SUNScholar - Browsing by Author "Kumschick, Sabrina"

Browsing by Author "Kumschick, Sabrina"

Now showing 1 - 20 of 30

Appropriate uses of EICAT protocol, data and classifications
(Pensoft, 2020) Kumschick, Sabrina; Bacher, Sven; Bertolino, Sandro; Blackburn, Tim M.; Evans, Thomas; Roy, Helen E.; Smith, Kevin
The Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT) can be used to classify alien taxa according to the magnitude and type of their environmental impacts. The EICAT protocol, classifications of alien taxa using the protocol (EICAT classification) and the data underpinning classifications (EICAT data) are increasingly used by scientists and practitioners such as governments, NGOs and civil society for a variety of purposes. However, the properties of the EICAT protocol and the data it generates are not suitable for certain uses. Therefore, we present guidelines designed to clarify and facilitate the appropriate use of EICAT to tackle a broad range of conservation issues related to biological invasions, as well as to guide research and communication more generally. Here we address common misconceptions and give a brief overview of some key issues that all EICAT users need to be aware of to take maximal advantage of this resource. Furthermore, we give examples of the wide variety of ways in which the EICAT protocol, classifications and data can be and have been utilised and outline common errors and pitfalls to avoid.
Comparing determinants of alien bird impacts across two continents : implications for risk assessment and management
(John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2014-06-22) Evans, Thomas; Kumschick, Sabrina; Dyer, Ellie; Blackburn, Tim
Invasive alien species can have serious adverse impacts on both the environment and the economy. Being able to predict the impacts of an alien species could assist in preventing or reducing these impacts. This study aimed to establish whether there are any life history traits consistently correlated with the impacts of alien birds across two continents, Europe and Australia, as a first step toward identifying life history traits that may have the potential to be adopted as predictors of alien bird impacts. A recently established impact scoring system was used in combination with a literature review to allocate impact scores to alien bird species with self-sustaining populations in Australia. These scores were then tested for correlation with a series of life history traits. The results were compared to data from a previous study in Europe, undertaken using the same methodology, in order to establish whether there are any life history traits consistently correlated with impact across both continents. Habitat generalism was the only life history trait found to be consistently correlated with impact in both Europe and Australia. This trait shows promise as a potential predictor of alien bird impacts. The results support the findings of previous studies in this field, and could be used to inform decisions regarding the prevention and management of future invasions.
Comparing the IUCN’s EICAT and Red List to improve assessments of the impact of biological invasions
(Pensoft, 2020) Van der Colff, Dewidine; Kumschick, Sabrina; Foden, Wendy; Wilson, John R. U.
The IUCN recommends the use of two distinct schemes to assess the impacts of biological invasions on biodiversity at the species level. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Red List) categorises native species based on their risk of extinction. Such assessments evaluate the extent to which different pressures, including alien species, threaten native species. The much newer IUCN Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT) categorises alien species on the degree to which they have impacted native species. Conceptually, the schemes are related. One would expect that: 1) if a native species is assessed as threatened under the Red List due to the impacts of alien species, then at least one alien species involved should be classified as harmful under EICAT; and 2) if an alien species is assessed as harmful under EICAT, then at least one native species impacted should be assessed as threatened by alien species under the Red List. Here we test this by comparing the impacts of alien gastropods, assessed using EICAT, to the impact on native species as assessed based on the Red List. We found a weak positive correlation, but it is clear there is not a simple one-to-one relationship. We hypothesise that the relationship between EICAT and the Red List statuses will follow one of three forms: i) the EICAT status of an alien species is closely correlated to the Red List status of the impacted native species; ii) the alien species is classed as ‘harmful’ under EICAT, but it does not threaten the native species with extinction as per the Red List (for example, the impacted native species is still widespread or abundant despite significant negative impacts from the alien species); or iii) the native species is classified as threatened under the Red List regardless of the impacts of the alien species (threatened species are impacted by other pressures with alien species potentially a passenger and not a driver of change). We conclude that the two schemes are complementary rather than equivalent, and provide some recommendations for how categorisations and data can be used in concert.
