Back to Search Start Over

Alien species in Norway: Results from quantitative ecological impact assessments

Authors :
Hanno Sandvik
Olga Hilmo
Snorre Henriksen
Reidar Elven
Per Arvid Åsen
Hanne Hegre
Oddvar Pedersen
Per Anker Pedersen
Heidi Solstad
Vigdis Vandvik
Kristine B. Westergaard
Frode Ødegaard
Sandra Åström
Hallvard Elven
Anders Endrestøl
Øivind Gammelmo
Bjørn Arild Hatteland
Halvor Solheim
Björn Nordén
Leif Sundheim
Venche Talgø
Tone Falkenhaug
Bjørn Gulliksen
Anders Jelmert
Eivind Oug
Jan Sundet
Elisabet Forsgren
Anders Finstad
Trygve Hesthagen
Kjell Nedreaas
Rupert Wienerroither
Vivian Husa
Stein Fredriksen
Kjersti Sjøtun
Henning Steen
Haakon Hansen
Inger S. Hamnes
Egil Karlsbakk
Christer Magnusson
Bjørnar Ytrehus
Hans Christian Pedersen
Jon E. Swenson
Per Ole Syvertsen
Bård Gunnar Stokke
Jan Ove Gjershaug
Dag Dolmen
Gaute Kjærstad
Stein Ivar Johnsen
Thomas C. Jensen
Kristian Hassel
Lisbeth Gederaas
Source :
Ecological Solutions and Evidence, Vol 1, Iss 1, Pp n/a-n/a (2020)
Publication Year :
2020
Publisher :
Wiley, 2020.

Abstract

Abstract 1. Due to globalisation, trade and transport, the spread of alien species is increasing dramatically. Some alien species become ecologically harmful by threatening native biota. This can lead to irreversible changes in local biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, and, ultimately, to biotic homogenisation. 2. We risk‐assessed all alien plants, animals, fungi and algae, within certain delimitations, that are known to reproduce in Norway. Mainland Norway and the Arctic archipelago of Svalbard plus Jan Mayen were treated as separate assessment areas. Assessments followed the Generic Ecological Impact Assessment of Alien Species (GEIAA) protocol, which uses a fully quantitative set of criteria. 3. A total of 1,519 species were risk‐assessed, of which 1,183 were species reproducing in mainland Norway. Among these, 9% were assessed to have a severe impact, 7% high impact, 7% potentially high impact, and 49% low impact, whereas 29% had no known impact. In Svalbard, 16 alien species were reproducing, one of which with a severe impact. 4. The impact assessments also covered 319 so‐called door‐knockers, that is, species that are likely to establish in Norway within 50 years, and 12 regionally alien species. Of the door‐knockers, 8% and 10% were assessed to have a severe and high impact, respectively. 5. The impact category of most species was driven by negative interactions with native species, transformation of threatened ecosystems, or genetic contamination. The proportion of alien species with high or severe impact varied significantly across the different pathways of introduction, taxonomic groups, time of introduction and the environments colonised, but not across continents of origin. 6. Given the large number of alien species reproducing in Norway and the preponderance of species with low impact, it is neither realistic nor necessary to eradicate all of them. Our results can guide management authorities in two ways. First, the use of quantitative assessment criteria facilitates the prioritisation of management resources across species. Second, the background information collected for each species, such as introduction pathways, area of occupancy and ecosystems affected, helps designing appropriate management measures.

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
26888319
Volume :
1
Issue :
1
Database :
Directory of Open Access Journals
Journal :
Ecological Solutions and Evidence
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
edsdoj.7c5452d8c1ce4492b38ca84d2eecb27e
Document Type :
article
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1002/2688-8319.12006