Biological Invasions

, Volume 17, Issue 6, pp 1869–1883

Harmonia+ and Pandora+: risk screening tools for potentially invasive plants, animals and their pathogens

  • Bram D’hondt
  • Sonia Vanderhoeven
  • Sophie Roelandt
  • François Mayer
  • Veerle Versteirt
  • Tim Adriaens
  • Els Ducheyne
  • Gilles San Martin
  • Jean-Claude Grégoire
  • Iris Stiers
  • Sophie Quoilin
  • Julien Cigar
  • André Heughebaert
  • Etienne Branquart
Original Paper

Abstract

Given the large number of alien species that may potentially develop into invasives, there is a clear need for robust schemes that allow to screen species for such risks. The Harmonia+ framework presented here brings together 30 questions that refer to distinct components of invasion. Together, they cover the stages of introduction, establishment, spread, and multiple kinds of impacts, viz. referring to the health of the environment (including wild species), cultivated plants, domesticated animals and man. In a complete assessment, input is provided by choosing among predefined ordinal answers and by supplementing these with textual clarification. Uncertainty is covered by indicating levels of confidence. By converting answers into scores, which are then condensed into summary statistics, Harmonia+ allows for quantitative output on stage-specific and general risks. Test assessments on five species emerging in Belgium showed the perceived environmental risks of Procambarus clarkii to be highest (0.72), and that of Threskiornis aethiopicus to be lowest (0.13). Given the considerable parallels that exist between invasive alien species and emerging infectious diseases, we additionally created Pandora, which is a risk analysis scheme for pathogens and parasites. It consists of 13 key questions and has the same structure as Harmonia+. Since diseases play a paramount role in biological invasions, results of Pandora assessments may feed into Harmonia+ through a slightly adapted, host-specific version named Pandora+. Harmonia+, Pandora and Pandora+ may be used both for prioritization purposes and for underpinning detailed risk analyses, and can be consulted online through http://ias.biodiversity.be.

Keywords

Risk screening Risk assessment Horizon scanning ISEIA Zoonoses Prioritisation 

Supplementary material

10530_2015_843_MOESM1_ESM.doc (4.9 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 5062 kb)

