Utilize este identificador para referenciar este registo:
https://hdl.handle.net/10316/107188
Título: | Consistency of impact assessment protocols for non-native species | Autor: | González-Moreno, Pablo Lazzaro, Lorenzo Vilà, Montserrat Preda, Cristina Adriaens, Tim Bacher, Sven Brundu, Giuseppe Copp, Gordon H. Essl, Franz García-Berthou, Emili Katsanevakis, Stelios Moen, Toril Loennechen Lucy, Frances E. Nentwig, Wolfgang Roy, Helen E. Srėbalienė, Greta Talgø , Venche Vanderhoeven, Sonia Andjelković, Ana Arbačiauskas, Kęstutis Auger-Rozenberg, Marie-Anne Bae, Mi-Jung Bariche, Michel Boets, Pieter Boieiro, Mário Borges, Paulo Alexandre Clode, João Lemos Gomes Clanning Cardigos, Federico Chartosia, Niki Cottier-Cook, Elizabeth Joanne Crocetta, Fabio D'hondt, Bram Foggi, Bruno Follak, Swen Gallardo, Belinda Gammelmo, Øivind Giakoumi, Sylvaine Giuliani, Claudia Guillaume, Fried Jelaska, Lucija Šerić Jeschke, Jonathan M. Jover, Miquel Juárez-Escario, Alejandro Kalogirou, Stefanos Kočić, Aleksandra Kytinou, Eleni Laverty, Ciaran Lozano, Vanessa Maceda-Veiga, Alberto Marchante, Elizabete Marchante, Hélia Martinou, Angeliki F. Meyer, Sandro Minchin, Dan Montero-Castaño, Ana Morais, Maria Cristina Morales-Rodriguez, Carmen Muhthassim, Naida Nagy, Zoltán Á. Ogris, Nikica Onen, Huseyin Pergl, Jan Puntila, Riikka Rabitsch, Wolfgang Ramburn, Triya Tessa Rêgo, Carla Reichenbach, Fabian Romeralo, Carmen Saul, Wolf-Christian Schrader, Gritta Sheehan, Rory Simonović, Predrag Skolka, Marius Soares, António Onofre Sundheim, Leif Tarkan, Ali Serhan Tomov, Rumen Tricarico, Elena Tsiamis, Konstantinos Uludağ, Ahmet van Valkenburg, Johan Verreycken, Hugo Vettraino, Anna Maria Vilar, Lluís Wiig, Øystein Witzell, Johanna Zanetta, Andrea Kenis, Marc |
Palavras-chave: | Environmental impact; expert judgement; invasive alien species policy; management prioritization; risk assessment; socio-economic impact | Data: | 2019 | Editora: | Pensoft Publishers | Projeto: | This article is based upon work from the COST Action TD1209: Alien Challenge. COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) is a pan-European intergovernmental framework. The mission of COST is to enable scientific and technological developments leading to new concepts and products and thereby contribute to strengthening Europe’s research and innovation capacities. PGM was supported by the CABI Development Fund (with contributions from ACIAR (Australia) and Dfid (UK) and by Darwin plus, DPLUS074 ‘Improving biosecurity in the SAUKOTs through Pest Risk Assessments’. MV by Belmont Forum-Biodiversa project InvasiBES (PCI2018-092939). CP by Sciex-NMSch 12.108. JMJ and WCS by BiodivERsA (FFII project; DFG grant JE 288/7-1). JMJ by DFG project JE 288/9-1,9-2. CR and MB by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia grants SFRH/BPD/91357/2012 and SFRH/ BPD/86215/2012, respectively. PS by MESTD of Serbia, grant #173025. JP by RVO 67985939 and 17-19025S. JCC was supported by a starting grant in the framework of the 2014 FCT Investigator Programme (IF/01606/2014/CP1230/CT0001). | Título da revista, periódico, livro ou evento: | NeoBiota | Volume: | 44 | Resumo: | Standardized tools are needed to identify and prioritize the most harmful non-native species (NNS). A plethora of assessment protocols have been developed to evaluate the current and potential impacts of non-native species, but consistency among them has received limited attention. To estimate the consistency across impact assessment protocols, 89 specialists in biological invasions used 11 protocols to screen 57 NNS (2614 assessments). We tested if the consistency in the impact scoring across assessors, quantified as the coefficient of variation (CV), was dependent on the characteristics of the protocol, the taxonomic group and the expertise of the assessor. Mean CV across assessors was 40%, with a maximum of 223%. CV was lower for protocols with a low number of score levels, which demanded high levels of expertise, and when the assessors had greater expertise on the assessed species. The similarity among protocols with respect to the final scores was higher when the protocols considered the same impact types. We conclude that all protocols led to considerable inconsistency among assessors. In order to improve consistency, we highlight the importance of selecting assessors with high expertise, providing clear guidelines and adequate training but also deriving final decisions collaboratively by consensus. | URI: | https://hdl.handle.net/10316/107188 | ISSN: | 1314-2488 1619-0033 |
DOI: | 10.3897/neobiota.44.31650 | Direitos: | openAccess |
Aparece nas coleções: | I&D CFE - Artigos em Revistas Internacionais |
Ficheiros deste registo:
Ficheiro | Descrição | Tamanho | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Consistency-of-impact-assessment-protocols-for-nonnative-speciesNeoBiota.pdf | 1.58 MB | Adobe PDF | Ver/Abrir |
Citações SCOPUSTM
49
Visto em 6/mai/2024
Citações WEB OF SCIENCETM
48
Visto em 2/mai/2024
Visualizações de página
64
Visto em 7/mai/2024
Downloads
14
Visto em 7/mai/2024
Google ScholarTM
Verificar
Altmetric
Altmetric
Este registo está protegido por Licença Creative Commons