Refine
Document Type
- Article (2) (remove)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- nonnative (2) (remove)
Prioritisation of high-impact species is becoming increasingly important for management of introduced species (‘neobiota’) because of their growing number of which, however, only a small fraction has substantial impacts. Impact scores for prioritising species may be affected by the type of effect model used. Recent studies have shown that environmental co-variation and non-linearity may be significant for effect models of biological invasions. Here, we test for differences in impact scores between simple and complex effect models of three invasive plant species (Heracleum mantegazzianum, Lupinus polyphyllus, Rosa rugosa). We investigated the effects of cover percentages of the invasive plants on species richness of invaded communities using both simple linear effect models (‘basic models’) and more complex linear or nonlinear models including environmental co-factors (‘full models’). Then, we calculated impact scores for each invasive species as the average reduction of species richness predicted by basic and full effect models. All three non-native species had negative effects on species richness, but the full effect models also indicated significant influence of habitat types. Heracleum mantegazzianum had uniform linear effects in all habitats, while effects of L. polyphyllus interacted strongly with habitat type, and R. rugosa showed a marked non-linear relationship. Impact scores were overestimated by basic effect models for H. mantegazzianum and R. rugosa due to disregard of habitat effects and non-linearity, respectively. In contrast, impact of L. polyphyllus was underestimated by the basic model that did not account for the strong interaction of invader cover and habitat type. We conclude that simple linear models will often yield inaccurate impact scores of non-native species. Hence, effect models should consider environmental co-variation and, if necessary, non-linearity of the effects of biological invasions on native ecosystems.
Understanding the diverging opinions of academic experts, stakeholders and the public is important for effective conservation management. This is especially so when a consensus is needed for action to minimize future risks but the knowledge upon which to base this action is uncertain or missing. How to manage non-native, invasive species (NIS) is an interesting case in point: the issue has long been controversial among stakeholders, but publicly visible, major disagreement among experts is recent. To characterize the multitude of experts’ understanding and valuation of non-native, NIS we performed structured qualitative interviews with 26 academic experts, 13 of whom were invasion biologists and 13 landscape experts. Within both groups, thinking varied widely, not only about basic concepts (e.g., non-native, invasive) but also about their valuation of effects of NIS. The divergent opinions among experts, regarding both the overall severity of the problem in Europe and its importance for ecosystem services, contrasted strongly with the apparent consensus that emerges from scientific synthesis articles and policy documents. We postulate that the observed heterogeneity of expert judgments is related to three major factors: (1) diverging conceptual understandings, (2) lack of empirical information and high scientific uncertainties due to complexities and contingencies of invasion processes, and (3) missing deliberation of values. Based on theory from science studies, we interpret the notion of an NIS as a boundary object, i.e., concepts that have a similar but not identical meaning to different groups of experts and stakeholders. This interpretative flexibility of a concept can facilitate interaction across diverse groups but bears the risk of introducing misunderstandings. An alternative to seeking consensus on exact definitions and risk assessments would be for invasive species experts to acknowledge uncertainties and engage transparently with stakeholders and the public in deliberations about conflicting opinions, taking the role of honest brokers of policy alternatives rather than of issue advocates.