A review of impact assessment protocols of non-native plants

Abstract

Impact assessment protocols (i.e. scoring systems) for non-native species have been developed and implemented relatively recently, driven by an increasing demand for desk study approaches to screen and classify non-native species, considering their environmental and socio-economic impacts. While a number of impact assessment protocols have been developed, there are no clear guidelines to help researchers, environmental practitioners and policy-makers understand their differences, uses and limitations, and to ultimately assist in the choice of protocol and practical implementation. In this review, we compare the main structure of 26 impact assessment protocols used for non-native plants. We describe these protocols in terms of the impact types that they include, the way in which impacts are categorized and ranked, how uncertainty is considered, and how the overall score is calculated. In general, environmental impacts are included more often than socio-economic impacts. Impacts are rated by estimates of the intensity, extent, persistence and reversibility of the impact. Uncertainty is mainly estimated by the availability and quality of the scientific information, but also by the agreement and relevance of the available evidence on impacts beyond the region in which the impact is assessed (including the assessment of climatic similarity with other invaded areas). The final impact score is usually calculated as the sum of scores, the maximum score achieved across all impact types, or a rule-based aggregation of impacts in order to provide a final rank of the non-native species. We finally indicate issues related with transparency, redundancy, clarity, friendliness, scope, scaling, reproducibility and flexibility as key challenges for impact assessment improvement.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Andersen MC, Adams H, Hope B, Powell M (2004) Risk assessment for invasive species. Risk Anal 24:787–793. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00478.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Andreu J, Manzano-Piedras E, Bartomeus I, Dana ED, Vilà M (2010) Vegetation response after removal of the invasive Carpobrotus hybrid complex in Andalucía, Spain. Ecol Restor 28:440–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bacher S, Blackburn TM, Essl F et al (2018) Socio-economic impact classification of alien taxa (SEICAT). Methods Ecol Evol 9:159–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12844

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Baker RHA, 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 7:46–57

  5. Barney JN, Tekiela DR, Dollete ESJ, Tomasek BJ (2013) What is the “real” impact of invasive plant species? Front Ecol Environ 11:322–329. https://doi.org/10.1890/120120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Benke KK, Steel JL, Weiss JE (2011) Risk assessment models for invasive species: uncertainty in rankings from multi-criteria analysis. Biol Invasions 13:239–253

    Article  Google 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:e1001850. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001850

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Branquart E, Verreycken H, Vanderhoeven S, Van Rossum F, Cigar J (2009) ISEIA, a Belgian non-native species assessment protocol. Science facing aliens. Belgian Biodiversity Platform, Brussels, pp 11–17

    Google Scholar 

  9. Brunel S, Blanquart E, Fried G et al (2010) The EPPO prioritization process for invasive alien plants. EPPO Bull 40:407–422. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2338.2010.02423.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Burgiel SW, Perrault AM (2011) Black, white, and gray lists. In: Rejmánek M, Simberloff D (eds) Encyclopedia of biological invasions. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 75–77

    Google Scholar 

  11. Carboneras C, Genovesi P, Vilà M et al (2018) A prioritised list of invasive alien species to assist the effective implementation of EU legislation. J Appl Ecol 55:539–547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. D’hondt B, Vanderhoeven S, Roelandt S et al (2015) Harmonia + and Pandora +: risk screening tools for potentially invasive plants, animals and their pathogens. Biol Invasions 17:1869–1883. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-015-0843-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. EFSA (2011) Guidance on the environmental risk assessment of plant pests. EFSA J 9(12):2460. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Essl F, Nehring S, Klingenstein F et al (2011) Review of risk assessment systems of IAS in Europe and introducing the German-Austrian black list information system (GABLIS). J Nat Conserv 19:339–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2011.08.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Essl F, Nehring S, Klingenstein F et al (2017) Scientific and normative foundations for the valuation of alien-species impacts: thirteen core principles. Bioscience 67:166–178. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Faulkner KT, Robertson MP, Rouget M, Wilson JRU (2014) A simple, rapid methodology for developing invasive species watch lists. Biol Conserv 179:25–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.08.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gallardo B, Aldridge DC (2013) Priority setting for invasive species management: risk assessment of Ponto-Caspian invasive species into Great Britain. Ecol Appl 23:352–364

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gallardo B, Zieritz A, Adriens T et al (2016) Trans-national horizon scanning for invasive non-native species: a case study in Western Europe. Biol Invasions 18:17–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-015-0986-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Garry Oak Ecosystems Recovery Team (2007) General decision process for managing invasive plant species in Garry Oak and associated ecosystems (GOEs). http://www.goert.ca/documents/General_Decision_Process_revised.pdf. Accessed 6 Nov 2018

  20. Gilioli G, Schrader G, Carlsson N et al (2017) Environmental risk assessment for invasive alien species: a case study of apple snails affecting ecosystem services in Europe. Environ Impact Assess Rev 65:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gordon DR, Onderdonk DA, Fox AM, Stocker RK (2008) Consistent accuracy of the Australian weed risk assessment system across varied geographies. Divers Distrib 14:234–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hagen BL, Kumschick S (2018) The relevance of using various scoring schemes revealed by an impact assessment of feral mammals. Neobiota 8:37–75

