documents were classified as ‘control’ and ‘prevention’ and were related to all taxa and environments. Two species (wild boar Sus scrofa and golden mussel Limnoperna fortunei) have more specific legislation, probably due to their conspicuous economic impacts. We discuss policy gaps and their implications for the efficient management and prevention of new IAS introductions to the country.

Request the full text here: ResearchGate

Brazilian pesticides law could poison the world

Carneiro, L., Faria, L., Miiller, N., Cavalcante, A., Murata, A., & Vitule, J. R. S. (2022). Brazilian pesticides law could poison the world. Science, 376(6591), 362-362.

Request the full text here: ResearchGate