What it is to be established: policy and management implications for non-native and invasive species

Management of invasive species, whether prevention, population reduction, or eradication, requires assessment of the invasive species’ population status and an assessment of the probability of success of management options. Perceptions of a species’ permanence in an environment or lack thereof frequently drives how limited time, financial, and personnel resources are allocated to such efforts. Language we use to describe a non-native species’ status largely defines these perceptions and sets boundaries, real or perceived, to potential management actions. Here we discuss the use of a particular term – “established” – when confronting management decisions for invasive species. Our objective is to contribute to bridging the gap between the realms of conceptual development and management with respect to use of the term “established”. We find that although there are benefits of polysemy and synonymy to conceptual development they present an additional challenge to managers who must weigh the costs, benefits, and potential for success of particular management actions. We also examine how existing conceptual frameworks might be augmented to bridge the theoretical-practical gap, such as more precisely defining potential management actions and explicitly including assessment of risk.

[1]  S. Australian THE NATURALISED FLORA OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA 1. THE DOCUMENTATION OF ITS DEVELOPMENT , 1987 .

[2]  M. E. Holey,et al.  FISH-COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES FOR LAKE MICHIGAN , 1995 .

[3]  C. J. West,et al.  Naturalization and invasion of alien plants: concepts and definitions , 2000 .

[4]  G. T. Klar,et al.  INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF SEA LAMPREYS IN THE GREAT LAKES 1999 ANNUAL REPORT TO GREAT LAKES FISHERY COMMISSION , 2000 .

[5]  Jeff Short,et al.  Surplus killing by introduced predators in Australia—evidence for ineffective anti-predator adaptations in native prey species? , 2002 .

[6]  Population Biology of Steelhead Spawning Runs in Three Pennsylvania Tributaries to Lake Erie , 2002 .

[7]  Robert I. Colautti,et al.  A neutral terminology to define ‘invasive’ species , 2004 .

[8]  Tina Heger,et al.  Predicting Biological Invasions , 2003, Biological Invasions.

[9]  Keith R Hayes,et al.  Biological invasions: recommendations for U.S. policy and management. , 2006, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[10]  A. Ricciardi,et al.  The invasiveness of an introduced species does not predict its impact , 2007, Biological Invasions.

[11]  Terence P. Dawson,et al.  Progress in invasive plants research , 2006 .

[12]  T. Muranaka Naturalization and invasion of alien plants in Japan: relationships among their origin, use, and time of introduction. , 2008 .

[13]  K. E. Hodges,et al.  Defining the problem: terminology and progress in ecology , 2008 .

[14]  C. Donlan,et al.  Bio-Economics of Large-Scale Eradication of Feral Goats From Santiago Island, Galápagos , 2009 .

[15]  Diane L Larson,et al.  A framework for sustainable invasive species management: Environmental, social, and economic objectives. , 2011, Journal of environmental management.

[16]  Mark A. Davis,et al.  Don't judge species on their origins , 2011, Nature.

[17]  Carol A. Stepien,et al.  Expansion of tubenose gobies Proterorhinus semilunaris into western Lake Erie and potential effects on native species , 2011, Biological Invasions.

[18]  Petr Pyšek,et al.  A proposed unified framework for biological invasions. , 2011, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[19]  P. Kočovský,et al.  First evidence of grass carp recruitment in the Great Lakes Basin , 2013 .

[20]  The Importance of Dams to Sea Lamprey Control in the Great Lakes , 2014 .

[21]  B. Cudmore,et al.  Ecological risk assessment of Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) for the Great Lakes Basin , 2017 .

[22]  E. Rutherford,et al.  Development of a risk assessment framework to predict invasive species establishment for multiple taxonomic groups and vectors of introduction , 2017 .