RESUMO
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.
RESUMO
Planktonic invasive species cause adverse effects on aquatic biodiversity and ecosystem services. However, these impacts are often underestimated because of unresolved taxonomic issues and limited biogeographic knowledge. Thus, it is pivotal to start a rigorous quantification of impacts undertaken by planktonic invasive species on global economies. We used the InvaCost database, the most up-to-date database of economic cost estimates of biological invasions worldwide, to produce the first critical assessment of the economic dimension of biological invasions caused by planktonic taxa. We found that in period spanning from 1960 to 2021, the cumulative global cost of plankton invasions was US$ 5.8 billion for permanent plankton (holoplankton) of which viruses encompassed nearly 93%. Apart from viruses, we found more costs related to zooplankton (US$ 297 million) than to the other groups summed, including myco- (US$ 73 million), phyto- (43 million), and bacterioplankton (US$ 0.7 million). Strikingly, harmful and potentially toxic cyanobacteria and dinoflagellates are completely absent from the database. Furthermore, the data base showed a decrease in costs over time, which is probably an artifact as a sharp rise of novel planktonic alien species has gained international attention. Also, assessments of the costs of larval meroplanktonic stages of littoral and benthic invasive invertebrates are lacking whereas cumulative global cost of their adults stages is high up to US$ 98 billion billion and increasing. Considering the challenges and perspectives of increasing but unnoticed or neglected impacts by plankton invasions, the assessment of their ecological and economic impacts should be of high priority.
