Applying the Convention on Biological Diversity Pathway Classification to alien species in Europe

Pergl, Jan; Brundu, G.; Harrower, Colin; Cardoso, Ana Cristina; Genovesi, Piero; Katsanevakis, Stelios; Lozano, Vanessa; Perglová, Irena; Rabitsch, Wolfgang; Richards, Gareth Api; Roques, Alain; Rorke, Stephanie L.; Scalerà, Riccardo; Schönrogge, Karsten; Stewart, Alan J. A.; Tricarico, Elena; Tsiamis, Konstantinos; Vannini, Andrea; Vilà, Montserrat; Zenetos, Argyro; Roy, Helen E.

doi:10.3897/neobiota.62.53796

Cited by 51 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 85 publications

(90 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, several adaptations to the Unified Framework have been proposed based on experiences of implementing it in Europe (Groom et al 2019), Hawaii (Brock and Daehler 2020), and South Africa (Wilson et al 2018). Similarly, Pergl et al (2020) and Faulkner et al (2020) provide proposals to refine the CBD pathway classification scheme based on applying it in different contexts, and Volery et al (2020) document changes made to EICAT after stakeholder consultation. All three frameworks have, to different extents, been incorporated in developing biodiversity data standards, and this will provide a more formalised process for revising them.…”

Section: Framework Are Temporary Concepts Are Permanent But Where mentioning

confidence: 99%

Is invasion science moving towards agreed standards? The influence of selected frameworks

Wilson¹,

Datta²,

Hirsch³

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The need to understand and manage biological invasions has driven the development of frameworks to circumscribe, classify, and elucidate aspects of the phenomenon. But how influential have these frameworks really been? To test this, we evaluated the impact of a pathway classification framework, a framework focussing on the introduction-naturalisation-invasion continuum, and two papers that outline an impact classification framework. We analysed how these framework papers are cited and by whom, conducted a survey to determine why people have cited the frameworks, and explored the degree to which the frameworks are implemented. The four papers outlining these frameworks are amongst the most-cited in their respective journals, are highly regarded in the field, and are already seen as citation classics (although citations are overwhelmingly within the field of invasion science). The number of citations to the frameworks has increased over time, and, while a significant proportion of these are self-citations (20–40%), this rate is decreasing. The frameworks were cited by studies conducted and authored by researchers from across the world. However, relative to a previous citation analysis of invasion science as a whole, the frameworks are particularly used in Europe and South Africa and less so in North America. There is an increasing number of examples of uptake into invasion policy and management (e.g., the pathway classification framework has been adapted and adopted into EU legislation and CBD targets, and the impact classification framework has been adopted by the IUCN). However, we found that few of the citing papers (6–8%) specifically implemented or interrogated the frameworks; roughly half of all citations might be viewed as frivolous (“citation fluff”); there were several clear cases of erroneous citation; and some survey respondents felt that they have not been rigorously tested yet. Although our analyses suggest that invasion science is moving towards a more systematic and standardised approach to recording invasions and their impacts, it appears that the proposed standards are still not applied consistently. For this to be achieved, we argue that frameworks in invasion science need to be revised or adapted to particular contexts in response to the needs and experiences of users (e.g., so they are relevant to pathologists, plant ecologists, and practitioners), the standards should be easier to apply in practice (e.g., through the development of guidelines for management), and there should be incentives for their usage (e.g., recognition for completing an EICAT assessment).

show abstract

Section: Framework Are Temporary Concepts Are Permanent But Where mentioning

confidence: 99%

Is invasion science moving towards agreed standards? The influence of selected frameworks