A conceptual map of invasion biology : integrating hypotheses into a consensus network
(Wiley, 2020-03-25) Enders, Martin; Havemann, Frank; Ruland, Florian; Bernard-Verdier, Maud; Catford, Jane A.; Gomez-Aparicio, Lorena; Haider, Sylvia; Heger, Tina; Kueffer, Christoph; Kuh, Ingolf; Meyerson, Laura A.; Musseau, Camille; Novoa, Ana; Ricciardi, Anthony; Sagouis, Alban; Schittko, Conrad; Strayer, David L.; Vilà, Montserrat; Essl, Franz; Hulme, Philip E.; Van Kleunen, Mark; Kumschick, Sabrina; Lockwood, Julie L.; Mabey, Abigail L.; McGeoch, Melodie A.; Estibaliz, Palma; Pysek, Petr; Saul, Wolf-Christian; Yannelli, Florencia A.; Jeschke, Jonathan M.
Background and aims: Since its emergence in the mid-20th century, invasion biology has matured into a productive research field addressing questions of fundamental and applied importance. Not only has the number of empirical studies increased through time, but also has the number of competing, overlapping and, in some cases, contradictory hypotheses about biological invasions. To make these contradictions and redundancies explicit, and to gain insight into the field’s current theoretical structure, we developed and applied a Delphi approach to create a consensus network of 39 existing invasion hypotheses. Results: The resulting network was analysed with a link-clustering algorithm that revealed five concept clusters (resource availability, biotic interaction, propagule, trait and Darwin’s clusters) representing complementary areas in the theory of invasion biology. The network also displays hypotheses that link two or more clusters, called connecting hypotheses, which are important in determining network structure. The network indicates hypotheses that are logically linked either positively (77 connections of support) or negatively (that is, they contradict each other; 6 connections). Significance: The network visually synthesizes how invasion biology’s predominant hypotheses are conceptually related to each other, and thus, reveals an emergent structure – a conceptual map – that can serve as a navigation tool for scholars, practitioners and students, both inside and outside of the field of invasion biology, and guide the development of a more coherent foundation of theory. Additionally, the outlined approach can be more widely applied to create a conceptual map for the larger fields of ecology and biogeography.
Defining the impact of non-native species
(Wiley, 2014) Jeschke, Jonathan M.; Bacher, Sven; Blackburn, Tim M.; Dick, Jaimie T. A.; Essl, Franz; Evans, Thomas; Gaertner, Mirijam; Hulme, Philip E.; Kühn, Ingolf; Mrugala, Agata; Pergl, Jan; Pysek, Petr; Rabitsch, Wolfgang; Ricciardi, Anthony; Richardson, David M.; Sendek, Agnieszka; Vila, Montserrat; Winter, Marten; Kumschick, Sabrina
Non-native species cause changes in the ecosystems to which they are introduced. These changes, or some of them, are usually termed impacts; they can be manifold and potentially damaging to ecosystems and biodiversity. However, the impacts of most non-native species are poorly understood, and a synthesis of available information is being hindered because authors often do not clearly define impact. We argue that explicitly defining the impact of non-native species will promote progress toward a better understanding of the implications of changes to biodiversity and ecosystems caused by non-native species; help disentangle which aspects of scientific debates about non-native species are due to disparate definitions and which represent true scientific discord; and improve communication between scientists from different research disciplines and between scientists, managers, and policy makers. For these reasons and based on examples from the literature, we devised seven key questions that fall into 4 categories: directionality, classification and measurement, ecological or socio-economic changes, and scale. These questions should help in formulating clear and practical definitions of impact to suit specific scientific, stakeholder, or legislative contexts.
Emerging infectious diseases and biological invasions : a call for a One Health collaboration in science and management
(Royal Society, 2019) Ogden, Nick H.; Wilson, John R. U.; Richardson, David M.; Hui, Cang; Davies, Sarah J.; Kumschick, Sabrina; Le Roux, Johannes J.; Measey, John; Saul, Wolf-Christian; Pulliam, Juliet R. C.
