English   español  
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10261/210973
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
Exportar a otros formatos:


Assessing the ecological and societal impacts of alien parrots in Europe using a transparent and inclusive evidence-mapping scheme

AuthorsWhite, Rachel L.; Strubbe, Diederik; Dallimer, Martin; Davies, Zoe G.; Davis, Amy J. S.; Edelaar, Pim ; Groombridge, Jim; Jackson, Hazel A.; Menchetti, Mattia; Mori, Emiliano; Nikolov, Boris P.; Pârâu, Liviu G.; Pecnikar, Živa F.; Pett, Tristan J.; Reino, Luís; Tollington, Simon; Turbé, Anne; Shwartz, Assaf
Keywordsevidence base
impact assessment
invasive alien species
monk parakeet (Myiopsitta monachus)
ring-necked parakeet (Psittacula krameri)
Issue Date19-Jul-2019
PublisherPensoft Publishers
CitationNeoBiota: 45-69 (2019)
AbstractGlobally, the number of invasive alien species (IAS) continues to increase and management and policy responses typically need to be adopted before conclusive empirical evidence on their environmental and socioeconomic impacts are available. Consequently, numerous protocols exist for assessing IAS impacts and differ considerably in which evidence they include. However, inclusive strategies for building a transparent evidence base underlying IAS impact assessments are lacking, potentially affecting our ability to reliably identify priority IAS. Using alien parrots in Europe as a case study, here we apply an evidence-mapping scheme to classify impact evidence and evaluate the consequences of accepting different subsets of available evidence on impact assessment outcomes. We collected environmental and socioeconomic impact data in multiple languages using a >wiki-review> process, comprising a systematic evidence search and an online editing and consultation phase. Evidence was classified by parrot species, impact category (e.g. infrastructure), geographical area (e.g. native range), source type (e.g. peer-review), study design (e.g. experimental) and impact direction (deleterious, beneficial and no impact). Our comprehensive database comprised 386 impact entries from 233 sources. Most evidence was anecdotal (50%). A total of 42% of entries reported damage to agriculture (mainly in native ranges), while within Europe most entries concerned interspecific competition (39%). We demonstrate that the types of evidence included in assessments can strongly influence impact severity scores. For example, including evidence from the native range or anecdotal evidence resulted in an overall switch from minimal-moderate to moderate-major overall impact scores. We advise using such an evidence-mapping approach to create an inclusive and updatable database as the foundation for more transparent IAS impact assessments. When openly shared, such evidence-mapping can help better inform IAS research, management and policy.
Publisher version (URL)http://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.48.34222
Identifiersdoi: 10.3897/neobiota.48.34222
e-issn: 1314-2488
issn: 1619-0033
Appears in Collections:(IBE) Artículos
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
ecological_societa_alien_parrots_Europe.pdf1,22 MBAdobe PDFThumbnail
Show full item record
Review this work

Related articles:

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