Abstract
Human-mediated dispersal is a major contributor of biological invasions. To reduce impacts induced by the introduction and spread of exotic species, biosecurity interventions are put into place. These interventions often rely on risk-assessment procedures, whereby biosecurity practitioners (which includes researchers, stakeholders such as national park managers, and all other decision makers who determine when and how to protect biodiversity) attempt to preemptively identify and predict which exotic species could potentially become a threat to natural ecosystems. In theory, extensive field and experimental studies would be required to accurately and precisely determine the risks of biological invasion of a species or group of species. However, due to a lack of resources or knowledge, such critical studies are limited. As a result, biosecurity practitioners rarely have a full picture of the extent to which the exotic species has and will spread at the time of decision making. Hence, they instead opt for preventive measures such as identifying and managing potential target exotic species which are likely to be invasive or dispersal pathways through which exotic species are likely to be introduced and spread. As most of the uncertainties pertaining to biosecurity interventions lie in the resolution of data made available to practitioners at the time of decision making, we first present some of the different types of information which are readily available during the risk-assessment procedure. We then highlight how one could exploit these different resolutions of data during the risk-assessment procedure using network analysis to better understand human-mediated dispersal of exotic species. By doing so, our paper puts forward what network analysis has to offer practitioners in the context of biosecurity interventions.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Human-mediated dispersal of exotic species is a major contributor to biological invasion and biodiversity loss (Clifford 1959; Lonsdale and Lane 1994; Mack et al. 2000; Mount and Pickering 2009; Seebens et al. 2013, 2018; Essl et al. 2020). It includes both intentional (e.g. exotic plants introduced for ornamental, horticultural or agricultural purposes Niemiera and Von Holle 2009; Hulme 2011a) and unintentional (e.g. hitchhiking species concealed in soil contaminants or infectious diseases and pathogens introduced via introduced animals for livestock Fèvre et al. 2006; Bram et al. 2002; Craft 2015) introduction of exotic species. Amongst the different dispersal pathways, international trade and transportation networks are recognised as the primary sources of exotic species introduction both at the global and local scales (McCullough et al. 2006; Hulme 2009; Essl et al. 2015). As a consequence of globalisation, studies have found that maritime, air and land transportation and trade networks are likely to facilitate the dispersal of existing and new exotic species over increasingly longer distances (Mack et al. 2000; Meyerson and Mooney 2007; Hulme 2009; Seebens et al. 2013, 2015; Banks et al. 2015; Seebens et al. 2018). Hence, understanding the spread of exotic species via the different human-mediated dispersal pathways is vital to manage and reduce the rate of biological invasion.
To prevent the introduction, establishment and spread of exotic species, biosecurity measures such as policies, sanitary and phytosanitary agreements, and management action plans are implemented (Thornsbury 2002; Froud et al. 2008; Hulme 2011b). However, due to the high cost associated to the management of exotic species, biosecurity practitioners prioritise preventive measures as they are the most cost effective (Eagles et al. 2002; Keller et al. 2007; McGeoch et al. 2016; da Rosa et al. 2018). Risk assessment involves: (1) Identifying whether the exotic species has entered, established and spread in the recipient site (see Table 2); (2) Characterising the environmental and economic impacts caused by the exotic species; and (3) Finally evaluating and estimating the risk level of the exotic species (Smith et al. 2009). As a result, this preemptive assessment of risks associated with the potential introduction of exotic species at given sites is considered as the most effective tool amongst practitioners.
Ideally, to assess the risk of human-mediated dispersal of exotic species, biosecurity practitioners require specific information about: (1) The taxonomy and life-history traits of the exotic species, (2) The range of climatic and environmental conditions where the exotic species is likely to survive and reproduce, (3) The potential impact of the exotic species in the recipient site, (4) The magnitude at which the exotic species is being introduced—i.e. propagule pressure, and (5) The dispersal pathways—i.e. the processes which might result in the movement of the exotic species from one site to another (Hulme 2011b). However, the aforementioned information is not always available (McGeoch et al. 2016; Hulme 2020). Consequently, practitioners are often unable to accurately assess the extent of spread of a given exotic species when recommending biosecurity interventions (Reichard 2001; Hulme 2009; Sinclair et al. 2020). As collecting more data to preemptively monitor when and where any given exotic species can become a threat would be time consuming, labour intensive and expensive, it is particularly vital to develop predictive tools.
Here we put forward the extent to which network analysis can assist practitioners in understanding and predicting human-mediated dispersal of exotic species during the risk-assessment process. More specifically, rather than attempting to understand the spread of an exotic species along the traditional invasion continuum (Fig. 1), in this paper we consider the introduction and subsequent spread of the given exotic species from a management perspective—i.e. the risk-assessment procedures required before (which we refer to as the pre-border) or after an exotic species arrives (which we refer to as the post-border) at a given site. We first summarise traditional risk-assessment procedures. As most of the uncertainties about biosecurity intervention lie in the resolution of data made available to practitioners at the time of decision making, we further summarise the typical information which are often provided to them both during pre- and post-border risk assessment. Finally, we introduce network analysis in the context of biosecurity interventions. To do so, we specifically used examples from the literature to highlight how practitioners can exploit low resolution data using network analysis to evaluate the potential risk of introduction of exotic species by human-mediated dispersal both before and after an exotic species arrives, establishes and spreads at a site. As such, we hope that this contribution paves the way for practitioners to adopt network analysis as a complementary tool for risk-assessment procedures in the future.
Risk assessment of human-mediated dispersal of exotic species
Invasion curve shows the stages of exotic species management from the first occurrence of the exotic species (proactive) to long-term control (Figure adapted from Department of Environment and Primary Industries Victoria (2010)). If the exotic species is detected when it is first introduced or is still in the early phase where abundance is relatively low and is only present at a few locations, the opportunity for successful eradication of the exotic species is higher. However, if the exotic species is not detected and is spread across numerous sites—either due to high propagule pressure or due to the ideal environmental conditions—more effort is required for managing the impact of the exotic species. As a result, constant management (active and reactive) might be required, causing an increase in the cost of control
Biological invasion is a multi-stage process (Fig. 1). The exotic species is first introduced in a new area, then it establishes, increases its abundance and/or expands its range to finally become invasive (Williamson 1996; Richardson et al. 2000; Frost et al. 2019). Similarly, risk-assessment (RA) procedures and management actions can be considered as a multi-stage process: pre-border RA—before an exotic species enters a site and post-border RA—after an exotic has entered a site. The aim of pre-border risk assessments is to prevent the entry and establishment of exotic species at a given recipient site. Hence pre-border RA mainly focuses on developing preemptive strategies to identify the potential risks posed by the exotic species if they were to enter a recipient site. On the other hand, post-border risk assessments focus on evaluating the invasion stage of the exotic species and the subsequent management actions depend on the extent to which the species has spread (Fig. 1).
