Biological invasions are a global consequence of an increasingly connected world and the rise in human population size The numbers of invasive alien species – the subset of alien species that spread widely in areas where they are not native, affecting the environment or human livelihoods – are increasing Synergies with other global changes are exacerbating current invasions and facilitating new ones, thereby escalating the extent and impacts of invaders Invasions have complex and often immense long‐term direct and indirect impacts In many cases, such impacts become apparent or problematic only when invaders are well established and have large ranges Invasive alien species break down biogeographic realms, affect native species richness and abundance, increase the risk of native species extinction, affect the genetic composition of native populations, change native animal behaviour, alter phylogenetic diversity across communities, and modify trophic networks Many invasive alien species also change ecosystem functioning and the delivery of ecosystem services by altering nutrient and contaminant cycling, hydrology, habitat structure, and disturbance regimes These biodiversity and ecosystem impacts are accelerating and will increase further in the future Scientific evidence has identified policy strategies to reduce future invasions, but these strategies are often insufficiently implemented For some nations, notably Australia and New Zealand, biosecurity has become a national priority There have been long‐term successes, such as eradication of rats and cats on increasingly large islands and biological control of weeds across continental areas However, in many countries, invasions receive little attention Improved international cooperation is crucial to reduce the impacts of invasive alien species on biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human livelihoods Countries can strengthen their biosecurity regulations to implement and enforce more effective management strategies that should also address other global changes that interact with invasions

/pdf/scientists-warning-on-invasive-alien-species-3lt6vsrc2u.pdf

Scientists' warning on invasive alien species.

LETTERS to the EDITORPublication bias

Forest restoration is being scaled up globally to deliver critical ecosystem services and biodiversity benefits; however, there is a lack of rigorous comparison of cobenefit delivery across different restoration approaches. Through global synthesis, we used 25,950 matched data pairs from 264 studies in 53 countries to assess how delivery of climate, soil, water, and wood production services, in addition to biodiversity, compares across a range of tree plantations and native forests. Benefits of aboveground carbon storage, water provisioning, and especially soil erosion control and biodiversity are better delivered by native forests, with compositionally simpler, younger plantations in drier regions performing particularly poorly. However, plantations exhibit an advantage in wood production. These results underscore important trade-offs among environmental and production goals that policy-makers must navigate in meeting forest restoration commitments. Description Benefits of forest restoration Reforestation is promoted globally as one way to mitigate climate change through the storage of carbon in woody growth and ecosystem services such as control of soil erosion and management of water supplies. Hua et al. assessed the relative performance of plantation and native forest in achieving these goals (see the Perspective by Gurevitch). Synthesizing data from the world’s major forest biomes, they found that native forests consistently delivered better performance than plantations in the provision of the three major ecosystem services, with additional benefits for biodiversity. The discrepancy was particularly marked in in warmer and drier regions. These findings show that the benefits of reforestation will be best achieved through the restoration of native forests rather than extensive plantation programs. —AMS Critical ecosystem services and biodiversity are typically delivered more effectively by native forests than by plantations.

/pdf/the-biodiversity-and-ecosystem-service-contributions-and-356b1dc9.pdf

The biodiversity and ecosystem service contributions and trade-offs of forest restoration approaches

https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1365-2664.13656

Controlling invasive plant species in ecological restoration: A global review

Unprecedented rates of introduction and spread of non-native species pose burgeoning challenges to biodiversity, natural resource management, regional economies, and human health. Current biosecurity efforts are failing to keep pace with globalization, revealing critical gaps in our understanding and response to invasions. Here, we identify four priority areas to advance invasion science in the face of rapid global environmental change. First, invasion science should strive to develop a more comprehensive framework for predicting how the behavior, abundance, and interspecific interactions of non-native species vary in relation to conditions in receiving environments and how these factors govern the ecological impacts of invasion. A second priority is to understand the potential synergistic effects of multiple co-occurring stressors— particularly involving climate change—on the establishment and impact of non-native species. Climate adaptation and mitigation strategies will need to consider the possible consequences of promoting non-native species, and appropriate management responses to non-native species will need to be developed. The third priority is to address the taxonomic impediment. The ability to detect and evaluate invasion risks is compromised by a growing deficit in taxonomic expertise, which cannot be adequately compensated by new molecular technologies alone. Management of biosecurity risks will become increasingly challenging unless academia, industry, and governments train and employ new personnel in taxonomy and systematics. Fourth, we recommend that internationally cooperative biosecurity strategies consider the bridgehead effects of global dispersal networks, in which organisms tend to invade new regions from locations where they have already established. Cooperation among countries to eradicate or control species established in bridgehead regions should yield greater benefit than independent attempts by individual countries to exclude these species from arriving and establishing.

/pdf/four-priority-areas-to-advance-invasion-science-in-the-face-1lql4lf375.pdf

Four priority areas to advance invasion science in the face of rapid environmental change

Non-native tree (NNT) species have been transported worldwide to create or enhance services that are fundamental for human well-being, such as timber provision, erosion control or ornamental value; yet NNTs can also produce undesired effects, such as fire proneness or pollen allergenicity. Despite the variety of effects that NNTs have on multiple ecosystem services, a global quantitative assessment of their costs and benefits is still lacking. Such information is critical for decision-making, management and sustainable exploitation of NNTs. We present here a global assessment of NNT effects on the three main categories of ecosystem services, including regulating (RES), provisioning (PES) and cultural services (CES), and on an ecosystem disservice (EDS), i.e. pollen allergenicity. By searching the scientific literature, country forestry reports, and social media, we compiled a global data set of 1683 case studies from over 125 NNT species, covering 44 countries, all continents but Antarctica, and seven biomes. Using different meta-analysis techniques, we found that, while NNTs increase most RES (e.g. climate regulation, soil erosion control, fertility and formation), they decrease PES (e.g. NNTs contribute less than native trees to global timber provision). Also, they have different effects on CES (e.g. increase aesthetic values but decrease scientific interest), and no effect on the EDS considered. NNT effects on each ecosystem (dis)service showed a strong context dependency, varying across NNT types, biomes and socio-economic conditions. For instance, some RES are increased more by NNTs able to fix atmospheric nitrogen, and when the ecosystem is located in low-latitude biomes; some CES are increased more by NNTs in less-wealthy countries or in countries with higher gross domestic products. The effects of NNTs on several ecosystem (dis)services exhibited some synergies (e.g. among soil fertility, soil formation and climate regulation or between aesthetic values and pollen allergenicity), but also trade-offs (e.g. between fire regulation and soil erosion control). Our analyses provide a quantitative understanding of the complex synergies, trade-offs and context dependencies involved for the effects of NNTs that is essential for attaining a sustained provision of ecosystem services.

/pdf/global-effects-of-non-native-tree-species-on-multiple-4f79lu4i9e.pdf

Hamish G. Maule

Papers

Global effects of non-native tree species on multiple ecosystem services