The study and management of emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) and of biological invasions both address the ecology of human-associated biological phenomena in a rapidly changing world. However, the two fields work mostly in parallel rather than in concert. This review explores how the general phenomenon of an organism rapidly increasing in range or abundance is caused, highlights the similarities and differences between research on EIDs and invasions, and discusses shared management insights and approaches. EIDs can arise by: (i) crossing geographical barriers due to human-mediated dispersal, (ii) crossing compatibility barriers due to evolution, and (iii) lifting of environmental barriers due to environmental change. All these processes can be implicated in biological invasions, but only the first defines them. Research on EIDs is embedded within the One Health concept—the notion that human, animal and ecosystem health are interrelated and that holistic approaches encompassing all three components are needed to respond to threats to human well-being. We argue that for sustainable development, biological invasions should be explicitly considered within One Health. Management goals for the fields are the same, and direct collaborations between invasion scientists, disease ecologists and epidemiologists on modelling, risk assessment, monitoring and management would be mutually beneficial.
Framework and guidelines for implementing the proposed IUCN Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT)
(Wiley, 2015) Hawkins, Charlotte L.; Bacher, Sven; Essl, Franz; Hulme, Philip E.; Jeschke, Jonathan M.; Kuhn, Ingolf; Kumschick, Sabrina; Nentwig, Wolfgang; Pergl, Jan; Pysek, Petr; Rabitsch, Wolfgang; Richardson, David M.; Vila, Montserrat; Wilson, John R. U.; Genovesi, Piero; Blackburn, Tim M.
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.
A framework to support alien species regulation : the Risk Analysis for Alien Taxa (RAAT)
(2020) Kumschick, Sabrina; Wilson, John R. U.; Foxcroft, Llewellyn C.
Alien species are introduced to new regions in many different ways and for different purposes. A number of frameworks have been developed to group such pathways of introduction into discrete categories in order to improve our understanding of biological invasions, provide information for interventions that aim to prevent introductions, enable reporting to national and international organisations and facilitate the prediction of threats. The introduction pathway classification framework proposed by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) as a global standard is comprised of six main categories and 44 sub-categories. However, issues have arisen with its implementation. In this position paper, we outline five desirable properties of an introduction pathway classification framework – it should be compatible (i.e. the level of detail of the categories is similar to that of the available data), actionable (i.e. categories link to specific interventions), general (i.e. categories are applicable across the contexts that are of interest (e.g. taxa, habitats and regions)), equivalent (i.e. categories are equivalent in their level of detail) and distinct (i.e. categories are discrete and easily distinguished) – termed the CAGED properties. The six main categories of the CBD framework have all of the CAGED properties, but the detailed sub-categories have few. Therefore, while the framework has been proposed by the CBD as a global standard and efforts have been made to put it into practice, we argue that there is room for improvement. We conclude by presenting scenarios for how the issues identified could be addressed, noting that a hybrid model might be most appropriate.
Frameworks used in invasion science : progress and prospects
(Pensoft, 2020) Wilson, John R. U.; Bacher, Sven; Daehler, Curtis C.; Groom, Quentin J.; Kumschick, Sabrina; Lockwood, Julie L.; Robinson, Tamara B.; Zengeya, Tsungai A.; Richardson, David M.