Whether RA is carried out at pre- or post-border, the main goal of practitioners is to reduce the impacts induced by potential invasive species. Any delays in managing the introduced exotic species can further increase the cost associated to control and management options (Eiswerth et al. 2001). Hence, biosecurity practitioners strive to develop early warning risk-assessment tools to detect any introduction or spread of exotic species. Management actions usually vary according to the invasion stage of the exotic species. For instance, if the species is still at an early stage—i.e. has not yet established—active management of the individuals could eradicate it. However, the presence of the exotic species at several sites suggests that it has either just established some populations or has reached its peak invasive stage. As a result, active monitoring and management would be required to prevent the species from spreading any further. In the following sections we provide a summary of the main risk assessment procedures and management options which are traditionally considered by biosecurity practitioners both at the pre- and post-border (Table 1).
Policies and regulations as preventive measures
To prevent exotic species from entering and establishing at a site, policies and precautionary measures are implemented at different spatial scales. At an international level, trade agreements are governed by the World Trade Organisation. Each member of the World Trade Organisation imposes a threshold of acceptable risk and threat standards linked to trade. Similarly, member countries of the World Health Organisation and the World Organisation for Animal Health are required to report disease outbreaks and risks due to the movement of people or disease vectors, and to set standards to ensure the sanitary safety of international trade in animals and their products, respectively (Dunn and Hatcher 2015). At a national level, countries have their own policies and mitigation plans (Early et al. 2016). For example, compared to other countries both Australia and New Zealand are considered to have high standards of pre-border measures (Hayden and Whyte 2003; Simberloff et al. 2013; Baquero et al. 2021; Black and Bartlett 2020).
Identifying and predicting potential invasive exotic species
Besides policies, risk assessment procedures are conducted at different spatial scales. Practitioners often assess the potential risk for the target exotic species to enter and establish in the recipient site based on the extent of information they were able to get on the species. Predicting invasive species spread is an important component of the risk-assessment procedure as it allows practitioners to prioritise sites where more effort is required for targeted surveillance, and early detection allows the implementation of eradication or other control strategies. Practitioners use traits and preferences of the exotic species to assess its likelihood of survival, establishment and being a threat at a site of interest (Pheloung et al. 1999; Pyšek and Richardson 2010; Pyšek et al. 2011a; Burne 2019). However, estimating the niche space of the potential invasive species can be inaccurate and highly criticised in absence of information (Soberón and Nakamura 2009; Gallagher et al. 2010). In such a case, practitioners often use surrogate data to obtain a rough estimation of the types of sites which are more likely to be vulnerable to the exotic species. Interceptions at the border might be especially critical for determining risk of entry and/or establishment (e.g. James et al. 2014; Turner et al. 2021; Robinson and McNeill 2022). Interception data can also include that of sympatric species of the potential invasive species (Barker et al. 1996). Using interception data, practitioners attempt to identify whether the environmental conditions of the exotic species at its different life stages match that of the recipient site to assess whether the exotic species is likely to survive, establish and spread (Pheloung et al. 1999; Molnar et al. 2008; Leung et al. 2012; Turner et al. 2021). Following the assessment of the given exotic species, it can be listed as a potential threat to a given site for future reference (also referred as “invasive species listing”, e.g. Auckland Regional Council (2019)). Sometimes a score is also assigned to the species to indicate its level of threat (Pheloung et al. 1999; Leung et al. 2012; Kumschick et al. 2015a).
Assessing the impact of invasive exotic species
Once an exotic species is identified to have entered a given site, the main focus of practitioners is to assess its relative risks (Fig. 1). This involves distinguishing whether the exotic species is at its introduction phase (when the population of the exotic species is still localised and its abundance is still low), establishment phase (when the exotic species is established, its population is scattered, and its abundance is high and having negative environmental or economic impacts) or invasive phase (when the exotic species is widespread) (Ricciardi and MacIsaac 2008) (Fig. 1). Then, the spatial distribution of the exotic species within the area of interest (e.g. country) is first assessed at different sites while taking into account its seasonality.
During the assessment, both direct and indirect impacts of the potential invasive exotic species on the native species are measured. Direct impacts involve, for example, competition for resources between species occupying the same niche space (Levine and D’antonio 2003), while indirect impacts are related to, for instance, apparent competition induced by shared pathogens or parasites (Saggar et al. 1999; Meiners 2007). Moreover, practitioners attempt to identify the different dispersal routes and/or vectors through which the exotic species might spread or is spreading across ecosystems within the region or country of concern. This can include identifying and characterising the different transportation networks or the behaviour of the dispersers; determining whether the site at which the exotic species is found represents a reproductive population and therefore act as the main source for secondary dispersal. Practitioners can also assign a score as an indication of the relative risks of the potential invasive species to prioritise management plans (Pheloung et al. 1999; Pyšek and Richardson 2010; Jeschke et al. 2014; Kumschick et al. 2015b).
Usually, if the exotic species is considered as a serious threat impacting the native biota of the receiving area and/or causes economical impacts on the natural environment or primary industries, the main focus is to design a strategic management plan to control and prevent further spread of the exotic species. The latest management effort, often referred as mitigation, is a continuous process of monitoring, controlling or managing the invasive species spread and their potential impacts. In some cases if the exotic species is detected at a sufficiently early stage, eradication is possible (Rejmánek et al. 2002; Vander Zanden et al. 2010; Phillips et al. 2020).
Identifying the potential dispersal pathways contributing to introduction and spread of invasive exotic species
Another important measure to monitor biological invasion is the propagule pressure of the exotic species. Propagule pressure refers to the number of individuals introduced at a site combined with the number of introduction attempts (Colautti et al. 2006; Simberloff 2009). Propagule pressure has been found to be a good indication of invasion success (Williamson 1996; Pyšek et al. 2011b; Lockwood et al. 2005). However, due to detection errors caused by low densities of some species, the identification of the exotic species which are likely to become invasive can sometimes be challenging, especially early in the establishment phase (Fig. 1). This often causes pinpointing the timing of an incursion and subsequent establishment of an exotic species to be inaccurate (Hulme et al. 2020), which can consequently result in higher control costs of those exotic species at a later stage (Eiswerth et al. 2001) (Fig. 1). Exotic species are often spread through transportation routes or via other vectors facilitating the movement of exotic species (Hulme 2009). Therefore, an alternative to gazetting potential invasive species is to identify the most likely routes through which exotic species could be introduced (Andersen et al. 2004) to determine potential establishment sites. This is often referred as pathway analysis (Hulme 2009; Yemshanov et al. 2009; Essl et al. 2015) and is listed as one of the strategic goals of the 2030 Aichi targets of the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP 2010; Convention On Biological Diversity 2016). During pathway analysis, practitioners assess the relative likelihood for target exotic species to be spread by different processes such as dispersal routes or vectors acting as pathways. This includes distinguishing whether the exotic species is more likely to be dispersed and spread by a given dispersal pathway or vectors acting as pathways such as tourists, vehicles, ships, aeroplanes, and trade and transportation of freight. Following the criteria of Hulme (2009), the potential human-mediated dispersal pathways are characterised as either intentional or unintentional. Furthermore, practitioners often also assign a relative score to rank the different dispersal pathways based on their likelihood of spreading the exotic species (Burne 2019).
