Non-native species drive the global loss of freshwater fish beta-diversity
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Freshwater ecosystems are facing mounting challenges. The widespread introduction of non-native species, for example, has resulted in the loss of native species and the substantial reconfiguration of diversity patterns across regions. Documenting such impacts remains critical for informing national-level biosecurity policies. Here, we explore changes in biogeographic patterns in freshwater fish diversity in response to the spread of non-native species, teasing apart the geographic (watersheds) and taxonomic (species) drivers of patterns at the global scale. We leveraged global databases of fish species occurrence to estimate the unique contributions of local watersheds and species (native and non-native origin) to beta-diversity for biogeographic domains. Beta-diversity metrics of watersheds and species at a domain scale can be interpreted as their importance for the uniqueness in freshwater fish composition. We report significant changes in freshwater fish beta-diversity in response to non-native species, with the largest impacts in the Ethiopian, Nearctic and Palearctic domains, even though non-natives decreased the contribution of watersheds to beta-diversity in all domains, particularly in watersheds with known impacts. Watersheds identified as most important for promoting beta-diversity were not evenly distributed across domains, were influenced by geographical isolation and their unique compositions were composed of many endemic and threatened species. Highest values of species contributions to enhancing beta-diversity were mainly observed for native and threatened species, although mean values of species contributions were higher for non-threatened species. Species from the most important watersheds had wide ecological tolerances, were, in general, natives, endemics and/or with IUCN threat status. Our findings underscore the widespread consequences of non-native species for shaping biogeographic patterns of freshwater fishes in the Anthropocene.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Scientists' warning on invasive alien species
Pyšek, P., Hulme, P. E., Simberloff, D., Bacher, S., Blackburn, T. M., Carlton, J. T., Dawson, W., Essl, F., Foxcroft, L. C., Genovesi, P., et al. (2020) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/brv.12627 · Cited by 2,234 · see citing works
Bending the Curve of Global Freshwater Biodiversity Loss: An Emergency Recovery Plan
Tickner, D., Opperman, J. J., Abell, R., Acreman, M., Arthington, A. H., Bunn, S. E., Cooke, S. J., Dalton, J., Darwall, W., Edwards, G., et al. (2020) · BioScience · doi:10.1093/biosci/biaa002 · Cited by 1,241 · cited 1× · see citing works
“The Emergency Recovery Plan required to “bend the curve” in freshwater bio-diversity loss explicitly calls for a renewed focus on preventing the impacts of non-native species (Tickner et al. 2020).”
Self-citationA global database on freshwater fish species occurrence in drainage basins
Tedesco, P. A., Beauchard, O., Bigorne, R., Blanchet, S., Buisson, L., Conti, L., Cornu, J.-F., Dias, M. S., Grenouillet, G., Hugueny, B., et al. (2017) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/sdata.2017.141 · Cited by 268 · cited 4× · see citing works
“The compositional data by river watershed in the biogeographic domains were obtained from the ichthyofauna database published by Tedesco et al. (2017).”
Influential
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Cavalcante, L. L., Occhi, T. V. T., Olden, J. D., & Padial, A. A.
- Affiliations
- Universidade Federal do Paraná (BR)
- University of Washington (US)
- State University of Maringá, Maringá, Brazil
- Venue
- NeoBiota
- Publisher
- Pensoft Publishers
- Published
- 2025-02-24
- Volume
- 97
- Pages
- 257-277
- ISSN
- 1314-2488 (ISSN-L)
- 1619-0033
- OpenAlex
- W4407904344
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 2
- FWCI
- 5.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- NeoBiota (publishedVersion, public-domain)
- Biodiversity Heritage Library (Smithsonian Institution) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- ZooKeys (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- ZooKeys (submittedVersion, public-domain)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion, public-domain)
- Funders
- Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
- Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Fish Ecology and Management Studies
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Aquatic Science › Fish Biology and Ecology Studies
- Keywords
- introduced species, freshwater fish, beta diversity, biogeographic patterns, species introduction, watershed, endemic species, threatened species, IUCN conservation status, ecological tolerance, biosecurity, freshwater biodiversity loss
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