Our understanding and management of biological invasions relies on our ability to classify and conceptualise the phenomenon. This need has stimulated the development of a plethora of frameworks, ranging in nature from conceptual to applied. However, most of these frameworks have not been widely tested and their general applicability is unknown. In order to critically evaluate frameworks in invasion science, we held a workshop on ‘Frameworks used in Invasion Science’ hosted by the DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology in Stellenbosch, South Africa, in November 2019, which led to this special issue. For the purpose of the workshop we defined a framework as “a way of organising things that can be easily communicated to allow for shared understanding or that can be implemented to allow for generalisations useful for research, policy or management”. Further, we developed the Stellenbosch Challenge for Invasion Science: “Can invasion science develop and improve frameworks that are useful for research, policy or management, and that are clear as to the contexts in which the frameworks do and do not apply?”. Particular considerations identified among meeting participants included the need to identify the limitations of a framework, specify how frameworks link to each other and broader issues, and to improve how frameworks can facilitate communication. We believe that the 24 papers in this special issue do much to meet this challenge. The papers apply existing frameworks to new data and contexts, review how the frameworks have been adopted and used, develop useable protocols and guidelines for applying frameworks to different contexts, refine the frameworks in light of experience, integrate frameworks for new purposes, identify gaps, and develop new frameworks to address issues that are currently not adequately dealt with. Frameworks in invasion science must continue to be developed, tested as broadly as possible, revised, and retired as contexts and needs change. However, frameworks dealing with pathways of introduction, progress along the introduction-naturalisation-invasion continuum, and the assessment of impacts are being increasingly formalised and set as standards. This, we argue, is an important step as invasion science starts to mature as a discipline.
Gastropods alien to South Africa cause severe environmental harm in their global alien ranges across habitats
(Wiley Open Access, 2018) Kesner, David; Kumschick, Sabrina
Alien gastropods have caused extensive harm to biodiversity and socioeconomic systems like agriculture and horticulture worldwide. For conservation and management purposes, information on impacts needs to be easily interpretable and comparable, and the factors that determine impacts understood. This study aimed to assess gastropods alien to South Africa to compare impact severity between species and understand how they vary between habitats and mechanisms. Furthermore, we explore the relationship between environmental and socioeconomic impacts, and both impact measures with life‐history traits. We used the Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT) and Socio‐Economic Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (SEICAT) to assess impacts of 34 gastropods alien to South Africa including evidence of impact from their entire alien range. We tested for correlations between environmental and socioeconomic impacts per species, and with fecundity and native latitude range using Kendall's tau tests. Kruskal–Wallis tests were used to compare impact magnitude among mechanisms and habitats, respectively. This study presents the first application of EICAT and SEICAT for invertebrates. There was no correlation between environmental impacts and socioeconomic impacts. Habitats did not differ regarding the severity of impacts recorded, but impacts via disease transmission were lower than other mechanisms. Neither fecundity nor native range latitude was correlated with impact magnitude. Despite gastropods being agricultural and horticultural pests globally, resilience of socioeconomic systems makes high impacts uncommon. Environmental systems may be vulnerable to gastropod impacts across habitats, having experienced multiple local extinctions of wetland island snail fauna. South Africa stands out as the only continental country that follows this trend. The knowledge gained on severity and nature of gastropod impacts is useful in risk assessment, which can aid conservation management. To make impact assessments more realistic, we suggest alternative ways of reporting impacts classified under EICAT and SEICAT.
Global actions for managing cactus invasions
(MDPI, 2019-10-16) Novoa, Ana; Brundu, Giuseppe; Day, Michael D.; Deltoro, Vicente; Essl, Franz; Foxcroft, Llewellyn C.; Fried, Guillaume; Kaplan, Haylee; Kumschick, Sabrina; Lloyd, Sandy; Marchante, Elizabete; Marchante, Helia; Paterson, Iain D.; Pysek, Petr; Richardson, David M.; Witt, Arne; Zimmermann, Helmuth G.; Wilson, John R. U.
The family Cactaceae Juss. contains some of the most widespread and damaging invasive alien plant species in the world, with Australia (39 species), South Africa (35) and Spain (24) being the main hotspots of invasion. The Global Cactus Working Group (IOBC GCWG) was launched in 2015 to improve international collaboration and identify key actions that can be taken to limit the impacts caused by cactus invasions worldwide. Based on the results of an on-line survey, information collated from a review of the scientific and grey literature, expertise of the authors, and because invasiveness appears to vary predictably across the family, we (the IOBC GCWG): (1) recommend that invasive and potentially invasive cacti are regulated, and to assist with this, propose five risk categories; (2) recommend that cactus invasions are treated physically or chemically before they become widespread; (3) advocate the use of biological control to manage widespread invasive species; and (4) encourage the development of public awareness and engagement initiatives to integrate all available knowledge and perspectives in the development and implementation of management actions, and address conflicts of interest, especially with the agricultural and ornamental sectors. Implementing these recommendations will require global co-operation. The IOBC GCWG aims to assist with this process through the dissemination of information and experience.