Although pathway analysis informs practitioners about the potential sites where invasive species could be introduced and spread, to date such analysis is mostly used as a descriptive tool solely to identify the paths contributing to human-mediated dispersal of exotic species (Hulme 2009; Pyšek et al. 2011a; Essl et al. 2015). A key step moving forward is to develop more predictive tools. The main factors widely used to predict the presence of invasive species are the exotic species’ traits, vector behaviour, different dispersal routes and how dynamic those routes might be, biotic and abiotic factors of the sites and habitat suitability (Banks et al. 2015). However, accounting for the intricate interactions between and amongst species, sites and dispersal pathways when prioritising the management of biological invasion can be challenging. Depending on the spatial scale of the study, the importance of the aforementioned factors will vary (Pyšek et al. 2011b). For example, at the regional scale, the likelihood of spread of invasive terrestrial plants will depend more on the dispersal pathway of introductions rather than their traits (Lloret et al. 2004).
In practice, it is challenging to accurately determine the invasion stage of an introduced exotic species and practitioners take management actions based on the resolution of available information at the time of decision making (Table 2) (Fig. 2). In the following sections, we present the different types of information often available to practitioners. Furthermore, we introduce how network approaches can be used on the different resolution types of information to get a better understanding of human-mediated dispersal of exotic species.
What current data are available for risk assessments?
Ideally, if we had information on the true occupancy of the exotic species and its mode of dispersion, or the human-mediated paths through which it is spread, we would be able to both make an accurate assessment of the invasion stage and predict the likelihood for the species to spread. However, such information is not always available. Hence, practitioners focus on assessing the area the exotic species occupies by collecting information on the exotic species, the sites at which they were identified and the likely human-mediated dispersal pathways through which they might have been spread.
During pre-border RA, the exotic species is presumed to be absent from the given site, and there might be limited information about the exotic species. Therefore, the main focus at the pre-border level is to extract information from relevant research literature, databases and reports from areas where the target species is native or has established to determine whether the exotic species could be a potential threat (Pheloung et al. 1999; Burne 2019). To further assess the likelihood of entry of the species at a given site, the global spatial distribution of the exotic species can also be extracted from global databases such as Global Biodiversity Information Facility (Global Biodiversity Information Facility 2020). To identify whether the target exotic species has been catalogued as invasive in neighbouring areas or worldwide, data can be extracted from the IUCN’s Global Invasive Species Database (Lowe et al. 2000) or the Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International (CABI 2020), among others.
However during post-border RA, the exotic species has been identified at a given recipient site, and we can thus assume that some information is available on the species. As a starting point, a taxonomic assessment is carried out to gather information on the biological attributes on the species. When the identity of the species is unknown, and limited information is available, it can be identified at the lowest taxonomic level. Following this, practitioners assess the potential impacts of the exotic species in the new area by assuming that the target exotic species will behave in a similar fashion to its closest relatives in the post-border site. For instance, they may assume that the target exotic species will have shared similarities in terms of its biological attributes, mode of reproduction and dispersal. On the other hand, if the identity of the species is known, further information of the species acting as an invasive species will be extracted from databases (e.g. CABI (CABI 2020) or Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) (Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure 2021)) to assess the potential impact of the target species on the native biota.
To monitor the presence of an exotic species at the site level, the most common data at this stage is inventory data. This includes presence–absence data, but in some cases, further information such as the exotic species’ phenology—i.e. periodic biological phenomena in species life cycles—is also available. For a plant species, for example, this might include information about the successive stages of their ontogeny. Such information would include identifying whether the individual identified is a seedling, sapling or mature; or their reproductive state. Finally, the abundance of the population of the exotic species at that given site is recorded. To characterise local or regional site(s), environmental parameters defining the climatic condition such as the temperature, relative humidity, level nutrients in the soil are sometimes gathered. Such data are also often used to determine the suitability of the different sites to sustain a population of the exotic species using species distribution models and variants (Elith and Leathwick 2009; Pollock et al. 2014; Torres et al. 2018). In some cases, proxies of the suitability of a given site are determined by the level of environmental protection (e.g. recreational activities undertaken by tourists or agriculture).
If the exotic species was previously identified as a potential threat, as a result of a pre-border risk assessment, an initial risk score is already available for the different potential dispersal pathways. For example, practitioners could potentially distinguish whether it is likely to hitch-hike on commodities, as opposed to be dispersed via soil, vehicles or people, solely basing on the size, weight, or hairs on the seeds (Pickering and Mount 2010; Ansong and Pickering 2013; Anderson et al. 2014). Moreover, the rate or frequency of use of different pathways is sometimes recorded. Following this, interception data—information about the number of viable seeds, pathogens or other foreign material present in the soil—can also be collected along the high risk pathways as in McNeill et al. (2011). Conversely, if the exotic species is not listed as a potential threat in the recipient site, the identity of the human-mediated dispersal pathways will probably be unknown.
Information available at the time of decision making. When data on the actual spread of the exotic species is available, practitioners take adequate measures to either eradicate the exotic species or actively manage it to prevent or mitigate further impacts (Case 1 and 3). When data on the actual spread of the given exotic species is fuzzy, practitioners falsely assume the exotic species to be a threat, hence overestimate its actual spread. This leads to disproportionate management actions being taken (Case 2). Eradication of the exotic species is possible in cases 1, 2 and 3. When data on the actual spread of the given exotic species is fuzzy, practitioners falsely assume the exotic species to not be a threat, hence underestimate its actual spread (Case 4). Incorrect management actions are taken. The exotic species is not detected until it spreads across numerous sites, reactive management might be required causing an increase in the cost of control (Case 4)
How can network analysis be used for risk assessments?
Network science (refer to Box 1) provides an integrative approach for visualising, quantifying and predicting the risks of biological invasion (Keller et al. 2011; Moslonka-Lefebvre et al. 2012; Paini and Yemshanov 2012; Banks et al. 2015; Frost et al. 2019). Despite being extensively used to study ecological networks to provide a better understanding of ecosystem functioning (Bascompte et al. 2003; Janssen et al. 2006; Blüthgen et al. 2006; Bascompte and Jordano 2007; Fath and Halnes 2007; Stouffer and Bascompte 2011; Poisot et al. 2016) or disease spread in epidemiology (Meyers et al. 2005; Balcan et al. 2009a), its application to understand the spread of exotic species is more recent (Haak et al. 2017; Drake et al. 2017b, a; Perry et al. 2017). In the context of biological invasion, network analysis has been shown to be particularly useful as a predictive tool by assisting biosecurity practitioners in: (1) Assessing the likelihood for exotic species to enter a given area or spread Seebens et al. 2013; Runghen et al. 2021; (2) Identifying and predicting sites which are likely to promote the entry or spread of exotic species to secondary sites Colautti et al. 2006; Floerl et al. 2009; (3) Identifying and evaluating the contribution of different dispersal pathways to the spread of exotic species—i.e. characterise the different routes to identify sites which could act as hotspots to disperse invasive species (Floerl et al. 2009; Gallardo et al. 2012; Seebens et al. 2013; Letschert et al. 2021). Even when not used as a predictive tool, network analysis can potentially help practitioners to hypothesise how an exotic species might be or has been introduced, or describe the spread of an exotic species. However, one should be cautious about such projections as the identified potential hotspots of exotic species can be subject to a high level of uncertainty. In this section, we further develop how one could use routinely collected data to study human-mediated dispersal of exotic species to: (1) Generate a human-mediated dispersal network, (2) Use network metrics to understand the dispersal of exotic species and (3) Use probabilistic generative network models to both understand and predict human-mediated dispersal of exotic species.
