# Blurring alien introduction pathways risks losing the focus on invasive species policy

Philip E Hulme, Sven Bacher, Marc Kenis, Ingolf Kuhn, Jan Pergl, Petr

Pyšek, Alain Roques, Montserrat Vilà

► To cite this version:

Philip E Hulme, Sven Bacher, Marc Kenis, Ingolf Kuhn, Jan Pergl, et al. Blurring alien introduction pathways risks losing the focus on invasive species policy. Conservation Letters, 2017, 10 (2), pp.265-266. 10.1111/conl.12262. hal-02624078

HAL Id: hal-02624078

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-02624078

Submitted on 26 May 2020

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Blurring Alien Introduction Pathways Risks Losing the Focus on Invasive Species Policy

Philip E. Hulme<fnref n="1" />, Sven Bacher<fnref n="2" />, Marc Kenis<fnref n="3" />, Ingolf Kühn<fnref n="4" />,<fnref n="5" />,<fnref n="6" />, Jan Pergl<fnref n="7" />, Petr Pyšek<fnref n="7" />,<fnref n="8" />, Alain Roques<fnref n="9" />, & Montserrat Vilà<fnref n="10" />

**Correspondence**

Philip Hulme, Bio-Protection Research Centre,
Lincoln University, PO Box 85084, Canterbury,
New Zealand.

Tel: +64 (3) 423 0902; fax: +64 (3) 325 3866.

E-mail: philip.hulme@lincoln.ac.nz

**Received**

29 March 2016

**Accepted**

8 May 2016

doi: 10.1111/conl.12262

The pathways by which alien species are introduced to new regions fall into six broad classes: deliberate *release*; *escape* from captivity; *contaminant* of a commodity; *stow-away* on a transport vector; via an infrastructure *corridor* (without which spread would not be possible) or *unaided* from other invaded regions (Hulme *et al.* 2008). However, Gilroy *et al.* (2016) argue that species dispersing naturally, through the infrastructure corridor or unaided pathway, should be classed as native rather than alien. We contend their proposal is not only unworkable but also unwise.

The key issue is not how we classify species after they become introduced but the way policies are implemented to prevent biological invasions. Overwhelming evidence confirms infrastructure corridors (as distinct from landscape corridors) as major routes for alien species introductions. In Europe, over 40% of alien marine species have been introduced via canals with subsequent impacts

on maritime economies and biodiversity (Katsanevakis *et al.* 2013). Similarly, many alien species spread unaided from one country to another with often serious conservation consequences such as the alien ruddy duck (*Oxyura jamaicensis*) hybridising with the endangered native white-headed duck (*Oxyura leucocephala*) in Spain.

Gilroy *et al.* (2016) suggest that, by classifying species that arrive through these pathways as native, policymakers could simply target the subset of new introductions that become pests. But classifying species status by introduction pathway is ambiguous and unworkable since many alien species are introduced through several pathways (e.g., stowaway and corridor) thus preventing an absolute classification of a species as native. Furthermore, the difficulty in predicting which alien species might become a pest means this is often only known after their introduction (Ojaveer *et al.* 2015). A “pest” rather

<footnote n="1">¹ The Bio-Protection Research Centre, Lincoln University, PO Box 85084, Canterbury, New Zealand</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Department of Biology, University of Fribourg, Chemin du Musée 10, 1700 Fribourg, Switzerland</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ CABI, Delémont, Switzerland</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Department of Community Ecology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Halle, Germany</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ Institute of Biology/Geobotany and Botanical Garden, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷ Institute of Botany, The Czech Academy of Sciences, CZ-252 43 Průhonice, Czech Republic</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸ Department of Ecology, Faculty of Science, Charles University in Prague, Viničná 7, CZ-128 44 Praha 2, Czech Republic</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹ INRA UR 0633 Zoologie Forestière, 2163 Av. Pomme de pin, F-45075 Orléans, France</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ Estación Biológica de Doñana, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (EBD-CSIC), Av. Américo Vespucio s/n, Isla de la Cartuja, 41092 Sevilla, Spain</footnote>
than “alien” based policy would limit opportunities for preventative action and result in costly pest management instead. In contrast, classifying such species as alien might require anyone undertaking major infrastructure developments to prove beyond a justifiable level of doubt that their actions will not result in biological invasions. Likewise, any decision not to manage established alien species in a territory, such as North American grey squirrels (*Sciurus carolinensis*) spreading from Italy, will need to ensure such inaction would not result in harm beyond political borders.

The transboundary nature of invasive species risk assessment has received scant attention but by ensuring alien species spreading unaided continue to be treated as alien would permit the development of a polluter pays principle to manage invasions (Hulme 2015). These policies also enshrine the precautionary principle and the potential for them to change the way we manage biological invasions is substantial. While existing national legislation may be contradictory (Gilroy et al. 2016), increased regulatory harmonisation is likely to result from the Convention on Biological Diversity adopting the Hulme et al. (2008) framework as the international standard for classifying introduction pathways (CBD 2014). Thus classifying species that disperse naturally through the infrastructure corridor or the unaided pathway as alien not only

aligns with recent international policy developments but also facilitates the implementation of cost-effective preventative measures rather than costly pest management.

## References

* CBD (2014) *Pathways of Introduction of Invasive Species, their Prioritization and Management*. UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/18/9/ Add.1. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montréal.

* Gilroy J.J., Avery, J.D. & Lockwood, J.L. (2016). Seeking international agreement on what it means to be ‘native’. *Conserv. Lett.*, doi: 10.1111/conl.12246.

* Hulme PE (2015) Invasion pathways at a crossroad: policy and research challenges for managing alien species introductions. *J. Appl. Ecol.*, **52**, 1418-1424.

* Hulme, P.E., Bacher, S., Kenis, M. et al. (2008). Grasping at the routes of biological invasions: a framework for integrating pathways into policy. *J. Appl. Ecol.*, **45**, 403-414.

* Katsanevakis, S., Zenetos, A., Belchior C. et al. (2013). Invading European seas: assessing pathways of introduction of marine aliens. *Ocean Coast Manage*, **76**, 64-74.

* Ojaveer, H., Galil B.S., Campbell M.L. et al. (2015). Classification of non-indigenous species based on their impacts: considerations for application in marine management. *PLOS Biology*, **13**, e1002130.