Frameworks used in invasion science: progress and prospects

Abstract

Our understanding and management of biological invasions relies on our ability to classify and conceptualise the phenomenon. This need has stimulated the development of a plethora of frameworks, ranging in nature from conceptual to applied. However, most of these frameworks have not been widely tested and their general applicability is unknown. In order to critically evaluate frameworks in invasion science, we held a workshop on ‘Frameworks used in Invasion Science’ hosted by the DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology in Stellenbosch, South Africa, in November 2019, which led to this special issue. For the purpose of the workshop we defined a framework as “a way of organising things that can be easily communicated to allow for shared understanding or that can be implemented to allow for generalisations useful for research, policy or management”. Further, we developed the Stellenbosch Challenge for Invasion Science: “Can invasion science develop and improve frameworks that are useful for research, policy or management, and that are clear as to the contexts in which the frameworks do and do not apply?”. Particular considerations identified among meeting participants included the need to identify the limitations of a framework, specify how frameworks link to each other and broader issues, and to improve how frameworks can facilitate communication. We believe that the 24 papers in this special issue do much to meet this challenge. The papers apply existing frameworks to new data and contexts, review how the frameworks have been adopted and used, develop useable protocols and guidelines for applying frameworks to different contexts, refine the frameworks in light of experience, integrate frameworks for new purposes, identify gaps, and develop new frameworks to address issues that are currently not adequately dealt with. Frameworks in invasion science must continue to be developed, tested as broadly as possible, revised, and retired as contexts and needs change. However, frameworks dealing with pathways of introduction, progress along the introduction-naturalisation-invasion continuum, and the assessment of impacts are being increasingly formalised and set as standards. This, we argue, is an important step as invasion science starts to mature as a discipline.

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

“…are not yet widely implemented as they were originally formulated. We believe that our ability to understand and manage biological invasions will improve as we move increasingly towards agreed standards in the field (Wilson et al 2020). Invasion frameworks will need to both provide information about such change and be flexible, so they can be modified in the light of the experience and needs of users.…”

“…These issues were discussed as part of a workshop on "Frameworks in Invasion Science" in November 2019 (Wilson et al 2020). As background to this workshop, and to understand the role of frameworks in invasion science generally, this paper explores the degree to which existing frameworks have been accepted and adopted.…”

“…This is a biased selection. Many more frameworks have been proposed, some of which are very similar to those selected (Catford et al 2009;Leung et al 2012;Wilson et al 2020), and several others paved the way for the frameworks selected here (Nentwig et al 2010;Rich-ardson et al 2000;Williamson and Fitter 1996). However, we selected these frameworks as they capture the phenomenon of invasion in its entirety (i.e., introduction dynamics, establishment, spread, and impact) and they were all explicitly designed to be generalisable across taxa and contexts.…”

Biotic Threats to Cycas micronesica Continue to Expand to Complicate Conservation Decisions

“…As conservation decision-makers need multi-threat assessments such as ours to develop the most effective conservation actions [ 56 ], we use this well-researched case study as a model for informing conservation decisions of other threatened plant taxa [ 16 ]. Our report is useful for discussing the Anthropocene consequences and how the global disciplines of conservation science and invasion biology can be studied at the local level [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 ]. In the short term, mitigation of the phytophagous non-native species’ damage remains the only acute need to conserve this unique gymnosperm tree.…”

“…For this reason, employing non-professionals to monitor and report outbreaks of non-native species is a recent addition to the toolbox of invasion biology, a field that has been dubbed “citizen science” [ 14 ]. More recently, new frameworks have been created to organize the massive amount of data that has evolved from invasion biology research, which enables a more organized approach to compare case studies among global databases [ 15 ]. These developments allow biologists to study invasive species within their socio-economic or environmental impacts using globally relevant criteria.…”