Global environmental and socio-economic impacts of selected alien grasses as a basis for ranking threats to South Africa
(Pensoft Publishers, 2018-12-21) Nkuna, Khensani V.; Visser, Vernon; Wilson, John R. U.; Kumschick, Sabrina
ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Decisions to allocate management resources should be underpinned by estimates of the impacts of biological invasions that are comparable across species and locations. For the same reason, it is important to assess what type of impacts are likely to occur where, and if such patterns can be generalised. In this paper, we aim to understand factors shaping patterns in the type and magnitude of impacts of a subset of alien grasses. We used the Generic Impact Scoring System (GISS) to review and quantify published impact records of 58 grass species that are alien to South Africa and to at least one other biogeographical realm. Based on the GISS scores, we investigated how impact magnitudes varied across habitats, regions and impact mechanisms using multiple regression. We found impact records for 48 species. Cortaderia selloana had the highest overall impact score, although in contrast to five other species (Glyceria maxima, Nassella trichotoma, Phalaris aquatica, Polypogon monspeliensis, and Sorghum halepense) it did not score the highest possible impact score for any specific impact mechanism. Consistent with other studies, we found that the most frequent environmental impact was through competition with native plant species (with 75% of cases). Socio-economic impacts were recorded more often and tended to be greater in magnitude than environmental impacts, with impacts recorded particularly often on agricultural and animal production (57% and 51% of cases respectively). There was variation across different regions and habitats in impact magnitude, but the differences were not statistically significant. In conclusion, alien grasses present in South Africa have caused a wide range of negative impacts across most habitats and regions of the world. Reviewing impacts from around the world has provided important information for the management of alien grasses in South Africa, and, we believe, is an important component of management prioritisation processes in general.
Grasses as invasive plants in South Africa revisited : patterns, pathways and management
(AOSIS Publishing, 2017) Visser, Vernon; Wilson, John R. U.; Canavan, Kim; Canavan, Susan; Fish, Lyn; Le Maitre, David; Nänni, Ingrid; Mashau, Caroline; O’Connor, Tim; Ivey, Philip; Kumschick, Sabrina; Richardson, David M.
Background: In many countries around the world, the most damaging invasive plant species are grasses. However, the status of grass invasions in South Africa has not been documented recently. Objectives: To update Sue Milton’s 2004 review of grasses as invasive alien plants in South Africa, provide the first detailed species level inventory of alien grasses in South Africa and assess the invasion dynamics and management of the group. Method: We compiled the most comprehensive inventory of alien grasses in South Africa to date using recorded occurrences of alien grasses in the country from various literature and database sources. Using historical literature, we reviewed past efforts to introduce alien grasses into South Africa. We sourced information on the origins, uses, distributions and minimum residence times to investigate pathways and patterns of spatial extent. We identified alien grasses in South Africa that are having environmental and economic impacts and determined whether management options have been identified, and legislation created, for these species. Results: There are at least 256 alien grass species in the country, 37 of which have become invasive. Alien grass species richness increased most dramatically from the late 1800s to about 1940. Alien grass species that are not naturalised or invasive have much shorter residence times than those that have naturalised or become invasive. Most grasses were probably introduced for forage purposes, and a large number of alien grass species were trialled at pasture research stations. A large number of alien grass species in South Africa are of Eurasian origin, although more recent introductions include species from elsewhere in Africa and from Australasia. Alien grasses are most prevalent in the south-west of the country, and the Fynbos Biome has the most alien grasses and the most widespread species. We identified 11 species that have recorded environmental and economic impacts in the country. Few alien grasses have prescribed or researched management techniques. Moreover, current legislation neither adequately covers invasive species nor reflects the impacts and geographical extent of these species. Conclusion: South Africa has few invasive grass species, but there is much uncertainty regarding the identity, numbers of species, distributions, abundances and impacts of alien grasses. Although introductions of alien grasses have declined in recent decades, South Africa has a potentially large invasion debt. This highlights the need for continued monitoring and much greater investment in alien grass management, research and legislation.
