English   español  
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10261/198196
Share/Impact:
Statistics
logo share SHARE logo core CORE   Add this article to your Mendeley library MendeleyBASE

Visualizar otros formatos: MARC | Dublin Core | RDF | ORE | MODS | METS | DIDL | DATACITE
Exportar a otros formatos:

Title

Assessing the assessments: evaluation of four impact assessment protocols for invasive alien species

AuthorsTurbé, Anne; Strubbe, Diederik; Mori, Emiliano; Carrete, Martina ; Chiron, François; Clergeau, Philippe; González-Moreno, Pablo ; Louarn, Marine le; Luna, Alvaro; Menchetti, Mattia; Nentwig, Wolfang; Pârâu, Liviu G.; Postigo, Jose-Luis; Rabitsch, Wolfgang; Senar, Juan Carlos ; Tollington, Simon; Vanderhoeven, Sonia; Weiserbs, Anne; Shwartz, Assaf
Keywordsbiological invasions
confidence
consensus assessment
invasive alien species
invasive species policy
monk parakeet (Myiopsitta monachus)
ring‐necked parakeet (Psittacula krameri)
Issue DateMar-2017
PublisherJohn Wiley & Sons
CitationDiversity and Distributions 23(3): 297-307 (2017)
AbstractAim: Effective policy and management responses to the multiple threats posed by invasive alien species (IAS) rely on the ability to assess their impacts before conclusive empirical evidence is available. A plethora of different IAS risk and/or impact assessment protocols have been proposed, but it remains unclear whether, how and why the outcomes of such assessment protocols may differ. Location: Europe. Methods: Here, we present an in-depth evaluation and informed assessment of the consistency of four prominent protocols for assessing IAS impacts (EICAT, GISS, Harmonia and NNRA), using two non-native parrots in Europe: the widespread ring-necked parakeet (Psittacula krameri) and the rapidly spreading monk parakeet (Myiopsitta monachus). Results: Our findings show that the procedures used to assess impacts may influence assessment outcomes. We find that robust IAS prioritization can be obtained by assessing species based on their most severe documented impacts, as all protocols yield consistent outcomes across impact categories. Additive impact scoring offers complementary, more subtle information that may be especially relevant for guiding management decisions regarding already established invasive alien species. Such management decisions will also strongly benefit from consensus approaches that reduce disagreement between experts, fostering the uptake of scientific advice into policy-making decisions. Main conclusions: Invasive alien species assessments should take advantage of the capacity of consensus assessments to consolidate discussion and agreement between experts. Our results suggest that decision-makers could use the assessment protocol most fit for their purpose, on the condition they apply a precautionary approach by considering the most severe impacts only. We also recommend that screening for high-impact IAS should be performed on a more robust basis than current ad hoc practices, at least using the easiest assessment protocols and reporting confidence scores.
Publisher version (URL)https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12528
URIhttp://hdl.handle.net/10261/198196
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12528
ISSN1366-9516
E-ISSN1472-4642
Appears in Collections:(EBD) Artículos
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
accesoRestringido.pdf15,38 kBAdobe PDFThumbnail
View/Open
Show full item record
Review this work
 


WARNING: Items in Digital.CSIC are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.