EU DAISIE Research Project: Wanted—Death Penalty to Keep Native Species Competitive?

Articles

Abstract

Neobiota as non-native species are commonly considered as alien species. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) intends to “prevent the introduction of, control or eradicate those alien species which threaten ecosystems, habitats or species”. The European Union has financed the DAISIE research project for the first pan-European inventory of Invasive Alien Species (IAS), which is supposed to serve as a basis for prevention and control of biological invasions. This paper discusses the evaluation approach for classifying “100 of the Worst” IAS in Europe by the EU DAISIE research project. The main impact categories used by DAISIE for assorting “100 of the Worst” IAS are investigated and the texts of the “Wanted” species factsheets are examined. Two examples from the DAISIE factsheets of the “100 of the Worst” IAS [Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima) and the Raccoon (Procyon lotor)] are discussed to illustrate DAISIE’s biodiversity evaluation approach in more detail. However, the classification criteria used by DAISIE do not allow for sufficiently differentiating these neobiota from an ecological behavior of native species with a similar ecological niche. In conclusion, neobiota evaluations are not comprehensive when they refer mainly to the successful expansion and competition with native species into available ecological niches. A comprehensive assessment of the impacts of neobiota on biodiversity and humans needs to take into account the different values of biodiversity as mentioned in the preamble of the CBD.

Keywords

Biodiversity evaluation CBD values Environmental impact assessment European biodiversity policy Invasive alien species Neobiota 

