4.5 Article

Improving the Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT): a summary of revisions to the framework and guidelines

期刊

NEOBIOTA
卷 -, 期 62, 页码 547-567

出版社

PENSOFT PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.62.52723

关键词

Alien species; impact assessment; impact mechanism; IUCN; non-indigenous species

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of South Africa
  2. Stellenbosch University
  3. Swiss National Science Foundation [31003A_179491, 31BD30_184114]
  4. Belmont Forum - BiodivERsA International joint call project InvasiBES [PCI2018-092939]
  5. Natural Environment Research Council as part of the UK-SCAPE programme delivering National Capability [NE/R016429/1]
  6. Alexander von Humboldt Foundation
  7. DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology (CIB)
  8. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [31003A_179491, 31BD30_184114] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT) classifies the impacts caused by alien species in their introduced range in standardised terms across taxa and recipient environments. Impacts are classified into one of five levels of severity, from Minimal Concern to Massive, via one of 12 impact mechanisms. Here, we explain revisions based on an IUCN-wide consultation process to the previously-published EICAT framework and guidelines, to clarify why these changes were necessary. These changes mainly concern: the distinction between the two highest levels of impact severity (Major and Massive impacts), the scenarios of the five levels of severity for the hybridisation and disease transmission mechanisms, the broadening of existing impact mechanisms to capture overlooked mechanisms, the Current (Maximum) Impact, and the way uncertainty of individual impact assessments is evaluated. Our aim in explaining this revision process is to ensure consistency of EICAT assessments, by improving the understanding of the framework.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据