Search bioRxiv⌕ Search

Biology subjects

Lenzner, B.

Publications and source records attributed to Lenzner, B..

6 recordsLinked to original sources

The economic burden of protecting islands from invasive alien species

Biological invasions represent a key threat to island ecosystems, with pronounced impacts across environments and economies. The ecological impacts have received substantial focus, but the economic costs have lacked synthesis at spatial and temporal scales. Here we utilise the InvaCost database, the most comprehensive global assessment of published economic costs of invasive species, to assess reported spend by cost types and socioeconomic sectors, and to examine temporal trends in spending, across islands that differ in their political geography - nation states, overseas territories or offshore islands of continental countries. We based this assessment on 1473 unique cost entries comprising 2914 annual costs totalling almost US$100 million in area-corrected costs between 1965-2020. We find that offshore islands of continental countries incur the greatest total and management costs. However, nation states incurred the greatest damage costs whilst substantially financing management actions, and spent an overall greater proportion of their GDP. In contrast, spending within overseas territories was significantly lower in all respects. The most impacted sector was authorities and stakeholders, demonstrating the key role of government in addressing island invasions. Temporal trends revealed continual increases in spending across all island types. This likely reflects ongoing introduction rates globally alongside an increased recognition of the importance of islands as biodiversity hotspots, and an appetite to tackle invasive species at larger and more socially complex scales. However, the high economic costs of invasions on islands substantiates the need to prevent them in order to avoid this dire threat to biodiversity and its burden on limited conservation resources.

ecology↗

G-IRAE: a Generalised approach for linking the total Impact of invasion to species' Range, Abundance and per-unit Effects

The total impact of an alien species was conceptualised as the product of its range size, local abundance and per-unit effect in a seminal paper by Parker and colleagues in 1999, but a practical approach for estimating the three components has been lacking. Here, we generalise the impact formula and, through use of regression models, estimate the relationship between the three components of impact, an approach we term G-IRAE (Generalised Impact - Range size - Abundance - per-unit Effect). Moreover, we show that G-IRAE can also be applied to damage and management costs. We propose two methods for applying G-IRAE. The species-specific method computes the relationship for a given species across multiple invaded sites or regions, assuming a constant per-unit effect across the invaded area. The multi-species method combines data from multiple species across multiple sites or regions to calculate a per-unit effect for each species. While the species-specific method is more accurate, it requires a large amount of data for each species. The multi-species method is more easily applicable and data-parsimonious. We illustrate the multi-species method using data about money spent managing plant invasions in different biomes of South Africa. We found clear differences between species in terms of money spent per unit area invaded, with per-unit expenditures varying substantially between biomes for some species. G-IRAE offers a versatile and practical method which can be applied to many different types of data, to better understand and manage invasions.

ecology↗

Policy-relevant indicators for invasive alien species assessment and reporting

Invasive alien species are repeatedly shown to be amongst the top threats to biodiversity globally. Robust indicators for measuring the status and trends of biological invasions are lacking, but essential for monitoring biological invasions and the effectiveness of interventions. Here, we formulate and demonstrate three such indicators that capture the key dimensions of species invasions, each a significant and necessary advance to inform invasive alien species policy targets: 1) Rate of Invasive Alien Species Spread, which provides modelled rates of ongoing introductions of species based on invasion discovery and reporting. 2) Impact Risk, that estimates invasive alien species impacts on the environment in space and time and provides a basis for nationally targeted prioritization of where best to invest in management efforts. 3) Status Information on invasive alien species, that tracks improvement in the essential dimensions of information needed to guide relevant policy and data collection and in support of assessing invasive alien species spread and impact. We show how proximal, model-informed status and trend indicators on invasive alien species can provide more effective global (and national) reporting on biological invasions, and how countries can contribute to supporting these indicators.

ecology↗

Capacity of countries to reduce biological invasions

The extent and impacts of biological invasions on biodiversity are largely shaped by an array of socio-ecological predictors, which exhibit high variation among countries. Yet a global synthetic perspective of how these factors vary across countries is currently lacking. Here, we investigate how a set of five socio-ecological predictors (Governance, Trade, Environmental Performance, Lifestyle and Education, Innovation) explain i) country-level established alien species (EAS) richness of eight taxonomic groups, and ii) country capacity to prevent and manage biological invasions and their impacts. Trade and Governance together best predicted the average EAS richness, increasing variance explained by up to 54% compared to models based on climatic and spatial variables only. Country-level EAS richness increased strongly with Trade, whereas high level of Governance resulted in lower EAS richness. Historical (1996) levels of Governance and Trade better explained response variables than current (2015) levels. Thus, our results reveal a historical legacy of these two predictors with profound implications for the future of biological invasions. We therefore used Governance and Trade to define a two-dimensional socio-economic space in which the position of a country captures its capacity to address issues of biological invasions. Our results provide novel insights into the complex relationship between socio-ecological predictors and biological invasions. Further, we highlight the need for designing better policies and management measures for alien species, and for integrating biological invasions in global environmental scenarios.

ecology↗

Alternative futures for global biological invasions

Scenario analysis has emerged as a key tool to analyze complex and uncertain future socio-ecological developments. However, current global scenarios (narratives of how the world may develop) have neglected biological invasions, a major threat to biodiversity and the economy. We used a novel participatory process to develop a diverse set of global biological invasion scenarios spanning a wide breadth of plausible global futures through 2050. We adapted the widely used "two axes" scenario analysis approach to develop four families of four scenarios each, resulting in 16 scenarios that were later clustered into four contrasting sets of futures. Our analysis highlighted that socio-economic developments and changes in sustainability policies and lifestyle have the potential to shape biological invasions, in addition to well-known ecological drivers, such as climate and human land use change. Our scenarios align fairly well with the recently developed shared socio-economic pathways, but the factors that drive differences in biological invasions are underrepresented there. Including these factors in global scenarios and models is essential to adequately consider biological invasions in global environmental assessments, and obtain a more integrative picture of future socio-ecological developments.

ecology↗

How moral values influence conservation: a framework to capture different management perspectives

Perspectives in conservation are based on a variety of value systems. Such differences in how people value nature and its components lead to different evaluations of the morality of conservation goals and approaches, and often underlie disagreements in the formulation and implementation of environmental management policies. Specifically, whether a conservation action (e.g. killing feral cats to reduce predation on bird species threatened with extinction) is viewed as appropriate or not can vary among people with different value systems. Here, we present a conceptual, mathematical framework intended as a tool to systematically explore and clarify core value statements in conservation approaches. Its purpose is to highlight how fundamental differences between these value systems can lead to different prioritizations of available management options and offer a common ground for discourse. The proposed equations decompose the question underlying many controversies around management decisions in conservation: what or who is valued, how, and to what extent? We compare how management decisions would likely be viewed under three different idealised value systems: ecocentric conservation, which aims to preserve biodiversity; new conservation, which considers that biodiversity can only be preserved if it benefits humans; and sentientist conservation, which aims at minimising suffering for sentient beings. We illustrate the utility of the framework by applying it to case studies involving invasive alien species, rewilding, and trophy hunting. By making value systems and their consequences in practice explicit, the framework facilitates debates on contested conservation issues, and complements philosophical discursive approaches about moral reasoning. We believe dissecting the core value statements on which conservation decisions are based will provide an additional tool to understand and address conservation conflicts.

ecology↗