Search

Future dynamics of biological invasions are highly uncertain because they depend on multiple social–ecological drivers. We used a scenario‐based approach to explore potential management options for invasive species in Europe. During two workshops involving a multidisciplinary team of experts, we developed a management strategy arranged into 19 goals relating to policy, research, public awareness, and biosecurity. We conceived solutions for achieving these goals under different plausible future scenarios, and identified four interrelated recommendations around which any long‐term strategy for managing invasive species can be structured: (1) a European biosecurity regime, (2) a dedicated communication strategy, (3) data standardization and management tools, and (4) a monitoring and assessment system. Finally, we assessed the feasibility of the management strategy and found substantial differences among scenarios. Collectively, our results indicate that it is time for a new strategy for managing biological invasions in Europe, one that is based on a more integrative approach across socioeconomic sectors and countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of People & Nature is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Impact assessments can help prioritising limited resources for invasive species management. However, their usefulness to provide information for decision-making depends on their repeatability, i.e. the consistency of the estimated impact. Previous studies have provided important insights into the consistency of final scores and rankings. However, due to the criteria to summarise protocol responses into one value (e.g. maximum score observed) or to categorise those final scores into prioritisation levels, the real consistency at the answer level remains poorly understood. Here, we fill this gap by quantifying and comparing the consistency in the scores of protocol questions with inter-rater reliability metrics. We provide an overview of impact assessment consistency and the factors altering it, by evaluating 1,742 impact assessments of 60 terrestrial, freshwater and marine vertebrates, invertebrates and plants conducted with seven protocols applied in Europe (EICAT; EPPO; EPPO prioritisation; GABLIS; GB; GISS; and Harmonia+). Assessments include questions about diverse impact types: environment, biodiversity, native species interactions, hybridisation, economic losses and human health. Overall, the great majority of assessments (67%) showed high consistency; only a small minority (13%) presented low consistency. Consistency of responses did not depend on species identity or the amount of information on their impacts, but partly depended on the impact type evaluated and the protocol used, probably due to linguistic uncertainties (pseudo-R2 = 0.11 and 0.10, respectively). Consistency of responses was highest for questions on ecosystem and human health impacts and lowest for questions regarding biological interactions amongst alien and native species. Regarding protocols, consistency was highest with Harmonia+ and GISS and lowest with EPPO. The presence of few, but very low, consistent assessments indicates that there is room for improvement in the repeatability of assessments. As no single factor explained largely the variance in consistency, low values can rely on multiple factors. We thus endorse previous studies calling for diverse and complementary actions, such as improving protocols and guidelines or consensus assessment to increase impact assessment repeatability. Nevertheless, we conclude that impact assessments were generally highly consistent and, therefore, useful in helping to prioritise resources against the continued relentless rise of invasive species. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: To describe the biology of alveolar bone regeneration. Material and Methods: Four comprehensive reviews were performed on (a) mesenchymal cells and differentiation factors leading to bone formation; (b) the critical interplay between bone resorbing and formative cells; (c) the role of osteoimmunology in the formation and maintenance of alveolar bone; and (d) the self‐regenerative capacity following bone injury or tooth extraction were prepared prior to the workshop. Results and Conclusions: This summary information adds to the fuller understanding of the alveolar bone regenerative response with implications to reconstructive procedures for patient oral rehabilitation. The group collectively formulated and addressed critical questions based on each of the reviews in this consensus report to advance the field. The report concludes with identified areas of future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]