Description: A comprehensive dataset of non-native species (NNS) was assembled by combining the SInAS database of alien species occurrences (Seebens, 2021) with several other publicly available databases and NNS lists to examine NNS diversity globally (Bailey et al., 2020; Campbell et al., 2016; Carlton & Eldredge, 2009; Casties et al., 2016; Eldredge & Carlton, 2015; Hewitt et al., 2002, 2004; Lambert, 2002; Meyer, 2000; NEMESIS, 2017, 2020; Paulay et al., 2002; Richardson et al., 2020; Schwindt et al., 2020; Sturtevant et al., 2019; U.S. Geological Survey, 2017; Wonham & Carlton, 2005) to examine NNS diversity globally. The SInAS_AlienSpeciesDB_2.4.1 file was used as the base file for our dataset. Species without assignment of invaded country/region were removed from the dataset. Then, species assigned only as CASUAL and ABSENT in the columns degreeOfEstablishment (N) and occurrenceStatus (L), respectively, were also removed due to their undetermined non-native establishment status in those particular regions (Groom et al., 2019). Following, species from other publicly available databases and NNS lists that had not been listed for particular region/s in the SInAS database were added to the file. The species that were both native and NNS within a continent were retained in the dataset. Accordingly, the dataset consisted 36 822 species established outside of their native regions, out of which 36 326 came from Seebens (2021) and 496 species from other databases and NNS lists. Binominal scientific names, phylum, class, and family levels were assigned to each species based on the SInAS_AlienSpeciesDB_2.4.1_FullTaxaList file that was originally determined following Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). When a species was not automatically assigned to binominal scientific name and/or taxonomic level, an additional manual search of GBIF, World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS) and a general internet search engine was conducted in June and July 2022, and September 2023. Also, to examine NNS diversity among different habitats (i.e., terrestrial, freshwater, and marine), we assigned one or more habitats for each species based on the Step2_StandardTerms_GRIIS file; habitat data in the Step2_StandardTerms_GRIIS file originated from the Global Register of Introduced and Invasive Species (GRIIS). Again, if habitat(s) was(were) not automatically assigned to a species, an additional manual search of WoRMS and a general internet search engine was conducted from July to September 2022. We emphasize that due to the great number of species in our dataset and changing information availability over time, there is a possibility that we did not list all potential habitats for all species. Brackish habitats were defined as marine based on the Venice System (1958). Regions were assigned based on the geographic continental definitions (i.e., North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australia), with Pacific islands as a separate region due to their unclear/undefined continental affiliations (National Geographic Society, 2022). Finally, global estimated biodiversity (i.e., numbers of species per taxonomic group) of each particular phylum, class, and family was obtained from the GBIF in October 2022 (GBIF, 2022).

Description: Standardised terminology in science is important for clarity of interpretation and communication. In invasion science - a dynamic and rapidly evolving discipline - the proliferation of technical terminology has lacked a standardised framework for its development. The result is a convoluted and inconsistent usage of terminology, with various discrepancies in descriptions of damage and interventions. A standardised framework is therefore needed for a clear, universally applicable, and consistent terminology to promote more effective communication across researchers, stakeholders, and policymakers. Inconsistencies in terminology stem from the exponential increase in scientific publications on the patterns and processes of biological invasions authored by experts from various disciplines and countries since the 1990s, as well as publications by legislators and policymakers focusing on practical applications, regulations, and management of resources. Aligning and standardising terminology across stakeholders remains a challenge in invasion science. Here, we review and evaluate the multiple terms used in invasion science (e.g. 'non-native', 'alien', 'invasive' or 'invader', 'exotic', 'non-indigenous', 'naturalised', 'pest') to propose a more simplified and standardised terminology. The streamlined framework we propose and translate into 28 other languages is based on the terms (i) 'non-native', denoting species transported beyond their natural biogeographic range, (ii) 'established non-native', i.e. those non-native species that have established self-sustaining populations in their new location(s) in the wild, and (iii) 'invasive non-native' - populations of established non-native species that have recently spread or are spreading rapidly in their invaded range actively or passively with or without human mediation. We also highlight the importance of conceptualising 'spread' for classifying invasiveness and 'impact' for management. Finally, we propose a protocol for classifying populations based on (i) dispersal mechanism, (ii) species origin, (iii) population status, and (iv) impact. Collectively and without introducing new terminology, the framework that we present aims to facilitate effective communication and collaboration in invasion science and management of non-native species.