Wilson¹,

Datta²,

Hirsch³

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Assessments that have attempted to apply the CBD framework have highlighted implementation issues (Saul et al 2017;Tsiamis et al 2017;Zenetos 2017;van Wilgen and Wilson 2018;Pergl et al 2020). For instance, the sub-categories cannot accommodate all data and some sub-categories overlap and are indistinguishable.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Parties to the CBD have been encouraged to make use of the framework (Essl et al 2015) and efforts have been made to implement it. Data in existing databases have been re-classified using the CBD framework (Saul et al 2017;Tsiamis et al 2017;van Wilgen and Wilson 2018;Pergl et al 2020), its terminologies have been included in the vocabularies of global data standards (Groom et al 2019), it has been used in national level reporting (Wilson et al 2018) and is employed in the system (NOTSYS) used by member states of the European Commission to report new observations of invasive species that are of Union concern (https://easin.jrc.ec.europa.eu/notsys). However, some countries still make use of their own frameworks.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1) have few of the CAGED properties (Table 2 and Table 3 for further details). Assessments that have used the CBD framework have highlighted that the differences between the sub-categories are unclear (Tsiamis et al 2017;van Wilgen and Wilson 2018;Pergl et al 2020), the information available is often not detailed enough for classification at the sub-category level (i.e. introductions match to more than one sub-category) (Tsiamis et al 2017; Zenetos 2017; van Wilgen and Wilson 2018) and many of the sub-categories are only appropriate for specific taxonomic groups or habitats (Matthews et al 2014;Padayachee et al 2017).…”

Section: Sub-categories Of the Cbd Introduction Pathway Classificatiomentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Classifying the introduction pathways of alien species: are we moving in the right direction?

Faulkner¹,

Hulme²,

Pagad³

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Alien species are introduced to new regions in many different ways and for different purposes. A number of frameworks have been developed to group such pathways of introduction into discrete categories in order to improve our understanding of biological invasions, provide information for interventions that aim to prevent introductions, enable reporting to national and international organisations and facilitate the prediction of threats. The introduction pathway classification framework proposed by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) as a global standard is comprised of six main categories and 44 sub-categories. However, issues have arisen with its implementation. In this position paper, we outline five desirable properties of an introduction pathway classification framework – it should be compatible (i.e. the level of detail of the categories is similar to that of the available data), actionable (i.e. categories link to specific interventions), general (i.e. categories are applicable across the contexts that are of interest (e.g. taxa, habitats and regions)), equivalent (i.e. categories are equivalent in their level of detail) and distinct (i.e. categories are discrete and easily distinguished) – termed the CAGED properties. The six main categories of the CBD framework have all of the CAGED properties, but the detailed sub-categories have few. Therefore, while the framework has been proposed by the CBD as a global standard and efforts have been made to put it into practice, we argue that there is room for improvement. We conclude by presenting scenarios for how the issues identified could be addressed, noting that a hybrid model might be most appropriate.

show abstract

“…These effects can then feed back to the source region, such as through new prevention policies or shifting consumer demand. The transport feedback loop can span global scales, driven by inter-country travel and trade, but can also include local-scale interactions within a single region, provided propagules are being moved outside their native range (Faulkner et al 2020;Pergl et al 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reciprocal human-natural system feedback loops within the invasion process

Sinclair¹,

Brown²,

Lockwood³

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biological invasions are inextricably linked to how people collect, move, interact with and perceive non-native species. However, invasion frameworks generally do not consider reciprocal interactions between non-native species and people. Non-native species can shape human actions via beneficial or detrimental ecological and socioeconomic effects and people, in turn, shape invasions through their movements, behaviour and how they respond to the collection, transport, introduction and spread of non-natives. The feedbacks that stem from this ‘coupled human and natural system’ (CHANS) could therefore play a key role in mitigating (i.e. negative feedback loops) or exacerbating (i.e. positive feedback loops) ongoing and future invasions. We posit that the invasion process could be subdivided into three CHANS that span from the source region from which non-natives originate to the recipient region in which they establish and spread. We also provide specific examples of feedback loops that occur within each CHANS that have either reduced or facilitated new introductions and spread of established non-native species. In so doing, we add to exisiting invasion frameworks to generate new hypotheses about human-based drivers of biological invasions and further efforts to determine how ecological outcomes feed back into human actions.

show abstract

Applying the Convention on Biological Diversity Pathway Classification to alien species in Europe

Cited by 51 publications

References 85 publications

Is invasion science moving towards agreed standards? The influence of selected frameworks

Is invasion science moving towards agreed standards? The influence of selected frameworks

Classifying the introduction pathways of alien species: are we moving in the right direction?

Reciprocal human-natural system feedback loops within the invasion process

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About