How repeatable is the Environmental Impact Classification of Alien Taxa (EICAT)? Comparing independent global impact assessments of amphibians
(Wiley Open Access, 2017) Kumschick, Sabrina; Measey, G. John; Vimercati, Giovanni; De Villiers, F. Andre; Mokhatla, Mohlamatsane M.; Davies, Sarah J.; Thorp, Corey J.; Rebelo, Alexander D.; Blackburn, Tim M.; Kraus, Fred
The magnitude of impacts some alien species cause to native environments makes them targets for regulation and management. However, which species to target is not always clear, and comparisons of a wide variety of impacts are necessary. Impact scoring systems can aid management prioritization of alien species. For such tools to be objective, they need to be robust to assessor bias. Here, we assess the newly proposed Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT) used for amphibians and test how outcomes differ between assessors. Two independent assessments were made by Kraus (Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics, 46, 2015, 75-97) and Kumschick et al. (Neobiota, 33, 2017, 53-66), including independent literature searches for impact records. Most of the differences between these two classifications can be attributed to different literature search strategies used with only one-third of the combined number of references shared between both studies. For the commonly assessed species, the classification of maximum impacts for most species is similar between assessors, but there are differences in the more detailed assessments. We clarify one specific issue resulting from different interpretations of EICAT, namely the practical interpretation and assigning of disease impacts in the absence of direct evidence of transmission from alien to native species. The differences between assessments outlined here cannot be attributed to features of the scheme. Reporting bias should be avoided by assessing all alien species rather than only the seemingly high-impacting ones, which also improves the utility of the data for management and prioritization for future research. Furthermore, assessments of the same taxon by various assessors and a structured review process for assessments, as proposed by Hawkins et al. (Diversity and Distributions, 21, 2015, 1360), can ensure that biases can be avoided and all important literature is included.
Identifying safe cultivars of invasive plants : six questions for risk assessment, management, and communication
(Pensoft, 2020) Datta, Arunava; Kumschick, Sabrina; Geerts, Sjirk; Wilson, John R. U.
The regulation of biological invasions is often focussed at the species level. However, the risks posed by infra- and inter-specific entities can be significantly different from the risks posed by the corresponding species, to the extent that they should be regulated and managed differently. In particular, many ornamental plants have been the subject of long-term breeding and selection programmes, with an increasing focus on trying to develop cultivars and hybrids that are less invasive. In this paper, we frame the problem of determining the risk of invasion posed by cultivars or hybrids as a set of six questions that map on to the key components of a risk analysis, viz., risk identification, risk assessment, risk management, and risk communication. 1) Has an infra- or inter-specific entity been proposed as “safe to use” despite at least one of the corresponding species being a harmful invasive? 2) What are the trait differences between the proposed safe alternative and its corresponding invasive species? 3) Do the differences in traits translate into a difference in invasion risk that is significant for regulation? 4) Are the differences spatially and temporally stable? 5) Can the entities be distinguished from each other in practice? 6) What are the appropriate ways to communicate the risks and what can be done to manage them? For each question, we use examples to illustrate how they might be addressed focussing on plant cultivars that are purported to be safe due to sterility. We review the biological basis of sterility, methods used to generate sterile cultivars, and the methods available to confirm sterility. It is apparent that separating invasive genetic entities from less invasive, but closely related, genetic entities in a manner appropriate for regulation currently remains unfeasible in many circumstances – it is a difficult, expensive and potentially fruitless endeavour. Nonetheless, we strongly believe that an a priori assumption of risk should be inherited from the constituent taxa and the onus (and cost) of proof should be held by those who wish to benefit from infra- (or inter-) specific genetic entities. The six questions outlined here provide a general, science-based approach to distinguish closely-related taxa based on the invasion risks they pose.
