10.3389/fmars.2018.00178.s002
Vesna Mačić
Vesna
Mačić
Paolo G. Albano
Paolo G.
Albano
Vasiliki Almpanidou
Vasiliki
Almpanidou
Joachim Claudet
Joachim
Claudet
Xavier Corrales
Xavier
Corrales
Franz Essl
Franz
Essl
Athanasios Evagelopoulos
Athanasios
Evagelopoulos
Ioannis Giovos
Ioannis
Giovos
Carlos Jimenez
Carlos
Jimenez
Salit Kark
Salit
Kark
Olivera Marković
Olivera
Marković
Antonios D. Mazaris
Antonios
D. Mazaris
Guðbjörg Á. Ólafsdóttir
Guðbjörg Á.
Ólafsdóttir
Marina Panayotova
Marina
Panayotova
Slavica Petović
Slavica
Petović
Wolfgang Rabitsch
Wolfgang
Rabitsch
Mohammed Ramdani
Mohammed
Ramdani
Gil Rilov
Gil
Rilov
Elena Tricarico
Elena
Tricarico
Tomás Vega Fernández
Tomás
Vega Fernández
Maria Sini
Maria
Sini
Vasilis Trygonis
Vasilis
Trygonis
Stelios Katsanevakis
Stelios
Katsanevakis
Table_1_Biological Invasions in Conservation Planning: A Global Systematic Review.xlsx
Frontiers
2018
invasive alien species
management actions
mitigation
non-indigenous species
systematic conservation planning
2018-05-25 09:44:22
Dataset
https://frontiersin.figshare.com/articles/dataset/Table_1_Biological_Invasions_in_Conservation_Planning_A_Global_Systematic_Review_xlsx/6353756
<p>Biological invasions threaten biodiversity in terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems, requiring substantial conservation and management efforts. To examine how the conservation planning literature addresses biological invasions and if planning in the marine environment could benefit from experiences in the freshwater and terrestrial systems, we conducted a global systematic review. Out of 1,149 scientific articles mentioning both “conservation planning” and “alien” or any of its alternative terms, 70 articles met our selection criteria. Most of the studies were related to the terrestrial environment, while only 10% focused on the marine environment. The main conservation targets were species (mostly vertebrates) rather than habitats or ecosystems. Apart from being mentioned, alien species were considered of concern for conservation in only 46% of the cases, while mitigation measures were proposed in only 13% of the cases. The vast majority of the studies (73%) ignored alien species in conservation planning even if their negative impacts were recognized. In 20% of the studies, highly invaded areas were avoided in the planning, while in 6% of the cases such areas were prioritized for conservation. In the latter case, two opposing approaches led to the selection of invaded areas: either alien and native biodiversity were treated equally in setting conservation targets, i.e., alien species were also considered as ecological features requiring protection, or more commonly invaded sites were prioritized for the implementation of management actions to control or eradicate invasive alien species. When the “avoid” approach was followed, in most of the cases highly impacted areas were either excluded or invasive alien species were included in the estimation of a cost function to be minimized. Most of the studies that followed a “protect” or “avoid” approach dealt with terrestrial or freshwater features but in most cases the followed approach could be transferred to the marine environment. Gaps and needs for further research are discussed and we propose an 11-step framework to account for biological invasions into the systematic conservation planning design.</p>