Titill: | Biological Invasions in Conservation Planning: A Global Systematic Review |
Höfundur: |
... 13 fleiri höfundar Sýna alla höfunda |
Útgáfa: | 2018-05-25 |
Tungumál: | Enska |
Umfang: | 178 |
Háskóli/Stofnun: | Háskóli Íslands (HÍ) University of Iceland (UI) |
Deild: | Rannsóknasetur á Vestfjörðum (HÍ) Research Centre in the West Fjords (UI) |
Birtist í: | Frontiers in Marine Science;5 |
ISSN: | 2296-7745 |
DOI: | 10.3389/fmars.2018.00178 |
Efnisorð: | Invasive alien species; Management actions; Mitigation; Non-indigenous species; Systematic conservation planning; Sjávarlíffræði; Dýr; Vistfræði |
URI: | https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11815/1479 |
Tilvitnun:Maci ˇ c V, Albano PG, Almpanidou V, ´ Claudet J, Corrales X, Essl F, Evagelopoulos A, Giovos I, Jimenez C, Kark S, Markovic O, Mazaris AD, ´ Ólafsdóttir GÁ, Panayotova M, Petovic S, Rabitsch W, Ramdani M, ´ Rilov G, Tricarico E, Vega Fernández T, Sini M, Trygonis V and Katsanevakis S (2018) Biological Invasions in Conservation Planning: A Global Systematic Review. Front. Mar. Sci. 5:178. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2018.00178
|
|
Útdráttur: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.
|
|
Athugasemdir:Publisher's version (útgefin grein).
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found
online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.
2018.00178/full#supplementary-material
|
|
Leyfi:This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of
the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or
reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the
copyright owner are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited,
in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction
is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
|