4.7 Article

Which Taxa Are Alien? Criteria, Applications, and Uncertainties

Journal

BIOSCIENCE
Volume 68, Issue 7, Pages 496-509

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/biosci/biy057

Keywords

biogeography; biological invasions; cryptogenic; distribution range; thresholds

Categories

Funding

  1. DFG-FWF [I2086B16, KL1866/9-1]
  2. Austrian Science Foundation (FWF)
  3. German Science Foundation (DFG)
  4. DFG [JE 288/9-1, JE 288/9-2]
  5. DST-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
  6. National Research Foundation of South Africa [85417, 86894]
  7. Centre of Excellence PLADIAS of the Czech Science Foundation [14-36079G]
  8. Czech Academy of Sciences [RVO 67985939]
  9. IMPLANTIN [CGL2015-65346-R]
  10. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [I2086] Funding Source: Austrian Science Fund (FWF)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Human activities such as the transport of species to new regions and modifications of the environment are increasingly reshaping the distribution of biota. Accordingly, developing robust, repeatable, and consistent definitions of alien species that serve scientific and policy purposes has become of prime importance. We provide a set of classification criteria that are widely applicable across taxa and realms and offer guidance on their use in practice. The criteria focus on (a) acknowledging the role of assessment uncertainty, (b) incorporating time since introduction, (c) considering infraspecific taxonomic ranks, and (d) differentiating between alien species whose survival depends on explicit human assistance from those that survive without such assistance. Furthermore, we make recommendations for reducing assessment uncertainty, suggest thresholds for species assessment, and develop an assessment scheme. We illustrate the application of the assessment criteria with case studies. Finally, the implications for alien species management, policy, and research are discussed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available