Representing data as human-mediated dispersal networks
Using a network approach to study human-mediated dispersal of exotic species. Depending on the resolution of the data available (refer to Table 2), different network representations can be used to depict the human-mediated dispersal networks. a) The site–site network is a unipartite network (i.e. a network with one type of node). Here, nodes are sites and links represent types of interactions amongst the different sites (e.g. the frequency/rate of dispersal from one site to another). b) The species–site network is a bipartite network comprising nodes of two types: sites and species, and links occur only between the different types of nodes to represent the presence of the exotic species at the given site. Note that the types of interactions, represented as links, can be either: (1) Weighted or unweighted to represent the frequency/rate of path use, and (2) Directed or undirected, depending on the granularity of data available. For example, when presence–absence data of the exotic species at the different sites are available, an undirected unweighted network can be created. However, if the abundances of the species are also available, a weighted undirected network can be constructed. If data is also available on the direction of the movement of the exotic species, a directed network can be used. In the case of a species–site network, this would entail having information on the direction of movement of the host dispersing the exotic species to the various sites. As a result, this would enable one to identify the importance of the given sites in maintaining a source population of exotic species. Note though that the latter is more directly applicable to the case of unipartite site–site networks
Depending on the type and resolution of data available (Box 1, Table 2, Fig. 3), different network representations can be used. Note that beyond the network representation, data resolution will also determine the accuracy of the human-mediated dispersal network. As a direct consequence, such information might limit the practitioner’s ability to predict or describe the invasion process. For instance, it is important to include weighted information (as opposed to unweighted information, Box 1) to realistically represent the actual network and extract relevant information from its analysis (Poisot et al. 2015; Kéry and Schmidt 2008). However, uncertainties might arise when gathering information on the species, sites identified to be impacted by the exotic species and dispersal pathways to build the human-mediated dispersal network (Table 3). Hence depending on the aim of the practitioner (Table 1) and data resolution available, network analysis can be exploited to attempt to answer them.
Future directions
From a management perspective, accurately assessing whether an exotic species has arrived or entered at a site requires having fine-grained data about the exotic species, the sites occupied by them, and finally the different dispersal routes through which the exotic species are spread (McGeoch et al. 2016). However, in most cases knowing whether an exotic species has entered a site or not is challenging to assess. Even if the species has been identified, estimates of the areas where the species is present are not necessarily available to the biosecurity managers. Here, we highlight how network analyses were used and could be used to give an insight of the potential spread of exotic species in various systems where the ideal data sets are not available.
For instance, Runghen et al. (2021) exploited presence-absence data, which are amongst the most common data readily available to assess the unintended spread of exotic species in protected areas solely based on their travelling patterns at a regional scale. Floerl et al. (2009) and Iacarella et al. (2020) both exploit ship movement data as proxies indicating the risk associated to different dispersal pathways to assess the likelihood of vessels contributing to the dispersal of exotic species associated with marine fouling communities. These studies highlight that despite only low resolution data, they provided insights of potential primary and/or secondary sources of exotic species.
Alternatively, results from network analysis could be combined with other models to get a better overview of human-mediated dispersal of exotic species. For example, Letschert et al. (2021) used network analysis to characterise the movement of ships together with a numeric model inspired by Seebens et al. (2013) to quantify the species’ dispersal capacities. The network analysis undertaken by Letschert et al. (2021) also provided the opportunity to develop different preventive and precautionary measures for exotic marine species under different scenarios. Similarly, such models could be extended to other taxa, or in completely different systems to reduce the risk of spread of exotic species even if conditions such as environmental, climatic or even changes in the vector’s behaviour would occur. Likewise, just because a vector could spread an exotic species, it does not imply that the species will be able to successfully establish. The establishment will depend on the biotic and abiotic conditions at the point at which the propagule is deposited. Consequently, combining results from network analysis and other habitat suitability models would be valuable to determine the potential risk of spread of species, especially in the current context of climate change.
Moving forward, it is vital to collect fine scale data to refine the predictive power of existing tools—e.g. at the level of terrestrial protected areas in the case of visitation data in Runghen et al. (2021) and individual characteristics of vessels in the context of movement of ballast water to make more accurate predictions in the case of Iacarella et al. (2020). The access to temporal and spatially replicated field data is key to help practitioners to prioritise the management of exotic species Dauer et al. (2007). Therefore, best practices should include monitoring sites along the different trade and/or transportation networks and points of entry which are potentially identified as hotspots of exotic species. For instance, if additional information were to be available, such as the abundance of species at different monitoring sites, the frequency/rate along a particular dispersal pathway, the direction taken by dispersal vectors, traits of exotic species and characteristics of recipient sites, different variants of the probabilistic network models (such as the family Stochastic Block Models and Latent Position Models previously mentioned) could be used (Sweet 2015; Newman and Clauset 2016; Roy et al. 2019; Mele et al. 2019; Peixoto 2018). By using such models, better understanding of the dispersal or spread of exotic species could be achieved. Hence, it could help to validate predictions and hypotheses proposed prior to an exotic species arriving at a site.
In addition to fine scale data, it is crucial to account for the dynamics of networks which can further make assessing and predicting human-mediated dispersal of exotic species to be even more challenging. For example, the construction of roads and tracks to increase accessibility to remote places within a country or the increasing popularity of particular destinations due to social media can influence preferences and the travel pathways taken by humans (Doscher et al. 2011; Moore et al. 2012; Miller et al. 2019). Such dynamics lead to continuous changes in the network topology, and therefore a modification of dispersal pathways for exotic species across the network. Moreover, processes happening within a system at a given level can also affect the different sets of interactions in different networks. For example, a change in national or local government policy might impact the transportation of goods within a country, resulting in a change in dispersal rates of an exotic species. Such complex data could be analysed using a multilayer network approach. By representing the data as a multilayer network, it allows us to consider several networks of the same type as layers and to study them as connected by interlinks (Hutchinson et al. 2019). This approach can also be relevant when analysing temporal data, for instance, to study the network structure after the arrival of an exotic species across time periods, since two layers will be linked by their common species.