References

  1. Boye, P. (2003). Neozoen. In I. Kowarik (Ed.), Biologische invasionen—Neophyten und neozoen in mitteleuropa (pp. 264–282). Stuttgart: Ulmer.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, J. H., & Sax, D. F. (2004). An essay on some topics concerning invasive species. Austral Ecology, 29(5), 530–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown, J. H., & Sax, D. F. (2005). Biological invasions and scientific objectivity: Reply to Cassey et al. (2005). Austral Ecology, 30(4), 481–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. CBD. (1992). Convention on biological diversity. Montreal: Intersecretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Retrieved June 28, 2011 from http://www.cbd.int/convention/text/.
  5. CBD. (2005). Handbook of the convention on biological diversity including its cartagena protocol on biosafety 3rd edition. Montreal: Intersecretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Retrieved June 28, 2011 from http://www.cbd.int/doc/handbook/cbd-hb-all-en.pdf.
  6. Chytrý, M., Jarošík, V., Pyšek, P., Hájek, O., Knollová, I., Tichý, L., et al. (2008). Separating habitat invisibility by alien plants from the actual level of invasions. Ecology, 89(6), 1541–1553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clout, M. N., & De Poorter, M. (2005). International initiatives against invasive alien species. Weed Technology, 19(3), 523–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Colautti, R. I., & Richardson, D. M. (2009). Subjectivity and flexibility in invasion terminology too much of a good thing? Biological Invasions, 11(6), 1225–1229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cox, G. W. (2004). Alien species and evolution. The evolutionary ecology of exotic plants, animals, microbes, and interacting native species. Washington: Island Press.Google Scholar
  10. DAISIE (Ed.). (2008). 100 of the worst. Swindon: Delivering Alien Invasive Species Inventories for Europe (DAISIE). Retrieved December 1, 2008 from http://www.europe-aliens.org/speciesTheWorst.do.
  11. Didham, R. K., Tylianakis, J. M., Hutchison, M. A., Ewers, R. M., & Gemmell, N. J. (2005). Are invasive species the drivers of ecological change? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20(9), 470–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. EC. (2006). Communication from the commission. Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond. Sustaining ecosystem services for human-well being. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved June 28, 2011 from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/index_en.htm.
  13. EC. (2008). Communication from the commission to the council, the European parliament, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions. Towards an EU strategy on invasive species. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved June 28, 2011 from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/invasivealien/docs/1_EN_ACT_part1_v6.pdf.
  14. EC. (2010). Commission staff working document. Consolidated profile. Accompanying document to the report from the commission to the council and the European parliament. The 2010 assessment of implementing the EU biodiversity action plan. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved June 28, 2011 from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/bap_2010/CONSOLIDATED%20PROFILE.pdf.
  15. EC. (2011). Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council, the economic and social committee and the committee of the regions. Our life insurance, our natural capital: An EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved June 28, 2011 from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/2020/1_EN_ACT_part1_v7%5B1%5D.pdf.
  16. EU. (2009). A mid-term assessment of implementing the EU biodiversity action plan and towards an EU strategy on invasive alien speciesCouncil conclusions. Brussels: Council of the European Union. Retrieved June 28, 2011 from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/invasivealien/index_en.htm.
  17. EU. (2010). EU council conclusions on biodiversity post-2010. Brussels: Council of the European Union. Retrieved June 28, 2011 from http://www.eu-un.europa.eu/articles/fr/article_9571_fr.htm.
  18. EU. (2011). EU biodiversity strategy to 2020Council conclusions. Brussels: Council of the European Union. Retrieved June 28, 2011 from http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/envir/122950.pdf.
  19. Falk-Petersen, J., Bøhn, T., & Sandlund, O. T. (2006). On the numerous concepts in invasion biology. Biological Invasions, 8(6), 1409–1424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gilpin, M. E. (1987). Spatial structure and population vulnerability. In M. E. Soulé (Ed.), Viable populations for conservation (pp. 125–140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hejda, M., Pyšek, P., Pergl, J., Sádlo, J., Chytrý, M., & Jarošík, V. (2009). Invasion success of alien plants: Do habitat affinities in the native distribution range matter? Global Ecology and Biogeography, 18(3), 372–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hulme, P. E. (2007). Biological invasions in Europe: Drivers, pressures, states, impacts and responses. In R. Hester & R. M. Harrison (Eds.), Biodiversity under threat. Issues in environmental science and technology (Vol. 25, pp. 56–80). Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hulme, P. E., Pyšek, P., Nentwig, W., & Vilà, M. (2009a). Will threat of biological invasions unite the European union? Science, 324(5923), 40–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hulme, P. E., Roy, D. B., Cunha, T., & Larsson, T.-B. (2009b). A pan-European inventory of alien species: Rationale, implementation and implications for managing biological invasions. In DAISIE (Ed.), DAISIE Handbook of alien species in Europe invading nature–Springer series in invasion ecology (Vol. 3, pp. 1–14). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Klausnitzer, B. (1993). Ökologie der Großstadtfauna (2nd ed.). Jena: Fischer.Google Scholar
  26. Kleinbauer, I., Dullinger, S., Peterseil, J., & Essl, F. (2010). Climate change might drive the invasive tree Robinia pseudacacia into nature reserves and endangered habitats. Biological Conservation, 143(2), 382–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Klingenstein, F., Eberhardt, D., & Kornacker, P. M. (2003). Invasive gebietsfremde Arten aus Sicht des Naturschutzes auf Bundesebene. In M. Welling (Ed.), Bedrohung der biologischen Vielfalt durch invasive gebietsfremde Arten. Erfassung, Monitoring und Risikoanalyse (pp. 24–39). Bonn: Angewandte Wissenschaft, Schriftenreihe des Bundesministeriums für Verbraucherschutz, Ernährung und Landwirtschaft (BMVEL).Google Scholar
