Mismatch between media coverage and research on invasive species: The case of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in Argentina.

Invasive species are a pervasive driver of global change with increasing media coverage. Media coverage and framing can influence both invasive species management and policies, as well as shed light on research needs. Using the wild boar (Sus scrofa) invasion in Argentina as a case study, we conducted a content analysis of media coverage and scientific articles. Specifically, we compared news and scientific articles based on their emphasis: ecological, economic, and health impacts and the overall perception portrayed in the news: "positive" when the articles emphasized benefits from wild boar and "negative" when focused on damage and/or loss. A literature search using Google news, Web of Science, Scielo, and Google Scholar yielded a total of 194 news articles and 37 research papers on wild boar in Argentina. More than half of the news articles focused on economic impacts of wild boar (56%) such as sport hunting, illegal hunting, and road accidents; while 27% focused on ecological impacts, and 10% on health impacts. In contrast, the majority of the scientific articles (65%) focused on ecological impacts of wild boar on native species and ecosystems; while 21% were related to health impacts and only 8.3% of scientific articles were related to economic impacts. This mismatch between media and science reveals a disconnection between social and scientific interests in wild boar and their management in Argentina, and it provides insights to research needs and prevention of management conflicts. Additionally, we found that 66.8% of news articles focused on "negative" aspects of wild boar, while 33.2% of news articles portrayed "positive" perceptions. This finding is very important because the management of invasive species such as wild boar usually requires lethal techniques, and the success of the programs depend on favorable social and political support. Good science communication is therefore key to helping scientists and managers perform more effective management actions.

Potential problems of removing one invasive species at a time: a meta-analysis of the interactions between invasive vertebrates and unexpected effects of removal programs.

Although the co-occurrence of nonnative vertebrates is a ubiquitous global phenomenon, the study of interactions between invaders is poorly represented in the literature. Limited understanding of the interactions between co-occurring vertebrates can be problematic for predicting how the removal of only one invasive-a common management scenario-will affect native communities. We suggest a trophic food web framework for predicting the effects of single-species management on native biodiversity. We used a literature search and meta-analysis to assess current understanding of how the removal of one invasive vertebrate affects native biodiversity relative to when two invasives are present. The majority of studies focused on the removal of carnivores, mainly within aquatic systems, which highlights a critical knowledge gap in our understanding of co-occurring invasive vertebrates. We found that removal of one invasive vertebrate caused a significant negative effect on native species compared to when two invasive vertebrates were present. These unexpected results could arise because of the positioning and hierarchy of the co-occurring invasives in the food web (e.g., carnivore-carnivore or carnivore-herbivore). We consider that there are important knowledge gaps to determinate the effects of multiple co-existing invaders on native ecosystems, and this information could be precious for management.