A global meta-analysis of the ecological impacts of alien species on native amphibians.

The exponential increase in species introductions during the Anthropocene has brought about a major loss of biodiversity. Amphibians have suffered large declines, with more than 16% considered to be threatened by invasive species. We conducted a global meta-analysis of the impacts of alien species on native amphibians to determine which aspects of amphibian ecology are most affected by plant, invertebrate, fish, amphibian, reptile, or mammal introductions. Measures of fitness were most strongly affected; amphibian performance was consistently lower in the presence of alien species. While exposure to alien species caused a significant decrease in amphibian behavioural activity when compared with a no species control, this response was stronger towards a control of native impacting species. This indicates a high degree of prey naiveté towards alien species and highlights the importance of using different types of controls in empirical studies. Alien invertebrates had the greatest overall impact on amphibians. This study sets a new agenda for research on biological invasions, highlighting the lack of studies investigating the impacts of alien species on amphibian terrestrial life-history stages. It also emphasizes the strong ecological impacts that alien species have on amphibian fitness and suggests that future introductions or global spread of alien invertebrates could strongly exacerbate current amphibian declines.

How repeatable is the Environmental Impact Classification of Alien Taxa (EICAT)? Comparing independent global impact assessments of amphibians.

The magnitude of impacts some alien species cause to native environments makes them targets for regulation and management. However, which species to target is not always clear, and comparisons of a wide variety of impacts are necessary. Impact scoring systems can aid management prioritization of alien species. For such tools to be objective, they need to be robust to assessor bias. Here, we assess the newly proposed Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT) used for amphibians and test how outcomes differ between assessors. Two independent assessments were made by Kraus (Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics, 46, 2015, 75-97) and Kumschick et al. (Neobiota, 33, 2017, 53-66), including independent literature searches for impact records. Most of the differences between these two classifications can be attributed to different literature search strategies used with only one-third of the combined number of references shared between both studies. For the commonly assessed species, the classification of maximum impacts for most species is similar between assessors, but there are differences in the more detailed assessments. We clarify one specific issue resulting from different interpretations of EICAT, namely the practical interpretation and assigning of disease impacts in the absence of direct evidence of transmission from alien to native species. The differences between assessments outlined here cannot be attributed to features of the scheme. Reporting bias should be avoided by assessing all alien species rather than only the seemingly high-impacting ones, which also improves the utility of the data for management and prioritization for future research. Furthermore, assessments of the same taxon by various assessors and a structured review process for assessments, as proposed by Hawkins et al. (Diversity and Distributions, 21, 2015, 1360), can ensure that biases can be avoided and all important literature is included.