Plant communities are often dispersal-limited and zoochory can be an efficient mechanism for plants to colonize new patches of potentially suitable habitat. We predicted that seed dispersal by ungulates acts as an ecological filter -which differentially affects individuals according to their characteristics and shapes species assemblages -and that the filter varies according to the dispersal mechanism (endozoochory, fur-epizoochory and hoof-epizoochory). We conducted two-step individual participant data meta-analyses of 52 studies on plant dispersal by ungulates in fragmented landscapes, comparing eight plant traits and two habitat indicators between dispersed and non-dispersed plants. We found that ungulates dispersed at least 44% of the available plant species. Moreover, some plant traits and habitat indicators increased the likelihood for plant of being dispersed. Persistent or nitrophilous plant species from open habitats or bearing dry or elongated diaspores were more likely to be dispersed by ungulates, whatever the dispersal mechanism. In addition, endozoochory was more likely for diaspores bearing elongated appendages whereas epizoochory was more likely for diaspores released relatively high in vegetation. Hoof-epizoochory was more likely for light diaspores without hooked appendages. Furepizoochory was more likely for diaspores with appendages, particularly elongated or hooked ones. We thus observed a gradient of filtering effect among the three dispersal mechanisms. Endozoochory had an effect of rather weak intensity (impacting six plant characteristics with variations between ungulate-dispersed and non-dispersed plant species mostly below 25%), whereas hoof-epizoochory had a stronger effect (eight characteristics included five ones with above 75% variation), and fur-epizoochory an even stronger one (nine characteristics included six ones with above 75% variation). Our results demonstrate that seed dispersal by ungulates is an ecological filter whose intensity varies according to the dispersal mechanism considered. Ungulates can thus play a key role in plant community dynamics and have implications for plant spatial distribution patterns at multiple scales.Plant communities are often dispersal-limited and zoochory can be an efficient mechanism for plants to colonize new patches of potentially suitable habitat. Our analysis is the first synthesis of ungulate seed dispersal that compares characteristics from both non-dispersed and dispersed diaspores, distinguishing the three zoochory mechanisms ungulates are involved in: endozoochory, hoof-epizoochory and fur-epizoochory. We confirmed that seed dispersal by ungulates is an ecological filter whose intensity increases from endozoochory, then hoof-epizoochory to finally fur-epizoochory. By filtering seed traits through dispersal, ungulates can thus play a key role in plant community dynamics and have implications for plant spatial distribution patterns at multiple scales. Synthesis
Biological invasions are a threat to biodiversity, society and the economy. There is an urgent need to provide evidence‐based assessments of the risks posed by invasive alien species (IAS) to prioritize action. Risk assessments underpin IAS policies in many ways: informing legislation; providing justification of restrictions in trade or consumer activities; prioritizing surveillance and rapid response. There are benefits to ensuring consistency in content of IAS risk assessments globally, and this can be achieved by providing a framework of minimum standards as a checklist for quality assurance. From a review of existing risk assessment protocols, and with reference to the requirements of the EU Regulation on IAS (1143/2014) and international agreements including the World Trade Organisation, Convention on Biological Diversity and International Plant Protection Convention, coupled with consensus methods, we identified and agreed upon 14 minimum standards (attributes) a risk‐assessment scheme should include. The agreed minimum standards were as follows: (1) basic species description; (2) likelihood of invasion; (3) distribution, spread and impacts; (4) assessment of introduction pathways; (5) assessment of impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems; (6) Assessment of impact on ecosystem services; (7) assessment of socio‐economic impacts; (8) consideration of status (threatened or protected) of species or habitat under threat; (9) assessment of effects of future climate change; (10) completion possible even when there is a lack of information; (11) documents information sources; (12) provides a summary in a consistent and interpretable form; (13) includes uncertainty; (14) includes quality assurance. In deriving these minimum standards, gaps in knowledge required for completing risk assessments and the scope of existing risk assessment protocols were revealed, most notably in relation to assessing benefits, socio‐economic impacts and impacts on ecosystem services but also inclusion of consideration of climate change. Policy implications. We provide a checklist of components that should be within invasive alien species risk assessments and recommendations to develop risk assessments to meet these proposed minimum standards. Although inspired by implementation of the European Union Regulation on invasive alien species, and as such developed specifically within a European context, the derived framework and minimum standards could be applied globally.
Risk assessment tools for listing invasive alien species need to incorporate all available evidence and expertise. Beyond the wealth of protocols developed to date, we argue that the current way of performing risk analysis has several shortcomings. In particular, lack of data on ecological impacts, transparency and repeatability of assessments as well as the incorporation of uncertainty should all be explicitly considered. We recommend improved quality control of risk assessments through formalized peer review with clear feedback between assessors and reviewers.Alternatively, a consensus building process can be applied to better capture opinions of different experts, thereby maximizing the evidential basis. Elaborating on manageability of invasive species is further needed to fully answer all risk analysis requirements. Tackling the issue of invasive species urges better handling of the acquired information on risk and the exploration of improved methods for decision making on biodiversity management. This is crucial for efficient conservation resource allocation and uptake by stakeholders and the public.
Standardized tools are needed to identify and prioritize the most harmful non-native species (NNS). A plethora of assessment protocols have been developed to evaluate the current and potential impacts of non-native species, but consistency among them has received limited attention. To estimate the consistency across impact assessment protocols, 89 specialists in biological invasions used 11 protocols to screen 57 NNS (2614 assessments). We tested if the consistency in the impact scoring across assessors, quantified as the coefficient of variation (CV), was dependent on the characteristics of the protocol, the taxonomic group and the expertise of the assessor. Mean CV across assessors was 40%, with a maximum of 223%. CV was lower for protocols with a low number of score levels, which demanded high levels of expertise, and when the assessors had greater expertise on the assessed species. The similarity among protocols with respect to the final scores was higher when the protocols considered the same impact types. We conclude that all protocols led to considerable inconsistency among assessors. In order to improve consistency, we highlight the importance of selecting assessors with high expertise, providing clear guidelines and adequate training but also deriving final decisions collaboratively by consensus.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.