Cited by 35Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesMarine Ecology and Invasive SpeciesBiological Control of Invasive Species

Lists of harmful alien organisms: Are the national regulations adapted to the global world?

Open access
García-de-Lomas, Juan, Vilà, Montserrat·2015·Biological Invasions

Abstract

Legislation on biological invasions has been evolving in recent decades. The use of lists of harmful alien organisms (LHAO) is becoming a widespread policy practice in many countries. LHAO aims to prevent the introduction of undesirable organisms at the pre-border level, regulate their use within the country and deter their spread. However, a systematic review and comparison of the current legislations is lacking. It remains unknown whether there are gaps or weaknesses that may compromise and effective strategy against biological invasions. In this study, a total of 77 LHAO from Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Spain, South Africa, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States of America were evaluated and compared in terms of the taxonomic criteria of inclusion, the impacts of concern and the activities regulated. The number of LHAO has increased exponentially since 1924. Countries widely varied in the number of lists. Within a country, LHAO are scattered across different regulations that consider different impacts and regulate activities from introduction to management. The number of taxa ranged between 0.15 and 55.4 taxa km⁻² in the USA and New Zealand, respectively. These lists totaled 21,029 records of 18,149 different taxa, showing a prevalence of taxa listed as species (rather than genera of higher ranks). Primary attention is paid to the kingdoms Animalia and Plantae. Taxa affecting livelihood/uses were more prevalent than those related to biodiversity and human health impacts. The most common regulations concern trade and tenure followed by use. This study reveals the need for more comprehensive (intersectoral) regulations on invasive alien species within countries as well as the development of homogeneous regulations adapted to the globalized world.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10530-015-0939-7

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The number of national lists of harmful alien organisms has increased exponentially in the last 50 years, with more than 18,000 species currently listed.

    “The number of national lists of harmful alien organisms has increased exponentially in the last 50 years, with more than 18,000 species currently listed (García de Lomas & Vilà, 2015).”

    From Scientists' warning on invasive alien species (2020) · cites this paper as García de Lomas & Vilà, 2015

    The Results (Selection of LHAO, p. 4) report an exponential increase in national lists since 1924, supporting the trend but not the specific 50-year timeframe. They count 18,149 different taxa on 77 lists from eight countries—not more than 18,000 species on national lists generally; some listed taxa are above species rank. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Crooks JA (2011) Lag times. In: Simberloff D, Rejma ´nek M (eds) Encyclopedia of biological invasions. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 404-410
  2. Essl F, Lambdon P, Rabitsch W (2011a) Bryophytes and lichens. In: Simberloff D, Rejma ´nek M (eds) Encyclopedia of biological invasions. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 81-85
  3. Essl F, Nehring S, Klingenstein F, Milasowszky N, Nowack C, Rabitsch W (2011b) Review of risk assessment systems of IAS in Europe and introducing the German-Austrian Black List Information System (GABLIS). J Nat Conserv 19:339-350
  4. FAO (1997) International plant protection convention (new revised text approved by the FAO conference at its 29th session). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome FAO (2011) International standards for phytosanitary measures (ISPM 2): framework for pest risk analysis. Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention FAO (2013) International standards for phytosanitary measures (ISPM 11): pest risk analysis for quarantine pests. Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention Fowler AJ, Lodge DM, Hsia JF (2007) Failure of the Lacey Act to protect US ecosystems against animal invasions. Front Ecol Environ 5:353-359
  5. Miller ML (2011) Laws, Federal and State. In: Simberloff D, Rejma ´nek M (eds) Encyclopedia of biological invasions. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 430-437
  6. Pys ˇek P, Hulme PE, Nentwig W, Vila ` M (2011) DAISIE project. In: Simberloff D, Rejma ´nek M (eds) Encyclopedia of biological invasions. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 138-142
  7. Simons SA, De Poorter M (eds) (2009) Best practices in preimport risk screening for species of live animals in international trade. In: Proceedings of an expert workshop on preventing biological invasions held at the University of Notre Dame, Indiana, USA; 9-11 April 2008; Nairobi, Kenya: Global Invasive Species Programme. http://www. issg.org/pdf/publications/GISP/Resources/workshop-risk screening-pettrade.pdf. Accessed 18 Dec 2013

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
García-de-Lomas, J., & Vilà, M.
Affiliations
Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (ES)
Venue
Biological Invasions
Published
2015-07-10
Volume
17
Issue
11
Pages
3081-3091
ISSN
  • 1387-3547 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-1464
OpenAlex
W1793900044
Cited by
35
References
1
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3
FWCI
3.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Biological Invasions (publishedVersion)
  • DIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Consejería Economía, Innovación, Ciencia y Empleo, Junta de Andalucia (P06/RNM/02030)
  • Severo Ochoa Program for Centres of Excellence in R+D+I (SEV-2012-0262)
  • Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (CSD2008-00040, CGL2009-7515, CG 2012-33801)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Marine Ecology and Invasive Species
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Biological Control of Invasive Species
Keywords
invasive species, invasive species legislation, international comparison of regulations, trade regulation, land tenure regulation, economic impacts of invasions, biodiversity impacts, human health effects

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review