Concluding remarks
Accounting for intricate interactions between and amongst species, sites and dispersal pathways when prioritising the management of invasive species can be challenging. Traditionally, risk assessments focused on the identification and likely impacts of potential invasive species and the subsequent monitoring of these species or their vectors. Propagule pressure is often neglected during the early detection phase. With the increase of transportation and trade networks, there is also an increase in both short and long distance dispersal and complexity of networks which causes an increase in the introduction rate of exotics. Unlike natural dispersal, human-mediated movement is mostly governed by socioeconomic activities (Banks et al. 2015). Hence, risk assessments of invasive exotic species spread must also account for the different transportation networks when estimating the likelihood of successful invasion. Though different models are currently available to predict biological invasion for management purposes, they do not always account for long distance dispersal induced by human-mediated dispersal (Hastings et al. 2005; Chivers and Leung 2012). In this regard, network analysis represents a promising tool as it provides an integrative approach for visualising, quantifying and predicting the risks of biological invasions (Keller et al. 2011; Moslonka-Lefebvre et al. 2012; Paini and Yemshanov 2012; Floerl et al. 2009; Banks et al. 2015; Frost et al. 2019). The use of network tools to study biological invasion is recent (Keller et al. 2011; Frost et al. 2019; Hui and Richardson 2019), especially in the context of managing biological invasion (Floerl et al. 2009; Letschert et al. 2021). From a management point of view, practitioners have developed various risk-assessment tools to prevent, control and eradicate biological invasion. To ensure that management plans are working smoothly, monitoring is constantly carried out to assess the effectiveness of their protocols. Here, we detail how network analysis can be used both as a risk assessment and monitoring tool throughout the different phases of invasion. Due to high flexibility in dealing with different types of data and its proxies, we hope that more practitioners will adopt network analysis for management purposes.
References
Airoldi EM, Blei DM, Fienberg SE, Xing EP (2008) Mixed membership stochastic blockmodels. J Mach Learn Res 9:1981–2014
Andersen MC, Adams H, Hope B, Powell M (2004) Risk assessment for invasive species. Risk Anal 24:787–793
Anderson LG, White PC, Stebbing PD, Stentiford GD, Dunn AM (2014) Biosecurity and vector behaviour: evaluating the potential threat posed by anglers and canoeists as pathways for the spread of invasive non-native species and pathogens. PLoS ONE 9:e92788
Ansong M, Pickering CM (2013) Are weeds hitchhiking a ride on your car? A systematic review of seed dispersal on cars. PLoS ONE 8:e80275
Athreya A, Fishkind DE, Tang M, Priebe CE, Park Y, Vogelstein JT, Levin K, Lyzinski V, Qin Y (2017) Statistical inference on random dot product graphs: a survey. J Mach Learn Res 18:8393–8484
Auckland Regional Council (2019) Auckland Pest Management Plan 2019–2029. Available at https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/have-your-say/topics-you-can-have-your-say-on/regional-pest-management-plan/Documents/auckland-regional-pest-management-plan-2019-2029.pdf. (Accessed on 2020/05/27)
Balcan D, Colizza V, Gonçalves B, Hu H, Ramasco JJ, Vespignani A (2009) Multiscale mobility networks and the spatial spreading of infectious diseases. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:21484–21489
Balcan D, Colizza V, Gonçalves B, Hu H, Ramasco JJ, Vespignani A (2009) Multiscale mobility networks and the spatial spreading of infectious diseases. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:21484–21489
Banks NC, Paini DR, Bayliss KL, Hodda M (2015) The role of global trade and transport network topology in the human-mediated dispersal of alien species. Ecol Lett 18:188–199
Bansal S, Grenfell BT, Meyers LA (2007) When individual behaviour matters: homogeneous and network models in epidemiology. J R Soc Interface 4:879–891
Baquero RA, Ayllón D, Nicola GG (2021) Are the EU biosecurity legislative frameworks sufficiently effective to prevent biological invasions in the Natura 2000 network?-A case study in Mediterranean Europe. Environ Sci Policy 120:21–28
Barker GM, Addison PJ, Firth AC, Barratt BI (1996) Sitona lepidus Gyllenhal newly established in New Zealand: assessment of distribution in the North Island. In: Proceedings of the New Zealand plant protection conference Vol. 49, pp 266–269
Bascompte J, Jordano P (2007) Plant-animal mutualistic networks: the architecture of biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 38:567–593
Bascompte J, Jordano P, Melián CJ, Olesen JM (2003) The nested assembly of plant-animal mutualistic networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100:9383–9387
Bascompte J, Jordano P, Olesen JM (2006) Asymmetric coevolutionary networks facilitate biodiversity maintenance. Science 312:431–433
Black R, Bartlett DM (2020) Biosecurity frameworks for cross-border movement of invasive alien species. Environ Sci Policy 105:113–119
Blüthgen N, Menzel F, Blüthgen N (2006) Measuring specialization in species interaction networks. BMC Ecol 6:9
Bram RA, George JE, Reichard RE, Tabachnick WJ (2002) Threat of foreign arthropod-borne pathogens to livestock in the United States. J Med Entomol 39:405–416
Bramon Mora B, Dalla Riva GV, Stouffer DB (2019) Unmasking structural patterns in incidence matrices: an application to ecological data. J R Soc Interface 16:20180747
Bullock JM, Bonte D, Pufal G, da Silva Carvalho C, Chapman DS, García C, García D, Matthysen E, Delgado MM (2018) Human-mediated dispersal and the rewiring of spatial networks. Trends Ecol Evol 33:958–970
Burne AR (2019) Pest Risk Assessment: Halyomorpha halys (Brown marmorated stink bug). Ministry for Primary Industries, Wellington, New Zealand
Büttner K, Krieter J (2018) Comparison of weighted and unweighted network analysis in the case of a pig trade network in Northern Germany. Prev Vet Med 156:49–57
CABI (2020) Invasive Species Compendium, Wallingford, UK: CAB International. Available at www.cabi.org/isc. (Accessed on 2017/01/15)
COP C (2010) Decision adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its Tenth Meeting X/2. The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Convention on Biological Diversity Conference of the Parties. Available from http://www. cbd. int/doc/decisions/cop-10/cop-10-dec-02-en. pdf [accessed 11 October 2019]
Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (2021) Available at https://global.cnki.net/index/. (Accessed on 2021/07/18)
Chivers C, Leung B (2012) Predicting invasions: alternative models of human-mediated dispersal and interactions between dispersal network structure and A llee effects. J Appl Ecol 49:1113–1123
Clifford H (1959) Seed dispersal by motor vehicles. J Ecol 47:311–315
Colautti RI, Grigorovich IA, MacIsaac HJ (2006) Propagule pressure: a null model for biological invasions. Biol Invasions 8:1023–1037
Convention On Biological Diversity (2016) Biodiversity and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Technical note
Craft ME (2015) Infectious disease transmission and contact networks in wildlife and livestock. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 370:20140107
Dauer JT, Mortensen DA, Vangessel MJ (2007) Temporal and spatial dynamics of long-distance Conyza canadensis seed dispersal. J Appl Ecol 44:105–114
Delmas E, Besson M, Brice MH, Burkle LA, Dalla Riva GV, Fortin MJ, Gravel D, Guimarães PR Jr, Hembry DH, Newman EA et al (2019) Analysing ecological networks of species interactions. Biol Rev 94:16–36
Department of Environment and Primary Industries Victoria (2010) invasive plants and animals policy framework. Available at https://agriculture.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/582255/Invasive-Plants-and-Animals-Policy-Framework-IPAPF.pdf
Dormann CF, Fründ J, Blüthgen N, Gruber B (2009) Indices, graphs and null models: analyzing bipartite ecological networks. Open Ecol J 2:7–24
Doscher C, Moore K, Smallman C, Wilson J, Simmons DG (2011) An agent-based model of tourist movements in New Zealand: implications for spatial yield. MODSIM2011, In: 19th international congress on modelling and simulation. Modelling and Simulation Society of Australia and New Zealand, pp 2908–2913
Drake JC, Griffis-Kyle K, McIntyre NE (2017) Using nested connectivity models to resolve management conflicts of isolated water networks in the Sonoran Desert. Ecosphere 8:e01652
Drake JC, Griffis-Kyle KL, McIntyre NE (2017) Graph theory as an invasive species management tool: case study in the Sonoran Desert. Landscape Ecol 32:1739–1752
Dunn AM, Hatcher MJ (2015) Parasites and biological invasions: parallels, interactions, and control. Trends Parasitol 31:189–199
Eagles PF, McCool SF, Haynes CD, Phillips A et al (2002) Sustainable tourism in protected areas: guidelines for planning and management, vol. 8. IUCN Gland
Early R, Bradley BA, Dukes JS, Lawler JJ, Olden JD, Blumenthal DM, Gonzalez P, Grosholz ED, Ibañez I, Miller LP et al (2016) Global threats from invasive alien species in the twenty-first century and national response capacities. Nat Commun 7:1–9
Eiswerth M, Johnson W, Lewis S, Hughes L (2001) The economic costs of delaying invasive weed control: an illustration based on Nevada’s tall whitetop initiative. University of Nevada Cooperative Extension Special Publication, USA, pp 01–08
Elith J, Leathwick JR (2009) Species distribution models: ecological explanation and prediction across space and time. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 40:677–697
Essl F, Bacher S, Blackburn TM, Booy O, Brundu G, Brunel S, Cardoso AC, Eschen R, Gallardo B, Galil B et al (2015) Crossing frontiers in tackling pathways of biological invasions. Bioscience 65:769–782
Essl F, Lenzner B, Bacher S, Bailey S, Capinha C, Daehler C, Dullinger S, Genovesi P, Hui C, Hulme PE et al (2020) Drivers of future alien species impacts: an expert-based assessment. Glob Change Biol 26:4880–4893
Fath BD, Halnes G (2007) Cyclic energy pathways in ecological food webs. Ecol Model 208:17–24
Floerl O, Inglis G, Dey K, Smith A (2009) The importance of transport hubs in stepping-stone invasions. J Appl Ecol 46:37–45
Fortuna MA, Bascompte J (2006) Habitat loss and the structure of plant-animal mutualistic networks. Ecol Lett 9:281–286
Fortuna MA, Stouffer DB, Olesen JM, Jordano P, Mouillot D, Krasnov BR, Poulin R, Bascompte J (2010) Nestedness versus modularity in ecological networks: two sides of the same coin? J Anim Ecol 79:811–817
Frost CM, Allen WJ, Courchamp F, Jeschke JM, Saul WC, Wardle DA (2019) Using network theory to understand and predict biological invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 34:831–843
Froud K, Oliver T, Bingham P, Flynn A, Rowswell N (2008) Passive surveillance of new exotic pests and diseases in New Zealand. Surveillance for biosecurity: pre-border to pest management. New Zealand Plant Protection Society, Paihia, New Zealand
Fèvre EM, Bronsvoort BMdC, Hamilton KA, Cleaveland S (2006) Animal movements and the spread of infectious diseases. Trends Microbiol 14:125–131
Gallagher RV, Beaumont LJ, Hughes L, Leishman MR (2010) Evidence for climatic niche and biome shifts between native and novel ranges in plant species introduced to Australia. J Ecol 98:790–799
Gallardo B, Errea MP, Aldridge DC (2012) Application of bioclimatic models coupled with network analysis for risk assessment of the killer shrimp, Dikerogammarus villosus, in Great Britain. Biol Invasions 14:1265–1278
Global Biodiversity Information Facility (2020) GBIF: The global biodiversity information facility (2020) What is GBIF? Available at https://www.gbif.org/what-is-gbif. (Accessed on 2020/05/27)
Guimerà R, Stouffer D, Sales-Pardo M, Leicht E, Newman M, Amaral LA (2010) Origin of compartmentalization in food webs. Ecology 91:2941–2951
Haak DM, Fath BD, Forbes VE, Martin DR, Pope KL (2017) Coupling ecological and social network models to assess transmission and contagion of an aquatic invasive species. J Environ Manage 190:243–251
Hastings A, Cuddington K, Davies KF, Dugaw CJ, Elmendorf S, Freestone A, Harrison S, Holland M, Lambrinos J, Malvadkar U et al (2005) The spatial spread of invasions: new developments in theory and evidence. Ecol Lett 8:91–101
Hayden BJ, Whyte CF (2003) Invasive species management in New Zealand. Invasive species: vectors and management strategies, pp 270–291
Hoff PD, Raftery AE, Handcock MS (2002) Latent space approaches to social network analysis. J Am Stat Assoc 97:1090–1098
Holland PW, Laskey KB, Leinhardt S (1983) Stochastic blockmodels: first steps. Social Networks 5:109–137
Hui C, Richardson DM (2019) How to invade an ecological network. Trends Ecol Evol 34:121–131
Hui C, Richardson DM, Landi P, Minoarivelo HO, Garnas J, Roy HE (2016) Defining invasiveness and invasibility in ecological networks. Biol Invasions 18:971–983
Hulme PE (2009) Trade, transport and trouble: managing invasive species pathways in an era of globalization. J Appl Ecol 46:10–18
Hulme PE (2011) Addressing the threat to biodiversity from botanic gardens. Trends Ecol Evol 26:168–174
Hulme PE (2020) Plant invasions in New Zealand: global lessons in prevention, eradication and control. Biol Invasions 22:1539–1562
Hulme PE (2011b) Biosecurity: the changing face of invasion biology. Fifty years of invasion ecology: the legacy of Charles Elton, pp 73–88
Hulme PE, Baker R, Freckleton R, Hails RS, Hartley M, Harwood J, Marion G, Smith GC, Williamson M (2020) The epidemiological framework for biological invasions (EFBI): an interdisciplinary foundation for the assessment of biosecurity threats. NeoBiota
Hutchinson MC, Bramon Mora B, Pilosof S, Barner AK, Kéfi S, Thébault E, Jordano P, Stouffer DB (2019) Seeing the forest for the trees: putting multilayer networks to work for community ecology. Funct Ecol 33:206–217
Iacarella JC, Burke L, Davidson IC, DiBacco C, Therriault TW, Dunham A (2020) Unwanted networks: vessel traffic heightens the risk of invasions in marine protected areas. Biol Cons 245:108553
James T, Champion P, Dowsett C, McNeill M, Houliston G (2014) Identification of weed seeds in soil samples intercepted at the New Zealand border. New Zealand Plant Protect 67:26–33
Janssen MA, Schoon ML, Ke W, Börner K (2006) Scholarly networks on resilience, vulnerability and adaptation within the human dimensions of global environmental change. Glob Environ Chang 16:240–252
Jeschke JM, Bacher S, Blackburn TM, Dick JT, Essl F, Evans T, Gaertner M, Hulme PE, Kühn I, Mrugała A et al (2014) Defining the impact of non-native species. Conserv Biol 28:1188–1194
Kaiser-Bunbury CN, Blüthgen N (2015) Integrating network ecology with applied conservation: a synthesis and guide to implementation. AoB Plants 7:plv076
Kaluza P, Kölzsch A, Gastner MT, Blasius B (2010) The complex network of global cargo ship movements. J R Soc Interface 7:1093–1103
Keller RP, Drake JM, Drew MB, Lodge DM (2011) Linking environmental conditions and ship movements to estimate invasive species transport across the global shipping network. Divers Distrib 17:93–102
Keller RP, Lodge DM, Finnoff DC (2007) Risk assessment for invasive species produces net bioeconomic benefits. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104:203–207
Kumschick S, Bacher S, Evans T, Markova Z, Pergl J, Pyšek P, Vaes-Petignat S, van der Veer G, Vilà M, Nentwig W (2015) Comparing impacts of alien plants and animals in Europe using a standard scoring system. J Appl Ecol 52:552–561
Kumschick S, Gaertner M, Vilà M, Essl F, Jeschke JM, Pyšek P, Ricciardi A, Bacher S, Blackburn TM, Dick JT et al (2015) Ecological impacts of alien species: quantification, scope, caveats, and recommendations. Bioscience 65:55–63
Kéry M, Schmidt B (2008) Imperfect detection and its consequences for monitoring for conservation. Commun Ecol 9:207–216
Latombe G, Canavan S, Hirsch H, Hui C, Kumschick S, Nsikani M, Potgieter L, Robinson T, Saul WC, Turner S et al (2019) A four-component classification of uncertainties in biological invasions: implications for management. Ecosphere 10:e02669
Letschert J, Wolff M, Kluger LC, Freudinger C, Ronquillo J, Keith I (2021) Uncovered pathways: modelling dispersal dynamics of ship-mediated marine introduced species. J Appl Ecol 58:620–631
Leung B, Roura-Pascual N, Bacher S, Heikkilä J, Brotons L, Burgman MA, Dehnen-Schmutz K, Essl F, Hulme PE, Richardson DM et al (2012) TEASIng apart alien species risk assessments: a framework for best practices. Ecol Lett 15:1475–1493
Levine JM, D’antonio CM (2003) Forecasting biological invasions with increasing international trade. Conserv Biol 17:322–326
Lloret F, Médail F, Brundu G, Hulme PE (2004) Local and regional abundance of exotic plant species on Mediterranean islands: are species traits important? Glob Ecol Biogeogr 13:37–45
Lockwood JL, Cassey P, Blackburn T (2005) The role of propagule pressure in explaining species invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 20:223–228
Lonsdale W, Lane A (1994) Tourist vehicles as vectors of weed seeds in Kakadu National Park, Northern Australia. Biol Cons 69:277–283
Lowe S, Browne M, Boudjelas S, De Poorter M (2000) 100 of the world’s worst invasive alien species: a selection from the global invasive species database, vol. 12. Invasive Species Specialist Group Auckland
Lurgi M, Galiana N, López BC, Joppa LN, Montoya JM (2014) Network complexity and species traits mediate the effects of biological invasions on dynamic food webs. Front Ecol Evol 2:36
Mack RN, Simberloff D, Mark Lonsdale W, Evans H, Clout M, Bazzaz FA (2000) Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol Appl 10:689–710
McCullough DG, Work TT, Cavey JF, Liebhold AM, Marshall D (2006) Interceptions of nonindigenous plant pests at US ports of entry and border crossings over a 17-year period. Biol Invasions 8:611–630
McGeoch MA, Genovesi P, Bellingham PJ, Costello MJ, McGrannachan C, Sheppard A (2016) Prioritizing species, pathways, and sites to achieve conservation targets for biological invasion. Biol Invasions 18:299–314
McNeill M, Phillips C, Young S, Shah F, Aalders L, Bell N, Gerard E, Littlejohn R (2011) Transportation of nonindigenous species via soil on international aircraft passengers’ footwear. Biol Invasions 13:2799–2815
Meiners SJ (2007) Apparent competition: an impact of exotic shrub invasion on tree regeneration. Biol Invasions 9:849–855
Mele A, Hao L, Cape J, Priebe CE (2019) Spectral inference for large Stochastic Blockmodels with nodal covariates. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.06438
Meyers LA, Pourbohloul B, Newman ME, Skowronski DM, Brunham RC (2005) Network theory and SARS: predicting outbreak diversity. J Theor Biol 232:71–81
Meyerson LA, Mooney HA (2007) Invasive alien species in an era of globalization. Front Ecol Environ 5:199–208
Miller ZD, Taff BD, Newman P, Lawhon B (2019) A proposed research agenda on social media’s role in visitor use and experience in parks and protected areas. J Park Recreation Admin 37(3):134–43
Molnar JL, Gamboa RL, Revenga C, Spalding MD (2008) Assessing the global threat of invasive species to marine biodiversity. Front Ecol Environ 6:485–492
Moore K, Smallman C, Wilson J, Simmons D (2012) Dynamic in-destination decision-making: an adjustment model. Tour Manage 33:635–645
Moslonka-Lefebvre M, Harwood T, Jeger MJ, Pautasso M (2012) SIS along a continuum (SIS c) epidemiological modelling and control of diseases on directed trade networks. Math Biosci 236:44–52
Mount A, Pickering CM (2009) Testing the capacity of clothing to act as a vector for non-native seed in protected areas. J Environ Manage 91:168–179
Newman M (2010) Networks: an introduction. Oxford University Press Inc., New York, USA, pp 1–2
Newman ME, Clauset A (2016) Structure and inference in annotated networks. Nat Commun 7:1–11
Newman ME, Girvan M (2004) Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. Phys Rev E 69:026113
Niemiera AX, Von Holle B (2009) Invasive plant species and the ornamental horticulture industry. Management of invasive weeds, pp. 167–187. Springer
Olesen JM, Jordano P (2002) Geographic patterns in plant-pollinator mutualistic networks. Ecology 83:2416–2424
Opsahl T, Agneessens F, Skvoretz J (2010) Node centrality in weighted networks: generalizing degree and shortest paths. Social Netw 32:245–251
Paini DR, Yemshanov D (2012) Modelling the arrival of invasive organisms via the international marine shipping network: a Khapra beetle study. PLoS ONE 7:e44589
Peixoto TP (2018) Nonparametric weighted stochastic block models. Phys Rev E 97:012306
Perry GL, Moloney KA, Etherington TR (2017) Using network connectivity to prioritise sites for the control of invasive species. J Appl Ecol 54:1238–1250
Pheloung P, Williams PA, Halloy S (1999) A weed risk assessment model for use as a biosecurity tool evaluating plant introductions. J Environ Manage 57:239–251
Phillips CB, Brown K, Green C, Toft R, Walker G, Broome K (2020) Eradicating the large white butterfly from New Zealand eliminates a threat to endemic Brassicaceae. PLoS ONE 15:e0236791
Pickering C, Mount A (2010) Do tourists disperse weed seed? A global review of unintentional human-mediated terrestrial seed dispersal on clothing, vehicles and horses. J Sustain Tour 18:239–256
Pires MM, Galetti M, Donatti CI, Pizo MA, Dirzo R, Guimarães PR (2014) Reconstructing past ecological networks: the reconfiguration of seed-dispersal interactions after megafaunal extinction. Oecologia 175:1247–1256