  28. Kowarik, I. (2003). Biologische Invasionen—Neophyten und Neozoen in Mitteleuropa. Mit einem Beitrag von Peter Boye. Stuttgart: Ulmer.Google Scholar
  29. Kowarik, I., Heink, U., Schmitz, G., & Starfinger, U. (2003a). Entwicklung von Bewertungskriterien für die Freisetzung gebietsfremder Pflanzen. Wirkung auf Pflanzengemeinschaften und ausgewählte Tiere. Ökologische Bewertung gebietsfremder Pflanzen UFOPLAN 299 812 02 Textband. Berlin: Technische Universität Berlin.Google Scholar
  30. Kowarik, I., Heink, U., & Starfinger, U. (2003b). Bewertung gebietsfremder Pflanzenarten. Kernpunkte eines Verfahrens zur Risikobewertung bei sekundären Ausbringungen. In M. Welling (Ed.), Bedrohung der biologischen Vielfalt durch invasive gebietsfremde Arten. Erfassung, Monitoring und Risikoanalyse (pp. 131–144). Bonn: Angewandte Wissenschaft, Schriftenreihe des Bundesministeriums für Verbraucherschutz, Ernährung und Landwirtschaft (BMVEL).Google Scholar
  31. Kowarik, I., & Säumel, I. (2007). Biological flora of Central Europe: Ailanthus altissima (Mill.) Swingle’. Perspectives in Plant Ecology. Evolution and Systematics, 8(4), 207–237.Google Scholar
  32. Larson, B. M. H. (2005). The war of the roses: Demilitarizing invasion biology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3(9), 495–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lavergne, S., Mouquet, N., Thuiller, W., & Ronce, O. (2010). Biodiversity and climate change: Integrating evolutionary and ecological responses of species and communities. Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 41, 321–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lowe, S., Browne, M., Boudjelas, S., & De Poorter, M. (2004). 100 of the world’s worst invasive alien species. A selection from the global invasive species database. Auckland: University of Auckland. Retrieved March 12, 2011 from http://www.gisp.org/publications/reports/100worst.pdf.
  35. Pejchar, L., & Mooney, H. (2010). The impact of invasive alien species on ecosystem services and human well-being. In C. Perrings, H. Mooney, & M. Williamson (Eds.), Bioinvasions & globalization. Ecology, economics, management, and policy (pp. 161–182). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Prévot-Juillard, A.-C., Clavel, J., Teillac-Deschamps, P., & Juillard, R. (2011). The need for flexibility in conservation practices: Exotic species as an example. Environmental Management, 57, 315–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pyšek, P., Jarošík, V., Pergl, J., Randall, R., Chytrý, M., Kühn, I., et al. (2009). The global invasion success of Central European plants is related to distribution characteristics in their native range and species traits. Diversity and Distributions, 15(5), 891–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pyšek, P., & Richardson, D. M. (2010). Invasive species, environmental change and management, and health. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 35, 25–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ricciardi, A., & Cohen, J. (2007). The invasiveness of an introduced species does not predict its impact. Biological Invasions, 9(3), 309–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sagoff, M. (2005). Do non-native species threaten the natural environment? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 18(3), 215–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sagoff, M. (2009). Environmental harm: Political not biological. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 22(1), 81–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Scalera, R. (2010). How much is Europe spending on invasive alien species? Biological Invasions, 12(1), 173–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sellers, E., Simpson, A., & Curd-Hetrick, S. (2010). Draft list of Invasive Alien Species (IAS) online information systems. Baltimore: Global Invasive Species Information Network (GISN). Retrieved June 28, 2011 from http://www.gisinetwork.org/Documents/draftiasdbs.pdf.
  44. Strayer, D. L., Eviner, V. T., Jeschke, J. M., & Pace, M. L. (2006). Understanding the long-term effects of species invasions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 21(11), 645–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Thomas, C. D., & Ohlemüller, R. (2010). Climate change and species’ distributions: An alien future? In C. Perrings, H. Mooney, & M. Williamson (Eds.), Bioinvasions & globalization. Ecology, economics, management, and policy (pp. 19–29). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Valéry, L., Fritz, H., Lefeuvre, J.-C., & Simberloff, D. (2008). In search of a real definition of the biological invasion phenomenon itself. Biological Invasions, 10(8), 1345–1351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vilà, M., Başnou, C., Gollasch, S., Josefsson, M., Pergl, J., & Scalerra, R. (2009a). One hundred of the most Invasive Alien Species in Europe. In D. A. I. S. IE (Ed.), DAISIE handbook of alien species in Europe invading nature–Springer series in invasion ecology (Vol. 3, pp. 265–268). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  48. Vilà, M., Başnou, C., Pyšek, P., Josefsson, M., Genovesi, P., Gollasch, S., et al. (2009b). How well do we understand the impacts of alien species on ecosystem services? A pan-European, cross-taxa assessment. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8(3), 135–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Walther, G.-R., Roques, A., Hulme, P. E., Sykes, M. T., Pyšek, P., Kühn, I., et al. (2009). Alien species in a warmer world: Risks and opportunities. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24(12), 686–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Warren, C. R. (2007). Perspectives on the ‘alien’ versus ‘native’ species debate: A critique of concepts, language and practice. Progress in Human Geography, 31(4), 427–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Warren, C. R. (2009). Using the native/alien classification for description not prescription: A response to Christopher Preston. Progress in Human Geography, 33(5), 711–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zisenis, M. (2009). To which extent is the interdisciplinary evaluation approach of the CBD reflected in European and international biodiversity-related regulations? Biodiversity and Conservation, 18(3), 639–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations