Taming the terminological tempest in invasion science

Abstract

Standardised terminology in science is important for clarity of interpretation and communication. In invasion science – a dynamic and rapidly evolving discipline – the proliferation of technical terminology has lacked a standardised framework for its development. The result is a convoluted and inconsistent usage of terminology, with various discrepancies in descriptions of damage and interventions. A standardised framework is therefore needed for a clear, universally applicable, and consistent terminology to promote more effective communication across researchers, stakeholders, and policymakers. Inconsistencies in terminology stem from the exponential increase in scientific publications on the patterns and processes of biological invasions authored by experts from various disciplines and countries since the 1990s, as well as publications by legislators and policymakers focusing on practical applications, regulations, and management of resources. Aligning and standardising terminology across stakeholders remains a challenge in invasion science. Here, we review and evaluate the multiple terms used in invasion science (e.g. ‘non‐native’, ‘alien’, ‘invasive’ or ‘invader’, ‘exotic’, ‘non‐indigenous’, ‘naturalised’, ‘pest’) to propose a more simplified and standardised terminology. The streamlined framework we propose and translate into 28 other languages is based on the terms (i) ‘non‐native’, denoting species transported beyond their natural biogeographic range, (ii) ‘established non‐native’, i.e. those non‐native species that have established self‐sustaining populations in their new location(s) in the wild, and (iii) ‘invasive non‐native’ – populations of established non‐native species that have recently spread or are spreading rapidly in their invaded range actively or passively with or without human mediation. We also highlight the importance of conceptualising ‘spread’ for classifying invasiveness and ‘impact’ for management. Finally, we propose a protocol for classifying populations based on (i) dispersal mechanism, (ii) species origin, (iii) population status, and (iv) impact. Collectively and without introducing new terminology, the framework that we present aims to facilitate effective communication and collaboration in invasion science and management of non‐native species.

Biological invasions are a population‐level rather than a species‐level phenomenon

“…These possibilities are contingent upon the characteristics of the invaded ecosystem, but non-native species abundance, biomass, occupied area, and impact may not always strictly correlate. However, while any of these four measurements may serve as a proxy for both impact and spread, abundance in particular may reflect a population's potential to spread (Booy et al, 2020) and thus, function as an indicator of a population's potential invasiveness Soto et al, 2024).…”

“…Biological invasions have rapidly consolidated among the major threats of the Anthropocene, causing significant detrimental impacts to biodiversity, the functioning of ecosystem processes, and to socio-economic stability (Diagne et al, 2021;Roy et al, 2023;Shackleton et al, 2019;Simberloff, 2013;Zhang et al, 2022). Both accidental and intentional introductions of non-native species into new geographic regions, where they have no evolutionary history, can result in substantial adverse effects (Dudgeon, 2019;Leroy et al, 2023;Reid et al, 2019), including local displacement and extinction of native species through predation and competition, parasite and disease transmission, changes in ecosystem functioning, and-among other impacts-the disruption of systemic balances (Bacher et al, 2023;Lázaro-Lobo et al, 2023;Soto et al, 2024).…”

“…A more comprehensive exploration of population-specific invasion dynamics is essential for enhancing predictive modelling, refining RAs and developing effective conservation and mitigation measures tailored to the unique characteristics of each population of the invasive non-native species (Cuthbert et al, 2023;Hui & Richardson, 2017). It is, therefore, crucial to emphasise the importance of 'spread', rather than an observed 'impact', when defining a non-native population's invasiveness, because a spreading non-native species may cause impacts elsewhere, which are more difficult and costly to demonstrate (Milardi et al, 2022;Soto et al, 2024). The significance of 'spread' in invasion science lies in the representation of the dispersal of a non-native species beyond its initial introduction point (Hui & Richardson, 2017;Wilson et al, 2009).…”

Decadal‐scale regional variability in monitoring efforts significantly influences fish diversity trends in the Euphrates and Tigris catchments, Türkiye

“…It allows us to glean insights into the historical state of ecosystems, providing context for current conditions and potential trajectories . Moreover, such a preliminary assessment may offer a vital benchmark against which future data can be compared, enabling us to gauge the effectiveness of conservation strategies and adaptive management practices to minimize anthropogenic stressors like non-native species (Soto et al, 2024;Tarkan et al, 2024). In the absence of such baseline assessments, we risk overlooking subtle yet critical shifts in biodiversity that may have significant implications for the health and functioning of ecosystems.…”

How fish populations in Lake Bafa (Western Anatolia) respond to ecological shifts

“…The Anthropocene is characterized by the destruction of habitats, environmental pollution, climate change, the introduction of invasive species (Soto et al, 2024), and the overexploitation of natural resources (Corlett, 2015;Pievani, 2014). These combined have led to a rapid loss of biodiversity, with many species facing extinction (Johnson et al, 2017;Turvey & Crees, 2019).…”