References

  1. Adriaens T, Devisscher S, Louette G (2013) Risk analysis of American bullfrog, Lithobates catesbeianus—risk analysis report of non-native organisms in Belgium. Rapporten van het Instituut voor Natuur-en Bosonderzoek (INBO) 2013, INBO.R.2013.41. INBO, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  2. Baiwy E, Schockert V, Branquart E (2013) Risk analysis of the raccoon dog Nyctereutes procyonoides—risk analysis report of non-native organisms in Belgium. Cellule interdépartementale sur les Espèces invasives (CiEi), DGO3, SPW/Editions, GemblouxGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker R, Black R, Copp GH et al (2008) The UK risk assessment scheme for all non-native species. In: Rabitsch W, Essl F, Klingenstein F (eds) Biological Invasions—from Ecology to Conservation Neobiota 7. Technische Universität, Berlin, pp 46–57Google Scholar
  4. Belgian Biodiversity Platform (2014a) Harmonia, an information system on alien species threatening native biodiversity in Belgium and in neighbour areas. http://ias.biodiversity.be. Accessed November 2014
  5. Belgian Biodiversity Platform (2014b) Harmonia +, Pandora and Pandora +, online risk screening tools for potentially invasive plants, animals and their pathogens. http://ias.biodiversity.be. Accessed November 2014
  6. Blackburn TM, Pysek P, Bacher S et al (2011) A proposed unified framework for biological invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 26:333–339CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Blackburn TM, Essl F, Evans T et al (2014) A unified classification of alien species based on the magnitude of their environmental impacts. PLoS Biol 12:e1001850CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Branquart E (2007) Guidelines for environmental impact assessment and list classification of non-native organisms in Belgium. Version 2.1. Belgian Biodiversity Platform, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  9. Caffrey JM, Baars J-R, Barbour JH et al (2014) Tackling invasive alien species in Europe: the top 20 issues. Manag Biol Invasions 5:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cardoen S, Van Huffel X, Berkvens D et al (2009) Evidence-based semiquantitative methodology for prioritization of foodborne zoonoses. Foodborne Pathog Dis 6:1083–1096CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Commission European (2014) Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species. Off J Eur Union 57(L317):35–55Google Scholar
  12. COP (2002) Alien species that threaten ecosystems, habitats or species. Decision VI/23 of the conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity. Document reference: UNEP/CBD/COP/6/23Google Scholar
  13. Copp GH, Russell IC, Peeler EJ et al (in press) European non-native species in aquaculture risk analysis scheme—a summary of assessment protocols and decision support tools for use of alien species in aquaculture. Fisheries Manag Ecol. doi:10.1111/fme.12074
  14. Daehler CC, Virtue JG (2010) Likelihood and consequences: reframing the Australian weed risk assessment to reflect a standard model of risk. Plant Prot Q 25:52–55Google Scholar
  15. Delsinne T, Lafontaine R-M, Beudels RC et al (2013) Risk analysis of the Louisiana crayfish Procambarus clarkii (Girard, 1852)—risk analysis report of non-native organisms in Belgium. Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  16. Dufour B, Plée L, Moutou F et al (2011) A qualitative risk assessment methodology for scientific expert panels. Rev Sci Tech OiE 30:673–681Google Scholar
  17. Dunn A, Perkins S (2012) Invasions and infections. Funct Ecol 26:1234–1237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Essl F, Nehring S, Klingenstein F, Milasowszky N, Nowack C, Rabitsch W (2011) Review of risk assessment systems of IAS in Europe and introducing the German–Austrian Black List Information System (GABLIS). J Nat Conserv 19:339–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. European Environment Agency (2012) The impacts of invasive alien species in Europe—European environment agency technical report no 16/2012. EEA, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  20. FAO (2006) International standards for phytosanitary measures. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  21. Gederaas L, Salvesen I, Viken A (2007) Norsk svarteliste 2007: økologiske risikovurderinger av fremmede arter. ArtsdatabankenGoogle Scholar
  22. Gordon DR, Mitterdorfer B, Pheloun PC et al (2010) Guidance for addressing the Australian weed risk assessment questions. Plant Prot Q 25:56–74Google Scholar
  23. Gyimesi A, Lensink R (2010) Risk analysis of the Egyptian goose in the Netherlands. Bureau Waardenburg bv, Nijmegen and DelftGoogle Scholar
  24. Havelaar AH, van Rosse F, Bucura C et al (2010) Prioritizing emerging zoonoses in The Netherlands. PLos One 5(11):e13965Google Scholar
  25. Heikkilä J (2011) A review of risk prioritisation schemes of pathogens, pests and weeds: principles and practices. Agric Food Sci 20:15–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Holt J, Black R, Abdallah R (2006) A rigorous yet simple quantitative risk assessment method for quarantine pests and non-native organisms. Ann Appl Biol 149:167–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hughes G (2008) Notes on the mathematical basis of the UK non-native organism risk assessment scheme. arXiv:0808.3873Google Scholar