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hawkins CL, Bacher S, Essl E et al (2015) Framework and guidelines for implementing the proposed IUCN environmental impact classification for alien taxa (EICAT). Divers Distrib 21:1360–1363. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Heikkilä J (2011) A review of risk prioritization schemes of pathogens, pests and weeds: principles and practices. Agric Food Science 20:15–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hiebert RD, Stubbendieck JL (1993) Handbook for ranking exotic plants for management and control. Natural resources Report NPS/NRMWRO/NRR-93/08. US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Natural Resources Publication Office, Denver, Colorado

  26. Holt J, Leach A, Knight J et al (2012) Tools for visualizing and integrating pest risk assessment ratings and uncertainties. EPPO Bull 42:35–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2338.2012.02548.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hulme PE, Pyšek P, Jarošík V et al (2013) Bias and error in understanding plant invasion impacts. Trends Ecol Evol 28:212–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.10.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Jeschke JM, Bacher S, Blackburn TM et al (2014) Defining the impact of non-native species. Conserv Biol 28:1188–1194. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12299

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Johnson S (2009) NSW weed risk management system. Industry and Investment NSW, Orange

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kenis M, Bacher S, Baker RMA et al (2012) New protocols to assess the environmental impact of pests in the EPPO decision-support scheme for pest risk analysis. EPPO Bull 42:21–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2338.2012.02527.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Koop AL, Fowler L, Newton LP, Caton BP (2012) Development and validation of a weed screening tool for the United States. Biol Invasions 14:273–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-011-0061-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kumschick S, Bacher S, Gaertner M et al (2015) Ecological impacts of alien species: quantification, scope, caveats, and recommendations. Bioscience 65:55–63. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biu193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Leung B, Roura-Pascual N, Bacher S et al (2012) TEASIng apart alien species risk assessments: a framework for best practices. Ecol Lett 15:1475–1493. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Lodge DM, Simonin PW, Burgiel SW et al (2016) Risk analysis and bioeconomics of invasive species to inform policy and management. Ann Re Environ Resour 41:453–488. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Mastrandrea MD, Field CB, Stocker TF et al (2011) The IPCC AR5 guidance note on consistent treatment of uncertainties: a common approach across the working groups. Clim Change 108:675. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0178-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Miller TK, Allen CR, Landis WG, Merchant JW (2010) Risk assessment: simultaneously prioritizing the control of invasive plant species and the conservation of rare plant species. Biol Conserv 143:2070–2079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.05.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Morse LE, Randall JM, Benton N et al (2004) An invasive species assessment protocol: Evaluating non-native plants for their impact on biodiversity, Version 1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia

  38. Mumford J, Booy O, Baker RMA et al (2010) Invasive non-native species risk assessment in Great Britain. Aspects Appl Biol 104:49–54

    Google Scholar 

  39. Nentwig W, Bacher S, Pyšek P et al (2016) The generic impact scoring system (GISS): a standardized tool to quantify the impacts of alien species. Environ Monit Assess 188:315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-016-5321-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Nentwig W, Mebs D, Vilà M (2017) Impact of non-native animals and plants on human health. In: Vilà M, Hulme PE (eds) Impact of biological invasions on ecosystem services. Springer International Publishing, Berlin, pp 277–293

    Google Scholar 

  41. Nentwig W, Bacher S, Kumschick S et al (2018) More than “100 worst” alien species in Europe. Biol Invas 20:1611–1621

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Olenin S, Didžiulis V (2009) Introduction to the list of alien taxa. In: DAISIE (ed) Handbook of alien species of Europe. Springer, Berlin, pp 129–236

    Google Scholar 

  43. Orr R (2003) Generic nonindigenous aquatic organisms risk analysis review process. In: Ruiz GM, Carlton JT (eds) Invasive species: vectors and management strategies. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 415–438

    Google Scholar 

  44. Ou J, Lu C, O’Toole DK (2008) A risk assessment system for alien plant bio-invasion in Xiamen, China. J Environ Sci 20:989–997

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Parker IM, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM et al (1999) Impact: toward a framework for understanding the ecological effects of invaders. Biol Invasions 1:3–19. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1010034312781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Parker C, Caton BP, Fowler L (2007) Ranking nonindigenous weed species by their potential to invade the United States. Weed Sci 55:386–397. https://doi.org/10.1614/WS-06-168

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Pheloung PC, Williams PA, Halloy SR (1999) A weed risk assessment model for use as a biosecurity tool evaluating plant introductions. J Environ Manage 57:239–251. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.1999.0297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Pyšek P, Jarošík V, Hulme PE et al (2012) A global assessment of invasive plant impacts on resident species, communities and ecosystems: the interaction of impact measures, invading species’ traits and environment. Glob Chang Biol 18:1725–1737. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02636.x

