Refine
Document Type
- Article (8)
Language
- English (8)
Has Fulltext
- yes (8) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (8) (remove)
Keywords
- exotic (8) (remove)
Institute
New distribution and host records plus additional notes are provided for North American species in the genus Chrysobothris Eschscholtz (Coleoptera: Buprestidae). Forty-one species are treated. The occurrence of Chrysobothris bicolor Horn in the USA is refuted. Chrysobothris breviloboides Barr is newly synonymized with Chrysobothris breviloba Fall. The southernmost record for Chrysobothris piuta Wickham, from Baja California, Mexico, is established. A specimen of the Argentinian Chrysobothris rugosa Gory and Laporte labeled from Florida is reported. A lectotype for Chrysobothris vulcanica LeConte is newly designated.
ZooBank registration. urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:FDB5C4A4-548C-4436-92BB-59AE3183378C
Invasive plant species are increasingly altering species composition and the functioning of ecosystems from a local to a global scale. The grass species Pennisetum setaceum has recently raised concerns as an invader on different archipelagos worldwide. Among these affected archipelagos are the Canary Islands, which are a hotspot of endemism. Consequently, conservation managers and stakeholders are interested in the potential spreading of this species in the archipelago. We identify the current extent of the suitable habitat for P. setaceum on the island of La Palma to assess how it affects island ecosystems, protected areas (PAs), and endemic plant species richness. We recorded in situ occurrences of P. setaceum from 2010 to 2018 and compiled additional ones from databases at a 500 m × 500 m resolution. To assess the current suitable habitat and possible distribution patterns of P. setaceum on the island, we built an ensemble model. We projected habitat suitability for island ecosystems and PAs and identified risks for total as well as endemic plant species richness. The suitable habitat for P. setaceum is calculated to cover 34.7% of the surface of La Palma. In open ecosystems at low to mid elevations, where native ecosystems are already under pressure by land use and human activities, the spread of the invader will likely lead to additional threats to endemic plant species. Forest ecosystems (e.g., broadleaved evergreen and coniferous forests) are not likely to be affected by the spread of P. setaceum because of its heliophilous nature. Our projection of suitable habitat of P. setaceum within ecosystems and PAs on La Palma supports conservationists and policymakers in prioritizing management and control measures and acts as an example for the potential threat of this graminoid invader on other islands.
Islands are particularly noteworthy for global conservation because of the high number of species they host, the high levels of species endemism, and the large number and proportion of species at risk of extinction. Much of the conservation threat on islands is from invasive species. Whilst biosecurity is an increasing focus of attention for authorities globally, species are continuing to establish in new locations outside of their native ranges. Among invasive species, ants are a prominent taxon, especially on islands. Over the past decade, following the detection of one of the world’s worst invasive ant species, African big-headed ant Pheidole megacephala, the environmental management authority on world-heritage-listed Lord Howe Island has focused attention on invasive ants. This detection influenced the creation of biosecurity measures to prevent further incursions of exotic species, particularly ants. Despite these efforts, over the following decade numerous ant species were collected on the island for the first time, indicating a serious biosecurity problem. Here, we investigate the chronosequence of ant introductions to Lord Howe Island to quantify the extent and nature of the island’s ant biosecurity problem. A total of 45 species have been collected on the island and of these, 12 are considered to be endemic, and a further seven are possibly native. Nineteen of the 26 introduced species (42% of the total fauna and 73% of the introduced fauna) were only found for the first time in the last 15 years. All but two of the species that are not native to Lord Howe Island are native to the Australian mainland, indicating that the biosecurity threat comes from the transport of goods from the Australian mainland. We suggest that the pattern of accelerating ant species accumulation on Lord Howe Island is probably not an isolated phenomenon, and that it is probably occurring on most islands globally that are habitable by ants and visited by people.
We argue that human-mediated invasions are part of the spectrum of species movements, not a unique phenomenon, because species self-dispersing into novel environments are subject to the same barriers of survival, reproduction, dispersal and further range expansion as those assisted by people. Species changing their distributions by human-mediated and non-human mediated modes should be of identical scientific interest to invasion ecology and ecology. Distinctions between human-mediated invasions and natural colonisations are very valid for management and policy, but we argue that these are value-laden distinctions and not necessarily an appropriate division for science, which instead should focus on distinctions based on processes and mechanisms. We propose an all-encompassing framework of species range expansion. This does not detract from the importance of invasion biology as a discipline, but instead will help bring together research being conducted on multiple taxa, and by multiple disciplines, including epidemiology, that are often focused on an identical phenomenon: colonisation.
Like most jurisdictions, Australia is managing a broad range of invasive alien species. Here, we provide the first holistic quantification of how much invasive species impact Australia’s economy, and how much Australia spends on their management. In the 01–02 financial year (June to July), the combined estimated cost (economic losses and control) of invasive species was $9.8 billion, rising to $13.6 billion in the 11–12 financial year. Approximately $726 million of grants funded through the Commonwealth of Australia (i.e. federal funding) was spent on invasive species management and research between 1996 to 2013. In 01–02, total national expenditure on invasive species was $2.31 billion, rising to $3.77 billion in 11–12. Agriculture accounted for more than 90% of the total cost. For 01–02 and 11–12, these expenditure figures equate to $123 and $197 per person per year respectively, as well as 0.32 and 0.29% of GDP respectively. All values provided here are most likely to be underestimates of the real values due to the significant constraints of the data obtainable. Invasive species are clearly a significant economic burden in Australia. Given the extent of the issue of invasive species globally, there is a clear need for better quantifications of both economic loss and expenditure in more jurisdictions, as well as in Australia.
In our recent Discussion paper, we presented our view that the only real distinction between biological invasions and natural colonisations is the human element. We agree that invasion science is a very important science, not only to better understand the role that human mediation plays for colonisation, but also for many other science fields. We agree with all invasion researchers that the human influence can result in spectacular differences, including in rates of species movement, rates of successful colonisation, the particular species being moved, the biogeography of dispersal pathways and rates of any resulting ecological disturbance and biodiversity loss. Our deep point is that that species dispersed by human-mediation or natural colonisation are all subject to the same basic laws and rules of ecology, identical to many other phenomenon that occur naturally and can be greatly influenced by people. The human dimension is merely a mechanistic distinction, albeit important because it exposes insights about the colonisation process that cannot be seen by the study of natural colonisations alone. We provide 10 hypotheses that can be scientifically tested to determine whether biological invasions and natural colonisations are two separate processes or the same process being influenced by different mechanisms.
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.
The number of invasive alien species is increasing and so are the impacts these species cause to the environment and economies. Nevertheless, resources for management are limited, which makes prioritization unavoidable. We present a prioritization framework which can be useful for decision makers as it includes both a scientific impact assessment and the evaluation of impact importance by affected stakeholders. The framework is divided into five steps, namely 1) stakeholder selection and weighting of stakeholder importance by the decision maker, 2) factual description and scoring of changes by scientists, 3) evaluation of the importance of impact categories by stakeholders, 4) calculation of weighted impact categories and 5) calculation of final impact score and decision making. The framework could be used at different scales and by different authorities. Furthermore, it would make the decision making process transparent and retraceable for all stakeholders and the general public.