Identifying the factors that determine the severity and type of alien bird impacts
(Wiley, 2018) Evans, Thomas; Kumschick, Sabrina; Sekercioglu, Cagan H.; Blackburn, Tim M.
Aim: To identify traits related to the severity and type of environmental impacts generated by alien bird species, in order to improve our ability to predict which species may have the most damaging impacts. Location: Global. Methods: Information on traits hypothesized to influence the severity and type of alien bird impacts was collated for 113 bird species. These data were analysed using mixed effects models accounting for phylogenetic non-independence of species. Results: The severity and type of impacts generated by alien bird species are not randomly distributed with respect to their traits. Alien range size and habitat breadth were strongly associated with impact severity. Predation impacts were strongly associated with dietary preference, but also with alien range size, relative brain size and residence time. Impacts mediated by interactions with other alien species were related to alien range size and diet breadth. Main conclusions: Widely distributed generalist alien birds have the most severe environmental impacts. This may be because these species have greater opportunity to cause environmental impacts through their sheer number and ubiquity, but this could also be because they are more likely to be identified and studied. Our study found little evidence for an effect of per capita impact on impact severity.
Impact assessment with different scoring tools : how well do alien amphibian assessments match?
(Pensoft Publishers, 2017-01-27) Kumschick, Sabrina; Vimercati, Giovanni; De Villiers, F. Andre; Mokhatla, Mohlamatsane M.; Davies, Sarah J.; Thorp, Corey J.; Rebelo, Alexander D.; Measey, G. John; Rabitsch, W.
Classification of alien species’ impacts can aid policy making through evidence based listing and management recommendations. We highlight differences and a number of potential difficulties with two scoring tools, the Environmental Impact Classification of Alien Taxa (EICAT) and the Generic Impact Scoring System (GISS) using amphibians as a case study. Generally, GISS and EICAT assessments lead to very similar impact levels, but scores from the schemes are not equivalent. Small differences are attributable to discrepancies in the verbal descriptions for scores. Differences were found in several impact categories. While the issue of disease appears to be related to uncertainties in both schemes, hybridisation might be inflated in EICAT. We conclude that GISS scores cannot directly be translated into EICAT classifications, but they give very similar outcomes and the same literature base can be used for both schemes.
The importance of assessing positive and beneficial impacts of alien species
(Pensoft, 2020) Vimercati, Giovanni; Kumschick, Sabrina; Probert, Anna F.; Volery, Lara; Bacher, Sven
Extensive literature is available on the diversity and magnitude of impacts that alien species cause on recipient systems. Alien species may decrease or increase attributes of ecosystems (e.g. total biomass or species diversity), thus causing negative and positive environmental impacts. Alien species may also negatively or positively impact attributes linked to local human communities (e.g. the number of people involved in a given activity). Ethical and societal values contribute to define these environmental and socio-economic impacts as deleterious or beneficial. Whilst most of the literature focuses on the deleterious effects of alien taxa, some recognise their beneficial impacts on ecosystems and human activities. Impact assessment frameworks show a similar tendency to evaluate mainly deleterious impacts: only relatively few, and not widely applied, frameworks incorporate the beneficial impacts of alien species. Here, we provide a summary of the frameworks assessing beneficial impacts and briefly discuss why they might have been less frequently cited and applied than frameworks assessing exclusively deleterious impacts. Then, we review arguments that invoke a greater consideration of positive and beneficial impacts caused by alien species across the invasion science literature. We collate and describe arguments from a set of 47 papers, grouping them in two categories (value-free and value-laden), which span from a theoretical, basic science perspective to an applied science perspective. We also provide example cases associated with each argument. We advocate that the development of transparent and evidence-based frameworks assessing positive and beneficial impacts might advance our scientific understanding of impact dynamics and better inform management and prioritisation decisions. We also advise that this development should be achieved by recognising the underlying ethical and societal values of the frameworks and their intrinsic limitations. The evaluation of positive and beneficial impacts through impact assessment frameworks should not be seen as an attempt to outweigh or to discount deleterious impacts of alien taxa but rather as an opportunity to provide additional information for scientists, managers and policymakers.
