Invasive alien species (IAS) are considered one of the greatest threats to biodiversity, particularly through their interactions with other drivers of change. Horizon scanning, the systematic examination of future potential threats and opportunities, leading to prioritization of IAS threats is seen as an essential component of IAS management. Our aim was to consider IAS that were likely to impact on native biodiversity but were not yet established in the wild in Great Britain. To achieve this, we developed an approach which coupled consensus methods (which have previously been used for collaboratively identifying priorities in other contexts) with rapid risk assessment. The process involved two distinct phases: Preliminary consultation with experts within five groups (plants, terrestrial invertebrates, freshwater invertebrates, vertebrates and marine species) to derive ranked lists of potential IAS.Consensus-building across expert groups to compile and rank the entire list of potential IAS.Five hundred and ninety-one species not native to Great Britain were considered. Ninety-three of these species were agreed to constitute at least a medium risk (based on score and consensus) with respect to them arriving, establishing and posing a threat to native biodiversity. The quagga mussel, Dreissena rostriformis bugensis, received maximum scores for risk of arrival, establishment and impact; following discussions the unanimous consensus was to rank it in the top position. A further 29 species were considered to constitute a high risk and were grouped according to their ranked risk. The remaining 63 species were considered as medium risk, and included in an unranked long list. The information collated through this novel extension of the consensus method for horizon scanning provides evidence for underpinning and prioritizing management both for the species and, perhaps more importantly, their pathways of arrival. Although our study focused on Great Britain, we suggest that the methods adopted are applicable globally.

Summary Classical biological control remains the only tool available for permanent ecological and economic management of invasive alien species that flourish through absence of their co‐evolved natural enemies. As such, this approach is recognized as a key tool for alien species management by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) and the European Strategy on Invasive Alien Species (ESIAS). Successful classical biological control programmes abound around the world, despite disproportionate attention being given to occasional and predictable non‐target impacts. Despite more than 130 case histories in Europe against insect pests, no exotic classical biological control agent has been released in the EU against an alien invasive weed. This dearth has occurred in the face of increasing numbers of exotic invasive plants being imported and taking over National Parks, forests and amenity areas in this region, as well as a global increase in the use of classical biological control around the world. This paper reviews potential European weed targets for classical biological control from ecological and socioeconomic perspectives using the criteria of historical biological control success, taxonomic isolation from European native flora, likely availability of biological control agents, invasiveness outside Europe and value to primary industry and horticulture (potential for conflicts of interest). We also review why classical biological control of European exotic plants remains untested, considering problems of funding and public perception. Finally, we consider the regulatory framework that surrounds such biological control activities within constituent countries of the EU to suggest how this approach may be adopted in the future for managing invasive exotic weeds in Europe.

Keywords: Invasive species Ecosystem function Insect pests Invasive plants Ecological restoration Biological control Natural ecosystems a b s t r a c tOf the 70 cases of classical biological control for the protection of nature found in our review, there were fewer projects against insect targets (21) than against invasive plants (49), in part, because many insect biological control projects were carried out against agricultural pests, while nearly all projects against plants targeted invasive plants in natural ecosystems. Of 21 insect projects, 81% (17) provided benefits to protection of biodiversity, while 48% (10) protected products harvested from natural systems, and 5% (1) preserved ecosystem services, with many projects contributing to more than one goal. In contrast, of the 49 projects against invasive plants, 98% (48) provided benefits to protection of biodiversity, while 47% (23) protected products, and 25% (12) preserved ecosystem services, again with many projects contributing to several goals. We classified projects into complete control (pest generally no longer important), partial control (control in some areas but not others), and ''in progress," for projects in development for which outcomes do not yet exist. For insects, of the 21 projects discussed, 62% (13) achieved complete control of the target pest, 19% (4) provided partial control, and 43% (9) are still in progress. By comparison, of the 49 invasive plant projects considered, 27% (13) achieved complete control, while 33% (16) provided partial control, and 49% (24) are still in progress. For both categories of pests, some projects' success ratings were scored twice when results varied by region. We found approximately twice as many projects directed against invasive plants than insects and that protection of biodiversity was the most frequent benefit of both insect and plant projects. Ecosystem service protection was provided in the fewest cases by either insect or plant biological control agents, but was more likely to be provided by projects directed against invasive plants, likely because of the strong effects plants exert on landscapes. Rates of complete success appeared to be higher for insect than plant targets (62% vs 27%), perhaps because most often herbivores gradually weaken, rather than outright kill, their hosts, which is not the case for natural enemies directed against pest insects. For both insect and plant biological control, nearly half of all projects reviewed were listed as currently in progress, suggesting that the use of biological control for the protection of wildlands is currently very active.

We explored the spatial structure of seed size variation and tested whether seed size differed between native and exotic populations in two invasive species. Seed of Cytisus scoparius (Scotch broom) is significantly heavier in its exotic range, whereas seed of Ulex europaeus (European gorse) is no different between ranges. This result suggests that seed size in C. scoparius is either adaptively or phenotypically responsive to conditions in its exotic range or that plants with large seeds were preferentially introduced. We found that modern ornamental broom seed was no bigger than seed from natural or naturalized populations, suggesting that large seed size in the exotic range is not due to preferential introduction of ornamental varieties with large seeds. Most previous studies of trait differences between native and exotic ranges in invasive species have not taken variation throughout the ranges into account. This is the most comprehensive survey of seed size variation in any species, and the first time that variation in a trait of an invasive species has been studied from individual plant level up to global ranges. Demographic rates can be affected by seed attributes making this study an important first step in understanding how population processes may differ between native and exotic ranges.

We contend that invasion ecology requires a universal, measurable trait of species and their interactions with resources that predicts key elements of invasibility and ecological impact; here, we advocate that functional responses can help achieve this across taxonomic and trophic groups, among habitats and contexts, and can hence help unify disparate research interests in invasion ecology.Invasion ecology is fragmented and lacks truly unifying principles across taxonomic and trophic groups, with many widely cited invasion hypotheses