Invasive species in Europe: ecology, status, and policy

Globalization of trade and travel has facilitated the spread of non-native species across the earth. A proportion of these species become established and cause serious environmental, economic, and human health impacts. These species are referred to as invasive, and are now recognized as one of the major drivers of biodiversity change across the globe. As a long-time centre for trade, Europe has seen the introduction and subsequent establishment of at least several thousand non-native species. These range in taxonomy from viruses and bacteria to fungi, plants, and animals. Although invasive species cause major negative impacts across all regions of Europe, they also offer scientists the opportunity to develop and test theory about how species enter and leave communities, how non-native and native species interact with each other, and how different types of species affect ecosystem functions. For these reasons, there has been recent growth in the field of invasion biology as scientists work to understand the process of invasion, the changes that invasive species cause to their recipient ecosystems, and the ways that the problems of invasive species can be reduced. This review covers the process and drivers of species invasions in Europe, the socio-economic factors that make some regions particularly strongly invaded, and the ecological factors that make some species particularly invasive. We describe the impacts of invasive species in Europe, the difficulties involved in reducing these impacts, and explain the policy options currently being considered. We outline the reasons that invasive species create unique policy challenges, and suggest some rules of thumb for designing and implementing management programs. If new management programs are not enacted in Europe, it is inevitable that more invasive species will arrive, and that the total economic, environmental, and human health impacts from these species will continue to grow.     

Simultaneous-count models to estimate abundance from counts of unmarked individuals with imperfect detection

We developed a method to estimate population abundance from simultaneous counts of unmarked individuals over multiple sites. We considered that at each sampling occasion, individuals in a population could be detected at 1 of the survey sites or remain undetected and used either multinomial or binomial simultaneous-count models to estimate abundance, the latter being equivalent to an N-mixture model with one site. We tested model performance with simulations over a range of detection probabilities, population sizes, growth rates, number of years, sampling occasions, and sites. We then applied our method to 3 critically endangered vulture species in Cambodia to demonstrate the real-world applicability of the model and to provide the first abundance estimates for these species in Cambodia. Our new approach works best when existing methods are expected to perform poorly (i.e., few sites and large variation in abundance among sites) and if individuals may move among sites between sampling occasions. The approach performed better when there were >8 sampling occasions and net probability of detection was high (>0.5). We believe our approach will be useful in particular for simultaneous surveys at aggregation sites, such as roosts. The method complements existing approaches for estimating abundance of unmarked individuals and is the first method designed specifically for simultaneous counts.     

Quantifying the conservation gains from shared access to linear infrastructure

The proliferation of linear infrastructure such as roads and railways is a major global driver of cumulative biodiversity loss. One strategy for reducing habitat loss associated with development is to encourage linear infrastructure providers and users to share infrastructure networks. We quantified the reductions in biodiversity impact and capital costs under linear infrastructure sharing of a range of potential mine to port transportation links for 47 mine locations operated by 28 separate companies in the Upper Spencer Gulf Region of South Australia. We mapped transport links based on least‐cost pathways for different levels of linear‐infrastructure sharing and used expert‐elicited impacts of linear infrastructure to estimate the consequences for biodiversity. Capital costs were calculated based on estimates of construction costs, compensation payments, and transaction costs. We evaluated proposed mine‐port links by comparing biodiversity impacts and capital costs across 3 scenarios: an independent scenario, where no infrastructure is shared; a restricted‐access scenario, where the largest mining companies share infrastructure but exclude smaller mining companies from sharing; and a shared scenario where all mining companies share linear infrastructure. Fully shared development of linear infrastructure reduced overall biodiversity impacts by 76% and reduced capital costs by 64% compared with the independent scenario. However, there was considerable variation among companies. Our restricted‐access scenario showed only modest biodiversity benefits relative to the independent scenario, indicating that reductions are likely to be limited if the dominant mining companies restrict access to infrastructure, which often occurs without policies that promote sharing of infrastructure. Our research helps illuminate the circumstances under which infrastructure sharing can minimize the biodiversity impacts of development.