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Rabitsch W, Essl F, Schindler S (2017) The rise of non-native vectors and reservoirs of human diseases. In: Vilà M, Hulme PE (eds) Impact of Biological Invasions on Ecosystem Services. Springer International Publishing, Berlin, pp 263–275

    Google Scholar 

  50. Randall JM, Larry E, Morse LE 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 1:36–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Ricciardi A, Hoopes MF, Marchetti MP, Lockwood JL (2013) Progress toward understanding the ecological impacts of nonnative species. Ecol Monogr 83:263–282. https://doi.org/10.1890/13-0183.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Roy HE, Peyton J, Aldridge DC et al (2014) Horizon scanning for invasive alien species with the potential to threaten biodiversity in Great Britain. Global Change Biol 20:3859–3871. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Roy EH, Rabitch W, Scalera R et al (2017) Developing a framework of minimum standards for the risk assessment of alien species. J Appl Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Rumlerová Z, Vilà M, Pergl J et al (2016) Scoring environmental and socioeconomic impacts of alien plants invasive in Europe. Biol Invasions 18:3697–3711. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-016-1259-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Sandvik H, Sæther BE, Holmern T et al (2013) Generic ecological impact assessments of alien species in Norway: a semi-quantitative set of criteria. Biodivers Conserv 22:37–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-012-0394-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Seebens H, Blackburn TM, Dyer EE et al (2017) No saturation in the accumulation of alien species worldwide. Nat Commun 8:14435. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14435

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Simberloff D, Alexander M (1998) Assessing risks to ecological systems from biological introductions (excluding genetically modified organisms). In: Calow P (ed) Handbook of environmental risk assessment and management. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 147–175

    Google Scholar 

  58. Turbé A, Strubbe D, Mori E et al (2017) Assessing the assessments: evaluation of four impact assessment protocols for invasive alien species. Divers Distrib 23:297–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. van Kleunen M, Dawson W, Essl F et al (2015) Global exchange and accumulation of non-native plants. Nature 525:100. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14910

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Vanderhoeven S, Branquart E, Casaer J et al (2017) Beyond protocols: improving the reliability of expert-based risk analysis underpinning invasive species policies. Biol Invasions 19:2507–2517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-017-1434-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Vaz AS, Castro-Diez P, Godoy O et al (2018) An indicator-based approach to analyse the effects of non-native tree species on multiple cultural ecosystem services. Ecol Indic 85:48–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.10.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Vilà M, Hulme PE (2017a) Impact of biological invasions on ecosystem services. Springer International Publishing, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  63. Vilà M, Hulme PE (2017b) Non-native species, ecosystem services and human well-being. In: Vilà M, Hulme PE (eds) Impact of biological invasions on ecosystem services. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  64. Vilà M, Tessier M, Suehs CM et al (2006) Local and regional assessments of the impacts of plant invaders on vegetation structure and soil properties of Mediterranean islands. J Biogeogr 33:853–861. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2005.01430.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Vilà M, Basnou C, Pyšek P et al (2010) How well do we understand the impacts of alien species on ecosystem services? A pan-European, cross-taxa assessment. Front Ecol Environ 8:135–144. https://doi.org/10.1890/080083

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Vilà M, Espinar J, Hejda M et al (2011) Ecological impacts of invasive alien plants: a meta-analysis of their effects on species, communities and ecosystems. Ecol Lett 14:702–708. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01628.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Walther GR, Roques A, Hulme PE et al (2009) Alien species in a warmer world: risks and opportunities. Trends Ecol Evol 24:686–693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.06.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Warner PJ, Bossard CC, Brooks ML et al (2003) Criteria for categorizing invasive non-native plants that threaten wildlands. California Exotic Pest Plant Council and Southwest Vegetation Management Association. http://www.caleppc.org and http://www.swvma.org. Accessed 6 Nov 2018

  69. Yelenik SG, D’Antonio CM (2013) Self-reinforcing impacts of plant invasions change over time. Nature 503:517–520. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12798

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank S. Kumschick and two anonymous reviewers for comments to a previous version of the manuscript. This publication is based upon work from COST Action TD1209 “Alien Challenge” (http://www.brc.ac.uk/alien-challenge/home/) supported by the European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST). The content of this manuscript is the authors’ responsibility and neither COST nor any person acting on its behalf is responsible for the use, which might be made of the information contained in it. The study was partially supported by the project IMPLANTIN (CGL2015-65346-R) of the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (MINECO). MK and PG-M were supported by CABI with core financial support from its member countries (see http://www.cabi.org/about-cabi/who-we-work-with/key-donors/ for details).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Montserrat Vilà.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 20 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vilà, M., Gallardo, B., Preda, C. et al. A review of impact assessment protocols of non-native plants. Biol Invasions 21, 709–723 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-018-1872-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Decision-making
  • Environmental impacts
  • Risk analysis
  • Scoring system
  • Socio-economic impacts
  • Uncertainty