Description: Aim: Human activities have introduced numerous non-native species (NNS) worldwide. Understanding and predicting large-scale NNS establishment patterns remain fundamental scientific challenges. Here, we evaluate if NNS composition represents a proportional subset of the total species pool available to invade (i.e. total global biodiversity), or, conversely, certain taxa are disproportionately pre-disposed to establish in non-native areas. Location: Global. Time period: Present day. Major taxa studied: Global diversity. Methods: We compiled one of the most comprehensive global databases of NNS (36,822 established species) to determine if NNS diversity is a representative proportional subset of global biodiversity. Results: Our study revealed that, while NNS diversity mirrors global biodiversity to a certain extent, due to significant deviance from the null model it is not always a representative proportional subset of global biodiversity. The strength of global biodiversity as a predictor depended on the taxonomic scale, with successive lower taxonomic levels less predictive than the one above it. Consequently, on average, 58%, 42% and 28% of variability in NNS numbers were explained by global biodiversity for phylum, class and family respectively. Moreover, global biodiversity was a similarly strong explanatory variable for NNS diversity among regions, but not habitats (i.e. terrestrial, freshwater and marine), where it better predicted NNS diversity for terrestrial than for freshwater and marine habitats. Freshwater and marine habitats were also greatly understudied relative to invasions in the terrestrial habitats. Over-represented NNS relative to global biodiversity tended to be those intentionally introduced and/or ‘hitchhikers’ associated with deliberate introductions. Finally, randomness is likely an important factor in the establishment success of NNS. Main conclusions: Besides global biodiversity, other important explanatory variables for large-scale patterns of NNS diversity likely include propagule and colonization pressures, environmental similarity between native and non-native regions, biased selection of intentionally introduced species and disparate research efforts of habitats and taxa.

Description: Author Posting. © Ecological Society of America, 2019. This article is posted here by permission of Ecological Society of America for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Ecology (2019): e02863, doi:10.1002/ecy.2863.

Description: In 2014, a DNA‐based phylogenetic study confirming the paraphyly of the grass subtribe Sporobolinae proposed the creation of a large monophyletic genus Sporobolus, including (among others) species previously included in the genera Spartina, Calamovilfa, and Sporobolus. Spartina species have contributed substantially (and continue contributing) to our knowledge in multiple disciplines, including ecology, evolutionary biology, molecular biology, biogeography, experimental ecology, biological invasions, environmental management, restoration ecology, history, economics, and sociology. There is no rationale so compelling to subsume the name Spartina as a subgenus that could rival the striking, global iconic history and use of the name Spartina for over 200 yr. We do not agree with the subjective arguments underlying the proposal to change Spartina to Sporobolus. We understand the importance of both the objective phylogenetic insights and of the subjective formalized nomenclature and hope that by opening this debate we will encourage positive feedback that will strengthen taxonomic decisions with an interdisciplinary perspective. We consider that the strongly distinct, monophyletic clade Spartina should simply and efficiently be treated as the genus Spartina.

Description: We are grateful to the many colleagues, students and eight anonymous expert taxonomists from Argentina, United States, Spain, UK, and Uruguay for sharing their opinions, perspectives, and ideas, improving our reasoning and encouraging us to initiate this debate. The authors’ positions are personal, and do not necessarily reflect the organizations or networks they represent or with which they are affiliated. We are also deeply grateful to two anonymous reviewers as well as to the Editor‐in‐Chief Don Strong who supplied excellent insight that truly improved our work.

Description: © The Author(s), 2020. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Fowler, A. E., Blakeslee, A. M. H., Bortolus, A., Dias, J., Tepolt, C. K., & Schwindt, E. Current research, pressing issues, and lingering questions in marine invasion science: lessons from the Tenth International Conference on Marine Bioinvasions (ICMB-X). Aquatic Invasions, 15(1), (2020): 1-10, doi:10.3391/ai.2020.15.1.01.

Description: Research on marine bioinvasions is an inherently international collaboration. Species range boundaries have become more fluid in recent decades as a result of enhanced human globalization, leading to species translocations across international boundaries through high profile vectors (e.g., shipping, hull fouling, aquaculture, etc.) (Ruiz et al. 2000; Seebens et al. 2013). Global trade and anthropogenic activities that promote invasive species spread continue to increase, rising by an average of 70% since 1970, with no sign of saturation (Pagad et al. 2015; Seebens et al. 2017). Even though these numbers are primarily based on terrestrial systems, recent work has demonstrated that marine ecosystems are as severely impacted by invasive species as by other human activities including overfishing, pollution (including plastics), climate change, and ocean acidification (Diaz et al. 2019). Species introductions to seas, coasts, and estuaries are therefore a global threat to human and non-human populations alike. As such, scientists and managers are increasingly focused on prevention and management, risk analysis and prioritization, and innovative technologies to detect novel species.

Description: The ICMB-X was supported by CONICET, MINCyT, SCTeIP Chubut, Consejo Federal de Inversiones, Biodiversity Heritage Library, Administración Portuaria de Puerto Madryn (APPM), Office of Naval Research Global, Aluar Aluminio Argentino, Madryn Bureau, Ente Mixto Puerto Madryn, Municipalidad de Puerto Madryn, and FAO-GEF-SAyDS.