Poisot T, Stouffer DB, Gravel D (2015) Beyond species: why ecological interaction networks vary through space and time. Oikos 124:243–251
Poisot T, Stouffer DB, Kéfi S (2016) Describe, understand and predict: why do we need networks in ecology? Funct Ecol 30:1878–1882
Pollock LJ, Tingley R, Morris WK, Golding N, O’Hara RB, Parris KM, Vesk PA, McCarthy MA (2014) Understanding co-occurrence by modelling species simultaneously with a Joint Species Distribution Model (JSDM). Methods Ecol Evol 5:397–406
Pyšek P, Hulme P, Nentwig W, Vilà M (2011) DAISIE project. Encyclopedia of biological invasions. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 138–142
Pyšek P, Jarošík V, Pergl J (2011) Alien plants introduced by different pathways differ in invasion success: unintentional introductions as a threat to natural areas. PLoS ONE 6:e24890
Pyšek P, Richardson DM (2010) Invasive species, environmental change and management, and health. Annu Rev Environ Resour 35:25–55
Reichard S (2001) The search for patterns that enable prediction of invasion. Weed Risk Assessment (Groves RH, Panetta FD and Virtue JG), pp 10–19
Rejmánek M, Pitcairn M et al (2002) When is eradication of exotic pest plants a realistic goal. Turning the tide: the eradication of invasive species, pp 249–253
Ricciardi A, MacIsaac HJ (2008) In Retrospect: the book that began invasion ecology. Nature 452:34–34
Richardson DM, Bond WJ, Dean WRJ, Higgins SI, Midgley G, Milton SJ, Powrie LW, Rutherford MC, Samways M, Schulze R (2000) Invasive alien species and global change: a South African perspective. Invasive species in a changing world. Island Press, Washington, pp 303–349
Robinson AP, McNeill MR (2022) Biosecurity and post-arrival pathways in New Zealand: relating alien organism detections to tourism indicators. NeoBiota 71:51
da Rosa CA, Zenni R, Ziller SR, de Almeida Curi N, Passamani M (2018) Assessing the risk of invasion of species in the pet trade in Brazil. Perspecti Ecol Conserv 16:38–42
Roy S, Atchadé Y, Michailidis G (2019) Likelihood inference for large scale stochastic blockmodels with covariates based on a divide-and-conquer parallelizable algorithm with communication. J Comput Graph Stat 28:609–619
Runghen R, Bramon Mora B, Godoy-Lorite A, Stouffer DB (2021) Assessing unintended human-mediated dispersal using visitation networks. J Appl Ecol 58:777–788
Saggar S, McIntosh P, Hedley C, Knicker H (1999) Changes in soil microbial biomass, metabolic quotient, and organic matter turnover under Hieracium (H. pilosella L.). Biol Fertil Soils 30:232–238
Seebens H, Blackburn TM, Dyer EE, Genovesi P, Hulme PE, Jeschke JM, Pagad S, Pyšek P, van Kleunen M, Winter M et al (2018) Global rise in emerging alien species results from increased accessibility of new source pools. Proc Natl Acad Sci 115:E2264–E2273
Seebens H, Essl F, Dawson W, Fuentes N, Moser D, Pergl J, Pyšek P, Kleunen M, Weber E, Winter M et al (2015) Global trade will accelerate plant invasions in emerging economies under climate change. Glob Change Biol 21:4128–4140
Seebens H, Gastner M, Blasius B (2013) The risk of marine bioinvasion caused by global shipping. Ecol Lett 16:782–790
Simberloff D (2009) The role of propagule pressure in biological invasions. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 40:81–102
Simberloff D, Martin JL, Genovesi P, Maris V, Wardle DA, Aronson J, Courchamp F, Galil B, García-Berthou E, Pascal M et al (2013) Impacts of biological invasions: what’s what and the way forward. Trends Ecol Evol 28:58–66
Sinclair JS, Lockwood JL, Hasnain S, Cassey P, Arnott SE (2020) A framework for predicting which non-native individuals and species will enter, survive, and exit human-mediated transport. Biol Invasions 22:217–231
Smith KF, Behrens M, Schloegel LM, Marano N, Burgiel S, Daszak P (2009) Reducing the risks of the wildlife trade. Science 324:594–595
Soberón J, Nakamura M (2009) Niches and distributional areas: concepts, methods, and assumptions. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:19644–19650
Stouffer DB, Bascompte J (2011) Compartmentalization increases food-web persistence. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108:3648–3652
Sweet TM (2015) Incorporating covariates into stochastic blockmodels. J Educ Behav Stat 40:635–664
Thornsbury S (2002) Multilateral trade negotiations on agriculture: a resource manual: food and agricultural organization of the United Nations, Rome, 2001, 653 pp., ISBN: 92-5-104439-2 (Available at: http://www.fao.org). Agricultural Economics, 27, 189–190. https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agecon/v27y2002i2p189-190.html
Torres U, Godsoe W, Buckley HL, Parry M, Lustig A, Worner SP (2018) Using niche conservatism information to prioritize hotspots of invasion by non-native freshwater invertebrates in New Zealand. Divers Distrib 24:1802–1815
Turner RM, Brockerhoff EG, Bertelsmeier C, Blake RE, Caton B, James A, MacLeod A, Nahrung HF, Pawson SM, Plank MJ et al (2021) Worldwide border interceptions provide a window into human-mediated global insect movement. Ecol Appl 31:e02412
Vander Zanden MJ, Hansen GJ, Higgins SN, Kornis MS (2010) A pound of prevention, plus a pound of cure: early detection and eradication of invasive species in the Laurentian Great Lakes. J Great Lakes Res 36:199–205
Wang YJ, Wong GY (1987) Stochastic blockmodels for directed graphs. J Am Stat Assoc 82:8–19
Williams RJ, Martinez ND (2000) Simple rules yield complex food webs. Nature 404:180–183
Williamson M (1996) Biological invasions. Springer Science & Business Media, Germany
Wonham MJ, Byers JE, Grosholz ED, Leung B (2013) Modeling the relationship between propagule pressure and invasion risk to inform policy and management. Ecol Appl 23:1691–1706
Yemshanov D, McKenney DW, Pedlar JH, Koch FH, Cook D (2009) Towards an integrated approach to modelling the risks and impacts of invasive forest species. Environ Rev 17:163–178
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Michelle Marraffini, Stephen Merry, Sahana Cidambi, Filipe França and members of the Stouffer Lab and DaRe group for feedback and valuable discussions.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions. RR and DBS acknowledge funding from the New Zealand’s Biological Heritage Ngā Koiora Tuku Iho National Science Challenge administered through the New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment. RR acknowledges the support of The Roux Institute and the Harold Alfond Foundation. CLB acknowledges the support of an ETH Zürich Postdoctoral Fellowship (20-2 FEL-67).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to framing the manuscript, editing and approving the final draft.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have not disclosed any conflict of interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Runghen, R., Llopis-Belenguer, C., McNeill, M.R. et al. Using network analysis to study and manage human-mediated dispersal of exotic species. Biol Invasions 25, 3369–3389 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-023-03122-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-023-03122-3