Improving the Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT): a summary of revisions to the framework and guidelines
(Pensoft, 2020) Volery, Lara; Blackburn, Tim M.; Bertolino, Sandro; Evans, Thomas; Genovesi, Piero; Kumschick, Sabrina; Roy, Helen E.; Smith, Kevin G.; Bacher, Sven
The Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT) classifies the impacts caused by alien species in their introduced range in standardised terms across taxa and recipient environments. Impacts are classified into one of five levels of severity, from Minimal Concern to Massive, via one of 12 impact mechanisms. Here, we explain revisions based on an IUCN-wide consultation process to the previously-published EICAT framework and guidelines, to clarify why these changes were necessary. These changes mainly concern: the distinction between the two highest levels of impact severity (Major and Massive impacts), the scenarios of the five levels of severity for the hybridisation and disease transmission mechanisms, the broadening of existing impact mechanisms to capture overlooked mechanisms, the Current (Maximum) Impact, and the way uncertainty of individual impact assessments is evaluated. Our aim in explaining this revision process is to ensure consistency of EICAT assessments, by improving the understanding of the framework.
Is invasion science moving towards agreed standards? The influence of selected frameworks
(Pensoft, 2020) Wilson, John R. U.; Datta, Arunava; Hirsch, Heidi; Keet, Jan-Hendrik; Mbobo, Tumeka; Nkuna, Khensani V.; Nsikani, Mlungele M.; Pysek, Petr; Richardson, David M.; Zengeya, T.A.; Kumschick, Sabrina
The need to understand and manage biological invasions has driven the development of frameworks to circumscribe, classify, and elucidate aspects of the phenomenon. But how influential have these frameworks really been? To test this, we evaluated the impact of a pathway classification framework, a framework focussing on the introduction-naturalisation-invasion continuum, and two papers that outline an impact classification framework. We analysed how these framework papers are cited and by whom, conducted a survey to determine why people have cited the frameworks, and explored the degree to which the frameworks are implemented. The four papers outlining these frameworks are amongst the most-cited in their respective journals, are highly regarded in the field, and are already seen as citation classics (although citations are overwhelmingly within the field of invasion science). The number of citations to the frameworks has increased over time, and, while a significant proportion of these are self-citations (20–40%), this rate is decreasing. The frameworks were cited by studies conducted and authored by researchers from across the world. However, relative to a previous citation analysis of invasion science as a whole, the frameworks are particularly used in Europe and South Africa and less so in North America. There is an increasing number of examples of uptake into invasion policy and management (e.g., the pathway classification framework has been adapted and adopted into EU legislation and CBD targets, and the impact classification framework has been adopted by the IUCN). However, we found that few of the citing papers (6–8%) specifically implemented or interrogated the frameworks; roughly half of all citations might be viewed as frivolous (“citation fluff”); there were several clear cases of erroneous citation; and some survey respondents felt that they have not been rigorously tested yet. Although our analyses suggest that invasion science is moving towards a more systematic and standardised approach to recording invasions and their impacts, it appears that the proposed standards are still not applied consistently. For this to be achieved, we argue that frameworks in invasion science need to be revised or adapted to particular contexts in response to the needs and experiences of users (e.g., so they are relevant to pathologists, plant ecologists, and practitioners), the standards should be easier to apply in practice (e.g., through the development of guidelines for management), and there should be incentives for their usage (e.g., recognition for completing an EICAT assessment).

Browsing by Author "Kumschick, Sabrina"

Results Per Page

Sort Options