Search

SummaryBiological invasions represent one of the main threats to biodiversity and a recognized economic burden worldwide; the issue has been included in the conservation agenda such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Brazil is a signatory country of the CBD; however, the number of alien species records in its territory is continuously rising. To evaluate the invasive alien species (IAS) policy in Brazil, we reviewed the legislation delineating historical trends to identify potential gaps and avenues for improvement. We consulted several websites using keywords related to invasions in order to track legal instruments such as laws, decrees and regulations. We classified the documents regarding their main aims with regard to IAS, taxon and environment of interest. We found 85 legal instruments in force related to IAS published in the federal sphere up to October 2021, with decrees being the most common type. Most documents were classified as ‘control’ and ‘prevention’ and were related to all taxa and environments. Two species (wild boar Sus scrofa and golden mussel Limnoperna fortunei) have more specific legislation, probably due to their conspicuous economic impacts. We discuss policy gaps and their implications for the efficient management and prevention of new IAS introductions to the country.

The introduction of non-native species is one of the most important causes of biodiversity loss. Non-native organisms are not recognized by native communities, leading to differential predation rates and differential impacts on a variety of ecological interactions. In this context, the present study was intended to carry out a review of the literature on the impacts of non-native zooplankters on the zooplankton and the dynamics of aquatic ecosystems--literature reviews are a valuable tool that can highlight gaps and find possible biases in our understanding of biological invasions. We carried out a review of the current literature (20 years) looking for any alteration in the natural dynamics of the environment at all ecological levels. A total of 181 studies that addressed some type of non-native zooplankton effect were included in the review. Most studies focused on a just few non-native species and evidenced demographic changes at the population level. A geographic bias in favor of North America was also found. The various gaps in the literature on non-native zooplankton are derived from the same problem, an excessive number of investigations of the same taxa in the same places. Consequently, the recorded impacts are similar since they come from the same groups, and neglect less studied, but not necessarily less impactful, species. A greater focus on studies of lesser-known species could generate more comprehensive knowledge about the effects of non-native zooplankton and contribute to the distribution of conservation efforts beyond the better-known species.