4.7 Article

Environmental risk assessment for invasive alien species: A case study of apple snails affecting ecosystem services in Europe

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REVIEW
卷 65, 期 -, 页码 1-11

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2017.03.008

关键词

Risk management; Pest risk analysis; Pomacea spp.; Plant pests; Population abundance; Wetlands

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The assessment of the risk posed by invasive alien species (IAS) to the environment is a component of increasing importance for Pest Risk Analysis. Standardized and comprehensive procedures to assess their impacts on ecosystem services have been developed only recently. The invasive apple snails (Pomacea canaliculata and P. maculate) are used as a case study to demonstrate the application of an innovative procedure assessing the potential impact of these species on shallow freshwater ecosystems with aquatic macrophytes in Europe. The apple snail, Pomacea maculate, recently established in the Ebro delta in Spain resulting in a serious threat to rice production and wetlands, having also a high risk to spread to other European wetlands. Here, the population abundance of apple snails is regarded as the main driver of ecosystem change. The effects of ecosystem resistance, resilience and pest management on snail population abundance are estimated for the short (5 years) and the long (30 years) term. Expert judgment was used to evaluate the impacts on selected ecosystem services in a worst case scenario. Our study shows that the combined effects of apple snails are estimated to have profound effects on the ecosystem services provided by shallow, macrophyte-dominated ecosystems in Europe. This case study illustrates that quantitative estimates of environmental impacts from different IAS are feasible and useful for decision-makers and invasive species managers that have to balance costs of control efforts against environmental and economic impacts of invasive species. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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