  28. Hulme PE, Pysek P, Nentwig W et al (2009) Will threat of biological invasions unite the European Union? Science 324:40–41CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Keller RP, Lodge DM, Finnoff DC (2007) Risk assessment for invasive species produces net bioeconomic benefits. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:203–207CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Kettunen M, Genovesi P, Gollasch S et al (2008) Technical support to EU strategy on invasive species (IAS)—assessment of the impacts of IAS in Europe and the EU (final module report for the European Commission). Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  31. Kinney GF, Wiruth AD (1976) Practical risk analysis for safety management. Naval Weapons Center, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  32. Krause G (2008) How can infectious diseases be prioritized in public health? EMBO Rep 9:S22–S27CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Kumschick S, Richardson D (2013) Species-based risk assessments for biological invasions: advances and challenges. Divers Distrib 19:1095–1105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Leung B, Roura-Pascual N, Bacher S et al (2012) TEASIng apart alien species risk assessments: a framework for best practices. Ecol Lett 15:1475–1493CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Mastrandrea MD, Mach KJ, Plattner GK et al (2011) The IPCC AR5 guidance note on consistent treatment of uncertainties: a common approach across the working groups. Clim Change 108:675–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nentwig W, Kühnel E, Bacher S (2010) A generic impact-scoring system applied to alien mammals in Europe. Cons Biol 24:302–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. OIE (2013) Terrestrial animal health code. World Organisation for Animal Health, ParisGoogle Scholar
  38. Pigliucci M, Boudry M (2014) Prove it! The burden of proof game in science vs. pseudoscience disputes. Philosophia 42:487–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pimentel D, McNair S, Janecka J et al (2001) Economic and environmental threats of alien plant, animal, and microbe invasions. Agric Ecosyst Environ 84:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Randall JM, Morse LE, Benton N et al (2008) The invasive species assessment protocol: a tool for creating regional and national lists of invasive nonnative plants that negatively impact biodiversity. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 1:36–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ries C, Krippel Y, Pfeiffenschneider M et al (2013) Environmental impact assessment and black, watch and alert list classification after the ISEIA protocol of non-native vascular plant species in Luxembourg. Bull Soc Nat Luxemb 114:15–21Google Scholar
  42. Robert H, Lafontaine R-M, Delsinne T et al (2013) Risk analysis of the sacred ibis Threskiornis aethiopicus (Latham 1790)—risk analysis report of non-native organisms in Belgium. Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences for the Federal Public Service Health, Food chain safety and Environment, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  43. Roy HE, Baverstock J, Ware RL et al (2008) Intraguild predation of the aphid pathogenic fungus Pandora neoaphidis by the invasive coccinellid Harmonia axyridis. Ecol Entomol 33:175–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Roy HE, Peyton J, Aldridge DC et al (2014a) Horizon scanning for invasive alien species with the potential to threaten biodiversity in Great Britain. Glob Change Biol 20:3859-3871Google Scholar
  45. Roy HE, Schonrogge K, Dean H et al (2014b) Invasive alien species: a framework for the identification of invasive alien species of EU concern. Report to the European commission ENV.B.2/ETU/2013/0026, p 298Google Scholar
  46. Sandvik H, Saether B-E, Holmern T et al (2013) Generic ecological impact assessments of alien species in Norway: a semi-quantitative set of criteria. Biodivers Conserv 22:37–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. GB Non-Native Species Secretariat (2014) GB non-native organism risk assessments. http://www.nonnativespecies.org. Accessed November 2014
  48. Simberloff D, Martin J-L, Genovesi P et al (2013) Impacts of biological invasions: what’s what and the way forward. Trends Ecol Evol 28:58–66CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Strubbe D, Shwartz A, Chiron F (2011) Concerns regarding the scientific evidence informing impact risk assessment and management recommendations for invasive birds. Biol Conserv 144:2112–2118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Taylor L, Latham S, Woolhouse M (2001) Risk factors for human disease emergence. Philos Trans R Soc B 356:983–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. van de Koppel S, van Kessel N, Crombaghs BHJM et al (2012) Risk analysis of the asp viper (Vipera aspis) in The Netherlands. ReptielenZoo SERPO, Radboud University, Nijmegen and Delft, Natuurbalans-Limes Divergens BVGoogle Scholar
  52. van der Weijden W, Leewis R, Bol P (2007) Biological globalisation: bio-invasions and their impacts on nature, the economy and public health. KNNV Publishing, UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  53. Vanderhoeven S (2013) Risk analysis of Ludwigia grandiflora—risk analysis report of non-native organisms in Belgium. Cellule interdépartementale sur les Espèces invasives (CiEi), DGO3, SPW/Editions, Gembloux doi:10.13140/2.1.1849.4407
  54. Verbrugge LNH, Leuven RSEW, van der Velde G (2010) Evaluation of international risk assessment protocols for exotic species. Radboud University, NijmegenGoogle Scholar
  55. Young JC, Waylen KA, Sarkki S et al (2014) Improving the science-policy dialogue to meet the challenges of biodiversity conservation: having conversations rather than talking at one-another. Biodivers Conserv 23:387–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bram D’hondt
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sonia Vanderhoeven
    • 1
    • 3
  • Sophie Roelandt
    • 4
  • François Mayer
    • 5
  • Veerle Versteirt
    • 6
  • Tim Adriaens
    • 2
  • Els Ducheyne
    • 6
  • Gilles San Martin
    • 7
  • Jean-Claude Grégoire
    • 5
  • Iris Stiers
    • 8
  • Sophie Quoilin
    • 9
  • Julien Cigar
    • 1
  • André Heughebaert
    • 1
  • Etienne Branquart
    • 3
  1. 1.Belgian Biodiversity PlatformBelgian Science Policy OfficeBrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.Research Institute for Nature and ForestBrusselsBelgium
  3. 3.Département d’Étude du Milieu Naturel et AgricoleService Public de WallonieGemblouxBelgium
  4. 4.Veterinary and Agrochemical Research CentreBrusselsBelgium
  5. 5.Biological Control and Spatial EcologyUniversité Libre de BruxellesBrusselsBelgium
  6. 6.Avia-GIS, Precision Pest Management UnitZoerselBelgium
  7. 7.Walloon Agricultural Research CentreGemblouxBelgium
  8. 8.Plant Biology and Nature ManagementVrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium
  9. 9.Belgian Scientific Institute for Public HealthBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations