University of Helsinki, Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science (HELSUS) and Department of Forest Sciences, P.O. Box 27, 00014, Helsinki, Finland; Radboud University, Institute for Science in Society, P.O. Box 9010, 6500 GL, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; Netherlands Centre of Expertise on Exotic Species, P.O. Box 9010, 6500 GL, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Netherlands Centre of Expertise on Exotic Species, P.O. Box 9010, 6500 GL, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; Radboud University, Institute for Water and Wetland Research, Department of Environmental Science, P.O. Box 9010, 6500 GL, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; Fauna Management Unit Limburg, P.O. Box 960, 6040 AZ, Roermond, the Netherlands; Radboud University, Institute for Water and Wetland Research, Department of Animal Ecology and Physiology, P.O. Box 9010, 6500 GL, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
J Environ Manage. 2019 Nov 1;249:109405. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109405. Epub 2019 Aug 24.
Limiting the spread and impacts of invasive alien species (IAS) on biodiversity and ecosystems has become a goal of global, regional and national biodiversity policies. Evidence based management of IAS requires support by risk assessments, which are often based on expert judgment. We developed a tool to prioritize potentially new IAS based on their ecological risks, socio-economic impact and feasibility of management using multidisciplinary expert panels. Nine expert panels reviewed scientific studies, grey literature and expert knowledge for 152 species. The quality assessment of available knowledge revealed a lack of peer-reviewed data and high dependency on best professional judgments, especially for impacts on ecosystem services and feasibility of management. Expert consultation is crucial for conducting and validating rapid assessments of alien species. There is still a lack of attention for systematic and methodologically sound assessment of impacts on ecosystem services and weighting negative and positive effects of alien species.
限制入侵外来物种（IAS）在生物多样性和生态系统中的传播和影响已成为全球、区域和国家生物多样性政策的目标。基于证据的 IAS 管理需要风险评估的支持，而风险评估通常基于专家判断。我们开发了一种工具，用于根据潜在新 IAS 的生态风险、社会经济影响和管理可行性对其进行优先级排序，该工具使用多学科专家小组。九个专家小组审查了 152 种物种的科学研究、灰色文献和专家知识。对现有知识的质量评估表明，缺乏同行评议的数据，并且高度依赖最佳专业判断，特别是对于对生态系统服务的影响和管理的可行性。专家咨询对于进行和验证外来物种的快速评估至关重要。对于系统和方法上合理的生态系统服务影响评估以及权衡外来物种的负面影响和正面影响，仍然缺乏关注。
