The importance of assessing positive and beneficial impacts of alien species
Open accessAbstract
Extensive literature is available on the diversity and magnitude of impacts that alien species cause on recipient systems. Alien species may decrease or increase attributes of ecosystems (e.g. total biomass or species diversity), thus causing negative and positive environmental impacts. Alien species may also negatively or positively impact attributes linked to local human communities (e.g. the number of people involved in a given activity). Ethical and societal values contribute to define these environmental and socio-economic impacts as deleterious or beneficial. Whilst most of the literature focuses on the deleterious effects of alien taxa, some recognise their beneficial impacts on ecosystems and human activities. Impact assessment frameworks show a similar tendency to evaluate mainly deleterious impacts: only relatively few, and not widely applied, frameworks incorporate the beneficial impacts of alien species. Here, we provide a summary of the frameworks assessing beneficial impacts and briefly discuss why they might have been less frequently cited and applied than frameworks assessing exclusively deleterious impacts. Then, we review arguments that invoke a greater consideration of positive and beneficial impacts caused by alien species across the invasion science literature. We collate and describe arguments from a set of 47 papers, grouping them in two categories (value-free and value-laden), which span from a theoretical, basic science perspective to an applied science perspective. We also provide example cases associated with each argument. We advocate that the development of transparent and evidence-based frameworks assessing positive and beneficial impacts might advance our scientific understanding of impact dynamics and better inform management and prioritisation decisions. We also advise that this development should be achieved by recognising the underlying ethical and societal values of the frameworks and their intrinsic limitations. The evaluation of positive and beneficial impacts through impact assessment frameworks should not be seen as an attempt to outweigh or to discount deleterious impacts of alien taxa but rather as an opportunity to provide additional information for scientists, managers and policymakers.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Biological invasions can also have positive outcomes.
“Recent works highlighted that biological invasions can also have positive outcomes (Katsanevakis et al. 2014a; Vimercati et al. 2020), for example by creating novel ecosystems that may support native biodiversity and ecosystem functioning (Hobbs et al. 2009; Schlaepfer et al. 2011; Evers et al. 2018), providing ecosystem services (Katsanevakis et al. 2018; Apostolaki et al. 2019), and contributing”
From Bioinvasion impacts on biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human health in the Mediterranean Sea (2022) · cites this paper as Vimercati et al. 2020
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 83 · Cited by 101
- Authors
- Vimercati, G., Kumschick, S., Probert, A. F., Volery, L., & Bacher, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Fribourg (CH)
- Stellenbosch University (ZA)
- Corresponding author
- Vimercati, Giovanni
- Venue
- NeoBiota
- Publisher
- Pensoft Publishers
- Published
- 2020-10-15
- Volume
- 62
- Pages
- 525-545
- ISSN
- 1314-2488 (ISSN-L)
- 1619-0033
- OpenAlex
- W3093081745
- Cited by
- 101
- References
- 83
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 3
- FWCI
- 8.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- NeoBiota (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- RUNE (Research UNE) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- reroDoc Digital Library (submittedVersion)
- SUNScholar (Stellenbosch University) (submittedVersion)
- ZooKeys (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Biodiversity Heritage Library (Smithsonian Institution) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- Biodiversa+ (PCI2018-092939)
- Belmont Forum
- National Research Foundation
- Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-18-EBI4-0001)
- Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (184114, 179491)
- Universiteit Stellenbosch
- Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment
- 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
- introduced species, invasive species, impact assessment framework, positive effects, value-laden science, value neutrality, socio-economic impacts, ecosystem impacts, invasive species management
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