Alien predators are widely considered to be more harmful to prey populations than native predators. To evaluate this expectation, we conducted a meta-analysis of the responses of vertebrate prey in 45 replicated and 35 unreplicated field experiments in which the population densities of mammalian and avian predators had been manipulated. Our results showed that predator origin (native versus alien) had a highly significant effect on prey responses, with alien predators having an impact double that of native predators. Also the interaction between location (mainland versus island) and predator origin was significant, revealing the strongest effects with alien predators in mainland areas. Although both these results were mainly influenced by the huge impact of alien predators on the Australian mainland compared with their impact elsewhere, the results demonstrate that introduced predators can impose more intense suppression on remnant populations of native species and hold them further from their predator-free densities than do native predators preying upon coexisting prey.

Summary1. Predictions of the identities and ecological impacts of invasive alien species are critical for risk assessment, but presently we lack universal and standardized metrics that reliably predict the likelihood and degree of impact of such invaders (i.e. measurable changes in populations of affected species). This need is especially pressing for emerging and potential future invaders that have no invasion history. Such a metric would also ideally apply across diverse taxonomic and trophic groups. 2. We derive a new metric of invader ecological impact that blends: (i) the classic Functional Response (FR; consumer per capita effect) and Numerical Response (NR; consumer population response) approaches to determining consumer impact, that is, the Total Response (TR = FR 9 NR), with; (ii) the 'Parker-Lonsdale equation' for invader impact, where Impact = Range 9 Abundance 9 Effect (per capita effect), into; (iii) a new metric, Relative Impact Potential (RIP), where RIP = FR 9 Abundance. The RIP metric is an invader/native ratio, where values >1 predict that invader ecological impact will occur, and increasing values above 1 indicate increasing impact. In addition, the invader/invader RIP ratio allows comparisons of the ecological impacts of different invaders. 2017, 54, 1259-1267 doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12849 3. Across a diverse range of trophic and taxonomic groups, including predators, herbivores, animals and plants (22 invader/native systems with 47 individual comparisons), high-impact invaders were significantly associated with higher FRs compared to native trophic analogues. However, the RIP metric substantially improves this association, with 100% predictive power of high-impact invaders. 4. Further, RIP scores were significantly and positively correlated with two independent ecological impact scores for invaders, allowing prediction of the degree of impact of invasive alien species with the RIP metric. Finally, invader/invader RIP scores were also successful in identifying and associating with higher impacting invasive alien species. 5. Synthesis and applications. The Relative Impact Potential metric combines the per capita effects of invaders with their abundances, relative to trophically analogous natives, and is successful in predicting the likelihood and degree of ecological impact caused by invasive alien species. As the metric constitutes readily measurable features of individuals, populations and species across abiotic and biotic context-dependencies, even emerging and potential future invasive alien species can be assessed. The Relative Impact Potential metric can be rapidly utilized by scientists and practitioners and could inform policy and management of invasive alien species across diverse taxonomic and trophic groups. Journal of Applied Ecology

Quantifying the relative impacts of top‐down vs. bottom‐up control of ecosystems remains a controversial issue, with debate often focusing on the perennial question of how predators affect prey densities. To assess predator impacts, we performed a worldwide meta‐analysis of field experiments in which the densities of terrestrial vertebrate predators were manipulated and the responses of their terrestrial vertebrate prey were measured. Our results show that predation indeed limits prey populations, as prey densities change substantially after predator manipulations. The main determinant of the result of an experiment was the efficiency of predator manipulation. Positive impacts of predator manipulation appeared to increase with duration of the experiment for non‐cyclic prey, while the opposite was true for cyclic prey. In addition, predator manipulation showed a large positive impact on cyclic prey at low prey densities, but had no obvious impact at peak prey densities. As prey population densities generally respond predictably to predator manipulations, we suggest that control of introduced vertebrate predators can be used to effectively conserve and manage native wildlife. However, care should be taken when controlling native predators, especially apex species, owing to their importance as strong interactors and the biodiversity value of their habitats. We discuss gaps in our knowledge of predator–prey relationships and methodological issues related to manipulation experiments. An important guideline for future studies is that adequate monitoring of predator numbers before and during the experiment is the only way to ensure that observed responses in prey populations are actually caused by changes in predation impacts.

The invasion of alien species into areas beyond their native ranges is having profound effects on ecosystems around the world. In particular, novel alien predators are causing rapid extinctions or declines in many native prey species, and these impacts are generally attributed to ecological naïveté or the failure to recognise a novel enemy and respond appropriately due to a lack of experience. Despite a large body of research concerning the recognition of alien predation risk by native prey, the literature lacks an extensive review of naïveté theory that specifically asks how naïveté between novel pairings of alien predators and native prey disrupts our classical understanding of predator-prey ecological theory. Here we critically review both classic and current theory relating to predator-prey interactions between both predators and prey with shared evolutionary histories, and those that are ecologically 'mismatched' through the outcomes of biological invasions. The review is structured around the multiple levels of naïveté framework of Banks & Dickman (2007), and concepts and examples are discussed as they relate to each stage in the process from failure to recognise a novel predator (Level 1 naïveté), through to appropriate (Level 2) and effective (Level 3) antipredator responses. We discuss the relative contributions of recognition, cue types and the implied risk of cues used by novel alien and familiar native predators, to the probability that prey will recognise a novel predator. We then cover the antipredator response types available to prey and the factors that predict whether these responses will be appropriate or effective against novel alien and familiar native predators. In general, the level of naïveté of native prey can be predicted by the degree of novelty (in terms of appearance, behaviour or habitat use) of the alien predator compared to native predators with which prey are experienced. Appearance in this sense includes cue types, spatial distribution and implied risk of cues, whilst behaviour and habitat use include hunting modes and the habitat domain of the predator. Finally, we discuss whether the antipredator response can occur without recognition per se, for example in the case of morphological defences, and then consider a potential extension of the multiple levels of naïveté framework. The review concludes with recommendations for the design and execution of naïveté experiments incorporating the key concepts and issues covered here. This review aims to critique and combine classic ideas about predator-prey interactions with current naïveté theory, to further develop the multiple levels of naïveté framework, and to suggest the most fruitful avenues for future research.